Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadChurch Fathers: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 09: 29.02.03 Orthodox Faith Bk I Pt 3
TOPIC: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 09 (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 29.02.03 Orthodox Faith Bk I Pt 3
Other Subjects in this Topic:
And this also it behoves128 us to know, that the names Fatherhood, Sonship and Procession, were not applied to the Holy Godhead by us: on the contrary, they were communicated to us by the Godhead, as the divine apostle says, Wherefore I bow the knee to the Father, from Whom is every family in heaven and on earth129 . But if we say130 that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, we do not suggest any precedence in time or superiority in nature of the Father over the Son131 (for through His agency He made the ages132 ), or superiority in any other respect save causation. And we mean by this, that the Son is begotten of the Father and not the Father of the Son, and that the Father naturally is the cause of the Son: just as we say in the same way not that fire proceedeth from light, but rather light from fire. So then, whenever we hear it said that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, let us understand it to mean in respect of causation. And just as we do not say that fire is of one essence and light of another, so we cannot say that the Father is of one essence and the Son of another: but both are of one and the same essence133 . And just as we say that fire has brightness134 through the light proceeding from it, and do not consider the light of the fire as an instrument ministering to the fire, but rather as its natural force: so we say that the Father creates all that He creates through His Only-begotten Son, not as though the Son were a mere instrument serving135 the Father’s ends, but as His natural and subsistential force136 . And just as we say both that the fire shines and again that the light of the fire shines, So all things whatsoever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise137 . But whereas light possesses no proper subsistence of its own, distinct from that of the fire, the Son is a perfect subsistence138 , inseparable from the Father’s subsistence, as we have shewn above. For it is quite impossible to find in creation an image that will illustrate in itself exactly in all details the nature of the Holy Trinity. For how could that which is create and compound, subject to flux and change, circumscribed, formed and corruptible, clearly shew forth the super-essential divine essence, unaffected as it is in any of these ways? Now it is evident that all creation is liable to most of these affections, and all from its very nature is subject to corruption.
Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life: Who proceedeth from the Father and resteth in the Son: the object of equal adoration and glorification with the Father and Son, since He is co-essential and co-eternal139 : the Spirit of God, direct, authoritative140 , the fountain of wisdom, and life, and holiness: God existing and addressed along with Father and Son: uncreate, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation and not under any lord141 : deifying, not deified142 : filling, not filled: shared in, not sharing in: sanctifying, not sanctified: the intercessor, receiving the supplications of all: in all things like to the Father and Son: proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son, and participated in by all creation, through Himself creating, and investing with essence and sanctifying, and maintaining the universe: having subsistence, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, inseparable and indivisible from Father and Son, and possessing all the qualities that the Father and Son possess, save that of not being begotten or born. For the Father is without canst and unborn: for He is derived from nothing, but derives from Himself His being, nor does He derive a single quality from another143 . Rather He is Himself the beginning and cause of the existence of all things in a definite and natural manner. But the Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference144 between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand. Further, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous.
All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being145 : and unless the Father is, neither the Son nor the Spirit is. And unless the Father possesses a certain attribute, neither the Son nor the Spirit possesses it: and through the Father146 , that is, because of the Father’s existence147 , the Son and the Spirit exist148 , and through the Father, that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and of birth and of procession being excepted149 . For in these hypo static or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences150 differ from each other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar subsistence.
Further we say that each of151 the three has a perfect subsistence, that we may understand not one compound perfect nature made up of three imperfect elements, but one simple essence, surpassing and preceding perfection, existing in three perfect subsistences152 . For all that is composed of imperfect elements must necessarily be compound. But from perfect subsistences no compound can arise. Wherefore we do not speak of the form as from subsistences, but as in subsistences153 . But we speak of those things as imperfect which do not preserve the form of that which is completed out of them. For stone and wood and iron are each perfect in its own nature, but with reference to the building that is completed out of them each is imperfect: for none of them is in itself a house.
The subsistences then we say are perfect, that we may not conceive of the divine nature as compound. For compoundness is the beginning of separation. And again we speak of the three subsistences as being in each other154 , that we may not introduce a crowd and multitude of Gods155 . Owing to the three subsistences, there is no compoundness or confusion: while, owing to their having the same essence and dwelling in one another, and being the same in will, and energy, and power, and authority, and movement, so to speak, we recognise the indivisibility and the unity of God. For verily there is one God, and His word and Spirit.
Marg. ms. Concerning the distinction of the three subsistences: and
concerning the thing itself and our reason and thought in relation to it.
One ought, moreover, to recognise that it is one thing to look at a matter as it is, and another thing to look at it in the light of reason and thought. In the case of all created things, the distinction of the subsistences is observed in actual fact. For in actual fact Peter is seen to be separate from Paul. But the community and connection and unity are apprehended by reason and thought. For it is by the mind that we perceive that Peter and Paul are of the same nature and have one common nature156 . For both are living creatures, rational and mortal: and both are flesh, endowed with the spirit of reason and understanding157 . It is, then, by reason that this community of nature is observed. For here indeed the subsistences do not exist one within the other. But each privately and individually, that is to say, in itself, stands quite separate, having very many points that divide it from the other. For they are both separated in space and differ in time, and are divided in thought, and power, and shape, or form, and habit, and temperament and dignity, and pursuits, and all differentiating properties, but above all, in the fact that they do not dwell in one another but are separated. Hence it comes that we can speak of two, three, or many men.
And this may be perceived throughout the whole of creation, but in the case of the holy and superessential and incomprehensible Trinity, far removed from everything, it is quite the reverse. For there the community and unity are observed in fact, through the co-eternity of the subsistences, and through their having the same essence and energy and will and concord of mind158 , and then being identical in authority and power and goodness—I do not say similar but identical—and then movement by one impulse159 . For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one energy, one authority, one and the same, I repeat, not three resembling each other. But the three subsistences have one and the same movement. For each one of them is related as closely to the other as to itself: that is to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, save those of not being begotten, of birth and of procession. But it is by thought that the difference is perceived160 . For we recognise one God: but only in the attributes of Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession, both in respect of cause and effect and perfection of subsistence, that is, manner of existence, do we perceive difference161 . For with reference to the uncircumscribed Deity we cannot speak of separation in space, as we can in our own case. For the subsistences dwell in one another, in no wise confused but cleaving together, according to the word of the Lord, I am in the father, and the father in Me162 : nor can one admit difference in will or judgment or energy or power or anything else whatsoever which may produce actual and absolute separation in our case. Wherefore we do not speak of three Gods, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but rather of one God, the holy Trinity, the Son and Spirit being referred to one cause163 , and not compounded or coalesced according to the synaeresis of Sabellius. For, as we said, they are made one not so as to commingle, but so as to cleave to each other, and they have their being in each other164 without any coalescence or commingling. Nor do the Son and the Spirit stand apart, nor are they sundered in essence according to the diaeresis of Arias165 . For the Deity is undivided amongst things divided, to put it concisely: and it is just like three suns cleaving to each other without separation and giving out light mingled and conjoined into one. When, then, we turn our eyes to the Divinity, and the first cause and the sovereignty and the oneness anti sameness, so to speak, of the movement and will of the Divinity, and the identity in essence and power and energy and lordship, what is seen by us is unity166 . But when we look to those things in which the Divinity is, or, to put it more accurately, which are the Divinity, and those things which are in it through the first cause without time or distinction in glory or separation, that is to say, the subsistences of the Son and the Spirit, it seems to us a Trinity that we adore167 . The Father is one Father, and without beginning, that is, without cause: for He is not derived from anything. The Son is one Son, but not without beginning, that is, not without cause: for He is derived from the Father. But if you eliminate the idea of a beginning from time, He is also without beginning: for the creator of times cannot be subject to time. The Holy Spirit is one Spirit, going forth from the Father, not in the manner of Sonship but of procession; so that neither has the Father lost His property of being unbegotten because He hath begotten, nor has the Son lost His property of being begotten because He was begotten of that which was unbegotten (for how could that be so?), nor does the Spirit change either into the Father or into the Son because He hath proceeded and is God. For a property is quite constant. For how could a propertypersist if it were variable, moveable, and could change into something else? For if the Father is the Son, He is not strictly the Father: for there is strictly one Father. And if the Son is the Father, He is not strictly the Son: for there is strictly one Son and one Holy Spirit.
Further, it should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause168 or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father. And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son169 :170 but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son. For if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His171 , saith the divine apostle. And we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us through the Son. For He breathed upon His Disciples, says he, and said, Receive ye the Holy Spirit172 . It is just the same as in the case of the sun from which come both the ray and the radiance (for the sun itself is the source of both the ray and the radiance), and it is through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the radiance itself by which we are lightened and in which we participate. Further we do not speak of the Son of the Spirit, or of the Son as derived from the Spirit173 .
Chapter IX.
Concerning what is affirmed about God.
The Deity is simple and uncompound. But that which is composed of many and different elements is compound. If, then, we should speak of the qualities of being uncreate and without beginning and incorporeal and immortal and everlasting and good and creative and so forth as essential differences in the case of God, that which is composed of so many qualities will not be simple but must be compound. But this is impious in the extreme. Each then of the affirmations about God should be thought of as signifying not what He is in essence, but either something that it is impossible to make plain, or some relation to some of those things which are contrasts or some of those things that follow the nature, or an energy174 .
It appears then175 that the most proper of all the names given to God is “He that is,” as He Himself said in answer to Moses on the mountain, Say to the sons of Israel, He that is hath sent Me176 . For He keeps all being in His own embrace177 , like a sea of essence infinite and unseen. Or as the holy Dionysius says, “He that is good178 .” For one cannot say of God that He has being in the first place and goodness in the second.
The second name of God is οϑ Θεοϖ", derived from Θεϖειν179 , to run, because He courses through all things, or from αι[θειν, to burn: For God is a fire consuming all evils180 : or from Θεα‾σθαι, because He is all-seeing181 : for nothing can escape Him, and over all He keepeth watch. For He saw all things before they were, holding them timelessly in His thoughts; and each one conformably to His voluntary anti timeless thought182 , which constitutes predetermination and image and pattern, comes into existence at the predetermined time183 .
The first name then conveys the notion of His existence and of the nature of His existence: while the second contains the idea of energy. Further, the terms ‘without beginning,’ ‘incorruptible,’ ‘unbegotten,’ as also ‘uncreate,’ ‘incorporeal,’ ‘unseen,’ and so forth, explain what He is not: that is to say, they tell us that His being had no beginning, that He is not corruptible, nor created, nor corporeaI, nor visible184 . Again, goodness and justice and piety and such like names belong to the nature185 , but do not explain His actual essence. Finally, Lord and King and names of that class indicate a relationship with their contrasts: for the name Lord has reference to those over whom the lord rules, and the name King to those under kingly authority, and the name Creator to the creatures, and the name Shepherd to the sheep he tends.
Chapter X.
Concerning divine union and separation.
Therefore all these names must be understood as common to deity as a whole, and as containing the notions of sameness and simplicity and indivisibility and union: while the names Father, Son and Spirit, and cause, less and caused, and unbegotten and begotten, and procession contain the idea of separation: for these terms do not explain His essence, but the mutual relationship186 and manner of existence187 .
When, then, we have perceived these things and are conducted from these to the divine essence, we do not apprehend the essence itself but only the attributes of the essence: just as we have not apprehended the essence of the soul even when we have learnt that it is incorporeal and without magnitude and form: nor again, the essence of the body when we know that it is white or black, but only the attributes of the essence. Further, the true doctrine188 teacheth that the Deity is simple and has one simple energy, good and energising in all things, just as the sun’s ray, which warms all things and energises in each in harmony with its natural aptitude and receptive power, having obtained this form of energy from God, its Maker.
But quite distinct is all that pertains to the divine and benignant incarnation of the divine Word. For in that neither the Father nor the Spirit have any part at all, unless so far as regards approval and the working of inexplicable miracles which the God-Word, having become man189 like us, worked, as unchangeable God and son of God190 .
Chapter XI.
Concerning what is affirmed about God as though He had body.
Since we find many terms used symbolically in the Scriptures concerning God which are more applicable to that which has body, we should recognise that it is quite impossible for us men clothed about with this dense covering of flesh to understand or speak of the divine and lofty and immaterial energies of the Godhead, except by the use of images and types and symbols derived from our own life191 . So then all the statements concerning God, that imply body, are symbols, but have a higher meaning: for the Deity is simple and formless. Hence by God’s eyes and eyelids and sight we are to understand His power of overseeing all things and His knowledge, that nothing can escape: for in the case of us this sense makes our knowledge more complete and more full of certainty. By God’s ears and hearing is meant His readiness to be propitiated and to receive our petitions: for it is this sense that renders us also kind to suppliants, inclining our ear to them more graciously. God’s mouth and speech are His means of indicating His will; for it is by the mouth and speech that we make clear the thoughts that are in the heart: God’s food and drink are our concurrence to His will, for we, too, satisfy the necessities of our natural appetite through the sense of taste. And God’s sense of smell is His appreciation of our thoughts of and good will towards Him, for it is through this sense that we appreciate sweet fragrance. And God’s countenance is the demonstration and manifestation of Himself through His works, for our manifestation is through the countenance. And God’s hands mean the effectual nature of His energy, for it is with our own hands that we accomplish our most useful and valuable work. And His right hand is His aid in prosperity, for it is the right hand that we also use when making anything of beautiful shape or of great value, or where much strength is required. His handling is His power of accurate discrimination and exaction, even in the minutest and most secret details, for those whom we have handled cannot conceal from us aught within themselves. His feet and walk are His advent and presence, either for the purpose of bringing succour to the needy, or vengeance against enemies, or to perform any other action, for it is by using our feet that we come to arrive at any place. His oath is the unchangeableness of His counsel, for it is by oath that we confirm our compacts with one another. His anger and fury are His hatred of and aversion to all wickedness, for we, too, hate that which is contrary to our mind and become enraged thereat192 . His forgetfulness and sleep and slumbering are His delay in taking vengeance on His enemies and the postponement of the accustomed help to His own. And to put it shortly, all the statements made about God that imply body have some hidden meaning and teach us what is above us by means of something familiar to ourselves, with the exception of any statement concerning the bodily sojourn of the God-Word. For He for our safety took upon Himself the whole nature of man193 , the thinking spirit, the body, and all the properties of human nature, even the natural and blameless passions.
Footnotes
128 Cf. Basil, Contra Eunom, v.; Athan., Contra Arian., ii.; Cyril, Thes., assert. 32; Epiphan., Haeres. 73, &c.
129 Ephes. iii. 14 and 15: Cyril. Thes., assert. 32: Dionys., De divin. nom., c. I.
130 In the first Book of his Contra Arianos Athanasius refers to Christ's word in St. John xiv. 28. He remarks that He does not say "the Father is better (krei/sswn) than I,"" lest it should be inferred that the Son is not eaual to the Father in Dieine nature, but of another nature; but "the Father is greater (mei/zwn) than I," that is to say, not in dignity or age, but as being begotten of the Father. And further, that by the word "greater" He indicates the peculiar property of the substance (ph=j ou0si/aj th\n i0dio/thta). This declaration of our Lord's was understood in the same way by Basil, Gregory Nazianzenus, Cyril and others of the Greek Fathers, and by Hilary among the Larin Fathers. In the ixth and xth Books of his De Trinitate Hilary refers to this, and says that the Father is called `greater
0' propter auctoritatem, meaning by auctoritas not power, but what the Greeks understand by ai0tio/thj, causation, principle or authorship of being. So also Soebadius says that the Father is rightly called `greater,
0' because He alone is without an author cf His being. But Latin theologians usually spoke of the Father as `greater,
0' not because He is Father, but because the Son was made Man. To this effect also Athanasius expresses himself in his De Hum. carne suscepta, while Gregory Nazianzenus speaks otherwise in his Orat. 36.
131 St. John xiv. 28.
132 tou\j ai0w=naj; Heb i. 3.
133 Greg. Naz., Orat. 37; Athan., Contr. Arian., bk. i.
134 fai/nein, shines.
135 See Cyril, Ad Herm., dial. 2; Irenaeus. iv. 14, v. 6, and John of Damascus, himself in his Dial. Contr. Manich.
136 Greg. Naz., Orat. 13, 31 and 37.
137 St. John v. 19.
138 te/leia u0po/stasij; a perfect hyposlasis.
139 Greg. Naz., Orat. 37.
140 h9gehoniko/n.
141 Greg. Naz., Orat. 49.
142 qeou=n ou0 qeou/menon.
143 Text ou0 ga\r e!k tunos' e0c e9autou= ga\r to= ei\nai e!xei, ou0de/ ti tw=n o#saper e!xei e0c e9te/rou e!xei' Another reading is, ou0 ga\r e!k tinoj to\ einai e!xei, ou0de\ ti tw=n osa e!xei, i.e. or He does not derive His being nor any one of His qualities from any one.
144 See Greg. Naz., Orat. 29, 35; Thomas Aquin., I. Quaest. 35, art I.
145 Greg. Naz., Orat. 25.
146 See Athan., Contra Arian., Orat. 3; Greg. Naz., Orat. 35. So Augustine (Contr. max. iii. 14, De Trin. xv.). Epiphanius (Anchor.), and Gregory of Nyssa (Epist. ad Ablab.) teach that the Spirit proceeds, and is not begotten, because He is both of the Father and the Son, while the Son is only of the Father.
147 Reading, dia\ to ei\nai to\n Pate/ra a variant is, dia\ to\ ei\nai au0to\/ Pate\ra, as also in Cyrilli, De Trinitate.
148 Greg. Naz., Orat. 23.
149 Ibid., Orat., 25.
150 u9po/staseij; hypostases.
151 See Athan., Contra Arian., Orat. 5.
152 Greg. Naz., Orat. 13 and 29: Athan., Orat. Contr. Arian.
153 The Greek is o#qen ou0de\ le/gomen to\ ei\doj e0c u9posta/sewn, a0ll' e0n u9posta/sesin. See Basil., Orat. Contr. Sabell., Ar. et Eunom.
154 See Greg. Naz., Orat. I and 37.
155 Greg. Naz., Orat. 29, 34 and 40.
156 Greg. Naz., Otat. 37.
157 Ibid. 32.
158 ph\n th=j gnw/mhj su/hpnoian; co-operation of judgment, or, disposition.
159 Greg. Naz., Orat. 40. The Greek is singular and difficult: to\ e!n e!calma th=j kinh/sew"; the one forthleaping of the motion, or movement. Origen speaks of h9 a0p' au9tou= ki/nhsij (I. 436 A.). In Athanasius (I. 253 C.) ki/nhsij has the metaphorical sense of indignation.
160 Greg. Naz., Orat. 37: Greg. Nyss., Epist. ad Ablab. et Orat. 32.
161 Basil., Epist. 43.
162 St. John xiv. II.
163 ei0j e$n ai!tion. so elsewhere it is put, w#sper mi/a a0rxh/, kata\ tou=to ei[ j Qeo/j. The three Persons or Subsistences are yet One God, because of the one Principle of Being whence Son and spirit derive. So the Father is said to be the e#nwsij e0c ou[ kai\ pro\j o$n a!nagetai ta\ e9ch=j.
164 The Greek runs thus: -kai\ th\n e0n a0llh/laij perixw/rhsin e!xousi di/xa pa/shj sunaloifh=j kai\ sumfu/rsewj. The term perixwrhsij, circumincessio, immanentia, was meant to express the peculiarity of the relations of the Three Divine Persons or Subsistences-their Indwelling in each other, the fact that; while they are distinct they yet are in one another, the Coinherence which implies their equal and identical Godhead. "In the Trinity," says Bishop Bull (Defence of the Nicene Creed, bk. iv. ch. iv., secs. 13, 14), "the circumincession is most proper and perfect, forasmuch as the Persons mutually contain Each Other, and all the three have an immeasureable whereabouts (immensum ubi, as the Schoolmen express it), so that wherever one Person is there the other two exist; in otherwords They are all everywhere...This outcome of the circumincession of the Persons in the Trinity is so far from introducing Sabellianism, that it is of great use, as Petavius has also observed, for confuting that heresy. For, in order to that mutual existence (in each other) which is descerned in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it is absolutely necessary that there should be different in reality, and not in mode of conception only; for that which is simply one is not said to exist in itself, or to interpenetrate itsef... Lastly, this is to be especially considered-tht this circumincession of the Divine Persons is indeed a very great mystery, which we ought rather religiously to adore than curiously to pry into. No similitude can be devised which shall be in every respect apt to illustrate it; no language avails worthily to set it forth, seeing that it is an union which far transcends all ohter unions."
165 Greg., Orat. 29; Dionys., De div. nom., c. 2.
166 Greg. Naz., Orat. 37.
167 Greg. Naz., Orat. 19 and 29.
168 Text, ai!tiom: variant, a0nai/tion, causeless.
169 Maxim. Epist. ad Marin.
170 e0k tou= Ui9ou de\ to\ Pneu=ma ou0 le/gomen. See also ch. xii., kai\ Ui9ou= Pneu=ma ou0x w9j e0c au0tou=, and at the close of the Epist. ad Jordan, Pneu=ma Ui9ou= mh e0c Ui9ou=.
171 Rom. viii. 9.
172 St. John xx. 29.
173 Greg. Naz., Orat. 37.
174 The Greek runs:-h@ sxe/sin tina\ pro\j ti\ twn a0ntidiastellome/nwn, h# ti\ tw=n parepomenwn th| fu\sei, h@ e0ne/rgeian.
175 Rendered in the Septuagint Version, 9Egw/ ei0mi o9 w!n.Some of the Fathers made much of the fact that it is not the neuter form to\ o!n.
176 Exod. iii. 14.
177 Greg. Naz., Orat. 36.
178 Dionys., De div. nom. c. 2, 3 and 4. this sentence and the next are absent in some mss., and are rather more obscurely stated than usual with John of Damascus.
179 In his Cratylus Plato gives this etymology, and Eusebius quotes it in his Prep. Evangel. i. Clement of Alexandria refers to it more than once in his Strom., bk. iv., and in his Protrept., where he says-Sidera qevou" ejk tou' qevein, deos a currendo nominarunt.
180 Deut. iv. 24
181 2 Mach. x. 5.
182 kata\ th\n qelhtikh\n au0tou= a!xronon e!nnoian. See Thomas Aquin., I., II. Quaest. 17, Art. I, where he says, est actus rationis, praesupposito tamen actu voluntatis.
183 This sentence is absent in some mss., being added at the end of the chapter with the mark sxo/l.
184 Dionys., De div. nom., c. 5.
185 pare/pontai th= fu/sei; follow the nature, are consequenta of the nature, or accompany it.
186 Greg. Naz., Orat. 45; cf. also Epist. ad. Evagr., and Greg. Nyss., Epist. ad Ablab.; Dionys., De div. nom., c.2; Basil, Epist. 43 ad Greg. fratr.
187 Dionys., De div. nom., c. 2; Greg. Naz., Orat. 37 and 45; Nyss. Epist. ad. Ablab.
188 o0 de\ a9lhqh\j lo/goj.
189 Text, a!nqrwpoj, which is absent in some codices and in Dionys., De div. nom., from which these words are taken.
190 Greg. Naz., Orat. 24:Dionys., De div. nom., c.2.
191 Dionys., De div. nom., c. I.;De Cael. Hier., c. 15.
192 Greg. Naz., Orat. 37.
193 Text, pa/nta to\n a!nqrwpon: variant, a!panta.