Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| On God.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Book I.
Chapter I.—On God.
1. I know that some
will attempt to say that, even according to the declarations of our own
Scriptures, God is a body, because in the writings of Moses they find
it said, that “our God is a consuming fire;”1933
and in the Gospel according to John, that
“God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in
spirit and in truth.”1934
Fire and
spirit, according to them, are to be regarded as nothing else than a
body. Now, I should like to ask these persons what they have to
say respecting that passage where it is declared that God is light; as
John writes in his Epistle, “God is light, and in Him there is no
darkness at all.”1935
Truly He is
that light which illuminates the whole understanding of those who are
capable of receiving truth, as is said in the thirty-sixth
Psalm, “In Thy
light we shall see light.”1936
For what
other light of God can be named, “in which any one sees
light,” save an influence of God, by which a man, being
enlightened, either thoroughly sees the truth of all things, or comes
to know God Himself, who is called the truth? Such is the meaning
of the expression, “In Thy light we shall see light;” i.e.,
in Thy word and wisdom which is Thy Son, in Himself we shall see Thee
the Father. Because He is called light, shall He be supposed to
have any resemblance to the light of the sun? Or how should there
be the slightest ground for imagining, that from that corporeal light
any one could derive the cause of knowledge, and come to the
understanding of the truth?
2. If, then, they acquiesce in our
assertion, which reason itself has demonstrated, regarding the nature
of light, and acknowledge that God cannot be understood to be a body in
the sense that light is, similar reasoning will hold true of the
expression “a consuming fire.” For what will God
consume in respect of His being fire? Shall He be thought to
consume material substance, as wood, or hay, or stubble? And what
in this view can be called worthy of the glory of God, if He be a fire,
consuming materials of that kind? But let us reflect that God
does indeed consume and utterly destroy; that He consumes evil
thoughts, wicked actions, and sinful desires, when they find their way
into the minds of believers; and that, inhabiting along with His Son
those souls which are rendered capable of receiving His word and
wisdom, according to His own declaration, “I and the Father shall
come, and We shall make our abode with him?”1937
He makes them, after all their vices
and passions have been consumed, a holy temple, worthy of
Himself. Those, moreover, who, on account of the expression
“God is a Spirit,” think that He is a body, are to be
answered, I think, in the following manner. It is the custom of
sacred Scripture, when it wishes to designate anything opposed to this
gross and solid body, to call it spirit, as in the expression,
“The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life,”1938
where there can be no doubt that by
“letter” are meant bodily things, and by
“spirit” intellectual things, which we also term
“spiritual.” The apostle, moreover, says, “Even
unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart:
nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken
away: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
liberty.”1939
For so long
as any one is not converted to a spiritual understanding, a veil is
placed over his heart, with which veil, i.e., a gross understanding,
Scripture itself is said or thought to be covered: and this is
the meaning of the statement that a veil was placed over the
countenance of Moses when he spoke to the people, i.e., when the law
was publicly read aloud. But if we turn to the Lord, where also
is the word of God, and where the Holy Spirit reveals spiritual
knowledge, then the veil is taken away, and with unveiled face we shall
behold the glory of the Lord in the holy Scriptures.
3. And since many saints participate in the
Holy Spirit, He cannot therefore be understood to be a body, which
being divided into corporeal parts, is partaken of by each one of the
saints; but He is manifestly a sanctifying power, in which all are said
to have a share who have deserved to be sanctified by His grace.
And in order that what we say may be more easily understood, let us
take an illustration from things very dissimilar. There are many
persons who take a part in the science1940
or
art of medicine: are we therefore to suppose that those who do so
take to themselves the particles of some body called medicine, which is
placed before them, and in this way participate in the same? Or
must we not rather understand that all who with quick and trained minds
come to understand the art and discipline itself, may be said to be
partakers of the art
of healing? But these are not to be deemed altogether parallel
instances in a comparison of medicine to the Holy Spirit, as they have
been adduced only to establish that that is not necessarily to be
considered a body, a share in which is possessed by many
individuals. For the Holy Spirit differs widely from the method
or science of medicine, in respect that the Holy Spirit is an
intellectual existence1941
and subsists and
exists in a peculiar manner, whereas medicine is not at all of that
nature.
4. But we must pass on to the language of
the Gospel itself, in which it is declared that “God is a
Spirit,” and where we have to show how that is to be understood
agreeably to what we have stated. For let us inquire on what
occasion these words were spoken by the Saviour, before whom He uttered
them, and what was the subject of investigation. We find, without
any doubt, that He spoke these words to the Samaritan woman, saying to
her, who thought, agreeably to the Samaritan view, that God ought to be
worshipped on Mount Gerizim, that “God is a Spirit.”
For the Samaritan woman, believing Him to be a Jew, was inquiring of
Him whether God ought to be worshipped in Jerusalem or on this
mountain; and her words were, “All our fathers worshipped on this
mountain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where we ought to
worship.”1942
To this
opinion of the Samaritan woman, therefore, who imagined that God was
less rightly or duly worshipped, according to the privileges of the
different localities, either by the Jews in Jerusalem or by the
Samaritans on Mount Gerizim, the Saviour answered that he who would
follow the Lord must lay aside all preference for particular places,
and thus expressed Himself: “The hour is coming when
neither in Jerusalem nor on this mountain shall the true worshippers
worship the Father. God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him
must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”1943
And observe how logically He has
joined together the spirit and the truth: He called God a Spirit,
that He might distinguish Him from bodies; and He named Him the truth,
to distinguish Him from a shadow or an image. For they who
worshipped in Jerusalem worshipped God neither in truth nor in spirit,
being in subjection to the shadow or image of heavenly things; and such
also was the case with those who worshipped on Mount
Gerizim.
5. Having refuted, then, as well as we
could, every notion which might suggest that we were to think of God as
in any degree corporeal, we go on to say that, according to strict
truth, God is incomprehensible, and incapable of being
measured.1944
For whatever
be the knowledge which we are able to obtain of God, either by
perception or reflection, we must of necessity believe that He is by
many degrees far better than what we perceive Him to be. For, as
if we were to see any one unable to bear a spark of light, or the flame
of a very small lamp, and were desirous to acquaint such a one, whose
vision could not admit a greater degree of light than what we have
stated, with the brightness and splendour of the sun, would it not be
necessary to tell him that the splendour of the sun was unspeakably and
incalculably better and more glorious than all this light which he
saw? So our understanding, when shut in by the fetters of flesh
and blood, and rendered, on account of its participation in such
material substances, duller and more obtuse, although, in comparison
with our bodily nature, it is esteemed to be far superior, yet, in its
efforts to examine and behold incorporeal things, scarcely holds the
place of a spark or lamp. But among all intelligent, that is,
incorporeal beings, what is so superior to all others—so
unspeakably and incalculably superior—as God, whose nature cannot
be grasped or seen by the power of any human understanding, even the
purest and brightest?
6. But it will not appear absurd if we
employ another similitude to make the matter clearer. Our eyes
frequently cannot look upon the nature of the light itself—that
is, upon the substance of the sun; but when we behold his splendour or
his rays pouring in, perhaps, through windows or some small openings to
admit the light, we can reflect how great is the supply and source of
the light of the body. So, in like manner. the works of Divine
Providence and the plan of this whole world are a sort of rays, as it
were, of the nature of God, in comparison with His real substance and
being. As, therefore, our understanding is unable of itself to
behold God Himself as He is, it knows the Father of the world from the
beauty of His works and the comeliness of His creatures. God,
therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as
existing in a body, but as an uncompounded intellectual
nature,1945
| 1945 “Simplex
intellectualis natura.” | admitting within
Himself no addition of any kind; so that He cannot be believed to have
within him a greater and a less, but is such that He is in all
parts Μονάς, and, so to speak,
῾Ενάς, and is the mind and source from
which all intellectual nature or mind takes its beginning. But
mind, for its movements or operations, needs no physical space, nor
sensible magnitude, nor bodily shape, nor colour, nor any other of
those adjuncts which are the properties of body or matter.
Wherefore that simple and wholly intellectual nature1946
| 1946 “Natura illa
simplex et tota mens.” | can admit of no delay or hesitation in its
movements or operations, lest the simplicity of the divine nature
should appear to be circumscribed or in some degree hampered by such
adjuncts, and lest that which is the beginning of all things should be
found composite and differing, and that which ought to be free from all
bodily intermixture, in virtue of being the one sole species of Deity,
so to speak, should prove, instead of being one, to consist of many
things. That mind, moreover, does not require space in order to
carry on its movements agreeably to its nature, is certain from
observation of our own mind. For if the mind abide within its own
limits, and sustain no injury from any cause, it will never, from
diversity of situation, be retarded in the discharge of its functions;
nor, on the other hand, does it gain any addition or increase of
mobility from the nature of particular places. And here, if any
one were to object, for example, that among those who are at sea, and
tossed by its waves the mind is considerably less vigorous than it is
wont to be on land, we are to believe that it is in this state, not
from diversity of situation, but from the commotion or disturbance of
the body to which the mind is joined or attached. For it seems to
be contrary to nature, as it were, for a human body to live at sea; and
for that reason it appears, by a sort of inequality of its own, to
enter upon its mental operations in a slovenly and irregular manner,
and to perform the acts of the intellect with a duller sense, in as
great degree as those who on land are prostrated with fever; with
respect to whom it is certain, that if the mind do not discharge its
functions as well as before, in consequence of the attack of disease,
the blame is to be laid not upon the place, but upon the bodily malady,
by which the body, being disturbed and disordered, renders to the mind
its customary services under by no means the well-known and natural
conditions: for we human beings are animals composed of a union
of body and soul, and in this way (only) was it possible for us to live
upon the earth. But God, who is the beginning of all things, is
not to be regarded as a composite being, lest perchance there should be
found to exist elements prior to the beginning itself, out of which
everything is composed, whatever that be which is called
composite. Neither does the mind require bodily magnitude in
order to perform any act or movement; as when the eye by gazing upon
bodies of larger size is dilated, but is compressed and contracted in
order to see smaller objects. The mind, indeed, requires
magnitude of an intellectual kind, because it grows, not after the
fashion of a body, but after that of intelligence. For the mind
is not enlarged, together with the body, by means of corporal
additions, up to the twentieth or thirtieth year of life; but the
intellect is sharpened by exercises of learning, and the powers
implanted within it for intelligent purposes are called forth; and it
is rendered capable of greater intellectual efforts, not being
increased by bodily additions, but carefully polished by learned
exercises. But these it cannot receive immediately from boyhood,
or from birth, because the framework of limbs which the mind employs as
organs for exercising itself is weak and feeble; and it is unable to
bear the weight of its own operations, or to exhibit a capacity for
receiving training.
7. If there are any now who think that the
mind itself and the soul is a body, I wish they would tell me by way of
answer how it receives reasons and assertions on subjects of such
importance—of such difficulty and such subtlety? Whence
does it derive the power of memory? and whence comes the contemplation
of invisible1947
| 1947 Some read
“visible.” | things? How
does the body possess the faculty of understanding incorporeal
existences? How does a bodily nature investigate the processes of
the various arts, and contemplate the reasons of things? How,
also, is it able to perceive and understand divine truths, which are
manifestly incorporeal? Unless, indeed, some should happen to be
of opinion, that as the very bodily shape and form of the ears or eyes
contributes something to hearing and to sight, and as the individual
members, formed by God, have some adaptation, even from the very
quality of their form, to the end for which they were naturally
appointed; so also he may think that the shape of the soul or mind is
to be understood as if created purposely and designedly for perceiving
and understanding individual things, and for being set in motion by
vital movements. I do not perceive, however, who shall be able to
describe or state what is the colour of the mind, in respect of its
being mind, and acting as an intelligent existence. Moreover, in
confirmation and explanation of what we have already advanced regarding
the mind or soul—to the effect that it is better than the whole
bodily nature—the following remarks may be added. There
underlies every bodily sense a certain peculiar sensible
substance,1948
| 1948 “Substantia
quædam sensibilis propria.” | on which the bodily
sense exerts itself. For example, colours, form, size, underlie
vision; voices and sound, the sense of hearing; odours, good or bad,
that of smell; savours, that of taste; heat or cold, hardness or
softness, roughness or smoothness, that of touch. Now, of those
senses enumerated above, it is manifest to all that the sense of mind
is much the best. How, then, should it not appear absurd, that
under those senses which are
inferior, substances should have been placed on which to exert their
powers, but that under this power, which is far better than any other,
i.e., the sense of mind, nothing at all of the nature of a substance
should be placed, but that a power of an intellectual nature should be
an accident, or consequent upon bodies? Those who assert this,
doubtless do so to the disparagement of that better substance which is
within them; nay, by so doing, they even do wrong to God Himself, when
they imagine He may be understood by means of a bodily nature, so that
according to their view He is a body, and that which may be understood
or perceived by means of a body; and they are unwilling to have it
understood that the mind bears a certain relationship to God, of whom
the mind itself is an intellectual image, and that by means of this it
may come to some knowledge of the nature of divinity, especially if it
be purified and separated from bodily matter.
8. But perhaps these declarations may seem
to have less weight with those who wish to be instructed in divine
things out of the holy Scriptures, and who seek to have it proved to
them from that source how the nature of God surpasses the nature of
bodies. See, therefore, if the apostle does not say the same
thing, when, speaking of Christ, he declares, that “He is the
image of the invisible God, the first-born of every
creature.”1949
Not, as some
suppose, that the nature of God is visible to some and invisible to
others: for the apostle does not say “the image of God
invisible” to men or “invisible” to sinners, but with
unvarying constancy pronounces on the nature of God in these
words: “the image of the invisible God.”
Moreover, John, in his Gospel, when asserting that “no one hath
seen God at any time,”1950
manifestly declares
to all who are capable of understanding, that there is no nature to
which God is visible: not as if, He were a being who was visible
by nature, and merely escaped or baffled the view of a frailer
creature, but because by the nature of His being it is
impossible for Him to be seen. And if you should ask of me what
is my opinion regarding the Only-begotten Himself, whether the nature
of God, which is naturally invisible, be not visible even to Him, let
not such a question appear to you at once to be either absurd or
impious, because we shall give you a logical reason. It is one
thing to see, and another to know: to see and to be seen is a
property of bodies; to know and to be known, an attribute of
intellectual being. Whatever, therefore, is a property of bodies,
cannot be predicated either of the Father or of the Son; but what
belongs to the nature of deity is common to the Father and the
Son.1951
| 1951 “Constat inter
Patrem et Filium.” | Finally, even He Himself, in the
Gospel, did not say that no one has seen the Father, save the
Son, nor any one the Son, save the Father; but His words are:
“No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; nor any one the
Father, save the Son.”1952
By which it
is clearly shown, that whatever among bodily natures is called seeing
and being seen, is termed, between the Father and the Son, a knowing
and being known, by means of the power of knowledge, not by the
frailness of the sense of sight. Because, then, neither seeing
nor being seen can be properly applied to an incorporeal and invisible
nature, neither is the Father, in the Gospel, said to be seen by the
Son, nor the Son by the Father, but the one is said to be known by the
other.
9. Here, if any one lay before us the
passage where it is said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for
they shall see God,”1953
from that very
passage, in my opinion, will our position derive additional strength;
for what else is seeing God in heart, but, according to our exposition
as above, understanding and knowing Him with the mind? For the
names of the organs of sense are frequently applied to the soul, so
that it may be said to see with the eyes of the heart, i.e., to perform
an intellectual act by means of the power of intelligence. So
also it is said to hear with the ears when it perceives the deeper
meaning of a statement. So also we say that it makes use of
teeth, when it chews and eats the bread of life which cometh down from
heaven. In like manner, also, it is said to employ the services
of other members, which are transferred from their bodily appellations,
and applied to the powers of the soul, according to the words of
Solomon, “You will find a divine sense.”1954
For he knew that there were within us
two kinds of senses: the one mortal, corruptible, human; the
other immortal and intellectual, which he now termed divine. By
this divine sense, therefore, not of the eyes, but of a pure heart,
which is the mind, God may be seen by those who are worthy. For
you will certainly find in all the Scriptures, both old and new, the
term “heart” repeatedly used instead of “mind,”
i.e., intellectual power. In this manner, therefore, although far
below the dignity of the subject, have we spoken of the nature of God,
as those who understand it under the limitation of the human
understanding. In the next place, let us see what is meant by the
name of Christ.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
