Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| On the Faith.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
On the
Faith.
To Simplicius.
————————————
God commands us by His prophet not to esteem any new God to be God,
and not to worship any strange God1323
| 1323 Cf. Ps. lxxxi. 9; Ex. xxxiv. 14. | . Now it is
clear that that is called new which is not from everlasting, and on the
contrary, that is called everlasting which is not new. He, then, who
does not believe that the Only-begotten God is from everlasting of the
Father does not deny that He is new, for that which is not everlasting
is confessedly new; and that which is new is not God, according to the
saying of Scripture, “there shall not be in thee any new God1324
| 1324 Cf. Ps. lxxxi. 9; Ex. xxxiv. 14. | .” Therefore he who says that the Son
“once was not1325
| 1325 Reading with Oehler, ὁ λέγων ὅτι
ποτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ
υἱ& 232·ς; not as the
Paris editions, ὁ λέγων
ὅτι ποτε οὐκ
ἦν, οὗτος. | ,” denies His
Godhead. Again, He Who says “thou shalt never worship a strange
God1326
” forbids us to worship another God;
and the strange God is so called in contradistinction to our own God.
Who, then, is our own God? Clearly, the true God. And who is the
strange God? Surely, he who is alien from the nature of the true God.
If, therefore, our own God is the true God, and if, as the heretics
say, the Only-begotten God is not of the nature of the true God, He is
a strange God, and not our God. But the Gospel says, the sheep
“will not follow a stranger1327
.” He
that says He is created will make Him alien from the nature of the true
God. What then will they do, who say that He is created? Do they
worship that same created being as God1328
| 1328 Adding to the text of the Paris edit. θεὸν, with
Oehler. | ,
or do they not? For if they do not worship Him, they follow the Jews in
denying the worship of Christ: and if they do worship Him, they are
idolaters, for they worship one alien from the true God. But surely it
is equally impious not to worship the Son, and to worship the strange
God. We must then say that the Son is the true Son of the true Father,
that we may both worship Him, and avoid condemnation as worshipping a
strange God. But to those who quote from the Proverbs the passage,
“the Lord created me1329
,” and think
that they hereby produce a strong argument that the Creator and Maker
of all things was created, we must answer that the Only-begotten God
was made for us many things. For He was the Word, and was made
flesh; and He was God, and was made man; and He was without body, and
was made a body; and besides, He was made “sin,” and
“a curse,” and “a stone,” and “an
axe,” and “bread,” and “a lamb,” and
“a way,” and “a door,” and “a
rock,” and many such things; not being by nature any of these,
but being made these things for our sakes, by way of dispensation. As,
therefore, being the Word, He was for our sakes made flesh, and as,
being God, He was made man, so also, being the Creator, He was made for
our sakes a creature; for the flesh is created. As, then, He said by
the prophet, “Thus saith the Lord, He that formed me from the
womb to be His servant1330
;” so He said
also by Solomon, “The Lord created me as the beginning of His
ways, for His works1331
.” For all
creation, as the Apostle says, is in servitude1332
| 1332 Cf. Rom. viii. 21. This clause is omitted
in the Paris editions. | .
Therefore both He Who was formed in the Virgin’s womb, according
to the word of the prophet, is the servant, and not the Lord (that is
to say, the man according to the flesh, in whom God was manifested),
and also, in the other passage, He Who was created as the beginning of
His ways is not God, but the man in whom God was manifested to us for
the renewing again of the ruined way of man’s salvation. So that,
since we recognize two things in Christ, one Divine, the other human
(the Divine by nature, but the human in the Incarnation), we
accordingly claim for the Godhead that which is eternal, and that which
is created we ascribe to His human nature. For as, according to the
prophet, He was formed in the womb as a servant, so also, according to
Solomon, He was manifested in the flesh by means of this
servile creation. But when they say, “if He was, He was not
begotten, and if He was begotten He was not,” let them learn that
it is not fitting to ascribe to His Divine nature the attributes which
belong to His fleshly origin1333
| 1333 Reading γενεσέως with Oehler. The Paris editions read γεννησέως: but Oehler’s reading seems to give a better
sense. | . For bodies which
do not exist, are generated, and God makes those things to be which are
not, but does not Himself come into being from that which is not. And
for this reason also Paul calls Him “the brightness of glory1334
,” that we may learn that as the light
from the lamp is of the nature of that which sheds the brightness, and
is united with it (for as soon as the lamp appears the light that comes
from it shines out simultaneously), so in this place the Apostle would
have us consider both that the Son is of the Father, and that the
Father is never without the Son; for it is impossible that glory should
be without radiance, as it is impossible that the lamp should be
without brightness. But it is clear that as His being brightness is a
testimony to His being in relation with the glory (for if the glory did
not exist, the brightness shed from it would not exist), so, to say
that the brightness “once was not1335
| 1335 Reading with Oehler ποτὲ for the
τὲ of the
Paris Edit. | ” is a declaration that the glory also
was not, when the brightness was not; for it is impossible that the
glory should be without the brightness. As therefore it is not possible
to say in the case of the brightness, “If it was, it did not come
into being, and if it came into being it was not,” so it is in
vain to say this of the Son, seeing that the Son is the brightness. Let
those also who speak of “less” and “greater,”
in the case of the Father and the Son, learn from Paul not to measure
things immeasurable. For the Apostle says that the Son is the express
image of the Person of the Father1336
. It is clear
then that however great the Person of the Father is, so great also is
the express image of that Person; for it is not possible that the
express image should be less than the Person contemplated in it. And
this the great John also teaches when he says, “In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God1337
.” For in saying that he was “in
the beginning” and not “after the beginning,” he
showed that the beginning was never without the Word; and in declaring
that “the Word was with God,” he signified the absence of
defect in the Son in relation to the Father; for the Word is
contemplated as a whole together with the whole being of God. For if
the Word were deficient in His own greatness so as not to be capable of
relation with the whole being of God, we are compelled to suppose that
that part of God which extends beyond the Word is without the Word. But
in fact the whole magnitude of the Word is contemplated together with
the whole magnitude of God: and consequently in statements concerning
the Divine nature, it is not admissible to speak of
“greater” and “less.”
As for those who say that the
begotten is in its nature unlike the unbegotten, let them learn from
the example of Adam and Abel not to talk nonsense. For Adam himself was
not begotten according to the natural generation of men; but Abel was
begotten of Adam. Now, surely, he who was never begotten is called
unbegotten, and he who came into being by generation is called
begotten1338
| 1338 Inserting with Oehler the clause, καὶ ὁ
γεννηθὲις
γεννητός, which is not in the text of the Paris Editt, though a
corresponding clause appears in the Latin translation. | ; yet the fact that he was not begotten
did not hinder Adam from being a man, nor did the generation of Abel
make him at all different from man’s nature, but both the one and
the other were men, although the one existed by being begotten, and the
other without generation. So in the case of our statements as to the
Divine nature, the fact of not being begotten, and that of being
begotten, produce no diversity of nature, but, just as in the case of
Adam and Abel the manhood is one, so is the Godhead one in the case of
the Father and the Son.
Now touching the Holy Spirit
also the blasphemers make the same statement as they do concerning the
Lord, saying that He too is created. But the Church believes, as
concerning the Son, so equally concerning the Holy Spirit, that He is
uncreated, and that the whole creation becomes good by participation in
the good which is above it, while the Holy Spirit needs not any to make
Him good (seeing that He is good by virtue of His nature, as the
Scripture testifies)1339
; that the creation
is guided by the Spirit, while the Spirit gives guidance; that the
creation is governed, while the Spirit governs; that the creation is
comforted, while the Spirit comforts; that the creation is in bondage,
while the Spirit gives freedom; that the creation is made wise, while
the Spirit gives the grace of wisdom; that the creation partakes of the
gifts, while the Spirit bestows them at His pleasure: “For all
these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man
severally as He will1340
.” And one may
find multitudes of other proofs from the Scriptures that all the
supreme and Divine attributes which are applied by the Scriptures to
the Father and the Son are also to be contemplated in the Holy
Spirit:—immortality, blessedness, goodness, wisdom, power,
justice, holiness—every excellent attribute is
predicated of the Holy Spirit just as it is predicated of the Father
and of the Son, with the exception of those by which the Persons are
clearly and distinctly divided from each other; I mean, that the Holy
Spirit is not called the Father, or the Son; but all other names by
which the Father and the Son are named are applied by Scripture to the
Holy Spirit also. By this, then, we apprehend that the Holy Spirit is
above creation. Thus, where the Father and the Son are understood to
be, there the Holy Spirit also is understood to be; for the Father and
the Son are above creation, and this attribute the drift of our
argument claims for the Holy Spirit. So it follows, that one who places
the Holy Spirit above the creation has received the right and sound
doctrine: for he will confess that uncreated nature which we behold in
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit to be one.
But since they bring forward as
a proof, according to their ideas, of the created nature of the Holy
Spirit, that utterance of the prophet, which says, “He that
stablisheth the thunder and createth the spirit, and declareth unto man
His Christ,1341
” we must consider this, that the
prophet speaks of the creation of another Spirit, in the stablishing of
the thunder, and not of the Holy Spirit. For the name of
“thunder” is given in mystical language to the Gospel.
Those, then, in whom arises firm and unshaken faith in the Gospel, pass
from being flesh to become spirit, as the Lord says, “That which
is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is
spirit1342
.” It is God, then, Who by
stablishing the voice of the Gospel makes the believer spirit: and he
who is born of the Spirit and made spirit by such thunder,
“declares” Christ; as the Apostle says, “No man can
say that Jesus Christ is Lord but by the Holy Spirit1343
.”E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
