Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| The Fifth Theological Oration. On the Holy Spirit.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
The Fifth Theological
Oration.
On the Holy Spirit.
I. Such then is the
account of the Son, and in this manner He has escaped those who would
stone Him, passing through the midst of them.3694
For the Word is not stoned, but casts
stones when He pleases; and uses a sling against wild beasts—that
is, words—approaching the Mount3695
in
an unholy way. But, they go on, what have you to say about the
Holy Ghost? From whence are you bringing in upon us this strange
God, of Whom Scripture is silent? And even they who keep within
bounds as to the Son speak thus. And just as we find in the case
of roads and rivers, that they split off from one another and join
again, so it happens also in this case, through the superabundance of
impiety, that people who differ in all other respects have here some
points of agreement, so that you never can tell for certain either
where they are of one mind, or where they are in conflict.
II. Now the subject of the Holy Spirit
presents a special difficulty, not only because when these men have
become weary in their disputations concerning the Son, they struggle
with greater heat against the Spirit (for it seems to be absolutely
necessary for them to have some object on which to give expression to
their impiety, or life would appear to them no longer worth living),
but further because we ourselves also, being worn out by the multitude
of their questions, are in something of the same condition with men who
have lost their appetite; who having taken a dislike to some particular
kind of food, shrink from all food; so we in like manner have an
aversion from all discussions. Yet may the Spirit grant it to us,
and then the discourse will proceed, and God will be glorified.
Well then, we will leave to others3696
| 3696 E.g. S. Basil and S.
Gregory of Nyssa. | who have
worked upon this subject for us as well as for themselves, as we have
worked upon it for them, the task of examining carefully and
distinguishing in how many senses the word Spirit or the word Holy is
used and understood in Holy Scripture, with the evidence suitable to
such an enquiry; and of shewing how besides these the combination of
the two words—I mean, Holy Spirit—is used in a peculiar
sense; but we will apply ourselves to the remainder of the
subject.
III. They then who are angry with us on the
ground that we are bringing in a strange or interpolated God,
viz.:—the Holy Ghost, and who fight so very hard for the letter,
should know that they are afraid where no fear is;3697
and I would have them clearly understand
that their love for the letter is but a cloak for their impiety, as
shall be shewn later on, when we refute their objections to the utmost
of our power. But we have so much confidence in the Deity of the
Spirit Whom we adore,3698
| 3698 πρεσβεύειν
is not commonly used in this sense, but there are classical instances
of it (e.g. Æsch. Choeph., 488; Soph., Trach., 1065, and it
occurs also in Plato), and this is the sense in which it is here
rendered by Billius; but a V. L. of some mss.
gives the meaning, whose cause we are pleading, which is more frequent
use of the word. | that we will begin
our teaching concerning His Godhead by fitting to Him the Names which
belong to the Trinity, even though some persons may think us too
bold. The Father was the True Light which lighteneth every man
coming into the world. The Son was the True Light which
lighteneth every man coming into the world. The Other Comforter
was the True Light which lighteneth every man coming into the
world.3699
Was and Was
and Was, but Was One Thing. Light thrice repeated; but One Light
and One God. This was what David represented to himself long
before when he said, In Thy Light shall we see Light.3700
And now we have both seen and proclaim
concisely and simply the doctrine3701
of God the
Trinity, comprehending out of Light (the Father), Light (the Son), in
Light (the Holy Ghost). He that rejects it, let him reject
it;3702
and he that doeth iniquity, let him do
iniquity; we proclaim that which we have understood. We will get
us up into a high mountain,3703
and will shout, if
we be not heard, below; we will exalt the Spirit; we will not be
afraid; or if we are afraid, it shall be of keeping silence, not of
proclaiming.
IV. If ever there was a time when the Father was
not, then there was a time when the Son was not. If ever there
was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit
was not. If the One was from the beginning, then the Three were
so too. If you throw down the
One, I am bold to assert that you do not set up the other Two.
For what profit is there in an imperfect Godhead? Or rather, what
Godhead can there be if It is not perfect? And how can that be
perfect which lacks something of perfection? And surely there is
something lacking if it hath not the Holy, and how would it have this
if it were without the Spirit? For either holiness is something
different from Him, and if so let some one tell me what it is conceived
to be; or if it is the same, how is it not from the beginning, as if it
were better for God to be at one time imperfect and apart from the
Spirit? If He is not from the beginning, He is in the same rank
with myself, even though a little before me; for we are both parted
from Godhead by time. If He is in the same rank with myself, how
can He make me God, or join me with Godhead?
V. Or rather, let me reason with you about Him
from a somewhat earlier point, for we have already discussed the
Trinity. The Sadducees altogether denied the existence of the
Holy Spirit, just as they did that of Angels and the Resurrection;
rejecting, I know not upon what ground, the important testimonies
concerning Him in the Old Testament. And of the Greeks those who
are more inclined to speak of God, and who approach nearest to us, have
formed some conception of Him, as it seems to me, though they have
differed as to His Name, and have addressed Him as the Mind of the
World, or the External Mind, and the like. But of the wise men
amongst ourselves, some have conceived of him as an Activity, some as a
Creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call Him,
out of reverence for Scripture, they say, as though it did not make the
matter clear either way. And therefore they neither worship Him
nor treat Him with dishonour, but take up a neutral position, or rather
a very miserable one, with respect to Him. And of those who
consider Him to be God, some are orthodox in mind only, while others
venture to be so with the lips also. And I have heard of some who
are even more clever, and measure Deity; and these agree with us that
there are Three Conceptions; but they have separated these from one
another so completely as to make one of them infinite both in essence
and power, and the second in power but not in essence, and the third
circumscribed in both; thus imitating in another way those who call
them the Creator, the Co-operator, and the Minister, and consider that
the same order and dignity which belongs to these names is also a
sequence in the facts.
VI. But we cannot enter into any discussion
with those who do not even believe in His existence, nor with the Greek
babblers (for we would not be enriched in our argument with the oil of
sinners).3704
With the
others, however, we will argue thus. The Holy Ghost must
certainly be conceived of either as in the category of the
Self-existent, or as in that of the things which are contemplated in
another; of which classes those who are skilled in such matters call
the one Substance and the other Accident. Now if He were an
Accident, He would be an Activity of God, for what else, or of whom
else, could He be, for surely this is what most avoids
composition? And if He is an Activity, He will be effected, but
will not effect and will cease to exist as soon as He has been
effected, for this is the nature of an Activity. How is it then
that He acts and says such and such things, and defines, and is
grieved, and is angered, and has all the qualities which belong clearly
to one that moves, and not to movement? But if He is a Substance
and not an attribute of Substance, He will be conceived of either as a
Creature of God, or as God. For anything between these two,
whether having nothing in common with either, or a compound of both,
not even they who invented the goat-stag could imagine. Now, if
He is a creature, how do we believe in Him, how are we made perfect in
Him? For it is not the same thing to believe IN a thing and to
believe About it. The one belongs to
Deity, the other to—any thing. But if He is God, then He is
neither a creature, nor a thing made, nor a fellow servant, nor any of
these lowly appellations.
VII. There—the word is with you. Let
the slings be let go; let the syllogism be woven. Either He is
altogether Unbegotten, or else He is Begotten. If He is
Unbegotten, there are two Unoriginates. If he is Begotten, you
must make a further subdivision. He is so either by the Father or
by the Son. And if by the Father, there are two Sons, and they
are Brothers. And you may make them twins if you like, or the one
older and the other younger, since you are so very fond of the bodily
conceptions. But if by the Son, then such a one will say, we get
a glimpse of a Grandson God, than which nothing could be more
absurd. For my part however, if I saw the necessity of the
distinction, I should have
acknowledged the facts without fear of the names. For it does not
follow that because the Son is the Son in some higher relation
(inasmuch as we could not in any other way than this point out that He
is of God and Consubstantial), it would also be necessary to think that
all the names of this lower world and of our kindred should be
transferred to the Godhead. Or may be you would consider our God
to be a male, according to the same arguments, because he is called God
and Father, and that Deity is feminine, from the gender of the word,
and Spirit neuter, because It has nothing to do with generation; But if
you would be silly enough to say, with the old myths and fables, that
God begat the Son by a marriage with His own Will, we should be
introduced3705
to the
Hermaphrodite god of Marcion and Valentinus3706
| 3706 It would seem that S.
Gregory commonly confused Marcion with Marcus, one of the leaders of
the Gnostic School of Valentinus. In another place he speaks of
the Æons of Marcion and Valentinus, evidently meaning Marcus; for
the system of Marcion is characterized by an entire absence of any
theory of Emanations (Æons). Similarly there is no trace in
Marcion of this notion of a hermaphrodite Deity, but there is something
very like it in the account of Marcus given by S. Irenæus. |
who imagined these newfangled Æons.
VIII. But since we do not admit your first
division, which declares that there is no mean between Begotten and
Unbegotten, at once, along with your magnificent division, away go your
Brothers and your Grandsons, as when the first link of an intricate
chain is broken they are broken with it, and disappear from your system
of divinity. For, tell me, what position will you assign to that
which Proceeds, which has started up between the two terms of your
division, and is introduced by a better Theologian than you, our
Saviour Himself? Or perhaps you have taken that word out of your
Gospels for the sake of your Third Testament, The Holy Ghost, which
proceedeth from the Father;3707
| 3707 John xv. 26. “It did not fall within
this Father’s (Greg. Naz.) province to develop the doctrine of
the Procession. He is content to shew that the Spirit was not
Generated, seeing that according to Christ’s own teaching He
Proceeds from the Father. The question of His relation to the Son
is alien to S. Gregory Nazianzen’s purpose; nor does it seem to
have once been raised in the great battle between Arianism and
Catholicity which was fought out at Constantinople during
Gregory’s Episcopate” (Swete on the Procession, p.
107). | Who, inasmuch as He
proceedeth from That Source, is no Creature; and inasmuch as He is not
Begotten is no Son; and inasmuch as He is between the Unbegotten and
the Begotten is God. And thus escaping the toils of your
syllogisms, He has manifested himself as God, stronger than your
divisions. What then is Procession? Do you tell me what is
the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the
physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the
Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the
mystery of God.3708
And who are
we to do these things, we who cannot even see what lies at our feet, or
number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of
Eternity, much less enter into the Depths of God, and supply an account
of that Nature which is so unspeakable and transcending all
words?
IX. What then, say they, is there lacking to
the Spirit which prevents His being a Son, for if there were not
something lacking He would be a Son? We assert that there is
nothing lacking—for God has no deficiency. But the
difference of manifestation, if I may so express myself, or rather of
their mutual relations one to another, has caused the difference of
their Names. For indeed it is not some deficiency in the Son
which prevents His being Father (for Sonship is not a deficiency), and
yet He is not Father. According to this line of argument there
must be some deficiency in the Father, in respect of His not being
Son. For the Father is not Son, and yet this is not due to either
deficiency or subjection of Essence; but the very fact of being
Unbegotten or Begotten, or Proceeding has given the name of Father to
the First, of the Son to the Second, and of the Third, Him of Whom we
are speaking, of the Holy Ghost that the distinction of the Three
Persons may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the
Godhead. For neither is the Son Father, for the Father is One,
but He is what the Father is; nor is the Spirit Son because He is of
God, for the Only-begotten is One, but He is what the Son is. The
Three are One in Godhead, and the One Three in properties; so that
neither is the Unity a Sabellian one,3709
| 3709 Sabellius, who taught at Rome during the
Pontificate of Callistus, was by far the most important heresiarch of
his period, and his opinions by far the most dangerous. While
strongly emphasizing the fundamental doctrine of the Divine Unity, he
also admitted in terms a Trinity, but his Trinity was not that of the
Catholic dogma, for he represented it as only a threefold manifestation
of the one Divine Essence. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are in
his view only temporary phænomena, which fulfil their mission, and
then return into the abstract Monad. Dr. Schaff (Hist. of the
Church, Ante-Nicene Period, p. 582) gives the following concise account
of his teaching:
“The unity of God, without
distinction in itself, unfolds or extends itself in the course of the
word’s development in three different forms and periods of
revelation, and after the completion of redemption returns into
Unity. The Father reveals Himself in the giving of the Law or the
Old Testament Economy (not in the creation also, which in his view
precedes the Trinitarian revelation); the Son in the Incarnation; the
Holy Ghost in inspiration; the revelation of the Son ends with the
Ascension; that of the Spirit goes on in generation and
sanctification. He illustrates the Trinitarian revelation by
comparing the Father to the disc of the sun, the Son to its
enlightening power, the Spirit to its warming influence. He is
also said to have likened the Father to the body, the Son to the soul,
the Holy Ghost to the spirit of man: but this is unworthy of his
evident speculative discrimination. His view of the Logos too is
peculiar. The Logos is not identical with the Son, but is the
Monad itself in its transition to Triad; that is, God conceived as
vital motion and creating principle; the Speaking God, as distinguished
from the Silent God. Each Person (or Aspect—the word is
ambiguous) is another Uttering; and the Three Persons together are only
successive evolutions of the Logos, or world-ward aspect of the Divine
Nature. As the Logos proceeded from God, so He at last returns
into Him, and the process of Trinitarian development closes.” |
nor does the Trinity
countenance the present evil distinction.
X. What then? Is the Spirit God?
Most certainly. Well then, is He Consubstantial? Yes, if He
is God. Grant me, says my opponent, that there spring from the
same Source One who is a Son, and One who is not a Son, and these of
One Substance with the Source, and I admit a God and a God. Nay,
if you will grant me that there is another God and another nature of
God I will give you the same Trinity with the same name and
facts. But since God is One and the Supreme Nature is One, how
can I present to you the Likeness? Or will you seek it again in
lower regions and in your own surroundings? It is very shameful,
and not only shameful, but very foolish, to take from things below a
guess at things above, and from a fluctuating nature at the things that
are unchanging, and as Isaiah says, to seek the Living among the
dead.3710
But yet I will try, for your sake, to
give you some assistance for your argument, even from that
source. I think I will pass over other points, though I might
bring forward many from animal history, some generally known, others
only known to a few, of what nature has contrived with wonderful art in
connection with the generation of animals. For not only are likes
said to beget likes, and things diverse to beget things diverse, but
also likes to be begotten by things diverse, and things diverse by
likes. And if we may believe the story, there is yet another mode
of generation, when an animal is self-consumed and
self-begotten.3711
| 3711 i.e. the
Phœnix. Hdt., ii. 37. | There are
also creatures which depart in some sort from their true natures, and
undergo change and transformation from one creature into another, by a
magnificence of nature. And indeed sometimes in the same species
part may be generated and part not; and yet all of one substance; which
is more like our present subject. I will just mention one fact of
our own nature which every one knows, and then I will pass on to
another part of the subject.
XI. What was Adam? A creature of God.
What then was Eve? A fragment of the creature. And what was
Seth? The begotten of both. Does it then seem to you that
Creature and Fragment and Begotten are the same thing? Of course
it does not. But were not these persons consubstantial? Of
course they were. Well then, here it is an acknowledged fact that
different persons may have the same substance. I say this, not
that I would attribute creation or fraction or any property of body to
the Godhead (let none of your contenders for a word be down upon me
again), but that I may contemplate in these, as on a stage, things
which are objects of thought alone. For it is not possible to
trace out any image exactly to the whole extent of the truth.
But, they say, what is the meaning of all this? For is not the
one an offspring, and the other a something else of the One? Did
not both Eve and Seth come from the one Adam? And were they both
begotten by him? No; but the one was a fragment of him, and the
other was begotten by him. And yet the two were one and the same
thing; both were human beings; no one will deny that. Will you
then give up your contention against the Spirit, that He must be either
altogether begotten, or else cannot be consubstantial, or be God; and
admit from human examples the possibility of our position? I
think it will be well for you, unless you are determined to be very
quarrelsome, and to fight against what is proved to demonstration.
XII. But, he says, who in ancient or modern
times ever worshipped the Spirit? Who ever prayed to Him?
Where is it written that we ought to worship Him, or to pray to Him,
and whence have you derived this tenet of yours? We will give the
more perfect reason hereafter, when we discuss the question of the
unwritten; for the present it will suffice to say that it is the Spirit
in Whom we worship, and in Whom we pray. For Scripture says, God
is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and
in truth.3712
And
again,—We know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the
Spirit Itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be
uttered;3713
and I will pray
with the Spirit and I will pray with the understanding also;3714
—that is, in the mind and in the
Spirit. Therefore to adore or to pray to the Spirit seems to me
to be simply Himself offering prayer or adoration to Himself. And
what godly or learned man would disapprove of this, because in fact the
adoration of One is the adoration of the Three, because of the equality
of honour and Deity between the Three? So I will not be
frightened by the argument that all things are said to have been made
by the Son;3715
as if the Holy
Spirit also were one of these things. For it says all things that
were made, and not simply
all things. For the Father was not, nor were any of the things
that were not made. Prove that He was made, and then give Him to
the Son, and number Him among the creatures; but until you can prove
this you will gain nothing for your impiety from this comprehensive
phrase. For if He was made, it was certainly through Christ; I
myself would not deny that. But if He was not made, how can He be
either one of the All, or through Christ? Cease then to dishonour
the Father in your opposition to the Only-begotten (for it is no real
honour, by presenting to Him a creature to rob Him of what is more
valuable, a Son), and to dishonour the Son in your opposition to the
Spirit. For He is not the Maker of a Fellow servant, but He is
glorified with One of co-equal honour. Rank no part of the
Trinity with thyself, lest thou fall away from the Trinity; cut not off
from Either the One and equally august Nature; because if thou
overthrow any of the Three thou wilt have overthrown the whole.
Better to take a meagre view of the Unity than to venture on a complete
impiety.
XIII. Our argument has now come to its
principal point; and I am grieved that a problem that was long dead,
and that had given way to faith, is now stirred up afresh; yet it is
necessary to stand against these praters, and not to let judgment go by
default, when we have the Word on our side, and are pleading the cause
of the Spirit. If, say they, there is God and God and God, how is
it that there are not Three Gods, or how is it that what is glorified
is not a plurality of Principles? Who is it who say this?
Those who have reached a more complete ungodliness, or even those who
have taken the secondary part; I mean who are moderate in a sense in
respect of the Son. For my argument is partly against both in
common, partly against these latter in particular. What I have to
say in answer to these is as follows:—What right have you who
worship the Son, even though you have revolted from the Spirit, to call
us Tritheists? Are not you Ditheists? For if you deny also
the worship of the Only Begotten, you have clearly ranged yourself
among our adversaries. And why should we deal kindly with you as
not quite dead? But if you do worship Him, and are so far
in the way of salvation, we will ask you what reasons you have to give
for your ditheism, if you are charged with it? If there is in you
a word of wisdom answer, and open to us also a way to an answer.
For the very same reason with which you will repel a charge of Ditheism
will prove sufficient for us against one of Tritheism. And thus
we shall win the day by making use of you our accusers as our
Advocates, than which nothing can be more generous.
XIV. What is our quarrel and dispute with
both? To us there is One God, for the Godhead is One, and all
that proceedeth from Him is referred to One, though we believe in Three
Persons. For one is not more and another less God; nor is One
before and another after; nor are They divided in will or parted in
power; nor can you find here any of the qualities of divisible things;
but the Godhead is, to speak concisely, undivided in separate Persons;
and there is one mingling of Light, as it were of three suns joined to
each other. When then we look at the Godhead, or the First Cause,
or the Monarchia, that which we conceive is One; but when we look at
the Persons in Whom the Godhead dwells, and at Those Who timelessly and
with equal glory have their Being from the First Cause—there are
Three Whom we worship.
XV. What of that, they will say perhaps; do
not the Greeks also believe in one Godhead, as their more advanced
philosophers declare? And with us Humanity is one, namely the
entire race; but yet they have many gods, not One, just as there are
many men. But in this case the common nature has a unity which is
only conceivable in thought; and the individuals are parted from one
another very far indeed, both by time and by dispositions and by
power. For we are not only compound beings, but also contrasted
beings, both with one another and with ourselves; nor do we remain
entirely the same for a single day, to say nothing of a whole lifetime,
but both in body and in soul are in a perpetual state of flow and
change. And perhaps the same may be said of the Angels3716
| 3716 “Similarly it is
clear concerning the Angels, that they have a being incapable of
change, so far as pertains to their nature, with a capacity of change
as to choice, and of intelligence and affections and places, in their
own manner” (S. Thomas Aq., Summa, I., x., 5). | and the whole of that superior nature which
is second to the Trinity alone; although they are simple in some
measure and more fixed in good, owing to their nearness to the highest
Good.
XVI. Nor do those whom the Greeks worship as gods,
and (to use their own expression) dæmons, need us in any respect
for their accusers, but are convicted upon the testimony of their own
theologians, some as subject to passion, some as given to faction, and
full of innumerable evils and changes, and in a state of opposition,
not only to one another, but even to their first causes, whom they call
Oceani and Tethyes and
Phanetes, and by several other names; and last of all a certain god who
hated his children through his lust of rule, and swallowed up all the
rest through his greediness that he might become the father of all men
and gods whom he miserably devoured, and then vomited forth
again. And if these are but myths and fables, as they say in
order to escape the shamefulness of the story, what will they say in
reference to the dictum that all things are divided into three
parts,3717
| 3717 Homer, Il., xiv.,
189. | and that each god
presides over a different part of the Universe, having a distinct
province as well as a distinct rank? But our faith is not like
this, nor is this the portion of Jacob, says my Theologian.3718
But each of these Persons possesses
Unity, not less with that which is United to it than with itself, by
reason of the identity of Essence and Power.3719
| 3719 Petavius praises this
dictum, De Trin., IV., xiii., 9. | And this is the account of the Unity,
so far as we have apprehended it. If then this account is the
true one, let us thank God for the glimpse He has granted us; if it is
not let us seek for a better.
XVII. As for the arguments with which you
would overthrow the Union which we support, I know not whether we
should say you are jesting or in earnest. For what is this
argument? “Things of one essence, you say, are counted
together,” and by this “counted together,” you mean
that they are collected into one number.3720
| 3720 συναριθμεῖται,
as when you say Three Gods, or Three Men, and the like, as you do when
you reckon up things of the same sort. On the other hand, you
must use the plural number in reckoning up things which differ in
kind. | But things which are not of one
essence are not thus counted…so that you cannot avoid speaking of
three gods, according to this account, while we do not run any risk at
all of it, inasmuch as we assert that they are not
consubstantial. And so by a single word you have freed yourselves
from trouble, and have gained a pernicious victory, for in fact you
have done something like what men do when they hang themselves for fear
of death. For to save yourselves trouble in your championship of
the Monarchia you have denied the Godhead, and abandoned the question
to your opponents. But for my part, even if labor should be
necessary, I will not abandon the Object of my adoration. And yet
on this point I cannot see where the difficulty is.
XVIII. You say, Things of one essence are
counted together, but those which are not consubstantial are reckoned
one by one. Where did you get this from? From what teachers
of dogma or mythology? Do you not know that every number
expresses the quantity of what is included under it, and not the nature
of the things? But I am so old fashioned, or perhaps I should say
so unlearned, as to use the word Three of that number of things, even
if they are of a different nature, and to use One and One and One in a
different way of so many units, even if they are united in essence,
looking not so much at the things themselves as at the quantity of the
things in respect of which the enumeration is made. But since you
hold so very close to the letter (although you are contending against
the letter), pray take your demonstrations from this source.
There are in the Book of Proverbs three things which go well, a lion, a
goat, and a cock; and to these is added a fourth;—a King making a
speech before the people,3721
to pass over the
other sets of four which are there counted up, although things of
various natures. And I find in Moses two Cherubim3722
counted singly. But now, in your
technology, could either the former things be called three, when they
differ so greatly in their nature, or the latter be treated as units
when they are so closely connected and of one nature? For if I
were to speak of God and Mammon, as two masters, reckoned under one
head, when they are so very different from each other, I should
probably be still more laughed at for such a connumeration.
XIX. But to my mind, he says, those things
are said to be connumerated and of the same essence of which the names
also correspond, as Three Men, or Three gods, but not Three this and
that. What does this concession amount to? It is suitable
to one laying down the law as to names, not to one who is asserting the
truth. For I also will assert that Peter and James and John are
not three or consubstantial, so long as I cannot say Three Peters, or
Three Jameses, or Three Johns; for what you have reserved for common
names we demand also for proper names, in accordance with your
arrangement; or else you will be unfair in not conceding to others what
you assume for yourself. What about John then, when in his
Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear
witness,3723
| 3723 This is the famous
passage of the Witnesses in 1
John v. 8. In some few
later codices of the Vulgate are found the words which form
verse 7
of our A.V. But neither
verse 7
nor these words are to be found in any Greek ms. earlier than the Fifteenth Century; nor are they
quoted by any Greek Father, and by very few and late Latin ones.
They have been thought to be cited by S. Cyprian in his work on the
Unity of the Church; and this citation, if a fact, would be a most
important one, as it would throw back their reception to an early
date. But Tischendorf (Gk. Test., Ed. viii., ad. loc.) gives
reasons for believing that the quotation is only apparent, and is
really of the last clause of verse 8. | the Spirit
and the Water and the
Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because
he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not
consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case
of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that
these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he has not been
consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using
Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter,
contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians
have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a
masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the
neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not
in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the
case of Deity? What have you to say about the Crab, which may
mean either an animal, or an instrument, or a constellation? And
what about the Dog, now terrestrial, now aquatic, now celestial?
Do you not see that three crabs or dogs are spoken of? Why of
course it is so. Well then, are they therefore of one
substance? None but a fool would say that. So you see how
completely your argument from connumeration has broken down, and is
refuted by all these instances. For if things that are of one
substance are not always counted under one numeral, and things not of
one substance are thus counted, and the pronunciation of the
name3724
| 3724 i.e. Though the things
referred to many differ essentially, yet if the name by which they are
known is the same, one utterance of it with one numeral is enough to
express a collection of them all. | once for all is used in both cases, what
advantage do you gain towards your doctrine?
XX. I will look also at this further point, which
is not without its bearing on the subject. One and One added
together make Two; and Two resolved again becomes One and One, as is
perfectly evident. If, however, elements which are added together
must, as your theory requires, be consubstantial, and those which are
separate be heterogeneous, then it will follow that the same things
must be both consubstantial and heterogeneous. No: I laugh
at your Counting Before and your Counting After, of which you are so
proud, as if the facts themselves depended upon the order of their
names. If this were so, according to the same law, since the same
things are in consequence of the equality of their nature counted in
Holy Scripture, sometimes in an earlier, sometimes in a later place,
what prevents them from being at once more honourable and less
honourable than themselves? I say the same of the names God and
Lord, and of the prepositions Of Whom, and By Whom, and In Whom, by
which you describe the Deity according to the rules of art for us,
attributing the first to the Father, the second to the Son, and the
third to the Holy Ghost. For what would you have done, if each of
these expressions were constantly allotted to Each Person, when, the
fact being that they are used of all the Persons, as is evident to
those who have studied the question, you even so make them the ground
of such inequality both of nature and dignity. This is sufficient
for all who are not altogether wanting in sense. But since it is
a matter of difficulty for you after you have once made an assault upon
the Spirit, to check your rush, and not rather like a furious boar to
push your quarrel to the bitter end, and to thrust yourself upon the
knife until you have received the whole wound in your own breast; let
us go on to see what further argument remains to you.
XXI. Over and over again you turn upon us the
silence of Scripture. But that it is not a strange doctrine, nor
an afterthought, but acknowledged and plainly set forth both by the
ancients and many of our own day, is already demonstrated by many
persons who have treated of this subject, and who have handled the Holy
Scriptures, not with indifference or as a mere pastime, but have gone
beneath the letter and looked into the inner meaning, and have been
deemed worthy to see the hidden beauty, and have been irradiated by the
light of knowledge. We, however in our turn will briefly prove it
as far as may be, in order not to seem to be over-curious or improperly
ambitious, building on another’s foundation. But since the
fact, that Scripture does not very clearly or very often write Him God
in express words (as it does first the Father and afterwards the Son),
becomes to you an occasion of blasphemy and of this excessive wordiness
and impiety, we will release you from this inconvenience by a short
discussion of things and names, and especially of their use in Holy
Scripture.
XXII. Some things have no existence, but are
spoken of; others which do exist are not spoken of; some neither exist
nor are spoken of, and some both exist and are spoken of. Do you
ask me for proof of this? I am ready to give it. According
to Scripture God sleeps and is awake, is angry, walks, has the Cherubim
for His Throne. And yet when did He become liable to passion, and
have you ever heard that God
has a body? This then is, though not really fact, a figure of
speech. For we have given names according to our own
comprehension from our own attributes to those of God. His
remaining silent apart from us, and as it were not caring for us, for
reasons known to Himself, is what we call His sleeping; for our own
sleep is such a state of inactivity. And again, His sudden
turning to do us good is the waking up; for waking is the dissolution
of sleep, as visitation is of turning away. And when He punishes,
we say He is angry; for so it is with us, punishment is the result of
anger. And His working, now here now there, we call walking; for
walking is change from one place to another. His resting among
the Holy Hosts, and as it were loving to dwell among them, is His
sitting and being enthroned; this, too, from ourselves, for God resteth
nowhere as He doth upon the Saints. His swiftness of moving is
called flying, and His watchful care is called His Face, and his giving
and bestowing3725
| 3725 var. lect.,
receiving. | is His hand; and,
in a word, every other of the powers or activities of God has depicted
for us some other corporeal one.
XXIII. Again, where do you get your
Unbegotten and Unoriginate, those two citadels of your position, or we
our Immortal? Show me these in so many words, or we shall either
set them aside, or erase them as not contained in Scripture; and you
are slain by your own principle, the names you rely on being
overthrown, and therewith the wall of refuge in which you
trusted. Is it not evident that they are due to passages which
imply them, though the words do not actually occur? What are
these passages?—I am the first, and I am the last,3726
and before Me there was no God, neither
shall there be after Me.3727
For all that
depends on that Am makes for my side, for it has neither beginning nor
ending. When you accept this, that nothing is before Him, and
that He has not an older Cause, you have implicitly given Him the
titles Unbegotten and Unoriginate. And to say that He has no end
of Being is to call Him Immortal and Indestructible. The first
pairs, then, that I referred to are accounted for thus. But what
are the things which neither exist in fact nor are said? That God
is evil; that a sphere is square; that the past is present; that man is
not a compound being. Have you ever known a man of such stupidity
as to venture either to think or to assert any such thing? It
remains to shew what are the things which exist, both in fact and in
language. God, Man, Angel, Judgment, Vanity (viz., such arguments
as yours), and the subversion of faith and emptying of the
mystery.
XXIV. Since, then, there is so much difference in
terms and things, why are you such a slave to the letter, and a
partisan of the Jewish wisdom, and a follower of syllables at the
expense of facts? But if, when you said twice five or twice
seven, I concluded from your words that you meant Ten or Fourteen; or
if, when you spoke of a rational and mortal animal, that you meant Man,
should you think me to be talking nonsense? Surely not, because I
should be merely repeating your own meaning; for words do not belong
more to the speaker of them than to him who called them forth.
As, then, in this case, I should have been looking, not so much at the
terms used, as at the thoughts they were meant to convey; so neither,
if I found something else either not at all or not clearly expressed in
the Words of Scripture to be included in the meaning, should I avoid
giving it utterance, out of fear of your sophistical trick about
terms. In this way, then, we shall hold our own against the
semi-orthodox—among whom I may not count you. For since you
deny the Titles of the Son, which are so many and so clear, it is quite
evident that even if you learnt a great many more and clearer ones you
would not be moved to reverence. But now I will take up the
argument again a little way further back, and shew you, though you are
so clever, the reason for this entire system of secresy.
XXV. There have been in the whole period of
the duration of the world two conspicuous changes of men’s lives,
which are also called two Testaments,3728
or, on account of the wide fame of the matter, two Earthquakes; the one
from idols to the Law, the other from the Law to the Gospel. And
we are taught in the Gospel of a third earthquake, namely, from this
Earth to that which cannot be shaken or moved.3729
Now the two Testaments are alike in
this respect, that the change was not made on a sudden, nor at the
first movement of the endeavour. Why not (for this is a point on
which we must have information)? That no violence might be done
to us, but that we might be moved by persuasion. For nothing that
is involuntary is durable; like streams or trees which are kept back by
force. But that which is voluntary is more durable and
safe. The former
is due to one who uses force, the latter is ours; the one is due to the
gentleness of God, the other to a tyrannical authority. Wherefore
God did not think it behoved Him to benefit the unwilling, but to do
good to the willing. And therefore like a Tutor or Physician He
partly removes and partly condones ancestral habits, conceding some
little of what tended to pleasure, just as medical men do with their
patients, that their medicine may be taken, being artfully blended with
what is nice. For it is no very easy matter to change from those
habits which custom and use have made honourable. For instance,
the first cut off the idol, but left the sacrifices; the second, while
it destroyed the sacrifices did not forbid circumcision.3730
Then, when once men had submitted to
the curtailment, they also yielded that which had been conceded to
them;3731
in the first instance the sacrifices, in the
second circumcision; and became instead of Gentiles, Jews, and instead
of Jews, Christians, being beguiled into the Gospel by gradual
changes. Paul is a proof of this; for having at one time
administered circumcision, and submitted to legal purification, he
advanced till he could say, and I, brethren, if I yet preach
circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution?3732
His former conduct belonged to the
temporary dispensation, his latter to maturity.
XXVI. To this I may compare the case of
Theology3733
| 3733 Theology is here used
in a restricted sense, as denoting simply the doctrine of the Deity of
the Son or Logos. It is very frequently used in this limited
sense; examples of which may readily be found in Gregory of Nyssa,
Basil, Chrysostom, and others. A similar use occurs in Orat.
XXXVIII., c. 8, in which passage θεολογία is
contrasted with οἰκονομία,
the doctrine of our Lord’s Divinity with that of the
Incarnation. | except that it
proceeds the reverse way. For in the case by which I have
illustrated it the change is made by successive subtractions; whereas
here perfection is reached by additions. For the matter stands
thus. The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son
more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the
Deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and
supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself. For it was
not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged,
plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet
received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with
the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food
beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it
to the sun’s light, risk the loss even of that which was within
the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David
says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to
glory,3734
| 3734 Ps.
lxxxiv. 7, and 2 Cor. iii. 18. | the Light of the
Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated. For this reason it
was, I think, that He gradually came to dwell in the Disciples,
measuring Himself out to them according to their capacity to receive
Him, at the beginning of the Gospel, after the Passion, after the
Ascension, making perfect their powers, being breathed upon them, and
appearing in fiery tongues. And indeed it is by little and little
that He is declared by Jesus, as you will learn for yourself if you
will read more carefully. I will ask the Father, He says, and He
will send you another Comforter, even the spirit of Truth.3735
This He said that He might not seem to
be a rival God, or to make His discourses to them by another
authority. Again, He shall send Him, but it is in My Name.
He leaves out the I will ask, but He keeps the Shall send,3736
then again, I will send,—His own
dignity. Then shall come,3737
the authority
of the Spirit.
XXVII. You see lights breaking upon us,
gradually; and the order of Theology, which it is better for us to
keep, neither proclaiming things too suddenly, nor yet keeping them
hidden to the end. For the former course would be unscientific,
the latter atheistical; and the former would be calculated to startle
outsiders, the latter to alienate our own people. I will add
another point to what I have said; one which may readily have come into
the mind of some others, but which I think a fruit of my own
thought. Our Saviour had some things which, He said, could not be
borne at that time by His disciples3738
(though they
were filled with many teachings), perhaps for the reasons I have
mentioned; and therefore they were hidden. And again He said that
all things should be taught us by the Spirit when He should come to
dwell amongst us.3739
Of these
things one, I take it, was the Deity of the Spirit Himself, made clear
later on when such knowledge should be seasonable and capable of being
received after our Saviour’s restoration, when it would no longer
be received with incredulity because of its marvellous character.
For what greater thing than this did either He promise, or the Spirit
teach. If indeed anything is to be considered great and worthy of
the Majesty of God, which was either promised or taught.
XXVIII. This, then, is my position with regard to
these things, and I hope it may be always my position, and that of
whosoever is dear to me; to
worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, Three
Persons, One Godhead, undivided in honour and glory and substance and
kingdom, as one of our own inspired philosophers3740
| 3740 Perhaps S.
Gregory Thaumaturgus is meant. He was born about a.d. 210. The date of his death is uncertain, but
was probably not before 270. He was Bishop of Neocæsarea in
Pontus. Amongst his works was an Exposition of the Faith, which
he is said to have received by direct revelation, and in it the words
in the text were contained. S. Gregory in another Oration refers
to the closing sentences as the substance of the Formula itself:
“There is nothing created or servile in the Trinity, nor anything
superinduced, as though previously non-existing and introduced
afterwards. Never therefore, was the Son wanting to the Father,
nor the Spirit to the Son; but there is ever the same Trinity,
unchangeable and unalterable”(Reynolds, in Dict.
Biog.). | not long departed shewed. Let him not
see the rising of the Morning Star, as Scripture saith,3741
nor the glory of its brightness, who is
otherwise minded, or who follows the temper of the times, at one time
being of one mind and of another at another time, and thinking
unsoundly in the highest matters. For if He is not to be
worshipped, how can He deify me by Baptism? but if He is to be
worshipped, surely He is an Object of adoration, and if an Object of
adoration He must be God; the one is linked to the other, a truly
golden and saving chain. And indeed from the Spirit comes our New
Birth, and from the New Birth our new creation, and from the new
creation our deeper knowledge of the dignity of Him from Whom it is
derived.
XXIX. This, then, is what may be said by one
who admits the silence of Scripture. But now the swarm of
testimonies shall burst upon you from which the Deity of the Holy
Ghost3742
| 3742 Luke i. 35; iii. 22; iv. 1. | shall be shewn to all who are not
excessively stupid, or else altogether enemies to the Spirit, to be
most clearly recognized in Scripture. Look at these
facts:—Christ is born; the Spirit is His Forerunner. He is
baptized; the Spirit bears witness. He is tempted; the Spirit
leads Him up.3743
He works
miracles; the Spirit accompanies them. He ascends; the Spirit
takes His place. What great things are there in the idea of God
which are not in His power?3744
What titles
which belong to God are not applied to Him, except only Unbegotten and
Begotten? For it was needful that the distinctive properties of
the Father and the Son should remain peculiar to Them, lest there
should be confusion in the Godhead Which brings all things, even
disorder3745
| 3745 v. l. Yea, even
disorder. | itself, into due
arrangement and good order. Indeed I tremble when I think of the
abundance of the titles, and how many Names they outrage who fall foul
of the Spirit. He is called the Spirit of God, the Spirit of
Christ, the Mind of Christ, the Spirit of The Lord, and Himself The
Lord, the Spirit of Adoption, of Truth, of Liberty; the Spirit of
Wisdom, of Understanding, of Counsel, of Might, of Knowledge, of
Godliness, of the Fear of God. For He is the Maker of all these,
filling all with His Essence, containing all things, filling the world
in His Essence, yet incapable of being comprehended in His power by the
world; good, upright, princely, by nature not by adoption; sanctifying,
not sanctified; measuring, not measured; shared, not sharing; filling,
not filled; containing, not contained; inherited, glorified, reckoned
with the Father and the Son; held out as a threat;3746
| 3746 Viz.:—where we
are told that Blasphemy against Him hath never forgiveness. | the Finger of God; fire like God; to
manifest, as I take it, His consubstantiality); the Creator-Spirit, Who
by Baptism and by Resurrection creates anew; the Spirit That knoweth
all things, That teacheth, That bloweth where and to what extent He
listeth; That guideth, talketh, sendeth forth, separateth, is angry or
tempted; That revealeth, illumineth, quickeneth, or rather is the very
Light and Life; That maketh Temples; That deifieth; That perfecteth so
as even to anticipate Baptism,3747
yet after Baptism
to be sought as a separate gift;3748
| 3748 i.e. in
Confirmation. | That doeth all
things that God doeth; divided into fiery tongues; dividing gifts;
making Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers;
understanding manifold, clear, piercing, undefiled, unhindered, which
is the same thing as Most wise and varied in His actions; and making
all things clear and plain; and of independent power, unchangeable,
Almighty, all-seeing, penetrating all spirits that are intelligent,
pure, most subtle (the Angel Hosts I think); and also all prophetic
spirits and apostolic in the same manner and not in the same places;
for they lived in different places; thus showing that He is
uncircumscript.
XXX. They who say and teach these things,
and moreover call Him another Paraclete in the sense of another God,
who know that blasphemy against Him alone cannot be forgiven,3749
and who branded with such fearful infamy
Ananias and Sapphira for having lied to the Holy Ghost, what do you
think of these men?3750
Do they
proclaim the Spirit God, or something else? Now really, you must
be extraordinarily dull and far from the Spirit if you have any doubt
about this and need some one to teach you. So important then, and
so vivid are His Names. Why is it necessary to lay before you the
testimony contained in the very words? And whatever in this case
also3751
| 3751 As before in the case
of the Son. See above, Theol., iii. 18. | is said in more lowly fashion, as that He is
Given, Sent, Divided; that He is the Gift, the Bounty, the Inspiration,
the Promise, the Intercession for us, and, not to go into any further
detail, any other expressions of the sort, is to be referred to the
First Cause, that it may be shewn from Whom He is, and that men may not
in heathen fashion admit Three Principles. For it is equally
impious to confuse the Persons with the Sabellians, or to divide the
Natures with the Arians.
XXXI. I have very carefully considered this
matter in my own mind, and have looked at it in every point of view, in
order to find some illustration of this most important subject, but I
have been unable to discover any thing on earth with which to compare
the nature of the Godhead. For even if I did happen upon some
tiny likeness it escaped me for the most part, and left me down below
with my example. I picture to myself an eye,3752
| 3752 Elias Cretensis says
that the Eye in this passage is not to be understood of the member of
the body so called, but as the Eye or the centre of a spring, the point
from which the water flows. | a fountain, a river, as others have done
before, to see if the first might be analogous to the Father, the
second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Ghost. For in these
there is no distinction in time, nor are they torn away from their
connexion with each other, though they seem to be parted by three
personalities. But I was afraid in the first place that I should
present a flow in the Godhead, incapable of standing still; and
secondly that by this figure a numerical unity would be
introduced. For the eye and the spring and the river are
numerically one, though in different forms.
XXXII. Again I thought of the sun and a ray and
light. But here again there was a fear lest people should get an
idea of composition in the Uncompounded Nature, such as there is in the
Sun and the things that are in the Sun. And in the second place
lest we should give Essence to the Father but deny Personality to the
Others, and make Them only Powers of God, existing in Him and not
Personal. For neither the ray nor the light is another sun, but
they are only effulgences from the Sun, and qualities of His
essence. And lest we should thus, as far as the illustration
goes, attribute both Being and Not-being to God, which is even more
monstrous. I have also heard that some one has suggested an
illustration of the following kind. A ray of the Sun flashing
upon a wall and trembling with the movement of the moisture which the
beam has taken up in mid air, and then, being checked by the hard body,
has set up a strange quivering. For it quivers with many rapid
movements, and is not one rather than it is many, nor yet many rather
than one; because by the swiftness of its union and separating it
escapes before the eye can see it.
XXXIII. But it is not possible for me
to make use of even this; because it is very evident what gives the ray
its motion; but there is nothing prior to God which could set Him in
motion; for He is Himself the Cause of all things, and He has no prior
Cause. And secondly because in this case also there is a
suggestion of such things as composition, diffusion, and an unsettled
and unstable nature…none of which we can suppose in the
Godhead. In a word, there is nothing which presents a standing
point to my mind in these illustrations from which to consider the
Object which I am trying to represent to myself, unless one may
indulgently accept one point of the image while rejecting the
rest. Finally, then, it seems best to me to let the images and
the shadows go, as being deceitful and very far short of the truth; and
clinging myself to the more reverent conception, and resting upon few
words, using the guidance of the Holy Ghost, keeping to the end as my
genuine comrade and companion the enlightenment which I have received
from Him, and passing through this world to persuade all others also to
the best of my power to worship Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the One
Godhead and Power. To Him belongs all glory and honour and might
for ever and ever. Amen. E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
