A SELECT LIBRARY
OF THE
NICENE AND
POST-NICENE FATHERS
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
SECOND SERIES
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
VOLUMES I–VII.
UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK.
AND
HENRY WACE, D.D.,
PRINCIPAL OF KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON.
VOLUME VII
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, GREGORY NAZIANZEN
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
__________________________________________________
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
The
Catechetical Lectures
Of
S. Cyril,
Archbishop of Jerusalem,
with a revised translation, introduction, notes, and indices,
by
Edwin Hamilton Gifford, D.D.
formerly archdeacon of london, and canon of S. Paul’s.
Preface.
————————————
The present translation of the Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril of Jerusalem is based on a careful revision of the English translation published in the “Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church,” with a most interesting Preface by John Henry Newman, dated from Oxford, The Feast of St. Matthew, 1838.
In his Preface Mr. Newman stated with respect to the translation “that for almost the whole of it the Editors were indebted to Mr. Church, Fellow of Oriel College.” Mr. Church was at that time a very young man, having taken his First Class in Michaelmas Term, 1836; and this his first published work gave abundant promise of that peculiar felicity of expression, which made him in maturer life one of the most perfect masters of the English tongue. Having received full liberty to make such use of his translation as I might deem most desirable for the purpose of the present Edition, I have been obliged to exercise my own judgment both in preserving much of Dean Church’s work unaltered, and in revising it wherever the meaning of the original appeared to be less perfectly expressed.
In this constant study and use of Dean Church’s earliest work I have had always before my mind a grateful and inspiring remembrance of one whose friendship it was my great privilege to enjoy during the few last saddened years of his saintly and noble life.
In the notes of the Edition one of my chief objects has been to illustrate S. Cyril’s teaching by comparing it with the works of earlier Fathers to whom he may have been indebted, and with the writings of his contemporaries.
In the chapters of the Introduction which touch on S. Cyril’s doctrines of Baptism, Chrism, and the Holy Eucharist, I have not attempted either to criticise or to defend his teaching, but simply to give as faithful a representation as I could of his actual meaning. The Eastern Church had long before S. Cyril’s day, and still has its own peculiar Sacramental doctrines, which, notwithstanding the efforts of rival theologians, can never be reduced to exact conformity with the tenets of our own or other Western Churches.
The Indices have been revised, and large additions made to the lists of Greek words,
E.H.G.
Oxford,
26 May, 1893.
Introduction.
————————————
Chapter I.—Life of S. Cyril.
The works of S. Cyril of Jerusalem owe much of their peculiar interest and value to the character of the times in which he wrote. Born a few years before the outbreak of
Arianism in a.d. 318, he lived to see its suppression by the Edict of Theodosius, 380, and to take part in its condemnation by the Council of Constantinople in the following year.
The story of Cyril’s life is not told in detail by any contemporary author; in his own writings there is little mention of himself; and the Church historians refer only to the events of his manhood and old age. We have thus no direct knowledge of his early years, and can only infer from the later circumstances of his life what may probably have been the nature of his previous training. The names of his parents are quite unknown; but in the Greek Menæa, or monthly catalogues of Saints, and in the Roman Martyrology for the 18th day of March, Cyril is said to have been “born of pious parents, professing the orthodox Faith, and to have been bred up in the same, in the reign of Constantine.” This account of his parentage and education derives some probability from the fact that Cyril nowhere speaks as one who had been converted from paganism or from any heretical sect. His language at the close of the viith Lecture seems rather to be inspired by gratitude to his own parents for a Christian education: “The first virtuous observance in a Christian is to honour his parents, to requite their trouble, and to provide with all his power for their comfort: for however much we may repay them, yet we can never be to them what they as parents have been to us. Let them enjoy the comfort we can give, and strengthen us with blessings.”
One member only of Cyril’s family is mentioned by name, his sister’s son Gelasius, who was appointed by Cyril to be Bishop of Cæsarea on the death of Acacius, a.d. 366 circ.
Cyril himself was probably born, or at least
brought up, in or near Jerusalem, for it was usual to choose a Bishop
from among the Clergy over whom he was to preside, a preference being
given to such as were best known to the people generally Bingham, The
Antiquities of the Christian Church, Book II. c. 10, §
2.
That Cyril, whether a native of Jerusalem or not,
had passed a portion of his childhood there, is rendered probable by
his allusions to the condition of the Holy Places before they were
cleared and adorned by Constantine and Helena. He seems to speak
as an eye-witness of their former state, when he says that a few years
before the place of the Nativity at Bethlehem had been wooded Cat. xii. 20. The wood
had been cleared away about sixteen years before this Lecture was
delivered. Cat. xiii. 32; xiv. 5. Cat. iv. 10; x. 19;
xiii. 4. Gregor. Nyss. Baptism of Christ, p. 520, in this
Series: “The wood of the Cross is of saving efficacy for
all men, though it is, as I am informed, a piece of a poor tree, less
valuable than most trees are.” Cat. xiv. 9.
This work was undertaken by Constantine after the
year 326 a.d. Eusebius; Vita
Const. iii. 29 ff.
The tradition that Cyril had been a monk and an
ascetic was probably founded upon the passages in which he seems to
speak as one who had himself belonged to the order of Solitaries, and
shared the glory of chastity Cat. xii. 1, 33, 34.
Compare iv. 24, note 8.
A more important question is that which relates to the time and circumstances of his ordination as Deacon, and as Priest, matters closely connected with some of the chief troubles of his later life.
That he was ordained Deacon by Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, who died in 334 or 335, may be safely inferred from the unfriendly notice of S. Jerome, Chron. ann. 349 (350 a.d.): “Cyril having been ordained Priest by Maximus, and after his death permitted by Acacius, Bishop of Cæsarea, and the other Arian Bishops, to be made Bishop on condition of repudiating his ordination by Maximus, served in the Church as a Deacon: and after he had been paid for this impiety by the reward of the Episcopate (Sacerdotii), he by various plots harassed Heraclius, whom Maximus when dying had substituted in his own place, and degraded him from Bishop to Priest.”
From this account, incredible as it is in the main, and strongly marked by personal prejudice, we may conclude that Cyril had been ordained Deacon not by Maximus, but by his predecessor Macarius; for otherwise he would have been compelled to renounce his Deacon’s Orders, as well as his Priesthood.
Macarius died in or before the year 335; for at
the Council of Tyre, assembled in that year to condemn Athanasius,
Maximus sat as successor to Macarius in the See of Jerusalem Hefele, History of
Councils, ii. 17; Sozom. H. E. ii. 25. Euseb. Vita
Const. iv. 43.
It thus appears that Cyril’s ordination as Deacon cannot be put later than 334 or the beginning of 335.
Towards the close of the latter year the Bishops
who had deposed Athanasius at the Council of Tyre proceeded to
Jerusalem “to celebrate the Tricennalia of
Constantine’s reign by consecrating his grand Church on Mount
Calvary Robertson,
Prolegomena to Athanasius, p. xxxix. Euseb. V. C.
iv. 43.
In September, 346, Athanasius returning from his
second exile at Trèves passed through Jerusalem. The aged
Bishop Maximus, who had been induced to acquiesce in the condemnation
of Athanasius at Tyre, and in the solemn recognition of Arius at
Jerusalem, had afterwards refused to join the Eusebians at Antioch in
341, for the purpose of confirming the sentence passed at Tyre, and now
gave a cordial welcome to Athanasius, who thus describes his
reception Apolog. contra
Arian. § 57. Cf. Athan. Hist.
Arian. § 25. Introductory note to
Cyril’s Letter to Constantius, § x.
We have already learned from Jerome that Cyril was
admitted to the Priesthood by Maximus. There is no evidence of
the exact date of his ordination: but we may safely assume that
he was a Priest of some years’ standing, when the important duty
of preparing the candidates for Baptism was intrusted to him in or
about the year 348 On the exact date of the
Lectures, see below, ch. ix. See more below on the
office of “Catechist,” ch. ii. § 2.
At the very time of delivering the lectures, Cyril
was also in the habit of preaching to the general congregation on the
Lord’s day Cat. x. 14. Cat. i. 6.
The date of his consecration is approximately determined by his own letter to Constantius concerning the appearance of a luminous cross in the sky at Jerusalem. The letter was written on the 7th of May, 351, and is described by Cyril as the first-fruit of his Episcopate. He must therefore have been consecrated in 350, or early in 351.
Socr. H. E.
ii. 38; Soz. iv. 20. The Bishops of Palestine, except two or
three, had received Athanasius most cordially a few years before
(Athan. Hist. Arian. § 25). p. ii.
Still more improbable is the charge that Cyril had
renounced the priesthood conferred on him by Maximus, and after serving
in the Church as a Deacon, had been rewarded by the Episcopate, and
then himself degraded Heraclius from Bishop to Priest. As a
solution of these difficulties, it is suggested by Reischl Vol. I. p. xli. note. Dict. Chr. Biogr.
“Cyrillus,” p. 761: and for the Meletian Schism, see
“Meletius,” “Paulinus,”
“Vitalius.” Hefele, ii. 344. Theodoret, Hist.
Eccl. v. 9.
The beginning of Cyril’s Episcopate was marked by the appearance of a bright Cross in the sky, about nine o’clock in the morning of Whitsunday, the 7th of May, 351 a.d. Brighter than the sun, it hung over the hill of Golgotha, and extended to Mount Olivet, being visible for many hours. The whole population of Jerusalem, citizens and foreigners, Christians and Pagans, young and old, flocked to the Church, singing the praises of Christ, and hailing the phænomenon as a sign from heaven confirming the truth of the Christian religion.
Cyril regarded the occasion as favourable for announcing
to the Emperor Constantius the commencement of his Episcopate; and in
his extant letter described the sign as a proof of God’s favour
towards the Empire and its Christian ruler. The piety of his
father Constantine had been rewarded by the discovery of the true Cross
and the Holy places: and now the greater devotion of the Son had
won a more signal manifestation of Divine approval. Epist. ad
Constantium—Monitum, § x. Dict. Chr. Biogr.
p. 761.
The first few years of Cyril’s episcopate
fell within that so-called “Golden Decade,” 346–355,
which is otherwise described as “an uneasy interval of suspense
rather than of peace Gwatkin, p. 74.
We learn from a letter of Basil the Great that he
had visited Jerusalem about the year 357, when he had been recently
baptized, and was preparing to adopt a life of strict asceticism.
He speaks of the many saints whom he had there embraced, and of the
many who had fallen on their knees before him, and touched his hands as
holy Epist. iv. p. 12. Sozom. H. E.
iv. 25.
This was one of the charges brought against Cyril
in the course of the disputes between himself and Acacius, which had
commenced soon after he had been installed in the Bishopric of
Jerusalem. As Bishop of Cæsarea, Acacius exercised
Metropolitan jurisdiction over the Bishops of Palestine. But
Cyril, as presiding over an Apostolic See, “the Mother of all the
Churches,” claimed exemption from the jurisdiction of
Cæsarea, and higher rank than its Bishop. It is not alleged,
nor is it in any way probable, that Cyril claimed also the jurisdiction
over other Bishops. The rights and privileges of his See had been
clearly defined many years before by the 7th Canon of the Council of
Nicæa: “As custom and ancient tradition shew that the
Bishop of Ælia ought to be honoured, let him have precedence in
honour, without prejudice to the proper dignity of the Metropolitical
See.” Eusebius Hist. Eccl. v.
23. History of the
Christian Councils, Book I. Sec. ii. c.
However this may have been, Acacius, who as an
Arian was likely to have little respect for the Council of Nicæa,
seems to have claimed both precedence and jurisdiction over
Cyril. From Hist. Eccl. ii.
40. Ib. Ib. ii. 26. H. E. iv. 25. There is much
uncertainty and confusion in the names of the Bishops who succeeded
Cyril on the three occasions of his being deposed. His successor
in 357 is said by Jerome to have been a certain Eutychius, probably the
same who was afterwards excommunicated at Seleucia (Dict. Chr.
Biogr. Eutychius 13). The subject is discussed at length by
Touttée (Diss. I. vii.). See the account of
his remarkable career in the Dict. Chr. Biogr. Athan. De
Synodis, c. xii.; Hefele, ii. 262. Socrates, H.
E. ii. 40. Athan. contr.
Arianos Apol. c. 36: Hefele, ii. p. 27, note.
In justification of Cyril’s appeal it is enough to
say that it was impossible for him to submit to the judgment of Acacius
and his Arian colleagues. They could not be impartial in a matter
where the jurisdiction of Acacius their president, and his unsoundness
in the Faith, were as much in question as any of the charges brought
against Cyril. He took the only course open to him in requesting
the Emperor to remit his case to the higher juris
While the appeal was pending, Cyril became
acquainted with “ the learned Bishop, Basil of Ancyra “
(Hefele), with Eustathius of Sebaste in Armenia, and George of
Laodicea, the chief leaders of the party “usually (since
Epiphanius), but with some injustice, designated Semi-Arian Robertson,
Prolegomena ad Athanas. ii. § 8 (2) c.
Cyril had not long to wait for the hearing of his
appeal. In the year 359 the Eastern Bishops met at Seleucia in
Isauria, and the Western at Ariminum. Constantius had at first
wished to convene a general Council of all the Bishops of the Empire,
but this intention he was induced to abandon by representations of the
long journeys and expense, and he therefore directed the two Synods
then assembled at Ariminum and at Seleucia “the Rugged” to
investigate first the disputes concerning the Faith, and then to turn
their attention to the complaints of Cyril, and other Bishops against
unjust decrees of deposition and banishment Soz. iv. 17. Socrat. ii. 39. H. E. ii. 26. Sozom. iv. 22.
In the end Acacius and many of his friends were deposed or excommunicated. Some of these, however, in defiance of the sentence of the Council, returned to their dioceses, as did also the majority who had deposed them.
It is not expressly stated whether any formal
decision on the case of Cyril was adopted by the Council: but as
his name does not appear in the lists of those who were deposed or
excommunicated, it is certain that he was not condemned. It is
most probable that the charges against him were disregarded after his
accuser Acacius had refused to appear, and that he returned, like the
others, to his diocese. But he was not to be left long in
peace. Acacius and some of his party had hastened to
Constantinople, where they gained over to their cause the chief men
attached to the palace, and through their influence secured the favour
of Constantius, and roused his anger against the majority of the
Council. But what especially stirred the Emperor’s wrath
were the charges which Acacius concocted against Cyril:
“For,” he said that “the holy robe which the Emperor
Constantine of blessed memory, in his desire to honour the Church of
Jerusalem, had presented to Macarius, the Bishop of that city, to be
worn when he administered the rite of Holy Baptism, all fashioned as it
was with golden threads, had been sold by Cyril, and bought by one of
the dancers at the theatre, who had put it on, and while dancing had
fallen, and injured himself, and died. With such an ally as this
Cyril,” he said, “they undertake to judge and pass sentence
upon the rest of the world Theodoret, H.
E. ii. 23.
Ten deputies who at the close of the Council of Seleucia
had been appointed to report its Sozom. iv. 23. Athan. de.
Syn. § 30, where this Creed is given in full. S. Hilar. ii. Hefele,
Councils, ii. 271.
George of Laodicea was a profligate in morals, and
an Arian at heart, whose opposition to Acacius and Eudoxius was
prompted by self-interest rather than by sincere conviction. He
had been deposed from the priesthood by Alexander, Bishop of
Alexandria, both on that ground of false doctrine, and of the open and
habitual irregularities of his life. Athanasius styles him
“the most wicked of all the Arians,” reprobated even by his
own party for his grossly dissolute conduct Dict. Chr.
Biogr.
Basil of Ancyra was a man of high moral character,
great learning, and powerful intellect, a consistent opponent both of
the Sabellianism of Marcellus, and of every form of Arian and
Anomœan heresy, a chief among those of whom Athanasius
wrote De Synodis, §
41.
Eustathius is described as a man unstable in
doctrine, vacillating from party to party, subscribing readily to
Creeds of various tendency, yet commanding the respect even of his
enemies by a life of extraordinary holiness, in which active
benevolence was combined with extreme austerity. “He was a
man,” says Mr. Gwatkin The Arian
Controversy, p. 135.
S. Basil the Great, when travelling from place to
place, to observe the highest forms of ascetic life, had met with
Eustathius at Tarsus, and formed a lasting friendship with a man whom
he describes as “exhibiting something above human
excellence,” and of whom, after the painful dissensions which
embittered Basil’s later life, that great saint could say, that
from childhood to extreme old age he (Eustathius) had watched over
himself with the greatest care, the result of his self-discipline being
seen in his life and character Basil, Epist.
244. Compare Newman, Preface to Catechetical Lectures, p.
iv.
Of any intimate friendship between Cyril, and
these Semi-Arian leaders, we have no evidence in the vague charges of
Acacius: their common fault was that they condemned him in the
Synod of Seleucia. The true reason of Cyril’s deposition,
barely concealed by the frivolous charges laid against him, was the
hatred of Acacius, incurred by the refusal to acknowledge the
Metropolitan jurisdiction of the See of Cæsarea. The
deposition was confirmed by Constantius, and followed by a sentence of
banishment. The place of Cyril’s exile is not mentioned;
nor is it known whether he joined in the protest of the other deposed
Bishops, described by S. Basil, Epist. 75. His banishment
was not of longer continuance than two years. Constantius died on
the 3rd of November, 361, and the accession of Julian was soon
Socr. H. E.
iii. 1. Sozom. H. E.
v. c. 5. Compare Gibbon, Ch. xxiii.: “The impartial
Ammianus has ascribed this affected clemency to the desire of fomenting
the intestine divisions of the Church.”
It happened that the son of a heathen priest
attached to the Emperor’s Court, having been instructed in his
youth by a Deaconess whom he visited with his mother, had secretly
become a Christian. On discovering this, his father had cruelly
scourged and burnt him with hot spits on his hands, and feet, and
back. He contrived to escape, and took refuge with his friend the
Deaconess. “‘She dressed me in women’s
garments, and took me in her covered carriage to the divine
Meletius. He handed me over to the Bishop of Jerusalem, at that
time Cyril, and we started by night for Palestine.’ After
the death of Julian, this young man led his father also into the way of
truth. This act he told me with the rest Theodoret, H.
E. iii. 10.
The next incident recorded in the life of S. Cyril
is his alleged prediction of the failure of Julian’s attempt to
rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem. “The vain and ambitious
mind of Julian,” says Gibbon, “might aspire to restore the
ancient glory of the Temple of Jerusalem. As the Christians were
firmly persuaded that a sentence of everlasting destruction had been
pronounced against the whole fabric of the Mosaic law, the Imperial
sophist would have converted the success of his undertaking into a
specious argument against the faith of prophecy and the truth of
revelation.” Again he writes: “The Christians
entertained a natural and pious expectation, that in this memorable
contest, the honour of religion would be vindicated by some signal
miracle Gibbon, c. xxiii. Hist. i. 37. See Gibbon’s remarks
on the testimony of Ammianus, “a contemporary and a Pagan,”
and on the explanation from natural causes suggested by Michaelis.
In the same year, a.d.
363, Julian was killed in his Persian campaign on the 26th of June, and
was succeeded by Jovian, whose universal tolerance, and personal
profession of the Nicene faith, though discredited by the looseness of
his morals, gave an interval Socr. iii. 25; Sozom. vi.
4.
Jovian died on the 17th of February, 364, and was
succeeded by Valentinian, who in the following March gave over the
Eastern provinces of the Empire to his brother Valens. During the
first two years of the new reign we hear nothing of Cyril: but at
the beginning of the year 366, on the death of his old enemy Acacius,
Cyril assumed the right to nominate his successor in the See of
Cæsarea, and appointed a certain Philumenus Epiphanius,
Hær. 73, § 37. Hist. Eccl.
V. 8; Dialog. i. iii.
Epiphanius relates Hæres. lxxiii.
§ 37. Sozom. vi. 12.
Cf. Tillemont, Mémoires, Tom. viii. p. 357: “As
Cyril was, no doubt, then persecuted only on account of his firmness in
the true Faith, the title of Confessor cannot be refused to
him.”
The terrible defeat and miserable death of Valens
in the great battle against the Goths at Adrianople (a.d. 378) brought a respite to the defenders of the Nicene
doctrine. For Gratian “disapproved of the late persecution
that had been carried on for the purpose of checking the diversities in
religious Creeds, and recalled all those who had been banished on
account of their religion Soz. vii. 1. Ib. 2.
Gregory of Nyssa, who had been commissioned by a
Council held at Antioch in 378 to visit the Churches in Arabia and
Palestine, “because matters with them were in confusion, and
needed an arbiter,” gives a mournful account both of the
distracted state of the Church, and of the prevailing corruption.
“If the Divine grace were more abundant about Jerusalem than
elsewhere, sin would not be so much the fashion among those who live
there , but as it is, there is no form of uncleanness that is not
perpetrated among them; rascality, adultery, theft, idolatry,
poisoning, quarrelling, murder, are rife.” In a
letter Greg. Nyss.
Epist. xvii. in this Series.
In the year a.d. 381
Theodosius summoned the Bishops of his division of the Empire to meet
in Council at Constantinople, in order to settle the disputes by which
the Eastern Church had been so long distracted, and to secure the
triumph of the Nicene Faith over the various forms of heresy which had
arisen in the half-century which had elapsed since the first General
Council. Among the Bishops present were Cyril of Jerusalem, and
his nephew Gelasius, who on the death of Valens had regained possession
of the See of Cæsarea from the Arian intruder Euzoius. Cyril
is described by Sozomen H. E. vii. 7. Councils, ii.
344. Socrat. v. 8; Sozom. vii.
7.
We find no further mention of Cyril in the
proceedings of the Council itself. As consisting of Eastern
Bishops only, its authority was not at first acknowledged, nor its acts
approved in the Western Church. The two Synods held later in the
same year at Aquileia and at Milan, sent formal protests to Theodosius,
and urged him to summon a General Council at Alexandria or at
Rome. But instead of complying with this request, the Emperor
summoned the Bishops of his Empire to a fresh Synod at Constantinople,
and there in the summer of 382 very nearly the same Bishops were
assembled who had been present at the Council of the preceding
year. Their Synodical letter addressed to the Bishops assembled
at Rome is preserved by Theodoret H. E. v. 9.
Chapter II.—Catechetical Instruction.
§ 1. Catechesis. The term
“Catechesis” in its widest sense includes instruction by
word of mouth on any subject sacred or profane
The earliest known example of a Catechetical work
is the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” which
Athanasius names among the “books not included in the Canon, but
appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who are just recently
coming to us, and wish to be instructed in the word of godliness
(κατηχεῖσθαι
τὸν τῆς
εὐσεβείας
λόγον) Festal Epist.
39. Compare Clem. Alex. Strom. V. c. x. §
67. Γάλα
μὲν ἡ
κατήχησις
οἱονεὶ πρώτη
ψυχῆς τροφὴ
νοηθήσεται. Schaff, Oldest
Church Manual, p. 15. Ib. p. 26.
The Didaché was taken as the basis of other manuals of instruction, as is evident from the fact that the greater part of the first six chapters is imbedded in “ The Apostolical Church Order,” supposed to date from Egypt in the third century. The Greek text, with an English translation, of the part corresponding with the Didaché, is given in “ The oldest Church Manual “ as Document V.
A further development of the Didaché, “adapted to the state of the Eastern Church in the first half of the fourth century,” is contained in the Seventh Book of the Apostolical Constitutions of Pseudo-Clement of Rome, chs. i.–xxxii. “Here the Didaché is embodied almost word for word, but with significant omissions, alterations, and additions, which betray a later age.…The Didaché was thus superseded by a more complete and timely Church Manual, and disappeared.” Dr. Schaff has appended this document also to his edition of the Didaché, noting the borrowed passages on the margin, and distinguishing them by spaced type in the Greek text, and by italics in the English translation.
In this work the directions concerning the instruction of Catechumens and their Baptism are addressed to the Catechist and the Minister of Baptism. They contain only a short outline (c. xxxix.) of the subjects in which the Catechumens are to be instructed, most if not all of which are explained at large in Cyril’s Lectures: and in the directions concerning Baptism, Chrism, and the Eucharist, the similarity is so close, that in many passages of the Constitutions the author seems to be referring especially to the use of the Church of Jerusalem.
From this close affinity with earlier works we may be assured that in the Catecheses of Cyril we have trustworthy evidence of the great care which the Church had from the beginning bestowed on the instruction and training of converts, before admitting them to the privilege of Baptism; but beyond this, Cyril’s own work has a peculiar value as the earliest extant example of a full, systematic, and continuous course of such instruction.
§ 2. Catechist. The duty
of catechizing was not limited to a class of persons permanently set
apart for that purpose, but all orders of the Clergy were accustomed to
take part in the work. Even laymen were encouraged to teach
children or new converts the first elements of religion, as we learn
from Cyril’s exhortation: “If thou hast a child
according to the flesh, admonish him of this now; and if thou hast
begotten one through catechizing, put him also on
Cat. xv. 18. Cat. iii. 13.
The more systematic instruction of those who had
been already admitted to the order of Catechumens was entrusted to
persons appointed to this special duty. Thus Origen “was in
his eighteenth year when he took charge of the Catechetical School at
Alexandria,” which “was entrusted to him alone by
Demetrius, who presided over the Church Euseb. H. E.
vi. 3.
The final training of the φωτιζόμενοι, or candidates for Baptism, was undertaken in part by the Bishop himself, but chiefly by a Priest specially appointed by him. Of the part taken by the Bishop mention is made by S. Ambrose in a letter to his sister Marcellina (Ep. xx.): “On the following day, which was the Lord’s day, after the Lessons and Sermon, the Catechumens had been dismissed, and I was delivering the Creed to some candidates (Competentes) in the Baptistery of the Basilica.”
Of this “delivery of the Creed,” which was usually done by a Presbyter, we have examples in S. Augustine’s Sermons In traditione Symboli, ccxii.–ccxiv., each of which contains a brief recapitulation and explanation of the several articles of belief. In Serm. ccxiv., after a short introduction, we find the following note inserted by the preacher himself. [“After this preface the whole Creed is to be recited, without interposing any discussion. ‘I believe in God the Father Almighty,’ and the rest that follows. Which Creed, thou knowest, is not wont to be written: after it has been said, the following discussion (disputatio) is to be added.”]
From the opening words of Sermon ccxiv., and of ccxvi., “ad Competentes,” it is evident that these were delivered by S. Augustine as the first-fruits of his ministry very soon after he had been reluctantly ordained Priest (a.d. 391). Two other examples of addresses to Candidates for Baptism are the Catecheses I., II., πρὸς τοὺς μέλλοντας φωτίζεσθαι, delivered at Antioch by S. Chrysostom while a Presbyter.
Another duty often undertaken by the Bishop was to
hear each Candidate separately recite the Creed, and then to expound to
them all the Lord’s Prayer S. August.
Serm. lviii. et. ccxv.
§ 3. Catechumens. The term
Catechumen denoted a person who was receiving instruction in the
Christian religion with a view to being in due time baptized.
Such persons were either converts from Paganism and Judaism, or
children of Christian parents whose Baptism had been deferred.
For though the practice of Infant-Baptism was certainly common in the
Early Church Cf. Iren. II. c.
xxii. § 4: “Omnes enim venit per semet ipsum salvare;
omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes, et
parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores. Cf. Concil.
Carthag. iii. Epist. Synod. (Cypriani Ep. lix. vel lxiv.
Routh. R. S. iii. p. 98.) Dict. Chr.
Antiq. “Baptism,” § 101. Tertull.
De Baptismo, c. xviii. “And so, according to the
circumstances, and disposition, and even age of each individual, the
delay of Baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of
little children.” Cf. Gregor. Naz. Orat. 40 De
Baptismo, quoted by Bingham, xi. c. 4, § 13.
Antiq. X. i. §
4.
To believe and to be baptized are the two
essential conditions of membership in Christ’s Church
We know that unbelievers, Jews, and Heathens were
allowed in the Apostolic age to be present at times in the Christian
assemblies Apostolic
Constitutions, VIII. i. § 5: “And after the
reading of the Law and the Prophets, and our Epistles, and Acts, and
Gospels, let him that is ordained…speak to the people the word of
exhortation, and when he has ended his discourse of doctrine, all
standing up, let the Deacon ascend upon some high seat, and proclaim,
Let none of the hearers, let none of the unbelievers stay:
and silence being made, let him say, Ye Catechumens, pray, and
let all the Faithful pray for them.”
Any persons who by thus hearing the word, or by
other means, were brought to believe the truth of Christianity, and to
wish for further instruction, were strictly examined as to their
character, belief, and sincerity of purpose. The care with which
such examinations were conducted is thus described by Origen:
“The Christians, however, having previously, so far as possible,
tested the souls of those who wish to become their hearers, and having
previously admonished them in private, when they seem, before entering
the community, to have made sufficient progress in the desire to lead a
virtuous life, they then introduce them, having privately formed one
class of those who are just beginners, and are being introduced, and
have not yet received the mark of complete purification; and another of
those who have manifested to the best of their ability the purpose of
desiring no other things than are approved by Christians Contra
Celsum, iii. c. 51. Cf. Const. Apost. viii.
32: “Let them be examined as to the causes wherefore they
come to the word of the Lord, and let those who bring them inquire
exactly about their character, and give them their testimony. Let
their manners and their life be inquired into, and whether they be
slaves or free,” &c. S. Aug. De
Symbolo, Serm. ad Catechumenos, § 1: “Ye have not
yet been born again by holy Baptism, but by the sign of the Cross ye
have been already conceived in the womb of your mother the
Church.”
We have a description by Eusebius Vita Const. iv. c.
60.
Another ceremony used in the admission of
Catechumens, at least in some Churches, mentioned by S.
Augustine De Peccatorum
meritis, ii. 42. Antiq. X. ii.
§ 16.
In the African Church in the time of S. Augustine it was customary to anoint the new convert with exorcised oil at the time of his admission, but in the Eastern Church there seems to have been no such anointing until immediately before Baptism.
Persons who had been thus admitted to the class of
Catechumens were usually regarded as Christians, but only in a lower
degree, being still clearly distinguished from the Faithful.
“Ask a man, Art thou a Christian? If he is a Pagan or a
Jew, he answers, I am not. But if he say, I am, you ask him
further, Catechumen or Faithful? If he answer, Catechumen, he has
been anointed, but not yet baptized S. August. In
Joh. Evang. Tract. xliv. § 2. Serm. xlvi.
de Pastoribus, c. 13: Tertull. de Præscriptione
Hæret. c. 41: “Imprimis quis Catechumenus, quis
Fidelis, in certum est.”
Whether Cyril calls his hearers Christians before they had been baptized is not very clear: in Cat. x. § 16, he seems to include them among those who are called by the “new name;” but in § 20 of the same Lecture he assumes that there may be present some one who “was before a believer (πιστός),” and to him he says “Thou wert called a Christian; be tender of the name,” and in Lect. xxi. i, speaking to those who had now been baptized, he says, “Having therefore become partakers of Christ, ye are properly called Christs. Now ye have been made Christs by receiving the antitype of the Holy Ghost,” that is, Chrism.
§ 4. Candidates for
Baptism. Bingham, who himself makes four classes or degrees
of Catechumens, acknowledges that “the Greek expositors of the
ancient Canons,” and other writers, “usually make but two
sorts Ant. X. ii.
1–5. The Council of Nicæa, Canon xiv., seems to speak
only of two classes. Const. Apost. viii.
§ 6.
The period of probation and instruction varied at
different times and places: according to Canon 42 of the Synod of
Elvira, 305, it was to be two years: “He who has a good
name, Hefele,
Councils, i. p. 155. Const. Apost. viii. 32:
“Let him that is to be instructed be a catechumen three
years.” Procat. §
1.
This preliminary “call to service”
must be distinguished from the actual enlistment in the Christian army
at Baptism, in anticipation of which Cyril prays for his hearers that
God “may enlist them in His service, and put on them the armour
of righteousness Ib. § 17. See Cat. i. 3; iii. 3, 13;
iv. 36, xvii. 36; xxi. 4.
The next step for those who responded to the call was
the registration of names (ὀνοματογραφία
) Procat. §
1. Antiq. X. ii.
§ 6. Procat. §
6. Cat. i. 4.
Again, “How great a dignity the Lord bestows
on you in transferring you from the order of Catechumens to that of the
Faithful, the Apostle Paul shews, when he affirms, God is
faithful Ib. v. 1.
Two passages in S. Cyril have been thought to
imply that the newly-admitted Candidates for Baptism carried lighted
torches in procession, perhaps on the first Sunday after the
registration. He speaks of their having received “torches
of the bridal procession λαμπάδες
νυμφαγωγίας, Procat. § 1. Cat. i. § 1.
Others are of opinion that the custom of carrying
torches or tapers was observed only in the procession of the
newly-baptized from the Baptistery to the Church Bingham,
Ant. X. ii. § 15. Dict. Chr. Antiq.
Vol. ii. p. 995, note.
§ 5. φωτιζόμενοι. In the first words of his Introductory Lecture Cyril addresses his hearers as οἱ φωτιζόμενοι, “Ye who are being enlightened,” and from the Titles of the Catechetical Lectures i.–xviii., we see that this name was constantly used to distinguish the candidates preparing for immediate Baptism.
The Verb φωτίζω is frequently
used by the LXX., both in a physical and in a spiritual sense. In
the New Testament it is found but rarely in the physical sense
In two passages of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the
Aorist (φωτισθέντας
) marks “the decisive moment when the light was apprehended in
its glory Westcott,
“Hebrews,” vi. 4; x. 32.
That the word began very early to be used in this
new sense, is evident from Justin Martyr’s explanation of it in
his First Apology, c. 61; where, after speaking of instruction
in Christian doctrine, of the profession of faith, and the promise of
repentance and holy living, as the necessary preparations for Baptism,
he thus proceeds: “And this washing is called Illumination
(σωτισμός),
because they who learn these things are illuminated in their
understanding. ὡςφωτιζομένων
τὴν διάνοιαν
τῶν ταῦτα
μανθανόντων. Strom. V. c. 2,
§ 15. Strom. V. c. x.
§ 65. Cf. V. c. viii. § 49.
That this is the sense in which Cyril uses the
word is placed beyond doubt by a passage of the Lecture delivered
immediately before the administration of Baptism: “that
your soul being previously illuminated (προφωτιζομένης
) by the word of doctrine, ye may in each particular discover the
greatness of the gifts bestowed on you by God Cat. xviii. §
32.
We thus see that the Present Participle (φωτιζόμενοι)
describes a process of gradual illumination during the course of
instruction, to be completed in Baptism, a sense which is well
expressed in the Latin Gerundive “Illuminandi.” And
as we have seen that the candidates are addressed as οἱ
φωτιζόμενοι
even before the course of instruction has commenced, the
quasi-Future sense “follows necessarily from the context Cf. Winer,
Grammar of N.T. Greek, Sect. xl. 22, note 3.
The spiritual “Illumination,” of which
Baptism was to be the completion and the seal, thus became by a natural
development one of the recognised names of Baptism itself. On the
contrary, the inverse process assumed by the Benedictine Editor is
entirely unnatural. Starting from the later ecclesiastical use of
φωτίζω and
φωτισμός as
connoting Baptism, he supposes that this was the first application of
those terms, and that they were transferred to the previous
illumination acquired by instruction in Christian truth, only because
this was a necessary preparation for Baptism. He therefore
maintains that φωτιζόμενοι
throughout the Catechetical Lectures is another term for βαπτιζόμενοι: and as a decisive proof of this he refers to Cat. xvi.
26: μέλλει δὲ
καὶ ἐπὶ σὲ
τὸν
βαπτιζόμενον
φθάνειν ἡ
χάρις, not observing that the grace is
to come upon “the person being baptized” at a time still
future. This meaning of the passage is made absolutely certain by
the words which immediately follow,—“But in what manner I
say not, for I will not anticipate the proper season.” We
may conclude, therefore, that in Cyril’s Lectures the term
οἱ
φωτιζόμενοι
refers to the preparatory course of enlightenment rather than to
Baptism. At the same time we must remember that in Cyril’s
day, and long before, φωτίζω, φωτισμός, and
φώτισμα
were constantly used to denote Baptism Pædag. I.
vi. § 25. (Syllb. 41). Orat. xl. §
4.
Chapter III.—Special Preparation for Baptism.
§ 1. Penitence. The
candidate for Baptism, having been duly admitted and registered, was
required not only to be diligent in attending the course of
Catechetical instruction Procat. §
9: “Let thy feet haste to the Catechisings,” §
10: “Abide thou in the Catechisings: though our
discourse be long, let not thy mind be wearied out.” Cf.
Cat. i. 5. De
Baptismo, c. 20. Cf. Justin M. Apol. I. c. 61;
Const. Apost. vii. 22.
On these subjects Cyril’s teaching is
earnest, wise, and sympathetic: he seeks to lead to repentance by
gentle persuasion, and pleads for self-discipline as needful for the
good of the soul Compare his
teaching on Prayer, Procat. § 16; Cat. ix. 7: and on
Fasting Cat. iv. 27, 37; xviii. 17. Cat. i. Cat. ii.
§ 2. Confession. ᾽Εξομολόγησις. Great stress is laid by Cyril on the necessity not only of sincere inward repentance, but also of open confession. The words ἐξομολογεῖσθαι, ἐξομολόγησις have a twofold meaning and a wide application.
(1.) In the Septuagint they occur very frequently,
especially in the Psalms, in the sense of “giving thanks or
praise” (Heb. הדוּה)
S. Chrysostom, commenting on the words,
“I will give thanks unto Thee, O Lord
(2.) In the sense of
“confessing” sins, the Verb is not uncommon in the
N.T. Irenæus, I.
xiii. § 5; III. iv. § 3; Clem. Alex. Protrept. ii.
§ 41: ἐξομολογοῦνται
οἱ δαίμονες
τὴν
γαστριμαργίαν
τὴν αὑτῶν. De
Pœnitentia, c. xii.
Again, speaking of the outward act of repentance, he
says: “This act, which is more usually expressed and
commonly spoken of under a Greek name, is ἐξομολόγησις, whereby we confess our sins to the Lord, not indeed as if He were
ignorant of them, but inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is
appointed, and of confession repentance is born, and God appeared by
repentance. Accordingly exomologesis is a discipline for
man’s prostration and humiliation, enjoining a demeanour
calculated to move mercy. With regard also to the very dress and
food, it commands (the penitent) to lie in sackcloth and ashes…to
know no food and drink but such De
Pœnitentia, c. ix.
In this highly rhetorical description of the
ecclesiastical discipline so dear to Tertullian there are many features
of extreme severity to which Cyril makes no allusion; yet he frequently
and very earnestly insists on the necessity and the efficacy of
confession. “The present is the season of confession:
confess what thou hast done in word or in deed, by night or by day;
confess in an acceptable time, and in the day of salvation
receive the heavenly treasure Cat. i. § 5. Ib. § 6. Ib. § 11.
“Ezekias prevailed to the cancelling of
God’s decree, and cannot Jesus grant remission of sins?
Turn and bewail thyself, shut thy door, and pray to be forgiven, pray
that He may remove from thee the burning flames. For confession
has power to quench even fire, power to tame even lions Cat. ii. 15. For
similar statements, see Cat. i. 2; ii. 19, 20, &c.
The confession to which Cyril attaches so high a
value, whether made in the privacy of solitude, or openly before the
Ministers of the Church and the Congregation, is a confession to God,
and not to man. “Having therefore, brethren, many examples
of those who have sinned and repented and been saved, do ye also
heartily make confession unto the Lord Cat. ii. § 20. Ib. v. § 2. Ib. xviii. 14.
§ 3. Exorcism. One of the
earliest ceremonies, after the registration of names, was Exorcism,
which seems to have been often repeated during the Candidate’s
course of preparation. “Receive with earnestness the
exorcisms: whether thou be breathed upon or exorcised, the act is
to thee salvation Procat. §
9.
The power of casting out devils, promised by our
Lord Apologia I.
§§ 6, 8; Tryph. lxxxv. De Idolol.
c. xi.; de Corona Mil. xi.; de Anima, lvii. de
Spectac. xxvi.; de Præscript. Hæret.
xli. Contra Celsum,
vii. c. 57. Const. Apost.
viii. 26. Euseb. H.
E. vi. 43; Syn. Antioch. in Encæniis, Can. 10: Syn.
Laod. Can. 24. Origen, Contra
Cels. iv. c. 34 (p. 184).
Accordingly, when an exorcist was ordained the
Bishop was directed to give him the book in which the exorcisms were
written, with the words, “Receive thou these, and commit them to
memory, and have thou power to lay hands upon the Energumens, whether
they be baptized or only Catechumens Fourth Council of
Carthage, Can. 7 (a.d. 398). De Nupt. et
Concup. II. § 33: de Pecc. Orig. § 45;
contra aulian Pelag. VI. § 11; Op. Imperf. c.
Julian. I. § 50; III. § 144, &c. De Symbolo,
§ 2. Cf. Cat. xx. (Myst. ii.) § 2.
We find accordingly that Cyril enforces the duty
of attending the Exorcisms on all the candidates alike, and from his
use of the Plural (Exorcisms) we see that the ceremony was often
repeated for each person. Thus in the Clementine Homilies Peter
is represented as saying, “Whoever of you wish to be baptized,
begin from to-morrow to fast, and each day have hands laid upon
you Hom. iii. c.
73. Orig. in Josu. xxiv.
§ 1: “exorcistarum manus impositione.” Procat. §
13. Ib. § 14. Aug. Sermo de
Symb. ii. § 1: “ut ex locis secretis singuli
produceremini.” This may possibly refer only to the final
exorcism immediately before Baptism. Cat. xiii. 8: xv.
33; xviii. 16, &c.
At Antioch, the Catechizing preceded the Exorcism,
as we learn from S. Chrysostom: “After you have heard our
instruction, they take off your sandals, and unclothe you, and send you
on naked and barefoot, with your tunic only, to the utterances of the
Exorcists Ad Illuminandos,
Cat. i. § 2. Procat. §
9. S. Aug.
Serm. 376. “Hodie octavæ dicuntur Infantium;
revelanda sunt capita eorum, quod est indicium libertatis. Habet
enim libertatem ista spiritualis nativitas, propriæ autem carnis
nativitas servitutem.”
In the Greek Euchologion, as quoted by Kleopas,
the act of the Exorcist is thus described: “And the Priest
breathes upon his mouth, his forehead, and his breast, saying, Drive
forth from him every evil and unclean spirit, hidden and lurking in his
heart, the spirit of error, the spirit of wickedness Procat. §
14.
Apologet. c.
23.
The Exorcisms were performed in the Church; where
also the Lectures were delivered, Catechumens of the lower order being
excluded, “and the doors looking towards the city closed Procat. §
9. Cat. xiii. 23:
“Thou seest this spot of Golgotha? Thou answerest with a
shout of praise, as if assenting.”
Chapter IV.—Ceremonies of Baptism and Chrism.
§ 1. Renunciation. We have
seen that Cyril’s last Catechetical Lecture was delivered in the
early dawn of the Great Sabbath, Easter Eve. The additional
instructions then promised Cat. xviii. §
32,
The first act was the renunciation of the Devil
and all his works. This, as described by Tertullian, was done
first in the Church “under the hand of the Bishop,” and
again immediately before entering the water De. Cor. Mil. c.
3. Myst. i. §
2. § 4. § 5. § 6. § 8.
§ 2. Profession of Faith.
After the renunciation of Satan the Candidate immediately turned to the
East and said, “And I associate myself (συντάσσομαι
) with Christ.” Cyril does not give the words, but seems to
allude to the custom, when he speaks of the Candidates “turning
from the West to the East, the place of light § 9, note 3.
Then, still facing the East, the Candidate was
bidden to say, “I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in
the Holy Ghost, and in one Baptism of repentance Compare xviii. 22:
“One Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”
Such appears to have been the custom of the Eastern Churches in general and of Jerusalem in Cyril’s time, although he mentions only those articles of the Creed which were commonly held to be indispensable to a valid profession of Christian belief.
Dr. Swainson Creeds of the
Church, p. 17.
It is evident that two separate parts of the Baptismal Service are here confused: the question to which Dr. Swainson alludes, and “the saving confession” of which Cyril speaks in Mystag. ii. § 4, belong, as we shall presently see, to a later stage of the ceremony.
§ 3. First Unction. On
passing from the outer to the inner chamber of the Baptistery, the
Candidate who had made his renunciation and profession barefoot and
wearing his tunic (Χιτών) Pseudo-Dionysius
Areopag. Eccl. Hierarch. iii. Mystag. ii.
§ 2. This passage has
recently (1891) acquired a special interest from the controversy
concerning Mr. Calderon’s picture, representing St. Elisabeth of
Hungary as kneeling naked before the altar. The word
“naked” (γυμνός, nudus) is not in
itself decisive, but here in St. Cyril’s account of Baptism
absolute nakedness seems to be implied; for though women sometimes wore
an under-tunic (χιτώνιον), men
had nothing beneath the tunic proper (χιτών), which is here said to be
put off. According to Theophylact, on
“Then, when ye were stripped, ye were
anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs your head to your
feet Ib. § 3. Const. Apost.
vii. c. 42.
Bingham’s observation, that Cyril describes
this first unction as used “between the renunciation and the
confession Ant. XI. c. 9,
§ 1. Ephes. i. Hom. i.
§ 3.
This first unction is not mentioned by Tertullian,
nor in any genuine work of Justin Martyr, but in the Responsiones ad
Orthodoxos, a work which though still early is regarded as
certainly spurious, we find the question put, “Why are we first
anointed with oil, and then, having performed the before-mentioned
symbolic acts in the Laver, are afterwards sealed with the ointment,
and do not regard this as done in opposition to what took place in our
Lord’s case, who was first anointed with ointment and then
suffered Quæstio
137.
Cyril attributes to this “exorcised
oil” the same power as to Exorcism itself, “not only to
burn and cleanse away the traces of sin, but also to chase away all the
invisible powers of the evil one Mystag. ii.
§ 3.
According to the directions concerning this first
unction in the Apostolical Constitutions Lib. iii. c. 15.
§ 4. Baptism. After this
anointing the Candidates were “led by the hand to the sacred pool
of Holy Baptism Mystag. ii.
§ 4.
As great multitudes both of men and women were
baptized at the special seasons, the Baptisteries were large buildings
outside the Church, such as the Baptistery of the Lateran, said to have
been originally built by Constantine. The font itself also was
large enough for several persons to be baptized at the same time.
In some places the men were baptized first, and then the women:
in others different parts of the Baptistery were assigned to them, and
curtains were hung across the Font itself Bingham,
Ant. VIII. c. 7, § 2; XI. c. 11, § 3.
The consecration of the water is not mentioned in
the Didache or Justin Martyr; but Tertullian thus describes its
effect: “The waters after invocation of God acquire the
sacramental power of sanctification; for immediately the Spirit comes
down from heaven upon the waters, and rests upon them, sanctifying them
from Himself, and they being thus sanctified imbibe a power of
sanctifying De Baptismo, c.
iv.
In the prayer of consecration given in the
Apostolic Constitutions the Bishop is directed first to offer adoration
and thanksgiving to the Father and Son, and then to call upon the
Father and say: “Look down from heaven, and sanctify this
water, and give it grace and power, that so he that is to be baptized,
according to the command of Thy Christ, may be crucified with Him, and
may die with Him, and may be buried with Him, and may rise with Him to
the adoption which is in Him, that he may be dead to sin, and live to
righteousness VII. c. 43.
Cyril ascribes the like effect to the consecration
of the water, as imparting to it a new power of holiness by “the
invocation of the Holy Ghost, and of Christ, and of the Father Cat. iii. §
3. See also Introduction, ch. vi. § 2.
While standing in the water the Candidate made what
Cyril calls “the saving con Mystag. ii.
§ 4.
§ 5. Trine Immersion. This
short confession appears to have been ‘made by way of question
and answer thrice repeated. “Thou wast asked, Dost thou
believe in God the Father Almighty? Thou saidst, I believe, and
dippedst thyself, that is, wast buried. Again thou wast asked,
Dost thou believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and in His Cross? Thou
saidst, I believe, and dippedst thyself; therefore thou wast buried
with Christ also: for he who is buried with Christ, rises again
with Christ. A third time thou wast asked, Dost thou believe also
in the Holy Ghost? Thou saidst, I believe, a third time thou
dippedst thyself; that the threefold confession might absolve the
manifold fault of thy former life Pseudo-Ambros.
de Sacramentis, II. c. 7. Ant. XI. c. 7,
§ 11.
In which of these ways the threefold interrogation
(“usitata et legitima verba interrogationis”) was made at
Jerusalem, is not quite certain from Cyril’s words:
“Each was asked, Dost thou believe in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and ye made that saving confession,
and went down thrice into the water Mystag.
iii. § 4. Cap. vii. Apolog. I. c. De Baptismo, c.
vi. Mystag. ii.
§ 4, note 3.
We see here that the power of administering
Baptism was not restricted to the Bishop: and Cyril speaks of it
as possessed by “Bishops, or Presbyters, or Deacons,”
assigning as the reason the great increase of believers, “for the
grace is everywhere, in villages and in cities, on them of low as on
them of high degree, on bondsmen and on freemen Cat. xvii. 35.
Thus the rule of Ignatius Ad Smyrn. c.
viii.
Of certain minor ceremonies connected with
Baptism, such as the “Kiss of peace,” and the taste of milk
and honey administered to the neophyte Bingham,
Ant. XII. c. 4, §§ 5, 6.
§ 6. Chrism. The custom of
anointing the baptized with consecrated ointment is regarded by Cyril
as a sacramental act representing the anointing of Jesus by the Spirit
at His Baptism. “As the Holy Ghost in substance lighted on
Him, like resting upon like, so, after you had come up from the pool of
the sacred waters, there was given to you an unction the counterpart
(τὸ
ἀντίτυπον)
of that wherewith He was anointed, and this is the Holy Ghost Mystag. iii.
§ 1. Mystag. iii.
§ 2. Ad Autolycum,
i. De Bapt. c.
7. Ib. c. 8. De Resurr.
Carnis, c. 8.
The consecration of the ointment is compared by Cyril to
the consecration of the Eucharist; after the invocation of the Holy
Ghost it is no longer simple or common ointment, but a gift
(Χάρισμα) of
Christ, and by the presence of the Holy Ghost is able to impart of His
Divine Nature. And this ointment is symbolically applied to thy
forehead, and thy other organs of sense Ib. § 3.
The ears, nostrils, and breast were each to be
anointed, and Cyril explains the symbolical meaning in each case by
appropriate passages of Scripture Myst. iii. §
4.
The consecration of the chrism could be performed
by none but the Bishop, and he alone could anoint the forehead Apost. Const.
iii. § 16: “Let the Bishop anoint those that are
baptized with ointment (μύρῳ).” See the
authorities in Bingham, Ant. xii. c. 2, §§ 1,
2. iii. 17. Const. Apost.
vii. c. 22.
In like manner the chrism is explained again,
“The ointment is the seal of the covenants Ib. vii. c. 43.
Cf. Cat. iii. 17.
The members to be anointed were not the same in
all Churches, but everywhere the chief ceremony was the anointing of
the forehead with the sign of the Cross. This is what Cyril calls
“the Royal Sign Cat. iv. § 14. Ib. xii. § 8. Ib. xviii. 33.
These last were probably the very words pronounced by the Bishop in making the sign of the Cross on the forehead, for by Canon 7 of the Second General Council at Antioch (381), converts from heretical sects were to be “sealed or anointed with the holy ointment on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears. And in sealing them we say, ‘The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.’”
An additional prayer to be said by the Bishop is
given in the Apostolical Constitutions vii. c. 44.
The whole ceremony was called by the Greeks “Chrism,” the “Unction” being regarded by them as the chief part. In the Latin Church the name Confirmation is of later date, and indicates that greater importance was then attached to the “Laying on of Hands” with prayer.
Const. Apost.
vii. c. 44.
Chapter V.—Eucharistic Rites. Liturgy.
§ 1. First Communion. When the rites of Baptism and Chrism were completed, the new-made Christians, clothed in white robes (Myst. iv. 8), and bearing each a lighted taper in his hand, passed in procession from the Baptistery into the great “Church of the Resurrection.” The time was still night, as we gather from the allusion in Procat., § 15: “May God at length shew you that night, that darkness which shines like the day, concerning which it is said, darkness shall not be hidden from thee, and the night shall be light as the day.” As the newly-baptized entered the church, they were welcomed in the words of the 32nd Psalm. “Even now,” says Cyril (Procat., § 15), “let your ears ring, as it were, with that glorious sound, when over your salvation the Angels shall chant, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; when like stars of the Church you shall enter in, bright in the body and radiant in the soul.” During the chanting of the Psalm the neophytes seem to have stood in front of the raised ‘bema’ or sanctuary, as we learn from Cyril’s eloquent contemporary, Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. XL. § 46: “The station in which presently after Baptism thou wilt stand before the great sanctuary prefigures the glory from yonder heaven; the psalmody, with which thou wilt be welcomed, is a prelude of those heavenly hymns; the lamps, which thou wilt light, are a mystic sign of the procession of lights, with which bright and virgin souls shall go forth to meet the Bridegroom, with the lamps of faith burning brightly.”
From the Syriac “Treatise of Severus, formerly Patriarch of Alexandria (Antioch), concerning the rites of Baptism and of Holy Communion (Synaxis) as received among the Syrian Christians” (Resch, Agrapha, § 12, p. 361); we learn that it was the custom “to lift up the newly-baptized to the altar, and after giving them the mysteries the Bishop (Sacerdos) crowned them with garlands.”
The white garments (Procat., § 2: Mystag., iv. 88) were worn until the Octave of Easter, Low Sunday, Dominica in Albis (Bingham, XII. c. iv. § 3).
§ 2. The Liturgy. In Cyril’s last Lecture, Mystagogic V., he reminds his hearers of what they had witnessed at their first Communion on Easter-day, and thus gives a most valuable testimony to the prescribed form of administering the Holy Eucharist in the Eastern Church in the middle of the fourth century.
Passing over all the preparatory portion of the Liturgy,
he tells us first that the Deacon brings water to the Bishop or Priest
(τῷ
ἱερεῖ) and to the Presbyters
who stand round the altar, that they may wash their hands in token of
the need of purification from sin; a ceremony which evidently had
reference to the words of the Psalmist, “I will wash mine hands
in innocency; so will I compass Thine altar, O Lord Mystag. v. §
2. Dict. Chr. Ant.
“Lavabo.”
“Then the Deacon cries aloud, Receive ye one
another: and let us salute (ἀσπαζώμεθα
) one another.” In the Clementine Liturgy Apost. Const.
viii. c. 11.
Apost.
Const. viii. c. 11. Compare Justin M. Apolog. I.
c. 65.
“After this the Priest (ἱερεύς) cries aloud, Lift
up your hearts. Then ye answer, We lift them up unto the
Lord Mystag. v. §
4.
The meaning of this Preface, as explained by
Cyril, is an exhortation by the Priest, or Bishop when present, and a
promise by the people, to raise all their thoughts to God on high, in
preparation for the great Thanksgiving to which they were further
invited: “Let us give thanks unto the
Lord,”—“It is meet and right § 5.
Then follows a very brief summary of the
Eucharistic Preface, and after that the Trisagion § 6. Apost.
Const. viii. c. 12. See the Eucharistic Preface of the
Liturgy of S. James in note 4 on Mystag. v. § 6.
It is important to observe how S. Cyril in this
and the following sections associates the people with the Priest, using
throughout the Plural “We.” That this is intentional
and significant, we may learn from a passage of S. Chrysostom In Epist. II. ad
Cor. Homil. xviii. § 3.
It is remarkable that in Cyril’s account of the
Eucharistic rites in this Lecture there is not the slightest reference
to the words of Institution, though these hold so prominent a place
before the Invocation both in the Clementine Liturgy and in the Liturgy
of S. James. But we cannot justly assume, from a mere omission in
so brief a summary, that the Commemoration of the Institution had no
place in the Liturgy then in use at Jerusalem. It seems more
probable that Cyril did not think it necessary, after his repeated
references to the Institution in the preceding Lecture, to make further
mention of a custom so well known as the recitation of Christ’s
own words in the course of the Prayer preceding the Invocation.
On Mystag. iv.
§ 1. Ib. § 6: see
also § 7.
In the Didaché, which gives the oldest
elements of an Eucharistic Service, there is neither the Commemoration
nor the Invocation, but only two short and simple forms of Thanksgiving
“for the Holy Vine of David,” and “for the broken
Bread Capp. ix., x.
Justin Martyr seems to imply that the consecration is
effected by the Commemoration of Christ’s own words in the
Institution: “We have been taught,” he says,
“that the food which is blessed by the prayer of the word which
comes from Him (τὴν
δι᾽ εὐχῆς
λόγου τοῦ παρ
αὐτοῦ
εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν
τροφήν), and by which our
blood and flesh are by transmutation nourished, is the Flesh and Blood
of that Jesus who was made Flesh.” He gives no separate
Invocation of the Holy Ghost, but this may have been supplied in the
“praise and glory” or in the “prayer and
thanksgivings” sent up “to the Father of all through the
name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Apol. I. cc.
65–67.
Irenæus is apparently the earliest writer who
represents the Invocation of the Holy Ghost as the immediate act of
consecration: “We make an oblation to God of the bread and
the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks for that He has commanded the
earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then,
having completed the oblation, we call forth (ἐκκαλοῦμεν
) the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread
the Body of Christ, and the cup the Blood of Christ, in order that the
partakers of these antitypes may obtain the remission of sins and life
eternal Frag.
xxxviii.
Mr. Hammond writes that, “By the Oriental
Churches an Invocation of the Holy Spirit is considered necessary to
complete the consecration. In the three Oriental Families of
Liturgies such an Invocation is invariably found shortly after the
Words of Institution Liturgies, p.
382.
It is in accordance with this statement that, we
find Cyril so frequently declaring that the elements which before the
Invocation are simple bread and wine, become after the Invocation the
Body and Blood of Christ Mystag. v. i.
§ 7; iii. § 3; v. § 7.
Cyril next describes the Invocation as
“completing the Spiritual Sacrifice, the bloodless
Service,” and then gives a summary of the “Great
Intercession” as made “over that Sacrifice of the
Propitiation.” The Intercession, as represented by Cyril,
is not simply a prayer, but an offering of the Sacrifice Mystag. v. §
8: ταύτην
προσφέρομεν
τὴν θυσίαν. Hammond,
Liturgy of S. James, p. 43. Ib. p. 115.
In some particulars Cyril’s summary agrees
most nearly with the Clementine Liturgy, as, for example, in the prayer
“for the King and those in authority, and for the whole army,
that they may be at peace with us Ib. p. 18. Hammond,
Liturgy of S. James, p. 44.
Cyril next describes the commemoration of departed
Saints, and “of all who in past years have fallen asleep among
us,” that is, in the bosom of the Church, and states his belief
“that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the
supplication is put up while that holy and most awful Sacrifice is
presented § 9. § 10.
There is nothing here, nor in the Clementine Liturgy, nor in that of S. Mark, corresponding to the purpose which Cyril ascribes to the commemoration, “that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition.” In the Anaphora of S. Chrysostom contained in the later form of the Liturgy of Constantinople we find, apparently for the first time, this prayer added to the commemoration of all Saints, “at whose supplications look upon us, O God.”
There was much controversy on the subject of
prayers for the dead in Cyril’s time, and the objections which he
notices were brought into prominence by Ærius, and rebuked by
Epiphanius Hæres.
lxxv. § 7. Cf. Bingh. Ant. XV. c. 3, § 16;
Dict Chr. Biog. “Aerius.”
From the commemoration of the departed Cyril
passes at once to the Lord’s Prayer Mystag. V. §
11.
“After this the Bishop says, Holy things for
holy men Ib. § 19. Hom. xvii. in
Hebr. These Homilies were edited after Chrysostom’s
death.
In regard to the doctrinal significance of the
formula, Dr. Waterland’s remarks should be consulted A Review of the
Doctrine of the Eucharist, c. x.
The response of the people to the “Sancta
Sanctis” is given by Cyril § 19.
“After this,” says Cyril, “ye
hear the chanter inviting you with a sacred melody to the Communion of
the Holy Mysteries, and saying, O taste and see that the Lord is
good § 20.
On Cyril’s directions for receiving the
Bread and the Cup with due reverence, see the footnotes on the
passages §§ 21, 22.
His final injunction to remain for the prayer and thanksgiving is taken from that in the Clementine Liturgy: “Having partaken of the precious Body and the precious Blood of Christ, let us give thanks to Him who hath counted us worthy to partake of His holy Mysteries.” The thanksgiving, benediction, concluding prayers, and dismissal, vary much in the different Liturgies.
Chapter VI.—Effects of Baptism and of Chrism.
§ 1. Baptism. When we try to ascertain the exact relation between Baptism and the Unction or Chrism which immediately followed, we find that Cyril’s teaching on the subject has been understood in very different senses. By some he is thought to regard the Unction as being merely an accessory rite of the one great Sacrament of Baptism; to others he seems to draw a clear distinction between them, assigning to each its proper grace and efficacy.
The former view is stated by the Oxford editor, Milles,
in his note on the words: “And in like manner to you also,
after you had come up from the pool of the sacred waters, there was
given an unction, a figure (ἀντίτυπον
) of that with which Christ was anointed; and that is the Holy
Ghost Mystag. iii.
§ 1.
This opinion is elaborately discussed by the
Benedictine editor, Touttée, Dissertatio iii. c. 7, who
argues that the Unction described by Cyril is a Sacrament distinct from
Baptism, that it has for its proper grace the gift of the Holy Spirit,
and further that this gift is not conferred in Baptism. Of these
assertions the first and second appear to represent Cyril’s view
correctly: the last is an exaggeration and a mistake, the
tendency of which is to identify the Chrism of the Eastern Church with
that which is used in Confirmation by the Roman Church, and to exalt
the rite of Confirmation as a proper Sacrament distinct from Baptism,
and even superior to it. A view differing in some respects from
both of these has been recently put forward by a learned and devout
writer of our own Church, who has fully discussed the teaching of Cyril
and other Eastern Fathers, and gives the result of his investigation in
the following “Summary A. J. Mason, D.D.,
The Relation of Confirmation to Baptism, p. 389. Though I
find myself compelled to differ widely from my friend Canon Mason in
the interpretation of Cyril’s teaching on this subject, I cannot
refrain from expressing my sincere admiration of the tone and purpose
of his treatise, and of the learning and research which it
exhibits.
When we come to inquire how far these several
theories agree with the teaching of Cyril himself, we must in the
outset put aside altogether the name Confirmation: for as
applied to the Unction used in the Eastern Church it is only confusing
and misleading. In the early ages of the Church
Confirmation was not known even by name. In the Latin
Church “neither Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome,
nor any of the Latin Fathers, makes mention of Confirmation in
this sense. Nor have the Greeks any word to answer to this Latin
term Suicer,
Thesaurus, Χρίσμα.
We may add that in Cyril’s account of Chrism it is wholly unconnected with Confirmation, both in its symbolic reference and in its outward form. Chrism, he says, is the antitype of the Unction of Christ by the Holy Ghost at His Baptism: Confirmation is universally admitted to have been a following of the Apostles in their laying on of hands. But in that Apostolic rite there was no unction, and in Chrism there was no such laying on of hands.
In several passages Cyril clearly distinguishes the outward form of Baptism from the spiritual grace.
“If thy body be here, but not thy mind, it
profiteth thee nothing. Even Simon Magus once came to the
Laver: he was baptized, but was not enlightened; and though he
dipped his body in water, he enlightened not his heart with the
Spirit: his body went down and came up, but his soul was not
buried with Christ, nor raised with Him Procat. §
2.
It is impossible here to regard “the Spirit” as referring to the grace of Unction: for (1) Baptism was not accompanied by Unction in the time of the Apostles, and (2) we should thus make a false antithesis between the outward part of the one rite (“he dipped his body in water”), and the inward part of the other. Here, therefore, Cyril attributes enlightenment of the heart by the Spirit to Baptism apart from Unction, and at the same time lays stress upon the difference between the worthy and unworthy recipient of the outward form.
The importance of this difference is further enforced throughout the next two sections, and at the close of § 4 the distinction between the outward sign and inward grace of Baptism, strictly so called, is again asserted, “though the water will receive thee, the Spirit will not accept thee.”
“Some might suppose,” it is said,
“from these words that Cyril thought of water and the Spirit as
the sign and the thing signified in Baptism respectively, and a passage
in a later Lecture upon the subject of the Sacrament (of Baptism) at
first confirms that impression Mason, ubi
supr., p. 337.
To suppose that Cyril had any other thought in the
former passage, seems to me impossible for any ordinary reader, and the
later passage, not only at first, but more fully the longer it is
considered, confirms that impression beyond all doubt. The whole
quotation, including Cat. iii. §§ 3, 4, is too long to repeat
here, but may be read in its proper place.
Cat. iii. § 3. “Do not attend to the laver as mere water, but to the spiritual grace given along with the water”…“the mere water, receiving the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and of Christ, and of the Father, acquires a power of sanctity. For since man is a two-fold being composed of soul and body, the cleansing element also is two-fold, the incorporeal for the incorporeal, the bodily for the body. And the water cleanses the body, but the Spirit seals the soul, in order that having our hearts sprinkled by the Spirit, and our bodies washed with pure water, we may draw nigh to God. When, therefore, you are about to go down into the water do not pay attention to the mere nature of the water, but expect salvation by the operation of the Holy Ghost. For without both it is impossible for thee to be perfected.”
No words could state more clearly the distinction between the outward sign and the inward grace of Baptism, and the absolute necessity for both. There is no possible reference to Unction, but “the operation of the Holy Ghost” in cleansing and sealing the soul is unmistakably connected with Baptism as “the grace given with the water” (μετὰ τοῦ ὕδατος), and below, as “the seal by water” (τὴν δι᾽ ὕδατος σφραγῖδα), the latter phrase shewing that Baptism by water is the signum efficax of the grace in question.
Cyril then quotes our Lord’s words,
Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into
the kingdom of God, and explains them thus: “On the one
hand he who is being baptized (βαπτιζόμενος)
with the water, but has not had the Spirit vouchsafed to him
(καταξιωθείς),
has not the grace in perfection: on the other hand, even if a man
be distinguished for virtue in his deeds, but does not receive the seal
bestowed by means of water (τὴν
δι᾽ ὕδατος
σφραγῖδα), he
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Canon Mason,
whose translation I have followed, finds here a reference both to
Baptism and to Unction as “the first baptismal act and the
second,” and in support of this interpretation gives a second and
more emphatic version: “He who is in course of being
baptized with the water, but has not yet had the Spirit vouchsafed to
him, has not the grace in perfection.” This introduction of
the word “yet,” in order to represent a distinction
between two separate acts, is not justified either by the reading of
the older editions (οὐδὲ
τῷ ὕδατι
βαπτιζόμενος
μὴ
καταξιωθεὶς
δὲ τοῦ
Πνεύματος), nor by
that of Codices Monac. Roe, Casaub. adopted by Reischl (οὔτε ὁ
βεβαπτισμένος
κ.τ.λ.), nor by the Benedictine text
(οὔτε ὁ
βαπτιζόμενος
κ.τ.λ.). The obvious meaning of the
passage, with either reading, is that “the man who in Baptism did
not receive the Holy Spirit, has not the grace (of Baptism)
complete.” The Benedictine Editor in his elaborate argument
for regarding Chrism as a distinct sacrament Dissert. iii. c.
8.
A statement which is important in this connexion is found in Mystag. ii. § 6: “Let no one then suppose that Baptism is the grace of remission of sins only, or further of adoption, as the Baptism of John conferred only remission of sins; but as we know full well that it cleanses from sins and procures a gift of the Holy Spirit, so also it is a counterpart (ἀντίτυπον) of the sufferings of Christ.”
Here besides “the remission of sins, which
no man receiveth without the Holy Spirit Hooker,
E.P.V. lxvi. § 6.
If the “adoption” mentioned at the beginning
of this passage were identical (as Touttée thinks) with the
“gift of the Holy Ghost,” it would by no means follow that
Cyril here means to include Unction in Baptism. For the grace
which beyond all others is exclusively attached to Baptism, and not to
Unction, is the new birth, and this is “the new birth into
freedom Cat. i. 2. Ib. xvii. § 36.
“The Lord, preventing us according to His
loving-kindness, has granted repentance at Baptism, in order that we
may cast off the chief—nay, rather the whole burden of our sins,
and having received the seal by the Holy Ghost, may be made heirs of
eternal life Ib. iv. 37.
Again, after speaking of “the invocation of
grace having sealed the soul,” he adds: “Having gone
down dead in sins, thou comest up quickened in righteousness. For
if thou hast been united with the likeness of the Saviour’s
death, thou shalt also be deemed worthy of His
Resurrection Ib. iii. § 12.
From such language it is clear beyond question that in Cyril of Jerusalem, not to speak of other Oriental Fathers, the tendency is not “to consider Baptism by itself as a bare rite, benefiting the body alone, and dependent for its spiritual efficacy upon other actions after and before,” but as depending on the power of the Holy Ghost, and the sincerity of repentance and faith in man.
If further proof were needed, a glance at the Index under the word “Baptism” will shew the extraordinary richness, variety, and precision of Cyril’s teaching, as to the gifts of the Holy Ghost conferred therein.
§ 2. Chrism. When
spiritual blessings so many and so great have been ascribed to Baptism,
in what light, it may be asked, does Cyril regard the Unction which
follows? Does he treat it as being merely an additional ceremony
subordinate to Baptism, or as having for its own proper grace some
special gift of the Holy Ghost? We find no answer to this
question in the earlier course of Lectures Upon the supposed
allusion to Chrism in Cat. xvi. § 26, see below, p. xxxiv. Note on
Mystag. iii. § 1. Cat. xviii. §
33. Mystag. v. §
1.
The importance thus attached to Chrism is further shewn
in the fact that Cyril uses the very same language in reference to the
consecration of the ointment of Chrism and of the water of Baptism, and
of the Eucharistic elements. “The bread and wine of the
Eucharist before the Invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity are
simple (λιτός)
bread and wine, but after the Invocation the Bread becomes the Body and
the Wine the Blood of Christ Mystag. i. §
7. Cat. iii. § 3. Ibidem.
“But see thou suppose not this to be plain
(ψιλόν)
ointment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the Invocation
of the Holy Ghost is no longer simple (λιτός) bread, but the Body of
Christ; so also this holy ointment is no longer plain (ψιλόν) ointment, nor, as one
might say, common, after Invocation, but Christ’s gift of grace
(χάρισμα), and is
made effectual to impart the Holy Ghost by the presence of His own
Godhead Mystag. iii.
3.
The spiritual benefits which Cyril ascribes to the
Unction are set forth in the same Lecture. “This holy thing
is a spiritual safeguard of the body, and salvation of the soul”
(§ 7): it sanctifies all the organs of sense:
“the body is anointed with the visible ointment, and the soul is
sanctified by the Holy and Life-giving Spirit” (§ 3).
After being anointed the Christian is now entitled to that name in its
fullest sense Ib. iii. § 1.
In regard to the supposed identity of Chrism and
Confirmation, it is important to notice carefully how Cyril speaks of
the laying on of hands in the only passage where he mentions
it Cat. xvi. §§
25, 26.
He first illustrates the freedom of the Spirit,
and His independence of human agency, by the gift of prophecy to the
seventy elders, including Eldad and Medad: he then refers to the
gift of the spirit of wisdom to Joshua by the laying on of Moses’
hands
From this passage it has been inferred (i) that
Cyril alludes to a gift of the Spirit by laying on of hands in
immediate connexion with Baptism and Unction Touttée. Mason, p. 341, with
note.
(1) The first of these inferences is opposed
to the fact that Cyril neither mentions the laying on of hands as part
of the actual ceremonial in Baptism or Unction, nor as the analogous
rite in the old Testament, but on the contrary expressly says Mystag. iii.
6.
(2) In support of the second inference the
argument offered is as follows: “That the Spirit was to
come upon them in the course of their Baptism is here again clearly
stated; but that Cyril did not intend them to suppose that Baptism
itself would convey the gift is equally clear. Again and again in
earlier Lectures, as well as in the words actually before us, Cyril has
taught them to expect the gift in Baptism; if therefore the immersion
itself were to be the means of Mason, p. 341. Basil, apud
Bingham, X. 5, § 4.
“We bless,” says S. Basil De Spiritu S. c.
xxvii.
As these secret ceremonies of Baptism and Unction are revealed by Cyril only in the Mystagogic Lectures, the supposed reason for saying, that in Cat. xvi. 26, the promised gift of the Spirit refers not to Baptism but only to Unction, at once falls to the ground.
The true state of the case is well expressed by
Bingham Ant. X. v. §
4.
There is in fact no reason to exalt the benefits
of Unction, or Confirmation, by robbing Baptism of its proper
grace. “It was this Unction, as the completion of Baptism,
to which they ascribed the power of making every Christian in
some sense partaker of a royal priesthood. To it they also
ascribed the noble effects of confirming the soul with the strength of
all spiritual graces on God’s part, as well as the confirmation
of the profession and covenant made on man’s part Bingh. XII. iii.
§ 3. Cf. Apost. Const. III. c. 17. “This
Baptism therefore is into the death of Jesus: the water is
instead of the burial, and the oil instead of the Holy Ghost; the seal
instead of the Cross; the ointment is the confirmation of the
Confession.” VII. 22: “that the anointing
with oil may be the participation of the Holy Spirit, and the water the
symbol of the death, and the ointment the seal of the
covenants.”
Chapter VII.—Eucharistic Doctrine.
We have seen that Cyril makes the consecration of
sacramental elements in every case consist in the Invocation of the
Holy Ghost, after which the water of Baptism is no longer Cat. iii. § 3. Mystag. iii.
§ 3. Mystag. iii.
§ 3. In the same Lecture, § 7, the consecration of the
bread and wine is said to follow “the Invocation of the Holy and
Adorable Trinity.”
Upon these statements an argument against
Transubstantiation has been founded by Bishop Cosin The History of Popish
Transubstantiation, Ch. v. § 14. The Doctrine of the
Real Presence, pp. 277–281. The Nature of
Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist, p. 483. ᾽Αλλ᾽ ὅρα μὴ
ὑπονοήσῃς
ἐκεῖνο τὸ
μύρον ψιλὸν
εἶναι. ὥσπερ
γὰρ ὁ ἄρτος
τῆς
εὐχαριστίας
μετὰ τὴν
ἐπίκλησιν
τοῦ ἁγίου
Πνεύματος
οὐκ ἔτι ἄρτος
λιτός, ἀλλὰ
σῶμα Χριστοῦ,
οὕτω καὶ τὸ
ἅγιον τοῦτο
μύρον οὐκ ἔτι
ψιλόν, οὐδ᾽
ὡς ἂν εἴποι
τις κοινὸν
μετ᾽
ἐπίκλησιν,
ἀλλὰ Χριστοῦ
χάρισμα, καὶ
Πνεύματος
ἁγίου
παρουσίᾳ τῆς
αὐτοῦ
θεότητος
ἐνεργητικὸν
γινόμενον.
Bishop Cosin proceeds to argue thus: “Can anything more clear be said? Either the ointment is transubstantiated by consecration into the spirit and grace of Christ, or the bread and wine are not transubstantiated by consecration into the Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore as the ointment retains still its substance, and yet is not called a mere or common ointment, but the Chrism or grace of Christ: so the bread and wine remaining so, as to their substance, yet are not said to be only bread and wine common and ordinary, but also the Body and Blood of Christ.”
Notwithstanding the great authority of Bishop
Cosin, and the assent of Theologians of such opposite schools as Dr.
Pusey and Dean Goode, it must be admitted that the argument, even as
against Transubstantiation, is pressed beyond its just limits.
The identity of language extends only to two points, (1) the mode of
consecration by Invocation, (2) the effect negatively stated, that the
material element in each case is no longer simply a material
element. A change, therefore, of some kind has taken place, and
we have still to inquire how the change in each case is described by
Cyril. “The water acquires a power of sanctity,”
otherwise described as “the spiritual grace given with the
water Cat. iii. 3.
“The ointment is Christ’s gift of grace
(Χάρισμα), and
becomes effectual to impart by the presence of the Holy Ghost His
Divine Nature Mystag. iii.
3. On the translation see note on the passage. Ib. i. § 7.
There is here no such identity of language as would
justify the assertion that the change described is of the same nature
in each case, that because it leaves the substance of the water and the
ointment untouched, therefore the substance of the Bread also must,
according to Cyril, remain unchanged: this must be proved by
other arguments. We must also remember that if this argument
based upon the identity of the language used on the two sides of a
comparison is trustworthy, there is another passage in Cyril to which
it may be applied: “He once, in Cana of Galilee, changed
the water into wine akin to blood (οἰκεῖον
αἵματι) On this reading,
see Mystag. iv. § 2, note 4. Of
Transubstantiation, Ch. vi. § 14. Mystag. v. §
7.
There is, however, a passage which throws some light on Cyril’s conception of the change in Myst. iv. § 3: “In the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood, that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, His Body and His Blood being distributed to our members (εἰς τὰ ἡμέτερα ἀναδιδομένου μέλη).” Several good MSS read ἀναδεδεγμένοι, which would give the meaning, “having received of His Body and of His blood into our members.” This does not alter the general sense of the passage; but the reading ἀναδιδομένου is supported by another passage, Myst. v. § 15: “Our common bread is not substantial (ἐπιούσιος): but this Holy Bread is substantial, that is, appointed for the substance of the soul. This Bread goeth not into the belly and is not cast out into the draught, but is distributed (ἀναδίδοται) into thy whole system for the benefit of body and soul.”
In order to accommodate these passages to the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation the Benedictine Editor here introduces the idea of species, the outward forms or accidents of the bread. “We must not suppose,” he says, “that Cyril thought the Body of Christ to be divided and digested (digeri) into our body; but by a customary way of speaking he attributes to the Holy Body what is suitable only to the species which conceal it. And he does not deny that the species pass into the draught, but only that the Body of Christ does so.”
But Cyril draws no such distinction between the species and the Body of Christ: to him the Bread and Wine after consecration are the Body and the Blood of Christ. For how could it be said that the species, which in Transubstantiation are the mere outward accidents of bread and wine, are distributed into the whole system for the benefit of body and soul?
In whatever sense the bread and wine become by consecration the Body and Blood of Christ, in that same sense the Body and Blood of Christ are, according to Cyril, distributed to our whole system.
This was no new doctrine: Ignatius, Ephes. xxi., speaks of Christians as “breaking one Bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote that we should not die, but live for ever in Jesus Christ.” This is perhaps the earliest expression of the belief that the resurrection of the body is secured by the communion of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist. The manner in which this communion is effected is described by Justin Martyr (Apolog. I. § 66) in language which shews clearly what Cyril meant: “We do not receive these things as common bread and common drink: but in the same way as Jesus Christ our Saviour was made flesh by the Word of God, and took both flesh and blood for our salvation, so we have been taught that the food over which thanksgiving has been made by prayer in the word received from Him (τὴν δι᾽ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφήν), from which (food) our blood and flesh are by transmutation (κατὰ μεταβολήν) nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of Him the Incarnate Jesus.”
Here it is plainly taught that by consecration the Bread
and Wine have become the Flesh and Blood of Christ, and that as such
they nourish our “blood and flesh” (observe the
The meaning is, as Otto says in his note,
“that the divine food passes away into our bodies entire, so that
nothing remains:” and Dr. Pusey seems to take the same
view, in his note on the words, “from which (food) through
transmutation our blood and flesh are nourished:
“i.e. the material parts are changed into the substance of
the human body Real Presence, p.
144. See note 8, below.
Thus then, according to Cyril, the Eucharistic
Body and Blood of Christ are distributed to all our members; His Flesh
and Blood pass by a change into our blood and flesh, and we thereby
become “of the same body and the same blood with Him Mystag. iv.
§§ 1, 3. Ib. v. § 15. See Pusey, R.
P. p. 151, note 3: “Dr. Gaisford, on my applying to
him, kindly answered me,—῾συναναλίσκεσθαι.
It appears to me that this word can only be explained by a
periphrasis. The writer appears to me to mean that the elements
are not thrown off like ordinary food, but that they become blended or
assimilated to the body, and waste away as the body wastes
away.’ Mr. Field gives the same meaning.
However much this view of the Sacramental mystery may
differ from later theories, it was certainly held by many of the Greek
Fathers. Irenæus, for example, in addition to those already
mentioned, thus writes: “When therefore both the mingled
cup and the created bread receive the Word of God, and the Eucharist
becomes the Body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh
increaseth and consisteth, how say they that the flesh is incapable of
the gift of God which is eternal life, that flesh which is nourished
from the Body and Blood of the Lord, and is already (ὑπάρχουσα) a
member of Him?—even as the blessed Paul saith, that we are
members of His Body, of His Flesh, and of His Bones V. ii. § 3.
That this was also the teaching of Cyril’s
contemporaries is clear from the famous passage of Gregory of Nyssa, in
which this doctrine is fully developed. It will be sufficient to
quote here the latter part of the passage, in which Gregory is speaking
of the Wine. “Since then that God-containing flesh partook
for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and
since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable
humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity
mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by
dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer
through that flesh whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending
Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union
with the immortal, man too may be a sharer in incorruption. He
gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He
transelements the natural quality of these visible things to that
immortal thing Oratio
Catechetica, c. xxxvii. The whole chapter should be read with
the Rev. W. Moore’s notes in this Series, Vol. V. pp.
504–506.
In another remarkable passage Mystag. iv.
§ 5.
In this passage we have the full explanation of
what Irenæus meant when he said that the elements “by
receiving the Word of God become the Eucharist,” and what Cyril
meant by saying that “as the Bread corresponds to the body, so
also the Word is appropriate to the soul.” Their common
doctrine is, that besides the Body and Blood of Christ, that is, His
Humanity offered upon the Cross for our redemption, His Divine Nature,
the Word is also present, and that it is by receiving the Divine Word
that the Bread is made the Body of Christ. “The
fathers,” says Touttée, “often play upon the ambiguity
of the term, saying at one time that the Divine Word, at another that
the word and oracles of God nourish our soul. Both are
true. For the whole life-giving power of the Eucharist is derived
from the Divine Word united with the flesh which He assumed: and
the whole benefit (fructus) of Eucharistic eating consists in
the union of our soul with the Word, by meditation on His mysteries and
words, and conformation thereto Mystag. iv. note
4.
In this view the Bread and Wine are signs or figures of the natural Body of Christ crucified, but they are also much more, they are endued by the Divine Word, and through the operation of the Holy Ghost, with the life-giving power of the same Body and Blood of Christ,—a power which being imparted to the faithful recipient makes him to be “of the same body and the same blood with Christ,” thereby assuring him of the resurrection of the body to eternal life, and at the same time strengthening and refreshing the soul by its being united through faith with the Word, and being thus made “partaker of the Divine nature.”
This is not the language of the Western Church,
whether Roman, Lutheran, or Anglican, but it is the language of the
earliest Greek Fathers, and of Cyril, as is partly and reluctantly
admitted by so cautious a writer as Dr. Waterland. After
referring to the passage quoted above from Justin Martyr (Apol.
i. 66) he proceeds: “There is another the like obscure hint
in Irenæus, which may probably be best interpreted after the same
way. He supposes the elements to become Christ’s
body by receiving the word (Word). He throws two
considerations into one, and does not distinguish so accurately as
Origen afterwards did between the symbolical food and the
true food.” The elements, Waterland adds, “are
made the representative body of Christ; but they are at the same
time, to worthy receivers, made the means of their spiritual
union with Christ Himself; which Irenæus points at in what he says
of the bread’s receiving the Logos, but should
rather have said it of the communicants themselves, as receiving
the spiritual presence of Christ, in the worthy use of
the sacred symbols Review of the
Doctrine of the Eucharist, c. V.
Again, in c. vii., he says more explicitly of Irenæus, what is equally true of Cyril; “Least of all does he favour the figurists or memorialists; for his doctrine runs directly counter to them almost in every line: he asserts over and over, that Christ’s body and blood are eaten and drunk in the Eucharist, and our bodies thereby fed; and not only so, but insured thereby for a happy resurrection: and the reason he gives is, that our bodies are thereby made or continued members of Christ’s body, flesh, and bones.”
From this view of Cyril’s doctrine
concerning the Sacramental elements we can easily understand in what
sense he applies the terms “ type” and
“antitype” to the Eucharistic elements. “The
Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist having two parts, an outward and an
inward, and the outward part having been instituted by our Blessed Lord
with a certain relation to the inward, and gifted with a certain
significance of it, nothing is more natural than that the titles, type,
antitype, symbol, figure, image, should be given to the outward
part Pusey, R.
P. p. 94. Cat. xiii. §
19: τὸ σῶμα
αὔτου κατὰ τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον
τύπον ἔφερεν
ἄρτου. Mystag. iv.
§ 3: ἐν τύπῳ γὰρ
ἄρτου
δίδοταί σοι
τὸ σῶμα.
Another term applied by Cyril and other Greek Fathers to the sacramental elements is “antitype.”
In Mystag. ii. § 6, where Baptism is called “the counterpart (ἀντίτυπον) of Christ’s sufferings,” the meaning is clearly explained by the context: for in § 5 the reality of Christ’s sufferings is emphatically and repeatedly contrasted with the figurative representation of the same; and this figurative representation no less emphatically contrasted with the real and actual bestowal of the grace of salvation: ἐν εἰκόνι ἡ μίμησις, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ δὲ ἡ σωτηρία,.…ἵνα τῇ μιμήσει τῶν παθημάτων αὐτοῦ κοινωνήσαντες, ἀληθείᾳ τὴν σωτηρίαν κερδήσωμεν.
We have thus a clear distinction of (1) the ‘res sacramenti,’ Christ’s Death and Resurrection, (2) the ‘sacramentum’ or ‘sign,’ the outward form of Baptism, and (3) the ‘virtus sacramenti,’ our real participation in the benefits of Christ’s Passion, “a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness.” Thus, as Cyril adds at the end of the section, Baptism “has the fellowship by representation of Christ’s true sufferings,” it is the spiritual counterpart in us of that which was actual in Him.
In Mystag. iii. § i, speaking of the Chrism, Cyril says, “Now ye have been made Christs (Χρισοί) by receiving the antitype of the Holy Ghost, and all things have been wrought in you by imitation, because ye are images of Christ:” and again, “there was given to you an Unction, the antitype of that wherewith Christ was anointed, and this is the Holy Ghost.”
Here again we have (1) the ‘res sacramenti,’ the anointing of Christ with the Holy Ghost at His Baptism, (2) the sacramental sign or figure, the anointing of the baptized, and (3) the spiritual benefit received in the gift of the Holy Ghost, for, as Cyril adds at the end of § 3, “while Thy body is anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is sanctified by the Holy and Life-giving Spirit.” In these passages we see a distinction between τύπος and ἀντίτυπος. The former is simply the outward sign or figure; the latter includes with the sign the spiritual counterpart in us of the thing signified, the benefits of Christ’s Passion in the one case, the gift of the Holy Ghost in the other.
It only remains to inquire whether there is the same distinction in the meaning of the words as applied to the Holy Eucharist.
In Mystag. v. § 20, Cyril informs us
that during the Administration the words, “O taste and see that
the Lord is good,” were sung: and in reference to that
passage he adds, “In tasting we are bidden to taste not bread and
wine, but the antitypical Body and Blood of Christ.” To
taste “the antitypical Body” is therefore to taste
“that the Lord is good,” whence it clearly follows that
“the antitypical Body” is not the mere sign or figure of
Christ’s own natural Body, but the sacramental and spiritual
counterpart of it, by which those who faithfully receive it are so
united to Him, that their spirit, and soul, and body, are to be
preserved entire without blame at His coming
We have seen in a passage already quoted Ch. II. § 2. See above, Ch. I. p.
2. Cf. Cat. iv. 10; x. 19; xiii. 4, 22, 39; xiv. 9, 14, 22,
&c. Cat. xvi. § 4. Procat. §
4. Hieron. Ep.
61 (al. 38). The passage is quoted more fully below on p.
xliv.
The Mystagogic Lectures were delivered not in the
Church, but after the conclusion of the public Service “in the
Holy Place of the Resurrection itself Cat. xviii. §
33.
Next to Eusebius, and the Bordeaux Pilgrim who visited Jerusalem in 333, Cyril is the earliest and most important witness as to the site of Constantine’s Churches.
In Cat. xiv. § 5, he says, “It was a garden where He was crucified. For though it has now been most highly adorned with royal gifts, yet formerly it was a garden, and the signs and the remnants of this remain.” From this it is evident that the traces of a garden close to the Church were still visible both to Cyril and his hearers. Twice again in § 11 he mentions the garden, which he had most probably himself seen in its former state, before the ground was cleared at the time of the recovery of the Holy Sepulchre in 326.
On this point it may be well to quote the words of
Mr. Walter Besant, Honorary Secretary of the Palestine Exploration
Fund, who, in an article on “The Holy Sepulchre” in the
Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, writes as follows:
“While the temple of Venus with its foundations was being cleared
away, there might have been, and most probably was present, a Christian
lad, native of Jerusalem, eleven years of age, watching the discovery,
which did as much as the great luminous cross which appeared in the sky
four (? twenty-four) years later to confirm the doubtful and strengthen
the faithful, that of the rock containing the
That Cyril’s testimony concerning the Holy
Places was in full accordance with the general belief of his
contemporaries is clear from the fact that he so frequently points to
the traditional sites as bearing witness to the truth of the
Crucifixion and Resurrection. He speaks of Golgotha in eight
separate passages, sometimes as near to the Church in which he and his
hearers are assembled xiii. § 4:
οὗτος ὁ
Γολγοθᾶς οὗ
πλησίον νῦν
πάντες
πάρεσμεν. x. § 19:
ὁ Γ. ὁ
ἅγιος οὗτος ὁ
ὑπερανεστηκὼς
μαρτυρεῖ
φαινόμενος.
Cf. xiii. 19. xiii. § 23:
῾Ορᾶς
τοῦ Γολγοθᾶ
τὸν τόπον;
᾽Επιβοᾶς
ἐπαίνῳ ὡς
συντιθέμενος. iv. § 10:
ὁ μακάριος
οὗτος Γ. ἐν ᾧ
νῦν διὰ τὸν
ἐν αὐτῷ
σταυρωθέντα
συγκεκροτήμεθα.
Cf. § 14: ὁ ἐν τῷ Γ.
τούτῳ
σταυρωθείς.
xiii. § 22: xvi. 4: ἐν τῷ Γ
τούτῳ
λέγομεν.
In explanation of these different modes of
speaking, the Benedictine Editor comments thus Cat. xiii. § 4,
note 1. Vit. Const. iii.
c. 35. Cat. x. § 19; xiii.
§ 39. xiii. § 39. Eus. Vit.
Const. iii. c. 36.
The cleft in the rock of Golgotha is mentioned in
a fragment of the defence made before Maximinus in 311 or 312 by Lucian
the Martyr of Antioch The fragment is
added by Rufinus to his Latin translation of Eusebius, Hist.
Eccl. ix. 6, and is also given in Routh, Rell. Sacr. iv. p.
6.
According to Eusebius in the passages of the Life of Constantine already referred to, the Emperor first beautified the monument or sepulchre with rare columns, then paved with finely polished stone a large area open to the sky, and enclosed on three sides with long colonnades, and lastly erected the Church itself “at the side opposite to the cave, which was the Eastern side.”
In reference to the passage quoted above, Mr.
Aubrey Stewart says: “The narrative is clear and connected,
and it is hardly possible, for any one who knows the ground, to read it
without feeling that the Pilgrim from Bordeaux actually saw
Constantine’s buildings standing on the site now occupied by the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre The Bordeaux
Pilgrim, Introd. p. ix.
From these earlier testimonies, compared with the several passages already quoted from Cyril, we may safely draw the following inferences, (1) The Anastasis properly so called, or Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in which the five Mystagogic Lectures were delivered, was built by Constantine over the cave which, according to the evidence then existing, was fully believed to be the Burial-place of our Lord. (2) The Great Basilica, called also the Church of the Holy Cross, in which the Catechetical Lectures were delivered, was erected on the East of the Anastasis, and separated from it by a large open area. (3) The hill of Golgotha (on which at a later period there was built a third Church, called the Church of Golgotha, of Holy Calvary, or of Cranium) stood about a stone’s throw on the North side of Constantine’s two Churches, and about equidistant from them.
Chapter IX.—The Time and Arrangement of S. Cyril’s Lectures.
§ 1. The Year. The incidental notes of time in the Catechetical Lectures are sufficient to determine with considerable probability the exact year in which they were delivered.
In Cat. xiv. 14, Cyril speaks in the Plural of the Emperors then reigning (οἱ νῦν βασιλεῖς) as having completed the building (ἐξειργάσαντο) and embellishment of the great Church of the Resurrection. This can only apply to the sons of Constantine, Constans and Constantius, and as Constans died early in 350, the Lectures must have been delivered before that year.
In Cat. xv. § 6, Cyril asks, “Is there
at this time war between Persians and Romans, or no?” The
time thus indicated was apparently that of the campaign which ended in
the disastrous defeat of Constantius at Singara, 348, the battle being
soon followed by a suspension of hostilities See Gibbon, c. xviii.
vol. ii. p. 370.
The Benedictine Editor tries to find another proof
of the date of the Lectures in Cyril’s description of the state
of the Church in Cat. xv. §7: “If thou hear that
Bishops advance against Bishops, and clergy against clergy, and laity
against laity, even unto blood, be not troubled.”
Touttée refers this account to the fierce dissensions which
followed the Synod of Sardica, where Athanasius and Marcellus were
declared innocent and received into communion, while the Encyclical of
the dissentient Bishops, who had withdrawn to Philippopolis, condemned
them both. But it is now ascertained that the Synod of Sardica
was held not in 347, as Touttée supposed, but in 344 Dict. Chr.
Biogr. “Athanasius,” p. 190, note; Hefele,
Councils, §§ 58, 66, 67.
There is a much more definite note of time in Cat.
vi. § 20, where speaking of Manes Cyril says: “The
delusion began full seventy years ago.” If we may assume
that the outbreak of this heresy is to be dated from the famous
disputation between Archelaus and Manes in 277 Cat. vi. § 27. Rell. Sac. v. p.
12.
§ 2. The days. It is
expressly stated by Sozomen Hist. Eccles.
vii. c. 19.
It is certain the Catechetical Lectures i.–xviii. were all delivered in these six weeks, being preceded by the Procatechesis, which was addressed to the candidates before the whole congregation at the public Service on Sunday (§ 4). In the same context Cyril says, “Thou hast forty days for repentance,” and again in Cat i. § 5, “Hast thou not forty days to be free for thine own soul’s sake?” It thus appears probable that the first of the eighteen (Catechetical Lectures was delivered on the Monday of the first week of the Fast, the forty days being completed on the night preceding the Great Sabbath, that is to say, the night of Good Friday, when the fast was brought to an end at a late hour.
With regard to the date of Cat. iv., which
contains a brief preliminary statement of all the articles of the
Creed, we may obtain some evidence from an incident recorded in a
letter of Jerome Ep. 61 (al.
38). Cf. Ben. Ed. Praeloq. ad Cat. iv. pp. 49,
50.
In Cat. iv. § 32, Cyril speaks of having discoursed on Baptism “the day before yesterday,” that is, on the Friday.
In Cat. v. we have first a discourse on the nature of
faith, and then towards the end, between § 12 and § 13, the
actual words of the Creed are for the first time recited by Cyril to
the candidates alone. In the next four Lectures there are no
marks of time, except that
In Cat. x. § 14 Cyril reminds his hearers
that he had preached on the words after the order of Melchizedek
at the public Service on the Lord’s day. As he does not
here employ his usual phrase “yesterday,” we may infer that
Cat. x. was delivered not earlier than the Tuesday following the 4th
Sunday in Lent, the Epistle for that Sunday in the Eastern Church being
Cat. xiii., which is occupied with the Crucifixion and
Burial, seems to have followed them immediately on the Friday: it
certainly came a few days only before Cat. xiv. § 1. For
speaking there of the preceding Lecture, Cyril says, “I know the
sorrow of Christ’s friends in these past days; because, as our
discourse stopped short at the Death and the Burial, and did not tell
the good tidings of the Resurrection, your mind was in suspense to hear
what you were longing for.” Now we know that Cat. xiv. was
delivered on the Monday after Passion Sunday: for the Epistle for
that 5th Sunday in Lent was Dict. Chr. Antiq.
“Lectionary,” p. 958 b.
In Cat. xv. there is no note of time to determine on what day it was spoken; but in § 33 Cyril speaks as if his course of teaching was to be interrupted for a little while: “If the grace of God should permit us, the remaining Articles also of the Faith shall be in good time (κατὰ καιρόν) declared to you.” We may therefore assign Cat. xv. to the early part of Passion week, and the three remaining Catechetical Lectures to the week before Easter. This arrangement seems to be confirmed by Cat. xvii. 34, where Cyril speaks of the two Lectures on the Holy Spirit, xvi. and xvii., as “these present Lectures,” distinguishing them from “our previous discourses.” In the same section he refers to “the fewness of the days,” and in § 20 speaks of “the holy festival of the Passover” as being close at hand. We may therefore probably assign xvi. and xvii. to two consecutive days in the earlier part of the week before Easter.
Cat. xviii. contains many indications from which we may
conclude with certainty that it was delivered either on the night of
Good Friday, or in the early hours of the morning of the “Great
Sabbath.” Thus in § 17 he speaks of “the
weariness caused by the prolongation (ὑπερθέσεως)
of the fast of the Preparation (Friday), and the watching.”
In § 21 he calls upon the Candidates to recite the Creed, which he
had dictated to them, and which they would be required to repeat more
publicly immediately before their Baptism, as we learn from §
32: “Concerning the holy Apostolic Faith which has been
delivered to you to profess (εἰς
ἐπαγγελίαν), we have spoken through the grace of the Lord as many Lectures as was
possible in these past days of Lent.…But now the holy day of the
Passover is at hand, and ye, beloved in Christ, are to be enlightened
by the washing of regeneration. Ye shall therefore again
be taught what is requisite if God so will; with how great devotion and
order you must enter in when summoned, for what purpose each of the
holy mysteries of Baptism is performed, and with what reverence and
order you must go from Baptism to the holy altar of God, and enjoy its
spiritual and heavenly mysteries.” The additional
instructions here promised were to be given on the same day as the last
Lecture, Cat. xviii, that is on Easter Eve immediately before
Baptism. For it was forbidden to reveal the mysteries of Baptism,
Chrism, and the
§ 3. Arrangement. The Lectures of S. Cyril have a peculiar value as being the first and only complete example of the course of instruction given in the early centuries to Candidates seeking admission to the full privileges of the Christian Church. “The Great Catechetical Oration” of Gregory of Nyssa is addressed not to the learner but to the teacher, in accordance with the opening statement of the Prologue, that “The presiding ministers of the mystery of godliness have need of a system in their instructions, in order that the Church may be replenished by the accession of such as should be saved, through the teaching of the word of Faith being brought home to the hearing of unbelievers.” As an instruction to the Catechist how he should refute the opponents of Christianity, it is an apologetic work rather than a Catechism. S. Augustine’s treatise De catechizandis rudibus is also addressed to the teacher, being an answer to Deogratias, a Deacon of Carthage, who on being appointed Catechist had written to Augustine for advice as to the best method of discharging the office. S. Augustine’s Sermons De traditione Symboli, and De redditione Symboli, are not a connected series, but single addresses to Catechumens consisting of brief comments on a few chief articles of the Creed. Cyril’s Lectures thus remain unique in character.
After the Procatechesis, which is simply an introductory exhortation to the newly admitted Candidates, he devotes three Lectures to the need of a sincere purpose of mind, the efficacy of repentance, and the general nature and importance of Baptism. The fourth Lecture gives “a short summary of necessary doctrines,” stating with admirable clearness and brevity ten chief points of the Faith, and the arguments on each point, which are to be developed in the remaining Catechetical Lectures v.–xviii. He thus traverses the whole ground of Theology as expressed in the Creed of Jerusalem, of which the exact language is given in the titles of the successive Lectures. These instructions to the ‘Illuminandi’ (φωτιζομένων) were followed on Easter-day by the administration of Baptism, Chrism, and Holy Communion: and on the following days of Easter-week the ceremonies and doctrines proper to each of these Sacraments were explained in the five Lectures on the Mysteries (Μυσταγωγίαι) to the newly-baptized (πρὸς τοὺς Νεοφωτίστους). These Mystagogic Lectures thus form a most important record of the Sacramental Rites and Doctrines of the Eastern Church in the fourth Century, the most critical period of Ecclesiastical History.
Chapter X.—The Creed of Jerusalem: Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
§ 1. The Creed. The ancient Creed which was used by the Church of Jerusalem in the middle of the fourth Century, and which Cyril expounded in his Catechetical Lectures, was recited by him to the Catechumens at the end of the fifth Lecture, to be committed to memory, but not to be written out on paper (§ 12). Accordingly it is not found in any of the MSS., but instead of it the Nicene Creed with the Anathema is there inserted in Codd. Roe, Casaub. This could only have been added after Cyril’s time, when the motives for secrecy had ceased.
The Creed which Cyril really taught and expounded may be gathered from various passages in the Lectures themselves, and especially from the Titles prefixed to them.
With the Creed of Jerusalem thus ascertained, it will be instructive to compare the Nicene formula, and for this purpose we print them in parallel columns.
|
CREED OF S. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. |
CREED OF NICÆA. From S. Athanasius, De Decretis Fidei Nicænæ. |
|
___________________ |
___________________ |
|
Πιστεύομεν
εἰς ἕνα
Θεόν Cat. vi. tit. Πατέρα vii. tit.; § 4. viii. tit. Ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς ῾Ορατῶν τε
πάντων καὶ
ἀοράτων ix. tit.; § 4. Καὶ
εἰς ἕνα
Κύριον
᾽Ιησοῦν
Χριστόν x. tit.; vii. 4. τὸν Ψἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, δι᾽ οὗ
τὰ πάντα
ἐγένετο xi. tit.; § 21. τὸν
σαρκωθέντα
καὶ
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα xii. tit. σταυρωθέντα
καὶ
ταφέντα xiii. tit. καὶ ἀναστάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, καὶ
καθίσαντα ἐκ
δεξιῶν τοῦ
Πατρός xiv. tit., cf. §
27; xv. 3. καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς
βασιλείας
οὐκ ἔσται
τέλος xv. tit.; § 2. Καὶ εἰς ἓν ἅγιον Πνεῦμα τὸν Παράκλητον, τὸ
λαλῆσαν ἐν
τοῖς
προφήταις xvi. tit.; xviii. 3. καὶ
εἰς ἓν
βάπτισμα
μετανοίας
εἰς ἄφεσιν
ἁμαρτιῶν xviii. 22. καὶ εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ εἰς σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν, καὶ
εἰς ζωὴν
αἰώνιον xviii. tit.; §
22. |
Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιήτην, καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον ᾽Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Ψἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φῶτος. Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ τοιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὸν
δι᾽ ἡμὰς
τοὺς
ἀνθρώπους
καὶ διὰ τὴν
ἡμετέραν
σωτηρίαν Cyril, Cat. iv. 9;
xii. 3; Mystag. ii. 7. κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα, ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα, καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀνελθόντα εἰς οὐρανούς, καὶ ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας· ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καί τρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι ἢ κτιστὸν ἢ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν Ψἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. |
§ 2. Doctrine of the Holy
Trinity. “The doctrinal position of S. Cyril is
admirably described, and his orthodoxy vindicated by Cardinal Newman in
the following passage of his Preface to the Lectures in the Library of
the Fathers. “There is something very remarkable and even
startling to the reader of S. Cyril, to find in a divine of his school
such a perfect agreement, for instance as regards the doctrine of the
Trinity, with those Fathers who in his age were more famous as
champions of it. Here is a writer, separated by whatsoever cause
from what, speaking historically, may be called the Athanasian School,
suspicious of its adherents, and suspected by them; yet he, when he
comes to explain himself, expresses precisely the same doctrine as that
of Athanasius or Gregory, while he merely abstains from the particular
theological term in which the latter Fathers agreeably to the Nicene
Council conveyed it. Can we have a clearer proof that the
difference of opinion between them was not one of ecclesiastical and
traditionary doctrine, but of practical judgment? that the Fathers at
Nicæa wisely considered that, under the circumstances, the word in
question was the only symbol which would secure the Church against the
insidious heresy which was assailing it, while S. Cyril, with Eusebius
of Cæsarea, Meletius and others shrank from it, at least for a
while, Preface, p.
ix.
In regard to the doctrine of the Trinity in
general the two great heresies which distracted the Church in S.
Cyril’s day were Sabellianism and Arianism, the one
“confounding the Persons,” the other “dividing the
substance” of the indivisible Unity of the Godhead. Both
these opposite errors Cyril condemns with equal energy: “Do
thou neither separate the Son from the Father, nor by making a
confusion believe in a Son-Fatherhood Cat. iv. § 8. Cat. xvi. §
4. See the notes on this and the preceding passage. Cat. xi. § 16.
In the sequel of this last passage Cyril proceeds
to argue that this unity of the Father and the Son lies in their
Nature, “since God begat God,” in their Kingdom Cat. xv. § 27, note
3. Athan. Contra
Arian, Or. ii. § 31, 1: “For the Word of God is
Framer and Maker, and He is the Father’s Will. Cf. Or. iii.
§ 63 fin. Ib. Or. iii. § 11,
3: “Such then being the Son, therefore when the Son works,
the Father is the Worker.”
The question, however, of Cyril’s orthodoxy depends especially upon his supposed opposition to the Creed of Nicæa, of which no evidence is alleged except his attendance at the Council of Seleucia, and the absence from his Lectures of the word ὁμοούσιον.
The purpose of Cyril’s attendance at
Seleucia was to appeal against his deposition by Acacius, and there is
apparently no evidence of his having taken part in the doctrinal
discussions, or signed the Creed of Antioch There is, I
believe, no extant list of signatures: “Whether the few
Homoüsians and Hilary were among those who signed is not
said” (Hefele, Councils, II. p. 264.) Athan. De
Synod. c. 12. Ib. c. 41.
Was Cyril to be blamed, ought he not rather to be commended, for not introducing such a war-cry into the exposition of an ancient Creed, in which it had no place, the Creed of his own Church, the Mother of all the Churches, whose Faith he as a youthful Presbyter was commissioned to teach to the young Candidates for Baptism?
But if we compare his doctrine with that of the Nicene
formula, we shall find that, as Dr. Newman says, “His own
writings are most exactly orthodox, though he does not in the
Catechetical Lectures use the word ὁμοούσιον Preface, p.
14.
The first point to be noticed in the comparison is the
use of the title “Son of God.” Contra Arianos,
Or. i. 28.
Cyril is here in full accord with
Athanasius: in his Creed he found “Son of God,” and
in his exposition he states that the Father is “by nature and in
truth Father of One only, the Only-begotten Son Cat. vii. § 5. Ib. xi. § 16. Ib. § 17. Ib. § 18. Athan. De
Decretis, c. 20.
The further significance which Athanasius ascribes
to the title “Logos,” is also expressed fully and
repeatedly by Cyril: “Whenever thou hearest of God
begetting, sink not down in thought to bodily things, nor think of a
corruptible generation, lest thou be guilty of impiety Cat. xi. § 7.
The “passionless generation,” to which so
much importance was attached at Nicæa and by Athanasius, is also
asserted by Cyril when he says that God “became a Father not by
passion (οὐ
πάθει Πατὴρ
γενόμενος) Ib. vii. 5: see
note there. Ib. iv. 7. Ib. Ib. iv. § 8.
The importance of such language is better
understood when we remember that Marcellus, “another head of the
dragon lately sprung up in Galatia Ib. xv. § 27. Zahn, Marcellus
of Ancyra, as quoted by Hefele, Councils, II. p. 31,
slightly abridged. See also Hefele, p. 186.
The next supposed proof of Cyril’s opposition to the Nicene doctrine is that he has not adopted in his Lectures the phrases “of the essence (οὐσίας) of the Father,” and “of one essence (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father.” This omission is the chief ground of the reproaches cast upon the memory of Cyril by the writers of Ecclesiastical History; for this he was described by Jerome as an Arian, and by Rufinus as a waverer, while his formal acceptance of the terms used at Nicæa is called by Socrates and Sozomen an act of repentance. By others he was denounced as ᾽Αρειανόφρων because he had addressed his letter to Constantius as “the most religious king,” and never used the word ὁμοούσιον in his Lectures.
It is strange to find that seven hundred years before the great controversy at Nicæa on the introduction of the word Οὐσία into the Creed, it had been the war-cry of almost as fierce a conflict between rival schools of philosophy.
“There appears,” says Plato in the person of
the Eleatic stranger, “to be a sort of war of the giants going on
between them because of the dispute concerning οὐσία. Some of them are
dragging all things down from heaven and from the invisible to earth,
grasping rocks and oaks in their hands; for of all such things they lay
hold, in obstinately maintaining that what can be touched and handled
alone has being (εἶναι), because they define
‘being’ and ‘body’ as one; and if any one else
says that what is not a body has being, they altogether despise him,
and will hear of nothing but body….Therefore their opponents
cautiously defend themselves from above out of some invisible world,
mightily contending that certain intelligible and incorporeal ideas are
the true essence (οὐσίαν) Plato,
Sophist. § 246. “The passage is quoted by
Theodoret, Græcarum affectionem Curatio, ii. p.
732.” (Heindorf.)
It is apparently to this passage of Plato that Aristotle
refers in describing the ambiguity of the word οὐσία Metaph. vi.
§ 2.
In proceeding to define the term, Aristotle says that οὐσία is used in four senses if not more: the essential nature (τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι), the universal (τὸ καθόλον) the genus, and a fourth the subject (τὸ ὑποκείμενον). Under, this fourth sense he proceeds to discuss the application of the term οὐσια to the matter, the form, and the resulting whole. Without going further we may see that the use of the word in philosophy was full of difficulty and ambiguity.
The ambiguity is thus expressed by Mr.
Robertson Athanasius,
Proleg. p. xxxi., in this Series. Tryph. c.
128*. Arians, p.
186.
In Clement of Alexandria Fragm. § 50,
Sylb. 341.
So Hippolytus Adv. Beron. et
Hel. Fragm. i.
In Origen we find the two words οὐσία (essence, or substance)
and ὑπόστασις
(individual subsistence) accurately distinguished. Quoting the
description of Wisdom, as being the breath (ἀτμίς)
of the power of God, and pure effluence (ἀπόρροια) from the
glory of the Almighty, and radiance (ἀπαύγασμα)
of the Eternal Light
On the other hand he writes, “We worship the
Father of the Truth, and the Son who is the Truth, being in subsistence
(τῇ
ὑποστάσει)
two Contra Celsum,
viii. p. 386. Def. Fid. Nic.
II. c. 9, § 11.
For examples of these interchanges of meaning, we
may notice that the Synod of Antioch (a.d.
269), in the Epistle addressed to Paul of Samosata before his
deposition, speaking of the unity of Christ’s Person, says
that “He is one and the same in His οὐσίᾳ Routh, Rel.
Sacr., III. p. 299.
In the earlier part Ib. p. 290.
The confusion arising from the uncertainty in the
use of these two words is well illustrated in the account which
Athanasius De Synodis, c.
45, p. 474, in this Series. Ib. c. 43. Liber de Synodis,
513.
That the statement of Athanasius himself is not free
from difficulty is clear from the way in which so great a Theologian as
Bishop Hefele endeavours to explain it: “Athanasius says
that Paul argued in this way: If Christ is ῾Ομοούσιος with the
Father, then three subsistences (οὐσίαι) must be
admitted—one first substance (the Father), and two more recent
(the Son and Councils, I. p. 124. Epist. 300
(al. 52), quoted by Bull, D.F.N. ii. 1, § 11.
The confusion arising from the uncertainty in the
use of these words had been the cause of strife throughout the
Christian Church for more than twenty years before the date of
Cyril’s Lectures; and though it was declared at the Council of
Alexandria (362) to be but a controversy about words Athan. Tomus ad
Antiochenos, §§ 5, 6.
If we now look at the particular errors mentioned in the Anathema of the Nicene Council, we shall find that every one of them is earnestly condemned by Cyril.
“Once He was not (῏Ην
ποτε ὅτε οὐκ
ἦν). This famous Arian formula is
expressly rejected in Cat. xi. § 17: “Neither let us
say, There was a time when the Son was not.” The eternity
of the Son is asserted again and again, in reference, for instance, to
His generation Cat. iv. § 7. Ib. x. § 14. Ib. xiv. § 27.
“Before His generation He was
not” (πρὶν
γεννηθῆναι
οὐκ ἦν). Compare with
this Cyril’s repeated assertions that “the Son is eternally
begotten, by an inscrutable and incomprehensible generation Cat. xi. § 4. § 5. § 7.
“He came to be from nothing”
(ἐξ
οὐκ ὄντων
ἐγένετο).
Cyril’s language is emphatic: “As I have often said,
He did not bring forth the Son from non-existence (ἐκ τοῦ
μὴ ὄντος) into being,
nor take the non-existent into Sonship § 14.
Cf. S. Alex. Epist. apud Theodoret, § 4: “That
the Son of God was not made ‘from things which are not,’
and that ‘there was no time when He was not,’ the
Evangelist John sufficiently shews” (Ante-Nic.
Library).
“That He is of other subsistence or essence” (ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας). It is certain that Cyril has given no countenance to the error or errors condemned in this clause, but is in entire agreement with the Council.
On the question whether ὺπόστασις and
οὐσία have in
this passage the same or different meanings, see Bull, Def. Fid.
Nic. II. 9, 11, p. 314 (Oxf. Ed.). Athanasius
expressly states that they are perfectly equivalent:
“Subsistence (ὑπόστασις) is
essence (οὐσία),
and means nothing else but very being, which Jeremiah calls existence
(ὕπαρξις).” Basil
distinguishes them, and is followed by Bishop Bull, whose opinion is
controverted by Mr. Robertson in an Excursus on the meaning of the
phrase, on p. 77 of his edition of Athanasius in this Series. The
student who desires to pursue the subject may consult in addition to
the works
Chapter XI.—S. Cyril’s Writings.
§ 1. List of Works.
Besides the Catechetical and Mystagogic Lectures translated in this
volume, the extant works of S. Cyril include (1) the “Letter to
the Emperor Constantius concerning the appearance at Jerusalem of a
luminous Cross in the sky:” (2) “The Homily on the
Paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda:” and (3) Fragments of
Sermons on the Miracle of the water changed into wine, and on
Another work attributed by some authorities to Cyril of Jerusalem and by others to Cyril of Alexandria is a Homily De Occursu Domini, that is, On the Presentation of Christ in the Temple, and the meeting with Symeon, called in the Greek Church ἡ ῾Υπαπαντή.
The other Fragments and Letters mentioned in the Benedictine Edition have no claim to be considered genuine.
§ 2. Authenticity of the Lectures. The internal evidence of the time and place at which the Lectures were delivered has been already discussed in chapters viii. and ix., and proves beyond doubt that they must have been composed at Jerusalem in the middle of the fourth century. At that date Cyril was the only person living in Jerusalem who is mentioned by the Ecclesiastical Historians as an author of Catechetical Lectures: and S. Jerome, a younger contemporary of Cyril, expressly mentions the Lectures which Cyril had written in his youth. In fact their authenticity seems never to have been doubted before the seventeenth century, when it was attacked with more zeal than success by two French Protestant Theologians of strongly Calvinistic opinions, Andrew Rivet (Critic. Sacr. Lib. iii. cap. 8, Genev. 1640), and Edmund Aubertin (De Sacramento Eucharistiæ, Lib. ii. p. 422, Ed. Davent., 1654). Their objections, which were reprinted at full length by Milles at the end of his Edition, were directed chiefly against the Mystagogic Lectures, and rested on dogmatic rather than on critical grounds. The argument most worthy of notice was that in a MS. of the Library of Augsburg the Mystagogic Lectures were attributed to John, Bishop of Jerusalem. This is admitted by Milles, who gives the title thus: Μυσταγωγικαὶ κατηχήσεις πέντε ᾽Ιωάννου ᾽Επισκόπου ῾Ιεροσολύμων, περὶ βαπτίσματος, χρίσματος, σώματος, καὶ αἵματος Χριστοῦ.
I do not find this Codex Augustinus mentioned elsewhere by any of the Editors under that name: but the Augsburg MSS. were removed to Munich in 1806, and in the older Munich MS. (Cod. Monac. i), the title of the first Mystagogic Lecture is Μυσταγωγία πρώτη ᾽Ιωάννου ἐπισκόπου ῾Ιεροσολύμων. Also in Codd. Monac. 2, Ottobon. there is added at the end of the Title, τοῦ αὐτοῦ Κυρίλλου καὶ ᾽Ιωάννου ἐπισκόπου. That John, Cyril’s successor, did deliver Catechetical Lectures, we know from his own correspondence with Jerome: and this very circumstance may account for his name having been associated with, or substituted for that of Cyril.
To Rivet’s objection Milles makes answer that if the mistakes of a transcriber or the stumbling of an ignorant Librarian (imperiti Librarii cæspitationes) have in one or two MSS. ascribed the Lectures to John or any one else, this cannot be set against the testimony of those who lived nearest to the time when the Lectures were composed, as Jerome and Theodoret. Also the internal evidence proves that the Lectures could not have been delivered later than the middle of the fourth century, whereas John succeeded Cyril about 386.
Moreover it is quite impossible to assign the two sets
of Lectures to different authors.
By these and many other arguments drawn from internal evidence Touttée has shewn convincingly that all the Lectures must have had the same author, and that he could be no other than Cyril.
§ 3. Early Testimony. Under the title “Veterum Testimonia de S. Cyrillo Hierosolymitano ejusque Scriptis,” Milles collected a large number of passages bearing on the life and writings of S. Cyril, of which it will be sufficient to quote a few which refer expressly to his Lectures.
S. Jerome, in his Book of Illustrious Men, or Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, composed at Bethlehem about six years after Cyril’s death, writes in Chapter 112: “Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, having been often driven out from the Church, afterwards in the reign of Theodosius held his Bishopric undisturbed for eight years: by whom there are Catechetical Lectures, which he composed in his youth.”
Theodoret, born six or seven years after the death of Cyril, in his Dialogues (p. 211 in this Series) gives the “Testimony of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, from his fourth Catechetical Oration concerning the ten dogmas. Of the birth from a virgin, “Believe thou this, &c.”
Theophanes (575 circ.) Chronographia, p. 34, Ed. Paris, 1655, defends the orthodoxy of Cyril, as follows: “It was right to avoid the word ὁμοούσιος, which at that time offended most persons, and through the objections of the adversaries deterred those who were to be baptized, and to explain clearly the co-essential doctrine by words of equivalent meaning: which also the blessed Cyril has done, by expounding the Creed of Nicæa word for word, and proclaiming Him Very God of Very God.”
Gelasius, Pope 492, De duabus in Christo naturis, quotes as from Gregory Nazianzen the words of Cyril, Cat. iv. § 9: Διπλοῦς ἦν ὁ Χριστός, κ.τ.λ.
Leontius Byzantinus (610 circ.) Contra Nestor. et Eutychem, Lib. 1. quotes the same passage expressly as taken “From the 4th Catechetical Oration of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem.”
Many other references to the Catecheses as the work of Cyril are given by Touttée, pp. 306–315.
§ 4. Editions. 1. Our earliest information concerning the Greek text and translations of S. Cyril’s Lectures is derived from John Grodecq, Dean of Glogau in Bohemia.
From his statement it appears that Jacob Uchanski, Archbishop of Gnessen and Primate of Poland, had obtained from Macedonia a version of the Catecheses in the Slavonic dialect, and had translated it into the Polish language some years before 1560.
2. In that year Grodecq himself published at Vienna an edition of the Mystagogic Lectures, thus described in the catalogue of the Imperial Library:—
“S. Cyril’s Mystagogic Lectures to the newly baptized, which now for the first time are edited in Greek and Latin together, that he who doubts the Latin may have recourse to the Greek, and he who does not understand Greek well may read the Latin, translated by John Grodecq.”
Nothing more is known of this edition: Fabricius,
Milles, Touttée, and Reischl, all say that they have been unable
to find any trace of it. Uchanski about this time sent to Grodecq
his Slavonic and Polish versions, in order that they might be compared
with the
Whether Uchanski’s book was written or printed is unknown, as no trace of it has hitherto been found.
3. S. Cyrilli Hier. Catecheses ad Illuminandos et Mystagogicæ. Interpretatus est Joannes Grodecius. Romæ 1564. 8°.
Grodecq had come to Rome in the suite of Stanislaus Hosius, Cardinal Legate at the Council of Trent, who in the year 1562 had published in the Confession of Petricow the 4th and part of the 3rd Mystagogic Lectures from a Greek MS. belonging to Cardinal Sirlet. From this MS. Grodecq made his Latin translation, using also the work of Uchanski before mentioned. The preface is dated from Trent, on the 9th of July, 1563. The translation was published in the following year at Rome, Cologne, Antwerp, and Paris, and often elsewhere until superseded by the new Latin Version of Touttée in the Benedictine Edition.
4. In the same year, 1564, the Mystagogic Lectures and Catecheses iv., vi., viii.–x., xv., xviii. were published at Paris by William Morel, the King’s Printer, under the following title:—
“S. Cyrilli Hier. Catecheses, id est institutiones ad res sacras, Græce editæ, ex bibliotheca Henrici Memmii, cum versione Latina. Cura Guil. Morellii. Paris. G. Morel., 1564. 4° min.”
The Greek text depending on de Mesme’s one MS., and that mutilated and faulty, is said by Touttée to have many faults and omissions, but to have been nevertheless very useful to him in correcting the text. The MS. itself had entirely disappeared. The Latin version, appended to the copy in the Royal (National) Library at Paris, but not always attached to the Greek, is said by Touttée to be a careful and elegant version, independent of Grodecq’s.
A copy of Morel’s Edition which formerly belonged to Du Fresne, containing various readings in the margin from two other MSS., was lent to Touttée from the Library of S. Geneviève (Genovef.).
Reischl describes the MS. as “Cod. Mesmianus (Montf. I. 185). Sec. xi.”
5. “S. Cyrilli H. Catecheses Græce et Latine ex interpretatione Joan. Grodecii nunc primum editæ, ex variis bibliothecis, præcipue Vaticana, studio et opera Joan. Prevotii. Paris. (Claude Morellus), 1608.” This was the first complete edition of the Greek text. Prevot, a native of Bordeaux, states in the Dedication to Pope Paul V., that by the help of MSS. “melioris notæ” found in the Vatican, he had both corrected the text of the Lectures previously published by Morel, and carefully transcribed the rest. He made, according to Touttée, many useful emendations, but did not mention the number, age, nor various readings of the MSS. employed.
6. “S. Cyrilli Hier. Arch. opera quæ supersunt omnia; quorum quædam nunc primum ex Codd. MSS. edidit, reliqua cum Codd. MSS. contulit, plurimis in locis emendavit, Notisque illustravit Tho. Milles S.T.B. ex Æde Christi Oxoniæ, e Theatro Sheldoniano, Impensis Richardi Sare Bibliopol. Lond. MDCCIII.”
The author of this fine Edition gives us in his Preface the following description of his work:—
“In the first place I wished to amend more
thoroughly the text of J. Prevot, which, as I said, he himself largely
corrected and supplied from MSS. in the Vatican, and which I have
printed in this Edition: I have therefore compared it with all
the other Editions that I could collect, and in this manner have easily
removed many errors both of the printers and of Prevot himself.
Afterwards I carefully compared all the Catecheses and the Epistle to
Constantinus with two MSS. and some with three, namely iv., vi.,
viii.–x., xv., xvi., xviii. The first Codex, written on
parchment apparently six hundred years ago, I found among those MSS.
which Sir Tho. Roe, our first Ambassador from King James I. to the
Great Mogul, brought from the East, and presented to the Bodleian
Library. The second we owe to the
Touttée thinks that the MS. from which Casaubon drew his various readings was C. Roe itself, or that one of the two MSS. had been copied from the other, or both from the same.
7. “S. Cyrilli Arch. Hier, opera quæ exstant omnia et ejus nomine circumferuntur, ad MSS. codices necnon ad superiores Editiones castigata, Dissertationibus et Notis illustrata, cum nova interpretatione et copiosis indicibus. Cura et studio Domni Antonii-Augustini Touttéi, Presbyteri et Monachi Benedictini e Congregatione S. Mauri. Paris. Typis Jac. Vincent. 1720, fol. (Recusa Venet. 1763).”
Of the Greek text the Editor says, “I have collated it as carefully as I could with Grodecq’s translation, Morel’s and Prevot’s Editions, and with MSS. to be found in this City. The various readings of the Roman MSS. I have obtained by the help of friends: those which Milles had collected from the English Codices I have adopted for my own use.”
8. “S. Cyrilli Hier. Arch. opp. quæ supersunt omnia ad libros MSS. et impressos recensuit Notis criticis commentariis indicibusque locupletissimis illustravit Gulielm. Car. Reischl S. Th. D. et Reg. Lycei Ambergensis Professor. Vol. I Monac. M DCCC XLVIII.”
The Editor says in his Preface that he has altered the Benedictine text only when the evidence was very weighty, and has then given all the various readings in the critical notes. The exegetical commentary was to be reserved for the 2nd Volume, but this Dr. Reischl did not live to complete.
The Prolegomena contain (1) Touttée’s inordinately long “Life of Cyril,” (2) a Dissertation on the general character and authenticity of the Catecheses, and (3) an “Apparatus Litterarius,” to which I have been indebted.
Vol. ii., containing Catecheses xii.–xviii., Myst. i.–v., and the other works, genuine and spurious, attributed to Cyril, was published by J. Rupp at Munich, 1860.
The MSS. used in revising the text of this, the best critical edition, will be noticed below.
9. An Edition of the Catecheses only was published at Jerusalem in 1867, having been commenced in 1849 at the request of the Archbishop, Cyril II., by Dionysius Kleopas, Principal of the Theological School of Jerusalem, and, after his death in 1861, continued by his successor Photius Alexandrides, “Archdeacon of the Apostolic and Patriarchal See of Jerusalem, and Principal of the Theological School.”
The Editor gives in the Preface an interesting account of the life of Kleopas, and of the work which he left unfinished.
§ 5. Manuscripts. From the preceding account of the various Editions of S. Cyril we may obtain the following list of authorities which have been hitherto used in revising the Text.
1. Codex Sirletianus, known only by Grodecq’s Latin version, Rome, 1564. Cf. § 1. 3.
2. C. Mesmianus, known only in Morel’s edition, Paris, 1564. Cf. § i. 4.
3. Vatican MSS. used by Prevot. 1608, but not identified. Cf. § i. 5.
4. C. Roe, Bibl. Bodleian. Oxon. “Codex membranaceus in folio, ff. 223, sec. xi„ binis columnis bene exaratus;” [ol. 271].
5. C. Casaubon. On this and the preceding MS. see Milles as quoted above, § i. 6.
6. C. Ottobonianus (1) ol.
C. Ottob. (2), “Chartaceus et recens est, nihil fere ab editis discrepans.”
These are the Roman MSS. mentioned by Touttée: see above, § i. 7.
In the descriptions of the following MSS. of the National Library at Paris there is so much discrepancy between Touttée and Reischl, that it is better to quote both.
8. “Catecheses xii., xiii., xiv., xv., comparavi cum Codice Reg. bibliothecæ num. 2503. Scriptus est in bombycina charta an. 1231, quam anni notam apposuit calligraphus” (Touttée, Not. Codd. MSS.).
Reischl has no notice of a MS. at all answering to this description.
9. Cod. Reg. alter, “ol. 1260, nunc 1824, qui S. Basilii opera complectitur, sub ejus nomine Procatechesin continet “ (Touttée, Not. Codd. MSS.): aliter, “Cod. Reg. ol. 260, nunc 1284, pag. 254, qui duodecimi circiter est sæculi, in quo habetur Procatechesis hæc sub nomine S. Basilii” (Id. Monit. in Procatechesin).
“Cod. Reg. 467 (apud Touttéum, 1824) Fonteblandensis, chartac. fol. sec. x. Continet sub S. Basilii nomine Orationem de Baptismo, quæ est S. Cyrilli Hier. Procatechesis. C. Reg. Touttéi” (Reischl).
10. “Cod. Reg. 969 (ol. Mazarin.) Epistolarum S. Basilii. 4°. Sec. xiv. Exhibet sub n. 7 Basilii homiliam quo (sic) ostenditur Deum esse incomprehensibilem, quæ non S. Basilii, sed Cyrilli est Procatechesis” (Reischl).
This description agrees in substance with Touttée’s.
11. C. Colbert. “Catecheses iv., vi., viii., ix., x., xv., xviii., contuli cum cod. Colbert. Biblioth. chartaceo et recenti 4863 notato…In omnibus pene cum Morelliana editione consentit” (Touttée, Notitia Codd. MSS.).
Reischl makes no mention of this MS.
12. C. Colbert. alter. “membran. sign. 1717, Sec. xiii. diversas Patrum homilias continet, et Cat. xiii. exhibet sub nomine Cyrillianæ in Crucem et Porasceven homiliæ” (Touttée, Notitia).
This is described by Reischl as “Cod. Reg. 771 (ol. 1717) Colbertinus. Membran. fol. seculi xiii.–xiv.”
The following MSS. have been used in Editions later than the Benedictine.
13. “C. Monacensis I. 394 membran. fol., titulis et initialibus miniatis, f. 261 nitidissime uncialibus minutis circiter seculo decimo in Oriente scriptus.”
This was regarded both by Reischl and by Rupp as the most important authority for the text: it is much older than Codd. Roe, Casaub., and seems to be related to Codd. Ottobon. Coislin.
C. Mon. 2 of the 16th Century is of little value.
14. “C. Vindobonensis, 55, membran. fol antiquissimus, sed incerto sæculo.”
A full account is given by Rupp in the Preface to Vol. ii. It was collated by Joseph Müller, 1848, and contains all Cyril’s Lectures, except the Procatechesis.
15. Codex A, found by Kleopas in the Library of the Archbishop of Cyprus, and used as the basis of his text, sometimes stands alone in preserving the true reading.
§ 6. Versions. Besides the Latin Translations published with the Greek text, as mentioned above, Reischl mentions the first three of the following:—
(a) Les catéchèses de Sainct Cyrille. Traduit par Louis Ganey. Paris, 1564.
(b) Cyrill’s Schriften übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen versehen von J. Mich. Feder.
Bamberg, 1786.
(c) Cyrilli Hier. Catecheses in Armen. Linguam versæ. Viennæ 1832.
(d) The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, Translated, with Notes and Indices (Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church.) Parker, Oxford, 1838. See Preface.
(f) On Faith and the Creed. C. A. Heurtley, D.D., Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. Parker, 3rd Ed., 1889. Contains, with other Treatises, the Fourth Catechetical Lecture of S. Cyril.
In the present volume the translation given in the Oxford “Library of Fathers” has been carefully revised throughout. Where it has been found necessary to depart from the Benedictine text, the Editor has consulted the readings and critical notes of Milles, Reischl, and Rupp, and the Jerusalem edition of Kleopas and Anaxandrides.
A few additions have been made to the index of Subjects: the Indices of Greek Words and of Scripture Texts have been much enlarged, and carefully revised. For any errors which may have escaped observation the indulgence of the critical reader will not, it is hoped, be asked in vain.
E. H. G
The
Catechetical Lectures
of
S. Cyril,
Archbishop of Jerusalem.
————————————
PROCATECHESIS,
OR,
PROLOGUE TO THE CATECHETICAL LECTURES OF OUR HOLY FATHER,
CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF JERUSALEM.
————————————
1. Already there is
an odour of blessedness upon you, O ye who are soon to be
enlightened The
“blessedness” is the grace of Baptism, the hope of which is
as a fragrant odour already borne towards the Candidates. These
were called no longer Catechumens, but φωτιζόμενοι,
as already on the way “to be enlightened.” Compare
xvi. 26, the last sentence, and see Index, “enlighten.” νοητά. The word is much
used by Plato to distinguish things which can be discerned only by the
mind from the objects of sight and sense. Here “the
spiritual (or, mental) flowers” are the Divine truths in which
“the fragrance of the Holy Spirit” breathes. By “the
vestibule” is meant “the outer hall of the
Baptistery” (xix. 2), and by “the King’s
Palace” the Baptistery itself, which Cyril calls “the inner
chamber” (xx. 1) and “the bride-chamber” (iii. 2;
xxii. 2). See Index, “Baptistery.” Here the
local terms have also an allegorical sense, Baptism being regarded as
the marriage of the Soul to Christ. Another allegory, from
the season of Spring, when the Lectures were delivered. ὀνοματογραφία.
See Index. That the Candidates on
their first admission carried torches or lighted tapers in procession
is a conjecture founded on this passage and Lect. I. 1: “Ye
who have just lighted the torches of faith, preserve them in your hands
unquenched.” But see Index, “Lights.”
2. Even Simon Magus once came to the
Laver Greek, ὑπογραφή, meaning
either an “indictment,” or a descriptive
“sketch.” For the former meaning, see Plato,
Theaet. 172, E. ὑπογραφὴν
…ἣν
ἀντωμοσίαν
καλοῦσιν. “The
faithful” are those who have been already baptized, and
instructed in those mysteries of the Christian Faith which were
reserved for the initiated. See Index,
“Faithful.”
3. A certain man in the Gospels once pried
into the marriage feast See Cat. xxii. 8 and
Index, “White.” The Greed word
(χρῶμα) is used by Ignatius
in the beginning of his Epistle to the Romans of a discolouring
stain. Compare § 1, note
6.
4. For we, the ministers of Christ, have
admitted every one, and occupying, as it were, the place of
door-keepers we left the door open: and possibly thou didst enter
with thy soul bemired with sins, and with a will defiled. Enter
thou didst, and wast allowed: thy name was inscribed. Tell
me, dost thou behold this venerable constitution of the Church?
Dost thou view her order and discipline The Greek word
(ἐπιστήμη) which
commonly means “knowledge” or “understanding,”
is applied here and in vi. 35 to the intelligence and skill displayed
in the arrangement of the public services of the Church. Compare
Apostolic Constitutions, ii. 57, where the Bishop is exhorted to
have the assemblies arranged μετὰ πάσης
ἐπιστήμης. In the same passage of
the Apostolic Constitutions precise directions are given for reading a
Lesson from the Old Testament, singing the Psalms, and reading the
Epistle and Gospel. By “the
ordained” (κανονικῶν) are meant all whose names were registered as bearing office in the
Church, Priests, Deacons, Deaconesses, Monks, Virgins, Widows, all
having their appointed placed and proper duties. Apost.
Canon. 70, εἴ
τις
ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ
πρεσβύτερος,
ἢ διάκονος, ἢ
ὅλως τοῦ
καταλόγου
τῶν κληρικῶν,
κ.τ.λ. Compare Apost.
Const. as above: “Let the Presbyters one by one, not
all together, exhort the people; and the Bishop last, as being the
commander.” S. Aug. de Civit.
Dei., ii. 28: “Though some come to mock at such
admonitions, all their insolence is either humbled by a sudden
conversation (immutatio) or suppressed by fear or shame.”
If the fashion of thy soul is avarice, put on
another fashion and come in. Put off thy former fashion, cloke it
not up. Put off, I pray thee, fornication and uncleanness, and
put on the brightest robe of chastity. This charge I give thee,
before Jesus the Bridegroom of souls come in and see their
fashions. A long notice Greek, προθεσμία.
Compare Index,
“Lent.” Compare xvii. 36.
5. Possibly too thou art come on another
pretext. It is possible that a man is wishing to pay court to a
woman, and came hither on that account S. Ambrose on the
119th Psalm, Serm. xx. § 48, speaks of some who pretended
to be Christians in order to marry one whose parents would not give her
in marriage to a heathen.
6. See, I pray thee, how great a dignity
Jesus bestows on thee. Thou wert called a Catechumen, while the
word echoed S. Cyril plays upon the
word “Catechumen,” which has the same root as
“echo.” Compare xvii. 36.
This sentence is
omitted in one ms. (Paris, 1824), but probably
only through the repetition of the word “baptism.” On
the laws of the Church against the repetition of Baptism, and
concerning the re-baptism of heretics, see Tertull. de
Baptismo, c. xv: Apost. Const. xv.:
Bingham, xii. 5: Hefele, Councils, Lib. I. c. 2:
Dictionary Christian Antiq. I. p. 167 a.
8. For God seeks nothing else from us, save
a good purpose. Say not, How are my sins blotted out? I
tell thee, By willing, by believing Rufinus, in the
Exposition of the Creed, on the Remission of sins:
“The Pagans are wont to say in derision of us, that we deceive
ourselves in thinking that crimes which have been committed in deed can
be washed out by words.” The reading in the
Benedictine Edition, μηδὲ ὁ νοῦς
σου
ῥεμβέσθω, has little
authority, and is quite unsuitable. See below, τὸ βλέμμα
ῥεμβόμενον.
9. Let thy feet hasten to the catechisings;
receive with earnestness the exorcisms Index,
“Exorcism.” Index,
“Veiling.”
10. Attend closely to the catechisings, and
though we should prolong our discourse, let not thy mind be wearied
out. For thou art receiving armour against the adverse power,
armour against heresies, against Jews, and Samaritans The Samaritans are
frequently mentioned by Epiphanius and other writers of the 4th century
among the chief adversaries of Christianity. “In their
humble synagogue, at the foot of the mountain (Gerizim), the Samaritans
still worship, the oldest and the smallest sect in the
world.” (Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p.
240.)
11. Let me give thee this charge also.
Study our teachings and keep them for ever. Think not that they
are the ordinary homilies See above, § 4,
note 3.
12. When, therefore, the Lecture is delivered,
On the Disciplina
Arcani, or rule against publishing the Christian Creed and Mysteries to
Catechumens and Gentiles, see Index,
“Mysteries.”
13. Ye who have been enrolled are become sons and daughters of one Mother. When ye have come in before the hour of the exorcisms, let each one of you speak things tending to godliness: and if any of your number be not present, seek for him. If thou wert called to a banquet, wouldest thou not wait for thy fellow guest? If thou hadst a brother, wouldest thou not seek thy brother’s good?
Afterwards busy not thyself about unprofitable
matters: neither, what the city has done, nor the village, nor
the King The title
“King” (Βασιλεύς) is used
in the Greek Liturgies and Fathers of the Roman Emperor, as in the
Clementine Liturgy: ὑπὲρ
τοῦ βασιλέως,
καὶ τῶν ἐν
ὑπεροχῇ, where it is taken
from
14. And when the Exorcism has been done,
until the others who are being exorcised have come From S. Augustine, de
Symbolo, i. 1 (Migne T. vi. p. 930), we learn that the Candidates
were brought in before the Congregation one by one for exorcism; and
so, as Cyril here shews, they had to wait outside till the others
returned. Chrys. in Matt.
Hom. lxxiv. § 3: “You ought to have within you the
wall that separates you from the women: but since ye will not,
our fathers have thought it necessary to separate you at least by these
boards; for I have heard from my elders that there were not these walls
in old times.” These barriers had not yet been introduced
at Jerusalem, or Cyril’s admonition would have been
needless. Compare Apostolic Constitutions, II.
57.
15. I shall observe each man’s
earnestness, each woman’s reverence. Let your mind be
refined as by fire unto reverence; let your soul be forged as
metal: let the stubbornness of unbelief be hammered out:
let the superfluous scales of the iron drop off, and what is pure
remain; let the rust of the iron be rubbed off, and the true metal
remain. May God sometime shew you that night, the darkness which
shines like the day, concerning which it is said, The darkness shall
not be hidden from thee, and the night shall shine as the
day Or, as the Benedictine
Editor conjectures, “the waters which have a Christ-bearing
(χριστοφόρον)
fragrance.” On the epithet χριστοφόρος,
see Bishop Lightfoot’s note on Ignat. ad Eph. § 1 and
§ 9. Its meaning, as well as that of Θεοφόρος is
defined in the answer of Ignatius to Trajan, ῾Ο
Χριστὸν ἔχων
ἐν στέρνοις
(Martyr. Ign. Ant. § 2). Cat. xxi. 1:
“made partakers therefore of Christ, ye are rightly called
Christs.”
16. Great is the Baptism that lies before
you S. Basil has a passage
in praise of Baptism almost the same, word for word, with this.
It is more likely to have been borrowed from Cyril by Basil and other
Fathers, than to be a later interpolation here.
17. We for our part as men charge and teach
you thus: but make not ye our building hay and stubble and
chaff, lest we suffer loss, from our work being burnt
up: but make ye our work gold, and silver, and precious
stones Greek προσθέσθαι,
Sept.
(To the Reader It is doubtful
whether this caution proceeded from Cyril himself when issuing a
written copy of his Lectures, or from some later editor. Eusebius
(E.H. v. 20) has preserved an adjuration by Irenæus at the
end of his treatise, On the Ogdoad: I adjure thee, who
mayest transcribe this book, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and by His
glorious advent, when He cometh to judge the quick and the dead, to
compare what thou hast written and correct it carefully by this copy,
from which thou hast transcribed it; this adjuration also thou shalt
write in like manner, and set it in the copy.
These Catechetical Lectures for those who are to
be enlightened thou mayest lend to candidates for Baptism, and to
believers who are already baptized, to read, but give not at
all Gr. τὸ
σύνολον. Plat. Leg.
654 B; Soph. 220 B.
of
Our Holy Father Cyril,
Archbishop of Jerusalem,
To those who are to be Enlightened,
delivered extempore at Jerusalem, as an Introductory Lecture to those
who had come forward for Baptism The title prefixed to
this Lecture is given in full. In the following Lectures the form
will be abbreviated. See Index, ἀνάγνωσις and
σχεδιασθεῖσα.
With a reading from
Wash you, make you clean; put away your iniquities
from your souls, from before mine eyes, and the rest
1. Disciples of the
New Testament and partakers of the mysteries of Christ, as yet by
calling only, but ere long by grace also, make you a new heart and a
new spirit Compare xv. 25. Procat. 1, note 6.
2. If any here is a slave of sin, let him
promptly prepare himself through faith for the new birth into freedom
and adoption; and having put off the miserable bondage of his sins, and
taken on him the most blessed bondage of the Lord, so may he be counted
worthy to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Put off, by
confession See Index,
“Confession.” Compare xv. 25.
3. For if any of those who are present
should think to tempt God’s grace, he deceives himself, and knows
not its power. Keep thy soul free from hypocrisy, O man, because
of Him who searcheth hearts and reins
4. Thou art receiving not a perishable but a
spiritual shield. Henceforth thou art planted in the
invisible Gr. νοητόν, i.e. the true
Paradise, to be seen by the mind, not by the eye. See preceding note. νοητή, see note 1, above.
5. The present is the season of
confession: confess what thou hast done in word or in deed, by
night or by day; confess in an acceptable time, and in the day of
salvation Literally
“human.” Some mss. omit τῇ
προσευχῇ after
σχολάζεις. Compare Procat.
17: xviii. 1.
6. If thou hast aught against any man,
forgive it: thou comest here to receive forgiveness of sins, and
thou also must forgive him that hath sinned against thee. Else
with what face wilt thou say to the Lord, Forgive me my many sins, if
thou hast not thyself forgiven thy fellow-servant even his little
sins. Attend diligently the Church assemblies See Index, σύναξις.
On Repentance and Remission of Sins, and Concerning the Adversary.
The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins, &c.
1. A fearful thing
is sin, and the sorest disease of the soul is transgression, secretly
cutting its sinews, and becoming also the cause of eternal fire; an
evil of a man’s own choosing, an offspring of the will. For references to
Cyril’s doctrine of Free-will, see Index, “Soul.” Milles and the
Benedictine Editor omit these clauses, but the more recent editions of
Reischl and Alexandrides insert them on the authority of Munich,
Jerusalem, and other good mss.
2. But some one will say, What can sin
be? Is it a living thing? Is it an angel? Is it a
demon? What is this which works within us? It is not an
enemy, O man, that assails thee from without, but an evil shoot growing
up out of thyself. Look right on with thine eyes Omitted by recent
editors with the best mss. Gr. κεκοίμηται
“has fallen asleep.”
3. Yet thou art not the sole author of the
evil, but there is also another most wicked prompter, the devil.
He indeed suggests, but does not get the mastery by force over those
who do not consent. Therefore saith the Preacher, If the
spirit of him that hath power rise up against thee, quit not thy
place
But perhaps thou sayest, I am a believer, and lust does not gain the ascendant over me, even if I think upon it frequently. Knowest thou not that a root breaks even a rock by long persistence? Admit not the seed, since it will rend thy faith asunder: tear out the evil by the root before it blossom, lest from being careless at the beginning thou have afterwards to seek for axes and fire. When thine eyes begin to be diseased, get them cured in good time, lest thou become blind, and then have to seek the physician.
4. The devil then is the first author of
sin, and the father of the wicked: and this is the Lord’s
saying, not mine, that the devil sinneth On Cyril’s
doctrine of the Angels, see Index, “Angels.”
5. What then? some one will say. We
have been beguiled and are lost. Is there then no salvation
left? We have fallen: Is it not possible to rise
again? We have been blinded: May we not recover our
sight? We have become crippled: Can we never walk
upright? In a word, we are dead: May we not rise
again? He that woke Lazarus who was four days dead and already
stank, shall He not, O man, much more easily raise thee who art
alive? He who shed His precious blood for us, shall Himself
deliver us from sin. Let us not despair of ourselves, brethren;
let us not abandon ourselves to a hopeless condition. For it is a
fearful thing not to believe in a hope of repentance. For he that
looks not for salvation spares not to add evil to evil: but to
him that hopes for cure, it is henceforth easy to be careful over
himself. The robber who looks not for pardon grows desperate;
but, if he hopes for forgiveness, often comes to repentance. What
then, does the serpent cast its slough Literally, “its
old age” (τὸ
γῆρας). Compare iii. 7, and
Dict. Chr. Biogr., Macarius, p. 770 a.
6. God is loving to man, and loving in no
small measure. For say not, I have committed fornication and
adultery: I have done dreadful things, and not once only, but
often: will He forgive? Will He grant pardon? Hear
what the Psalmist says: How great is the multitude of Thy
goodness, O Lord
7. Wouldest thou see the loving-kindness of
God, O thou that art lately come to the catechising? Wouldest
thou see the loving-kindness of God, and the abundance of His
long-suffering? Hear about Adam. Adam, God’s
first-formed man, transgressed: could He not at once have brought
death upon him? But see what the Lord does, in His great love
towards man. He casts him out from Paradise, for because of sin
he was unworthy to live there; but He puts him to dwell over against
Paradise This is the reading of
the Septuagint instead of—“He placed at the east of the
garden of Eden.”
8. Even this then was truly loving-kindness in
God, but little as yet in comparison with what follows. For
consider what happened in the days of Noe. The giants sinned, and
9. Come with me now to the other class,
those who were saved by repentance. But perhaps even among women
some one will say, I have committed fornication, and adultery, I have
defiled my body by excesses of all kinds: is there salvation for
me? Turn thine eyes, O woman, upon Rahab, and look thou also for
salvation; for if she who had been openly and publicly a harlot was
saved by repentance, is not she who on some one occasion before
receiving grace committed fornication to be saved by repentance and
fasting? For inquire how she was saved: this only she
said: For your God is God in heaven and upon
earth
10. Nay more, if a whole people sin, this
surpasses not the loving-kindness of God. The people made a calf,
yet God ceased not from His loving-kindness. Men denied God, but
God denied not Himself For “all
time,” the reading of the best mss., the
Benedictine text has “all mankind.”
11. But if concerning us men thou wilt have
other examples also set before thee The Benedictine has,
“But if thou wilt I will set before thee other examples also of
our state? Come on to the blessed David.” Bened. “The king,
the wearer of the purple.” Bened.
“blinded.”
12. Thus then did the Prophet comfort him,
but the blessed David, for all he heard it said, The Lord hath put away thy sin, did not cease from
repentance, king though he was, but put on sackcloth instead of purple,
and instead of a golden throne, he sat, a king, in ashes on the ground;
nay, not only sat in ashes, but also had ashes for his food, even as he
saith himself, I have eaten ashes as it were bread Resch. (Agrapha,
p. 137) quotes various forms of this saying from early writers, and
regards it as a fragment of an extracanonical Gospel. But see
Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. c. xiii.
13. Thou seest that it is good to make
confession. Thou seest that there is salvation for them that
repent. Solomon also fell but what saith he? Afterwards
I repented
14. Again, Jeroboam was standing at the
altar sacrificing to the idols: his hand became withered, because
he commanded the Prophet who reproved him to be seized: but
having by experience learned the power of the man before him, he says,
Entreat the face of the Lord thy God Justin Martyr,
Dialogue with Trypho, § 120 charges the Jews with having
cut out a passage referring to the death of Isaiah. Theophylact
commenting on
15. Take heed lest without reason thou
mistrust the power of repentance. Wouldst thou know what power
repentance has? Wouldst thou know the strong weapon of salvation,
and learn what the force of confession is? Hezekiah by means of
confession routed a hundred and fourscore and five thousand of his
enemies. A great thing verily was this, but still small in
comparison with what remains to be told: the same king by
repentance obtained the recall of a divine sentence which had already
gone forth. For when he had fallen sick, Esaias said to him,
Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not
live From this point
the mss. differ so widely that the Benedictine
Editor gives two complete recensions of the whole Lecture. The
Codd. Coislin, Ottob. 2, and Grodec, with the editions of Prevot and
Milles, forming as it were one family of mss.,
constitute the received text. On the other hand the older Munich
Codex, with Codd. Roe and Casaubon, exhibit a recension of the Lecture
differing from the editions. Reischl wishing to retain the
received text unaltered, though preferring the other in particular
passages, intended to append the other recension complete, but having
left his work half finished, failed to do so. The chief
variations are given in the following notes.
16. But if thou disbelieve, consider what
befel Ananias and his companions. What streams did they pour
out Roe and Casaubon (R.C.)
add: “into the furnace of fire.” R.C. “What
measure.” Song of the Three Children, v. 24. R.C.
“Much.” R.C. “A great
stream of repentance was poured forth, when they said, For Thou art
righteous,” &c. Song of the Three Children, v. 4. R.C. “Did then
repentance quench the flames of the furnace, and dost thou disbelieve
that it is able also to quench the fire of hell?” The Gospel only says,
“There was darkness over all the land.” An eclipse of
the sun was impossible at the time of the Paschal full moon. R.C. “That the
narrative is not appropriate to those who are here present. For
it was because Ananias and his companions refused to worship the idol,
that God gave them that marvellous power. Adapting myself,
therefore, to such a hearer, and looking to the profusion of instances,
I come next to a different example of repentance.”
17. What thinkest thou of
Nabuchodonosor? Hast thou not heard out of the Scriptures that he
was bloodthirsty, fierce R.C. “most
impious, and most fierce in temper.” “Knowest thou
not…” R.C. “carried
off.” νοητά. R.C. add “and
heavenly.” Omitted by R.C. R.C. “But those
which had been constructed in the Temple, which were over the
mercy-seat of the Ark.” Besides the two Cherubim of solid
gold which Moses placed on the two ends of the Mercy-seat ( The Greek word rendered
“Sanctuary” is ἡ
ἁγιωσύνη,
literally “the holiness.” R.C. “The veil of
the Sanctuary he tore down, he overturned the altar, and took all the
vessels and carried them away to an idol temple. The Temple
itself he burned.”
18. Thou hast seen the greatness of his evil
deeds: come now to God’s loving-kindness. He was
turned into a wild beast R.C. Afterwards he was
turned into a wild beast: “he who was like a wild beast and
most cruel in disposition; but he was turned into a wild beast, not
that he might perish, but that by repentance he might be
saved.” R.C. “of
birds.” See R.C. “after the
midst of the furnace had become to Ananias and his companions as the
tinkling breath of rain, he saw and believed not.” R.C. “But
afterwards he came to his senses and repented, as he says
himself.” R.C. “And after he
had been scourged many years, he gave praise to Him that liveth for
ever, and acknowledged Him that had given him the kingdom, and
recognised the King of kings. And though he had often sinned in
deeds, on making confession only in words, he received the benefit of
God’s unspeakable loving kindness. He who was of all men
most wicked, by the Divine judgment and loving-kindness of God who
chastised him, crowned himself again with the royal diadem, and
recovered his imperial throne.”
19. What then R.C. “If then
there is present among you any from among the Heathen who has ever
spoken evil against Christians, or in times of persecution plotted
against the Holy Churches, let him take Nabuchodonsor as an example of
salvation: let him confess in like manner, that he may also find
the like forgiveness. If any has been defiled by lust and
passions, let him take up the repentance of the blessed David: if
any has denied like Peter, let him die like him for the sake of the
Lord Jesus. For He who to his tears begrudged not the
Apostleship, will not refuse thee the gospel mysteries. And for
women let Rahab be a pattern unto salvation, and for men the manifold
examples mentioned of the men of old times.
20. Having therefore, brethren, many
examples of those who have sinned and repented and been saved, do ye
also heartily make confession unto the Lord, that ye may both receive
the forgiveness of your former sins, and be counted worthy of the
heavenly gift, and inherit the heavenly kingdom with all the saints in
Christ Jesus; to Whom is the glory for ever and ever.
Amen R.C. “And be ye
all of good hope, having regard to the lovingkindness of God; not that
we may fall back into the same sins, but that having had the benefit of
redemption, and lived in a manner worthy of His grace, we may be able
to blot out the handwriting that is against us by good works; in the
power of the Only-begotten, the Son of God, and our Lord Jesus Christ,
with whom be glory to the Father, with the Holy Ghost, both now and
ever, and unto all the ages of eternity. Amen.”
On Baptism.
Or know ye not that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? were buried therefore with Him by our baptism into death, &c.
1. Rejoice, ye heavens, and let the earth
be glad The invisible or
spiritual (νοητός) hyssop is the
cleansing power of the Holy Ghost in Baptism. Compare
S. Cyril here, and still
more emphatically in xiii. 39, distinguishes the hyssop ( σωμάτων.
2. Listen then, O ye children of
righteousness, to John’s exhortation when he says, Make
straight the way of the Lord. Take away all obstacles and
stumbling-blocks, that ye may walk straight onward to eternal
life. Make ready the vessels So in § 15, the
soul is regarded as a vessel for receiving grace.
For now meanwhile thou standest outside the
door: but God grant that you all may say, The King hath
brought me into His chamber
3. This is in truth a serious matter,
brethren, and you must approach it with good heed. Each one of
you is about to be presented to God before tens of thousands of the
Angelic Hosts: the Holy Ghost is about to seal See Index,
“Seal.” Index,
“White.” βωμοῖς used of heathen
altars only, in Septuagint and N.T. Both here and in xix. 7,
Cyril speaks of things offered to idols just as S. Paul in
4. For since man is of twofold nature, soul
and body, the purification also is twofold, the one incorporeal for the
incorporeal part, and the other bodily for the body: the water
cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul; that we may draw near
unto God, having our heart sprinkled by the Spirit, and our
body washed with pure water See the note on
“the twofold grace perfected by water and the Spirit,” at
the end of this Lecture. στηλή, Sept. A pillar of
stone, bearing an inscription, was a common form of memorial among the
Israelites and other ancient nations. See Dictionary of the
Bible, “Pillar.” S. Cyril considers
that Cornelius and his friends were regenerated, as the Apostles were,
apart from Baptism; as August. Serm. 269, n. 2, and
Chrysost. in Act. Apost. Hom. 25, seem to do.
R.W.C.
5. But if any one wishes to know why the
grace is given by water and not by a different element, let him take up
the Divine Scriptures and he shall learn. For water is a grand
thing, and the noblest of the four visible elements of the world.
Heaven is the dwelling-place of Angels, but the heavens are from the
waters Compare ix. 5.
6. Baptism is the end of the Old Testament,
and beginning of the New. For its author was John, than whom was
none greater among them that are born of women. The end he
was of the Prophets: for all the Prophets and the law were
until John From the Clementine
Recognitions, I. 54 and 60, we learn that there were some who asserted
that John was the Christ, and not Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus Himself
declared that John was greater than all men, and all Prophets.
The answer is there given, that John was greater than all who are born
of women, yet not greater than the Son of Man. The locust being winged
suggest the idea of growing wings for the soul.
7. This man was baptizing in Jordan, and
there went out unto him all Jerusalem The Greek word
(ὑπόστασις) is used
by Polybius (xxxiv. 9) for the deposit of silver from crushed ore, and
by Hippocrates for any sediment or deposit. Here it means, as the
context clearly shews, the old skin cast by a snake. Compare ii.
5.
But there is perhaps among you some hypocrite, a
man-pleaser, and one who makes a pretence of piety, but believes not
from the heart; having the hypocrisy of Simon Magus; one who has come
hither not in order to receive of the grace, but to spy out what is
given: let him also learn from John: And now also the
axe is laid unto the root of the trees, Every tree therefore that
bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the
fire
8. What then must you do? And what are
the fruits of repentance? Let him that hath two coats give to
him that hath none
9. Thou hast as the glory of Baptism the Son
Himself, the Only-begotten of God. For why should I speak any
more of man? John was great, but what is he to the Lord?
His was a loud-sounding voice, but what in comparison with the
Word? Very noble was the herald, but what in comparison with the
King? Noble was he that baptized with water, but what to Him that
baptizeth with the Holy Ghost and with fire
10. If any man receive not Baptism, he hath
not salvation; except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive
the kingdom. For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His
Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that
men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in
times of persecution, in their own blood. For martyrdom also the
Saviour is wont to call a baptism, saying, Can ye drink the cup
which I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized
with
11. Jesus sanctified Baptism by being
Himself baptized. If the Son of God was baptized, what godly man
is he that despiseth Baptism? But He was baptized not that He
might receive remission of sins, for He was sinless; but being sinless,
He was baptized, that He might give to them that are baptized a divine
and excellent grace. For since the children are partakers of
flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise partook of the
same
12. For thou goest down into the water,
bearing thy sins, but the invocation of grace Compare III. 3, and see
Index, “Baptism.”
13. Moreover, when thou hast been deemed
worthy of the grace, He then giveth thee strength to wrestle against
the adverse powers. For as after His Baptism He was tempted forty
days (not that He was unable to gain the victory before, but because He
wished to do all things in due order and succession), so thou likewise,
though not daring before thy baptism to wrestle with the adversaries,
yet after thou hast received the grace and art henceforth confident in
the armour of righteousness
14. Jesus Christ was the Son of God, yet He
preached not the Gospel before His Baptism. If the Master Himself
followed the right time in due order, ought we, His servants, to
venture out of order? From that time Jesus began to
preach
15. Make ready then the vessel of thy soul,
that thou mayest become a son of God, and an heir of God, and
joint-heir with Christ
The Fathers
sometimes speak as if Baptism was primarily the Sacrament of remission
of sins, and upon that came the gift of the Spirit, which
notwithstanding was but begun in Baptism and completed in
Confirmation. Vid. Tertullian. de Bapt. 7, 8,
supr. i. 5 fin. Hence, as in the text,
Baptism may be said to be made up of two gifts, Water, which is
Christ’s blood, and the Spirit. There is no real difference
between this and the ordinary way of speaking on the
subject;—Water, which conveys both gifts, is considered as
a type of one especially,—conveys both remission of
sins through Christ’s blood and the grace of the Spirit, but is
the type of one, viz. the blood of Christ, as the Oil in
Confirmation is of the other. And again, remission of sins is a
complete gift given at once, sanctification an increasing one.
(R.W.C.) See Index,
“Baptism.”
On the Ten The number
“ten” is confirmed by Theodoret, who quotes the article on
Christ’s “Birth of the Virgin” as from Cyril’s
fourth Catechetical Lecture “On the ten Doctrines.”
The mss. vary between “ten” and
“eleven,” and differ also in the special titles and
numeration of the separate Articles.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, &c.
1. Vice mimics
virtue, and the tares strive to be thought wheat, growing like the
wheat in appearance, but being detected by good judges from the
taste. The devil also transfigures himself into an angel of
light
2. For the method of godliness consists of
these two things, pious doctrines, and virtuous practice: and
neither are the doctrines acceptable to God apart from good works, nor
does God accept the works which are not perfected with pious
doctrines. For what profit is it, to know well the doctrines
concerning God, and yet to be a vile fornicator? And again, what
profit is it, to be nobly temperate, and an impious blasphemer? A
most precious possession therefore is the knowledge of doctrines:
also there is need of a wakeful soul, since there are many that make
spoil through philosophy and vain deceit Compare Ignatius,
Trall. vi.
3. But before delivering you over to the
Creed Compare
I. Of God.
4. First then let there be laid as a
foundation in your soul the doctrine concerning God; that God is One,
alone unbegotten, without beginning, change, or variation Compare Hermas,
Mandat. I. Athan. Epist. de Decretis Nic. Syn.
xxii.: οὕτω
καὶ τὸ
ἄτρεπτον καὶ
ἀναλλοίωτον
αὐτὸν εἶναι
σωθήσεται.
So Aristotle (Metaphys. XI. c. iv. 13) describes the First Cause
as ἀπαθὲς καὶ
ἀναλλοίωτον. Irenæus, I.
c. xxvii. says that Cerdo taught that the God of the Law and the
Prophets was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: for that He
is known, but the other unknown, and the one is just, but the other
good. Also III. c. 25, § 3: “Marcion himself,
therefore, by dividing God into two, and calling the one good, and the
other judicial, on both sides puts an end to Deity.”
Compare Tertullian, c. Marcion. I. 2, and 6; Origen,
c. Cels. iv. 54. This tenet was
held by the Manichæans and other heretics, and is traced back to
the Apostolic age by Bishop Pearson (Exposition of the Creed,
Art. i. p. 79, note c). Compare Athanasius c.
Apollinarium, I. 21; II. 8; c.
Gentes, § 6; de Incarnatione, § 2, in
this series, and Augustine (c. Faustum, xx. 15,
21, and xxi. 4).
5. This Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is
not circumscribed in any place S. Aug. in
Ps. lxxv. 6: Si in aliquo loco esset, non esset
Deus. Sermo 342: Deus habitando continet non
continetur. Origen, c. Cels.
vii. 34: “God is of too excellent a nature for any
place: He holds all things in His power, and is Himself not
confined by anything whatever.” Compare the quotation from
Sir Isaac Newton’s Principia, in the note on Cat. vi.
8. See Cat. xv. 3, and note
there. ἰδέαν. Cyril uses the word in
the Platonic sense, as in the next sentence he adopts the formula,
which Plato commonly uses in describing the “idea:”
ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ
αὐτὰ καὶ
ὡσαύτως
ἔχειν. Phaed. 78 c.
6. Seeing then that many have gone astray in
divers ways from the One God, some having deified the sun, that when
the sun sets they may abide in the night season without God; others the
moon, to have no God by day Gaea or Tellus, the
earth; Zeus or Jupiter, the sky; rivers, fountains, &c. Music, Medicine,
Hunting, War, Agriculture, Metallurgy, &c., represented by Apollo,
Æsculapius, Diana, Mars, Ceres, Vulcan. Herodotus, Book II.,
describes the Egyptian worship of various birds, fishes, and
quadrupeds. Leeks and onions also were held sacred: Porrum
et caepe nefas violare, Juv. Sat. xv. 9. Compare
Clement of Alexandria, Protrept. c. ii. § 39,
Klotz. Eros, Dionysus. Clement of Alexandria
(Protrept. c. iv. § 53, Klotz) states that the
courtesan Phryne was taken as a model for Aphrodite.
“Praxiteles when fashioning the statue of Aphrodite of Cnidus
made it like the form of Cratine his paramour.”
Ibid. Plutus. τῆς
μοναρχίας
τοῦ θεοῦ. See note on
the title of Cat. VI. Praxeas made use of the term
“Monarchy” to exclude the Son (and the Spirit) from the
Godhead. Tertullian in his treatise against Praxeas maintains the
true doctrine that the Son is no obstacle to the
“Monarchy,” because He is of the substance of the Father,
does nothing without the Father’s will, and has received all
power from the Father, to Whom He will in the end deliver up the
kingdom. In this sense Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, speaks of the
Divine Monarchy as “that most sacred doctrine of the Church of
God.” Compare Athanas. de Decretis, Nic. Syn. c. vi.
§ 3 and Dr. Newman’s note. In Orat. iv.
c. Arian. p 606 (617), Athanasius derives the term
from ἀρχή, in the sense of
“beginning:” οὕτως μία
ἀρχὴ
θεότητος καὶ
οὐ δύο ἀρχαί,
ὅθεν κυρίως
καὶ μοναρχία
ἐστίν. See the full discussion
of Monarchianism in Athanasius, p. xxiii. ff. in this series,
and Newman’s Introduction to Athan. Or. iv. For φοράν (Bened.) many
mss. read φθοράν,
“corruption.”
Of Christ.
7. Believe also in the Son of God, One and Only,
our Lord Jesus Christ, Who was be Compare xi. 4, 9,
18. Τὸν ὅμοιον
κατὰ πάντα τῷ
γεννησαντι.
On the meaning and history of this phrase, proposed by the Semi-Arians
at the Council of Ariminum as a substitute for ὁμοούσιον, see
Athan. de Syn. § 8, sqq. ἐνυπόστατος.
Cf. xi. 10; Athan. c. Apollinar. I. 20, 21.
For the throne at God’s right hand He
received not, as some have thought, because of His patient endurance,
being crowned as it were by God after His Passion; but throughout His
being,—a being by eternal generation The mss. vary much, but I have followed the Benedictine
text.
8. Further, do thou neither
separate This was a point
earnestly maintained by the orthodox Bishops at Nicæa, that the
Son begotten of the substance of the Father is ever inseparably in the
Father. Athan. de Decretis Syn. c. 20 ; Tertullian
c. Marc. IV. c. 6. Cf. Ignat. ad Trall. vi.
(Long Recension): τὸν
μὲν γὰρ
Χριστὸν
ἀλλοτριουσι
τοῦ Πατρός. υἱοπατορία.
A term of derision applied to the doctrine of Sabellius. Compare
Athanas. Expositio Fidei, c. 2: “neither do we
imagine a Son-Father, as the Sabellians.” See Index,
Υιοπάτωρ. Λόγος
προφορικός, the term used by Paul of Samosata, implied that the Word was
impersonal, being conceived as a particular activity of God. See
Dorner, Person of Christ, Div. I. vol. ii. p. 436 (English
Tr.): and compare Athanasius, Expositio Fidei, c.
1; υἱὸν ἐκ
τοῦ Πατρὸς
ἀνάρχως καὶ
ἀϊδίως
γεγεννημένον,
λόγον δὲ οὐ
προφορικόν,
οὐκ
ἐνδιάθετον.
Cardinal Newman (Athan. c. Arianos, I. 7, note) observes that
some Christian writers of the 2nd Century “seem to speak of the
Divine generation as taking place immediately before the creation of
the world, that is, as if not eternal, though at the same time they
teach that our Lord existed before that generation. In other
words they seem to teach that He was the Word from eternity, and became
the Son at the beginning of all things; some of them expressly
considering Him, first as the λόγος
ἐνδιάθετος,
or Reason, in the Father, or (as may be speciously represented) a mere
attribute; next, as the λόγος
προφορικός,
or Word.” The terms λόγος
ἐνδιάθετος,
or ‘word conceived in the mind,’ and λόγος
προφορικός,
or ‘word expressed’ (emissum, or prolalivum),
were in use among the Gnostics (Iren. II. c. 12, §
5). As applied to the Son both terms, though sometimes used in a
right sense, were condemned as inadequate. Compare xi. 10. ἀνυποστάτοις
λόγοις. Athan. c.
Arianos Orat. iv. c. 8: πάλιν οἱ
λέγοντες
μόνον ὄνομα
εἶναι υἱοῦ,
ἀνούσιον δὲ
καὶ
ἀνυπόστατον
εἶναι τὸν
υἱὸν τοῦ
Θεοῦ, κ.τ.λ.
Concerning His Birth of the Virgin.
9. Believe then that this Only-begotten Son
of God for our sins came down from heaven upon earth, and took upon Him
this human nature of like passions ὁμοιοπαθῆ.
Compare On the origin of the
Docetic heresy, see vi. 14. Valentinus the Gnostic
taught that God produced a Son of an animal nature who “passed
through Mary just as water through a tube, and that on him the Saviour
descended at his Baptism.” Irenæus, I. vii. 2. The words which the
Benedictine Editor introduces in the brackets are found in Theodoret,
and adopted by recent Editors, with Codd. M.A.
Of the Cross.
10. He was truly crucified for our
sins. For if thou wouldest deny it, the place refutes thee
visibly, this blessed Golgotha Eusebius, Life
of Constantine, iii. 28. The discovery of
the “True Cross” is related with many marvellous
particulars by Socrates, Eccles. Hist. i. 17; and Sozomen, E.
H. ii. 1. A portion was said to have been left by Helena at
Jerusalem, enclosed in a silver case; and another portion sent to
Constantinople, where Constantine privately enclosed it in his own
statue, to be a safeguard to the city. Eusebius, Life of
Constantine, iii. 25–30 , gives a long account of the
discovery of the Holy Sepulchre, but makes no mention of the
Cross. Cyril seems to have been the first to record it, 25 years
after. Cf. Greg. Nyss. Bapt. Christi (p. 519).
11. He was truly laid as Man in a tomb of
rock; but rocks were rent asunder by terror because of Him. He
went down into the regions beneath the earth, that thence also He might
redeem the righteous Compare xiv. 18, 19, on
the Descent into Hades. The same Old Testament
saints are named in xiv. 19, as redeemed by Christ in Hades.
Of the Resurrection.
12. But He who descended into the regions
beneath the earth came up again; and Jesus, who was buried, truly rose
again the third day. And if the Jews ever worry thee, meet them
at once by asking thus: Did Jonah come forth from the whale on
the third day, and hath not Christ then risen from the earth on the
third day? Is a dead man raised to life on touching the bones of
Elisha, and is it not much easier for the Maker of mankind to be raised
by the power of the Father? Well then, He truly rose, and after
He had risen was seen again of the disciples: and twelve
disciples were witnesses of His Resurrection, who bare witness not in
pleasing words, but contended even unto torture and death for the truth
of the Resurrection. What then, shall every word be
established at the mouth of two of three witnesses
Concerning the Ascension.
13. But when Jesus had finished His course of patient endurance, and had redeemed mankind from their sins, He ascended again into the heavens, a cloud receiving Him up: and as He went up Angels were beside Him, and Apostles were beholding. But if any man disbelieves the words which I speak, let him believe the actual power of the things now seen. All kings when they die have their power extinguished with their life: but Christ crucified is worshipped by the whole world. We proclaim The Crucified, and the devils tremble now. Many have been crucified at various times; but of what other who was crucified did the invocation ever drive the devils away?
14. Let us, therefore, not be ashamed of the
Cross of Christ; but though another hide it, do thou openly seal it
upon thy forehead, that the devils may behold the royal sign and flee
trembling far away Justin M.
Dialogue with Trypho, 247 C: We call Him Helper and
Redeemer, the power of whose Name even demons do fear; and at this day,
when exorcised in the name of Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius
Pilate, Governor of Judæa, they are overcome. Tertullian, de
Coronâ, 3: At every forward step and movement, at every
going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe,
when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in
all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the
Sign. If for these, and other such rules, you insist upon having
positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will
be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their
strengthener, and faith as their observer.
Of Judgment to Come.
15. This Jesus Christ who is gone up shall
come again, not from earth but from heaven: and I say, “not
from earth,” because there are many Antichrists to come at this
time from earth. For already, as thou hast seen, many have begun
to say, I am the Christ Compare xv. 27, where
the followers of Marcellus of Ancyra are indicated as holding this
opinion.
16. Believe thou also in the Holy Ghost, and
hold the same opinion concerning Him, which thou hast received to
hold concerning the Father and the Son, and follow not those who
teach blasphemous things of Him In xvi. 6–10,
Cyril gives a long list of heresies concerning the Holy Ghost. This clause is not
in the Creed of Nicæa, but is added in the Creed of
Constantinople, a.d. 381. θεοποιόν is
omitted in Codd. Roe, Casaubon, and A.
17. Have thou ever in thy mind this
seal The Benedictine Editor
argues from Cat. i. 5, “that thou mayest by faith seal up the
things that are spoken;” and xxiii. 18: “sealing up
the Prayer by the Amen,” that Cyril means by “this
seal” the firm belief of Christian doctrine. Compare
ἡ σωτηρία γὰρ
αὕτη τῆς
πίστεως
ἡμῶν, which might be rendered, “this
our salvation by faith,” or, with Milles, “this safety of
our Faith.” For the rendering in the text compare
Of the Soul.
18. Next to the knowledge of this venerable
and glorious and all-holy Faith, learn further what thou thyself
art: that as man thou art of a two-fold nature, consisting of
soul and body; and that, as was said a short time ago, the same God is
the Creator both of soul and body iv. 4. In the Clementine
Homily xvi. 16, the soul having come forth from God, clothed with His
breath, is said to be of the same substance, and yet not God. In
Tertull. c. Marcion II. c. 9, the soul is the
affatus (πνοή not πνεῦμα) of God, i.e. the
image of the Spirit, and inferior to it, though possessing the true
lineaments of divinity, immortality, freedom, its own mastery over
itself. Tertull. c.
Marc. II. 6: It was proper that he who is the image and
likeness of God should be formed with a free will, and a mastery of
himself, so that this very thing, namely freedom of will and
self-command, might be reckoned as the image and likeness of God in
him. Compare Aug. de Civ.
Dei. v. 1, where he says that the astrologers (Mathematici) say,
not merely such or such a position of Mars signifies that a man will be
a murderer, but makes him a murderer. See Dict. of Christian
Antiq., “Astrology.”
19. And learn this also, that the soul,
before it came into this world, had committed no sin “The Orphic poets
were under the impression that the soul is suffering the punishment of
sin, and that the body is an enclosure or prison in which the soul is
incarcerated and kept (σώζεται) as the name
σῶμα implies,
until the penalty is paid.” Plato, Cratyl.
400. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. III. iii. 17), after
referring to this passage of Plato, quotes Philolaus the Pythagorean,
as saying: “The ancient theologians and soothsayers also
testify that the soul has been chained to the body for a kind of
punishment, and is buried in it as in a tomb.“
20. The soul is immortal, and all souls are
alike both of men and women; for only the members of the body are
distinguished Apelles, the
heretic, attributed the difference of sex to the soul, which existing
before the body impressed its sex upon it. Tertull. On the
Soul, c. xxxvi. Irenæus I.
vii. 5: “They (the Valentinians) conceive of three kinds of
men, spiritual, material, and animal.…These three natures are no
longer found in one person, but constitute various kinds of
men.…And again subdividing the animal souls themselves, they say
that some are by nature good, and others by nature evil.”
Origen on Romans, Lib. VIII. § 10: “I know not
how those who come from the School of Valentinus and
Basilides…suppose that there are souls of one nature which are
always safe and never perish, and others which always perish, and are
never saved.”
21. The soul is self-governed: and though the devil can suggest, he has not the power to compel against the will. He pictures to thee the thought of fornication: if thou wilt, thou acceptest it; if thou wilt not, thou rejectest. For if thou wert a fornicator by necessity, then for what cause did God prepare hell? If thou were a doer of righteousness by nature and not by will, wherefore did God prepare crowns of ineffable glory? The sheep is gentle, but never was it crowned for its gentleness: since its gentle quality belongs to it not from choice but by nature.
Of the Body.
22. Thou hast learned, beloved, the nature
of the soul, as far as there is time at present: now do thy best
to receive the doctrine of the body also. Suffer none of those
who say that this body is no work of God See iv. 18. On the impure practices
of the Manichees, see vi. 33, 34.
23. Tell me not that the body is a cause of
sin Fortunatus, the
Manichee, in August. Disput. ii. 20, contra Fortunat. is
represented as saying, What we assert is this, that the soul is
compelled to sin by a substance of contrary nature.
24. And to the doctrine of chastity let the
first to give heed be the order of Solitaries μονάζοντες.
Compare xii. 33; xvi. 22. The origin of Monasticism is usually
traced to the time of the Decian persecution, the middle of the third
century. Previously “there were no monks, but only ascetics
in the Church; from that time to the reign of Constantine, Monachism
was confined to the anchorets living in private cells in the
wilderness: but when Pachomius had erected monasteries in Egypt,
other countries presently followed the example.…Hilarion, who was
scholar to Antonius, was the first monk that ever lived in Palestine or
Syria.” Bingham, VII. i. 4.
25. Nor again, on the other hand, in
maintaining thy chastity be thou puffed up against those who walk in
the humbler path of matrimony. For as the Apostle saith, Let
marriage be had in honour among all, and let the bed be
undefiled
26. Let those also who marry but once not
reprobate those who have consented to a second marriage The condemnation of a
second marriage, which the Benedictine Editor and others import into
this passage, is not to be found in it. τοὺς
δευτέρῳ γάμῳ
συμπεριενεχθέντας
neither means “qui ad secundas nuptias ultro se
dejecere,” nor even “who have involved
themselves” (R.W.C.), but simply “who have consented
to,”—or, “consented together in—a second
marriage,” without any intimation of censure. See V. 9; VI.
13:
Concerning Meats.
27. And concerning food let these be your
ordinances, since in regard to meats also many stumble. For some
deal indifferently with things offered to idols The Nicolaitans
(Apocal. ii. 14, 20); and the Valentinians, of whom Irenæus
(II. xiv. 5), says that they derived their opinion as to the
indifference of meats from the Cynics. See also Irenæus I.
vi. 3; and xxvi. 3. The various sects of
Gnostics, and the Manichees, considered certain meats and drinks, as
flesh and wine, to be polluting. Vid. Iren. Hær. i.
28. Clem. Pæd. ii. 2. p. 186. Epiph.
Hær. xlvi. 2, xlvii. 1, &c., &c. August.
Hær. 46, vid. Canon. Apost. 43.
“If any Bishop, &c., abstain from marriage, flesh, and wine,
not for discipline (δι᾽
ἄσκησιν) but as
abhorring them, forgetting that they are all very good, &c., and
speaking blasphemy against the creation, let him amend or be
deposed,” &c. R.W.C.
28. Guard thy soul safely, lest at any time
thou eat of things offered to idols: for concerning meats of this
kind, not only I at this time, but ere now Apostles also, and James the
bishop of this Church, have had earnest care: and the Apostles
and Elders write a Catholic epistle to all the Gentiles, that they
should abstain first from things offered to idols, and
then from blood also and from things strangled Tertullian
(Apologeticus, c. 9) speaks of those “who at the gladiator
shows, for the cure of epilepsy, quaff with greedy thirst the blood of
criminals slain in the arena,” and of others “who make
meals on the flesh of wild beasts at the place of combat:”
and contrasts the habits of Christians, who abstain from things
strangled, to avoid pollution by the blood.
Of Apparel.
29. But let thine apparel be plain, not for adornment, but for necessary covering: not to minister to thy vanity, but to keep thee warm in winter, and to hide the unseemliness of the body: lest under pretence of hiding the unseemliness, thou fall into another kind of unseemliness by thy extravagant dress.
Of the Resurrection.
30. Be tender, I beseech thee, of this body,
and understand that thou wilt be raised from the dead, to be judged
with this body. But if there steal into thy mind any thought of
unbelief, as though the thing were impossible, judge of the things
unseen by what happens to thyself. For tell me; a hundred years
ago or more, think where wast thou thyself: and from what a most
minute and mean substance thou art come to so great a stature, and so
much dignity of beauty XVIII. 9. Compare xviii. 6,
9; Athenagoras, On the Resurrection of the Dead, c.
3. XVIII. 6.
XVIII. 7.
31. Heed not those who say that this body is
not raised; for it is raised: and Esaias is witness, when he
says: The dead shall arise, and they that are in the tombs
shall awake
Of the Laver.
32. For this cause the Lord, preventing us
according to His loving-kindness, has granted repentance at
Baptism Gr. λουτροῦ
μετάνοιαν.
Other readings are λύτρον
μετανοίας,
“redemption by repentance,” and λουτρὸν
μετανοίας “a
laver (baptism) of repentance.”
Of the Divine Scriptures.
33. Now these the divinely-inspired
Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament teach us. For
the God of the two Testaments is One, Who in the Old Testament foretold
the Christ Who appeared in the New; Who by the Law and the Prophets led
us to Christ’s school. For before faith came, we were
kept in ward under the law, and, the law hath been our tutor to
bring us unto Christ τῶν
ἀποκρύφων.
The sense in which Cyril uses this term may be learned from Rufinus
(Expositio Symboli, § 38), who distinguishes three
classes of books: (1) The Canonical Books of the Old and New
Testaments, which alone are to be used in proof of doctrine; (2)
Ecclesiastical, which may be read in Churches, including Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees, in the
Old Testament, and The Shepherd of Hermas, and The Two
Ways in the New Testament; (3) The other writings they called
“Apocryphal,” which they would not have read in
Churches. The distinction is useful, though the second class is
not complete. The original source of
this account of the Septuagint version is a letter purporting to have
been written by Aristeas, or Aristæus, a confidential minister of
Ptolemy Philadelphus, to his brother Philocrates. Though the
letter is not regarded as genuine its statements are in part admitted
to be true, being confirmed by a fragment, preserved by Eusebius
(Præparatio Evangelica, ix. 6.), of a work of
Aristobulus, a Jewish philosopher who wrote in the reign of Ptolemy
Philometor, 181–146, b.c. Upon
these testimonies it is generally admitted that “the whole
Law,” i.e. the Pentateuch was translated into Greek at Alexandria
in the reign either of Ptolemy Soter (323–285, b.c.), or of his son Ptolemy Philadelphus (285–247,
b.c.), under the direction of Demetrius
Phalereus, curator of the King’s library.
Up to this point
Cyril’s account is based upon the statements of the
Pseudo-Aristeas. The fabulous incidents which follow, concerning
the separate cells, the completion of the whole version by each
translator, the miraculous agreement in the very words, proving a
Divine inspiration, are found in Philo Judæus, Life of
Moses, II. 7. Josephus, Antiquities, XII. c.
ii. 3–14, following the letter of Aristeas, gives long
descriptions of the magnificent presents sent by Philadelphus to
Jerusalem, and of his splendid hospitality to the translators, but
makes no allusion to the separate cells or miraculous agreement.
On the contrary he represents the 72 interpreters as meeting together
for consultation, agreeing on the text to be adopted, and completing
their joint labours in 72 days. The slightest comparison of the
Version with the original Hebrew must convince any reasonable person
that the idea of divine inspiration or supernatural assistance,
borrowed by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, and other Fathers, apparently
from Philo, is a mere invention of the imagination, disproved by the
facts. Compare the article “Septuagint” in
Murray’s Dictionary of the Bible.
35. Of these read the two and twenty books,
but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study
earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far
wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of
old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these
books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench The rendering
“trench not” (R.W.C.) agrees well
with the etymology of the verb (παραχαράσσω).
Its more usual signification seems to be “counterfeit,”
“forge.” The sense required here, apart from any
metaphor, is “transgress” (Heurtley). The name
“Nun” is represented by “Nave” in the
Septuagint, which Cyril used. The two books of
Samuel. The Epistle of Jeremy,
which now appears in the Apocrypha as the last chapter of Baruch.
On the number and arrangement of the Books of the Old and New
Testaments the student should consult an interesting Essay by Professor
Sanday (Studia Biblica, vol. iii.), who traces the
introduction of a fixed order to the time when papyrus rolls
were superseded by codices, in which the sheets of skin were
folded and bound together, as in printed books. This change had
commenced before the Diocletian persecution, a.d. 303, when among the sacred books taken from the
Christians codices were much more numerous than
rolls. On the contents of the Jewish Canon, see Dictionary
of the Bible, “Canon.” B.F.W. “Josephus
enumerates 20 books ‘which are justly believed to be
divine.’” One of the earliest attempts by a Christian
to ascertain correctly the number and order of the Books of the O.T.
was made by Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who travelled for this purpose to
Palestine, in the latter part of the 2nd Century. His list is as
follows:—“Of Moses five (books); Genesis, Exodus, Numbers,
Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Jesus son of Nave, Judges, Ruth, four Books of
Kings, two of Chronicles, Psalms of David, Solomon’s Proverbs,
which is also called Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job,
Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve in one Book, Daniel, Ezekiel,
Esdras.” (Eusebius, H.E. III. cap. 10, note I, in
this series.) Cyril’s List agrees with that of Athanasius
(Festal Epistle, 373 a.d.), except that
Job is placed by Ath. after Canticles instead of before
Psalms.
36. Then of the New Testament there are the
four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles Gr. ψευδεπίγραφα. For an account of the many Apocryphal Gospels, see the article
by Lipsius in the “Dictionary of Christian
Biography,” Smith and Wace, and the English translations in
Clark’s Ante-Nicene Library. Cyril includes in
this list all the books which we receive, except the Apocalypse.
See Bishop Westcott’s Article “Canon,” in the
Dictionary of the Bible, and Origen’s Catalogue in Euseb.
Hist. vi. 25 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol.
i.).
37. But shun thou every diabolical
operation, and believe not the apostate Serpent, whose transformation
from a good nature was of his own free choice: who can
over-persuade the willing, but can compel no one. Also give heed
neither to observations of the stars nor auguries, nor omens, nor to
the fabulous divinations of the Greeks Compare xix. 8. where
all such acts of divination are said to be service of the devil. Compare
Of Faith.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report.
1. How great a
dignity the Lord bestows on you in transferring you from the order of
Catechumens to that of the Faithful, the Apostle Paul shews, when he
affirms, God is faithful, by Whom ye were called into the fellowship
of His Son Jesus Christ See Procatechesis
6, and Index, Faithful.
2. Here then it is further required, that
each of you be found faithful in his conscience: for a
faithful man it is hard to find This sentence is a
spurious addition to the text of the Septuagint, variously placed after
3. Nor is it only among us, who bear the
name of Christ, that the dignity of faith is great It was a common objection of Pagan
philosophers that the Christian religion was not founded upon reason
but only on faith. Cyril’s answer that faith is
necessary in the ordinary affairs of life is the same which Origen had
employed against Celsus (I. 11): “Why should it not be more
reasonable, since all human affairs are dependent upon faith, to
believe God rather than men? For who takes a voyage, or marries,
or begets children, or casts seeds into the ground, without believing
that better things will result, although the contrary might and
sometimes does happen?” See also Arnobius, adversus
Gentes, II. 8; and Hooker’s allusion to the scornful
reproach of Julian the Apostate, “The highest point of your
wisdom is believe” (Eccles. Pol. V. lxiii.
1.). By “aliens from
the Church,” and “those who are without,” S. Cyril
here means Pagans: so Tertullian, de Idololatriâ, c.
xiv. But the latter term is applied to a Catechumen in
Procatechesis. c. 12, and was also a common description of
heretics: see Tertullian, de Baptismo, c. xv.
By faith the laws of marriage yoke together those
who have lived as strangers: and because of the faith in marriage
contracts a stranger is made partner of a stranger’s person and
possessions. By faith husbandry also is sustained, for he who
believes not that he shall receive a harvest endures not the
toils. By faith sea-faring men, trusting to the thinnest plank,
exchange that most solid element, the land, for the restless motion of
the waves, committing themselves to uncertain hopes, and carrying with
them a faith more sure than any anchor. By faith therefore most
of men’s affairs are held together: and not among us only
has there been this belief, but also, as I have said, among those who
are without By “aliens from
the Church,” and “those who are without,” S. Cyril
here means Pagans: so Tertullian, de Idololatriâ, c.
xiv. But the latter term is applied to a Catechumen in
Procatechesis. c. 12, and was also a common description of
heretics: see Tertullian, de Baptismo, c. xv.
4. The lesson also which was read to-day
invites you to the true faith, by setting before you the way in which
you also must please God: for it affirms that without faith it
is impossible to please Him
Faith stoppeth the mouths of lions
5. There is much to tell of faith, and the
whole day would not be time sufficient for us to describe it
fully. At present let us be content with Abraham only, as one of
the examples from the Old Testament, seeing that we have been made his
sons through faith. He was justified not only by works, but also
by faith
6. Let us see, then, how Abraham is the
father of many nations
7. This faith if we keep we shall be free
from condemnation, and shall be adorned with all kinds of
virtues. For so great is the strength of faith, as even to buoy
men up in walking on the sea. Peter was a man like ourselves,
made up of flesh and blood, and living upon like food. But when
Jesus said, Come
8. Yea, so much power hath faith, that not
the believer only is saved, but some have been saved by others
believing. The paralytic in Capernaum was not a believer, but
they believed who brought him, and let him down through the
tiles
9. Wouldest thou see yet more surely that
some are saved by others’ faith? Lazarus died νεῦρα.
“Sinews” is the original meaning, the application to
“nerves,” as distinct organs of sensation, being later. For ἀναστῆναι,
retained by the Benedictine Editor and Reischl, read ἀναστῆσαι, with
Roe, Casaubon, and Alexandrides.
10. For the name of Faith is in the form of
speech κατὰ τὴν
προσηγορίαν. Compare Aristotle, Categories, V. 30:
τῷ
σχήματι τῆς
προσηγορίας.
Cyril’s description of faith as twofold, and of dogmatic faith as
an assent (συγκατάθεσις)
of the soul to something as credible, seems to be derived from Clement
of Alexandria, Strom. II. c. 12. Compare by all means Pearson on
the Creed, Art. I. and his Notes a, b, c. εὐαρεστήσεως
, Bened. and Reischl, with best mss.
Milles and the earlier editions have ἐρευνήσεως,
“searching.”
11. But there is a second kind of faith,
which is bestowed by Christ as a gift of grace. For to one is
given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, and to another the word of
knowledge according to the same Spirit: to another faith, by the
same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing
And of this faith it is said, If ye have faith
as a grain of mustard seed S. Chrysostom
(Hom. xxix. in
12. But in learning the Faith and in
professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now
delivered This Lecture was
to be immediately followed by a first recitation of the Creed.
See Index, Creed. ἐπ᾽
αὐτῆς τῆς
λέξεως. “in ipsâ
lectione” (Milles): “ipsis verbis”
(Bened.): “in the very phrase” (R.W.C.). See below, note 4. Compare S. August.
Serm. ccxii., “At the delivery of the Creed,” and Index,
Creed. Compare
Æschylus, Prometheus V. 789: ἣν
ἐγγράφου σὺ
μνήμοσιν
δέλτοις
φρενῶν. ἐφόδιον,
Viaticum, i.e. provision for a journey, and here for the
journey through this life. It is applied metaphorically by other
Fathers (a) in this general sense, to the reading of Holy Scripture,
Prayer, and Baptism, and (b) in a special sense to the Holy Eucharist
when administered to the sick and dying, as a preparation for departure
to the life after death. Council of Nicæa (a.d. 325), Canon xiii. “With respect to the
dying, the old rule of the Church should continue to be observed, which
forbids that any one who is on the point of death should be deprived of
the last and most necessary viaticum (ἐφόδιον).” ἐπ᾽
αὐτῆς τῆς
λέξεως. (Bened.
Reischl. with best mss.).
ταύτης
τῆς λέξεως,
“this my recitation,” (Milles).
13. Guard them with reverence, lest per
chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic
pervert any of the truths delivered to you. For faith is like
putting money into the bank
Concerning the Unity of God Περὶ Θεοῦ
Μοναρχίας.
The word μοναρχία,
as used by Plato (Polit. 291 C), Aristotle (Polit. III.
xiv. 11. εἶδος
μοναρχίας
βασιλικῆς),
Philo Judæus (de Circumcisione, § 2; de
Monarchia, Titul.), means “sole government.”
Compare Tertullian (adv. Praxean. c. iii.): “If I
have gained any knowledge of either language, I am sure that
Μοναρχία
has no other meaning than ‘single and individual
rule.’” Athanasius (de Decretis Nicænæ
Synodi, § 26) has preserved part of an Epistle of Dionysius,
Bishop of Rome (259–269, a.d.), against
the Sabellians: “It will be natural for me now to speak
against those who divide, and cut into pieces, and destroy that most
sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Monarchia, making it, as it
were, three powers and divided hypostases, and three Godheads;”
(ibid.): “It is the doctrine of the presumptuous
Marcion to sever and divide the Monarchia into three origins
(ἀρχάς).” We see here the
sense which Μοναρχία
had acquired in Christian Theology: it meant the
“Unity of God,” as the one principle and origin of all
things. “By the Monarchy is meant the doctrine that the
Second and Third Persons in the Ever-blessed Trinity are ever to be
referred in our thoughts to the First, as the Fountain of
Godhead” (Newman, Athanas. de Decretis Nic. Syn.
§ 26, note h). Justin Martyr (Euseb. H.E. IV. 18),
and Irenæus (ibid. V. 20), had each written a
treatise περὶ
Μοναρχίας.
On the history of Monarchianism see, in this Series, Athanasius,
Prolegomena, p. xxiii. sqq.
Sanctify yourselves unto Me, O islands. Israel is saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation; they shall not be ashamed, neither shall they be confounded for ever, &c.
1. Blessed be the God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ This clause is omitted in some
mss. Various forms of the Doxology were
adopted in Cyril’s time by various parties in the Church.
Thus Theodoret (Hist. Eccles. II. c. 19) relates that Leontius,
Bishop of Antioch, a.d. 348–357,
observing that the Clergy and the Congregation were divided into two
parties, the one using the form “and to the Son, and to the Holy
Ghost,” the other “through the Son, in the Holy
Ghost,” used to repeat the Doxology silently, so that those who
were near could hear only “world without end.” The form which was regarded as the most
orthodox, and adopted in the Liturgies ran thus: “Glory to
the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, now and ever, and to
the ages of the ages.” See Suicer’s Thesaurus,
Δοξολογία.
2. Now though the mind is most rapid in its
thoughts, yet the tongue needs words, and a long recital of
intermediary speech. For the eye embraces at once a multitude of
the ‘starry quire;’ but when any one wishes to describe
them one by one, which is the Morning-star, and which, the
Evening-star, and which each one of them, he has need of many
words. In like manner again the mind in the briefest moment
compasses earth and sea and all the bounds of the universe; but what it
conceives in an instant, it uses many words to describe Irenæus II. xxviii.
4: “But since God is all mind, all reason, all active
Spirit, all light, and always exists as one and the same, such
conditions and divisions (of operation) cannot fittingly be ascribed to
Him. For our tongue, as being made of flesh, is not able to
minister to the rapidity of man’s sense, because that is of a
spiritual nature; for which reason our speech is restrained
(suffocatur) within us, and is not at once expressed as it has
been conceived in the mind but is uttered by successive efforts, just
as the tongue is able to serve it.” Tertullian,
Apologeticus, § 17: “That which is infinite is
known only to itself. This it is which gives some notion of God,
while yet beyond all our conceptions—our very incapacity of fully
grasping Him affords us the idea of what He really is. He is
presented to our minds in His transcendent greatness, as at once known
and unknown.” Cf. Phil. Jud. de Monarch. i.
4: Hooker, Eccles. Pol. I. ii. 3: “Whom
although to know be life, and joy to make mention of His name; yet our
soundest knowledge is to know that we know Him not as He is, neither
can know Him.”
3. A great and honourable man was Abra The opinion of
Aristarchus of Samos, as stated by Archimedes (Arenarius, p.
320, Oxon), was that the sphere of the fixed stars was so large, that
it bore to the earth’s orbit the same proportion as a sphere to
its centre, or more correctly (as Archimedes explains) the same
proportion as the earth’s orbit round the sun to the earth
itself. Compare Cat. xv. 24.
4. If any man attempt to speak of God, let
him first describe the bounds of the earth. Thou dwellest on the
earth, and the limit of this earth which is thy dwelling thou knowest
not: how then shalt thou be able to form a worthy thought of its
Creator? Thou beholdest the stars, but their Maker thou beholdest
not: count these which are visible, and then describe Him who is
invisible, Who telleth the number of the stars, and calleth them all
by their names
5. But some one will say, If the Divine
substance is incomprehensible, why then dost thou discourse of these
things? So then, because I cannot drink up all the river, am I
not even to take in moderation what is expedient for me? Because
with eyes so constituted as mine I cannot take in all the sun, am I not
even to look upon him enough to satisfy my wants? Or again,
because I have entered into a great garden, and cannot eat all the
supply of fruits, wouldst thou have me go away altogether hungry?
I praise and glorify Him that made us; for it is a divine command which
saith, Let every breath praise the Lord
6. What then, some man will say, is it not
written, The little ones’ Angels do always behold the face of
My Father which is in heaven The Benedictine and
earlier printed texts read ὁ
γεννηθεὶς
[ἀπαθῶς πρὸ
τῶν χρόνων
αἰωνίων]: but
the words in brackets are not found in the best mss. The false grammar betrays a spurious insertion,
which also interrupts the sense. On the meaning of the
phrase ὁ γεννηθεὶς
ἀπαθῶς, see note on vii.
5: οὐ
πάθει πατὴρ
γενόμενος.
7. For devotion it suffices us simply to
know that we have a God; a God who is One, a living Gr. ὄντα, ἀεὶ
ὄντα. Iren. II. xiii. 3:
“He is altogether like and equal to Himself; since He is all
sense, and all spirit, and all feeling, and all thought, and all
reason, and all hearing, and all ear, and all eye, and all light, and
all a fount of every good,—even as the religious and pious are
wont to speak of God.” μονοειδῆ.
A Platonic word. Phædo, 80 B:
τῷ μὲν
θείω καὶ
ἀθανάτῳ καὶ
νοητῷ καὶ
μονοειδεῖ
καὶ ἀδιαλύτῳ
καὶ ἀεὶ
ὡσαύτως κατὰ
τὰ αὐτὰ
ἔχοντι ἑαυτῷ
ὁμοιότατον
εἶναι
ψυχήν. See Index,
“Hypostasis.” Iren. II. xxxv. 3:
“If any object that in the Hebrew language different expressions
occur, such as Sabaoth, Elöe, Adonai, and all other such terms,
striving to prove from these that there are different powers and Gods,
let them learn that all expressions of this kind are titles and
announcements of one and the same Being.” See the passages of
Irenæus quoted above, § 2 note 4, and § 7 note 3.
8. There have been many imaginations by many
persons, and all have failed. Some have thought that God is fire;
others that He is, as it were, a man with wings, because of a true text
ill understood, Thou shalt hide me under the shadow of Thy
wings Philo Judæus
(Leg. Alleg. I. 14. p. 52). Θεοῦ γὰρ
οὐδὲ ὁ
σύμπας
κόσμος ἀξίον
ἂν εἴη χωρίον
καὶ
ἐνδιαίτημα,
ἐπεὶ αὐτὸς
ἑαυτῷ
τήπος. So Sir Isaac Newton, at
the end of the Principia, asserts that God by His eternal and infinite
existence constitutes Time and Space: “Non est duratio vel
spatium, sed durat et adest, et existendo semper et ubique spatium et
durationem constituit.”
9. One He is, everywhere present, beholding
all things, perceiving all things, creating all things through
Christ: For all things were made by Him, and without Him was
not anything made The sacred name
(הוהי) was not
pronounced, but Adonai was substituted.
10. God then being thus great, and yet
greater, (for even were I to change my whole substance into tongue, I
could not speak His excellence: nay more, not even if all Angels
should assemble, could they ever speak His worth), God being therefore
so great in goodness and majesty, man hath yet dared to say to a stone
that he hath graven, Thou art my God The cat was sacred to the goddess
Pasht, called by the Greeks Bubastis, and identified by Herodotus (ii.
137) with Artemis or Diana. Cats were embalmed after death, and
their mummies are found at various places, but especially at Bubastis
(Herod. ii. 67). “The Dogs are interred in the cities to
which they belong, in sacred burial-places” (Herod. ii.
67), but chiefly at Cynopolis (“City of Dogs”) where the
dog-headed deity Anubis was worshipped. Mummies of wolves are found in chambers
excavated in the rocks at Lycopolis, where Osiris was worshipped under
the symbol of a wolf. The lion was held sacred
at Leontopolis (Strabo, xvii. p. 812). “In the neighbourhood of Thebes
there are sacred serpents perfectly harmless to man. These they
bury in the temple of Zeus, the god to whom they are
sacred.” (Herod. ii. 74.) At Epidaurus in Argolis the serpent
was held sacred as the symbol of Æsculapius. Clement of
Alexandria (Exhort. c. ii.) gives a fuller list of animals
worshipped by various nations. Compare also Clement.
Recogn. V. 20. Juvenal
Sat. xv. 7. Illic aeluros, hic piscem fluminis, illic Oppida tota canem venerantur, nemo Dianam. Possum et caepe nefas violare et frangere
morsu.
11. Whence came the polytheistic error of
the Greeks The early Creeds of the
Eastern Churches, like that which Eusebius of Cæsarea proposed at
Nicæa, expressly declare the unity of God, in opposition both to
the heathen Polytheism, and to the various heresies which introduced
two or more Gods. See below in this Lecture, §§
12–18; and compare Athan. (contra Gentes, § 6,
sqq.) Clement of
Alexandria (Exhort. cap. ii. § 37), quotes a passage from a
hymn of Callimachus, implying the death of Zeus: “For even thy tomb, O king, The Cretans fashioned.” Adonis, or “Thammuz yearly
wounded,” was said to live and die in alternate years. By the word
“falls” (ἀποπτώσεις) Cyril evidently refers to the story of Hephæstus, or Vulcan, to
which Milton alludes (Paradise Lost, I. 740):— “Men call’d him Mulciber, and how he
fell From heaven they fabled, thrown by angry Jove Sheer o’er the crystal battlements: from
morn To noon he fell, from noon to dewy eve, A summer’s day.” The
“thunder-strokes” refer to “Titan heaven’s
first-born, With his enormous brood” (Par. Lost, I.
510). Cf. Virgil, Æn. vi.
580:— “Hic genus antiquum Terræ, Titania pubes, Fulmine dejecti fundo volvuntur in imo.” Ibid. v. 585:— “Vidi et crudeles dantem Salmonea pœnas, Dum flammas Jovis et sonitus imitatur Olympi.” Clem. Alex. (Exhort. II.
§ 37):—“Æsculapius lies struck with lightning in
the regions of Cynosuris.” Cf. Virg.
Æn. vii. 770 ss.
Of Heresies.
12. And not among the heathen only did the devil
make these assaults; for many of those who are falsely called
Christians, and wrongfully addressed by the sweet name of Christ, have
ere now impiously dared to banish God from His own creation. I
mean the brood of heretics, those most ungodly men The theory of two Gods,
one good and the other evil, was held by Cerdo, and Marcion
(Hippolytus, Refut. omnium Hær. VII. cap. 17:
Irenæus, III. xxv. 3, quoted in note on Cat. iv. 4). The
Manichees also held that the Creator of the world was distinct from the
Supreme God (Alexander Lycop. de Manichæorum Sententiis,
cap. iii.).
13. Heretics have dared to say that there
are two Gods, and of good and evil two sources, and these
unbegotten. If both are unbegotten it is certain that they are
also equal, and both mighty. How then doth the light destroy the
darkness? And do they ever exist together, or are they
separated? Together they cannot be; for what fellowship hath
light with darkness? saith the Apostle
14. The inventor of all heresy was Simon
Magus So Irenæus (I.
xxiii. 2) says that “from this Simon of Samaria all kinds of
heresies derive their origin.” Irenæus (I. xxiii.
2): “Having purchased from Tyre, a city of Phœnicia, a
certain harlot named Helena, he used to carry her about with him,
declaring that this woman was the first conception of his mind, the
mother of all, by whom in the beginning he conceived in his mind the
creation of Angels and Archangels.” Cf. Epiphan.
(Hæres. p. 55, B): “He said that he was the Son
and had not really suffered, but only in appearance (δοκήσει).” Irenæus (I. xxiii. 1): “He
taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, and
descended in Samaria as the Father, but came to other nations as the
Holy Spirit.” Cyril here departs from his authority by
substituting Mount Sinai for Samaria, and thereby falls into
error. Simon had first appeared in Samaria, being a native of
Gitton: moreover in claiming to be the Father he meant to set
himself far above the inferior Deity who had given the Law on Sinai,
saying that he was “the highest of all Powers, that is the Father
who is over all.” “Justin Martyr in
his first Apology, addressed to Antoninus Pius, writes thus (c.
26): ‘There was one Simon a Samaritan, of the village
called Gitton, who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your
royal city of Rome, did mighty feats of magic by the art of dæmons
working in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was
honoured among you with a statue, which statue was set up in the river
Tiber between the two bridges, and bears this inscription in Latin: Simoni Deo Sancto; which is, To Simon the holy God. “The substance of this story is repeated by
Irenæus (adv. Hær. I. xxiii. 1), and by
Tertullian (Apol. c. 13), who reproaches the Romans for
installing Simon Magus in their Pantheon, and giving him a statue and
the title ‘Holy God.’ “In a.d. 1574, a
stone, which had formed the base of a statue, was dug up on the site
described by Justin, the Island in the Tiber, bearing an
inscription—‘Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum,
&c.’ Hence it has been supposed that Justin mistook a
statue of the Sabine God, ‘Semo Sancus,’ for one of Simon
Magus. See the notes in Otto’s Justin Martyr, and
Stieren’s Irenæus. “On the other hand Tillemont
(Memoires, t. ii. p. 482) maintains that Justin in an
Apology addressed to the emperor and written in Rome itself cannot
reasonably be supposed to have fallen into so manifest an error.
Whichever view we take of Justin’s accuracy concerning the
inscription and the statue, there is nothing improbable in his
statement that Simon Magus was at Rome in the reign of
Claudius.” (Extracted by permission from the
Speaker’s Commentary, Introduction to the Epistle to the
Romans, p. 4.)
“Justin says not one word about
St. Peter’s alleged visit to Rome, and his encounter with Simon
Magus.” But “Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical
History (c. a.d. 325), quotes Justin
Martyr’s story about Simon Magus (E. H. ii. c. 13), and
then, without referring to any authority, goes on to assert (c. 14)
that ‘immediately in the same reign of Claudius divine Providence
led Peter the great Apostle to Rome to encounter this great destroyer
of life,’ and that he thus brought the light of the Gospel from
the East to the West’ (ibidem). Eusebius probably borrowed this
story “from the strange fictions of the Clementine
Recognitions and Homilies, and Apostolic
Constitutions.” See Recogn. III. 63–65;
Hom. I. 15, III. 58; Apost. Constit. VI. 7, 8, 9.
Cyril’s account of Simon’s death is taken from the same
untrustworthy sources. It is certain that S.
Paul was not at Rome at this time. This story of Simon Magus and
his ‘fiery car’ is told, with variations, by Arnobius
(adv. Gentes, II. 12), and in Apost. Constit. VI.
9.
16. For Cerinthus Cerinthus taught that
the world was not made by the supreme God, but by a separate Power
ignorant of Him. See Irenæus, Hær. I.
xxvi., Euseb. E.H. iii. 28, with the notes in this
Series. Menander is first
mentioned by Justin M. (Apolog. I. cap. 26):
“Menander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetæa, a
disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived
many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded
those who adhered to him that they should never die.”
Irenæus (I. xxiii. 5) adds that Menander announced himself as the
Saviour sent by the Invisibles, and taught that the world was created
by Angels. See also Tertullian (de Animâ, cap.
50.) Carpocrates, a
Platonic philosopher, who taught at Alexandria (125 a.d. circ.), held that the world and all things in
it were made by Angels far inferior to the unbegotten (unknown) Father
(Iren. I. xxv. 1; Tertullian, Adv. Hær. cap. 3). Irenæus, I.
26: “Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world
was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are like
those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.” On Marcion, see note 5,
on Cat. iv. 4. Marcion accepted only
St. Luke’s Gospel, and mutilated that (Tertullian, Adv.
Marcion. iv. 2). He thus got rid of the testimony of the
Apostles and eye-witnesses, Matthew and John, and represented the Law
and the Gospel as contradictory revelations of two different
Gods. For this Cyril calls him ‘a second inventor of
mischief,’ Simon Magus (§ 14) being the first.
17. He again was succeeded by another,
Basilides, of evil name, and dangerous character, a preacher of
impurities Basilides was
earlier than Marcion, being the founder of a Gnostic sect at Alexandria
in the reign of Hadrian (a.d.
117–138). His doctrines are described by Irenæus (I.
xxvii. 3–7), and very fully by Hippolytus (Refut. omn.
Hær. VII. 2–15). The charge of teaching
licentiousness attaches rather to the later followers of Basilides than
to himself or his son Isidorus (Clem. Alex. Stromat. III.
cap. 1). Basilides wrote a Commentary on the Gospel in 24 books
(Exegetica), of which the 23rd is quoted by Clement of
Alexandria (Stromat. IV. cap. 12), and against which Agrippa
Castor wrote a refutation. Origen (Hom. I. in
Lucam.) says that Basilides wrote a Gospel bearing his own
name. See Routh, Rell. Sacr. I. p. 85; V. p.
106: Westcott, History of Canon of N.T. iv. §
3. “The
doctrines of Valentinus are described fully by Irenæus (I. cap.
i.) from whom S. Cyril takes this account. Valentinus, and
Basilides, and Bardesanes, and Harmonious, and those of their company
admit Christ’s conception and birth of the Virgin, but say that
God the Word received no addition from the Virgin, but made a sort of
passage through her, as through a tube, and made use of a phantom in
appearing to men.” (Theodoret, Epist.
145.)
18. And even this is still little compared
with the impieties which follow. For the last of the deities
being, as he dares to speak, both male and female, this, he says, is
Wisdom Irenæus I. ii.
2. Irenæus, l. c., and Hippolytus, who
gives an elaborate account of the doctrines of Valentinus (L. VI. capp.
xvi.–xxxii.), both represent Sophia, “Wisdom,” as
giving birth not to Satan, but to a shapeless abortion, which was the
origin of matter. According to Irenæus (I. iv. 2), Achamoth,
the enthymesis of Sophia, gave birth to the Demiurge, and “from
her tears all that is of a liquid nature was formed.” In Tertullian’s Treatise
against the Valentinians chap. xxii., Achamoth is said as by
Cyril to have given birth to Satan: but in chap. xxiii. Satan
seems to be identified (or interchanged) with the Demiurge.
19. But hear whom they say Christ Jesus to
be, that thou mayest detest them yet more. For they say that
after Wisdom had been cast down, in order that the number of the thirty
might not be incomplete, the nine and twenty Æons contributed each
a little part, and formed the Christ The account in Irenæus (I. ii. 6) is
rather different: “The whole Pleroma of the Æons, with
one design and desire, and with the concurrence of the Christ and the
Holy Spirit, their Father also setting the seal of His approval on
their conduct, brought together whatever each one had in himself of the
greatest beauty and preciousness; and uniting all these contributions
so as skilfully to blend the whole, they produced, to the honour and
glory of Bythus, a being of most perfect beauty, the very star of the
Pleroma, and its perfect fruit, namely Jesus.” Tertullian, Against the
Valentinians, chap. 12, gives a sarcastic description of this
strange doctrine, deriving his facts (chap. 5) from Justin, Miltiades,
“Irenæus, that very exact inquirer into all
doctrines,” and Proculus. This statement does not
agree with Irenæus (I. vii. 1), who says that the Valentinians
represented the Saviour, that is Jesus, as becoming the bridegroom of
Achamoth or Sophia.
20. Hate all heretics, but especially him
who is rightly named after mania Eusebius in his
brief notice of the Manichean heresy (Hist. Eccles. vii. 31)
plays, like S. Cyril, upon the name Manes as well suited to a
madman. Marcus Aurelius
Probus, Emperor a.d. 276–282, from being
an obscure Illyrian soldier came to be universally esteemed the best
and noblest of the Roman Emperors. Routh
(R.S. V. p.
12) comes to the conclusion that the famous disputation between Manes
and Archelaus took place between July and December, a.d. 277. Accordingly these Lectures, being
“full 70 years” later, could not have been delivered before
the Spring of a.d. 348. Leo the Great
(Serm. xv. cap. 4) speaks of the madness of the later Manichees
as including all errors and impieties: “all profanity of
Paganism, all blindness of the carnal Jews, the illicit secrets of the
magic art, the sacrilege and blasphemy of all heresies, flowed together
in that sect as into a sort of cess-pool of all filth.” Leo
summoned those whom they called the “elect,” both men and
women, before an assembly of Bishops and Presbyters, and obtained from
these witnesses a full account of the execrable practices of the sect,
in which, as he declares, “their law is lying, their religion the
devil, their sacrifice obscenity.”
21. Now, lest I seem to accuse him without
reason, let me make a digression to tell who this Manes is, and in part
what he teaches: for all time would fail to describe adequately
the whole of his foul teaching. But for help in time of
need
22. There was in Egypt one
Scythianus Cyril takes his
account of Manes from the “Acta Archelai et Manetis
Disputationis,” of which Routh has edited the Latin
translation together with the Fragments of the Greek preserved by Cyril
in this Lecture and by Epiphanius. There is an English
translation of the whole in Clark’s “Ante-Nicene Christian
Library.” The Saracens are
mentioned by both Pliny and Ptolemy. See Dict. of Greek and
Roman Geography. There is no mention of
Aristotle in the Acta Archelai, but Scythianus is stated (cap.
li.) to have founded the sect in the time of the Apostles, and to have
derived his duality of Gods from Pythagoras, and to have learned the
wisdom of the Egyptians. These four books are
stated by Archelaus (Acta, cap. lii.), to have been written for
Manes by his disciple Terebinthus. In allusion to this name
the history of the Disputation is called (Acta, cap. i.)
“The true Treasure.” The true reading of this
sentence, προαιρούμενον
τὸν
Σκυθιανόν, instead
of τὸν
πρόειρῃμένον
Σκ., has been restored by Cleopas from the
ms. in the Archiepiscopal library at
Jerusalem. This reading agrees with the statement in
Acta Archel. cap. li.: “Scythianus thought of making
an excursion into Judæa, with the purpose of meeting all those who
had a reputation there as teachers; but it came to pass that he
suddenly departed this life, without having been able to make any
progress.”
23. But Terebinthus, his disciple in this
wicked error, inherited his money and books and heresy This statement
agrees with the reading of the Vatican ms. of
the Acta Archelai, “omnibus quæcunque ejus
fuerunt congregratis.” In the Acta there
is no mention of Palestine, but only that he “set out for
Babylonia, a province which is now held by the Persians.” Clem. Alex.
(Strom. i. 15): “Some also of the Indians obey the
precepts of Boutta, and honour him as a god for his extraordinary
sanctity.” Cf. Acta
Arch. cap. lii.: “A certain Parcus, however, a
prophet, and Labdacus, son of Mithras, charged him with
falsehood.” On the name Parcus and Labdacus, see Dict.
Chr. Biogr., “Barcabbas,” and on the Magian worship of
the Sun-god Mithras, see Rawlinson (Herodot. Vol. I. p.
426). See below, §
33.
24. The books, however, which were the
records of his impiety, remained; and both these and his money the
widow inherited. And having neither kinsman nor any other friend,
she determined to buy with the money a boy named Cubricus Cf. Acta Arch.
cap. liii. “A boy about seven years old, named
Corbicius.” See a different
account in Dict. Chr. Biogr., “Manes.”
25. He dared too to say that he was the
Paraclete, though it is written, But whosoever shall blaspheme
against the Holy Ghost, hath no forgiveness
26. Now as there are very many wicked things which
I tell thee of him, remember first his blasphemy, secondly his slavery
(not that slavery is a disgrace, but that his pretending to be
free-born, when he was a slave, was wicked), thirdly, the falsehood of
his promise, fourthly, the murder of the child, and fifthly,
27. He escapes from the prison, and comes
into Mesopotamia: but there Bishop Archelaus, a shield of
righteousness, encounters him The account of the
discussion in this and the two following chapters is not now found in
the Latin Version of the “Disputation,” but is regarded by
Dr. Routh as having been derived by Cyril from some different copies of
the Greek. The last paragraph of § 29, “These
mysteries, &c.,” is evidently a caution addressed to the
hearers by Cyril himself (Routh, Rell. Sac. V. 199).
28. Then Manes answers him: “And
what sort of God causes blindness? For it is Paul who saith,
In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them that
believe not, lest the light of the Gospel should shine unto
them
29. “But if some are right in their
interpretation, we must say as follows Instead of the reading
of the Benedictine and earlier editions, εἰ δὲ δεῖ
καὶ ὥς τινες
ἐξηγοῦνται
τοῦτο
εἰπεῖν, the mss. Roe and Casaubon combine δει και ως
into the one word δικαιως, which is
probably the right reading. Something, however, is still wanted
to complete the construction, and Petrus Siculus (circ.
a.d. 870) who quotes the passage in his
History of the Manichees, boldly conjectures ἔστι καὶ
οὕτως
εἰπεῖν. A simpler
emendation would be—εἰ
δὲ δικαίως
τινὲς
ἐξηγοῦνται,
δεῖ τουτο
εἰπεῖν—which both
completes the construction and explains the reading δεῖ καὶ
ὡς. νοήματα, See the note at the end
of Procatechesis.
30. By such and many other arguments the
serpent was overthrown: thus did Archelaus wrestle with Manes and
threw him. Again, he who had fled from prison flees from this
place also: and having run away from his antagonist, he comes to
a very poor village, like the serpent in Paradise when he left Adam and
came to Eve. But the good shepherd Archelaus taking forethought
for his sheep, when he heard of his flight, straightway hastened with
all speed in search of the wolf. And when Manes suddenly saw his
adversary, he rushed out and fled: it was however his last
flight. For the officers of the King of Persia searched
everywhere, and caught the fugitive: and the sentence, which he
ought to have received in the presence of Archelaus, is passed upon him
by the king’s officers. This Manes, whom his own disciples
worship, is arrested and brought before the king. The king
reproached him with his falsehood and his flight: poured scorn
upon his slavish condition, avenged the murder of his child, and
condemned him also for the murder of the gaolers: he commands him
to be flayed after the Persian fashion. And while the rest of his
body was given over for food of wild beasts, his skin, the receptacle
of his vile mind, was hung up before the gates like a sack Disput. § 55.
Compare the account of Manes in Socrates, Eccles. Hist. I. 22, in this
series.
31. This man has had three disciples,
Thomas, and Baddas, and Hermas. Let none read the Gospel
according to Thomas The Gospel of
Thomas, an account of the Childhood of Jesus, is extant in three forms,
two in Greek and one in Latin: these are all translated in
Clark’s Ante-Nicene Library. The work is wrongly attributed
by Cyril to a disciple of Manes, being mentioned long before Hippolytus
(Refutation of all Heresies, V. 2) and by Origen (Hom. I. in
Lucam): “There is extant also the Gospel according to
Thomas.” In the Disputation,
§ 9, Turbo describes these transformations: “Reapers
must be transformed into hay, or beans, or barley, or corn, or
vegetables, that they may be reaped and cut. Again if any one
eats bread, he must become bread, and be eaten. If one kills a
chicken, he will be a chicken himself. If one kills a mouse, he
also will be a mouse.”
32. Let those children of sloth, the
Manicheans, make answer; who without labouring themselves eat up the
labourers’ fruits: who welcome with smiling faces those who
bring them their food, and return curses instead of blessings.
For when a simple person brings them anything, “Stand outside a
while,” saith he, “and I will bless thee.” Then
having taken the bread into his hands (as those who have repented and
left them have confessed), “I did not make thee,” says the
Manichee to the bread: and sends up curses against the Most High;
and curses him that made it, and so eats what was made See Turbo’s
confession, Disput. § 9: “And when they are going to
eat bread, they first pray, speaking thus to the bread: ‘I
neither reaped thee, nor ground thee, nor kneaded thee, nor cast thee
into the oven: but another did these things and brought thee to
me, and I am not to blame for eating thee.’ And when he has
said this to himself, he says to the Catechumen, ‘I have prayed
for thee,’ and so he goes away.”
33. These are great faults, but still small
in comparison with the rest. Their Baptism I dare not describe
before men and women On the rites of
Baptism and Eucharist employed by the Manichees, see Dict. Chr. Biogr.,
Manicheans. The original runs:
Οὐ
τολμῶ εἰπεῖν,
τίνι
ἐμβάπτοντες
τὴν ἰσχάδα,
διδόασι τοῖς
ἀθλίοις. διὰ
συσσήμων δὲ
μόνον
δηλούσθω.
ἄνδρες γὰρ τὰ
ἐν τοῖς
ἐνυπνιασμοῖς
ἐνθυμείσθωσιν,
καὶ γυναῖκες
τὰ ἐν
ἀφέδροις.
Μιαίνομεν
ἀληθας τὸ
στόμα κ.τ.λ. ῾Ο
μὲν γὰρ
πορνεύσας,
πρὸς μίαν
ὥραν δ
ἐπιθυμίαν
τελεῖ τὴν
πρᾶξιν·
καταγινώσκων
δὲ τῆς
πράξεως ὡς
μιανθεὶς
οἶδε λουτροῦ
ἐπιδεόμενος,
καὶ γινώσκει
τῆς πρὰξεως
τὸ μυσαρόν.
῾Ο δὲ
Μανιχαῖος
θυσιαστηρίου
μέσον, οὗ
νομίζει,
τίθησι ταῦτα,
καὶ μιαίνει
καὶ τὸ στόμα
καὶ τὴν
γλῶτταν. παρὰ
τοιούτου
στόματος,
ἄνθρωπε
κ.τ.λ. οὗ
νομίζει. The Manichees
boasted of their superiority to the Pagans in not worshipping God with
altars, temples, images, victims, or incense (August. contra
Faustum XX. cap. 15). Yet they used the names, as
Augustine affirms (l. c. cap. 18): “Nevertheless I
wish you would tell me why you call all those things which you approve
in your own case by these names, temple, altar,
sacrifice.”
34. Of these things the Church admonishes
and teaches thee, and touches mire, that thou mayest not be
bemired: she tells of the wounds, that thou mayest not be
wounded. But for thee it is enough merely to know them:
abstain from learning by experience. God thunders, and we all
tremble; and they blaspheme. God lightens, and we all bow down to
the earth; and they have their blasphemous sayings about the
heavens Κᾀκεῖνοι
περὶ οὐρανῶν
τὰς
δυσφήμους
ἔχουσι
γλώσσας.
᾽Ιησοῦς
λέγει περὶ
τοῦ πατρὸς
αὐτοῦ, ῞Οστις
τὸν ἥλιον
αὐτοῦ
ἀνατέλλει
ἐπὶ δικαίους
καὶ ἀδίκους,
καὶ βρέχει
ἐπὶ πονηροὺς
καὶ ἀγαθούς.
κᾀκεῖνοι
λέγουσιν, ὅτι
οἱ ὑετοὶ ἐξ
ἐρωτικῆς
μανίας
γίνονται, καὶ
τολμῶσι
λέγειν, ὅτι
ἐστί τις
παρθένος ἐν
οὐρανῷ
εὐειδὴς μετὰ
νεανίσκου
εὐειδοῦς, καὶ
κατὰ τὴν τῶν
καμηλῶν ἢ
λύκων καιρὸν,
τοὺς τῆς
αἰσχρᾶς
ἐπιθυμίας
καιροὺς
ἔχειν, καὶ
κατὰ τὴν τοῦ
χειμῶνος
καιρὸν,
μανιωδῶς
αὐτὸν
ἐπιτρέχειν
τῇ παρθένῳ,
καὶ τὴν μὲν
φεύγειν φασί,
τὸν δὲ
ἐπιτρέχειν,
εἶτα
ἐπιτρέχοντα
ἱδροῦν, ἀπὸ
δὲ τῶν
ἱδρώτων
αὐτοῦ εἶναι
τὸν ὑετόν.
Ταῦτα
γέγραπται ἐν
τοῖς τῶν
Μανιχαίων
βιβλίοις·
ταῦτα ἡμεῖς
ἀνέγνωμεν,
κ.τ.λ.
35. But may the Lord deliver us from such
delusion: and may there be given to you a hatred against the
serpent, that as they lie in wait for the heel, so you may trample on
their head. Remember ye what I say. What agreement can
there be between our state and theirs? What communion hath
light with darkness Gr. ἐπιστήμη. See
note on Introductory Lect. § 4. σεμνότατος
is the reading of the chief mss.
But the printed editions have σεμνότητος,
comparing it with such phrases as στόμα
ἀθεότητος (vi.
15), and μετάνοια
τῆς
σωτηρίας (xiv. 17).
36. Make thou thy fold with the sheep:
flee from the wolves: depart not from the Church. Hate
those also who have ever been suspected in such matters: and
unless in time thou perceive their repentance, do not rashly trust
thyself among them. The truth of the Unity of God has been
delivered to thee: learn to distinguish the pastures of
doctrine. Be an approved banker This saying is quoted three times in
the Clementine Homilies as spoken by our Lord. See Hom. II.
§ 51; III. § 50; XVIII. § 20: “Every man who
wishes to be saved must become, as the Teacher said, a judge of the
books written to try us. For thus He spake: Become
experienced bankers. Now the need of bankers arises from the
circumstance that the spurious is mixed up with the
genuine.” On the same saying, quoted as Scripture
in the Apostolic Constitutions (II. § 36), Cotelerius suggests
that in oral tradition, or in some Apocryphal book, the proverb was
said to come from the Old Testament, and was added by some transcriber
as a gloss in the margin of Compare § 13 of
this Lecture, where Cyril seems to refer especially to the heresy of
Manes, as described in the Disputatio Archelai, cap. 6:
“If you are desirous of being instructed in the faith of Manes,
hear it briefly from me. That man worships two gods, unbegotten,
self-originate, eternal, opposed one to the other. The one he
represents as good, and the other as evil, naming the one Light, and
the other Darkness.”
Lecture VII.
The Father.
For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father,…of whom all fatherhood in heaven and earth is named, &c.
1. Of God as the
sole Principle we have said enough to you yesterday See Lecture VI. 1, and
5.
2. For thus shall we raise our thoughts
higher than the Jews “In Athanasius,
Quæstio i. ad Antiochum, tom. II. p. 331,
Monarchia is opposed to Polytheism: ‘If we worship One God,
it is manifest that we agree with the Jews in believing in a
Monarchia: but if we worship three gods, it is evident that we
follow the Greeks by introducing Polytheism, instead of piously
worshipping One Only God.’” (Suicer,
Thesaurus, Μοναρχία.)
3. Let the Jews, however, since they so will, suffer their usual disorder of unbelief, both in these and the like statements. But let us adopt the godly doctrine of our Faith, worshipping one God the Father of the Christ, (for to deprive Him, who grants to all the gift of generation, of the like dignity would be impious): and let us Believe in One God the Father, in order that, before we touch upon our teaching concerning Christ, the faith concerning the Only-begotten may be implanted in the soul of the hearers, without being at all interrupted by the intervening doctrines concerning the Father.
4. For the name of the Father, with the very
utterance of the title, suggests the thought of the Son: as in
like manner one who names the Son thinks straightway of the Father
also Compare Athanasius
(de Sententiâ Dionyssi, § 17): “Each of
the names I have mentioned is inseparable and indivisible from that
next to it. I spoke of the Father, and before bringing in the
Son, I designated Him also in the Father. I brought in the Son,
and even if I had not previously mentioned the Father, in any wise He
would have been presupposed in the Son.”
5. God then is in an improper sense καταχρηστικῶς. A technical term in Grammar, applied to the use of a word in a
derived or metaphorical sense. See Aristotle’s description
of the various kinds of metaphor, Poet. § xxi.
7–16. The opposite to καταχρηστικῶς
is κυρίως, as used in a
parallel passage by Athanasius, Oratio i. contra Arianos,
§ 21 fin. “It belongs to the Godhead alone, that the
Father is properly (κυρίως) Father, and the Son
properly Son.” “And in
Them, and Them only, does it hold, that the Father is ever Father, and
the Son ever Son.” (Athan., as above.) Compare vi. 6:
ὁ γεννηθεὶς
ἀπαθῶς. The importance
attached to the assertion of a “passionless generation”
arose from the objections offered by Eusebius of Nicomedia and others
to the word ὁμοούσιος
when proposed by Constantine at Nicæa. We learn from
Eusebius of Cæsarea (Epist ad suæ parœciæ
homines, § 4) that the Emperor himself explained that the word
was used “not in the sense of the affections (πάθη) of bodies,” because
“the immaterial, and intellectual, and incorporeal nature could
not be the subject of any corporeal affection.” Again, in
§ 7, Eusebius admits that “there are grounds for saying that
the Son is ‘one in essence’ with the Father, not in the way
of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is not such by division of
essence, or by severance, no, nor by any affection, or alteration, or
changing of the Father’s essence and power.” (See the
next note.) Athanasius (Expos.
Fidei, § 1): “Word not pronounced nor mental, nor
an effluence of the Perfect, nor a dividing of the passionless
nature.” Also (de Decretis, § 11):
“God being without parts is Father of the Son without partition
or passion; for there is neither effluence of the Immaterial, nor
influx from without, as among men.”
6. We worship, therefore, as the Father of
Christ, the Maker of heaven and earth, the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob Compare Lect. iv.
33.
7. But lest any one from simplicity or
perverse ingenuity should suppose that Christ is but equal in honour to
righteous men, from His saying, I ascend to My Father, and
your ἐνεργεία, meaning here,
the operation of God, by nature in begetting His Son, by adoption in
making many sons.
8. But if any one wishes to learn how we
call God “Father,” let him hear Moses, the excellent
schoolmaster, saying, Did not this thy Father Himself buy thee, and
make thee, and create thee
9. And that thou mayest learn more exactly
that in the Divine Scriptures it is not by any means the natural father
only that is called father, hear what Paul says:—For though ye
should have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many
fathers: for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the
Gospel φιλοστοργία
might be applied to the mutual affection of mother and son, but the
context shews that it refers here to parental love only; see Polybius,
V. § 74, 5; Xenoph. Cyrop. I. § 3, 2.
10. Thus much then at present, in the way of
a digression, to put you in remembrance. Let me, however, add yet
another testimony in proof that God is called the Father of men in an
improper sense. For when in Esaias God is addressed thus, For
Thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us
11. We believe then In One
God the Father the Unsearchable and Ineffable, Whom no man
hath seen
12. Having reached this point of my
discourse, and being reminded of the passages just before mentioned, in
which God was addressed as the Father of men, I am greatly amazed at
men’s insensibility. For God with unspeakable
loving-kindness deigned to be called the Father of men,—He in
heaven, they on earth,—and He the Maker of Eternity, they made in
time,—He who holdeth the earth in the hollow of His hand,
they upon the earth as grasshoppers
13. And not only stocks and stones, but even
Satan himself, the destroyer of souls, have some ere now chosen for a
father; to whom the Lord said as a rebuke, Ye do the deeds of your
father
For we shall not tolerate those who give a wrong
meaning to that saying, Hereby know we the children of God, and the
children of the devil
14. Knowing this, therefore, let us walk
spiritually, that we may be counted worthy of God’s
adoption. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they
are the sons of God
15. But while honouring our heavenly Father
let us honour also the fathers of our flesh
16. The first virtue of godliness in
Christians is to honour their parents, to requite the troubles of those
who begat them Compare for the
thought Euripides, Medea, 1029–1035. ἀντιγεννῆσαι.
Jeremy Taylor (Ductor Dubitantium, Book III. cap. ii. §17)
mentions several stories in which a parent is nourished from a
daughter’s breast, who thus ‘saves the life she cannot
give.’ On the change of
Moods, see Jelf, Greek Grammar, § 809. The second
verb (καταξίωσειεν)
expresses a wish and a consequence which might follow, if the first
(στηρίξωσιν)
wish be realized, as it probably may be. Cf. Herod. ix. 51.
Almighty.
The Great, the strong God, Lord of great Counsel, and
mighty in His works, the Great God, the Lord Almighty and of great
name The text is
translated from the Septuagint, in which S. Cyril found the title
Almighty (Παντοκράτωρ), one of the usual equivalents in the Septuagint for Lord of
Hosts (Sabaoth). In the English A.V. and R.V. the
passage stands thus:
1. By believing
In One God we cut off all misbelief in many
gods, using this as a shield against Greeks; and every opposing power
of heretics; and by adding, In One God the
Father, we contend against those of the circumcision, who deny
the Only-begotten Son of God. For, as was said yesterday, even
before explaining the truths concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, we made
it manifest at once, by saying “The Father,” that He is the
Father of a Son: that as we understand that God is, so we may
understand that He has a Son. But to those titles we add that He
is also “Almighty;” and this we
affirm because of Greeks and Jews “For even
the Jewish nation had wicked heresies: for of them were…the
Pharisees, who ascribe the practice of sinners to fortune and fate; and
the Basmotheans, who deny providence and say that the world is made by
spontaneous motion” (Apost. Const. VI. 6). Compare
Euseb. (E.H. IV. 22.)
2. For of the Greeks some have said that God
is the soul of the world Cicero, De Natura
Deorum, Lib. I. 27: “Pythagoras thought that God
was the soul pervading all nature.” The doctrine was
accepted both by Stoics and Platonists, and became very general.
Cf. Virg. Georg. iv. 221: Deum namque ire per omnis Terrasque, tractusque maris, cælumque
profundum. and Æn. vi. 726: Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus Meus agitat molem, et magno se corpore
miscet.
3. But heretics again, as I have said
before, know not One Almighty God. For He is Almighty who rules
all things, who has power over all things. But they who say that
one God is Lord of the soul, and some other of the body, make neither
of them perfect, because either is wanting to the other See note on Lect. IV.
4.
4. But the Divine Scripture and the
doctrines of the truth know but One God, who rules all things by His
power, but endures many things of His will. For He rules even
over the idolaters, but endures them of His forbearance: He rules
also over the heretics who set Him at nought, but bears with them
because of His long-suffering: He rules even over the devil, but
bears with him of His long-suffering, not from want of power; as if
defeated. For he is the beginning of the Lord’s
creation, made to be mocked
5. Nothing then is withdrawn from the power
of God; for the Scripture says of Him, for all things are Thy
servants
6. Riches, and gold, and silver are not, as
some think, the devil’s On this doctrine of
the Manicheans see Archelaus (Disputatio, cap. 42), Epiphanius
(Hæres. lxvi. § 81). Compare Clement. Hom.
xv. cap. 9: “To all of us possessions are
sins.” Plato (Laws, V. 743): “I can
never agree with them that the rich man will be really happy, unless he
is also good: but for one who is eminently good to be also
extremely rich is impossible.” The former clause is
from
7. Now I have made these remarks because of
those heretics who count possessions, and money, and men’s bodies
accursed The connexion of σώματα with money and
possessions suggests the not uncommon meaning
“slaves.” See Polyb. xviii. 18 § 6:
καὶ τὴν
ἐνδουχίαν
ἀπέδοντο καὶ
τὰ σώματα,
καὶ σὺν
τουτοις ἔτι
τινὰς τῶν
κτήσεων,
“household furniture, and slaves, and besides these some also of
their lands.” See Dictionary of Christian
Antiquities, “Slavery,” where it is shewn that
Christians generally and even Bishops still possessed slaves throughout
the 4th Century. But here it is perhaps more probable that
Cyril refers, as before, Cat. iv. § 23, to the Manichean doctrine
of the body as the root of sin. For ἐγκεχειρῆσθαι,
the reading of all the printed Editions, which hardly yields a suitable
sense, we should probably substitute ἐγκεχειρίσθαι. A similar confusion of the two verbs occurs in Polybius
(Hist. VIII. xviii. 6); the proper use of the latter is seen in
Joh. Damasc. (De Fide Orthod. II. 4, quoted by Cleopas),
who speaks of Satan as being “of these Angelic powers the chief
of the earthly order, and entrusted by God with the guardianship of the
earth” (τῆς
γῆς τὴν
φυλακὴν
ἐγχειρισθεὶς
παρὰ Θεοῦ). On this point compare
Irenæus (Hær. V. xxi.–xxiv.), and Gregory of
Nyssa (Orat. Catech. § 5).
8. God then is One, the Father, the
Almighty, whom the brood of heretics have dared to blaspheme.
Yea, they have dared to blaspheme the Lord of Sabaoth The reference is to
Manes, of whom his disciple Turbo says (Archelai Disput. §
10), “the name Sabaoth, which is honourable and mighty with you,
he declares to be the nature of man, and the parent of lust: for
which reason the simple, he says, worship lust, and think it to be a
god.” ᾽Αδωναΐ, Heb. ינָדֹאַ,
“the Lord,” an old form of the Plural of majesty, used of
God only. παντοκράτορα,
Heb. ידַּשׁ
לא”, El-Shaddai, “God
Almighty.”
On the Words, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of All Things Visible and Invisible.
Who is this that hideth counsel from Me, and keepeth
words in his heart, and thinketh to hide them from Me The Septuagint,
from which Cyril quotes the text, differs much from the Hebrew, and
from the English Versions: Who is this that darkeneth counsel
by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a
man: for I will demand of thee, and answer thou
Me.
1. To look upon God
with eyes of flesh is impossible: for the incorporeal cannot be
subject to bodily sight: and the Only begotten Son of God Himself
hath testified, saying, No man hath seen God at any
time
2. The Divine Nature then it is impossible
to see with eyes of flesh: but from the works, which are Divine,
it is possible to attain to some conception of His power, according to
Solomon, who says, For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures
proportionably the Maker of them is seen
3. Wouldest thou learn that to comprehend
the nature of God is impossible? The Three Children in the
furnace of fire, as they hymn the praises of God, say Blessed art
thou that beholdest the depths, and sittest upon the
Cherubim Song of the Three Children, 32. In
4. These things I say to you because of the
Compare Cat. iv.
4. Irenæus (I. x. 1): “The Church, though
dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth,
yet received from the Apostles and their disciples the Faith in One God
the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea and all
that therein is.” Tertullian (de Præscriptione
Hæret. cap. xiii.) “The rule of faith is that
whereby we believe that there is One God only, and none other than the
Creator of the world, who brought forth all things out of nothing
through His own Word first of all sent forth.” Compare Cat. vi. 13,
27.
5. For what fault have they to find with the
vast creation of God?—they, who ought to have been struck with
amazement on beholding the vaultings of the heavens: they, who
ought to have worshipped Him who reared the sky as a dome, who out of
the fluid nature of the waters formed the stable substance of the
heaven. For God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of
the water
6. But what? Is there not cause to
wonder when one looks at the constitution of the sun? For being
to the sight as it were a small body he contains a mighty power;
appearing from the East, and sending forth his light unto the
West: whose rising at dawn the Psalmist described, saying:
And he cometh forth out of his chamber as a bridegroom
Observe also his arrangement (or rather not his,
but the arrangement of Him who by an ordinance determined his course),
how in summer he rises higher and makes the days longer, giving men
good time for their works: but in winter contracts his course,
that the period of cold may be increased, and that the nights becoming
longer may contribute to men’s rest, and contribute also to the
fruitfulness of the products of the earth The common reading
ἵνα μὴ τοῦ
ψύχους
πλείων
γένηται ὁ
χρόνος, ἀλλ᾽
ἵνα αἱ
νύκτες,
κ.τ.λ. gives a meaning contrary to the
facts. The translation follows the mss.
Roe, Casaubon, which omit μή and for ἀλλά read καί. Compare Whewell’s
Astromony, p. 22: “The length of the year is so
determined as to be adapted to the constitution of most
vegetables: or the construction of vegetables is so adjusted as
to be suited to the length which the year really has, and unsuited to a
duration longer or shorter by any considerable portion. The
vegetable clock-work is so set as to go for a year.”
Ibid. p. 34: “The terrestrial day, and consequently
the length of the cycle of light and darkness, being what it is, we
find various parts of the constitution both of animals and vegetables,
which have a periodical character in their functions, corresponding to
the diurnal succession of external conditions, and we find that the
length of the period, as it exists in their constitution, coincides
with the length of the natural day.” Lucretius, V.
1182: “They saw the skies in constant
order run, The varied seasons and the circling
sun, Apparent rule, with unapparent cause, And thus they sought in gods the source
of laws.
7. But let no one tolerate any who say that
one is the Creator of the light, and another of darkness See note 3 on Cat.
iii. 33. Whewell,
Astromomy. p. 38: “Animals also have a period in
their functions and habits; as in the habits of waking, sleeping,
eating, &c., and their well-being appears to depend on the
coincidence of this period with the length of the natural
day.” Chrysostom, VI. p.
171: “As the day brings man out to his work, so the night
succeeding releases him from his countless toils and thoughts, and
lulling his weary eyes to sleep, and closing their lids, prepares him
to welcome the sunbeam again with his force in full vigour.” Clement of
Alexandria (Stromat. IV. 22, E. Tr.): “And in this
way they seem to have called the night Euphrone, since then the soul
released from the perceptions of sense turns in on itself, and has a
truer hold of intelligence (φρόνησις).” Chrysostom (Tom. II.
p. 793): “We usually take the reckoning of our money early
in the morning, but of our actions, of all that we have said and done
by day, let us demand of ourselves the account after supper, and even
after nightfall, as we lie upon our bed, with none to trouble, none to
disturb us. And if we see anything done amiss, let us chastise
our conscience, let us rebuke our mind, let us so vehemently impugn our
account, that we may no more dare to rise up and bring ourselves to the
same pit of sin, being mindful of the scourging at night.”
8. They ought to have felt astonishment and
admiration not only at the arrangement of sun and moon, but also at the
well-ordered choirs of the stars, their unimpeded courses, and their
risings in the seasons due to each: and how some are signs of
summer, and others of winter; and how some mark the season for sowing,
and others shew the commencement of navigation Clem. Alex.
(Stromat. VI. 11): “The same is true also of
Astronomy, for being engaged in the investigation of the heavenly
bodies, as to the form of the universe, and the revolution of the
heaven, and the motion of the stars, it brings the soul nearer to the
Creative Power, and teaches it to be quick in perceiving the seasons of
the year, the changes of the atmosphere, and the risings of the stars;
since navigation also and husbandry are full of benefit from this
science.” Compare Lactantius (De Irâ
Dei, cap. xiii.).
9. Who is the father of the rain?
And who hath begotten the drops of dew Whewell,
Astronomy, p. 88: “Clouds are produced by
aqueous vapour when it returns to the state of water.” p.
89: “Clouds produce rain. In the formation of
a cloud the precipitation of moisture probably forms a fine watery
powder, which remains suspended in the air in consequence of the
minuteness of its particles: but if from any cause the
precipitation is collected in larger portions, and becomes
drops, these descend by their weight and produce a
shower.” Compare Aristotle,
Meterologica, I. ix. 3; Ansted, Physical Geography,
p. 210. There is a similar
passage on the various effects of water in Cat. xvi. 12.
Chrysostom (de Statuis, Hom. xii. 2), Epiphanius
(Ancoratus, p. 69), and other Fathers, appear to reproduce both
the thoughts and words of Cyril.
10. What should have been the effect of
these wonders? Should the Creator have been blasphemed? Or
worshipped rather? And so far I have said noticing of the unseen
works of His wisdom. Observe, I pray you, the spring, and the
flowers of every kind in all their likeness still diverse one from
another; the deepest crimson of the rose, and the purest whiteness of
the lily: for these spring from the same rain and the same earth,
and who makes them to differ? Who fashions them? Observe,
pray, the exact care: from the one substance of the tree there is
part for shelter, and part for divers fruits: and the Artificer
is One. Of the same vine part is for burning For καῦσιν,
“burning,” Morel and Milles, with Cod. Coisl., read
καῦστιν, a rare word
explained by Hesychius as the “growth” or
“foliage” of the vine: but this is fully expressed in
what follows, and the reading καῦσιν is confirmed
by Virgil (Georg. ii. 408): “Primus devecta
cremato sarmenta” (Reischl).
Admire also the great thickness of the knots which run
round the reed, as the Artificer hath For the construction
of ἵνα with the Indicative ἵπτανται, see
Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 401. Winer (Gram. N. T. III.
sect. xli. c).
11. This great and wide sea, therein are
things creeping innumerable Gr. ὑπόστασιν,
literally “substance.”
12. Who can discern the nature of the birds
of the air? How some carry with them a voice of melody, and
others are variegated with all manner of painting on their wings, and
others fly up into mid air and float motionless, as the hawk: for
by the Divine command the hawk spreadeth out his wings and floateth
motionless, looking towards the south
13. Who among men knows even the names of
all wild beasts? Or who can accurately discern the physiology of
each? But if of the wild beasts we know not even the mere names,
how shall we comprehend the Maker of them? God’s command
was but one, which said, Let the earth bring forth wild beasts, and
cattle, and creeping things, after their kinds Instead of φωνῆς (Milles), or
πηγῆς
(Bened. Roe, Casaub.) the recent Editors have restored τῆς γῆς with
the Jerusalem and Munich mss., and
Basil. Gr. κινήσεις
“movements,” “impulses.” Aristotle
(Historia Animalium. IX. vii. 1) remarks that many imitations of
man’s mode of life may be observed in the habits of other
animals. After the description
of the ant,
14. Is not then the Artificer worthy the
rather to be glorified? For what? If thou knowest not the
nature of all things, do the things that have been made forthwith
become useless? Canst thou know the efficacy of all herbs?
Or canst thou learn all the benefit which proceeds from every
animal? Ere now even from venomous adders have come antidotes for
the preservation of men Compare Bacon
(Natural Hist. 965): “I would have trial made of two
other kinds of bracelets, for comforting the heart and spirits:
one of the trochisch of vipers, made into little pieces of beads; for
since they do great good inwards (especially for pestilent agues), it
is like they will be effectual outwards, where they may be applied in
greater quantity. There would be trochisch likewise made of
snakes; whose flesh dried is thought to have a very good opening and
cordial virtue.” Ib. 969: “The writers
of natural magic commend the wearing of the spoil of a snake, for
preserving of health.” Thomas Jackson (On the Creed,
VIII. 8, § 4): “The poisonous bitings of the scorpion
are usually cured by the oil of scorpions.” Shakespeare
(Richard III. Glo. “Thine eyes, sweet lady, have infected
mine.” Anne. “Would they were basilisks to strike
thee dead.” Compare Bacon (De Augmentis,
VII. cap. ii): “The fable goes of the basilisk, that if he
see you first, you die for it, but if you see him first, he
dies.” Bacon refers to Pliny (Nat. Hist. viii.
33).
Xenophon (Memor.
Socratis. I. cap. iv): “And moreover does not this also
seem to thee like a work of providence, that, whereas the sight is
weak, the Creator furnished it with eyelids for doors, which are opened
whenever there is need to use the sight, but are closed in
sleep.”
16. These points my discourse has now
treated at large, having left out many, yea, ten thousand other things,
and especially things incorporeal and invisible, that thou mayest abhor
those who blaspheme the wise and good Artificer, and from what is
spoken and read, and whatever thou canst thyself discover or conceive,
from the greatness and beauty of the creatures mayest proportionably
see the maker of them
————————————
Appendix to Lecture IX.
Note.—In the manuscripts which contain this discourse under the name of “A Homily of S. Basil on God as Incomprehensible,” some portions are changed to suit that subject: but the conclusion especially is marked by great addition and variation, which it is well to reproduce here. Accordingly in place of the words in §15: τί μεμπτόν, “What is there to find fault with?” and the following, the manuscripts before mentioned have it thus:
“What is there to find fault with in the framing of the body? Come forth into the midst and speak. Control thine own will, and nothing evil shall proceed from any of thy members. For every one of these has of necessity been made for our use. Chasten thy reasoning unto piety, submit to God’s commandments, and none of these members sin in working and serving in the uses for which they were made. If thou be not willing, the eye sees not amiss, the ear hears nothing which it ought not, the hand is not stretched out for wicked greed, the foot walketh not towards injustice, thou hast no strange loves, committest no fornication, covetest not thy neighbour’s wife. Drive out wicked thoughts from thine heart, be as God made thee, and thou wilt rather give thanks to thy Creator.
Adam at first was without clothing, faring
daintily in Paradise: and after he had received the commandment,
but failed to keep it, and wickedly stretched forth his hand (not
because the hand wished this, but because his will stretched forth his
hand to that which was forbidden), because of his disobedience he lost
also the good things he had received. Thus the members are not
the cause of sin to those who use them, but the wicked mind, as the
Lord says, For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, fornications,
adulteries, envyings, and such like. In what things thou
choosest, therein thy limbs serve thee; they are excellently made for
the service of the soul: they are provided as servants to thy
reason. Guide them well by the motion of piety; bridle them by
the fear of God; bring them into subjection to the desire
At the end of the same section, after the words “Wise Creator,” this is found: “Glorify Him in His unsearchable works, and concerning Him whom thou art not capable of knowing, inquire not curiously what His essence is. It is better for thee to keep silence, and in faith adore, according to the divine Word, than daringly to search after things which neither thou canst reach, nor Holy Scripture hath delivered to thee. These points my discourse has now treated at large, that thou mayest abhor those who blaspheme the wise and good Artificer, and rather mayest thyself also say, How wonderful are Thy works O Lord; in wisdom hast Thou made them all. To Thee be the glory, and power, and worship, with the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and throughout all ages. Amen.”
On the Clause, and in One Lord Jesus
Christ, with a Reading from the
For though there be that are called gods, whether in
heaven or on earth
1. They who have
been taught to believe “In One God the Father
Almighty,” ought also to believe in His Only-begotten
Son. For he that denieth the Son, the same hath not the
Father
2. If, therefore, any one wishes to shew
piety towards God, let him worship the Son, since otherwise the Father
accepts not his service. The Father spake with a loud voice from
heaven, saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased
3. Believe thou In One
Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God. For we
say “One Lord Jesus Christ,” that His Sonship may be
“Only-begotten:” we say “One,” that thou
mayest not suppose another: we say “One,” that thou
mayest not profanely diffuse the many names τὸ
πολυώνυμον, a word used by the Greek Poets of their gods, as by Homer (Hymn to
Demeter, 18, 32) of Zeus, Κρόνου
πολυώνυμος
υἱός. Cf. Soph. Ant.
1115; Æschyl. Prom. V. 210.
4. He is called Christ, not as having been anointed by men’s hands,
but eternally anointed by the Father to His High-Priesthood on behalf
of men The reading of the
earlier Editions ὑπὲρ
ἀνθρώπων is free from
all difficulty, and so the more likely to have been substituted for
what is at first sight more difficult ὑπὲρ
ἄνθρωπον, the reading
of Cod. Coislin. adopted by the Benedictine and subsequent
Editors. The idea of a super-human Priesthood to which the Son in
His Divine nature was anointed by the Father from eternity is repeated
by Cyril in § 14 of this Lecture, and in Cat. xi. 1, 14. See
Index, “Priesthood,” and the reference there given to a
fuller consideration of the subject in the Introduction. Cf. Athanas.
(c. Arian. II. xv. 14), “That very Word who was by nature
Lord, and was then made man, hath by means of a servant’s form
been made Lord of all and Christ.” Cf. Irenæus (III.
xvi. 8): “All therefore are outside the Dispensation, who
under pretence of knowledge understand that Jesus was one, and Christ
another, and the Only-begotten another (from whom again is the Word),
and the Saviour another.” The Cerinthians, Ebionites,
Ophites, and Valentinians are mentioned by Irenæus as thus
separating the Christ from Jesus.
5. But the Saviour comes in various forms to
each man for his profit Cf. Athanas.
(Epist. X.): “Since He is rich and manifold, He
varies Himself according to the individual capacity of each
soul.” ἐκ
προκοπῆς. We
learn from Athanasius (c. Arian. i. 37, 38, 40), that from
St. Paul’s language Philipp. ii. 9: “Wherefore
also God highly exalted Him, &c.,” and from
The same doctrine had been previously
held by the disciples of Paul of Samosata, who said that Christ was not
originally God, but after His Incarnation was by advance (ἐκ
προκοπῆς) made God,
from being made by nature a mere man: see Athanas. (de
Decretis, § 24, c. Arian. i. 38). S. Cyril
refers to the error and uses the same word, in xi. 1, 7, 13, 15, 17,
and xiv. 27. καταχρηστικῶς,
i.e. in a secondary or metaphorical sense. Cf. vii. 5. νεύματι,
“command” or “bidding,” as expressed by nodding
the head. Origen (De Principiis, I. ii. 10) had
argued that “even God cannot be called omnipotent, unless there
exist those over whom He may exercise His power,” and therefore
creation must have been eternal, or God could not have been eternally
Omnipotent. In other passages Origen declares it an impiety to
hold that matter is co-eternal with God (De Princip. II. i. 4),
and yet maintains that there were other worlds before this, and that
there was never a time when there was no world existing. Methodius, in a fragment of his work On things
Created, preserved by Photius, and quoted by Bishop Bull
(Def. Fid. Nic. II. xiii. 9), argues against these
theories of Origen, that in Dean Church remarks that “On the other hand
Tertullian, contra Hermog. 3, considering the attributes
in question to belong not to the Divine Nature, but Office, denies that
God was Almighty (Lord?) from eternity; while the Greeks affirmed this
(vid. Cyril Alex. in Joann. xvii. 8, p. 963; Athan.
Orat. ii. 12–14), as understanding by the term the
inherent but latent attribute of doing what He had not yet done,
τὸ
ἐξουσιαστικόν.” Cleopas, the Jerusalem Editor,
regards the passage as directed against Paul of Samosata, who asserted
that Christ had become God, and received His kingdom and Lordship only
after His Incarnation, and remarks:—“S. Cyril evidently
regards the Lordship of Jesus Christ as twofold: one that which
from eternity belonged to Him as God, which he calls natural, according
to which ‘He was ever both Lord and King, as being by nature
God’ (Cyril Alex. in Johann. cap. xvii.); and the other
the Lordship in time relative to the creatures, by which He exercises
dominion over the works created by Him, as being their
Maker.“
6. Christ the Lord is He who was
born in the city of David Among those who denied
the Divine præ-existence of Christ Cleopas enumerates Ebion,
Carpocrates, Theodotus, Artemon, Paul of Samosata, Marcellus, and
Photinus.
7. Moreover, that you may be sure that this
is He who was seen of Moses, hear Paul’s testimony, when he says,
For they all drank of a spiritual rock that followed them; and the
rock was Christ
8. Now here I wish you to make safe what I
am going to say, because of the Jews. For our object is to prove
that the Lord Jesus Christ was with the Father. The Lord then says to Moses, I will pass by before thee
with My glory, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee
9. This is the first proof: receive
now a second plain one. The Lord said
unto my Lord, sit Thou on My right hand Cyril evidently
alludes to Again (contr. Arian. Orat.
III. cap. xxvii. § 36), Athanasius argues: “Lest a
man, perceiving that the Son has all that the Father hath, from the
exact likeness and identity of what He hath, should wander into the
impiety of Sabellius, considering Him to be the Father, therefore He
has said, Was given unto Me, and I received, and Were
delivered to Me, only to shew that He is not the Father, but the
Father’s Word, and the Eternal Son, who, because of His likeness
to the Father, has eternally what He has from Him, and because He is
the Son, has from the Father what eternally He hath.”
10. The Son of God then is Lord: He is
Lord, who was born in Bethlehem of Judæa, according to the Angel
who said to the shepherds, I bring you good tidings of great joy,
that unto you is born this day in the city of David Christ the
Lord
11. And He is called by two names, Jesus
Christ; Jesus, because He saves,—Christ, because He is a
Priest Compare Eusebius
(Eccl. Hist. I. cap. iii.), a passage which Cyril seems to have
followed in his explanation of the names ‘Jesus’ and
‘Christ.’ For the common reading
ἐγκρίτοις
πάντων Cod. Mon. I. has
ἐκκρίτοις π.
which is required both by the construction and the sense. The
change may have been caused by the occurrence of ἐγκρίτων just
below. Eusebius
(u.s): “His successor, therefore, who had not
hitherto borne the name Jesus, but had been called by another name,
Auses, which had been given him by his parents, he now called Jesus,
bestowing the name upon him as a gift of honour far greater than any
kingly diadem.” Auses is a common corruption of the name
Oshea. See the note on the passage of Eusebius in this
series. Eusebius:
“He consecrated a man high-priest of God, in so far as that was
possible, and him he called Christ.” Cf.
12. There is One Lord Jesus Christ, a
wondrous name, indirectly announced beforehand by the Prophets.
For Esaias the Prophet says, Behold, thy Saviour cometh, having His
own reward τὸ
κυριοκτόνον
τῶν
᾽Ιουδαίων. The Anathema appended
to the Creed of Nicæa condemns those who said πρὶν
γεννηθῆναι
οὐκ ἦν. On this Eusebius
of Cæsarea (Epist. § 9) remarks: “Moreover
to anathematize ‘Before His generation He was not,’ did not
seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all, that the Son of God
was before the generation according to the flesh.”
13. Jesus then means according to the Hebrew
“Saviour,” but in the Greek tongue “The
Healer;” since He is physician of souls and bodies, curer of
spirits, curing the blind in body τυφλῶν
αἰσθητῶν. Compare the
fragment of the Apology of Quadratus presented to Hadrian 127
a.d., preserved by Eusebius (H.E. IV.
iii.): “But the works of our Saviour were always present,
for they were genuine:—those that were healed, and those that
arose from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and
when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely
while the Saviour was on earth, but also after His death they were
alive for a long while, so that some of them survived even to our
times.” See the notes on the passage of Eusebius, in this
series.
14. For that He is Jesus the Jews allow, but
not further that He is Christ. Therefore saith the Apostle,
Who is the liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the
Christ On the opinion
that Christ was from all eternity the true High Priest of the Creation,
see Index, Priesthood, and the reference there given to the
Introduction. Cf. x. 4: xi. 1. Athan (c. Arian.
Or. ii. 12, J. H. N.). The word
‘synaxis’ was used by the early Christians to distinguish
their assemblies from the Jewish ‘synagogue,’ a word formed
from the same root and more regularly. ‘Synaxis’ came
to be used more especially of a celebration of the Eucharist. See
Suicer, Thesaurus, Σύναξις. σκευαστῷ,
15. This Christ, when He was come, the Jews
denied, but the devils confessed. But His forefather David was
not ignorant of Him, when he said, I have ordained a lamp for mine
Anointed
16. This is Jesus Christ who came a
High-Priest of the good things to come οὐκ
ἐπολιτεύετο, “was not in citizenship,” “not
naturalised.” Cf. Sueton. Nero. cap. 16:
“Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae et
maleficae.” τὸ ξένον.
17. But wouldest thou know that the Apostles
knew and preached the name of Christ, or rather had Christ Himself
within them? Paul says to his hearers, Or seek ye a proof of
Christ that speaketh in me
18. At this point of my discourse I am truly
filled with wonder at the wise dispensation of the Holy Spirit; how He
confined the Epistles of the rest to a small number, but to Paul the
former persecutor gave the privilege of writing fourteen. For it
was not because Peter or John was less that He restrained the gift; God
forbid! But in order that the doctrine might be beyond question,
He granted to the former enemy and persecutor the privilege of writing
more, in order that we all might thus be made believers. For
all were amazed at Paul, and said, Is not this he that
was formerly a persecutor
19. Many, my beloved, are the true
testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from
heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending
bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears
witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin Mother of
God ἡ θεοτόκος—
Deipara. Gibbon (Chap. xlvii. 34) says, “It is not easy
to fix the invention of this word, which La Croze (Christianisme des
Indes, tom. i. p. 16) ascribes to Eusebius of Cæsarea
and the Arians. The orthodox testimonies are produced by Cyril
(of Alexandria) and Petavius (Dogmat. Theolog. tom. v. L. v.
cap. 15, p. 254, &c.), but the veracity of the Saint is
questionable, and the epithet of θεοτόκος so
easily slides from the margin to the text of a Catholic ms.” This passage is justly described as
“Gibbon’s calumny” by Dr. Newman: see his notes
on the title θεοτόκος
(Athan. c. Arian. Or. ii. cap. 12, n.; Or. iii.
capp. 14, 29, 33). The word is certainly used by Origen
(Deut. xxii. 13, Lommatzch. Tom. x. p. 378): “She
that is already betrothed is called a wife, as also in the case of
Joseph and the Theotokos.” Cf. Archelaus (Disput.
cum Mane, cap. xxxiv. “qui de Maria Dei Genetrice natus
est”); Eusebius (de Vita Constantini, III. cap.
43: “The pious Empress adorned with rare memorials the
place of the travail of the Theotokos”). For other examples
see Suicer’s Thesaurus, θεοτόκος,
Pearson, Creed, Art. iii. notes l, m, n, o, and Routh,
Reliq. Sacr. ii. p. 332. “Chrysostom
describing the flourishing state of the Church in Egypt in those times,
says: ‘Egypt welcomes and saves Him when a fugitive and
plotted against, and receives a beginning as it were of its
appropriation to Him, in order that when it shall hear Him proclaimed
by the Apostles, it may in their day also be honoured as having been
first to welcome Him’” (Cleopas). See Cat. iv. 10, note
7. The Bordeaux
Pilgrim, who visited the Holy Places of Jerusalem, a.d. 333, c. speaks of this palm-tree as still
existing. The longevity of the palm was proverbial: cf.
Aristot. (De Longitudine Vitæ, c. iv. 2). The same Pilgrim (as
quoted by the Benedictine Editor) says, “There is also the rock
where Judas Iscariot betrayed Christ.” Compare Cat. xiii.
38. See Index,
Golgotha. See the passage
of the Introduction referred to in Index, Sepulchre. See Cat. ii. 15,
note 8, and xiii. 25, 34, 38. On the supernatural character of
the darkness mentioned in the Gospels see Meyer, Commentary,
This clause is omitted
in Codd. Mon. 1, 2, Roe, Casaub., and is probably repeated from the
preceding line: such repetitions, however, are not uncommon in
Cyril’s style. The persecution
of the Christians in Persia by Sapor II. is described at length by
Sozomen (E.H. II. cc. ix.–xv., in this Series). It
commenced in a.d. 343, and was going on at the
date of these Lectures and long after. “During fifty years
the Cross lay prostrate in blood and ashes” (Dict. Bib.
‘Sassanidæ’). Compare Neander, Church
History, Tom. III. p 148, Bohn.) The Goths here
mentioned are the Gothi minores dwelling on the north of
the Danube, where Ulfilas, “the Apostle of the Goths”
(311–381), converted many of his countrymen to
Christianity. After suffering severe persecution, he was allowed
by the Constantius to take refuge with his Arian converts in Mœsia
and Thrace. This migration took place in 348 a.d., the same year in which Cyril’s Lectures were
delivered. See Index,
Exorcism.
20. So many and diverse, yea and more than
these, are His witnesses: is then the Christ thus witnessed any
longer disbelieved? Nay rather if there is any one who formerly
believed not, let him now believe: and if any was before a
believer, let him receive a greater increase of faith, by believing in
our Lord Jesus Christ, and let him understand whose name he
bears. Thou art called a Christian: be tender of the name;
let not our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, be blasphemed through
thee: but rather let your good works shine before
men
On the Words, the Only-Begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father Very God Before All Ages, by Whom All Things Were Made.
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son.
1. That we have
hope in Jesus Christ has been sufficiently shewn, according to our
ability, in what we delivered to you yesterday. But we must not
simply believe in Christ Jesus nor receive Him as one of the many who
are improperly called Christs Compare x. 11, 15; xvi. 13: xxi. 1. ἐκ
προκοπῆς. See x.
5. note 8. Compare x. 14, note
9.
2. And again on hearing of a
“Son,” think not of an adopted son but a Son by
nature θετόν. Athanasius (de
Sententiâ Dionysii, § 23), represents Arius as saying
that the Word “is not by nature (κατὰ φύσιν)
and in truth Son of God, but is called Son, He too, by adoption
(κατὰ
θέσιν), as a
creature.” Again (c. Arian. Orat. iii. 19), he says,
“This is the true God and the Life eternal, and we are made sons
through Him by adoption and grace (θέσει καὶ
χάριτι).” Cf. vii.
10, and § 4, below. The mss. all read αὐτὸν
Χριστόν which might mean
“Christ and no other.” But Χριστόν is probably a
gloss introduced from the margin. Compare the passages
in which Cyril quotes “It was
one of the especial rights of a father to choose the names for his
children, and to alter them if he pleased” (Dict. Greek and
Roman Antiq. “Nomen. 1 Greek.”) The right to the
name given by the father is the subject of one of the Private Orations
of Demosthenes (Πρὸς
Βοιωτὸν περὶ
τοῦ
ὀνόματος).
3. Our Lord Jesus Christ erewhile became
Man, but by the many He was unknown. Wishing, therefore, to teach
that which was not known, He called together His disciples, and asked
them, Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am Compare iv.
7: “God of God begotten;” xiii. 3 and 13:
“God the Son of God.” Here however, the mss. vary, and the reading of Cod. Coisl.
Υἱῷ
Θεοῦ
μονογενεῖ is
approved by the Benedictine Editor, though not adopted. The
confusion of Υἱῷ
and Θεῷ is like that
in ὁ πρωτοστάτης
τῶν
᾽Αποστόλων
καὶ τῆς
᾽Εκκλησίας
κορυφαῖος
κήρυξ. Cf. ii. 19.
4. Again, I say, on hearing of a Son,
under Athanasius (de Synodis, § 15)
quotes a passage from the Thalia of Arius, in which he
says: “We praise Him as without beginning, because of Him
who has a beginning: and adore Him as eternal, because of Him who
in time has come to be. He who is without beginning made the Son
a beginning of things created.” It is important, therefore, to notice the sense in which
Cyril here calls the Son ἄναρχος. The word
has two meanings, which should be clearly distinguished, (i)
unoriginate, (ii) without beginning in time. The
former referring to origin, or cause, can properly be applied to the
One true God, or to God the Father only, as it is used by Clement of
Alexandria (Protrept. cap. v. § 65:
τὸν
πάντων
ποιητὴν…ἀγνοοῦντες,
τὸν ἄναρχον
Θεόν. [Strom. IV. cap.
xxv. § 164: ὁ Θεὸς δὲ
ἄναρχος ἀρχὴ
τῶν ὅλων
παντελὴς
ἀρχῆς
ποιητικός].
[Stromat. V. cap. xiv. § 142: ἐξ
ἀρχῆς
ἀνάρχου].
Methodius (ob. 312 a.d. circ.)
in a fragment (On things created, § 8, English Trans.
Clark’s Ante-Nic. Libr.) comments thus on In this sense Cyril has said (iv. 4) that
God alone is “unbegotten, unoriginate:” and in xi. 20
he explains this more fully,—“Suffer none to speak of a
beginning of the Son in time (χῥονικὴν
ἀρχήν), but as a timeless
beginning acknowledge the Father. For the Father is the beginning
of the Son, timeless, incomprehensible, without beginning.”
From a confusion of the two meanings the word came to be improperly
applied in the sense of “unoriginate” to the Son, and to
the Spirit; and this improper usage is condemned in the 49th
Apostolic Canon, which Hefele regards as amongst the most
ancient Canons, and taken from the Apostolic Constitutions, vi.
11: “If any Bishop or Presbyter shall baptize not according
to our Lord’s ordinance into the Father, and Son, and Spirit, but
into three Unoriginates, or three Sons, or three Paracletes let
him be deposed.” (ii.) Athanasius frequently calls the
Son ἄναρχος in the sense of
‘timeless,’ as being the co-eternal brightness (ἀπαύγασμα) of the
Eternal Light: see de Sent. Dionys. §§ 15, 16,
22; “God is the Eternal Light, which never either began or shall
cease: accordingly the Brightness is ever before Him, and
co-exists with Him, without beginning and ever-begotten (ἄναρχον καὶ
ἀειγενές).” εἰς
προκοπὴν
υἱοθεσίας.
Cf. § 2, note 4. Πρωτότοκον.
The word occurs in
To others also the Scripture says, Ye are the
sons of the Lord your God ἐν
πᾶσιν
ὅμοιος. See the note on iv.
7. That the phrase was not equivalent to ὁμοούσιος, and did
not adequately express the relation of the Son to the Father is clearly
shewn by Athanasius (de Synodis, cap. iii. § 53). The additions which the Benedictine Editor
has here made to the earlier text, as represented by Milles, may be
conveniently shewn in brackets. ἀλλὰ
Υἱὸς [τοῦ
Πατρὸς]*
ἐξ
ἀρχῆς
ἐγεννήθη, [ὑπεράνω
πάσης ἀρχῆς
καὶ αἰώνων
τυγχάνων]*, Υιὸς
τοῦ Πατρὸς
[ἐν
πᾶσιν]†
ὅμοιος τῷ
γεγεννηκότι·
[ἀΐδιος ἐξ
ἀϊδίου
Πατρός,]* ζωὴ
ἐκ ζωῆς
γεγεννημένος.
…καὶ
Θεὸς ἐκ
Θεοῦ, [καὶ
δύναμις ἐκ
δυνάμεως]‡. * Codd. Coisl. Ottob. Mon. 2. † Coisl.
Ottob. Roe, Casaub. Mon. 1, 2. ‡ Coisl. Ottob. Mon. 1, 2.
5. If then thou hear the Gospel saying,
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the
Son of Abraham See § 4, note
3. Θεϊκῶς. τὸ μὲν κατὰ
τὸν Δαβίδ.…τὸ
δὲ κατὰ τὴν
Θεότητα.
6. Believe thou therefore on Jesus Christ, Son of the living
God, and a Son Only-Begotten, according to the Gospel which
7. He is then the Son of God by nature and
not by adoption φύσει καὶ οὐ
θέσει. Cf. § 2, note 4. γεγεννημένος
ἀνάρχως. Cf. §
5, note 4. ὃ
χρόνος. Bened. c.
Codd. Roe, Casaub. Coisl. ὃ
χρόνοις Ottob. Mon. 1,
2. A. With the latter reading, the meaning will
be—“if He did not bestow from the beginning, as thou
sayest, what He bestowed in after times.” Cyril does not
here address his auditor, but an imaginary opponent,—“O
man.” Compare Athan. (de Synodis, §
26).
8. Think not therefore that this generation
is human, nor as Abraham begat Isaac. For in begetting Isaac,
Abraham begat not what he would, but what another granted. But in
God the Father’s begetting there is neither ignorance nor
intermediate deliberation The Arians appear to
have made use of a dilemma: If God begat with will and purpose,
these preceded the begetting, and so ἦν
ποτε ὅτε οὐκ
ἦν, there was a time when the Son was
not: if without will and purpose, then He begat in ignorance and
of necessity. The answer is fully given by Athanasius (c.
Arian. iii. 58–67, pp. 425–431 in this
Series).
9. For the Father being Very God begat the
Son like unto Himself, Very God Athanasius (ad
Episcopos Ægypti, § 13), referring to
10. The Father begat the Son, not as among
men mind begets word. For the mind is substantially existent in
us; but the word when spoken is dispersed into the air and comes to an
end Compare Athanasius
(de Sententiâ Dionysii, § 23): “the mind
creates the word, being manifested in it, and the word shews the mind,
having originated therein.” Tertullian (adv. Prax.
vii.): “You will say what is a word but a voice and sound
of the mouth, and (as the Grammarians teach) air when struck against,
intelligible to the ear, but for the rest a sort of void, empty, and
incorporeal thing.” Cf. Athan. (de Synodis, §
12): ἀνυπόστατον. προφορικόν.
See Cat. iv. 8, note 9. ἐνυπόστατον. ibid. So the Spirit is described in Cat. xvii. 5
“not uttered or breathed by the mouth and lips of the Father and
the Son, nor dispersed into the air, but personally subsisting
(ἐνυπόστατον).” ἐν
ὑποστάσει.
11. The Father then begat Him not in such
wise as any man could understand, but as Himself only knoweth.
For we profess not to tell in what manner He begat Him, but we insist
that it was not in this manner. And not we only are ignorant of
the generation of the Son from the Father, but so is every created
nature. Speak to the earth, if perchance it may teach
thee In saying that the
earth, the sun, and the heavens know not their Maker, Cyril is simply
using figurative language like that of the passage of Job just
quoted. There is no reason to suppose that he accepted
Origen’s theory (de Principiis, II. cap. 7), that the
heavenly bodies are living and rational beings, capable of sin.
12. For my part, I have ever wondered at the
curiosity of the bold men, who by their imagined reverence fall into
impiety. For though they know nothing of Thrones, and Dominions,
and Principalities, and Powers, the workmanship of Christ, they attempt
to scrutinise their Creator Himself. Tell me first, O most daring
man, wherein does Throne differ from Dominion, and then scrutinise what
pertains to Christ. Tell me what is a Principality, and what a
Power, and what a Virtue, and what an Angel: and then search out
their Creator, for all things were made by Him
13. Be not ashamed to confess thine
ignorance, since thou sharest ignorance with Angels. Only He who
begat knoweth Him who was begotten, and He who is begotten of Him
knoweth Him who begat. He who begat knoweth what He begat:
and the Scriptures also testify that He who was begotten is
God I have followed
the reading of Codd. Coisl. Roe, Casaub. Mon. A., which is approved
though not adopted by the Benedictine Editor. The common text is
manifestly interpolated: “And the Holy Spirit of God
testifies in the Scriptures, that He who was begotten without beginning
is God. For what man knoweth, &c.” This
insertion of See iv. 8, note 8, on
the Sabellian doctrine, and Athanas. (de Synodis, § 16,
note 10 in this series). The doctrine of
Sabellius might be expressed in two forms, either the Father became the
Son, or the Son became the Father. Both forms are here
denied. The Jerusalem Editor thinks there is an allusion to the
Arian argument mentioned by Athanasius (c. Arian. Or. I. cap.
vi. 22): “If the Son is the Father’s offspring and
Image, and is like in all things to the Father, then it necessarily
holds that as He is begotten so He begets, and He too becomes father of
a son.” But the close connexion of the two clauses is in
favour of the reference to the Sabellian υἱοπατορία. ἀγέννητοι.
The context shews that this, not ἀγένητοι, is here the
right form. Athanasius seems to have used ἀγέννητος in
both senses “Un-begotten,” as here, and
“unoriginate.” Thus (c. Arian. Or. i. cap. ix.
§ 30) he says of the Arians: “Their further question
‘whether the Unoriginate be one or two,’ shews how false
are their views.” Compare Bp. Lightfoot’s Excursus on
Ignatius, Ephes. § 7, and Mr. Robertson’s notes on
Athanasius in this Series.
14. We believe then In the
Only-Begotten Son of God, Who Was Begotten of the Father Very
God. For the True God begetteth not a false god, as we
have said, nor did He deliberate and afterwards beget See above, § 8,
note 3. Athan. (c.
Arian. I. ix. 31) “speaking against the Lord, ‘He is of
nothing,’ and ‘He was not before His
generation.’”
15. And wouldest thou know that He who was
begotten of the Father, and afterwards became man, is God? Hear
the Prophet saying, This is our God, none other shall be accounted
of in comparison with Him. He hath found out every way of knowledge,
and given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved.
Afterwards He was seen on earth, and conversed among men
16. Wouldest thou receive yet a third
testimony to Christ’s Godhead? Hear Esaias saying, Egypt
hath laboured, and the merchandise of Ethiopia: and soon
after, In Thee shall they make supplication, because God is in Thee,
and there is no God save Thee. For Thou art God, and we knew it
not, the God of Israel, the Saviour Athanasius
(c. Arian. Or. iv. § 9), arguing for the ὁμοούσιον
says: “These are two, because there is Father and Son, that
is the Word; and one, because one God. For if this is not so, He
would have said, I am the Father, or, I and the Father am.” See iv. 8, notes 7 and
8.
17. The Son then is Very
God, having the Father in Himself, not changed into the Father;
for the Father was not made man, but the Son. For let the truth
be freely spoken We learn from Socrates
(Eccl. Hist. I. 24), that after the Nicene Council “those
who objected to the word ὁμοούσιος
conceived that those who approved it favoured the opinion of
Sabellius.” Marcellus of Ancyra, who was deposed on a
charge of Sabellianism, and who did not in fact make clear the distinct
personality of the Son, had been warmly supported by the friends of
Athanasius. Cyril apparently fears to incur their censure, if he
too strongly condemned the Sabellian view. Cyril here rejects
both the opposite errors, Arianism, “There was a time when the
Son was not,” and Sabellianism, “a Son who is the
Father.”
18. He who hath seen the Son, hath seen
the Father See above, § 4,
note 9. ἀπαράλλακτοι.
The word was used by the Orthodox Bishops at Nicæa, who said that
“the Word must be described as the True power and Image of the
Father, in all things like the Father and Himself incapable of
change.” See the notes of Dr. Newman and Mr. Robertson on
Athanasius (de Decretis, § 20). See iv. 8, note 8.
19. But lest thou shouldest think that He is
in a like sense Father of the Son and of the creatures, Christ drew a
distinction in what follows. For He said not, “I ascend to
our Father,” lest the creatures should be made fellows of the
Only-begotten; but He said, My Father and your Father; in one
way Mine, by nature; in another yours, by adoption. And again,
to my God and your God, in one way Mine, as His true and
Only-begotten Son, and in another way yours, as His
workmanship Compare Cat. vii.
7. The Jerusalem Editor observes that the expression “My
God” is understood by the Fathers generally as spoken by Christ
in reference to His human nature, but Cyril applies this, as well as
the other expression “My Father,” to the Divine
nature. So Hilary (de Trinit. iv. 53):
“idcirco Deus ejus est, quia ex eo natus in Deum
est.” Compare Epiphanius (Hær. lxix. 55).
20. For godliness it sufficeth thee to know,
as we have said, that God hath One Only Son, One naturally begotten;
who began not His being when He was born in Bethlehem, but Before All Ages. For hear the Prophet Micah saying,
And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephrata, art little to be among the
thousands of Judah. Out of thee shall come forth unto Me a Ruler,
who shall feed My people Israel: and His goings forth are from
the beginning, from days of eternity Codd. Roe,
Casaub. have a different reading—“Think not then of His
having now been born in Bethlehem, and (nor) suppose Him as the Son of
Man to be altogether recent, but worship, &c.” This is
rightly regarded by the Benedictine and other Editors as an
interpolation intended to avoid the apparent tendency of Cyril’s
language in the received text to separate the Virgin’s Son from
the Eternal Word. Had Cyril so written after the Nestorian
controversy arose, he would have appeared to favour the Nestorian
formula that “Mary did not give birth to the Deity.”
Compare Swainson (Nicene Creed, Ch. ix. § 7.) What
Cyril really means is that we are not to think of Christ simply as man,
but to worship Him as God. Compare § 4, note
3.
21. We believe then In One
Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, Begotten of His Father
Very God Before All Worlds, by Whom All Things Were Made.
For whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or
powers, all things were made through Him Compare Cat. vi. 13,
and xv. 3: “Here let converts from the Manichees gain
instruction, and no longer make those lights their gods; nor impiously
think that this sun which shall be darkened is Christ.” The creation of
the world was ascribed to Angels by the Gnostics generally, e.g.
by Simon Magus (Irenæus, adv. Hæres. I.
xxiii. § 2), Menander (ibid. § 5), Saturninus
(ibid. xxiv. 1), Basilides (ibid. § 3), Carpocrates
(ibid. xxv. 1).
22. I wish to give also a certain
illustration of what I am saying, but I know that it is feeble; for of
things visible what can be an exact illustration of the Divine
Power? But nevertheless as feeble be it spoken by the feeble to
the feeble. For just as any king, whose son was a king, if he
wished to form a city, might suggest to his son, his partner in the
kingdom, the form of the city, and he having received the pattern,
brings the design to completion; so, when the Father wished to form all
things, the Son created all things at the Father’s bidding, that
the act of bidding might secure to the Father His absolute
authority On the doctrine
of Creation by the Son as held by Cyril, see the reference to the
Introduction in the Index, Creation.
23. But let us now recur to our profession
of the Faith, and so for the present finish our discourse. Christ
made all things, whether thou speak of Angels, or Archangels, of
Dominions, or Thrones. Not that the Father wanted strength to
create the works Himself, but because He willed that the Son should
reign over His own workmanship, God Himself giving Him the design of
the things to be made. For honouring His own Father the
Only-begotten saith, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He
seeth the Father do; for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth
the Son likewise
24. Christ then is the Only-begotten Son of
God, and Maker of the world. For He was in the world, and the
world was made by Him; and He came unto His own, as the
Gospel teaches us
On the words Incarnate, and Made Man.
“And the Lord spoke again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign, &c.:” and “Behold! a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Emmanuel, &c.”
1. Nurslings of
purity and disciples of chastity, raise we our hymn to the Virgin-born
God This passage supplies
a complete answer to the suspicion of a quasi-Nestorian tendency
referred to in note 6, on xi. 20. See x. 19, note 2, on the title
Θεοτόκος. The Present Participle
(καταξιούμενοι)
means that the Candidates for Baptism were already on the way to be
admitted to Holy Communion. Compare Cat. i. 1, where the same
Candidates are addressed as “partakers of the mysteries of
Christ, as yet by calling only, but ere long by grace also.” Aubertin remarks on
this passage that “this spiritual Lamb, consisting of head and
feet, can be received only by the spiritual mouth.” This
explanation, however true in itself, cannot fairly be held to express
fully the meaning of Cyril. See the section of the Introduction
referred to in the Index, “Eucharist.” ᾽Ιωάννῃ τῷ
Θεολόγω. The title is
given to Moses by Philo Judæus (Vita Mos. III. §
11), to Prophets by Eusebius (Demostr. Evang. ii. 9), to
Apostles by Athanasius (de Incarn. § 10:
τῶν
αὐτοῦ τοῦ
Σωτῆρος
θεολόγων
ἀνδρῶν), and especially to
St. John, because the chief purpose of his Gospel was to set forth the
Deity of Christ. See note on
2. But the sons of the Jews by setting at
nought Him that came, and looking for him who cometh in wickedness,
rejected the true Messiah, and wait for the deceiver, themselves
deceived; herein also the Saviour being found true, who said, I am
come in My Father’s name, and ye receive Me not: but if
another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive
3. Let the Jews, then, be led astray, since
they so will: but let the Church of God be glorified. For
we receive God the Word made Man in truth, not, as heretics
say Carpocrates,
Cerinthus, the Ebionites, &c. See Irenæus
(Hær. I. xxv. § 1; xxvi. §§ 1, 2). Dr. Swainson
(Creeds, Chap. vii. § 7), speaking of the Creed of Cyril of
Jerusalem, says that “the words σαρκωθέντα
καὶ
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα
are found in it, but no reference whatever is made to the birth
from the Virgin.” The present passage, and that in Cat. iv.
§ 9, “begotten of the Holy Virgin and the Holy Ghost,”
seems to shew that such a clause formed part of the Creed which Cyril
was expounding. The genuineness of both passages is attested by
all the mss. and Dr. Swainson was mistaken in
charging the Editors of the Oxford Translation with having omitted to
“mention that Touttée was himself doubtful as to the words
within the brackets” [ἐκ
Παρθένου καὶ
Πνεύματος
῾Αγίου]. The
brackets are added by Dr. Swainson himself, and Touttée had no
doubt of the genuineness of the words: on the contrary he
believed them to be part of the Creed itself. His note is as
follows: “The words of the Virgin and Holy Ghost I
have caused to be printed in larger letters as if taken from the
Symbol: although they are wanting in the Title of this Lecture
and in § 13, where the third Article of the Creed is referred
to. But they are read in nearly all the Latin and Greek Symbols,
and are referred to in Cat. iv. § 9.” ἐνανθρωπήσαντα.
The word occurs in the true Nicene formula, where, as Dr. Swainson
thinks, it is “scarcely ambiguous,” “it is
defective.” Both the Verb and the Substantive ἐνανθρώπησις
are constantly used by Athanasius to denote the Incarnation in a
perfectly general way, without any indication of ambiguity or
defect. In the Creed proposed by Eusebius of Cæsarea instead
of ἐνανθρωπήσαντα
we find ἐν
ἀνθρώποις
πολιτευσάμενον;
and in the Expositio Fidei ascribed to Athanasius, but of
somewhat doubtful authenticity, the Incarnation is described thus
ἐκ τῆς
ἀχράντου
παρθένου
Μαρίας τὸν
ἡμέτερον
ἀνείληφεν
ἄνθρωπον
Χριστὸν
᾽Ιησοῦν. In the
Apollinarian controversy the attempt was made to interpret ἐνηνθρώπησεν
as meaning not that “He became Man,” but that
“He assumed a man,” i.e. that “the man was
first formed and then assumed” (Gregory, Epist. ad
Cledon, quoted by Swainson, p. 83), or else merely that “He
dwelt among men.” But the context of the passages in which
Cyril uses the word (iv. 9; xii. 3) clearly shews that he employed it
in the perfectly orthodox sense which it has in the Nicene Formula and
in Athanasius. See below, § 21
ff. Cyril means that the direct proof cannot be given at once,
because there are many errors to be set aside first. Compare the
end of § 4. See Cat. iv. 9, notes
3, 4. Athanasius (contra
Arian. Or. I. § 9) quotes as from Arius, Thalia,
“Christ is not Very God, but He, as others, was made God
(ἐθεοποιήθη
) by participation.” The Eusebians in the Confession of
Faith called Macrostichos (a.d. 344) condemned
this view as being held by the disciples of Paul of Samosata,
“who say that after the incarnation He was by advance made God,
from being made by nature a mere man.” The orthodox use of
the word Θεοποιεῖσθαι
is seen in Athan. de Incarnat. § 54: αὐτὸς
ἐνηνθρώπησεν,
ἵνα ἡμεῖς
θεοποιηθῶμεν.
4. But remember thou what was said yesterday
concerning His Godhead. Believe that He the Only-begotten Son of
God—He Himself was again begotten of a Virgin. Believe the
Evangelist John when he says, And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us
5. And first let us inquire for what cause
Jesus came down. Now mind not my argumentations, for perhaps thou
mayest be misled but unless thou receive testimony of the Prophets on
each matter, believe not what I say: unless thou learn from the
Holy Scriptures concerning the Virgin, and the place, the time, and the
manner, receive not testimony from man
But when this the greatest of the works of
creation was disporting himself in Paradise, the envy of the Devil cast
him out. The enemy was rejoicing over the fall of him whom he had
envied: wouldest thou have had the enemy continue to
rejoice? Not daring to accost the man because of his strength, he
accosted as being weaker the woman, still a virgin: for it was
after the expulsion from Paradise that Adam knew his
wife
6. Cain and Abel succeeded in the second
generation of mankind: and Cain was the first murderer.
Afterwards a deluge was poured abroad because of the great wickedness
of men: fire came down from heaven upon the people of Sodom
because of their transgression. After a time God chose out
Israel: but Israel also turned aside, and the chosen race was
wounded. For while Moses stood before God in the mount, the
people were worshipping a calf instead of God. In the lifetime of
Moses, the law-giver who had said, Thou shalt not commit
adultery, a man dared to enter a place of harlotry and
transgress
7. Very great was the wound of man’s
nature; from the feet to the head there was no soundness in it;
none could apply mollifying ointment, neither oil, nor
bandages
8. The Lord heard the prayer of the
Prophets. The Father disregarded not the perishing of our race;
He sent forth His Son, the Lord from heaven, as healer: and one
of the Prophets saith, The Lord whom ye seek, cometh, and shall
suddenly come
9. Afterwards Solomon hearing his father
David speak these things, built a wondrous house, and foreseeing Him
who was to come into it, said in astonishment, Will God in very deed
dwell with men on the earth
10. But who is this that cometh down?
He says in what follows, And with the sun He endureth, and before
the moon generations of generations ἀσαγῆ, a rare word, formed from
σάγη,
“harness.”
11. But He might perchance even sit upon a
foal: give us rather a sign, where the King that entereth shall
stand. And give the sign not far from the city, that it may not
be unknown to us: and give us the sign plain before our eyes,
that even when in the city we may behold the place. And the
Prophet again makes answer, saying: And His feet shall stand
in that day upon the Mount of Olives which is before Jerusalem on the
east
12. We have two signs, and we desire to
learn a third. Tell us what the Lord doth when He is come.
Another Prophet saith, Behold! our God, and afterwards, He
will come and save us. Then the eyes of the blind shall be
opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear: then shall the lame
man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be
distinct
13. These things the Jews read, but hear
not: for they have stopped the ears of their heart, that they may
not hear. But let us believe in Jesus Christ, as having come in
the flesh and been made Man, because we could not receive Him
otherwise. For since we could not look upon or enjoy Him as He
was, He became what we are, that so we might be permitted to enjoy
Him. For if we cannot look full on the sun, which was made on the
fourth day, could we behold God its Creator Cf. Epist. Barnab.
§ 13: “For had He not come in flesh, how could we men
have been safe in beholding Him? For in beholding the Sun, which
being the work of His hands shall cease to be, men have no strength to
fix their eyes upon him.”
14. What wouldest thou then? That He
who came for our salvation should become a minister of destruction
because men could not bear Him? or that He should suit His grace to our
measure? Daniel could not bear the vision of an Angel, and wert
thou capable of the sight of the Lord of Angels? Gabriel
appeared, and Daniel fell down: and of what nature or in what
guise was he that appeared? His countenance was like
lightning
15. Learn also another cause. Christ
came that He might be baptized, and might sanctify Baptism: He
came that He might work wonders, walking upon the waters of the
sea. Since then before His appearance in flesh, the sea saw
Him and fled, and Jordan was turned back Justin M.
(Tryph. § 100): “Eve, when she was a virgin and
undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth
disobedience and death: but the Virgin Mary received faith and
joy, when the Angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to
her.” Death is here called
“the dragon,” as in xiv. 17 he is called “the
invisible whale,” in allusion to the case of Jonah. On
Christ’s descent into Hades compare iv. 11; xiv. 19; and Eusebius
(Dem. Evang. x. 50), and Athanasius (c. Arian. Or. iii.
56): “The Lord, at Whom the keepers of hell’s gates
shuddered and set open hell. The Lord, Whom death as a dragon
flees.”
16. Was it without reason that Christ was
made Man? Are our teachings ingenious phrases and human
subtleties? Are not the Holy Scriptures our salvation? Are
not the predictions of the Prophets? Keep then, I pray thee, this
deposit ταύτην τὴν
παρακαταθηκην.
17. My statement, however, promised to
declare Cat. xii. 5. For
εὑρεῖν the recent
Editors with mss. A.R.C. and Grodecq.
have ἐρεῖν. νεήλυδας· ἐξεταζόμενον
, a clear instance of the Gerundive, or quasi-Future, sense of the
Present Participle, common in Cyril. “This intention is not
fulfilled in the sequel of these Lectures” (R.W.C.). According to Cyril
(§ 19, below) and other Fathers, the continuance of Jewish rulers
ceased on the accession of Herod an Idumean. Compare Justin M.
(Tryphon §§ 52, 120); Eusebius
(Demonstr. Evang. VIII. 1). On modern
interpretations of the passage see Delitzsch (New Commentary on
Genesis), Briggs (Messianic Prophecy, p. 93), Cheyne
(Isaiah, Vol. II. p. 189), Driver (Journal of Philology,
No. 27, 1885). A full and
interesting account of the Jewish Patriarchs of the West established at
Tiberias from the time of Antoninus Pius till the close of the 4th
century is contained in Dean Milman’s History of the Jews,
Vol. III. Compare Epiphanius (Hæres. xxx.
§ 3 ff.).
18. But again thou askest yet another
testimony of the time. The Lord said
unto Me, Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee: and
a few words further on, Thou shalt rule them with a rod of
iron
19. But we seek still more clearly the proof
of the time of His coming. For man being hard to persuade, unless
he gets the very years for a clear calculation, does not believe what
is stated. What then is the season, and what the manner of the
time? It is when, on the failure of the kings descended from
Judah, Herod a foreigner succeeds to the kingdom? The Angel,
therefore, who converses with Daniel says, and do thou now mark the
words, And thou shalt know and understand: From the going
forth of the word for making answer Sep. τοῦ
ἀποκριθῆναι,
a frequent meaning of the Hebrew בישִּׁהָלְ,
by which the Greek Translators understood the answer of Darius to the
Letter of Tatnai and his companions. Both A.V. and R.V. render
the word “to restore.” Darius the Mede
( In speaking of three
supernumeracy hours in the year instead of nearly six, Cyril seems to
follow the division of the diurnal period into twelve parts, not
twenty-four. The Jews had derived this division either from the
Egyptians, or more probably from the Babylonians: see Herodotus,
II. 109.
20. But now hear the place of the promise,
as Micah says, And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, art thou
little to be among the thousands of Judah? For out of thee shall
come forth unto Me a ruler, to be governor in Israel: and His
goings forth are front the beginning, from the days of
eternity The Benedictine
Editor thinks that in calling the place “woody” Cyril
refers to a grove planted by Hadrian in honour of Adonis, which had
been destroyed about sixteen years before, when Helena built the Church
at Bethlehem: see Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III.
43. But Cyril evidently means that the wood of which the Psalmist
speaks had remained till a few years before. Ephrâthah is
the ancient name of Bethlehem ( ἑξῆς. This clause comes before
the preceding quotation: Cyril misplaces them. In the
Vatican and other mss. of the Sept. and in
some Fathers ζώων (“living creatures”)
is found in place of ζωῶν “lives;” but the
latter reading is evidently required by the interpretation which
follows in Cyril. Origen (de Principiis, I. 4), who
recognises both readings (“In medio vel duorum animalium, vel
duarum vitarum, cognosceris,”) interprets the “two living
beings” of the Son and the Spirit. Eusebius (Demonstr.
Evang VI. 15) observes that ζωων is to be read as perispomenon
from the Singular ζωή, and interprets it of Christ’s
life with God, and life on earth. Theodoret says, in commenting
on the passage, “To me it seems that the Prophet means not
“living beings” (ζῶα) but “lives” (ζωάς), the present life,
and that which is to come, between which is the appearance of the
Righteous Judge.” The following note is
slightly abridged from the Edition of Alexandrides of Jerusalem.
“Previous Editions read ἔξ
ὄρους φαρὰν
κατασκίου
δασέος. This reading
is found in Cod. Vat. and other mss. of the
Septuagint, but φαράν is omitted in the
Aldine and many other copies nor was it read in the mss. of the Sept. in Jerome’s time, as is clear from
his comments on the passage. In the mss.
of Cyril, Ottob. R.C.V. Monac. I. and II. it
is wanting. Paran is the name of the desert towards the S. of
Palestine lying between it and Egypt (
21. We ask further, of whom cometh He and
how? And this Esaias tells us: Behold! the virgin shall
conceive in her womb, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call
His name Emmanuel
But that you may learn more plainly that even a
virgin is called in Holy Scripture a “damsel,” hear the
Book of the Kings, speaking of Abishag the Shunamite, And the damsel
was very fair
22. But the Jews say again, This was said to
Ahaz in reference to Hezekiah. Well, then, let us read the
Scripture: Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God, in the depth
or in the height Compare Justin M.
(Tryph. § 77), Euseb. (Demonstr. Evang. L. VII. c.
i. 317). In the Hebrew
the word used is a Participle, and describes what Isaiah sees in a
prophetic vision; “Behold, the damsel—with
child.”
23. We know then for certain that the Lord
was to be born of a Virgin, but we have to shew of what family the
Virgin was. The Lord sware in truth unto David, and will not
set it aside. Of the fruit of body will I set upon thy
throne
24. But the Jews are much troubled at these
things. This also Isaiah foreknew, saying, And they shall wish
that they had been burnt with fire: for unto us a child is
born (not unto them), unto us a Son is given
25. For it became Him who is most pure, and
a teacher of purity, to have come forth from a pure
bride-chamber. For if he who well fulfils the office of a priest
of Jesus abstains from a wife, how should Jesus Himself be born of man
and woman? For thou, saith He in the Psalms, art He
that took Me out of the womb
26. And from such members He is not ashamed
to assume flesh, who is the framer of those very members. But
then who telleth us this? The Lord saith unto Jeremiah:
Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee: and before
thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee
27. But both Greeks and Jews harass us and
say that it was impossible for the Christ to be born of a virgin.
As for the Greeks we will stop their mouths from their own
fables. For ye who say that stones being thrown were changed into
men See the story of
Pyrrha and Deucalion in Pindar, Ol. ix. 60: ἄτερ δ᾽
εὐνᾶς
κτησάσθαν
λίθινον
γόνον, and in Ovid. Metam i.
260 ff. Athena was said to
have sprung armed from the head of Zeus: Pindar, Ol. vii.
65: κορυφὰν
κατ᾽ ἄκραν
ἀνορούσαισ᾽
ἀλάλαξεν
ὑπερμάκει
βοᾷ. Cf. Hes. Theog.
924. Eurip. Bacchae.
295; Ovid. Metam. iv. 11.
28. But those of the circumcision meet thou
with this question: Whether is harder, for an aged woman, barren
and past age, to bear, or for a virgin in the prime of youth to
conceive? Sarah was barren, and though it had ceased to be with
her after the manner of women, yet, contrary to nature, she bore a
child. If, then, it is against nature for a barren woman to
conceive, and also for a virgin, either, therefore, reject both, or
accept both. For it is the same God Codd. Mon. i, A:
ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς
Θεός. Bened. ὁ γὰρ
Θεὸς αὐτός.
29. These are excellent suggestions of the narratives: but the Jews still contradict, and do not yield to the statements concerning the rod, unless they may be persuaded by similar strange and supernatural births. Question them, therefore, in this way: of whom in the beginning was Eve begotten? What mother conceived her the motherless? But the Scripture saith that she was born out of Adam’s side. Is Eve then born out of a man’s side without a mother, and is a child not to be born without a father, of a virgin’s womb? This debt of gratitude was due to men from womankind: for Eve was begotten of Adam, and not conceived of a mother, but as it were brought forth of man alone. Mary, therefore, paid the debt, of gratitude, when not by man but of herself alone in an immaculate way she conceived of the Holy Ghost by the power of God.
30. But let us take what is yet a greater wonder than this. For that of bodies bodies should be conceived, even if wonderful, is nevertheless possible: but that the dust of the earth should become a man, this is more wonderful. That clay moulded together should assume the coats and splendours of the eyes, this is more wonderful. That out of dust of uniform appearance should be produced both the firmness of bones, and the softness of lungs, and other different kinds of members, this is wonderful. That clay should be animated and travel round the world self moved, and should build houses, this is wonderful. That clay should teach, and talk, and act as carpenter, and as king, this is wonderful. Whence, then, O ye most ignorant Jews, was Adam made? Did not God take dust from the earth, and fashion this wonderful frame? Is then clay changed into an eye, and cannot a virgin bear a son. Does that which for men is more impossible take place, and is that which is possible never to occur?
31. Let us remember these things,
brethren: let us use these weapons in our defence. Let us
not endure those heretics who teach Christ’s coming as a
phantom. Let us abhor those also who say that the Saviour’s
birth was of husband and wife; who have dared to say that He was the
child of Joseph and Mary, because it is written, And he took unto
him his wife See above, §
21.
32. But thou wonderest at the event:
even she herself who bare him wondered at this. For she saith to
Gabriel, How shall this be to me, since I know not a man?
But he says, The Holy Ghost shall came upon thee, and the power of
the Highest shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing
which is to be born shall be called the Son of God
33. Since God then beareth witness, and the
Holy Ghost joins in the witness, and Christ says, Why do ye seek to
kill me, a man who has told you the truth σεμνύνεται.
Rivet, misled by a double error in the old Latin version,
“veneratur,” accused Cyril of approving the worship of the
Virgin Mary.
34. But let us all by God’s grace run
the race of chastity, young men and maidens, old men and
children ἡ τῶν
ἀγαθῶν
πρᾶξις, Cod. A.
On the words, Crucified and Buried.
Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?…He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, &c.
1. Every deed of
Christ is a cause of glorying to the Catholic Church, but her greatest
of all glorying is in the Cross; and knowing this, Paul says, But
God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of
Christ Cf. Athanas. (de
Incarn. § 18, 49).
2. And wonder not that the whole world was
ransomed; for it was no mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God, who
died on its behalf. Moreover one man’s sin, even
Adam’s, had power to bring death to the world; but if by the
trespass of the one death reigned over the world, how shall not
life much rather reign by the righteousness of the One
3. Let us then not be ashamed of the Cross
of our Saviour, but rather glory in it. For the word of the
Cross is unto Jews a stumbling-block, and unto Gentiles
foolishness, but to us salvation: and to them that are
perishing it is foolishness, but unto us which are being saved it is
the power of God Cf. Cat. i. 3; xvii.
35, 36.
4. Jesus then really suffered for all men;
for the Cross was no illusion δόκησις. Cf.
Ignat. Smyrn. § 2: “He suffered truly, as also
He raised Himself truly: not as certain unbelievers say, that He
suffered in semblance (τὸ
δοκεῖν αὐτὸν
πεπονθέναι).”
See § 37, below. φαντασιώδης.
Athanas. c. Apollinar. § 3: “Supposing
the exhibition and the endurance of the Passion to be a mere show
(φαντασίαν).” Cf. iv. 10; x. 19.
5. Being then in the flesh like others, He
was crucified, but not for the like sins. For He was not led to
death for covetousness, since He was a Teacher of poverty; nor was He
condemned for concupiscence, for He Himself says plainly, Whosoever
shall look upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with
her already
6. And wouldest thou be persuaded that He
came to His passion willingly? others, who foreknow it not, die
unwillingly; but He spoke before of His passion: Behold, the
Son of man is betrayed to be crucified “τὰς
εὐλογίας. The
word has this meaning in Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria also;
afterwards it came to signify consecrated bread, distinct from that of
the Eucharist. Vid. Bingham, Antiq. xv. 4, §
3.” (R.W.C.) The custom of sending the bread of the
Eucharist was forbidden in the latter part of the 4th century by the
Synod of Laodicea, Canon 14: “At Easter the Host shall no
more be sent into foreign dioceses as
eulogiae.” Bp. Hefele (Councils II. p.
308) says—“It was a custom in the ancient Church, not
indeed to consecrate, but to bless those of the several breads of the
same form laid on the altar which were not needed for the Communion,
and to employ them partly for the maintenance of the Clergy, and partly
for distributing them to those of the faithful who did not communicate
at the Mass.” See Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. V.
24), with the note thereon in this Series. See Cat. ii. 14, note
4.
7. But the Jews contradict this There is so close a
resemblance between the remainder of this Lecture and the explanation
of the same Article of the Creed by Rufinus, that “I have no
doubt,” says the Benedictine Editor, “that Rufinus drew
from Cyril’s fountains.” Cf. Rufin. de
Symbolo, § 19, sqq. Cf.
8. But since there has been much gainsaying
by them, come, let me, with the help of your prayers, (as the shortness
of the time may allow,) set forth by the grace of the Lord some few
testimonies concerning the Passion. For the things concerning
Christ are all put into writing, and nothing is doubtful, for nothing
is without a text. All are inscribed on the monuments of the
Prophets; clearly written, not on tablets of stone, but by the Holy
Ghost. Since then thou hast heard the Gospel speaking concerning
Judas, oughtest thou not to receive the testimony to it? Thou
hast heard that He was pierced in the side by a spear; oughtest thou
not to see whether this also is written? Thou hast heard that He
was crucified in a garden; oughtest thou not to see whether this also
is written? Thou hast heard that He was sold for thirty pieces of
silver; oughtest thou not to learn what prophet spake this? Thou
hast heard that He was given vinegar to drink; learn where this also is
written. Thou hast heard that His body was laid in a rock, and
that a stone was set over it; oughtest thou not to receive this
testimony also from the prophet? Thou hast heard that He was
crucified with robbers; oughtest thou not to see whether this also is
written? Thou hast heard that He was buried; oughtest thou not to
see whether the circumstances of His burial are anywhere accurately
written? Thou hast heard that He rose again; oughtest thou not to
see whether we mock thee in teaching these things? For our
speech and our preaching is not in persuasive words of man’s
wisdom Cyril alludes to
the same proverb in the Homily on the Paralytic, c. 14:
“Word resists word, but a deed is irresistible.” The
Jerusalem Editor refers to Gregory Nazianzen (Tom. II. p.
596): Δόγῳ
παλαίει πᾶς
λόγος.
9. Let us then seek the testimonies to the
Passion of Christ: for we are met together, not now to make a
speculative exposition of the Scriptures, but rather to be certified of
the things which we already believe. Now thou hast received from
me first the testimonies concerning the coming of Jesus; and concerning
His walking on the sea, for it is written, Thy way is in the
sea Cf. Phil. Jud. de
Plantatione Noë, II § 33: “And his name was
called Judah, which being interpreted is “confession to the
Lord.” In
10. Listen also for the thirty pieces of
silver. And I will say to them, If it be good in your sight,
give me my price, or refuse
11. But now I have to seek the exact
solution of this seeming discrepancy. For they who make light of
the prophets, allege that the Prophet says on the one hand, And I
cast them into the house of the Lord, into the foundry, but the
Gospel on the other hand, And they gave them for the potter’s
field
12. They bound Jesus, and brought Him into
the hall of the High-priest. And wouldest thou learn and know
that this also is written? Esaias says, Woe unto their soul,
for they have taken evil counsel against themselves, saying, Let us
bind the Just, for He is troublesome to us
13. But the High-priest having questioned
Him, and heard the truth, is wroth; and the wicked officer of wicked
men smites Him; and the countenance, which had shone as the sun,
endured to be smitten by lawless hands. Others also come and spit
on the face of Him, who by spittle had healed the man who was blind
from his birth. Do ye thus requite the Lord? This people
is foolish and unwise
14. Having been bound, He came from Caiaphas
to Pilate,—is this too written? yes; And having bound Him,
they led Him away as a present to the king of Jarim
15. Look with awe then at the Lord who was
judged. He suffered Himself to be led and carried by
soldiers. Pilate sat in judgment, and He who sitteth on the right
hand of the Father, stood and was judged Some
mss. have ἠνεσχετο or ἠνείχετο, “He
submitted to stand.”
16. When He was judged, He held His peace;
so that Pilate was moved for Him, and said, Hearest Thou not what
these witness against Thee “Perhaps in some
Homily” (Ben. Ed.).
17. But the soldiers who crowd around mock
Him, and their Lord becomes a sport to them, and upon their Master they
make jests. When they looked on Me, they shaked their
heads
18. Adam received the sentence, Cursed is
the ground in thy labours; thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to
thee
19. And since we have touched on things
connected with Paradise, I am truly astonished at the truth of the
types. In Paradise was the Fall, and in a Garden was our
Salvation. From the Tree came sin, and until the Tree sin
lasted. In the evening, when the Lord walked in the Garden,
they hid themselves
20. This was the figure which Moses
completed by fixing the serpent to a cross, that whoso had been bitten
by the living serpent, and looked to the brasen serpent, might be saved
by believing
21. The beginning of signs under Moses was
blood and water; and the last of all Jesus’ signs was the
same. First, Moses changed the river into blood; and Jesus at the
last gave forth from His side water with blood. This was perhaps
on account of the two speeches, his who judged Him, and theirs who
cried out against Him; or because of the believers and the
unbelievers. For Pilate said, I am innocent and washed his
hands in water; they who cried out against Him said, His blood be
upon us
22. And whoever will inquire, will find
other reasons also; but what has been said is enough, because of the
shortness of the time, and that the attention of my hearers may not
become sated. And yet we never can be tired of hearing concerning
the crowning of our Lord, and least of all in this most holy
Golgotha. For others only hear, but we both see and handle.
Let none be weary; take thine armour against the adversaries in the
cause of the Cross itself; set up the faith of the Cross as a trophy
against the gainsayers. For when thou art going to dispute with
unbelievers concerning the Cross of Christ, first make with thy hand
the sign of Christ’s Cross, and the gainsayer will be
silenced. Be not ashamed to confess the Cross; for Angels glory
in it, saying, We know whom ye seek, Jesus the
Crucified
23. Now let us recur to the proof out of the
Prophets which I spoke of. The Lord was crucified; thou hast
received the testimonies. Thou seest this spot of Golgotha!
Thou answerest with a shout of praise, as if assenting. See that
thou recant not in time of persecution. Rejoice not in the Cross
in time of peace only, but hold fast the same faith in time of
persecution also; be not in time of peace a friend of Jesus, and His
foe in time of wars. Thou receivest now remission of thy sins,
and the gifts of the King’s spiritual bounty; when war shall
come, strive thou nobly for thy King. Jesus, the Sinless, was
crucified for thee; and wilt not thou be crucified for Him who was
crucified for thee? Thou art not bestowing a favour, for thou
hast first received; but thou art returning a favour, repaying thy debt
to Him who was crucified for thee in Golgotha. Now Golgotha is
interpreted, “the place of a skull.” Who were they
then, who prophetically named this spot Golgotha, in which Christ the
true Head endured the Cross? As the Apostle says, Who is the
Image of the Invisible God; and a little after, and He is the
Head of the body, the Church
24. Christ then was crucified for us, who
was judged in the night, when it was cold, and therefore a fire of
coals
25. But dost thou ask exactly at what hour
the sun failed ἐξέλιπεν. See
Cat. x. 19, note 2. Acta Pilati. c. xi.
26. But, some one will say, “Give me
yet another sign; what other exact sign is there of that which has come
to pass? Jesus was crucified; and He wore but one coat, and one
cloak: now His cloak the soldiers shared among themselves, having
rent it into four; but His coat was not rent, for when rent it would
have been no longer of any use; so about this lots are cast by the
soldiers; thus the one they divide, but for the other they cast
lots. Is then this also written? They know, the diligent
chanters Synod of Laodicea,
Can. xvi. 15: “Besides the appointed singers, who mount the
ambo and sing from the book, others shall not sing in the
Church.” Hefele thinks that this was not intended to forbid
the laity to take any part in the Church music, but only to forbid
those who were not cantors to take the lead. See Bingham,
Antiquities, III. c. 7; XIV. c. 1. κλῆρος δὲ ἦν
ὁ λαχμός.
Bishop Hall, Contemplations, Book IV. 32, speaks of the
soldiers’ “barbarous sortitions.” The
technical term is “sortilege.” Cf. Evang.
Pet. § 4; Justin M. Dial. 97.
27. Again, when He had been judged before
Pilate, He was clothed in red; for there they put on Him a purple
robe. Is this also written? Esaias saith, Who is this
that cometh from Edom? the redness of His garments is from
Bosor Bozrah means a
“sheepfold,” and is the name of a city in Idumea.
Cyril’s interpretation rests on a false derivation.
28. He stretched out His hands on the Cross,
that He might embrace the ends of the world; for this Golgotha is the
very centre of the earth. It is not my word, but it is a prophet
who hath said, Thou hast wrought salvation in the midst of the
earth
29. But though He endured these things,
having come for the salvation of all, yet the people returned Him an
evil recompense. Jesus saith, I thirst
30. Concerning the robbers who were
crucified with Him, it is written, And He was numbered with the
transgressors
31. What power, O robber, led thee to the
light? Who taught thee to worship that despised Man, thy
companion on the Cross? O Light Eternal, which gives light to
them that are in darkness! Therefore also he justly heard the
words, Be of good cheer θάρσει. An addition
to the text of Cf. Iren. V. c. 5,
§ 1; Athan. (Expos. Fid. c. i.): “He shewed
us.…an entrance into Paradise from which Adam was cast out, and
into which he entered again by means of the thief.” S. Leo
(de Pass. Dom. Serm. II. c. 1): “Excedit humanam
conditionem ista promissio: nec tam de ligno Crucis, quam de
throno editur potestatis.”
32. Of this garden I sang of old to My
spouse in the Canticles, and spoke to her thus. I am come into
My garden, My sister, My spouse
33. These things the Saviour endured, and
made peace through the Blood of His Cross, for things in heaven, and
things in earth
34. The Sun was darkened, because of the
Sun of Righteousness
35. But we seek to know clearly where He has
been buried. Is His tomb made with hands? Is it, like the
tombs of kings, raised above the ground? Is the Sepulchre made of
stones joined together? And what is laid upon it? Tell us,
O Prophets, the exact truth concerning His tomb also, where He is laid,
and where we shall seek Him? And they say, Look into the solid
rock which ye have hewn
36. Let us not then be ashamed to confess
the Crucified. Be the Cross our seal made with boldness by our
fingers on our brow, and on everything; over the bread we eat, and the
cups we drink; in our comings in, and goings out; before our sleep,
when we lie down and when we rise up; when we are in the way, and when
we are still Cf. Cat. iv. 14, note
3; Euseb. (Dem. Ev. ix. 14).
37. And if thou ever fall into disputation
and hast not the grounds of proof, yet let Faith remain firm in thee;
or rather, become thou well learned, and then silence the Jews out of
the prophets, and the Greeks out of their own fables. They
themselves worship men who have been thunderstricken See Cat. vi. 11, note
2. κατὰ
φαντασίαν.
Cf. Ignat. Trall. 9, 10; Cat. iv. 9; xiii. 4.
38. Take therefore first, as an
indestructible foundation, the Cross, and build upon it the other
articles of the faith. Deny not the Crucified; for, if thou deny
Him, thou hast many to arraign thee. Judas the traitor will
arraign thee first; for he who betrayed Him knows that He was condemned
to death by the chief-priests and elders. The thirty pieces of
silver bear witness; Gethsemane bears witness, where the betrayal
occurred; I speak not yet of the Mount of Olives, on which they were
with Him at night, praying. The moon in the night bears witness;
the day bears witness, and the sun which was darkened; for it endured
not to look on the crime of the conspirators. The fire will
arraign thee, by which Peter stood and warmed himself; if thou deny the
Cross, the eternal fire awaits thee. I speak hard words, that
thou may not experience hard pains. Remember the swords that came
against Him in Gethsemane, that thou feel not the eternal sword.
The house of Caiaphas The house of Caiaphas
and Pilate’s Prætorium (§ 41), and Mount Zion itself
(Cat. xvi. 18), on which they both stood are described by Cyril as
being in his time ruined and desolate. Eusebius (Dem. Ev.
VIII. 406), referring to the prophecy of Micah ( “Impia blasphemi cecidit domus alta
Caiphae.… Vinctus in his Dominus stetit ædibus atque
columnae Annexus tergum dedit ut servile flagellis. Perstat adhuc, templumque gerit veneranda
columna.” (Benedictine Editor.)
39. From among the stars there will cry out upon
thee, the darkened Sun; among the things upon earth, the Wine mingled
with myrrh; among reeds, the Reed; among herbs, the Hyssop; among the
things of the sea, the Sponge; among trees, the Wood of the
Cross;—the soldiers, too, as I have said, who nailed Him, and
cast lots for His vesture; the soldier who pierced His side with the
spear; the women who then were present; the veil of the Cf. Lucian. Antioch.
ap. Rufin. Hist. Eccl. ix. c. 6; “Golothana rupes sub
patibuli onere disrupta.”
40. Thou hast Twelve Apostles, witnesses of the Cross; and the whole earth, and the world of men who believe on Him who hung thereon. Let thy very presence here now persuade thee of the power of the Crucified. For who now brought thee to this assembly? what soldiers? With what bonds wast thou constrained? What sentence held thee fast here now? Nay, it was the Trophy of salvation, the Cross of Jesus that brought you all together. It was this that enslaved the Persians, and tamed the Scythians; this that gave to the Egyptians, for cats and dogs and their manifold errors, the knowledge of God; this, that to this day heals diseases; that to this day drives away devils, and overthrows the juggleries of drugs and charms.
41. This shall appear again with Jesus from
heaven Cf. Cat. xv. 22.
On the Words, And Rose Again from the Dead on the Third Day, and Ascended into the Heavens, and Sat on the Right Hand of the Father.
Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you….that He hath been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, &c.
Rejoice, O Jerusalem, and keep high festival, all ye
that love Jesus; for He is risen. Rejoice, all ye that
mourned before
Now, therefore, the Dead is risen, He who was
free among the dead
2. As then we set forth the testimonies
concerning His Cross, so come let us now verify the proofs of His
Resurrection also: since the Apostle before us ὁ παρών. i.e. in the text.
3. That the Saviour then was buried, ye have
heard distinctly in the preceding discourse, as Isaiah saith, His
burial shall be in peace ἐπεσημειωσάμεθα,
“noted for ourselves;” Middle Voice.
4. First, then, in the 11th Psalm He says,
For the misery of the poor, and the sighing of the needy, now will I
arise, saith the Lord
Come then to the 15th Psalm, which says
distinctly: Preserve Me, O Lord, for
in Thee
5. But wouldst thou know the place
also? Again He saith in Canticles, I went down into the garden
of nuts
6. But what says Zephaniah in the person of
Christ to the disciples? Prepare thyself, be rising at the
dawn: all their gleaning is destroyed
And farther on in the same context of Scripture He
says, Therefore wait thou for Me, saith the Lord, until the day of My Resurrection at the
Testimony
7. And who then is this, and what is the
sign of Him that rises? In the words of the Prophet that follow
in the same context, He says plainly, For then will I turn to the
peoples a language
8. Now take also another testimony in the
9. And whence hath the Saviour risen?
He says in the Song of Songs: Rise up, come, My
neighbour See Index,
Sepulchre.
10. At what season does the Saviour
rise? Is it the season of summer, or some other? In the
same Canticles immediately before the words quoted He says, The winter
is past, the rain is past and gone Xanthicus is the
name of the sixth month in the Macedonian Calendar, corresponding
nearly to the Jewish Nisan (Josephus, Antiq. II. xiv. 6), and to
the latter part of Lent and Easter. On the tradition that the
Creation took place at this season, see S. Ambrose,
Hexæmeron, I. c. 4, § 13. The LXX.
give an irregular construction, Βοτανὴν
χόρτου
σπεῖρον
σπέρμα.
At that time God said, let us make man after our
image and after our likeness
11. A garden was the place of His Burial,
and a vine that which was planted there: and He hath said, I
am the vine
12. But before He entered through the closed
doors, the Bridegroom and Suitor ὁ θεραπευτής.
In connexion with “Bridegroom,” and “Him whom my soul
loveth” the meaning “Suitor” is more appropriate than
“Physician.”
13. For after the vision of the Angels,
Jesus came as His own Herald; and the Gospel says, And behold Jesus
met them, saying, All hail! and they came and took hold of His
feet
14. Though, therefore, Chief Priests and
Pharisees through Pilate’s means sealed the tomb; yet the women
beheld Him who was risen. And Esaias knowing the feebleness of
the Chief Priests, and the women’s strength of faith, says, Ye
women, who come from beholding, come hither Cf. Euseb.
(Life of Const. III. 36.).
15. But since the disobedient Jews will not
be persuaded by the Divine Scriptures, but forgetting all that is
written gainsay the Resurrection of Jesus, it were good to answer them
thus: On what ground, while you say that Eliseus and Elias raised
the dead, do you gainsay the Resurrection of our Saviour? Is it
that we have no living witnesses now out of that generation to what we
say? Well, do you also bring forward witnesses of the history of
that time. But that is written;—so is this also
written: why then do ye receive the one, and reject the
other? They were Hebrews who wrote that history; so were all the
Apostles Hebrews: why then do ye disbelieve the Jews Instead of τοῖς
᾽Ιουδαίοις
the Jerusalem Editor adopts from Cod. A. τοῖς
ἰδίοις, “Your own
countrymen,” a better reading in this place, if it had more
support from mss. The Latin in Milles
has only “Cur igitur non creditis?” The statements
of Papias, Irenæus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome,
concerning a Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew are ably discussed by Dr.
Salmon (Introduction to N.T. Lect. X.), who comes to the
conclusion that the Canonical Gospel was not translated from Hebrew
(Aramaic), but originally written in Greek. This statement
may have been derived either from Eusebius (Hist. Eccl.. IV. c.
5), or from the “written records” (ἐγγράφων), from
which he had learned that “until the siege of the Jews which took
place under Adrian (135 a.d.), there were
fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been
of Hebrew descent.” See the list of names, and the notes on
the passage in this Series.
16. But it is impossible, some one will say,
that the dead should rise; and yet Eliseus twice raised the
dead,—when he was alive, and also when dead. Do we then
believe, that when Eliseus was dead, a dead man who was cast upon him
and touched him, arose and is Christ not risen? But in that case,
the dead man who touched Eliseus, arose, yet he who raised him
continued nevertheless dead: but in this case both the Dead of
whom we speak Himself arose, and many dead were raised without having
even touched Him. For many bodies of the Saints which slept
arose, and they came out of the graves after His Resurrection, and went
into the Holy City The Archdeacon of
Jerusalem, Photius Alexandrides, observes that “by this
parenthetic explanation Cyril perhaps wished to refute the opinion
which some favoured that these saints which slept and were raised
entered into the heavenly Jerusalem.” See Euseb. Dem.
Evang. IV. 12.
17. But again they say, “A corpse then
lately dead was raised by the living; but shew us that one three days
dead can possibly arise, and that a man should be buried, and rise
after three days.” If we seek for Scripture testimony in
proof of such facts, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself supplies it in the
Gospels, saying, For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the
whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three
nights in the heart of the earth “ἐνέργεια [Forte
ἐνάργεια,
Edit.].” This conjecture of the Benedictine Editor is
recommended by the very appropriate sense “distinctness of the
resemblance,” but seems to have no ms.
authority. κατ᾽
οἰκονομίαν.
18. At this point of our discourse, let us
consider whether is harder, for a man after having been buried to rise
again from the earth, or for a man in the belly of a whale, having come
into the great heat of a living creature, to escape corruption.
For what man knows not, that the heat of the belly is so great, that
even bones which have been swallowed moulder away? How then did
Jonas, who was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly,
escape corruption? And, seeing that the nature of all men is such
that we cannot live without breathing, as we do, in air, how did he
live without a breath of this air for three days? But the Jews
make answer and say, The power of God descended with Jonas when he was
tossed about in hell. Does then the Lord grant life to His own
servant, by sending His power with him, and can He not grant it to
Himself as well? If that is credible, this is credible also; if
this is incredible, that also is incredible. For to me both are
alike worthy of credence. I believe that Jonas was preserved, for
all things are possible with God Cf. Cat. iv. 13; xiii.
3.
19. Death was struck with dismay on
beholding a new visitant descend into Hades, not bound by the chains of
that place. Wherefore, O porters of Hades, were ye scared at
sight of Him? What was the unwonted fear that possessed
you? Death fled, and his flight betrayed his cowardice. The
holy prophets ran unto Him, and Moses the Lawgiver, and Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob; David also, and Samuel, and Esaias, and John the
Baptist, who bore witness when he asked, Art Thou He that should
come, or look we for another
20. Of this our Saviour the Prophet Jonas
formed the type, when he prayed out of the belly of the whale, and
said, I cried in my affliction, and so on; out of the belly
of hell By lying
vanities are meant in the original “vain
idols.”
21. Since then we have the prophecies, let
faith abide with us. Let them fall who fall through unbelief,
since they so will; but thou hast taken thy stand on the rock of the
faith in the Resurrection. Let no heretic ever persuade thee to
speak evil of the Resurrection. For to this day the Manichees
say, that, the resurrection of the Saviour was phantom-wise, and not
real, not heeding Paul who says, Who was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh; and again, By the resurrection of Jesus
Christ our Lord from the dead For τοιούτου
τοίνυν
ἐπισκόπου
πρωτοτύπως
ἰδόντος Codd. Roe, Casaub.
have τοῦ
τοίνυν
πρωτοτύπου
ἐπισκόπου
ἰδόντος, which gives the
better sense—“since therefore the primary Bishop saw,
&c.” On the meaning of παροικία, and the
extent of a primitive Diocese, see Bingham. IX. c. 2.
22. Many witnesses there are of the
Saviour’s resurrection.—The night, and the light of the
full moon; (for that night was the sixteenth If the Crucifixion
took place on the 14th of Nisan, the following night would begin the
15th, and the next night the 16th. Cf. Cat. xiii. 39.
23. A witness to the resurrection of Jesus
is Tabitha also, who was in His name raised from the dead See § 17,
above. νοητά. St. Luke (
24. The course of instruction in the Faith
would lead me to speak of the Ascension also; but the grace of God so
ordered ᾠκονόμησε.
In this word, as also in the phrase below, κατ᾽
οἰκονομίαν
τῆς Θείας
χάριτος, Cyril refers to the
order of reading the Scriptures as part of a dispensation established
by Divine grace. ἀναγνωσμάτων
a term including the portions of Scripture (περικοπαί)
appointed for the Epistle and Gospel as well as the daily lessons from
the Old and New Testaments. The section
μάλιστα
μὲν…ἐξαιρέτως
δέ.
25. For when they speak against the
ascension of the Saviour, as being impossible, remember the account of
the carrying away of Habakkuk: for if Habakkuk was transported by
an Angel, being carried by the hair of his head Sept. ὡς
εἰς τὸν
οὐρανόν. In
26. And when thou hast thus wrestled against
the Jews,—when thou hast worsted them by parallel instances, then
come further to the pre-eminence of the Saviour’s glory; namely,
that they were the servants, but He the Son of God. And thus thou
wilt be reminded of His pre-eminence, by the thought that a servant of
Christ was caught up to the third heaven. For if Elias attained
as far as the first heaven, but Paul as far as the third, the latter,
therefore, has obtained a more honourable dignity. Be not ashamed
of thine Apostles; they are not inferior to Moses, nor second to the
Prophets; but they are noble among the noble, yea, nobler still.
For Elias truly was taken up into heaven; but Peter has the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, having received the words, Whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven
27. But remember also what I have often
said See Cat. iv. 7; xi.
17. The clause, καὶ
καθίσαντα ἐκ
δεξιῶν τοῦ
Πατρός, does not occur in
the original form of the Nicene Creed, but is found in the Confession
of Faith contained in Const. Apost. c. 41, in the four Eusebian
Confessions of Antioch (341, 2 a.d.), and in
the Macrostichos (344 a.d.). An
equivalent clause is found in the brief Confession of Hippolytus (circ.
220 a.d.) Contra Hæres.
Noeti, c. 1: “καὶ ὄντα ἐν
δεξίᾳ τοῦ
Πατρός,” and in Tertullian,
De Virgin. Veland. c. 1: “Regula quidem Fidei una
omnino est, sola immobilis et irreformabilis,.…sedentem nunc ad
dextram Patris:” de Præscriptione, c
13: “Regula est autem fidei.…sedisse ad
dexteram Patris:” adversus Praxean, c. 2:
“sedere ad dexteram Patris.” ἐκ
προκοπῆς. Cf.
Cat. x. 5, note 8. ἀφ᾽
οὗπερ ἔστιν,
(ἔστι δὲ ἀεὶ
γεννηθείς).
In both clauses ἔστιν is emphatic.
28. But now I must remind you of a few
things out of many which are spoken concerning the Son’s sitting
at the right hand of the Father. For the hundred and ninth Psalm
says plainly, The Lord said unto my Lord,
Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy
footstool
29. But I must remind you also of a few
other testimonies in like manner concerning the Son’s sitting at
the right hand of the Father. For in the Gospel according to
Matthew it is written, Nevertheless, I say unto you, Henceforth ye
shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of
power
30. And though there are many other texts
concerning the session of the Only-begotten on the right hand of God,
yet these may suffice us at present; with a repetition of my remark,
that it was not after His coming in the flesh τὴν
ἔνσαρκον
παρουσίαν.
Cf. § 27.
On the Clause, And Shall Come in Glory to Judge the Quick and the Dead; Of Whose Kingdom There Shall Be No End.
I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit, and then, I saw in a vision of the night, and behold one like unto the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, &c.
1. We preach not
one advent only of Christ, but a second also, far more glorious than
the former. For the former gave a view of His patience; but the
latter brings with it the crown of a divine kingdom. For all
things, for the most part, are twofold in our Lord Jesus Christ:
a twofold generation; one, of God, before the ages; and one, of a
Virgin, at the close of the ages: His descents twofold; one, the
unobserved, like rain on a fleece Cyril’s contrast
of the two Advents seems to be partly borrowed from Justin M.
(Apol. i. 52; Tryph. 110). See also Tertullian
(Adv. Judæos, c. 14); Hippolytus (De Antichristo,
44).
2. And concerning these two comings, Malachi the
Prophet says, And the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His
temple The Benedictine Editor
by omitting λέγει, obtains the sense,
He cometh, even the Lord Almighty. But λέγει is
supported by the mss. of Cyril, as well as by
the Septuagint and Hebrew. νῦν
παρεδόθη. Cyril
means that at the beginning of this present Lecture he had delivered to
the Catechumens those articles of the Creed which he was going to
explain. Compare Cat. xviii. 21, where we see that Cyril first
announces (ἐπαγγέλλω)
the words which the learners repeat after him (ἀπαγγέλλω). The clause, Whose
Kingdom shall have no end, was not contained in the original
form of the Creed of Nicæa, a.d. 325, but
its substance is found in many earlier writings. Compare Justin
M. (Tryph. § 46: καὶ αὐτοῦ
ἐστιν ἡ
αἰώνιος
βασιλεία); Const.
Apost. vii. 41; the Eusebian Confessions 1st and 4th Antioch,
and the Macrostich, a.d. 341, 342, 344.
Bp. Bull asserts that the Creed of Jerusalem, containing this clause,
was no other than the ancient Eastern Creed, first directed against the
Gnostics of the Sub-Apostolic age (Judicium Eccl. Cathol.
vi. 16).
3. Our Lord Jesus Christ, then, comes from
heaven; and He comes with glory at the end of this world, in the last
day. For of this world there is to be an end, and this created
world is to be re-made anew The Benedictine Editor
suggests that Cyril “is refuting those who said that the Universe
was to perish utterly, an opinion which seems to be somehow imputed to
Origen by Methodius, or Proclus, in Epiphanius (Hæres.
lxiv. 31, 32).” On Origen’s much controverted
opinions concerning the beginning and end of the world, see Huet.
Origeniana, II. 4–6: and Bp. Westcott, Dictionary
of Christian Biography, “Origen,” pp. 137,
138. Cat. vi. 13; xi.
21.
4. The things then which are seen shall pass
away, and there shall come the things which are looked for, things
fairer than the present; but as to the time let no one be
curious. For it is not for you, He says, to know times
or seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power
5. Take heed that no man mislead
you: for many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ, and
shall mislead many. This has happened in part: for
already Simon Magus has said this, and Menander Cat. vi. 14, 16.
6. A second sign. And ye shall hear
of wars and rumours of wars Cyril substitutes χειμῶνες for
σημεῖα, the better reading
in
7. But we seek our own sign of His coming;
we Churchmen seek a sign proper to the Church ἑκκλησιαστικός, when applied to persons, means either, as here, an orthodox member of
the Church in contrast to a heretic, pagan, or Jew (Origen, in
Job xx. 6), or more particularly a Cleric as opposed to a layman
(Cat. xvii. 10). “S. Cyril
here describes the state of the Church, when orthodoxy was for a while
trodden under foot, its maintainers persecuted, and the varieties of
Arianism, which took its place, were quarreling for the
ascendancy. Gibbon quotes two passages, one from a pagan
historian of the day, another from a Father of the Church, which fully
bear out S. Cyril’s words. What made the state of things
still more deplorable, was the defection of some of the orthodox party,
as Marcellus, into opposite errors: while the subsequent
secessions of Apollinaris and Lucifer show what lurking disorders there
were within it at the time when S. Cyril wrote. (Vid.
infr. 9.) The passages referred to are as follows:
‘The Christian Religion,’ says Ammianus, ‘in itself
plain and simple, he (Constantius) confounded by the dotage of
superstition. Instead of reconciling the parties by the weight of
his authority, he cherished and propagated, by vain disputes, the
differences which his vain curiosity had excited. The highways
were covered with troops of Bishops, galloping from every side to the
assemblies, which they called synods; and while they laboured to reduce
the whole sect to their own particular opinions, the public
establishment of the posts was almost ruined by their hasty and
repeated journeys.’ Hist. xxi. 16. S. Hilary
of Poictiers thus speaks of Asia Minor, the chief seat of the Arian
troubles: ‘It is a thing equally deplorable and dangerous,
that there are as many creeds as opinions among men, as many doctrines
as inclinations, and as many sources of blasphemy as there are faults
among us; because we make creeds arbitrarily, and explain them as
arbitrarily. The Homoousion is rejected and received and
explained away by successive synods. The partial or total
resemblance of the Father and of the Son is a subject of dispute for
these unhappy divines. Every year, nay, every moon, we make new
creeds to describe invisible mysteries. We repent of what we have
done, we defend those who repent, we anathematize those whom we
defended. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves,
or our own in that of others; and reciprocally tearing one another to
pieces, we have been the cause of each other’s
ruin,’ ad Constant. ii. 4, 5.
Gibbon’s translations are used, which, though diffuse, are
faithful in their matter. What a contrast do these descriptions
present to Athanasius’ uniform declaration, that the whole
question was really settled at Nicæa, and no other synod or debate
was necessary!”—(R.W.C.).
Compare, for example, the account of the seditions in Antioch and in
Constantinople, in Socrates, Eccles. Hist. i. 24; i.,
12–14, and Athanas. Hist. Arianorum, passim.
8. Thou hast this sign also: And
this Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a
witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come
9. And what comes to pass after this?
He says next, When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation,
which was spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, standing in the Holy Place,
let him that readeth understand The prediction was
supposed by earlier Fathers to refer to a personal Antichrist whom they
expected to come speedily. See Justin M. (Tryph. §
110: ὁ τῆς
ἀποστασίας
ἄνθρωπος;
ib. § 32: “He who is to speak blasphemous and
daring things against the Most High is already at the
doors.” Iren. Hær. V. 25. Cyril in
this passage regards the heresies of his time as the apostasy in
general, but looks also for a personal Antichrist: (§§
11, 12). υἱοπατορία
. On this contemptuous name for Sabellianism, see Cat. iv. 8; xi.
16. The Third (Eusebian) Confession, or Third of Antioch,
a.d. 341, anathematizes any who hold the
doctrines of Marcellus of Ancyra or Sabellius, or Paul of Samosata
(Athan. de Synodis, § 24 note 10, p. 462, in this
Series, and Mr. Robertson’s Prolegomena, p. xliv.).
In the Ecthesis, or Statement of Faith, § 2,
Athanasius writes: “Neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do
the Sabellians, calling Him of one but (a sole and?) not the
same essence, and thus destroying the existence of the
Son.” As to Marcellus, see Athanasius, Hist.
Arian. § 6 (p. 271), and the letter of Julius in the
Apologia c. Arian. § 32 (p. 116): also notes 3, 4 on
§ 27 below. See Athanasius, De
Synod. § 15: “Arius and those with him thought and
professed thus: ‘God made the Son out of nothing, and
called Him His Son:’” and Expos. Fidei,
§ 2: “We do not regard as a creature, or thing made,
or as made out of nothing, God the Creator of all, the Son of God, the
true Being from the true Being, the Alone from the Alone, inasmuch as
the like glory and power was eternally and conjointly begotten of the
Father.” The 4th (Eusebian) Confession, or 4th of Antioch,
a.d. 342, ends thus: “Those who
say that the Son was from nothing,.…the Catholic Church regards
as aliens.” Athan. Adversus
Arianos, Or. i. 1: “One heresy and that the last which
has now risen as forerunner of Antichrist, the Arian as it is called,
considering that other heresies, her elder sisters, have been openly
proscribed, in her craft and cunning affects to array herself in
Scripture language, like her father the devil, and is forcing her way
back into the Church’s paradise, &c.” The
supposed date of this Oration is 8 or 10 years later than that of
Cyril’s Lectures. A reading
supported by the best mss. and approved by the
Benedictine Editor gives a different sense, “and rather choose to
seem than resolve to be,” inverting the proverb
“esse quam videri.” In the passage quoted
above in note 5 the Arian heresy is called a “forerunner”
(πρόδρομος)
of Antichrist.
10. The true Christ, the Only-begotten Son
of God, comes no more from the earth. If any come making false
shows φαντασιοκοπῶν,
a rare word, rendered “frantic” in
11. But as, when formerly He was to take
man’s nature, and God was expected to be born of a Virgin, the
devil created prejudice against this, by craftily preparing among
idol-worshippers ἐν
εἰδωλολατρείᾳ
may mean either “in idol-worship,” or “among
idolaters,” the abstract being used for the concrete, as in
ἐφόδιον, “provision
for a journey,” is here equivalent in meaning to ἀφορμή, “a starting
point,” or “favourable occasion.” Antichrist is
described by Hippolytus (De Christo et Antichristo, § 57,
as “a son of the devil, and a vessel of Satan,” who will
rule and govern “after the manner of the law of Augustus, by whom
the Roman empire was established, sanctioning everything
thereby.” Cf. Iren. Hær. V. 30, § 3;
Dictionary of Christian Biography, Antichrist: “The
sharp precision with which St. Paul had pointed to ‘the
man of sin,’ ‘the lawless one,’
‘the adversary,’ ‘the son of
perdition,’ led men to dwell on that thought rather than on the
many ψευδόχριστοι
of whom Christ Himself had spoken.” τὸν
᾽Ηλειμυένον,
Aquila’s rendering of חישמ,
adopted by the Jews in preference to τὸν
Χριστόν, from hatred of the
name Christ or Christian. Hippolytus, ubi supra, §
6: “The Saviour came into the world in the Circumcision,
and he (Antichrist) will come in the same manner:” ib.
§ 14: “As Christ springs from the tribe of Judah, so
Antichrist is to spring from the tribe of Dan.” This
expectation was grounded by Hippolytus on
12. But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come
when the times of the Roman empire shall have been fulfilled, and the
end of the world is now drawing near The fourth kingdom in
the prophecy of Daniel ( The Jerusalem Editor
quotes as from Hippolytus a similar description of Antichrist (§
23): ”In his first steps he will be gentle, loveable,
quiet, pious, pacific, hating injustice, detesting gifts, not allowing
idolatry, &c.” But the treatise is a forgery of unknown
date, apparently much later than Cyril. Iren. V. 28, §
2: “Since the demons and apostate spirits are at his
service, he through their means performs wonders, by which he leads the
inhabitants of the earth astray.” Iren. V. 25, § 4: “He shall
remove his kingdom into that city (Jerusalem), and shall sit in the
Temple of God, leading astray those who worship him as if he were
Christ.” According to the genuine treatise of
Hippolytus Antichrist was to restore the kingdom of the Jews (De
Antichristo, § 25), to collect the Jews out of every
country of the Dispersion, making them his own, as though they were his
own children, and promising to restore their country, and establish
again their kingdom and nation, in order that he may be worshipped by
them as God (§ 54), and he will lead them on to persecute the
saints, i.e. the Christians (§ 56). Compare the elaborate
description of Antichrist and his cruelty in Lactantius, Div.
Inst. vii. 17; Epit. § 71.
13. Now these things we teach, not of our
own invention, but having learned them out of the divine Scriptures
used in the Church ἐκκλησιαζομένων.
Cf. Cat. iv. 35, 36, where Cyril distinguishes the Scriptures
ἃς καὶ
ἐν ᾽Εκκλησίᾳ
μετὰ
παρρησίας
ἀναγινώσκομεν
from ὅσα ἐν
᾽Εκκλησίαις
μὴ
ἀναγινώσκεται. Irenæus (V. 26)
identifies the fourth kingdom with “the empire which now
rules.” Hippolytus, de Antichristo, §
25: “A fourth beast dreadful and terrible: it had
iron teeth and claws of brass. And who are these but the
Romans?”
14. And who is this, and from what sort of
working? Interpret to us, O Paul. Whose coming, he
says, is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and
lying wonders “Vid. Iren. Hær V. 26,
2” (R.W.C.). The passage is quoted by Eusebius (Eccl.
Hist. iv. 18), from a lost work of Justin M. Against
Marcion: “Justin well said that before the coming of
the Lord Satan never dared to blaspheme God, as not yet knowing his own
condemnation, because it was started by the prophets in parables and
allegories. But after our Lord’s advent having learnt
plainly from His words and those of the Apostles that everlasting fire
is prepared for him,.…he by means of such men as these blasphemes
the Lord who brings the judgment upon him, as being already
condemned.” S. Cyril seems to expect that Antichrist
will be an incarnation of Satan, as did Hippolytus (de Antichr.
§ 6): “The Saviour appeared in the form of man, and he
too will come in the form of a man.” φαντασιοκοπεῖ.
See above, § 10, note 9, and the equivalent phrase in §
17: σημείων
καὶ τεράτων
φαντασίας
ἐδείκνυον.
15. And again he says, Who opposeth and
exalteth himself against all that is called God, or that is
worshipped; (against every God; Antichrist forsooth will
abhor the idols,) so that he seateth himself in the temple of
God See § 12, notes
3, 4, and Hippolytus, ubi supra: “The Saviour
raised up and shewed His holy flesh like a temple; and he will raise a
temple of stone in Jerusalem.” “Cyril wrote this
before Julian’s attempt to rebuild the Jewish Temple”
(R.W.C.).
16. For this cause the Lord knowing the
greatness of the adversary grants indulgence to the godly, saying,
Then let them which be in Judæa flee to the
mountains
17. Who then is the blessed man, that shall
at that time devoutly witness for Christ? For I say that the
Martyrs of that time excel all martyrs. For the Martyrs hitherto
have wrestled with men only; but in the time of Antichrist they shall
do battle with Satan in his own person αὐτοπροσώπως
. See above, § 14, note 2. Some mss. read ἀντιπροσώπως,
“face to face,” as in xii. 32, ἀντιπρόσωπος. See above, § 14,
note 3.
Compare See above,
§§ 6, 7.
19. But let us wait and look for the
Lord’s coming upon the clouds from heaven. Then shall
Angelic trumpets sound; the dead in Christ shall rise
first
20. This coming of the Lord, and the end of
the world, were known to the Preacher; who says, Rejoice, O young
man, in thy youth, and the rest τὸ
ἀνθέμιον τοῦ
χρυσιόυ (Sept.), by which
Cyril understood camomile (ἀνθεμίς), more
probably meant a pattern of flowers embossed on the vessel of
gold: vid. Xenoph. Anab. V. 4, §
32: ἐστιγμένους
ἀνθέμια,
“damasked with flowers.” “Dr.
Thomson (The Land and the Book, p. 319) says of the almond tree,
“It is the type of old age, whose hair is white”
(Speaker’s Commentary). The step, once
as active as a grasshopper, or locust, shall grow heavy and
slow. For other interpretations see Delitzsch. The caper-berry
(κάππαρις)
shall fail, i.e. no longer stimulate appetite. But
διασχεδασθήσεται
(Sept. Cyril) means that the old man shall be like a caper-berry
which when fully ripe bursts it husks and scatters its seeds: so
R.V. (Margin); The caper-berry shall
burst. Greg. Thaumat. Metaphr. Eccles.
“The transgressors are cast out of the way, like a black and
despicable caper-plant.”
21. Thou seest how they all foretell the
coming of the Lord. Thou seest how they know the voice of the
sparrow. Let us know what sort of voice this is. For
the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice
of the Archangel, and with the trump of God Compare the
spurious Apocalypse of John: “And at the voice of
the bird every plant shall arise; that is, At the voice of the
Archangel all the human race shall arise” (English Trs.
Ante-Nic. Libr. p. 496). According to the Talmud the
meaning is, “Even a bird awakes him”
(Delitzsch).
22. But what is the sign of His coming? lest
a hostile power dare to counterfeit it. And then shall
appear, He says, the sign of the Son of Man in
heaven Cat. xiii. 4. In
the letter to Constantius, three or four years later than this Lecture,
Cyril treats the appearance at that time of a luminous Cross in the sky
as a fulfilment of Cf. Barnab.
Epist. c. vii.: “For they shall see Him in that day
wearing the long scarlet robes about His flesh, and shall say, Is not
this He, whom once we crucified, and set at nought, and spat upon
(al. and pierced, and mocked)?”
23. But some one present will say, “I
am a poor man,” or again, “I shall perhaps be found at that
time sick in bed;” or, “I am but a woman, and I shall be
taken at the mill: shall we then be despised?” Be of
good courage, O man; the Judge is no respecter of persons; He will
not judge according to a man’s appearance, nor reprove according
to his speech The Jerusalem
ms. (A) alone has the true reading
πέδας,
which is confirmed by πεπεδημένους
in the quotation following, instead of παῖδας, which is quite
inappropriate, and evidently an itacism. ᾽Εγκράτεια.
“Id est viduitas” (Ben. Ed.). This special reference
of the word to widowhood is to some extent confirmed by
24. When the Son of Man, He says,
shall come in His glory, and all the Angels with Him There is much
variation in the reading and punctuation of this passage. I have
followed the text adopted by the Jerusalem Editor with Codd. A. Roe.
Casaub. and Grodecq, in preference to the Benedictine text, with which
the Editor himself is dissatisfied.
25. Let us dread then, brethren, lest God
condemn us; who needs not examination or proofs, to condemn. Say
not, In the night I committed fornication, or wrought sorcery, or did
any other thing, and there was no man by. Out of thine own
conscience shalt thou be judged, thy thoughts the meanwhile accusing
or else excusing, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of
men νεύματι. Cat.
xi. 22.
26. Terrible in good truth is the judgment,
and terrible the things announced. The kingdom of heaven is set
before us, and everlasting fire is prepared. How then, some one
will say, are we to escape the fire? And how to enter into the
kingdom? I was an hungered, He says, and ye gave Me
meat. Learn hence the way; there is here no need of allegory,
but to fulfil what is said. I was an hungered, and ye gave Me
meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and ye
took Me in; naked, and ye clothed Me; I was sick, and ye visited Me; I
was in prison, and ye came unto Me The prayer for
the Catechumens in the Apostolic Constitutions, viii. 6,
contains a petition that God would “vouchsafe to them the laver
of regeneration, and the garment of incorruption, which is the true
life.” προσθεῖναι.
Cf.
27. And shouldest thou ever hear any say
that the kingdom of Christ shall have an end, abhor the heresy; it is
another head of the dragon, lately sprung up in . A certain one
has dared to affirm, that after the end of the world Christ shall reign
no longer Marcellus, Bishop of
Ancyra, and his pupil Photinus, are anathematized in the Creed called
Μακρόστιχος
as holding that Christ first became “Son of God when He took our
flesh from the Virgin.…For they will have it that then Christ
began His Kingdom, and that it will have an end after the consummation
of all and the judgment. Such are the disciples of Marcellus and
Scotinus of Galatian Ancyra, &c.” See Newman on
Athanasius, de Synodis, § 26, (5), notes a and
b. Compare the description of Marcellus in the Letter of
the Oriental Bishops who had withdrawn from the Council of Sardica to
Philippopolis (a.d. 344). “There
has arisen in our days a certain Marcellus of Galatia, the most
execrable pest of all heretics, who with sacrilegious mind, and impious
mouth, and wicked argument seeks to set bounds to the perpetual,
eternal, and timeless kingdom of our Lord Christ, saying that He began
to reign four hundred years since, and shall end at the dissolution of
the present world” (Hilar. Pictav. Ex Opere Hist.
Fragm. iii.). “The
person meant by Cyril, though he withholds the name, is Marcellus of
Ancyra; who having written a book against the Arian Sophist Asterius to
explain the Apostle’s statement concerning the subjection of the
Son to the Father, was thought to be renewing the heresy of Paul of
Samosata. On this account he was reproved by the Bishops at the
Council of Jerusalem, a.d. 335, for holding
false opinions, and being ordered to recant his opinions promised to
burn his book. Afterwards he applied to Constantine, by whom he
was remitted to the Council of Constantinople, a.d. 336, and deposed by the Bishops. As however he
was acquitted by the Councils of Rome, a.d.
342, and of Sardica, a.d. 347, it became a
matter of dispute whether he was really heretical.…From the
fragments of his books transcribed by Eusebius, you may possibly acquit
him of the Sabellian heresy and the confusion of the Father and the
Son, but certainly not of the heresy concerning the end of
Christ’s kingdom, and the abandonment by the Word of the human
nature which He assumed for our sake; so express are his words recorded
by Eusebius in the beginning of the 2nd Book Contra
Marcellum, pp. 50, 51.” (Ben. Ed.) Cf.
Dict. Chr. Biogr. “Eusebius of Cæsarea,” p.
341; and note 3 on § 9 above. τὴν
παροῦσαν.
28. The like doctrine thou has also in the
interpretation of the Stone, which was cut out of a mountain without
hands, which is Christ according to the flesh
29. And wouldest thou know how they who
teach the contrary ran into such madness? They read wrongly that
good word of the Apostle, For He must reign, till He hath put all
enemies under His feet
30. They have also dared to say that the
Scripture, When all things shall be subjected unto Him, then shall
the Son also Himself be subjected unto Him that subjected all things
unto Him
32. Take again another similar text.
For until this day…when Moses is read, a vail lieth upon their
heart
33. And though I have many more testimonies
out of the divine Scriptures, concerning the kingdom of Christ which
has no end for ever, I will be content at present with those above
mentioned, because the day is far spent. But thou, O hearer,
worship only Him as thy King, and flee all heretical error. And
if the grace of God permit us, the remaining Articles also of the Faith
shall be in good time declared to you. And may the God of the
whole world keep you all in safety, bearing in mind the signs of the
end, and remaining unsubdued by Antichrist. Thou hast received
the tokens of the Deceiver who is to come; thou hast received the
proofs of the true Christ, who shall openly come down from
heaven. Flee therefore the one, the False one; and look for the
other, the True. Thou hast learnt the way, how in the judgment
thou mayest be found among those on the right hand; guard that which
is committed to thee
On the Article, And in One Holy Ghost, the Comforter, Which Spake in the Prophets.
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.…Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit, &c.
1. Spiritual in
truth is the grace we need, in order to discourse concerning the Holy
Spirit; not that we may speak what is worthy of Him, for this is
impossible, but that by speaking the words of the divine Scriptures, we
may run our course without danger. For a truly fearful thing is
written in the Gospels, where Christ has plainly said, Whosoever
shall speak a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven
him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come
2. It must therefore belong to Jesus Christ’s grace itself to grant both to us to speak without deficiency, and to you to hear with discretion; for discretion is needful not to them only who speak, but also to them that hear, lest they hear one thing, and misconceive another in their mind. Let us then speak concerning the Holy Ghost nothing but what is written; and whatsoever is not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Let us therefore speak those things which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say.
3. There is One Only Holy Ghost, the
Comforter; and as there is One God the Father, and no second
Father;—and as there is One Only-begotten Son and Word of God,
who hath no brother;—so is there One Only Holy Ghost, and no
second spirit equal in-honour to Him. Now the Holy Ghost is a
Power most mighty, a Being divine and unsearchable; for He is living
and intelligent, a sanctifying principle of all things made by God
through Christ. He it is who illuminates the souls of the just;
He was in the Prophets, He was also in the Apostles in the New
Testament. Abhorred be they who dare to separate the operation of
the Holy Ghost! There is One God, the Father, Lord of the Old and
of the New Testament: and One Lord, Jesus Christ, who was
prophesied of in the Old Testament, and came in the New; and One Holy
Ghost, who through the Prophets preached of Christ, and when Christ was
come, descended, and manifested Him At the end of this section there
follows in the Coislin ms. a long
interpolation consisting of two parts. The former is an extract
taken word for word from Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio
Catechetica, ii. c, which may be read in this series:
᾽Αλλ᾽ ὡς Θεοῦ
Λόγον
ἀκούσαντες
.…σύνδρομον
ἔχουσαν τῇ
βουλήσει τὴν
δύναμιν. Of the second
passage the Benedictine Editor says: “I have not been able
to discover who is the author. No one can assign it to our Cyril,
although the doctrine it contains is in full agreement with his:
but he explains all the same points more at large in his two Lectures
(xvi. xvii.). The passage is very ancient and undoubtedly older
than the eleventh century, which is the date of the Cod. Coislin.
Therefore in the controversy of the Latins against the Greeks
concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost it is important to notice
what is taught in this passage, and also brought forward as a testimony
by S. Thomas (Aquinas), that “The Holy Ghost is of the Godhead of
the Father and the Son (ex Patris et Filii divinitate
existere).” To me indeed these words seem to savour
altogether not of the later but of the more ancient theology of the
Greeks, and to be earlier than the controversies of the Greeks against
the Latins.” This second passage is as follows:— “For the Spirit of God is
good. And Thy good Spirit, says David, shall lead me in
the land of righteousness. This then is the Spirit of God in
which we believe: the blessed Spirit, the eternal, immutable,
unchangeable, ineffable: which rules and reigns over all
productive being, both visible and invisible natures: which is
Lord both of Angels and Archangels, Powers, Principalities, Dominions,
Thrones: the Creator of all being, enthroned with the glory of
the Father and the Son, reigning without beginning and without end with
the Father and the Son, before the created substances: Who
sanctifies the ministering spirits sent forth for the sake of those
who are to inherit salvation: Who came down upon the holy and
blessed Virgin Mary, of whom was born Christ according to the flesh;
came down also upon the Lord Himself in bodily form of a dove in the
river Jordan: Who came upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost
in form of fiery tongues; Who gives and supplies all spiritual gifts in
the Church, Who Proceedeth from the
Father: Who is of the Godhead of the Father and the Son;
Who is of one substance with the Father and the Son, inseparable and
indivisible.”
Cf. Cat. iv. 33; vii.
6. Irenæus, Hæres. III. xxi. 4; IV. ix.
1. In Eusebius, E.H. V. 13, Rhodon says that Apelles
attributed the prophecies to an adverse spirit and rejected them as
false and self-contradictory. Similar blasphemies against the
holy Prophets are imputed to Manes by Epiphanius
(Hæres. lxvi. 30). Cat. xi. 4, note
3. See Newman’s notes on Athanasius, Contra Arian.
Or. I. viii. 1; Ib. Or. III. xxv. 9; Ib. xxvii. 3.
Marcion’s doctrine of three first principles (τριῶν
ἀρχῶν
λόγος) is discussed by Epiphanius
(Hæres. xlii. 6, 7). See also Tertull. Contra
Marcion. I. 15; Euseb. Hist. Eccles. V. 13. συναλοιφήν,
iv. 8; xi. 16; xv. 9. Cat. xvii. 13.
Epiphanius (De Mensuris et Ponder. c. 14):
“And he (Hadrian) found the city all levelled to the ground,
except a few houses, and the Church of God which was small: where
the Disciples, on their return after the Saviour was taken up from the
Mount of Olives, went up into the upper chamber: for there it had
been built, that is on Sion.” Cf. Stanley, Sinai and
Palestine, c. xiv. 3: “Within the precincts of that
Mosque (of the Tomb of David) is a vaulted Gothic chamber, which
contains within its four walls a greater confluence of traditions than
any other place of like dimensions in Palestine. It is startling
to hear that this is the scene of the Last Supper, of the meeting after
the Resurrection, of the miracle of Pentecost, of the residence and
death of the Virgin, of the burial of Stephen.”
5. We would now say somewhat concerning the Holy Ghost; not to declare His substance with exactness, for this were impossible; but to speak of the diverse mistakes of some concerning him, lest from ignorance we should fall into them; and to block up the paths of error, that we may journey on the King’s one highway. And if we now for caution’s sake repeat any statement of the heretics, let it recoil on their heads, and may we be guiltless, both we who speak, and ye who hear.
6. For the heretics, who are most profane in
all things, have sharpened their tongue Irenæus is
called “the interpreter” in the same general sense as other
ecclesiastical authors (Cat. xiii. 21; xv. 20), on account of his
frequent comments upon the Scriptures. The full title of his work
was A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely so called
(Euseb. Hist. Eccles. V. c. 7). Cyril’s expression
(ἐν τοῖς
προστάγμασι)
is sufficiently appropriate to the hortatory purpose professed by
Irenæus in his preface. But the Benedictine Editor thinks
that the word προστάγμασι
may be an interpolation arising from the following words πρὸς
τὰς.…The meaning would then be
“in his writings Against Heresies,” the usual short
title of the work. Cat. vi. 14, note
10. Irenæus (I. xxix
§ 4; xxx. § 1). Ib. I. ii.
§§ 5, 6. Cat. vi. 25. Cat. iv. 33. See
§ 3, note 3, above. i.e. as well as into
the Father and the Son.
7. Let the Marcionists also be abhorred, who
tear away from the New Testament the sayings of the Old See Dict.
Christ. Biography, Marcion, p. 283; and Tertullian (Adv.
Marcion. IV. 6): “His whole aim centres in this that he
may establish a diversity between the Old and New Testaments, so that
his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as belonging to the
rival god, and as alien from the Law and the Prophets. Cf. § 4, note 5,
above.
8. Let the Cataphrygians Phrygians, or
Cataphrygians (οἱ
κατὰ
φρύγας) was the name given
to the followers of the Phrygian Montanus. See the account of
Montanism in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V. xvi., and the note there
in this Series. The charges of lust
and cruelty brought against the Montanists by Cyril and Epiphanius
(Hær 48) seem to rest on no trustworthy evidence,
and are not mentioned by Eusebius, a bitter foe to the sect.
9. And he was seconded, as was said before,
by that most impious Manes also, who combined what was bad in every
heresy On Manes, see Cat. vi.
20. ff.
10. Wherefore was Simon the sorcerer
condemned? Was it not that he came to the Apostles, and said,
Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may
receive the Holy Ghost? For he said not, “Give me also
the fellowship of the Holy Ghost,” but “Give me the
power;” that he might sell to others that which could not be
sold, and which he did not himself possess. He offered money also
to them who had no possessions
11. Let then thus much suffice concerning
those outcasts; and now let us return to the divine Scriptures, and let
us drink waters out of our own cisterns [that is, the holy
Fathers The words ἁγίων
πατέρων are not found
in the mss. Mon. 1. Mon. 2. Vind. Roe. Casaub.
nor in Grodecq. Whether meant to refer, as the Benedictine Editor
thinks, to the writers of the Old Testament, or to Christian authors,
they are an evident gloss.
12. And why did He call the grace of the
Spirit water? Because by water all things subsist; because water
brings forth grass and living things; because the water of the showers
comes down from heaven; because it comes down one in form, but works in
many forms. For one fountain watereth the whole of Paradise, and
one and the same rain comes down upon all the world, yet it becomes
white in the lily, and red in the rose, and purple in violets and
hyacinths, and different and varied in each several kind: so it
is one in the palm-tree, and another in the vine, and all in all
things; and yet is one in nature, not diverse from itself; for the rain
does not change itself, and come down first as one thing, then as
another, but adapting itself to the constitution of each thing which
receives it, it becomes to each what is suitable Compare a similar
passage on rain in Cat. ix. 9, 10.
13. But since concerning spirit in general
many diverse things are written in the divine Scriptures, and there is
fear lest some out of ignorance fall into confusion, not knowing to
what sort of spirit the writing refers; it will be well now to certify
you, of what kind the Scripture declares the Holy Spirit to be.
For as Aaron is called Christ, and David and Saul and others are called
Christs See Cat. x. 11; xi.
1.
14. And wouldest thou know that He
discourses and speaks? Philip by revelation of an Angel went down
to the way which leads to Gaza, when the Eunuch was coming; and the
Spirit said to Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this
chariot
15. But sin also is called spirit, as I have
already said; only in another and opposite sense, as when it is said,
The spirit of whoredom caused them to err Origen, de
Principiis, i. § 2: “It is the custom of Holy
Scripture, when it would designate anything contrary to this more dense
and solid body, to call it spirit.”
16. Such is not the Holy Ghost; God
forbid! For His doings tend the contrary way, towards what is
good and salutary. First, His coming is gentle; the perception of
Him is fragrant; His burden most light; beams of light and knowledge
gleam forth before His coming In this contrast
between the evil spirit and the Spirit of God Cyril’s language
rises to true eloquence, far surpassing a somewhat similar description,
which may have been known to him, in Euseb. Dem. Evang. V.
132.
17. Peter was not with Ananias and Sapphira
when they sold their possessions, but he was present by the Spirit;
Why, he says, hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the
Holy Ghost
18. Esaias lived nearly a thousand years
ago; and he beheld Zion as a booth. The city was still
standing, and beautified with public places, and robed in majesty; yet
he says, Zion shall be ploughed as a field Cf. Euseb. Dem.
Evang. vi. 13: “In our own time we have seen with our
eyes the Sion of old renown being ploughed by Romans with yokes of
oxen, and Jerusalem in a state of utter desolation as the oracle itself
says, like a lodge in a garden of cucumbers. As Cyril at that
time saw the Prophet’s prediction fulfilled, so we also to the
present day see most plainly the fulfilment of the divine oracle, and
Sion ploughed before our eyes: for except the Church of the
Apostles, with the houses lying around it, and the house of Caiaphas
and the cemeteries, all the remaining space of this hill, lying without
the city, is under plough.” (Jerusalem Editor).
19. And if ever, while thou hast been
sitting here, a thought concerning chastity or virginity has come into
thy mind, it has been His teaching. Has not often a maiden,
already at the bridal threshold παστάδας.
On the meaning of παστάς see the notes on
Herodotus, II. 148, 169 in Bähr, and Rawlinson. Here it
appears to mean the cloister or colonnade which gave access to the
bridal chamber, θάλαμος. ἐν
παλατίοις. Compare Procat. §
9; Cat. xx. 3.
20. And He is called the Comforter, because
He comforts and encourages us, and helpeth our infirmities; for we
know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit Himself
maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be
uttered
21. And wouldest thou be sure that by the
power of the Holy Ghost the Martyrs bear their witness? The
Saviour says to His disciples, And when they bring you
unto
22. Great indeed, and all-powerful in gifts,
and wonderful, is the Holy Ghost. Consider, how many of you are
now sitting here, how many souls of us are present. He is working
suitably for each, and being present in the midst, beholds the temper
of each, beholds also his reasoning and his conscience, and what we
say, and think, and believe Codd. Monac. Vind.
Roe. Casaub. add καὶ
τί
πιστεύομεν. The terms παροικία, the See
of a Bishop, and ἐπαρχία,
the Province of a Metropolitan, were both adopted from the
corresponding divisions of the Roman Empire. See Bingham,
Antt. Book IX. i. §§ 2–6.
23. Thou hast seen His power, which is in
all the world; tarry now no longer upon earth, but ascend on
high. Ascend, I say, in imagination even unto the first heaven,
and behold there so many countless myriads of Angels. Mount up in
thy thoughts, if thou canst, yet higher; consider, I pray thee, the
Archangels, consider also the Spirits; consider the Virtues, consider
the Principalities, consider the Powers, consider the Thrones, consider
the Dominions S. Basil (De
Spiritu S. c. xvi. § 38), after quoting the same passage,
24. He preached concerning Christ in the
Prophets; He wrought in the Apostles; He to this day seals the souls in
Baptism. And the Father indeed gives to the Son; and the Son
shares with the Holy Ghost. For it is Jesus Himself, not I, who
says, All things are delivered unto Me of My Father In regard to the
caution with which St. Cyril here speaks, we must remember that the
heresy of Macedonius had not yet given occasion to the formal
discussion and determination of the “nature and substance”
of the Holy Ghost.
25. This Spirit descended upon the seventy
Elders in the days of Moses. (Now let not the length of the
discourse, beloved, produce weariness in you: but may He the very
subject of our discourse grant strength to every one, both to us who
speak, and to you who listen!) This Spirit, as I was saying, came
down upon the seventy Elders in the time of Moses; and this I say to
thee, that I may now prove, that He knoweth all things, and worketh
as He will The apocryphal
book of Eldad and Modad is mentioned by Hermas, Shepherd, Vis.
ii. § 3. S. Basil, Liber de Spir. S. cap. 61,
referring to
26. Jesus the Son of Nun, the successor of
Moses, was amazed; and came to him and said, “Hast thou heard
that Eldad and Modad are prophesying? They were called, and they
came not; my lord Moses, forbid them
27. He also came down upon all righteous men
and Prophets; Enos, I mean, and Enoch, and Noah, and the rest; upon
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for as regards Joseph, even Pharaoh
perceived that he had the Spirit of God within him
28. In the might of this Spirit, as we have
it in the Book of Judges, Othniel judged πνευματοφόρων,
used only twice in the Sept. (
29. And if further a man peruse all the
books of the Prophets, both of the Twelve, and of the others, he will
find many testimonies concerning. the Holy Ghost; as when Micah says in
the person of God, surely I will perfect power by the Spirit the
Lord
30. Esaias too, with his majestic voice,
says, And the Spirit of God shall rest upon Him,
31. He endued with wisdom the soul of
Daniel, that young as he was he should become a judge of Elders.
The chaste Susanna was condemned as a wanton; there was none to plead
her cause; for who was to deliver her from the rulers? She was
led away to death, she was now in the hands of the executioners.
But her Helper was at hand, the Comforter, the Spirit who sanctifies
every rational nature. Come hither to me, He says to Daniel;
young though thou be, convict old men infected with the sins of youth;
for it is written, God raised up the Holy Spirit upon a young
stripling
32. And indeed it were easy to collect very many texts out of the Old Testament, and to discourse more largely concerning the Holy Ghost. But the time is short; and we must be careful of the proper length of the lecture. Wherefore, being for the present content awhile with passages from the Old Testament, we will, if it be God’s pleasure, proceed in the next Lecture to the remaining texts out of the New Testament. And may the God of peace, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and through the love of the Spirit, count all of you worthy of His spiritual and heavenly gifts:—To whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.
Continuation of the Discourse on the Holy Ghost.
For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, &c.
1. In the preceding
Lecture, according to our ability we set before you, our beloved
hearers ταῖς τῆς
ὑμετέρας
ἀγάπης
ἀκοαῖς. Compare § 30,
below: συγγώμην
αἰτῶ παρὰ
τῆς ὑμετέρας
ἀγάπης. Ignat.
Philadelph. c. iv. (Long recension): θαρρῶν
γράφω τῇ
ἀξιοθέῳ
ἀγάπη
ὑμῶν. “Caritas” is
constantly used in the same manner.
2. Therefore though our discourses
concerning the Holy Ghost are divided, yet He Himself is undivided,
being one and the same. For as in speaking concerning the Father,
at one time we taught how He is the one only Cause Cat. vi. Ib. vii. Ib. viii. Ib. ix. Cat. x. xi. Ib. xii. xv. Compare Basil. de
Sp. Sancto, c. 38: “By the Father’s will the
ministering spirits subsist, and by the operation of the Son they are
brought into existence, and by the presence of the Holy Ghost are
perfected: and the perfection of Angels is sanctification and
continuance therein.”
3. But lest any from lack of learning, should suppose from the different titles of the Holy Ghost that these are divers spirits, and not one and the self-same, which alone there is, therefore the Catholic Church guarding thee beforehand hath delivered to thee in the profession of the faith, that thou “believe in one Holy Ghost the Comforter, who spake by the Prophets;” that thou mightest know, that though His names be many, the Holy Spirit is but one;—of which names, we will now rehearse to you a few out of many.
4. He is called the Spirit, according to the
Scripture just now read, For to one is given by the Spirit the word
of wisdom
5. Thou wilt find many other titles of the
Holy Ghost besides. Thus He is called the Spirit of Holiness, as
it is written, According to the Spirit of Holiness Cat. xvi. 28;
ἡγεμονικῷ, Sept.
Origen, in the Catena
on St. ἐνυπόστατον.
Cf. Cat. xi. 10; xvi. 13, note 5. Cat. iv. 16; xvi.
4.
6. This is the Holy Ghost, who came upon the
Holy Virgin Mary; for since He who was conceived was Christ the
Only-begotten, the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and
the Holy Ghost came upon her
7. This Holy Spirit wrought in Elisabeth;
for He recognises not virgins only, but matrons also, so that their
marriage be lawful. And
8. And John also, who had been filled with
the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb Cat. iii. 6.
9. This Holy Ghost came down when the Lord
was baptized, that the dignity of Him who was baptized might not be
hidden; as John says, But He which sent me to baptize with water,
the same said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit
descending and remaining upon Him, the same is He which baptizeth with
the Holy Ghost τὰς ἀπαρχὰς
καὶ τὰ
πρωτεῖα. The
order is inverted in the translation. Cf. Hermas, Sim.
viii. 7 ἔχοντες
ζῆλόν τινα ἐν
ἀλλήλοις
περὶ
πρωτείων. The Benedictine Editor
adds the two last words τύπον
παραδηλοῦν
from mss. Roe. Casaub. as necessary to
the construction, and adds the following note. “The text
thus emended is capable of two senses. The first, that the Holy
Spirit came down in the form of a dove, a pure and harmless bird, to
shew that He is Himself as it were a mystic dove in His simplicity and
love of children, for whose new birth and remission of sins at Baptism
He unites His prayers with Christ’s, as Cyril teaches in Cat.
xvi. 20: and that Christ was for the like cause mystically
foreshown in Canticles as having eyes like a dove’s. The
other sense is, that the Spirit descended in the form of a dove on
Christ’s Humanity in order to shew this to be as it were a dove
in innocence, holiness, love of children, and concurrence with the Holy
Spirit in their regeneration.…Either sense is admissible, and
maintained by many of the Fathers: but I prefer the
former.” This interpretation is confirmed by Tertullian
(de Baptismo, c. viii.), who says that the Holy Spirit
glided down on the Lord “in the shape of a dove” in order
that the nature of the Holy Spirit might be declared by means of a
creature of simplicity and innocence.”
10. Of this dove, the dove of Noe, according
to some, was in part a figure Tertullian,
ibid. “Just as after the waters of the deluge, by
which the old iniquity was purged—after the baptism, so to say,
of the world—a dove was the herald which announced to the earth
the assuagement of celestial wrath,.…so to our flesh, as it
emerges from the font after its old sins, flies the dove of the Holy
Spirit, bringing us the peace of God, sent out from heaven where the
Church is, the typified ark.” Compare also Hippolytus,
The Holy Theophany, §§ 8, 9, a treatise with which
Cyril has much in common.
11. And these things perhaps should be
otherwise explained; but now again we must hear the words of the
Saviour Himself concerning the Holy Ghost. For He says, Except
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God
12. The fellowship of this Holy Spirit He
bestowed on the Apostles; for it is written, And when He had said
this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy
Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them;
and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained
13. Jesus therefore went up into heaven, and
fulfilled the promise. For He said to them, I will pray the
Father, and He shall give you another Comforter Cat. iii. 7; xvi.
5. Bp. Pearson (Lectiones in Acta Apost. I. §
18): “Rightly said Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, ‘All
prerogatives are with us.’ And the Emperor Justin called
her ‘Mother of the Christian name.’ Jerome also
(Ep. 17, 3), said: ‘The whole mystery of our Faith
is native of that province and city.‘”
14. But He came down to clothe the Apostles
with power, and to baptize them; for the Lord says, ye shall be
baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence
15. And lest men should be ignorant of the
greatness of the mighty gift coming down to them, there sounded as it
were a heavenly trumpet, For suddenly there came from heaven a sound
as of the rushing of a mighty wind
16. And they began to speak with other
tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance
17. The multitude of the hearers was
confounded;—it was a second confusion, in the room of that first
evil one at Babylon. For in that confusion of tongues there was
division of purpose, because their thought was at enmity with God; but
here minds were restored and united, because the object of interest was
godly. The means of falling were the means of recovery.
Wherefore they marvelled, saying
18. But others mocking said, They are
full of new wine
19. But Peter who had the Holy Ghost, and
who knew what he possessed, says, “Men of Israel, ye who
preach Joel, but know not the things which are written, these men
are not drunken as ye suppose
20. We have said much to-day, and perchance you are weary of listening; yet more still remains. And in truth for the doctrine of the Holy Ghost there were need of a third lecture; and of many besides. But we must have your indulgence on both points. For as the Holy Festival of Easter is now at hand we have this day lengthened our discourse and yet we had not room to bring before you all the testimonies from the New Testament which we ought. For many passages are still to come from the Acts of the Apostles in which the grace of the Holy Ghost wrought mightily in Peter and in all the Apostles together; many also from the Catholic Epistles, and the fourteen Epistles of Paul; out of all which we will now endeavour to gather a few, like flowers from a large meadow, merely by way of remembrance.
21. For in the power of the Holy Ghost, by
the will of Father and Son, Peter stood with the Eleven, and lifting up
his voice, (according to the text, Lift up thy voice with strength,
thou that bringest good tidings to Jerusalem
22. And by the hands of the Apostles were
many signs and wonders wrought among the people
23. Again, after the Twelve Apostles had
been cast into prison by the chief priests for preaching Christ, and
had been marvellously delivered from it at night by an Angel, and were
brought before them in the judgment hall from the Temple, they
fearlessly rebuked them in their discourse to them concerning Christ,
and added this, that God hath also given His Holy Spirit to them
that obey Him
24. And it was not in the Twelve Apostles
only that the grace of the Holy Spirit wrought, but also in the
first-born children of this once barren Church, I mean the seven
Deacons; for these also were chosen, as it is written, being full of
the Holy Ghost and of wisdom
25. In this power of the Holy Ghost, Philip
also in the Name of Christ at one time in the city of Samaria drove
away the unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice; and
healed the palsied and the lame, and brought to Christ great multitudes
of them that believe. To whom Peter and John came down, and with
prayer, and the laying on of hands, imparted the fellowship of the Holy
Ghost, from which Simon Magus alone was declared an alien, and that
justly. And at another time Philip was called by the Angel of the
Lord in the way, for the sake of that most godly Ethiopian, the Eunuch,
and heard distinctly the Spirit Himself saying, Go near, and join
thyself to this chariot
26. With this Holy Spirit Paul also had been
filled after his calling by our Lord Jesus Christ. Let godly
Ananias come as a witness to what we say, he who in Damascus said to
him, The Lord, even Jesus who appeared to thee in the way which thou
camest, hath sent me, that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled
with the Holy Ghost
27. In the power of the same Holy Spirit
Peter also, the chief of the Apostles and the bearer of the
keys κλειδοῦχος.
Cf.
28. And in Antioch also, a most renowned
city of Syria, when the preaching of Christ took effect, Barnabas was
sent hence as far as Antioch to help on the good work, being a good
man, and full of the Holy Ghost, and of faith
29. This Holy Spirit, who in unison with
Father and Son has established the New Covenant in the Church Catholic,
has set us free from the burdens of the law grievous to be
borne,—those I mean, concerning things common and unclean, and
meats, and sabbaths, and new moons, and circumcision, and sprinklings,
and sacrifices; which were given for a season, and had a shadow of
the good things to come
30. And now, having proceeded thus far in my
discourse, I ask indulgence from your love See note 1 on §
1, above.
31. I pass by the work wrought at Troas on
Eutychus, who being borne down by his sleep fell down from the third
loft, and was taken up dead; yet was saved alive by Paul
33. And that the Holy Ghost subsists, and
lives, and speaks, and foretells, I have often said in what goes
before, and Paul writes it plainly to Timothy: Now the Spirit
speaketh expressly, that in later times some shall depart from the
faith
34. By all these proofs, and by more which
have been passed over, is the personal, and sanctifying, and effectual
power of the Holy Ghost established for those who can understand; for
the time would fail me in my discourse if I wished to quote what yet
remains concerning the Holy Ghost from the fourteen Epistles of Paul,
wherein he has taught with such variety, completeness, and
reverence. And to the power of the Holy Ghost Himself it must
belong, to grant to us forgiveness for what we have omitted because the
days are few, and upon you the hearers to impress more perfectly the
knowledge of what yet remains; while from the frequent reading of the
sacred Scriptures those of you who are diligent come to understand
these things, and by this time, both from these present Lectures, and
from what has before been told you, hold more steadfastly the Faith in
“One God the Father Almighty; and in our Lord
Jesus Christ, His Only-Begotten Son; and in the Holy Ghost the
Comforter.” Though the word itself and title of
Spirit is applied to Them in common in the sacred Scriptures,—for
it is said of the Father, God is a Spirit The distinct mention
in the Creed of three Persons excludes the error of Sabellius in
confusing them. Cf. Cat. iv. 8; xvi. 14.
35. Beware lest ever like Simon thou come to
the dispensers of Baptism in hypocrisy, thy heart the while not seeking
the truth. It is ours to protest, but it is thine to secure
thyself. If thou standest in faith Cf. Bingham,
Antiquities, II. xx. 9. “When Cyril directs his
Catechumens how they should behave themselves at the time of Baptism,
when they came either before a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, in city
or village,—this may be presumed a fair intimation that then
deacons were ordinarily allowed to minister Baptism in country
places.” See further ‘Of the power granted anciently
to deacons to baptize,’ Bingham, Lay Baptism, I. i.
5.
36. Yet He tries the soul. He casts not His
pearls before swine; if thou play the hypocrite, though men baptize
thee now, the Holy Spirit will not baptize thee Cf. Procat. §
4: “The water will receive, but the Spirit will not accept
thee.” στρατολογία.
Cf. Cat. iii. 3, μέλλετε
στρατολογεῖσθαι.
37. If thou believe, thou shalt not only
receive remission of sins, but also do things which pass man’s
power The same twofold grace
is ascribed to Baptism in Cat. xiii. 23: “Thou receivest
now remission of thy sins, and the gifts of the King’s spiritual
bounty.” πραγματεία.
Cf.
38. And may the very God of All, who spake
by the Holy Ghost through the prophets, who sent Him forth upon the
Apostles on the day of Pentecost in this place, Himself send Him forth
at this time also upon you; and by Him keep us also, imparting His
benefit in common to us all, that we may ever render up the fruits of
the Holy Ghost, love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness,
goodness, faith, meekness, temperance
On the Words, And in One Holy Catholic Church, and in the Resurrection of the Flesh, and the Life Everlasting.
The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me out in the Spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones.
1. The root of all
good works is the hope of the Resurrection; for the expectation of the
recompense nerves the soul to good works. For every labourer is
ready to endure the toils, if he sees their reward in prospect; but
when men weary themselves for nought, their heart soon sinks as well as
their body. A soldier who expects a prize is ready for war, but
no one is forward to die for a king who is indifferent about those who
serve under him, and bestows no honours on their toils. In like
manner every soul believing in a Resurrection is naturally careful of
itself; but, disbelieving it, abandons itself to perdition. He
who believes that his body shall remain to rise again, is careful of
his robe, and defiles it not with fornication; but he who disbelieves
the Resurrection, gives himself to fornication, and misuses his own
body, as though it were not his own. Faith therefore in the
Resurrection of the dead, is a great commandment and doctrine of the
Holy Catholic Church; great and most necessary, though gainsaid by
many, yet surely warranted by the truth. Greeks contradict
it Cf. § 12,
below. Tertull. De Resurr.
carnis, cap. 2: “They acknowledge a
half-resurrection, to wit of the soul only.” Compare Iren.
I. xxiii. 5, on Menander’s assertion that his disciples attain to
the resurrection by being baptized into him, and can die no more, but
retain immortal youth: ib. xxiv. 5. Basilides taught
that “salvation belongs to the soul alone.” On the
other forms of heresy concerning the Resurrection, see Suicer,
Thesaurus, ᾽Ανάστασις.
2. Now Greeks and Samaritans together argue
against us thus. The dead man has fallen, and mouldered away, and
is all turned into worms; and the worms have died also; such is the
decay and destruction which has overtaken the body; how then is it to
be raised? The shipwrecked have been devoured by fishes, which
are themselves devoured. Of them who fight with wild beasts the
very bones are ground to powder, and consumed by bears and lions.
Vultures and ravens feed on the flesh of the unburied dead, and then
fly away over all the world; whence then is the body to be
collected? For of the fowls who have devoured it some may chance
to die in India, some in Persia, some in the land of the Goths.
Other men again are consumed by fire, and their very ashes scattered by
rain or wind; whence is the body to be brought together again The objections noticed
in § 2 are discussed by Athenagoras, De Resurr. capp. ii.,
iv.—viii.; Tatian. Or. ad Græcos, cap. vi., Tertull.
De Resurr. Carn. cap. 63.
3. To thee, poor little feeble man, India is
far from the land of the Goths, and Spain from Persia; but to God, who
holds the whole earth in the hollow of His hand On the argument from
God’s power compare Athenagoras, De Resurr. c. ix; Justin.
M. De Resurr. c. v; Theophil. ad Autolyc. c. xiii.; Iren.
V. iii. 2.
4. But further, attend, I pray, to the very
principle of justice, and come to thine own case. Thou hast
different sorts of servants: and some are good and some bad;
The argument from
God’s justice is treated by Athenagor. De Resurr. c. x.
and xx.–xxiii.; Justin M. De Resurr. c. viii. τὴν
στεφανηφορίαν. Roe. Cas. A. Cf. Pind. Ol. viii. 13; Eurip.
Electr. 862.
5. But if according to thee there is no resurrection of the dead, wherefore condemnest thou the robbers of graves? For if the body perishes, and there is no resurrection to be hoped for, why does the violator of the tomb undergo punishment? Thou seest that though thou deny it with thy lips, there yet abides with thee an indestructible instinct of the resurrection.
6. Further, does a tree after it has been
cut down blossom again, and shall man after being cut down blossom no
more? And does the corn sown and reaped remain for the threshing
floor, and shall man when reaped from this world not remain for the
threshing? And do shoots of vine or other trees, when clean cut
off and transplanted, come to life and bear fruit; and shall man, for
whose sake all these exist, fall into the earth and not rise
again? Comparing efforts, which is greater, to mould from the
beginning a statue which did not exist, or to recast in the same shape
that which had fallen? Is God then, who created us out of
nothing, unable to raise again those who exist and are fallen Athenag. De
Resurr. c. iii.: “If, when they did not exist, He made
at their first formation the bodies of men, and their original
elements, He will, when they are dissolved, in whatever manner that may
take place, raise them again with equal ease.” Lactant.
Institt. VII. 23 fin.: Apost. Const. V. 7. An eloquent statement
of the argument for the resurrection from the analogies of nature
occurs in Tertull. De Resurr. c. xii. That it was not
unknown to Cyril, seems probable from the concluding sentence:
“And surely if all things rise again for man, for whom they have
been provided—but not for man unless for his flesh also—how
can the flesh itself perish utterly, for the sake and service of which
nothing is allowed to perish.” Tertullian himself was
probably indebted, as Bp. Lightfoot suggests, to Clemens. Rom.
Epist. ad Corinth. xxiv. Cf. Lactant. Div.
Inst. vii. 4.
7. The season is winter Cf. Cat. iv.
30. These passages shew that the Lectures were delivered in a
year when Easter fell early, as was the case in 348 a.d. In such cases there
is, of course, no actual death. The μυοξός is supposed by
the Benedictine Editor to be the toad (“Inventusque cavis
bufo,” Virg. Georg. i. 185), by others the marmot
(mus Alpinus). More probably it is the dormouse (myoxis
glis), which stores up provisions for the winter, though it sleeps
through much of that season.
8. But the Greeks ask for a resurrection of
the dead still manifest; and say that, even if these creatures are
raised, yet they had not utterly mouldered away; and they require to
see distinctly some creature rise again after complete decay. God
knew men’s unbelief, and provided for this purpose a bird, called
a Phoenix The story of the Phœnix as told by
Herodotus, II. 73, is as follows: “They have also another
sacred bird called the Phœnix, which I myself have never seen,
except in pictures. Indeed it is a great rarity even in Egypt,
only coming there (according to the accounts of the people of
Heliopolis) once in five hundred years, when the old phœnix
dies.…They tell a story of what this bird does, which does not
seem to me to be credible; that he comes all the way from Arabia, and
brings the parent bird, all plastered over with myrrh, to the temple of
the Sun, and there buries the body.” The many variations and fabulous
accretions of the story are detailed by Suicer,
Thesaurus, Φοῖνιξ, and by Bp.
Lightfoot in a long and interesting note on Clemens Rom. Epist. ad
Cor. xxv. Cyril borrows the story from Clement almost
verbally, yet not without some variations, which will be noticed
below. The legend with all its miraculous features is told by
Ovid, Metamorph. xv. 392, by Claudian, Phœnix,
and by the Pseudo-Lactantius in an Elegiac poem, Phœnix,
included in Weber’s Corpus Poetarum
Latinorum, and literally translated in Clark’s
Ante-Nicene Library. See also Tertull. De
Resurr. Carn. c. xiii. μονογενὲς
ὕπαρχον, Clem. Rom. ubi
supra. Cf. Origen, contra Celsum, iv. 98:
Apost. Const. V. 7: “a bird single in its
kind, which they say is without a mate, and the only one in the
creation.” Pseudo-Lactant. v. 30. “Hoc nemus hos lucos avis incolit unica,
phœnix, Unica, sed vivit morte refecta
suâ” “By day,
in the sight of all” (Clem. R.) The city was Heliopolis,
according to Herodotus and the other ancient authors. But Milton,
Paradise Lost, V. 272— ‘A phœnix gaz’d by all, as that
sole bird, When to enshrine his reliques in the Sun’s Bright temple to Ægyptian Thebes he
flies.’ Why does Milton despatch his bird to Thebes
rather than Heliopolis?” (Lightfoot). Ovid, Met. xv.
405: “Fertque pius cunasque suas patriumque
sepulcrum.” See the Commentaries on The mode of
reproduction in bees was regarded by Aristotle as mysterious, having in
it something supernatural (θεῖον): De Generatione
Animal. III. 10. 1, 27. In the story of the phœnix
Herodotus makes no mention of the “worm.”
9. But since the sign of the Phoenix is
remote and uncommon, and men still disbelieve our resurrection, take
again the proof of this from what thou seest every day. A hundred
or two hundred years ago, we all, speakers and hearers, where were
we? Know we not the groundwork of the substance of our
bodies? Knowest thou not how from weak and shapeless and
simple μονοειδής. For a similar
argument, see Lactant. De Resurr. c
xvii.
10. Take further a manifest proof of the
resurrection of the dead, witnessed month by month in the sky and its
luminaries Clem. Rom. Epist.
ad Cor. xxiv: “Day and night shew unto us the
resurrection. The night falleth asleep, and day ariseth; the day
departeth, and night cometh on.” Tertull. de Resurr.
Carnis, xii.: “Readorned also are the mirrors of the
moon, which her monthly course had worn away.”…“The
whole of this revolving order of things bears witness to the
resurrection of the dead.”
11. Turn now to the Samaritans, who,
receiving the Law only, allow not the Prophets. To them the text
just now read from Ezekiel appears of no force, for, as I said, they
admit no Prophets; whence then shall we persuade the Samaritans
also? Let us go to the writings of the Law. Now God says to
Moses, I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of
Jacob
12. But to this the foolish Samaritans
object again, and say that the souls possibly of Abraham and Isaac and
Jacob continue, but that their bodies cannot possibly rise again.
Was it then possible that the rod of righteous Moses should become a
serpent, and is it impossible that the bodies of the righteous should
live and rise again? And was that done contrary to nature, and
shall they not be restored according to nature? Again, the rod of
Aaron, though cut off and dead, budded, without the scent of
waters
13. And whence in the beginning came man
into being at all, O ye Samaritans, most senseless of all men? Go
to the first book of the Scripture, which even you receive; And God
formed man of the dust of the ground The anomalous
construction ὅταν
γέγραπται
.…καὶ
ἀπιστῶσιν may be
explained by the consideration, that the uncertainty expressed in
ὅταν attaches only to the latter
Verb. See Winer’s Grammar of N.T. Greek, P. III.
sect. xlii. 5.
14. These questions, therefore, are for
them, the unbelievers: but the words of the Prophets are for us
who believe. But since some who have also used the Prophets
believe not what is written, and allege against us that passage, The
ungodly shall not rise up in judgment As to the bearing of
this passage on the doctrine of Purgatory and prayer for the dead see
note on xxiii. 10.
15. And respecting that passage, If a man
go down to the grave, he shall come up no more, observe what
follows, for it is written, He shall come up no more, neither shall
he return to his own house. For since the whole world shall
pass away, and every house shall be destroyed, how shall he return to
his own house, there being henceforth a new and different earth?
But they ought to have heard Job, saying, For there is hope of a
tree; for if it be cut down, it will sprout again, and the tender
branch thereof will not cease. For though the root thereof wax
old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in the rocky ground; yet
from the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth a crop like a new
plant. But man when he dies, is gone; and when mortal man falls,
is he no more There is no
indication of a question in the Septuagint version of the passage,
which means in the Hebrew, and where is he? (A.V. and R.V.):
Vulg. ubi, quæso, est?
16. And many Scriptures there are which
testify of the Resurrection of the dead; for there are many other
sayings on this matter. But now, by way of remembrance only, we
will make a passing mention of the raising of Lazarus on the fourth
day; and just allude, because of the shortness of the time, to the
widow’s son also who was raised, and merely for the sake of
reminding you, let me mention the ruler of the synagogue’s
daughter, and the rending of the rocks, and how there arose many
bodies of the saints which slept “The
worship of relics, and the belief in them as remedies and a protection
against evil, originated in the 4th century. They first (?)
appear in writings, none of which are earlier than the year 370:
but they prevailed rapidly when they had once taken root”
(Scudamore, Dict. Chr. Antiq. “Relics,” p.
1770). Bingham (Ant. xxiii. 4, § 7) quotes a law of
Theodosius, “that no one should remove any dead body that was
buried, from one place to another; that no one should sell or buy the
relics of Martyrs: but if any one was minded to build over the
grave where a martyr was buried, a church to be called a
martyrium, in respect to him, he should have liberty to do
it.” The law wholly failed to suppress a superstition which
was sanctioned by such men as Cyril, Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and
Augustine.
17. And with respect to these instances we
might say much, rehearsing in detail the marvellous circumstances of
each event: but as you have been already wearied both by the
superposed fast of the Preparation ἐκ
τῆς
ὑπερθέσεως
τῆς νηστείας
τῆς
παρασκευῆς,
Ed. Bened. “The ecclesiastical term τῆς
ὑπερθέσεως
we have rendered, according to the interpretation received among the
Latins, by the word ‘superpositio.’ The
ancients meant by it a fast continued for two or three days without
food. Moreover, since the great week was observed with severer
fastings, there were many who passed either the whole week or four,
three, or two days, namely the Preparation and the Holy Sabbath (Easter
Eve), entirely fasting as is testified by S. Irenæus (Euseb.
Hist. V. 24) and others. The continuance of the fast
throughout the Friday and Saturday was highly approved, as may be seen
from the Apostolical Constitutions, V. 18.” The
passage referred to is as follows: “Do you therefore fast
on the days of the Passover, beginning from the second day of the week
until the Preparation and the Sabbath, six days, making use only of
bread, and salt, and herbs, and water for your drink: but abstain
on these days from wine and flesh, for they are days of lamentation and
not of fasting. Do ye who are able fast throughout the
Preparation and the Sabbath entirely, tasting nothing till the
cockcrowing at night; but if any one is not able to combine them both,
let the Sabbath at least be observed.” The fast of the Great
Sabbath was to be continued through the night, as prescribed in the
Apost. Const. V. 19: “Continue until cock-crowing
and break off your fast at dawn of the first day of the week, which is
the Lord’s day, keeping awake from evening until
cock-crowing: and assembling together in the Church, watch and
pray and beseech God, in your night-long vigil, reading the Law, the
Prophets, and the Psalms, until the crowing of the cocks: and
after baptizing your Catechumens, and reading the Gospel in fear and
trembling, and speaking to the people the things pertaining to
salvation, so cease from your mourning.” A chief reason for
the watching was that Christ was expected to return at the same hour in
which He rose. On the meaning of “superposition” see
Routh’s note on the Synodical Epistle of Irenæus to Victor
of Rome (Rell. Sac. ii. p. 45, ss.), and the passage of
Dionysius of Alexandria there quoted.
18. But especially mark this, how very
pointedly μονονουχὶ
δακτυλοδεικτῶν. μεταποιεῖται. The meaning of this word as applied to the Eucharistic elements
is fully discussed, and illustrated from its use by Cyril and other
Fathers, by Dr. Pusey (Real Presence, p. 189). Cyril refers to the
glow-worm (πυγολαμπίς,
Aristot. Hist. Animal. V. 19, 14), or some other species of
Lampyris (Arist. de Partilus Animal. I. 3. 3).
19. We shall be raised therefore, all with
our bodies eternal, but not all with bodies alike: for if a man
is righteous, he will receive a heavenly body, that he may be able
worthily to hold converse with Angels; but if a man is a sinner, he
shall receive an eternal body, fitted to endure the penalties of sins,
that he may burn eternally in fire, nor ever be consumed Cf. Cat. iv. 31. τῶν
γενομένων.
With the reading γινομένων
(Codd. Monn. Vind.), the meaning will be—“share with us in
the future what shall happen to us then.” On the argument
of this section compare the passages quoted on § 4, note 7.
20. Therefore, brethren, let us be careful
of our bodies, nor misuse them as though not our own. Let us not
say like the heretics, that this vesture of the body belongs not to us,
but let us be careful of it as our own; for we must give account to the
Lord of all things done through the body. Say not, none seeth me;
think not, that there is no witness of the deed. Human witness
oftentimes there is not; but He who fashioned us, an unerring
witness, abides faithful in heaven
21. Thus much in proof of the Resurrection
of the dead; and now, let me again recite to you the profession of the
faith, and do you with all diligence pronounce it while I
speak Cat. V. 12, notes 7
and 4. Cf. Plat. Theaet. 204 C: ἐφ᾽
ἑκάστης
λέξεως, “each time we
speak.”
______________________
22. The Faith which we rehearse contains in order the following, “And in one Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; and in one Holy Catholic Church; and in the resurrection of the flesh; and in eternal life.” Now of Baptism and repentance I have spoken in the earliest Lectures; and my present remarks concerning the resurrection of the dead have been made with reference to the Article “In the resurrection of the flesh.” Now then let me finish what still remains to be said for the Article, “In one Holy Catholic Church,” on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly.
23. It is called Catholic then because it
Bishop Lightfoot
(Ignatius, ad Smyrnæos, viii.) traces the original and
later senses of the word “Catholic” very fully.
“In its earliest usages, therefore, as a fluctuating epithet of
ἐκκλησία,
‘catholic’ means ‘universal,’ as opposed to
‘individual,’ ‘particular.’ In its later
sense, as a fixed attribute, it implies orthodoxy as opposed to heresy,
conformity as opposed to dissent.” Commenting on this
passage of Cyril, the Bishop adds that “these two latter reasons,
that it (the Church) is comprehensive in doctrine, and that it is
universal in application, can only be regarded as secondary
glosses.”
24. And it is rightly named (Ecclesia)
because it calls forth ἐκκαλεῖσθαι.
Cf.
25. Of old the Psalmist sang, Bless ye
God in the congregations, even the Lord, (ye that are) from the
fountains of Israel
26. But since the word Ecclesia is applied
to different things (as also it is written of the multitude in the
theatre of the Ephesians, And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed
the Assembly
27. For when the first Church was cast off,
in the second, which is the Catholic Church, God hath set, as
Paul says, first Apostles, secondly Prophets, thirdly teachers, then
miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, divers kinds of
tongues
______________________
28. In this Holy Catholic Church receiving instruction and behaving ourselves virtuously, we shall attain the kingdom of heaven, and inherit eternal life; for which also we endure all toils, that we may be made partakers thereof from the Lord. For ours is no trifling aim, but our endeavour is for eternal life. Wherefore in the profession of the Faith, after the words, “And in the resurrection of the flesh,” that is, of the dead (of which we have discoursed), we are taught to believe also “in the life eternal,” for which as Christians we are striving.
29. The real and true life then is the
Father, who through the Son in the Holy Spirit pours forth as from a
fountain His heavenly gifts to all; and through His love to man, the
blessings of the life eternal are promised without fail to us men
also. We must not disbelieve the possibility of this, but having
an eye not to our own weakness but to His power, we must believe;
for with God all things are possible. And that this is
possible, and that we may look for eternal life, Daniel declares,
And of the many righteous shall they shine as the stars for ever and
ever
30. And many are the proofs concerning the
life eternal. And when we desire to gain this eternal life, the
sacred Scriptures suggest to us the ways of gaining it; of which,
because of the length of our discourse, the texts we now set before you
shall be but few, the rest being left to the search of the
diligent. They declare at one time that it is by faith; for it is
written, He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life
31. And the ways of finding eternal life are many, though I have passed over them by reason of their number. For the Lord in His loving-kindness has opened, not one or two only, but many doors, by which to enter into the life eternal, that, as far as lay in Him, all might enjoy it without hindrance. Thus much have we for the present spoken within compass concerning the life eternal, which is the last doctrine of those professed in the Faith, and its termination; which life may we all, both teachers and hearers, by God’s grace enjoy!
______________________
32. And now, brethren beloved, the word of
instruction exhorts you all, to prepare your souls for the reception of
the heavenly gifts. As regards the Holy and Apostolic Faith
delivered to you to profess, we have spoken through the grace of the
Lord as many Lectures, as was possible, in these past days of Lent; not
that this is all we ought to have said, for many are the points
omitted; and these perchance are thought out better by more excellent
teachers. But now the holy day of the Passover is at hand, and
ye, beloved τῆς
ὑμετέρας ἐν
Χριστῷ
ἀγάπης. Cf. Cat. xvii. 1,
note 1. Athan. Epist. ad Epict. § 2:
παρὰ τῇ
σῇ
θεοσεβείά. ad
Serap. iv. 1: παρὰ τῆς σῆς
εὐλαβείας.
33. And after Easter’s Holy Day of
salvation, ye shall come on each successive day, beginning from the
second day of the week, after the assembly into the Holy Place of the
Resurrection The place meant
is not the Church of the Resurrection in which the Service had been
held, but the Anastasis or actual cave of the Resurrection, which
Constantine had so enlarged by additional works that a discourse to the
people could be held there: for Jerome (Epist. 61) relates
that Epiphanius had preached in that place in front of the Lord’s
sepulchre to clergy and people in the hearing of John the Bishop (Ben.
Ed.).
34. Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the
Lord alway; again I will say, Rejoice: for your redemption hath
drawn nigh
35. And may these words be spoken now again
over you also, Sing, O heavens, and be joyful, O earth; and
then; for the Lord hath had mercy on His people, and comforted the
lowly of His people “At the end of this Lecture in
the older of the Munich mss. there is the
following addition: Many other Lectures were delivered year by
year, both before Baptism and after the neophytes had been
baptized. But these alone were taken down when spoken and written
by some of the earnest students in the year 352 of the advent of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And in these you will find partly
discussions of all the necessary doctrines of the Faith which ought to
be known to men, and answers to the Greeks, and to those of the
Circumcision, and to the Heresies, and the moral precepts of Christians
of all kinds, by the grace of God. The year 352 according to the
computation of the Greeks is the year 360 of the Christian era”
(Rupp). The date at which the Lectures were
delivered cannot possibly be so late as is here stated. See the
section of the Introduction on the “Date.”
of
THE saME aUTHOR,
TO THE nEWLY bAPTIZED This general
title of the five following Lectures is omitted in many mss. “In Cod. Ottob. at the end of the special
title of this first Mystagogic Lecture, after the words “to the
end of the Epistle,” there follows the statement “Of the
same author Cyril, and of John the Bishop” (Bened. Ed.).
See Index, Authenticity.
————————————
Lecture XIX.
First Lecture on the Mysteries.
With a Lesson from the First General Epistle of Peter, beginning at Be sober, be vigilant, to the end of the Epistle.
1. I have long been
wishing, O true-born and dearly beloved children of the Church, to
discourse to you concerning these spiritual and heavenly Mysteries; but
since I well knew that seeing is far more persuasive than hearing, I
waited for the present season; that finding you more open to the
influence of my words from your present experience, I might lead you by
the hand into the brighter and more fragrant meadow of the Paradise
before us; especially as ye have been made fit to receive the more
sacred Mysteries, after having been found worthy of divine and
life-giving Baptism This Lecture was
delivered on the Monday after Easter in the Holy Sepulchre: see
Cat. xviii. 33. τὴν ἔμφασιν
τὴν.…γεγενημένην
, is found in all the mss.
“Nevertheless it would seem that we ought to read
τῶν.…γεγενημένων,
which Grodecq either read or substituted” (Ben. Ed.). With
the proposed reading the meaning would be—“the significance
of the things done to you,” which agrees better with the meaning
of ἔμφασις.
2. First ye entered into the
vestibule τὁν
προαύλιον, called
below in § 11 “the outer chamber.” Cf. Procat.
§ 1, note 3. It appears from Tertullian, De Corona,
§ 3, that the renunciation was made first in the Church, and
afterwards in the Baptistery: “When we are going to enter
the water, at that moment as well as just before in the Church under
the hand of the President, we solemnly profess that we disown the
devil, and his pomp, and his angels.”
3. Now turn from the old to the new, from
the figure to the reality. There we have Moses sent from God to
Egypt; here, Christ, sent forth from His Father into the world:
there, that Moses might lead forth an afflicted people out of Egypt;
here, that Christ might rescue those who are oppressed in the world
under sin: there, the blood of a lamb was the spell
against ἀποτρόπαιον φυγαδευτήριον,
the word commonly used in the Septuagint for “a city of
refuge.” But the Verb φυγαδεύω is
Transitive in “Passio quæ nostram defendit sanguine
frontem, Corporeamque domum signato collinit
ore.”
4. But nevertheless thou art bidden to say,
with arm outstretched towards him as though he were present, “I
renounce thee, Satan.” I wish also to say wherefore ye
stand facing to the West; for it is necessary. Since the West is
the region of sensible darkness, and he being darkness has his dominion
also in darkness, therefore, looking with a symbolical meaning towards
the West, ye renounce that dark and gloomy potentate. What then
did each of you stand up and say? “I renounce thee,
Satan,”—thou wicked and most cruel tyrant! meaning,
“I fear thy might no longer; for that Christ hath overthrown,
having partaken with me of flesh and blood, that through these He
might by death destroy death
5. Then in a second sentence thou art taught
to say, “and all thy works.” Now the works of Satan
are all sin, which also thou must renounce;—just as one who has
escaped a tyrant has surely escaped his weapons also. All sin
therefore, of every kind, is included in the works of the devil.
Only know this; that all that thou sayest, especially at that most
thrilling hour, is written in God’s books; when therefore thou
doest any thing contrary to these promises, thou shalt be judged as a
transgressor
6. Then thou sayest, “And all his
pomp Herod. II. 58:
“The Egyptians were the first to introduce solemn assemblies
(πανηγύρις)
and processions (πομπάς).” At
Rome the term “pompa” was applied especially to the
procession with which the Ludi Circenses were opened and also to any
grand ceremony or pageant. θεατρομανίαι.
Cf. Tertull. Apologet. 38; “We renounce all your
spectacles.…Among us nothing is ever said, or seen, or heard,
which has anything in common with the madness of the Circus, the
immodesty of the theatre, the atrocities of the arena, the useless
exercises of the wrestling-ground.” He calls the theatre
“that citadel of all impurities,” De Spectaculis, c.
10, “immodesty’s peculiar abode,” c. 17, and gives a
vivid description of the rage and fury of the Circus in c. 16. μίμων, the name either of a
species of low comedy, “consisting more of gestures and mimicry
than of spoken dialogue,” or of the persons who acted in
them. Cyril’s description of the coarse and indecent
character of the mimes is more than justified by the impartial
testimony of Ovid, Trist. ii. 497: “Quid si scripsissem mimos obscœna
jocantes, Qui semper vetiti crimen amoris habent; In quibus assidue cultus procedit adulter, Verbaque dat stulto callida nupta viro. Nubilis hos virgo, matronaque, virque, puerque Spectat, et e magna parte Senatus adest. Nec satis incestis temerari vocibus aures; Assuescunt oculi multa pudenda pati.” A theatre is mentioned as one of the
buildings erected by Hadrian in his new City Aelia Capitolina built on
the site of Jerusalem; and that theatrical performances were continued
in the time of Cyril we know from the accusation that in a time of
famine he had sold one of the Church vestments, which was afterwards
used upon the stage. Lactantius,
Epitome, § 63: “Histrionici etiam impudici
gestus, quibus infames fœminas imitantur, libidines, quæ
saltando exprimunt, docent.” κυνηγεσίαις,
the so-called “venationes” of the Circus in which the
“bestiarii” fought with wild beasts. The
“bestiarii” were feasted in public on the day before their
encounter with the beasts. See Tertull. Apologet. §
42: “I do not recline in public at the feast of Bacchus,
after the manner of the beast-fighters at their last
banquet.” Ib. § 9: “Those also who dine on
the flesh of wild beasts from the arena, who have keen appetites for
bear and stag.” These latter, however, were chiefly the
poor, to whom flesh was a rarity: Apuleius Metam. iv. 14,
quoted by Oehler. ψυχὰς
ἐκτραχήλιζον,
an allusion to the risk of a broken neck in the chariot-race.
Tertull. de Spectaculis, § 9: “Equestrianism
was formerly practised in a simple way on horseback, and certainly its
ordinary use was innocent: but when it was dragged into the
games, it passed from a gift of God into the service of
demons.” The presiding deity of the chariot-race was
Poseidon (Hom. Il. xxiii, 307; Pind. Ol. i. 63;
Pyth. vi. 50; Soph. Œdip.
7. Moreover, the things which are hung up at
idol festivals πανηγύρεσι. The Panegyris was strictly a religious festival, but was
commonly accompanied by a great fair or market, in which were sold not
only such things as the worshippers might need for their offerings,
e.g. frankincense, but also the flesh of the animals which had been
sacrificed. Cf. Dictionary of Greek and Rom. Antiq.
“Panegyris.” Tertull. Apolog. §
42: “We do not go to your spectacles: yet the
articles that are sold there, if I need them, I shall obtain more
readily at their proper places. We certainly buy no
frankincense.” Compare St.
Paul’s argument against meats offered to idols,
8. After this thou sayest, “and all
thy service The form of
renunciation before Baptism is given in the Apostolic
Constitutions, VII. 41: “I renounce Satan, and his
works, and his pomps, and his services, and his angels, and his
inventions, and all things that are under him.” Cf.
Tertull. De Spectaculis, § 4: “When on
entering the water, we make profession of the Christian faith in the
words of its rule, we bear public testimony that we have renounced the
devil, his pomp, and his angels.” Herod. ii. 62:
“At Sais, when the assembly takes place for the sacrifices (to
Minerva, or Neith), there is one night on which the inhabitants all
burn a multitude of lights in the open air round their
houses.…These burn the whole night, and give to the festival the
name of the Feast of Lamps (Λυχνοκαΐη).” Fountains and rivers
had each its own deity or nymph, to whom sacrifices were offered, and
incense burned. ἐς
τοῦτο
διέβησαν.
These words are omitted in many mss., and
regarded by the Benedictine Editor as a spurious addition made to
complete the construction. The words ἢ τοιαῦτα at the
end of the sentence are better omitted, as in several good mss. Cat. iv. 37;
Apost. Const. vi.: “Be not a diviner, for that leads
to idolatry.…Thou shalt not use enchantments or purgations for
thy child. Thou shalt not be a soothsayer nor a diviner by great
or little birds. Nor shalt thou learn wicked arts; for all these
things has the Law forbidden.” Apost. Const.
vii. 41: “And after his renunciation let him in his
association (συντασσόμενος)
say, I associate myself with Christ.” πειραθήσῃ
(Cod. Mon. 1) is a better reading than πειρασθήσῃ. Cf. Plat. Laches, 188 E: τῶν ἔργων
ἐπειράθην.
9. When therefore thou renouncest Satan,
utterly breaking all thy covenant with him, that ancient league with
hell Cf. S. Ambros. De
Mysteriis, c. ii. 7: “Ad orientem converteris; qui enim
renunciat diabolo ad Christum convertitur:” “Where he
plainly intimates.…that turning to the East was a symbol of their
aversion from Satan and conversion unto Christ, that is, from darkness
to light, from serving idols, to serve Him, who is the Sun of
Righteousness and Fountain of Light” (Bingh. Ant. xi. vii.
7). Cf. Didaché, vii.
1; Justin M. Apolog. I. c. 61 A; Swainson, Creeds,
c. iii. on the short Baptismal Professions. “The writings
of S. Cyprian distinctly tell us, that in his day the form of
interrogation at Baptism was fixed and definite. He speaks of the
“usitata et legitima verba
interrogationis,”—and we know as distinctly that the
interrogation included the words, “Dost thou believe in God the
Father, in His Son Christ, in the Holy Spirit? Dost thou believe
in remission of sins and eternal life through the Church?”
10. Guarded therefore by these discourses,
be sober. For our adversary the devil, as
was just now read, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he
may devour πανηγυρίσεις
11. And these things were done in the outer
chamber. But if God will, when in the succeeding lectures on the
Mysteries we have entered into the Holy of Holies These words seem to
imply that the Lectures on the Eucharist were to be delivered in the
Holy Sepulchre, though the Mysteries themselves may be called
metaphorically “the Holy of Holies.”
(On the Mysteries. II.)
Of Baptism.
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death? &c..…for ye are not under the Law, but under grace.
1. These daily
introductions into the Mysteries μυσταγωγίαι. The renunciation and
the profession of faith were made in the outer chamber or vestibule of
the Baptistery.
2. As soon, then, as ye entered, ye put off
your tunic; and this was an image of putting off the old man with
his deeds See Dict.
Christ. Antiq. “Baptism,” § 48: The
Unclothing of the Catechumens: Bingh. Ant. XI.
xi. 1: All “persons were baptized naked, either in
imitation of Adam in Paradise, or our Saviour upon the Cross, or to
signify their putting off the body of sin, and the old man with his
deeds.”
3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were
anointed with exorcised oil Apost. Const. vii.
22: “But thou shalt beforehand anoint the person with holy
oil (ἐλαίῳ), and afterward baptize him
with water, and in the conclusion shalt seal him with the ointment
(μύρῳ), that
the anointing (χρῖσμα) may be a
participation of the Holy Spirit, and the water a symbol of the death,
and the ointment the seal of the Covenants. But if there be
neither oil nor ointment, water suffices both for anointing, and for a
seal, and for a confession of Him who died, or indeed is dying with
us.” The previous anointing “with oil sanctified by
prayer” is mentioned in the Clementine Recognitions, III.
c. 67, and in the Pseudo-Justin, Quæstiones ad Orthodoxos,
Qu. 137. It was not however universal, and seems to have been
unknown in Africa, not being mentioned by Clement of Alexandria
(Pæd. II. c. viii. On the use of ointments),
nor Tertullian, nor Augustine. On the significance of
the wild olive-tree, see Irenæus, V. 10. See Index,
“Exorcism.”
4. After these things, ye were led to the
holy pool κολυμβήθραν.
The pool or piscina was deep enough for total immersion, and large
enough for many to be baptized at once. Cf. Bingh.
Ant. VIII. vii. 2; XI. xi. 2, 3. For engravings of
the very ancient Baptisteries at Aquileia and Ravenna, shewing the form
of the font or piscina, see Dict. Christian Ant.
“Baptistery.” The same significance is attributed to the
trine immersion by many Fathers, but a different explanation is given
by Tertullian (Adv. Praxean, c. xxvi.): “Not
once only, but three times, we are immersed into the several Persons at
the mention of their several names.” Gregory of Nyssa
(On the Baptism of Christ, p. 520 in this Series) joins both
reasons together: “By doing this thrice we represent for
ourselves that grace of the Resurrection which was wrought in three
days: and this we do, not receiving the Sacrament in silence, but
while there are spoken over us the Names of the Three Sacred Persons on
whom we believed, &c.” Compare p. 529. Cf.
Apost. Const VIII. § 47, Can. 50: “If
any Bishop or Presbyter does not perform the three immersions of one
initiation, but one immersion made into the death of Christ, let him be
deprived.” Milles in his note on this passage
mentions that “this form of Baptism is still used in the Greek
Church. See Eucholog. p. 355. Ed. Jac. Goar. and his notes
p. 365.”
5. O strange and inconceivable thing! we did not really die, we were not really buried, we were not really crucified and raised again; but our imitation was in a figure, and our salvation in reality. Christ was actually crucified, and actually buried, and truly rose again; and all these things He has freely bestowed upon us, that we, sharing His sufferings by imitation, might gain salvation in reality. O surpassing loving-kindness! Christ received nails in His undefiled hands and feet, and suffered anguish; while on me without pain or toil by the fellowship of His suffering He freely bestows salvation.
6. Let no one then suppose that Baptism is
merely the grace of remission of sins, or further, that of adoption; as
John’s was a baptism Tertullian (De
Baptismo, c. 10) denies that John’s Baptism availed for the
remission of sins: “If repentance is a thing human, its
baptism must necessarily be of the same nature: else if it had
been celestial, it would have given both the Holy Spirit and the
remission of sins.” Cyril’s doctrine is more in
accordance with the language of the Fathers generally, and of St.
πρόξενον. ἀντίτυπον.
The “Antitype” is here the sign or memorial of that which
is past, and no longer actually present: See note 6 on xxi.
1. Cf.
7. In order therefore that we might learn,
that whatsoever things Christ endured, for us and for
our salvation This clause is
contained in the Nicene Creed, and in that which was offered to the
Council by Eusebius as the ancient Creed of Cæsarea. It
probably formed part of the Creed of Jerusalem, though it is not found
in the titles of the Lectures, nor specially explained.
8. Having been sufficiently instructed in
these things, keep them, I beseech you, in your remembrance; that I
also, unworthy though I be, may say of you, Now I love
you
(On the Mysteries. III.)
On Chrism.
But ye have an unction from the Holy One, &c..…that, when He shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before Him at His coming.
1. Having been
baptized into Christ, and put on Christ ἀντίτυπον.
Cat. xx. 6; xxiii. 20. Twice in this section as in εἰκονικῶς
.…εἰκόνες τοῦ
Χριστοῦ. χρώτων, literally
“tinctures.” The Ben. Ed. writes: “For
φώτων we
have written χρώτων with Codd. Coisl.
Ottob. Roe, Casaub., &c…But we must write χρώτων from
χρῶτα, not
χρῶτων from χρῶτες. Authors
use the word χρῶτα to signify the
effluence of an odour. So Gregory of Nyssa takes it in his 3rd
Homily on the Song of Songs, p. 512; and S. Maximus in
Question 37 on Scripture: ‘χρῶτα we say is the
godliness (εὐσέβειαν) whereby S. Paul was to the one a savour of life unto
life.’…In the Procatechesis, § 15,
Cyril calls the waters of Baptism ὑδάτων
χριστοφόρων
ἐχόντων
εὐωδίαν. If however
any one prefers the reading φώτων, he may defend
himself by the authority of Epiphanius, who in the Exposition of the
Faith, c. 15, says that Christ descending into the water gave
rather than received,.…illuminating them, and empowering them for
a type of what was to be accomplished in Him.” According to
the Ebionite Gospel of St. Matthew in Epiphanius
(Hær. xxx. Ebionitæ. c. 13), when
Jesus came up out of the water a great light shone around the
place: a tradition to which the Benedictine Editor thinks the
reading φώτων may refer.
Justin M. (Dialog. c. lxxxviii.): “When Jesus had
stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan.”
Otto quotes the legend, as found in Orac. Sibyll. vii.
81–83:— ῞Ος σε
Λόγον
γέννησε
Πατήρ Πνεῦμ᾽
ὄρνιν
ἄφηκεν, ᾽Οξὺν
ἀπαγγελτῆρα
λόγων, Λόγον
ὕδασιν
ἁγνοῖς ῾Ραίνων, σὸν
Βάπτισμα δι᾽
οὗ πυρὸς
ἐξεφαάνθης
. οὐσιώδης
ἐπιφοίησις
ἐγένετο. The
Benedictine Editor understands this phrase as an allusion to the
descent of the Holy Ghost on Jesus in a substantial bodily form.
So Gregory Nazianzen (Orat xliv. 17), says that the Holy
Ghost descended on the Apostles οὐσιωδῶς
καὶ
σωματικῶς.
But Anastasius Sinaita interprets οὐσιωδῶς in this
latter passage as meaning “in the essence and reality of His
(Divine ) Person:” and this latter sense agreeing with the
frequent use of οὐσιωδής
by Athanasius is well rendered by Canon Mason (The Relation of
Confirmation to Baptism, p. 343, “in the fulness of His
being.” Cf. Greg. Naz.
Orat. xxxix: “The Sprit also bears witness to His
Godhead, for he comes to that which is like Himself.” Cf. Tertullian, De
Baptismo, c. 7: “Exinde egressi de lavacro perungimur
benedictâ unctione.” It is clear that the Unction
mentioned in these passages was conferred at the same time and place as
Baptism. Whether it formed part of that Sacrament, or was
regarded by Cyril as a separate and independent rite, has been made a
matter of controversy. See Index, “Chrism.”
2. For Christ was not anointed by men with
oil or material ointment, but the Father having before appointed Him to
be the Saviour of the whole world, anointed Him with the Holy Ghost, as
Peter says, Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy
Ghost νοητῷ cannot here be translated
“spiritual” because of πνευματίκῆς
immediately following. Cf. i. 4, note.
Compare xix. 7;
xxiii. 7, 19; and the section on “Eucharist” in the
Introduction. Χριστοῦ
χάρισμα καὶ
Πνεύματος
ἁγίου
παρουσίᾳ τῆς
αὐτοῦ
Θεότητος
ἐνεργητικὸν
γινόμενον.
The meaning of this passage seems to have been obscured by divergent
views of the order and construction of the words. In the Oxford
translation, followed by Dr. Pusey (Real Presence, p. 357), the
Chrism is “the gift of Christ, and by the presence of His godhead
it causes in us the Holy Ghost.” The order of the
operations proper to the two Divine Persons seems thus to be
inverted. According to the Benedictine Editor, and Canon
Mason (Relation of Confirmation to Baptism, p. 344), it is
“Christ’s gracious gift, and is made effectual to convey
the Holy Ghost by the presence of His own Godhead,”—i.e.
apparently, the Godhead of the Holy Ghost conveys the Holy
Ghost. But according to the context “the
presence” must be that of the Divine Person who has been invoked,
namely the Holy Ghost: and this is clearly expressed in the order
of the words Πνεύματος
ἁγίου
παρουσίᾳ τῆς
αὐτοῦ
θεότητος
ἐνεργητικόν.
The connexion of the words Πν.
ἁγ.
παρουσίᾳ is put beyond
doubt by the Invocation in the Liturgy of S. James quoted in
Myst. V. 7, note 8. The true meaning thus seems to be that
the Chrism is Christ’s gift of grace, and imparts His Divine
nature by the presence of the Holy Ghost after the Invocation.
This meaning is confirmed by the formula given in Apost. Const.
vii. 44, for the consecration of the Chrism: “Grant also
now that this ointment may be made effectual in the baptized, that the
sweet savour of Thy Christ may remain firm and stable in him, and that,
having died with Him, he may rise again and live with Him.”
The Chrism is thus regarded as “the Seal” which confirms
the proper benefits of Baptism. ἐπὶ
μετώπου καὶ
τῶν ἄλλων σου
αἰσθητηρίων.
The forehead may be regarded as representing the sense of touch; or we
may translate, according to the idiomatic use of ἄλλος, “thy forehead and
thine organs of sense besides.” See Winer, Grammar of
N.T. Greek, P. III. Sect. lix. 7: Riddell, Digest of
Platonic Idioms, § 46.
4. And ye were first anointed on the
forehead, that ye might be delivered from the shame, which the first
man who transgressed bore about with him everywhere; and that with
unveiled face ye might reflect as a mirror the glory of the
Lord
5. Having been counted worthy of this Holy Chrism, ye are called Christians, verifying the name also by your new birth. For before you were deemed worthy of this grace, ye had properly no right to this title, but were advancing on your way towards being Christians.
6. Moreover, you should know that in the old
Scripture there lies the symbol of this Chrism. For what time
Moses imparted to his brother the command of God, and made him
High-priest, after bathing in water, he anointed him; and Aaron was
called Christ or Anointed, evidently from the typical Chrism. So
also the High-priest, in advancing Solomon to the kingdom, anointed him
after he had bathed in Gihon
7. Keep This unspotted: for it shall
teach you all things, if it abide in you, as you have just heard
declared by the blessed John, discoursing much concerning this
Unction
(On the Mysteries. IV.)
On the Body and Blood of Christ.
I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, &c.
1. Even of
itself αὐτή found in all mss. is changed for the worse into αὕτη by the Benedictine
Editor. Introduction,
“Eucharist.” The word σύσσωμοι
has a different sense in
2. He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the
water into wine, akin to blood οἰκεῖον
αἵματι. Cod. Scirlet.
(Grodecq), Mesm. (Morel), Vindob.; Ben. Ed. οἰκείῳ
νεύματι, Codd. Monac. 1, 2,
Genovef. Vatt. (Prevot.). Rupp. The whole passage is omitted in
Codd. Coisl. R. Casaub. owing to the repetition of αἷμα The reading οἰκείῳ
νεύματι, “by His own
will,” introduces a superfluous thought, and destroys the very
point of Cyril’s argument, in which the previous change of water
into an element so different as wine is regarded as giving an a
fortiori probability to the change of that which is already
“akin to blood” into blood itself. If Cyril thus seems to teach a physical
change of the wine, it must be remembered that we are not bound to
accept his view, but only to state it accurately. See however the
section of the Introduction on his Eucharistic doctrine. ἐθαυματούργησε
τὴν
παραδοξοποιίαν.
Cf. Chrysost. Epist. I. ad Olympiad. de Deo, § 1,
c.: τότε
θαυματουργεῖ
καὶ
παραδοξοποιεῖ. Ben. Ed.:
“That the force of Cyril’s argument may be the better
understood, we must observe that in Baptism is celebrated the marriage
of Christ with the Christian soul; and that the consummation of this
marriage is perfected through the union of bodies in the mystery of the
Eucharist. Read Chrysostom’s Hom. xx. in
Ephes.” Chrysostom’s words are: “In
like manner therefore we become one flesh with Christ by participation
(μετουσίας).”
But the participation expressed by μετουσία does not
necessarily refer to the Eucharist. From the use of the word in
Cat. xxiii. 11, and in Athanasius (Contra Arianos, Or. i.; de
Synodis. 19, 22, 25) the meaning rather seems to be that we are one
flesh with Christ not by nature but by His gift.
3. Wherefore with full assurance let us
partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the
figure See Index, Τύπος, and the
references there, and Waterland, On the Eucharist, c.
vii. Χριστοφόροι
γινόμεθα. Procat.
15. Ben. Ed.:
“᾽Αναδιδομένου.
The Codices Coisl. Roe, Casaub. Scirlet. Ottob. 2. Genovef. have
ἀναδεδεγμένοι,
which does not agree well with the Genitives τοῦ
σώματος and τοῦ
αἵματος. It is evident
that it was an ill-contrived emendation of ἀναδιδομένου,
the transcribers being offended at the distribution of Christ’s
Body among our members. But Cyril uses even the same word in Cat.
xxiii. 9: Οὗτος ὁ
ἄρτος.…εἰς
πᾶσάν σου τὴν
σύστασιν
ἀναδίδοται,
εἰς ὠφέλειαν
σώματος καὶ
ψυχῆς, ‘This Bread is
distributed into thy whole system, to the benefit of body and
soul.’” ᾽Αναδιδομένου
is the reading of Milles and Rupp. For similar language see
Justin M. Apol. i. 66; Iren. V. ii. 2.
4. Christ on a certain occasion discoursing
with the Jews said, Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood, ye
have no life in you
5. In the Old Testament also there was
shew-bread; but this, as it belonged to the Old Testament, has come to
an end; but in the New Testament there is Bread of heaven, and a Cup of
salvation, sanctifying soul and body; for as the Bread corresponds to
our body, so is the Word Ben. Ed.:
“Here we are to understand (by ὁ Λόγος) the Divine Word, not the
bare discourse of God, but the second Person of the Holy Trinity,
Christ Himself, the Bread of Heaven, as He testifies of Himself,
6. Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to thee, yet let faith establish thee. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to thee.
7. Also the blessed David shall advise thee
the meaning of this, saying, Thou hast prepared a table before me in
the presence of them that afflict me ἠλισγημένην,
a good restoration by Milles, with Codd. Roe, Casaub. Coislin.
The earlier printed texts had ἠλυγισμένην,
“overshadowed.” Cf. Cyril refers to the
idolatrous feasts, which St. Paul calls “the table of
devils,”
8. Therefore Solomon also, hinting at this
grace, says in Ecclesiastes, Come hither, eat thy bread with joy
(that is, the spiritual bread; Come hither, he calls with the
call to salvation and blessing), and drink thy wine with a merry
heart (that is, the spiritual wine); and let oil be poured out
upon thy head (thou seest he alludes even to the mystic Chrism);
and let thy garments be always white, for the Lord is well pleased
with thy works For προσέλθῃς
(Bened.) we must read προσῆλθες,
or, with Monac. 1, προσελθεῖν.
9. Having learnt these things, and been
fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to
taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine,
though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ On this passage
see the section of the Introduction referred to in the Index,
“Eucharist.”
(On the Mysteries. V.)
On the Sacred Liturgy and
Communion This title is added by
the Benedictine Editor. There is nothing corresponding to it in
the Greek.
Wherefore putting away all filthiness, and all guile,
and evil speaking The text is made up
from memory of
1. By the loving-kindness of God ye have heard sufficiently at our former meetings concerning Baptism, and Chrism, and partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ; and now it is necessary to pass on to what is next in order, meaning to-day to set the crown on the spiritual building of your edification.
2. Ye have seen then the Deacon who gives to
the Priest water to wash In the
Apostolic Constitutions, VIII. xi, this duty is assigned to a
sub-deacon: “Let one of the sub-deacons bring water to wash
the hands of the priests, which is a symbol of the purity of those
souls that are devoted to God.” See Dictionary of
Christian Antiquities, “Lavabo.” The Priest who
celebrates the Eucharist is here distinguished by the title
ἱερεύς from the other Presbyters
who stood round the altar. Cyril evidently
refers to the custom of placing vessels of water outside the entrance
of the Church. Bingham, Antiquities, VIII. iii. 6.
Chrysost. In Johannem Hom. lxxiii. 3: “Do we
then wash our hands when going into Church, and shall we not wash our
hearts also?” That the same custom was observed in heathen
Temples appears from Herod. I. 51: περιῤῥαντήρια
δύο ἀνέθηκε
(See Bähr’s note). Compare also Joseph. Ant.
Jud. III. vi. 2. [τῷ]
νίψασθαι. Rupp:
“Τῷ ex conjectura
addidi.” Possibly the original reading was νιψάμενοι,
which would easily become altered through the presence of νιψασθαι in the
preceding line. This washing is not mentioned in the Liturgy of
St. James. ἀνυπεύθυνος.
3. Then the Deacon cries aloud,
“Receive ye one another; and let us kiss one another These two directions
by the Deacon are separated in the Liturgy of St. James: after
the dismissal of the Catechumens, the Deacon says, “Take note one
of another;” and after the Incense, Cherubic hymn, Oblation,
Creed, and a short prayer “that we may be united one to another
in the bond of peace and charity,” the Deacon says, “Let us
salute (ἀγαπῶμεν)
one another with a holy kiss.” In the Apostolic
Constitutions, VIII. 11, there is but one such direction, and this
comes before the washing of hands and the dismissal of the Catechumens,
“Salute (ἀσπάσασθε) ye one
another with a holy kiss.”
4. After this the Priest cries aloud,
“Lift up your hearts The words are
slightly varied in the Liturgies: thus in the Liturgy of St.
James, “Let us lift up our mind and hearts;” in the
Apost. Const. viii. 12, “Lift up your
mind.”
5. Then the Priest says, “Let us give thanks unto the Lord.” For verily we are bound to give thanks, that He called us, unworthy as we were, to so great grace; that He reconciled us when we were His foes; that He vouchsafed to us the Spirit of adoption. Then ye say, “It is meet and right:” for in giving thanks we do a meet thing and a right; but He did not right, but more than right, in doing us good, and counting us meet for such great benefits.
6. After this, we make mention of heaven,
and earth, and sea Compare the noble
Eucharistic Preface in the Liturgy of St. James: “It is
verily meet, right, becoming, and our bounden duty to praise Thee, to
sing of Thee, to bless Thee, to worship Thee, to glorify Thee, to give
thanks to Thee the Maker of every creature, visible and invisible, the
Treasure of eternal blessings; the Fount of life and immortality, the
God and Lord of all, whom the heavens of heavens do praise, and all the
powers thereof, sun and moon and all the choir of the stars, earth,
sea, and all that in them is, Jerusalem the heavenly assembly, Church
of the firstborn that are written in the heavens, spirits of righteous
men and prophets, souls of martyrs and Apostles. Angels,
Archangels, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Authorities, and Powers
dread, also the many-eyed Cherubim, and the six-winged Seraphim, which
with twain of their wings cover their faces, and with twain their feet,
and with twain do fly, crying one to another with unresting lips, in
unceasing praises, singing with loud voice the triumphant hymn of Thy
majestic glory, shouting, and glorifying, and crying aloud, and
saying,—Holy, Holy, Holy, O Lord of Hosts, heaven and earth are
full of Thy glory. Hosanna in the highest; blessed is He that
cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.” θεολογίαν,
“the doctrine of the Godhead,” either of the Son in
particular, or, as here, of the whole Trinity: cf. Athanas.
Contra Arianos, Or. i. § 18: νῦν ἐν
τρίαδι ἡ
θεολογία
τελεία
ἐστίν.
7. Then having sanctified ourselves by these
spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy
Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the
Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ In the Liturgy of St.
James the Triumphal Hymn is followed by the ‘Recital of the work
of Redemption,’ and of ‘the Institution,’ by the
‘Great Olbation,’ and then by the ‘Invocation,’
as follows: “Have mercy upon us, O God, after Thy great
mercy, and send forth on us, and on these gifts here set before Thee,
Thine all-holy Spirit,.…that He may come, and by His holy, good,
and glorious advent (παρουσίᾳ)
may sanctify this Bread and make it the holy Body of Thy Christ
(Amen), and this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ”
(Amen). In Cat. xix. 7, Cyril calls this prayer “the
holy Invocation of the Adorable Trinity,” and in xxi. 3,
“the Invocation of the Holy Ghost.”
8. Then, after the spiritual sacrifice, the
bloodless service, is completed, over that sacrifice of
propitiation See Index,
“Sacrifice,” and the reference there to the
Introduction. Compare Athenagoras (Apol. c. xiii.):
“What have I to do with burnt-offerings, of which God has no
need? Though indeed it behoves us to bring a bloodless sacrifice,
and the reasonable service.” Cyril here gives a
brief summary of the “Great Intercession,” in which,
according to the common text of the Liturgy of St. James, there is a
suffrage “for the peace and welfare (εὐστάθεια)
of the whole world, and of the holy Churches of God.” Mr.
Hammond thinks that it has been taken from the Deacon’s Litany,
and repeated by mistake in the Great Intercession. But from
Chrysostom’s language (In Ep. ad Phil. Hom. iii. p. 218;
Guame, T. xi. p. 251), we must infer that the prayer ὑπὲρ εἰρήνης
καὶ
εὐσταθείας
τοῦ κόσμου
formed part of the ‘Great Intercession’ in his
Liturgy, as it does in the Clementine (Apost. Constit. VIII.
§ 10).
9. Then we commemorate also those who have
fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs,
that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our
petition In the Liturgies
of St. James and St. Mark, and in the Clementine, there are similar
commemorations of departed saints, especially “patriarchs,
prophets, apostles, martyrs,” but nothing corresponding to the
words, “that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive
our petition.” See Index, Prayer and
Intercession. So Chrysostom
(In 1 Cor. Hom. 41, p. 457 A): “Not in vain
was this rule ordained by the Apostles, that in the dread Mysteries
remembrance should be made of the departed: for they knew that it
is a great gain to them, and a great benefit.”
10. And I wish to persuade you by an
illustration. For I know that many say, what is a soul profited,
which departs from this world either with sins, or without sins, if it
be commemorated in the prayer? For if a king were to banish
certain who had given him offence, and then those who belong to
them οἱ τούτοις
διαφέροντες.
“Hesychius, Διαφέρει,
ἀνήκει. Ubi Kusterus ait,
ἀνήκει, id est.
“pertinet,” vel “attinet” Routh,
Scriptor. Eccles. Opuscula, p. 441). Dr. Routh’s
note refers to Nicæni Conc. Can. xvi.: ὑφαρπάσαι
τὸν τῷ ἑτέρῳ
διαφέροντα.
Cf. Synodi Nic. ad Alexandrinos Epist.: διαφέροντα
τῇ Αἰγύπτῳ
καὶ τῂ
ἁγιωτάτῃ
᾽Αλεξανδρέων
ἐκκλησία. According to the Ben.
Ed. the meaning is not “We offer Christ, who was sacrificed for
our sins,” but “We offer for our sins Christ
sacrificed,” i.e. “Christ lying on the altar as a victim
sacrificed,” in allusion to
11. Then, after these things, we say that
Prayer which the Saviour delivered to His own disciples, with a pure
conscience entitling God our Father, and saying, Our Father, which
art in heaven. O most surpassing loving-kindness of
God! On them who revolted from Him and were in the very extreme
of misery has He bestowed such a complete forgiveness of evil deeds,
and so great participation of grace, as that they should even call Him
Father. Our Father, which art in heaven; and they also are
a heaven who bear the image of the heavenly
12. Hallowed be Thy Name. The
Name of God is in its nature holy, whether we say so or not; but since
it is sometimes profaned among sinners, according to the words,
Through you My Name is continually blasphemed among the
Gentiles
13. Thy kingdom come. A pure
soul can say with boldness, Thy kingdom come; for he who has
heard Paul saying, Let not therefore sin reign in your mortal
body
14. Thy will be done as in heaven so on
earth. God’s divine and blessed Angels do the will of
God, as David said in the Psalm, Bless the Lord, all ye Angels of
His, mighty in strength, that do His pleasure
15. Give us this day our substantial
bread. This common bread is not substantial bread, but this
Holy Bread is substantial, that is, appointed for the substance of the
soul “It is manifest
that the author derives the word ἐπιούσιος from the
two words ἐπί and οὐσία, as do many others:
although the explanation which derives it from ἐπιούσῃ
ἡμέρᾳ is more probable. We
render it “substantial” in accordance with Cyril’s
meaning, with which the word “super-substantial does not
agree” (Ben. Ed.). Cat. xxii. § 3,
note 1. Ben. Ed. “We are not to think that Cyril supposed
the Body of Christ to be distributed and digested into our body; but in
the usual way of speaking he attributes to the Holy Body that which
belongs only to the species under which It is hidden. Nor does he
deny that those species pass into the draught, but only the Body of
Christ.” Cf. Iren. V. ii. 2, 3, and “Eucharistic
Doctrine” in the Introduction.
16. And forgive us our debts as we also
forgive our debtors. For we have many sins. For we
offend both in word and in thought, and very many things we do worthy
of condemnation; and if we say that we have no sin, we lie, as
John says
17. And lead us not into temptation, O
Lord. Is this then what the Lord teaches us to pray, that we
may not be tempted at all? How then is it said elsewhere,
“a man untempted, is a man unproved Tertull. De
Bapt. c. 20: “For the word had gone before
‘that no one untempted should attain to the celestial
kingdoms.’” Apost. Const. II. viii.:
“The Scripture says, ‘A man that is a reprobate
(ἀδόκιμος) is not
tried (ἀπείραστος)
by God.’” Resch, Agrapha, Logion 26, p. 188,
quotes allusions to the saying in ἀπεπνίγη.
Compare the
description of Peter’s repentance in Cat. ii. 19. For ἐμπαρῆναι the Ben.
Ed. conjectures ἐμπαγῆναι
“to have been stuck fast.”
18. But deliver us from the
evil. If Lead us not into temptation implied the not
being tempted at all, He would not have said, But deliver us from
the evil. Now evil is our adversary the devil, from whom we
pray to be delivered Cyril is here a clear
witness for the reference of τοῦ
πονηροῦ to “the wicked
one.” From § 14,
εὐχόμενος
τοῦτο
λέγεις, it seems probable that
the whole Prayer was said by the people as well as by the Priest.
See Introduction, “Eucharistic Rites.”
19. After this the Priest says, “Holy
things to holy men.” Holy are the gifts presented, having
received the visitation of the Holy Ghost; holy are ye also, having
been deemed worthy of the Holy Ghost; the holy things therefore
correspond to the holy persons Compare Waterland on
this passage, c. X. p 688. Apost. Const.
VIII. c. xiii: “Let the Bishop speak thus to the
people: Holy things for holy persons. And let the people
answer: There is One that is holy; there is one Lord, one Jesus
Christ, blessed for ever, to the glory of God the Father.”
The Liturgies of St. James and of Constantinople have nearly the same
words: in the Liturgy of St. Mark the answer of the people
is: One Father holy, one Son holy, one Spirit holy, in the unity
of the Holy Spirit.
20. After this ye hear the chanter inviting
you with a sacred melody to the communion of the Holy Mysteries, and
saying, O taste and see that the Lord is good For μὴ
ἐπιτρέπητε,
probably an itacism, we should read μὴ
ἐπιτρέπεται,
as a question, the propriety of the change being indicated by the
answer οὐχί. “Is the judgment
of this entrusted to the bodily palate? No, but,
&c.” ἀντιτύπου
σώματος, “the
antitypical Body,” not “the antitype of the Body,”
which would require τοῦ
σώματος. Cf. Cat. xxi.
§ 1, note 6.
21. In approaching Cat. xviii. 32:
“with what reverence and order you must go from Baptism to the
Holy Altar of God.” Cyril appears to be
the earliest authority for thus placing the hands in the form of a
Cross. A similar direction is given in the 101st Canon of the
Trullan Council (692), and by Joh. Damasc. (De Fid.
Orthod. iv. 14). Dict. Chr. Ant.
“Communion.” That the communicant was to
receive the Bread in his own hands is clear from the language of Cyril
and other Fathers. Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. c. i.
§ 5: “Some after dividing the Eucharist according to
custom allow each of the laity himself to take his part.”
See the passage of Origen quoted in the next note, and Tertull. Cor.
Mil. c. iii. “The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the
Lord commanded both (to be taken) at meal-times and by all, we take
even in assemblies before dawn, and from the hand of none but the
presidents.” Origen. Hom.
xiii. in Exod. § 3: “I wish to admonish you by
examples from your own religion: ye, who have been accustomed to
attend the Sacred Mysteries, know how, when you receive the Body of the
Lord, you guard it with all care and reverence, that no little part of
it fall down, no portion of the consecrated gift slip away. For
you believe yourselves guilty, and rightly so believe, if any part
thereof fall through carelessness.”
22. Then after thou hast partaken of the
Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching
forth thine hands, but bending κύπτων, not kneeling, but
standing in a bowing posture. Cf. Bingham, XV. c. 5, §
3. Apost. Const.
VIII. c. 13: “Let the Bishop give the Oblation (προσφοράν) saying, The Body of Christ. And let him that receiveth
say, Amen. And let the Deacon hold the Cup, and when he
delivers it say, The Blood of Christ, the Cup of Life. And
let him that drinketh say, Amen.” Cat. xxi. 3, note
8. In the Liturgy
of St. James, after all have communicated, “The Deacons and
the People say: Fill our mouths with Thy praise, O Lord, and
fill our lips with joy, that we may sing of Thy glory, of Thy
greatness, all the day. And again: We render thanks
to Thee, Christ our God, that Thou hast accounted us worthy to partake
of Thy Body and Blood, &c.”
Select Orations
of
Saint Gregory Nazianzen,
Sometime Archbishop of Constantinople.
Translated by
Charles Gordon Browne, M.A.,
Rector of Lympstone, Devon;
and
James Edward Swallow, M.A.,
Chaplain of the House of Mercy, Horbury.
Prolegomena.
————————————
Section I.—The Life.
S. Gregory Nazianzen, called by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus “The Great,” and universally known as “The Theologian” or “The Divine,” a title which he shares with S. John the Evangelist alone among the Fathers of the Church, was, like the great Basil of Cæsarea and his brother Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, by birth a Cappadocian. He was born at Arianzus, a country estate belonging to his father, in the neighbourhood of Nazianzus.
This latter, sometimes called Nazianzum, is a place quite unknown to early writers, and derives all its importance from its connection with our Saint. The Romans seem to have called it Diocæsarea. This would place it in the south-western portion of the district called Cappadocia Secunda, a sub-division of the Province, which had previously included the whole country of Cappadocia under the Prefect of Cæsarea. The Emperor Valens made the division for financial purposes about a.d. 371, and assigned Tyana as its civil Metropolis, and, as we shall see, thereby caused an ecclesiastical quarrel which had considerable effect on the life of S. Gregory. Tyana was situated at no great distance south and east of Nazianzus, which place is usually identified with some interesting ruins about eighteen miles south-east of Ak Serai, on a rocky platform at the foot of the mountains called Hassan Dagh. Amongst other ruined buildings here are the remains of three Byzantine churches of great age, but more recent than the rest of the town.
His father, who bore the same name with himself,
had originally belonged to an obscure sect called Hypsistarians or
Hypsistians, of whom we know little except what we learn from Gregory
of Nazianzus and his namesake of Nyssa. They seem to have held a
sort of syncretist doctrine, containing elements derived from heathen,
Christian, and Jewish sources. They were very strict monotheists,
rejecting both polytheism and the doctrine of the Trinity, and
worshipping the One Supreme Being under the names of The Most High and
The Almighty, and the emblems of Fire and Light, but with no external
cultus; for they rejected sacrifice and every outward form of worship,
holding adoration to be an exclusively interior and spiritual
act. With singular inconsistency, however, they adopted the
observance of the Jewish Sabbath, and the Levitical prohibition of
certain kinds of food. They were but few in number, and their
influence was insignificant even in Cappadocia, which was the
headquarters of sect. ἐκ
δύοιν
ἐναντιωτάτοιν
συγκεκραμένης,
ἑλληνικῆς τε
καὶ νομικῆς
τερατείας·
ὧν αμφοτέρων
τὰ μέρη
φυγὼν, ἐκ
μέρων
συνετέθη.
Τῆς μέν γὰρ
τὰ εἴδωλα καὶ
τὰς θυσίας
ἀποπεμπόμενοι,
τιμῶσι τὸ πῦρ
καὶ τὰ λυχνα·
τῆς δὲ τὸ
σάββατον
αἰδούμενοι
καὶ τὰ περὶ
τὰ βρώματά
ἐστιν ἃ
μικρολογίαν,
τὴν
περιτομὴν
ἀτιμάζουσιν.—Or.
xviii. 5.
Nonna, the mother of our Saint, was the daughter of
Christian parents, and had been very carefully brought up. Like
S. John Chrysostom and S. Augustine, Gregory had the inestimable
advantage of being reared at the knee of a mother of conspicuous
holiness. There Carm. de vita sua,
511. Ib. 339.
As soon as the children’s age permitted, Gregory and his brother Cæsarius were sent to school at Cæsarea, under the care of a good man named Carterius, who as long as he lived retained a great influence over the mind of his elder pupil. This is perhaps the same Carterius who afterwards presided over the monasteries of Antioch in Syria, and was one of the instructors of S. John Chrysostom. The following is a free rendering of one of four funeral epigrams written in later years by our Saint in honour of his old friend and tutor:
“Whither, Carterius, best beloved of friends,
O whither hast thou gone, and left me here
Alone amid the many toils of earth?
Thou who didst hold the rudder of my youth,
When in another land I learned to weigh
The words and stories of a learned age;
Thou who didst bind me to the uncarnal life.
Truly the Christ, whom thou possessest now,
Took thee unto Himself, the King thou lov’st.
O thou bright lightning of most glorious Christ,
Thou best protection of my early days,
Thou charioteer of all my younger life,
Remember now the Gregory whom erst
Thou trainedst in the ways of virtuous life,
Carterius, master of the life of grace.”
It was probably at Cæsarea that the acquaintance
between Gregory and S. Basil the Great began, which was afterwards to
ripen into a lifelong friendship. But their association did
What time I parted from Egyptian shores, Whence I had somewhat culled of ancient lore, We weighed, and under Cyprus cut the waves In a straight course for Hellas, when there rose A mighty strife of winds, and shook the ship; And all was night; earth, seas, and darkened skies; And thunders echoed to the lightning’s shock. Whistled the rigging of the swelling sails, And bent the mast; the helm had lost its power, For none could hold it in the raging seas. The ship was filled with overwhelming waves; Mingled the shout of sailor, and the cries Of helmsman, captain, and of passenger, And those who till that fearful hour had been Unconscious of a God; for fear can teach. And, worst of all our dread impending woes, No water had we, for the ship began To labour, and the beakers soon were broke Which held our treasure of sweet water scant; And famine fought with surging and with storm To slay us. But God sent a swift release. For Punic sailors suddenly appeared, Who in their own sore terror soon perceived By our sad cries our danger, and with oars (For they were strong) came up and saved our barque And us, who now all but sea-corpses were; Like fish forsaken of their native wave, Or lamp that dies for want of nourishment. But while we all were fearing sudden death, Mine was a worse, because a secret, fear. The cleansing waters ne’er had passed on me, That slay our foe and join us to our God. This was my lamentation, this my dread. For this I stretched my hands and cried to God, And cried above the noise of surging waves, And rent my clothes, and lay in misery. But, though ye scarce believe it, yet ‘tis true, All those on whom our common danger pressed Forgot themselves, and came and prayed with me. And Thou wast then, O Christ, my great defence, Who now deliverest from the storm of life. For when no good hope dawned upon our eyes, Nor isle, nor continent, nor mountain top, Nor torch, nor star to light the mariners, Nor small nor great of earthly things appeared, What port was left for troubled sailor-folk? Despairing of all else, I look to thee; Life, breath, salvation, light, and strength to men, Who frightest, smitest, smilest, healest all, And ever weavest good from human ill. I call to mind Thy wonders of old time, By which we recognize Thy mighty hand; The sea divided—Israel’s host brought through— Their foes defeated by Thy lifted hand— And Egypt crushed by scourges, chiefs and all— Nature subdued, and walls thrown down by shout. And, adding mine to those old famous acts, Thine own, I said, am I, both erst and now; Twice shalt Thou take me for Thine own, a gift Of earth and sea, a doubly hallowed gift, By prayers of mother and by fateful sea. To Thee I live, if I escape the waves, And gain baptismal dews; and Thou wilt lose A faithful servant if Thou cast me off, E’en now Thine own disciple, in the deep; Shake off for me Thy slumber, and arise, And stay my fear. So prayed I—and the noise Of winds grew still, the surges ceased, the ship Held straight upon her course; my prayer was
heard.
The city of Athens at this time was full of dangerous
distractions for young men; feasts, theatres, assemblies, wine parties,
etc. Gregory and his friend resolved to renounce all these, and
to allow themselves to know only two roads—one, that which led to
the Church and its holy teachers; the other, that which took them to
their University lectures. Amongst other famous students of
Gregory’s day was Prince Julian, afterwards the Emperor who
apostatized and endeavoured to restore the ancient heathenism, and
galvanize it into something like a new life. Gregory claims even
at this early period to have foreseen and dreaded the result of
Julian’s accession. “I had long foreseen,” he
says, “how matters would be, from the time that I was with him at
Athens. He had come there shortly after the violent measures
against his brother, having asked permission of the Emperor to do
so. He had two reasons for this sojourn—the one more
honest, namely, to visit Greece and its schools, the other more secret
and known only to a few persons, namely, to consult with the heathen
priests and charlatans about his plans, because his wickedness was not
as yet declared. Even then I made no bad guess about the man,
although I am not one of those skilled in such matters; but I was made
a prophet by the unevenness of his disposition and the very unsettled
condition of his mind. I used these very words about him:
‘What an evil the Roman State is nourishing,’ though
I prefaced them with a wish that I might prove a false prophet.”
In solitude, Basil thinks, it is possible altogether to tame the passions, like wild beasts, by gentle treatment; to lull them to sleep, to disarm them. By turning away the soul from the enticements of sense, and withdrawing into one’s self for the contemplation of God and of Eternal Beauty, it is possible to raise man to a forgetfulness of natural wants, and to a spiritual freedom from care. The means to this spiritual elevation are in his view the reading of Holy Scripture, which sets before us rules of life—but especially the pictures of the lives of godly men; Prayer which draws down the Godhead to us, and makes our mind a pure abode for It; and an earnest silence, more inclined to learn than to teach, but by no means morose or unfriendly. At the same time Basil desires that the outward appearance of one who thus practises solitude shall be in keeping with his inner life; with humble downcast eye, and dishevelled hair, in dirty untidy clothes he must go about, neither lazily loitering nor passionately quick, but quietly. His garment, girt upon his loins with a belt, is to be coarse, not of a bright colour, suited for both summer and winter, close enough to keep the body warm without additional clothing; and his shoes adapted to their purpose, but without ornament. For food, let him use only the most necessary, chiefly vegetables; for drink, water—at least in health. For mealtime, which begins and ends with prayer, one hour is to be fixed. Sleep is to be short, light, and never so dead as to let the soul be open to the impressions of corrupting dreams.
But Gregory does not appear to have stayed long in Basil’s Monastery;—although Rufinus speaks of a sojourn of thirteen years. This cannot for chronological reasons have been a continuous stay, although it is true that Basil’s monastic life in Pontus, and Gregory’s various visits to him there extended over a period of about that length, from his first retirement in 357 to his consecration to the Episcopate in 370. It was after about three years that Gregory returned to Nazianzus (360), possibly, as Ullmann suggests, because of circumstances which had arisen at his home, which seemed to call imperatively for his presence in the interests of the peace of the Diocese, and for the assistance which he might, though a layman, be able to give to his aged Father, who had got into trouble through a piece of imprudent conduct.
The Emperor Constantius, who was an Arian, had in
359 assembled at Ariminum (the modern Rimini) a Council of 400 Western
Bishops, and these, partly duped, partly compelled by the Imperial
Officers, had put out a Creed, which, while acknowledging the proper
Deity of the Son, and confessing Him to be Like the Father, omitted to say Like In
All Points, and refused the word Consubstantial; thus, while condemning the extreme
followers of Arius, favouring the views of the Semi-Arian party.
At the same time another Synod, of 150 Eastern Bishops, was assembled
under Court influence at Seleucia, and promulgated a similar
formula. The Bishop of Nazianzus, though still as always a
staunch upholder of Nicene orthodoxy, was in some way induced to attach
his signature to this compromising Creed; and this action led to most
important consequences. The Monks of his Diocese took the matter
up with the usual earnestness of Religious, and, with several also of
the Bishops, withdrew from Communion with their own Bishop. This
may have been the reason for his son’s return. He induced
his Father to apologize for his involuntary error and to put out an
orthodox Confession, and so he healed the schism. To this period
belongs his first Oration on Peace; in which, after an eloquent
encomium on the Religious life, he sets forth the blessings of peace
and concord, and contrasts them with the misery of discord; begging the
people to be very slow indeed on this account to sever themselves from
the Communion of those whom they think to be erring brethren; and
thanking God for the restoration of peace. He concludes
“Would to God that none of us may perish, but that we may all abide in one spirit, with one soul labouring together for the faith of the Gospel, of one mind, minding the same thing, armed with the shield of faith, girt about the loins with truth, knowing only the one war against the Evil One, and those who fight under his orders, not fearing them that kill the body but cannot lay hold of the soul; but fearing Him Who is the Lord both of soul and body; guarding the good deposit which we have received from our fathers, adoring Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, knowing the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Holy Ghost—into which Names we were baptized, in Which we have believed, under Whose banner we have been enlisted ; dividing Them before we combine Them, and combining before we divide; not receiving the Three as one Person (for They are not impersonal, or names of one Person, as though our wealth lay in Names alone and not in facts), but the Three as one Thing. For They are One, not in Person, but in Godhead, Unity adored in Trinity, and Trinity summed up in Unity; all adorable, all royal, of one throne and one glory; above the world, above time, uncreated, invisible, impalpable, uncircumscript; in Its relation to Itself known only to Itself; but to us equally venerable and adorable; Alone dwelling in the Holiest, and leaving all creatures outside and shut off, partly by the First Veil, and partly also by the Second;—by the first, the heavenly and angelic host, parted from Godhead; and by the second, we men, severed from the Angels. This let us do; let this be our mind, Brethren; and those that are otherwise minded let us look upon as diseased in regard to the truth, and as far as may be, let us take and cure them; but if they be incurable let us withdraw from them, lest we share their disease before we impart to them our own health. And the God of Peace that passeth all understanding shall be with you in Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.”
Gregory the Elder was now aged and infirm, and began to feel his need of a Coadjutor in his pastoral duties. So, by the great desire of the people of Nazianzus, he ordained his son to the Priesthood, much against the will of the said son. This Ordination took place at some great Festival, probably at Christmas of the year 361. Gregory the Younger was much aggrieved at this gentle violence, which even in after years he describes as an act of tyranny, and says he cannot bring himself to speak of it in other terms, though he asks pardon of the Holy Spirit for his language. Immediately after his Ordination he made his escape to Pontus, apparently reaching Basil about Epiphany, 362. Here he had time for reflection on the obedience he now owed to his father, not only as son to father, but as Priest to Bishop; and with a truer view of his duty he returned to Nazianzus, where he was present in the Church on Easter day 362, and preached his first Sermon as a Priest, in apology for his reluctance. Strange to say, though it was so great a Festival, and though the preacher was so well known and so much beloved in Nazianzus, the congregation was very small;—probably many refrained from going to Church in order to mark their feeling about Gregory’s flight to Pontus. Anyhow he felt the discourtesy keenly, and in his next sermon took occasion to reprove them severely for their inconsistency in receiving him so badly after having compelled him for their sakes to finally renounce the solitude he loved so well. Of this discourse the Abbé Benoît speaks as follows:—
“It is not very long, and it seems to us a model
of the tact and art which a Minister of the Gospel ought to use in his
speech when just grievances compel him to address deserved reproaches
to the faithful. It would be impossible to blame with greater
force, to complain with
Gregory took the opportunity to write another very long Oration as his apology for his flight. In it he sets forth at great length his conception of the nature and responsibilities of the Priestly Office, and justifies himself both for having shrunk from such a charge, and for having so soon returned to take it up. It is very improbable that this Oration, numbered II. in the Benedictine Edition, was ever delivered vivâ voce; but it was published, and is a complete Treatise on the Priesthood, used both by S. John Chrysostom as the foundation of his Six Books on the Priesthood, and by S. Gregory the Great as the basis of his Treatise on the Pastoral Rule. It has also furnished material to many of the best Ecclesiastical writers of all ages.
Julian had now succeeded to the Empire, and had entered Constantinople in 361. He had by this time completely broken with the Church, and renounced even the outward semblance of Christianity. He persuaded Cæsarius, however, to retain his position at Court, hoping perhaps that he might succeed in perverting him. This was a matter of deep regret to his father and brother, and they felt, the latter says, obliged to keep the fact from the knowledge of his mother. Gregory wrote his brother a letter of most affectionate though earnest remonstrance; with the result that Cæsarius soon made up his mind to retire, and put his resolution in practice on the opportunity afforded by the departure of the Emperor from Constantinople to assume the direction of his campaign against the Persians. Nazianzus was not allowed to remain without attempts being made against its Christianity, for the Prefect of the Province was sent with an armed escort of considerable strength to demand possession of the Church. But the aged Bishop, supported by his son and by his people, boldly refused to comply with the Imperial commands, and there seemed such a probability of powerful resistance that the Prefect felt compelled to withdraw his force, and never came to Nazianzus again on such an errand. The Gregorys, father and son, frequently came into collision with Julian during his stay in Cappadocia on his way to Persia; and indeed it is not too much to say that the firm stand which they made on behalf of the right was, under God, the means of diverting the Emperor from his purpose of making a vehement assault upon the faith and rights of the Church in that Province. As the Abbé Benoît remarks, Julian saw that he must be careful in dealing with a province where Christian faith was such a living power, and where a simple village Bishop could dare to make so stout a stand against Imperial Authority; but he declared his intention of avenging himself upon his opponents on his return from his expedition. The Providence of God, however, interfered, and he never did return, but was defeated and killed.
In 363 or 364 Basil, like Gregory, was ordained Priest
much against his will. The Bishop of Cæsarea, Metropolitan
of Cappadocia, was Eusebius. He had been elected in 362 by a
popular clamour, while yet only a Catechumen, and was very unwillingly
consecrated by the Bishops of the Province. He felt it necessary
to have at hand a Priest who by his skill in Theology would be a help
to him in the controversies of the times, and he selected Basil.
But for some unknown reason, possibly no more than a certain jealousy
of Basil’s superior reputation and influence, within a very short
time Eusebius quarrelled with him, and endeavoured to deprive
him. This might easily have led to a serious schism, had Basil
been a self-seeking man, but as it was, he quietly retired to his
Community in Pontus, accompanied
Cæsarius meantime had returned to the Court
and had received from Valens a valuable piece of preferment in
Bithynia; but in the end of 368 or beginning of 369, having been
terrified by a great earthquake, during which he had been in
considerable danger, he was arranging matters for his final retirement,
when he was seized with illness, and very soon died, leaving all his
property, which must have amounted to a considerable sum, to his
brother in trust for the poor. He was buried at Nazianzus, and on
the occasion of his funeral his brother preached the Sermon which is
numbered VIII. in the Benedictine Edition. About the same time,
but a little later, Gorgonia also departed, and he preached a funeral
sermon on her too. Eusebius of Cæsarea died in 370, and
Basil at once wrote an urgent letter to Gregory, begging him to come to
Cæsarea, probably in order to get him elected Archbishop.
Gregory, however, declined to go, and he and his father exerted
themselves to the utmost of their power to procure the election of
Basil; the elder Gregory writing through his son two letters, one
addressed to the people of Cæsarea, the other to the Provincial
Synod, urging Basil’s claims very strongly. Though ill at
the time, he managed to convey himself to the Metropolis in time for
the meeting of the Synod; and Basil was elected and consecrated.
Gregory wrote him a letter of congratulation; not, however, a very warm
one; but when troubles began to arise he spoke out with all the fervour
of their early friendship in support of the Archbishop. About
this time Valens divided the civil Province of Cappadocia into two, one
of which had Cæsarea, the other Tyana, for its Metropolis.
Anthimus, Bishop of the latter See, thereupon claimed to be ipso
facto Metropolitan of the new Province, a claim which Basil
strenuously resisted, as savouring of what we call Erastianism. A
long dispute followed, in the course of which Basil, to assert his
rights as Metropolitan, and to strengthen his own hands, erected
several new Bishoprics in the disputed Province; and to one of these,
Sasima, a miserable little village he consecrated his friend Gregory,
almost by force. Gregory was, not unnaturally, indignant at this
treatment; while Basil, whose great object had been to strengthen
himself against Anthimus, took it as unkind of Gregory to be so
reluctant to comply with his friend’s wishes. So the two
were for a long time in very strained relations to one another.
Although, however, Gregory ultimately yielded to the earnest wish of
his father, and submitted to the authority of the Archbishop, yet he
did not disguise his reluctance, and in the Sermons which he preached
on the occasion (Or. ix. x.) he spoke very strongly on the point.
Anthimus, however, occupied the village of Sasima with troops, and
prevented Gregory from taking peaceable possession of his See, which it
is probable he never actually administered, for his father begged him
to remain at Nazianzus and continue his services as coadjutor
Bishop. The contest about the Metropolitanate of Tyana went on
for some time, but in the end, mainly by Gregory’s mediation, it
was amicably settled. In 374 Gregory the elder died, and his wife
also, and thus our Saint was set free from the charge of the
diocese. He spoke a panegyric at his father’s funeral, and
wrote a number of little “In Memoriam” poems to his
mother’s memory; and out of respect
In 379 the Church at Constantinople, which for forty years had been oppressed by a succession of Arian Archbishops, and was well nigh crushed out of existence by the multitude of other heresies, Eunomian, Macedonian, Novatian, Apollinarian, etc., which Arian rule had fostered, besought the great Theologian to come to their aid. Theodosius the new Emperor, who was a fervent Catholic, backed their entreaty, as did also numerous Bishops. Gregory resisted the call for a long time; but at last he came to see that it was the will of God that he should accept the Mission, and he consented to go and fill the gap, until such time as the Catholics of the Capital might be able to elect an Archbishop.
The following account of the religious condition of Constantinople at this time is condensed from Ullmann:—
“Religious feeling like everything else had become
to the idle and empty mind a subject of joke and amusement. What
belonged to the theatre was brought into the Church, and what belonged
to the Church into the theatre. The better Christian feelings
were not seldom held up in comedies to the sneer of the
multitude. Everything was so changed by the Constantinopolitans
into light jesting, that earnestness was stripped of its worth by wit,
and that which is holy became a subject for banter and scoffing in the
refined conversation of worldly people. Yet worse was it that the
unbridled delight of these men in dissipating enjoyments threatened to
turn the Church into a theatre, and the Preacher into a play
actor. If he would please the multitude, he must adapt himself to
their taste, and entertain them amusingly in the Church. They
demanded also in the preaching something that should please the ear,
glittering declamation with theatrical gesticulation; and they clapped
with the same pleasure the comedian in the holy place and him on the
stage. And alas there were found at that period too many
preachers who preferred the applause of men to their souls’
health. At this period the objects of the faith excited,
particularly in Constantinople, a very universal and lively interest,
which was entertained from the Court downwards, though not always in
the most creditable manner; but it was in great part not the interest
of the heart, but that of a hypercritical and disputatious intellect,
where it was not something far lower, to which the dispute about
matters of faith served only as a pretext for attaining the exterior
aims of avarice or ambition. While the sanctifying and beatifying
doctrines of the Gospel, which are directed to the conversion of the
whole inner man were let lie quiet, everyone from the Emperor to the
beggar busied himself with incredible interest about a few questions
concerning which the Gospel communicates only just so much as is
beneficial to the human spirit and necessary to salvation, and whose
fuller expression at any rate belongs rather to the school than to
practical life. But the more violently these doctrinal disputes
were kindled, disturbing and dividing States, cities, and families, so
much the more people lost sight of the practical essentials of
Christianity; it seemed more important to maintain the Tri-unity of God
than to love God with all the heart; to acknowledge the
Consubstantiality of the Son, than to follow Him in humility and
self-denial; to defend the Personality of the Holy Spirit, than to
bring forth the fruits of the Spirit, love, peace,
righteousness….In addition to these religious disputes came also
political struggles, namely, the hard-fought wars of the Roman Empire
with the Goths; so that the Empire at large presented the picture of a
sea, tossed by
In such a crisis Gregory came most unwillingly to the Capital. At first he lodged in the house of a relation of his own, part of which he arranged as a Chapel, and dedicated under the title Anastasia, as the place where the Catholic faith was to rise again. There he began at once to carry out the rule of the Church as to daily service, to which he added his own splendid preaching.
His constant theme was the worship of the Trinity.
After two Sermons in deprecation of religious contentiousness, he
preached those famous Five Orations which have won for him the title of
the Theologian. To analyse these belongs to another portion of
this work; it will be enough in this place to say, that after warning
his audience against the frivolity with which the Arians were dragging
religious subjects of the most solemn kind into the most unsuitable
places and occasions, he proceeds in four magnificent discourses to set
forth the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, shewing carefully the
difference between Sabellian confusion of Persons and Tritheistic
division of Substance. The Arians, however, persecuted him
Unfortunately Gregory now let himself be taken in by a
plausible adventurer named Maximus, who had come to Constantinople in
the hope of obtaining the Bishopric for himself. He attached
himself to Gregory and won his confidence, the latter even going so far
as to deliver a panegyric upon him as a sufferer for the Faith.
After a short time, however, Maximus managed to procure his own
consecration secretly from some Egyptian Bishops, who during an illness
of Gregory enthroned him at night in the Church. In the morning,
when the people discovered what had been done, they were very
indignant, and Maximus and his friends were driven out of the Church
and forced to leave the City. Meanwhile the rank and fashion of
Constantinople began to dislike Gregory, who would not condescend to
the arts of the popular preacher, and whose simple retiring life and
gentle demeanour were made matter of reproach to him. Gregory was
quite willing to retire, and was only prevented from doing so by the
earnest remonstrances of his friends, who solemnly assured him that if
he went away the Faith would depart with him; so he consented to remain
till a fitter man could be found. Late in 380 Theodosius came to
Constantinople, where almost his first act was to deprive the Arians of
the Churches, and to put Gregory in possession of the Cathedral of S.
Sophia. The next year the great Council of Eastern Bishops, which
ranks as the Second Ecumenical Council, met at the Capital, under the
presidency of Meletius of Antioch. Its first care was to sanction
the translation of Gregory from the See of Sasima to that of the
Metropolis of the Empire, and to enthrone him in S. Sophia, and thus he
became the recognised Archbishop of the Imperial City. Meletius
shortly afterwards died, and Gregory assumed the Presidency of the
Council. He failed in his endeavours to heal the schism which was
troubling the Church of Antioch, and when the Egyptian Bishops on their
arrival shewed a disposition to take up the case of Maximus, and were
determined at any rate to oust Gregory from the Patriarchal Throne on
the ground of a Nicene canon forbidding translations, which had
virtually been rescinded by the act of the Council, he made up his mind
to resign. He obtained a reluctant assent to this course from the
Emperor, and then took leave of the Synod in one of the most
magnificent of all his Orations, in which he gives a graphic account of
his work in the Metropolis. Nectarius, Prefect of the City, who
was only a catechumen, was elected in his place, and Gregory went home
to Nazianzus. He administered the affairs of the Church there for
a little while, and then, having procured the election of Eulalius as
Bishop, he retired to Arianzus, where he passed the few remaining years
of his life in seclusion, but still continued to take an active
interest in the affairs of the Church. His own city was greatly
disturbed by Apollinarian teachers, whose efforts to establish
themselves within the Church were very persevering. Apollinarius,
or as he is frequently called in the West, Apollinaris, was a Bishop of
Laodicea in the latter half of the Fourth Century, and was at one time
greatly respected for his learning and orthodoxy by S. Athanasius and
S. Basil. He was even an instructor of S. Jerome in 374, but he
seceded from the Church in the next year, owing to views which he had
come to hold about the nature of our Lord; these really prepared the
way for various forms of the Monophysite heresy. He fell into the
error of a partial denial of our Lord’s true Humanity,
attributing to Christ a human body and a human soul, but not a
reasoning spirit, whose place, according to him, was supplied by the
Divine Logos. This view had first appeared in 362, when it came
before a Council at Alexandria. Those who were accused of holding
it denied it, and expressed their sense of the absurdity of such a
view, pointing out that our Lord could not be said to be really
incarnate if He had no
In 377 a Roman Synod excommunicated Apollinarius and his adherents, and S. Damasus wrote a letter containing twenty-five anathemas, which he sent to Paulinus of Antioch and others. This condemnation is in almost the identical words used by S. Gregory in the first of two letters on the question which he wrote to Cledonius, a Priest of Nazianzus, and which were adopted as symbolic at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Of these letters Canon Bright says that they belong to that class of documents of the Fourth Century which refuted by anticipation the heresies of the Fifth. Gregory affirmed True Godhead and True Manhood to be combined in the One Person of the Crucified, Who was the adorable Son, Whose Mother was the Mother of God, and Who assumed, in order to redeem it, the entire nature that fell in Adam. In his seclusion, says Mr. Crake, his sole luxuries were a garden and a fountain. He spent his last days in continual devotion. His knees were worn with kneeling, and his whole thoughts and aspirations had gone before to the long home to which he was hastening. After the manner of the Saints, he was very rigorous in his self-denial. His bed was of straw with a covering of sackcloth, and a single tunic was all the outward clothing of him who had been Bishop of Constantinople. Yet his glory was only in the Lord. “As a fish cannot swim without water, and a bird cannot fly without air, he said, so a Christian cannot advance a single step without Christ.” He died in 391, and in the same year that he passed from the roll of the earthly episcopate Augustine was ordained Priest at Hippo Regius in Africa.
Ullmann gives the following description of his character and personal appearance:
“Gregory was of middle height and somewhat pale;
but his pallor became him. His hair was thick and blanched by
age, his short beard and conspicuous eyebrows were thicker. On
his right eye he had a scar. His manner was friendly and
attractive; his conduct simple. The keynote of his inner being
was piety; his soul was full of fiery strength of faith, turned to God
and Christ; a lofty zeal for divine things led him all his life.
This zeal manifested itself above all in a steadfast adherence to and
defence of certain dogmas which that age held to be specially
important; as well as in lively conflicts, not always free from
partisanship, with opposing convictions; but not less in a hearty and
living apprehension of practical Christianity, the establishment and
enlargement of which in men’s minds was to him all
important. His asceticism was overdone; it injured his health;
yet it did not degenerate into hypocrisy; it was to him the means for
elevating and liberating the mind, but not in and for its own sake a
higher virtue. An inborn and inbred love of solitude hindered him
from turning all his powers to a publicly useful activity. His
seclusion did not allow him to become familiar with the knowledge of
men and of the world; lacking in knowledge of men, carelessly
confident, sometimes distrustful and bitter in his judgment of others,
he demanded
Before leaving Constantinople he made his will, in which he bequeathed all his property to the Deacon Gregory for life, with reversion to the poor of Nazianzus.
Division II.—The Writings.
I. The Orations.—These—forty-five in number—raise him to equality with the best Orators of antiquity.
a. The Five Theological Orations.—These won him the title of The Theologian. They were delivered in Constantinople, in defence of the Church’s faith in the Trinity, against Eunomians and Macedonians. In the First and Second he treats of the existence, nature, being, and attributes of God, so far as man’s finite intellect can comprehend them. In the Third and Fourth the subject is the Godhead of the Son, which he establishes by exposition of Scripture, and by refutation of the specious arguments brought forward by the heretics. In the Fifth he similarly maintains the Deity, and Personality of the Holy Ghost.
b. The Two Invectives against Julian.—These were delivered at Nazianzus after the death of the Emperor, and present us with a very dark picture of his character. The orator dwells upon his attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, and its failure, and his overthrow in the campaign against Persia. From these facts he demonstrates the power of God’s Justice, and sets forth the Christian doctrine of the Divine Providence inculcating a lesson of trust in God.
c. Moral Orations.—(1) The Apology for his flight. As was said above, it is most probable that this discourse was never actually spoken; if it was, it certainly must have been considerably enlarged afterwards. In it Gregory dwells on the motive of his flight and his return after his forced ordination; he speaks of his love of retirement, but most of all lays stress upon the difficulty of the Priestly Office, its heavy responsibilities and grave dangers, and upon his own sense of unworthiness. His return, he says, was prompted by respect for his hearers and by care for his aged parents; by the fear of losing his father’s blessing; and by the recollection of what befel the Prophet Jonas on account of his resistance to the will of God. The remainder of the Oration is practically a treatise on the Priesthood, and was made use of by S. Chrysostom and S. Gregory the Great in their books on the subject.
(2) The Farewell Oration at Constantinople, containing an account of his work there.
(3) On Love of the Poor.
(4) On the Indissolubility of Marriage, the only Sermon of S. Gregory on a definite text which has come down to us.
(5) Three Orations on Peace.
(6) One on Moderation in theological discussion.
e. Panegyrics on Saints.—The Maccabee Brothers and their Mother; S. Cyprian of Carthage (in which there is evidence of the cultus of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the practice of invocation of the Saints); and on S. Athanasius.
f. Funeral Orations on Eminent People.—On his Father, preached before his Mother and S. Basil. On Cæsarius, in presence of his parents, consoling them by the picture of his brother’s virtue, especially in having withstood Julian’s efforts to pervert him, and in resigning his post at Court and leaving the Capital. On Gorgonia, whom he praises as a model Christian Matron, and whose wonderful cure before the Altar he relates. On S. Basil.
g. Occasional Orations, of which we mention three: (1) On a plague of hail. (2) On the consecration of Eulalius of Doara. (3) On his own consecration to Sasima.
II. The Letters, of which two hundred and forty-three are extant, are characterised by a clear, concise, and pleasant style and spirit. Some of them treat of the theological questions of the day, as for example the two to Cledonius, and one to Nectarius his Successor in the See of Constantinople; these deal with the Apollinarian errors. Most of them however are letters to private friends; sometimes of condolence or congratulation, sometimes of recommendation, sometimes on mere general subjects of interest. To this section must be ascribed his Will, which is probably genuine.
III. The Poems, five hundred and seven in number, are in various metres. While leaving much to be desired, these verses shew much real poetic feeling, and at times rise to genuine beauty. Thirty-eight are dogmatic, on the Trinity, on the works of God in Creation, on Providence, on Angels and Men, on the Fall, on the Decalogue, on the Prophets Elias and Elissæus, on the Incarnation, the Miracles and Parables of our Lord, and the canonical Books of the Bible. Forty are Moral; two hundred and six Historical and Autobiographical; one hundred and twenty-nine are Epitaphs, or rather funeral Epigrams; ninety-four are Epigrams.
There is also a long Tragedy, called Christus Patiens which is the first known attempt at a Christian drama; the parts are sustained by Christ, The Blessed Virgin, S. Joseph, S. Mary Magdalene, Nicodemus, Pontius Pilate, Theologus, Nuntius, and others. The Benedictine Editors however doubt the genuineness of this Tragedy and Caillau, who published the second volume of this Edition after the troubles of the French Revolution, thinks it is to be ascribed to another Gregory, Bishop of Antioch in the Sixth Century, and relegates it to an Appendix. None of The Theologian’s Odes or Hymns have, however, found a place in the liturgical poetry of the Church.
Division III.—Literature.
There are perhaps more MSS. of the works of Gregory than
of any other Father. The great Benedictine Edition of his works
contains long lists of MSS., and of Versions, and previous
Editions. The most famous of these is that of the Abbat Jacobus
Billius in 1589, which was accompanied by the Scholia of Nicetas,
etc. In 1571 Leuvenklavius published an edition at Basle
containing the Scholia of Elias Cretensis and others. In 1778
appeared the first volume of the great Edition of the Benedictine
Fathers of the Abbey of S. Maur near Paris, which had been in
preparation ever since 1708. But the Monks were driven away by
Oration I.
On Easter and His Reluctance.
I. It is the Day of
the Resurrection, and my Beginning has good auspices. Let us then
keep the Festival with splendour,
II. A Mystery Mystery,
according to Nicetas, is frequently used by S.
Gregory in the sense of Festival. He also explains the
Anointing as meaning the Imposition of hands at
Ordination.
III. Yesterday the Lamb was slain and the
door-posts were anointed,
IV. Yesterday I was crucified with Him; today I am glorified with Him; yesterday I died with Him; to-day I am quickened with Him; yesterday I was buried with Him; to-day I rise with Him. But let us offer to Him Who suffered and rose again for us—you will think perhaps that I am going to say gold, or silver, or woven work or transparent and costly stones, the mere passing material of earth, that remains here below, and is for the most part always possessed by bad men, slaves of the world and of the Prince of the world. Let us offer ourselves, the possession most precious to God, and most fitting; let us give back to the Image what is made after the Image. Let us recognize our Dignity; let us honour our Archetype; let us know the power of the Mystery, and for what Christ died.
V. Let us become like Christ, since Christ
became like us. Let us become God’s for His sake, since He
for ours became Man. He assumed the worse that He might give us
the better; He became poor that we through His poverty might be
rich;
Nicetas says that this refers to S. Gregory’s Father, who had ordained him Priest, to
assist him in the Cure of Souls, and whose one desire was that his Son
might succeed him in the Bishopric. S.
Gregory’s father had, according to the same authority,
rebuilt the Church at Nazianus with great splendour. He thinks
that the expression “heavenly” may refer to the great
dome. The “living temple” is of course S. Gregory
himself.
VII. These are the gifts given you by this
august Abraham, this honourable and reverend Head, this Patriarch, this
Restingplace of all good, this Standard of virtue, this Perfection of
the Priesthood, who to-day is bringing to the Lord his willing
Sacrifice, his only Son, S.
Gregory had an elder sister Gorgonia, and a younger brother Cæsarius, so that this expression must not be taken
too literally, but is rather to be read in connection with the
“promise,” his Mother having looked upon his birth as a
special answer to prayer, and having dedicated him to God from his
infancy.
Introduction to Oration II.
It is generally agreed that this oration was not intended for oral delivery. Its object was to explain and defend S. Gregory’s recent conduct, which had been severely criticised by his friends at Nazianzus. He had been recalled by his father probably during the year a.d. 361 from Pontus, where he had spent several years in monastic seclusion with his friend S. Basil. His father, not content with his son’s presence at home as a support for his declining years, and feeling assured of his fitness for the sacred office, had proceeded, with the loudly expressed approval of the congregation, in spite of Gregory’s reluctance, to ordain him to the priesthood on Christmas Day a.d. 361. S. Gregory, even after the lapse of many years, speaks of his ordination as an act of tyranny, and at the time, stung almost to madness, as an ox by a gadfly, rushed away again to Pontus, to bury in its congenial solitude, consoled by an intimate friend’s deep sympathy, his wounded feelings. Before long the sense of duty reasserted itself, and he returned to his post at his father’s side before Easter a.d. 362. On Easter day he delivered his first Oration before a congregation whose scantiness marked the displeasure with which the people of Nazianzus had viewed his conduct. Accordingly he set himself to supply them in this Oration with a full explanation of the motives which had led to his retirement. At the same time, as the secondary title of the Oration shows, he has supplied an exposition of the obligations and dignity of the Priestly Office which has been drawn upon by all later writers on the subject. S. Chrysostom in his well-known treatise, S. Gregory the Great in his Pastoral Care, and Bossuet in his panegyric on S. Paul, have done little more than summarise the material or develop the considerations contained in this eloquent and elaborate dissertation.
Oration II.
In Defence of His Flight to Pontus, and His Return, After His Ordination to the Priesthood, with an Exposition of the Character of the Priestly Office.
1. I have been
defeated, and own my defeat. I subjected myself to the Lord,
and Begin from
God. Possibly an adaptation of the exordium of Theocr. Idyll,
xvii. 1. ἐκ Διὸς
ἀρχώμεσθα,
καὶ ἐις Δία
λήγετε,
μοῖσαι. “Let Zeus
inspire our opening strain, And Muses, end your song in Zeus
again.” Cf. Demosth. Epist. 1.
2. Accordingly, that my speech may proceed
in due order, I apply myself to the question which arose first, that of
cowardice. For I cannot endure that any of those who watch with
interest the success, or the contrary, of my efforts, should be put to
confusion on my account, since it has pleased God that our affairs
should be of some consequence to Christians, so I will by my defence
relieve, if there be any such, those who have already suffered; for it
is well, as far as possible, and as reason allows, to shrink from
causing, through our sin or suspicion, any offence or stumbling-block
to the community: inasmuch as we know how inevitably even those
who offend one of the little ones S.
3. For my present position is due, my good
people, not to inexperience and ignorance, nay indeed, that I may boast
myself a little, One
member. The Ben. editors object to this translation
(which is that of Rufinus, Billius and Gabriel) as inconsistent with
the following allusion to the relation of the soul to the
body. It seems, however, more in harmony with the figure of S.
Paul, who compares the arrangement of the members of the body to
the hierarchy of the Church.
4. I am aware then that anarchy Anarchy,
&c. Comp. Plato Legg. XII. 2. A great
thing. The Ben. editors note the obscurity of the original
here. Accept,
δέχεσθαι.
Many mss have ἅρχεσθαι, preserving the
play upon the word ἄρχειν. The latter
reading, the Ben. editors suggest, may have an active sense, as
Hom. Il. II. 345.
5. Nor indeed is it strange or inconsistent
for the majority of those who are devoted to the study of divine
things, to ascend to rule from being ruled, nor does it overstep the
limits laid down by philosophy,
Philosophy. φιλοσοφία
is used by S. Greg. and other Fathers in various senses, not
always clearly distinguishable. Sometimes it refers to the
ancient philosophical teachers and schools: sometimes to the
Christian philosophy, which inculcates Divine truth, and teaches the
principles of a good and holy life: sometimes to the practice of
these principles, either in regard to some special virtue, e.g.
patience, or, in general, in the lives of individual Christians, and
further, as involving the most careful and extensive reduction of these
principles to practice—the discipline of the monastic life.
Cf. Suicer, in verb.
6. What then were my feelings, and what was
the reason of my disobedience? For to most men I did not at the
time seem consistent with myself, or to be such as they had known me,
but to have undergone some deterioration, and to exhibit greater
resistance and self-will than was right. And the causes of this
you have long been desirous to hear. First, and most important, I
was astounded at the unexpectedness of what had occurred, as people are
terrified by sudden noises; and, losing the control of my reasoning
faculties, my self-respect, which had hitherto controlled me, gave
way. In the next place, there came over me an eager
longing Eager
longing. Nearly all mss. read
“pity”—which would have to be understood in the sense
of “regretful affection.”
7. For nothing seemed to me so desirable as
to close the doors of my senses, and, escaping from the flesh and the
world, collected within myself, having no further connection than was
absolutely necessary with human affairs, and speaking to myself and to
God,
8. I was influenced besides by another
feeling, whether base or noble I do not know, but I will speak out to
you all my secrets. I was ashamed of all those others, who,
without being better than ordinary people, nay, it is a great thing if
they be not worse, with unwashen hands, S. The
sanctuary. i.e. That which gave the right to a place in the
sanctuary,—the priesthood. Billius wrongly takes it of the
episcopate. Piety—for
it is a mere external pretence, deceiving themselves as well as
others. εἰσέβαια here
has the double sense of piety and orthodoxy—the former being the
more prominent.
9. Lastly, there is a matter more serious
than any which I have mentioned, for I am now coming to the
finale The finale of the
question, or “the main conclusion of my subject,” lit.
“the colophon of my reason.” λόγος cannot here mean “of
my speech,” for it has only just begun.
10. But in the case of man, hard as it is
for him to learn how to submit to rule, it seems far harder to know how
to rule over men, and hardest of all, with this rule of ours, which
leads them by the divine law, and to God, for its risk is, in the eyes
of a thoughtful man, proportionate to its height and dignity.
For, first of all, he must, like silver or gold, though in general
circulation in all kinds of seasons and affairs, never ring false or
alloyed, or give token of any inferior matter, needing further
refinement in the fire; Cf.
11. For it is not so easy to dye deeply a
piece of cloth, or to impregnate with odours, foul or the reverse,
whatever comes near to them; nor is it so easy for the fatal vapour,
which is rightly called a pestilence, to infect the air, and through
the air to gain access to living being, as it is for the vice of a
superior to take most speedy possession of his subjects, and that with
far greater facility than virtue its opposite. For it is in this
that wickedness especially has the advantage over goodness, and most
distressing it is to me to perceive it, that vice is something
attractive and ready at hand, and that nothing is so easy as to become
evil, even without any one to lead us on to it; while the attainment of
virtue is rare and difficult, even where there is much to attract and
encourage us. And it is this, I think, which the most blessed
Haggai had before his eyes, in his wonderful and most true
figure:
12. What does he mean by this? As I
take it, that goodness can with difficulty gain a hold upon human
nature, like fire upon green wood; while most men are ready and
disposed to join in evil, like stubble,
13. This then is the first point in what we
have said, which it is right for us to guard against, viz.: being
found to be bad painters Painters,
i.e. in our discourses; models by our lives and
examples. S.
14. In the second place, although a man has kept
himself pure from sin, even in a very high degree; I do not know that
even this is sufficient for one who is to instruct others in
virtue. For he who has received this charge, not only needs to be
free from evil, for evil is,
15. Nor must he suppose that the same things
are suitable to all, just as all have not the same stature, nor are the
features of the face, nor the nature of animals, nor the qualities of
soil, nor the beauty and size of the stars, in all cases the
same: but he must consider base conduct a fault in a private
individual, and deserving of chastisement under the hard rule of the
law; while in the case of a ruler or leader it is a fault not to attain
to the highest possible excellence, and always make progress in
goodness, if indeed he is, by his high degree of virtue, to draw his
people to an ordinary degree, not by the force of authority, but by the
influence of persuasion. For what is involuntary apart from its
being the result of oppression, is neither meritorious nor
durable. For what is forced, like a plant A plant.
Cf. Orat. vi. 8, xxiii. 1. A favourite figure of S. Gregory.
16. But granted that a man is free from
vice, and has reached the greatest heights of virtue: I do not
see what knowledge or power would justify him in venturing upon this
office. For the guiding of man, the most variable and manifold of
creatures, seems to me in very deed to be the art of arts The art of
arts. This is the original of the frequently quoted
commonplace, which in S. Gregory the Great’s Pastoral Care, i. 1,
takes the form “ars artium est regimen animarum.”
17. The other is concerned with the soul,
which comes from God and is divine, and partakes of the heavenly
nobility, and presses on to it, even if it be bound to an inferior
nature. Perhaps indeed there are other reasons also for this,
which only God, Who bound them together, and those who are instructed
by God in such mysteries, can know, but as far as I, and men like
myself can perceive, there are two: one, that it may inherit the
glory above by means of a struggle and wrestling Our will.
Clémencet compares S. Bernard, de Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, xiv.
47 (tom. i. 1397, Gaume). Petavius, de Incarn., tom. v., p. 416,
lib. IX., iii., 11, comments on this passage in treating of free
will.
18. Place and time and age and season and the like
are the subjects of a physician’s scrutiny; he will prescribe
medicines and diet, and guard against things injurious, that the
desires of the sick may not be a hindrance to his art. Sometimes,
and in certain cases, he will make use of the cautery or the knife or
the severer remedies; but none of these, laborious and hard as they may
seem, is so difficult as the diagnosis and cure of our habits,
passions, lives, wills, and whatever else is within us, by banishing
from our compound nature everything brutal and fierce, and introducing
and establishing in their stead what is gentle and dear
19. This further point does not escape me,
that the nature of all these objects of the watchfulness of the
physician remains the same, and does not evolve out of itself any
crafty opposition, or contrivance hostile to the appliances of his art,
nay, it is rather the treatment which modifies its subject
matter, Its subject
matter, i.e. the affection of the sick body, which it is the object
of medicine to change to its opposite. So Combefis. This
treatment: the treatment of the spiritual physician.
20. For we either hide away our sin,
cloaking it over in the depth of our soul, like some festering and
malignant disease, as if by escaping the notice of men we could escape
the mighty eye of God and justice. Or else we allege excuses in
our sins,
21. For these reasons I allege that our
office as physicians far exceeds in toilsomeness, and consequently in
worth, that which is confined to the body; and further, because the
latter is mainly concerned with the surface, and only in a slight
degree investigates the causes which are deeply hidden. But the
whole of our treatment and exertion is concerned with the hidden man of
the heart,
22. To turn however to the ends in view in
each of these forms of healing, for this point is still left to be
considered, the one preserves, if it already exists, the health and
good habit of the flesh, or if absent, recalls it; though it is not yet
clear whether or not these will be for the advantage of those who
possess them, since their opposites very often confer a greater benefit
on those who have them, just as poverty and wealth, renown or disgrace,
a low or brilliant position, and all other circumstances, which are
naturally indifferent, and do not incline in one direction more than in
another, produce a good or bad effect according to the will of, and the
manner in which they are used by the persons who experience them.
But the scope of our art is to provide the soul with wings, to rescue
it from the world and give it to God, and to watch over that which is
in His image,
23. This is the wish of our
schoolmaster One consisting,
&c. “These words,” says Gabriel, “are
indeed a two-edged sword against the heretics, for one clause mortally
wounds Nestorius who separates the Divine from the Human
Nature—the other Eutyches, who empties the human into the
Divine.” Was united,
ἀνεκράθη, lit.,
“was blended”—cf. Orat. xxxviii. 13. This and
similar terms used by Gregory and his contemporaries in an orthodox
sense were laid aside by later Fathers, in consequence of their having
been perverted in favor of the Eutychian heresy. By means of the
soul, Cf. Orat. xxix. 19; xxxviii. 13; Epist. 101 (tom. 2, p. 90
A.): Poem. Dogmat., x., 55–61 (tom. 2, p. 256); Petavius de
Incarn. IV. xiii. 2.
24. This is why the new was substituted for
the old, Lit. “of the
formation”—the substantive here corresponds to the verb in
S. S. S. S. S. S.
25. This is why the heathen rage and the
peoples imagine vain things; S. S. For the sake of
resurrection. One translator carries on the contrast, and
renders “to atone for the insurrection,” sc. of Adam.
The preposition ὑπερ seems decisive against
this.
26. Of this healing we, who are set over
others, are the ministers and fellow-labourers;
27. Again, the healers of our bodies will
have their labours and vigils and cares, of which we are aware; and
will reap a harvest of pain for themselves from the distresses of
others, as one of their wise men One of their wise
men, the author of the treatise περὶ φυσῶν,
ascribed to Hippocrates.
28. But we, upon whose efforts is staked the
salvation of a soul, a being blessed and immortal, and destined for
undying chastisement or praise, for its vice or virtue,—what a
struggle ought ours to be, and how great skill do we require to treat,
or get men treated properly, and to change their life, and give up the
clay to the spirit. For men and women, young
29. And if you examine more closely, how
great is the distinction between the married and the unmarried, and
among the latter between hermits and those who Those who,
&c. μιγάδας, cf. xxi., 10,
where μοναδικοὶ
and οἱ τῆς
ἐρηυίας are distinguished
from μιγάδες and
οἱ τῆς
ἐπιμιξίας.
Clémencet here holds that οἱ τῆς
ἐρημίας are hermits as
distinguished from cœnobites, but does not hint at any further
subdivision between the κοινωνικοὶ
and the μιγάδες. Cf.
also xliii. 62; xxi. 19. Montaut, “Revue Critique,
&c.” (pp. 48–52) attempts to distinguish between the
μιγάδες and the
κοινωνικοί.
But although he confirms the overthrow by Clémencet of the views
of previous translators, he leaves Clémencet’s own position
really unweakened. S. Gregory uses the two terms as practically
convertible. In xxi., § 19, (which Montaut misinterprets) he
explains that the life of the cœnobite is a hermit-life in its
relation to the world which he has forsaken, while it has opportunities
in community-life for the growth of those virtues which are required by
the relation of man to man. Cf. Bened. edition (Clémencet),
Præf. Gener., Pars. II., § iii. sub finem.
30. As then the same medicine and the same food are not in every case administered to men’s bodies, but a difference is made according to their degree of health or infirmity; so also are souls treated with varying instruction and guidance. To this treatment witness is borne by those who have had experience of it. Some are led by doctrine, others trained by example; some need the spur, others the curb; some are sluggish and hard to rouse to the good, and must be stirred up by being smitten with the word; others are immoderately fervent in spirit, with impulses difficult to restrain, like thoroughbred colts, who run wide of the turning post, and to improve them the word must have a restraining and checking influence.
31. Some are benefited by praise, others by blame, both being applied in season; while if out of season, or unreasonable, they are injurious; some are set right by encouragement, others by rebuke; some, when taken to task in public, others, when privately corrected. For some are wont to despise private admonitions, but are recalled to their senses by the condemnation of a number of people, while others, who would grow reckless under reproof openly given, accept rebuke because it is in secret, and yield obedience in return for sympathy.
32. Upon some it is needful to keep a close
watch, even in the minutest details, because if they think they are
unperceived (as they would contrive to be), they are puffed up with the
idea of their own wisdom. Of others it is better to take no
notice, but seeing not to see, and hearing not to hear them, according
to the proverb, that we may not drive them to despair, under the
depressing influence of repeated reproofs, and at last to utter
recklessness, when they have lost the sense of self-respect, the source
of persuasiveness. The source of
persuasiveness, lit., “the medicine of persuasion.” condescension,
lit., ‘equity,’ dealing gently with their weakness, not
exacting the literal fulfilment of the law.
33. For our treatment does not correspond
with virtue and vice, one of which is most excellent and beneficial at
all times and in all cases, and the other most evil and harmful; and,
instead of one and the same of our medicines invariably proving either
most wholesome or most dangerous in the same cases—be it severity
or gentleness, or any of the others which we have enumerated—in
some cases it proves good and useful, in others again it has the
contrary effect, according, I suppose, as time and circumstance and the
disposition of the patient admit. Now to set before you the
distinction between all these things, and give you a perfectly exact
view of them, so that you may in brief comprehend the medical art, is
quite impossible, even for one in the highest degree qualified by care
and skill: but actual experience and practice are requisite to
form Are requisite to
form, lit., by ‘actual…they become clear to.’
34. This, however, I take to be generally
admitted—that just as it is not safe for those who walk on a
lofty tight rope to lean to either side, for even though the
inclination seems slight, it has no slight consequences, but
35. In regard to the distribution of the
word, to mention last the first of our duties, of that divine and
exalted word, which everyone now is ready to discourse upon; if anyone
else boldly undertakes it and supposes it within the power of every
man’s intellect, I am amazed at his intelligence, not to say his
folly. To me indeed it seems no slight task, and one requiring no
little spiritual power, to give in due season S. Worlds, i.e.
the invisible and visible, of which S. Greg. held that the former was
created before the latter. cf. Orat. xviii. 3; xxvii. 10; xxviii. 31;
xxxviii. 10; xl. 45.
36. Again, they are concerned with our
original constitution, and final restoration, the types of the truth,
the covenants, the first and second coming of Christ, His incarnation,
sufferings and dissolution, Dissolution;
some translate ‘return’—i.e. of the Ascension;
referring the ‘resurrection, &c.’ to mankind in
general. Original.
Perhaps better ‘supreme.’
Illumination. Some apply this to Holy Baptism, with its
preliminary instruction. Contracting,
i.e. by the Sabellian heresy. A parallel passage in almost
identical terms is Orat. xx. 6.
37. For, amid the three infirmities in
regard to theology, atheism, Judaism, and polytheism, one of which is
patronised by Sabellius the Libyan, another by Arius of Alexandria, and
the third by some of the ultra-orthodox among us, what is my position,
can I avoid whatever in these three is noxious, and remain within the
limits of piety; neither being led astray by the new analysis and
synthesis into the atheism Atheism.
This term is used of Sabellianism xviii. 16. xx. 6. xxi. 13. xliii. 30,
in the sense in which it is here explained. Cf. Petav. de Trin.
I. vi. 3, sqq. Madness of
Arianism, xxi. 13. xxxiv. 8. xliii. 30. This term is applied in a
letter of Constantine after the Council of Nicæa. It is
called Judaism also Orat. xx. 6 as frequently by S. Athanasius.
Cf. Petav. de Trin. I. ix. 8.
38. It is necessary neither to be so devoted to
the Father, as to rob Him of His Fatherhood, for whose Father would He
be, if the Son were separated and estranged from Him, by being ranked
with the creation, (for an alien being, or one which is combined and
confounded with his father, and, for the sense is the same, throws him
into confusion, is not a son); nor to be so devoted to Christ, as to
neglect to preserve both His Sonship, (for whose son would He be, if
His origin were not referred to the Father?) and the rank of the Father
as origin, inasmuch as He is the Father and Generator; for He would be
the origin of petty and unworthy beings, or rather the term would be
used in a petty and unworthy sense, if He were not the origin of
Godhead and goodness, which are contemplated in the Son and the
Spirit: the former being the Son and the Word, the latter the
proceeding and indissoluble Spirit. For both the Unity of the
Godhead must be preserved, and the Trinity
39. A suitable and worthy comprehension and
exposition of this subject demands a discussion of greater length than
the present occasion, or even our life, as I suppose, allows, and, what
is more, both now and at all times, the aid of the Spirit, by Whom
alone we are able to perceive, to expound, or to embrace, the truth in
regard to God. For the pure alone can grasp Him Who is pure and
of the same disposition as himself; and I have now briefly dwelt upon
the subject, to show how difficult it is to discuss such important
questions, especially before a large audience, composed of every age
and condition, and needing like an instrument of many strings, to be
played upon in various ways; or to find any form of words able to edify
them all, and illuminate them with the light of knowledge. For it
is not only that there are three sources from which danger springs,
understanding, speech, and hearing, so that failure in one, if not in
all, is infallibly certain; for either the mind is not illuminated, or
the language is feeble, or the hearing, not having been cleansed, fails
to comprehend, and accordingly, in one or all respects, the truth must
be maimed: but further, what makes the instruction of those who
profess to teach any other subject so easy and acceptable—viz.
the piety Piety,
εὐλάβεια. i.e.
The pious readily and attentively receive instruction in morality or
generally received truth, but are more suspicious and intolerant than
ordinary people, if, at a time when any theological question is hotly
debated, a preacher touches upon any point connected with it, and so
stirs party feeling or personal prejudice.
40. For having undertaken to contend on
behalf of God, the Supreme Being, and of salvation, and of the primary
hope The primary
hope. This term is used of the full knowledge and confession
of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, Orat. xxxii. 23; where its
necessary connection with Christianity and the life of the soul is
insisted on. For its vital importance cf. Liddon, Bamp. Lect. pp.
435, 6, and its bearing on the Mediatorial Work of Christ, and so on
our salvation. Ibid. Lect. VIII. esp. pp. 472–9 (5th
ed.). S. Cyr. Hier. Catech. 13. 2. S. Cyr. Alex. de S.
Trin. dial. 4. tom v. pp. 508, 509. S. Proclus Hom. in Incarn. 5.
6. 9. Bright. Hist. of the Church. p. 149.
41. But what is to be said of those who,
from vain glory or arrogance, speak unrighteousness against the most
High, S.
42. What again of those who come with no
private idea, or form of words, better or worse, in regard to God, but
listen to all kinds of doctrines and teachers, with the intention of
selecting from all what is best and safest, in reliance upon no better
judges of the truth than themselves? They are, in consequence,
borne and turned about hither and thither by one plausible idea after
another, and, after being deluged and trodden down by all kinds of
doctrine,
43. Accordingly, to impress the truth upon a
soul when it is still fresh, like wax not yet subjected to the seal, is
an easier task than inscribing pious doctrine on the top of
inscriptions—I mean wrong doctrines and dogmas Doctrines and
dogmas. Elias takes the former to refer to morality and the
latter to belief.
44. If anyone were to undertake to tame and train an animal of many forms and shapes, compounded of many animals of various sizes and degrees of tameness and wildness, his principal task, involving a considerable struggle, would be the government of so extraordinary and heterogeneous a nature, since each of the animals of which it is compounded would, according to its nature or habit, be differently affected with joy, pleasure or dislike, by the same words, or food, or stroking with the hand, or whistling, or other modes of treatment. And what must the master of such an animal do, but show himself manifold and various in his knowledge, and apply to each a treatment suitable for it, so as successfully to lead and preserve the beast? And since the common body of the church is composed of many different characters and minds, like a single animal compounded of discordant parts, it is absolutely necessary that its ruler should be at once simple in his uprightness in all respects, and as far as possible manifold and varied in his treatment of individuals, and in dealing with all in an appropriate and suitable manner.
45. For some need to be fed with the
milk Our material
bodies, lit., “matter.” This, together with
“dust,” “mire” or “clay” and other
similar terms, is often used by S. Gregory as a synonym of “the
body.”
46. And who is sufficient for these
things? For we are not as the many, able to corrupt
Ventriloquists.
47. Besides, we are aware that it is better
to offer our own reins to others more skilful than ourselves, than,
while inexperienced, to guide the course of others, and rather to give
a kindly hearing than stir an untrained tongue; and after a discussion
of these points with advisers who are, I fancy, of no mean worth, and,
at any rate, wish us well, we preferred to learn those canons of speech
and action which we did not know, rather than undertake to teach them
in our ignorance. For it is delightful to have the
reasoning I.e., venerable for
wisdom due to experience.
48. Nay, the wiser of the Hebrews tell us
that there was of old among the Hebrews a most excellent and
praiseworthy law, Law. Not
definitely enacted, but a custom constantly observed. It applied
to the earlier and later chapters of Ezekiel and the Song of
Solomon. Exterior,
Origen, Hom. 5, in Levit., speaks of the ‘body, soul, and spirit
of Scripture.’
Alone. If, as many mss. we
read μόλις, “with
difficulty.” This is preferred by the Bened. note.
49. Among us, however, there is no boundary
line between giving and receiving instruction, like the stones of old
between the tribes within and beyond the Jordan: nor is a certain
part entrusted to some, another to others; nor any rule for
degrees Degrees,
etc. S. “More spiritual
and noble.”—This is ironical.
50. Now, if we were to speak gently to one
of them, advancing, as follows, step by step in argument:
“Tell me, my good sir, do you call dancing anything, and
flute-playing?” “Certainly,” they would say.
“What then of wisdom and being wise, which we venture to define
as a knowledge of things divine and human?” This also they
will admit. “Are then these accomplishments better than and
superior to wisdom, or wisdom by far better than these?”
“Better even than all things,” I know well that they will
say. Up to this point they are judicious. “Well,
dancing and flute-playing require to be taught and learnt, a process
which takes time, and much toil in the sweat of the brow, and sometimes
the payment of fees, and entreaties for initiation, and long absence
from home, and all else which must be done and borne for the
acquisition of experience: but as for wisdom, which is chief of
all things, and holds in her embrace everything which is good, so that
even God himself prefers this title to all the names which He is
called; are we to suppose that it is a matter of such slight
consequence, and so accessible, that we need but wish, and we would be
wise?” “It would be utter folly to do
so.” If we, or any learned and prudent man, were to say
this to them, and try by degrees to cleanse them from their error, it
would be sowing upon rocks, S.
51. This is a state of mind which demands,
in special degree, our tears and groans, and has often stirred my pity,
from the conviction that imagination robs us in great measure of
reality, and that vain glory is a great hindrance to men’s
attainment of virtue. To heal and stay this disease needs a Peter
or Paul, those great disciples of Christ, who in addition to guidance
in word and deed, received their grace, Their grace,
τὸ
χάρισμα. Elias takes
this of the power to heal diseases. Tillemont of miracles in
general. Perhaps better of the special position as Apostles to
the Jews and to the Gentiles (
52. Since, however, I have mentioned Paul, and men like him, I will, with your permission, pass by all others who have been foremost as lawgivers, prophets, or leaders, or in any similar office—for instance, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, the Judges, Samuel, David, the company of Prophets, John, the Twelve Apostles, and their successors, who with many toils and labors exercised their authority, each in his own time; all these I pass by, to set forth Paul as the witness to my assertions, and for us to consider by his example how important a matter is the care of souls, and whether it requires slight attention and little judgment. But that we may recognize and perceive this, let us hear what Paul himself says of Paul.
53. I say nothing of his labours, his
watchings, his sufferings in hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness,
his assailants from without, his adversaries within. His cause
reading τοῦ: v. 1. τῶν. Pressure
ἐπιστασίαν,
54. What of the laboriousness of his
teaching? The manifold character of his ministry? His
loving kindness? And on the other hand his strictness? And
the combination and blending of the two; in such wise that his
gentleness should not enervate, nor his severity exasperate? He
gives laws for slaves and masters,
55. He glories in his infirmities and
distresses. He takes pleasure in the dying of Jesus, S.
56. Why should I enter into detail? He
lived not to himself, but to Christ and his preaching. He
crucified the world to himself,
57. Is the undertaking then so serious and
laborious to a sensitive and sad heart—a very rottenness to the
bones
58. Hence again the divine Micah, unable to
brook the building of Zion with blood, however you interpret the
phrase, and of Jerusalem with iniquity, while the heads thereof judge
for reward, and the priests teach for hire, and the prophets divine for
money—what does he say will be the result of this? Zion
shall be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem be as a lodge in a garden,
and the mountain of the house be reckoned as a glade in a
thicket.
59. Joel again summons us to wailing, and
will have the ministers of the altar lament under the presence of
famine: so far is he from allowing us to revel in the misfortunes
of others: and, after sanctifying a fast, calling a solemn
assembly, and gathering the old men, the children, and those of tender
age,
60. What of Habakkuk? He utters more
heated words, and is impatient with God Himself, and cries down, as it
were our good Lord, because of the injustice of the judges. O
Lord, how long shall I cry and Thou wilt not hear? Shall I cry
out unto Thee of violence, and Thou wilt not save? Why dost Thou
show me toil and labour, causing me to look upon perverseness and
impiety? Judgment has been given against me, and the judge is a
spoiler. Therefore the law is slacked, and judgment doth never go
forth. Then comes the denunciation, and what follows upon
it. Behold, ye despisers, and regard, and wonder marvellously,
and vanish away, for I work a work.
61. How can it be right to pass by Malachi, who at
one time brings bitter charges against the priests, and reproaches them
with despising Strongly
worded, βλάσφημον,
perh. “ill omened.”
62. Whenever I remember Zechariah, I shudder
at the reaping-hook, A greater,
&c. i.e. they refer to the Person of Jesus Christ Himself.
63. Who is so bold and adamantine of soul as
not to tremble and be abashed at the charges and reproaches
deliberately urged against the rest of the shepherds. A voice, he
says, of the howling of the shepherds, for their glory is
spoiled. A voice of the roaring of lions,
64. Passing by the elders in the book of
Daniel;
65. What of his further invective against
the shepherds, Woe shall come upon woe, and rumour upon rumour, then
shall they seek a vision of the prophet, but the law shall perish from
the priest, and counsel from the ancients,
66. I also refrain from entering into his
discussion of those who feed themselves, devour the milk, clothe
themselves with the wool, kill them that are fat, but feed not the
flock, strengthen not the diseased, nor bind up that which is broken,
nor bring again that which is driven away, nor seek that which is lost,
nor keep watch over that which is strong, but oppress them with rigour,
and destroy them with their pressure;
67. However, to avoid unreasonably
prolonging my discourse, by an enumeration of all the prophets, and of
the words of them all, I will mention but one more, who was known
before he was formed, and sanctified from the womb,
68. God speaks to him in reproof of the
priests: The priests said not, Where is the Lord, and they that
handled the law knew Me not; the pastors also transgressed against
Me.
69. Why need I speak of the things of
ancient days? Who can test himself by the rules and standards
which Paul laid down for bishops and presbyters, that they are to be
temperate, soberminded, not given to wine, no strikers, apt to teach,
blameless in all things, and beyond the reach of the wicked,
70. I am alarmed by the reproaches of the
Pharisees, the conviction of the Scribes. For it is disgraceful
for us, who ought greatly surpass them, as we are bidden, if we desire
the kingdom of heaven, to be found more deeply sunk in vice: so
that we deserve to be called serpents, a generation of vipers, and
blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel, or sepulchres
foul within, in spite of our external comeliness, or platters outwardly
clean, and everything else, which they are, or which is laid to their
charge. S.
71. With these thoughts I am occupied night and day: they waste my marrow, and feed upon my flesh, and will not allow me to be confident or to look up. They depress my soul, and abase my mind, and fetter my tongue, and make me consider, not the position of a prelate, or the guidance and direction of others, which is far beyond my powers; but how I myself am to escape the wrath to come, and to scrape off from myself somewhat of the rust of vice. A man must himself be cleansed, before cleansing others: himself become wise, that he may make others wise; become light, and then give light: draw near to God, and so bring others near; be hallowed, then hallow them; be possessed of hands to lead others by the hand, of wisdom to give advice.
72. When will this be, say they who are
swift but not sure in every thing, readily building up, readily
throwing down. When will the lamp be upon its stand, “The
grace” i.e. the grace of the priesthood.
73. But this speed, in its untrustworthiness
and excessive haste, is in danger of being like the seeds which fell
upon the rock, S. S.
74. I know Whose ministers we are, and where
we are placed, and whither we are guides. I know the height of
God, and the weakness of man, and, on the contrary, his power.
Heaven is high, and the earth deep;
75. Who is it, Who made all things by His
Word,
76. This depressed and kept me humble, and
persuaded me that it was better to hear the voice of praise
77. Such and so great is the object of our
longing zeal, and such a man should he be, who prepares and conducts
souls to their espousals. For myself, I feared to be cast, bound
hand and foot, S.
78. One branch of philosophy is, however,
too high for me, the commission to guide and govern souls—and
before I have rightly learned to submit to a shepherd, or have had my
soul duly cleansed, the charge of caring for a flock: especially
in times like these, when a man, seeing everyone else rushing hither
and thither in confusion, is content to flee from the melee and escape,
in sheltered retirement, from the storm and gloom of the wicked
one: when the members are at war with one another, and the slight
remains of love, which once existed, have departed, and priest is a
mere empty name, since, as it is said, contempt Princes,
ἄρχοντας. i.e. The
office of the priesthood, which is one of dignity, has been brought
into contempt by the unworthiness of those ordained to it, who have, by
their want of the virtues requisite for their office, made it an empty
name—and, not only so, but have been actively vicious.
79. Would that it were merely empty!
And now may their blasphemy fall upon the head of the ungodly!
All fear has been banished from souls, shamelessness has taken its
place, and knowledge Knowledge,
&c. cf. the ironical passage, §§ 49, 50. S.
80. We observe each other’s sins, not to bewail them, but to make them subjects of reproach, not to heal them, but to aggravate them, and excuse our own evil deeds by the wounds of our neighbours. Bad and good men are distinguished not according to personal character, but by their disagreement or friendship with ourselves. We praise one day what we revile the next, denunciation at the hands of others is a passport to our admiration; so magnanimous are we in our viciousness, that everything is frankly forgiven to impiety.
81. Everything has reverted to the original
state of things
82. Nor indeed is there any distinction
between the state of the people and that of the priesthood: but
it seems to me to be a simple fulfilment of the ancient curse,
“As with the people so with the priest.”
83. But at the present time there are some who go
to war even about small matters and to no purpose, and, with great
ignorance and audacity, accept, as an associate in their ill-doing,
anyone whoever he may be. Then everyone makes the faith his
pretext, and this venerable name is dragged into their private
quarrels. Consequently, as was probable, we are hated, even among
the Gentiles, and, what is harder still, we cannot say that this is
without just cause. Nay, even the best of our own people are
scandalized, while this result is not surprising in the case of the
multitude,
84. Sinners are planning upon our
backs;
85. These are the results of our intestine warfare, and our extreme readiness to strive about goodness and gentleness, and our inexpedient excess of love for God. Wrestling, or any other athletic contest, is only permitted according to fixed laws, and the man will be shouted down and disgraced, and lose the victory, who breaks the laws of wrestling, or acts unfairly in any other contest, contrary to the rules laid down for the contest, however able and skilful he may be; and shall anyone contend for Christ in an unchristlike manner, and yet be pleasing to peace for having fought unlawfully in her name.
86. Yea, even now, when Christ is invoked,
the devils tremble, S.
87. Of external warfare I am not afraid, nor
of that wild beast, and fulness of evil, who has now arisen against the
churches, though he may threaten fire, sword, wild beasts, precipices,
chasms; though he may show himself more inhuman than all previous
madmen, and discover fresh tortures of greater severity. I have
one remedy for them all, one road to victory; I will glory in
Christ
88. For my own warfare, however, I am at a
loss what course to pursue, what alliance, what word of wisdom, what
grace to devise, with what panoply to arm myself, against the wiles of
the wicked one.
89. Who will cry aloud, Spare Thy People, O
Lord, and give not Thine heritage to reproach, that the nations should
rule over them? Judah, etc.,
cf. Orat. vi. 7; xxxii. 4.
90. For I own that I am too weak for this
warfare, and therefore turned my back, hiding my face in the rout, and
sat solitary,
91. I have said nothing yet of the internal
warfare within ourselves, and in our passions, in which we are engaged
night and day against the body of our humiliation,
92. What is it that has induced this fear in
me, that, instead of supposing me to be needlessly afraid, you may
highly commend my foresight? I hear from Moses himself, when God
spake to him, that, although many were bidden to come to the mount, one
of whom was even Aaron, with his two sons who were priests, and seventy
elders of the senate, the rest were ordered to worship afar off, and
Moses alone to draw near, and the people were not to go up with
him.
93. I hear again that Nadab and Abihu, for
having merely offered incense with strange fire, were with strange fire
destroyed,
94. I know also that not even bodily
blemishes in either priests
95. Since then I knew these things, and that
no one is worthy of the mightiness of God, and the sacrifice, and
priesthood, who has not first presented himself to God, a living, holy
sacrifice, and set forth the reasonable, well-pleasing
service, The great
mysteries, i.e., the Sacrificial Death of Christ upon the
Cross.
96. Who is the man, whose heart has never
been made to burn, S. Triple, a
quotation from
97. Who is the man who has never beheld, as
our duty is to behold it, the fair beauty of the Lord, nor has visited
His temple,
98. Who is the man who has never, by
experience and contemplation, traversed the entire series of the
titles Titles.
These are more fully dealt with Orat. xxx. 17–21.
99. Who, in fine, is the man who, although
he has never applied himself to, nor learnt to speak, the hidden wisdom
of God in a mystery,
100. Let others sail for merchandise, I used to say, and cross the wide oceans, and constantly contend with winds and waves, to gain great wealth, if so it should chance, and run great risks in their eagerness for sailing and merchandise; but, for my part, I greatly prefer to stay ashore and plough a short but pleasant furrow, saluting at a respectful distance the sea and its gains, to live as best I can upon a poor and scanty store of barley-bread, and drag my life along in safety and calm, rather than expose myself to so long and great a risk for the sake of great gains.
101. For one in high estate, if he fail to
make further progress and to disseminate virtue still more widely, and
contents himself with slight results, incurs punishment, as having
spent a great light upon the illumination of a little house, or girt
round the limbs of a boy the full armor of a man. On the
contrary, a man of low estate may with safety assume a light burden,
and escape the risk of the ridicule and increased danger which would
attend him if he attempted a task beyond his powers. For, as we
have heard, it is not seemly for a man to build a tower, unless he has
sufficient to finish it. S.
102. Such is the defence which I have been able to
make, perhaps at immoderate length, for my flight. Such are the
reasons which, to my pain and possibly to yours, carried me away from
you, my friends and brothers; yet, as it seemed to me at the time, with
irresistible force. My longing after you, and the sense of your
longing for me, have, more than any
103. In the next place there was my care, my
duty, the hoar hairs and weakness of my holy parents, who were more
greatly distressed on my account than by their advanced age—of
this Patriarch Abraham whose person is honored by me, and numbered
among the angels, and of Sarah, who travailed in my spiritual birth by
instructing me in the truth. Now, I had specially pledged myself
to become the stay of their old age and the support of their weakness,
a pledge which, to the best of my power, I have fulfilled, even at the
expense of philosophy itself, the most precious of possessions and
titles to me; or, to speak more truly, although I made it the first
object of my philosophy to appear to be no philosopher, I could not
bear that my labor in consequence of a single purpose should be wasted,
nor yet that blessing should be lost, which one of the saints of old is
said to have stolen from his father, whom he deceived by the food which
he offered to him, and the hairy appearance he assumed, thus attaining
a good object by disgraceful trickery.
104. There is a third reason of the highest
importance which I will further mention, and then dismiss the
rest. I remembered the days of old,
105. We however, who extend the accuracy of
the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, S.
106. What then is the story, and wherein
lies its application? For, perhaps, it would not be amiss to
relate it, for the general security. Jonah also was fleeing from
the face of God,
107. But, as I have learned from a
man A
man. A Greek scholiast says that this was Origen (ob.
a.d. 235), who gives this interpretation in
his commentary on the prophecy of Jonah. Elias says that he had
read it in the commentary of Methodius (fl. a.d. 300), who usually combats Origen’s
interpretations. We know that Origen did comment on the book of
Job, and that Methodius wrote on one at least of the Minor
Prophets: but both these works have been lost, so that we cannot
absolutely decide the question, though the assurance with which both
the notes are written makes us hesitate to consider either of them
merely a happy guess. Combefis thinks that S. Greg. alludes to
one of his own instructors: the gen. with ἀκόυω (cf. Plato, Gorg., 503, c.)
favours this view, but the interpretation may well have been derived
from one of the earlier writers.
108. On the contrary, as my instructor said,
and as I am myself convinced, Jonah knew better than any one the
purpose of his message to the Ninevites, and that, in planning his
flight, although he changed his place, he did not escape from
God. Nor is this possible for any one else, either by concealing
himself in the bosom of the earth, or in the depths of the sea, or by
soaring on wings, if there be any means of doing so, and rising into
the air, or by abiding in the lowest depths of hell,
109. Jonah then was not ignorant of the
mighty hand of God, with which he threatened other men, nor did he
imagine that he could utterly escape the Divine power; this we are not
to believe: but when he saw the falling away of Israel, and
perceived the passing over of the grace of prophecy to the
Gentiles—this was the cause of his retirement from preaching and
of his delay in fulfilling the command; accordingly he left the
watchtower of joy, for this is the meaning of Joppa in Hebrew, I mean
his former dignity and reputation, and flung himself into the deep of
sorrow: and hence he is tempest-tossed, and falls asleep, and is
wrecked, and aroused from sleep, and taken by lot, and confesses his
flight, and is cast into sea, and swallowed, but not destroyed, by the
whale; but there he calls upon God, and, marvellous as it is, on the
third day he, like Christ, is delivered: but my treatment of this
topic must stand over, and shall shortly, if God permit, be more
deliberately worked out. Shall be worked
out. This promise, as Elias tells us, was fulfilled by S.
Gregory in his History of Ezekiel the Prophet, a work no longer
extant.
110. Now however, to return to my original point, the thought and question occurred to me, that although he might possibly meet with some indulgence, if reluctant to prophesy, for the cause which I mentioned—yet, in my own case, what could be said, what defence could be made, if I longer remained restive, and rejected the yoke of ministry, which, though I know not whether to call it light or heavy, had at any rate been laid upon me.
111. For if it be granted, and this alone
can be strongly asserted in such matters, that we are far too low to
perform the priest’s office before God, and that we can only be
worthy of the sanctuary after we have become worthy of the
Church, Of the
Church. S. Gregory seems to describe a series of three steps,
(1) the Church, of which all should be worthy members, (2) the
Sanctuary, reserved for the Priests, (3) the Throne of the
Bishop. Clémencet refers both 1 and 2 to the ministry.
If we suppose S. Gregory’s own position to be referred to, the
third would be applicable to his office under his father, which is held
by Thomassin to have been that of Vicar-General (Disc. Eccles., I.,
ii., 7 §§ 2, 3). A similar post was offered to him by
S. Basil (Orat., xliii., 39).
112. On this account I had much toilsome consideration to discover my duty, being set in the midst betwixt two fears, of which the one held me back, the other urged me on. For a long while I was at a loss between them, and after wavering from side to side, and, like a current driven by inconstant winds, inclining first in this direction, then in that, I at last yielded to the stronger, and the fear of disobedience overcame me, and has carried me off. Pray, mark how accurately and justly I hold the balance between the fears, neither desiring an office not given to me, nor rejecting it when given. The one course marks the rash, the other the disobedient, both the undisciplined. My position lies between those who are too bold, or too timid; more timid than those who rush at every position, more bold than those who avoid them all. This is my judgment on the matter.
113. Moreover, to distinguish still more
clearly between them, we have, against the fear of office, a possible
help in the law of obedience, inasmuch as God in His goodness rewards
our faith, and makes a perfect ruler of the man who has confidence in
Him, and places all his hopes in Him; but against the danger of
disobedience I know of nothing which can help us, and of no ground to
encourage our confidence. For it is to be feared that we shall
have to hear these words concerning those who have been entrusted to
us: I will require their souls at your hands;
114. I resort once again to history, and on
considering the men of best repute in ancient days, who were ever
preferred by grace to the office of ruler or prophet, I discover that
some readily complied with the call, others deprecated the gift, and
that neither those who drew back were blamed for timidity, nor those
who came forward for eagerness. The former stood in awe of the
greatness of the ministry, the latter trustfully obeyed Him Who called
them. Aaron was eager, but Moses resisted,
115. By these arguments I charmed myself,
and by degrees my soul relaxed and became ductile, like iron, and time
came to the aid of my arguments, and the testimonies of God, to which I
had entrusted my whole life, were my counsellors.
116. What further need is there of
words. Here am I, my pastors and fellow-pastors, here am I, thou
holy flock, worthy of Christ, the Chief Shepherd, Of the land,
lit., “external,” i.e. the Roman laws, which gave absolute
power to a father over his children.
117. Such is my defence: its
reasonableness I have set forth: and may the God of
peace,
Oration III.
To Those Who Had Invited Him, and Not Come to Receive Him.
(About Easter a.d. 362.)
I. How slow you
are, my friends and brethren, to come to listen to my words, though you
were so swift in tyrannizing over me, and tearing me from my Citadel
Solitude, which I had embraced in preference to everything
S. Gregory very
frequently uses this very strong expression to bring out the reality
and intimacy of the Christian’s Union with Christ as the result
of the sanctifying grace by which all the Baptized are made
“partakers of the Divine Nature” ( The passage might also
be rendered “had preferred to every other kind of
life.”
II. And neither did you entertain me as a guest, nor, if I may make a remark of a more compassionate kind, did you allow yourselves to be entertained by me, reverencing this command if nothing else; nor did you take me by the hand, as beginning a new task; nor encourage me in my timidity, nor console me for the violence I had suffered; but—I shrink from saying it, though say it I must—you made my festival no festival, and received me with no happy introduction; and you mingled the solemn festival with sorrow, because it lacked that which most of all would have contributed to its happiness, the presence of you my conquerors, for it would not be true to call you people who love me. So easily is anything despised which is easily conquered, and the proud receives attention, while he who is humble before God is slighted.
III. What will ye? Shall I be judged by you, or shall I be your judge? Shall I pass a verdict, or receive one, for I hope to be acquitted if I be judged, and if I give sentence, to give it against you justly? The charge against you is that you do not answer my love with equal measure, nor do you repay my obedience with honour, nor do you pledge the future to me by your present alacrity—though even if you had, I could hardly have believed it. But each of you has something which he prefers to both the old and the new Pastor, neither reverencing the grey hairs of the one, nor calling out the youthful spirit of the other.
IV. There is a Banquet in the
Gospels, S. S.
V. On this account I was filled with despondency and perplexity—for I will not keep silence about what I have suffered—and I was very near withholding the discourse which I was minded to bestow as a Marriage-gift, the most beautiful and precious of all I had; and I very nearly let it loose upon you, whom, now that the violence had once been done to me, I greatly longed for: for I thought I could get from this a splendid theme, and because my love sharpened my tongue—love which is very hot and ready for accusation when it is stirred to jealousy by grief which it conceives from some unexpected neglect. If any of you has been pierced with love’s sting, and has felt himself neglected, he knows the feeling, and will pardon one who so suffers, because he himself has been near the same frenzy.
VI. But it is not permitted to me at the
present time to say to you anything upbraiding; and God forbid I ever
should. And even now perhaps I have reproached you more than in
due measure, the Sacred Flock, the praise-worthy nurselings of Christ,
the Divine inheritance; by which, O God, Thou art rich, even wert Thou
poor in all other respects. To Thee, I think, are fitting those
words, “The lot is fallen unto Thee in a fair ground: yea
Thou hast the goodliest heritage.”
VII. But do ye also, if you bear me any good
will—ye who are my husbandry, my vineyard, my own bowels, or
rather His Who is our common Father, for in Christ he hath begotten you
through the Gospels
VIII. So may ye act, and so may ye honour
us, whether present or absent, whether taking your part in our sermons,
or preferring to do something else: and may ye be the children of
God, pure and unblamable, in the midst of a crooked and perverse
generation:
Oration VII.
Panegyric on His Brother S. Cæsarius.
The date of this Oration is probably the spring
of a.d. 369. It is placed by S. Jerome
first among S. Gregory’s Orations. Cæsarius, the
Saint’s younger brother, was born probably about a.d. 330. Educated in his early years at home, he
studied later in the schools of Alexandria, where he attained great
proficiency in mathematics, astronomy, and, especially, in
medicine. On his return from Alexandria, he was offered by the
Emperor Constantius, in response to a public petition, an honourable
and lucrative post at Byzantium, but was prevailed upon by Gregory to
return with him to Nazianzus. After a while he went back to
Byzantium, and, on the accession of Julian, was pressed to retain his
appointment at court, and did so, in spite of Gregory’s
reproaches, until Julian, who had long been trying to win him from
Christianity, at last invited him to a public discussion.
Cæsarius, in spite of the specious arguments of the Emperor,
gained the day, but, having now distinctly declared himself a
Christian, could no longer remain at court. On the death of
Julian, he was esteemed and promoted by successive Emperors, until he
received from Valens the office of treasurer of Bithynia. The
exact character of this office and its rank are still undecided by
historical writers, some of whom attribute to him other offices not
mentioned by S. Gregory, which most probably were filled by a
namesake. On the 11th of October a.d.
368 the city of Nicæa was almost entirely destroyed by an
earthquake and Cæsarius miraculously escaped with his life.
Impressed by his escape, he received Holy Baptism, and formed plans for
retiring from office and (as
1. It may be, my
friends, my brethren, my fathers (ye who are dear to me in reality as
well as in name) that you think that I, who am about to pay the sad
tribute of lamentation to him who has departed, am eager to undertake
the task, and shall, as most men delight to do, speak at great length
and in eloquent style. And so some of you, who have had like
sorrows to bear, are prepared to join in my mourning and lamentation,
in order to bewail your own griefs in mine, and learn to feel pain at
the afflictions of a friend, while others are looking to feast their
ears in the enjoyment of my words. For they suppose that I must
needs make my misfortune an occasion for display—as was once my
wont, when possessed of a superabundance of earthly things, and
ambitious, above all, of oratorical renown—before I looked up to
Him Who is the true and highest Word, and gave all up to God, from Whom
all things come, and took God for all in all. Now pray do not
think this of me, if you wish to think of me aright. For I am
neither going to lament for him who is gone more than is good—as
I should not approve of such conduct even in others—nor am I
going to praise him beyond due measure. Albeit that language is a
dear and especially proper tribute to one gifted with it, and eulogy to
one who was exceedingly fond of my words—aye, not only a tribute,
but a debt, the most just of all debts. But even in my tears and
admiration I must respect the law which regards such matters: nor
is this alien to our philosophy; for he says The memory of the just is
accompanied with eulogies,
2. The parents of Cæsarius, to take first the point which best becomes me, are known to you all. Their excellence you are eager to notice, and hear of with admiration, and share in the task of setting it forth to any, if there be such, who know it not: for no single man is able to do so entirely, and the task is one beyond the powers of a single tongue, however laborious, however zealous. Among the many and great points for which they are to be celebrated (I trust I may not seem extravagant in praising my own family) the greatest of all, which more than any other stamps their character, is piety. By their hoar hairs they lay claim to reverence, but they are no less venerable for their virtue than for their age; for while their bodies are bent beneath the burden of their years, their souls renew their youth in God.
3. His father His
father. S. Gregory the elder. Cf. Orat. xviii., 5, 6,
12–29, 32–39. Also viii., 4, 5; xii., 2, 3; xvi.,
1–4, 20. In
mien. v. l. “in disposition.”
4. His mother His
mother. S. Nonna. Cf. Orat. xviii., 7–12, 30, 31,
42, 43. Also viii. 4, 5. The Chief
Good. τὸ
κρειττον, lit.
“that which is better.” S.
5. I have entered into these details, not from a desire to eulogize them, for this, I know well, it would be difficult worthily to do, if I made their praise the subject of my whole oration, but to set forth the excellence inherited from his parents by Cæsarius, and so prevent you from being surprised or incredulous, that one sprung from such progenitors, should have deserved such praises himself; nay, strange indeed would it have been, had he looked to others and disregarded the examples of his kinsfolk at home. His early life was such as becomes those really well born and destined for a good life. I say little of his qualities evident to all, his beauty, his stature, his manifold gracefulness, and harmonious disposition, as shown in the tones of his voice—for it is not my office to laud qualities of this kind, however important they may seem to others—and proceed with what I have to say of the points which, even if I wished, I could with difficulty pass by.
6. Bred and reared under such influences, we
were fully trained in the education afforded here, Here, at
Nazianzus. Though,
etc. The Ben. ed. translates “Although his teaching was
exceedingly sublime and abstruse.”
7. What branch of learning did he not
master, or rather, in what branch of study did he not surpass those who
had made it their sole study? Whom did he allow even to approach
him, not only of his own time and age, but even of his elders, who had
devoted many more years to study? All subjects he studied as one,
and each as thoroughly as if he knew no other. The brilliant in
intellect, he surpassed in industry, the devoted students in quickness
of perception; nay, rather he outstripped in rapidity those who were
rapid, in application those who were laborious, and in both respects
those who were distinguished in both. From geometry and
astronomy, that science so dangerous Dangerous, as
being so closely connected with astrology. East and West,
ἑῶά
τε ὅμοῦ
λῆξις καὶ
ἑσπέριος—λῆξις significat
regionem, locum: culmen item, seu
fastigium. Cf. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxv. 13. p.
464. S. Chrys. Hom. LVI. in Ioan. p. 786.
8. But when, after gathering into his single
soul every kind of excellence and knowledge, as a mighty merchantman
gathers every sort of ware, he was voyaging to his own city, in order
to communicate to others the fair cargo of his culture, there befell a
wondrous thing, which I must, as its mention is most cheering to me and
may delight you, briefly set forth. Our mother, Our
mother. For further detail cf. Orat. xviii. 31.
9. Well, among the noble traits of Cæsarius’ character, we must not fail to note one, which perhaps is in others’ eyes slight and unworthy of mention, but seemed to me, both at the time and since, of the highest import, if indeed brotherly love be a praiseworthy quality; nor shall I ever cease to place it in the first rank, in relating the story of his life. Although the metropolis strove to retain him by the honours I have mentioned, and declared that it would under no circumstances let him go, my influence, which he valued most highly on all occasions, prevailed upon him to listen to the prayer of his parents, to supply his country’s need, and to grant me my own desire. And when he thus returned home in my company, he preferred me not only to cities and peoples, not only to honours and revenues, which had in part already flowed to him in abundance from many sources and in part were within his reach, but even to the Emperor himself and his imperial commands. From this time, then, having shaken off all ambition, as a hard master and a painful disorder, I resolved to practise philosophy and adapt myself to the higher life: or rather the desire was earlier born, the life came later. But my brother, who had dedicated to his country the firstfruits of his learning, and gained an admiration worthy of his efforts, was afterwards led by the desire of fame, and, as he persuaded me, of being the guardian of the city, to betake himself to court, not indeed according to my own wishes or judgment; for I will confess to you that I think it a better and grander thing to be in the lowest rank with God than to win the first place with an earthly king. Nevertheless I cannot blame him, for inasmuch as philosophy is the greatest, so is it the most difficult, of professions, which can be taken in hand by but few, and only by those who have been called forth by the Divine magnanimity, which gives its hand to those who are honoured by its preference. Yet it is no small thing if one, who has chosen the lower form of life, follows after goodness, and sets greater store on God and his own salvation than on earthly lustre; using it as a stage, or a manifold ephemeral mask while playing in the drama of this world, but himself living unto God with that image which he knows that he has received from Him, and must render to Him Who gave it. That this was certainly the purpose of Cæsarius, we know full well.
10. Among physicians he gained the foremost place
with no great trouble, by merely exhibiting his capacity, or rather
some slight specimen of his capacity, and was forthwith numbered among
the friends of the Emperor, and enjoyed the highest honours. But
he placed the humane functions of his art at the disposal of the
authorities free of cost, knowing that nothing leads to further
advancement than virtue and renown for honourable deeds; so that he far
surpassed in fame those to whom he was inferior in rank. By his
modesty he so won the love of all that they entrusted their
The
Emperors. Constantius II., a.d. 337–361. Julian, a.d. 361–363. Jovian, a.d. 363–4. Valens, a.d. 364–378.
11. Such was the philosophy of
Cæsarius, even at court: these were the ideas amidst which
he lived and died, discovering and presenting to God, in the hidden
man, a still deeper godliness than was publicly visible. And if I
must pass by all else, his protection of his kinsmen in distress, his
contempt for arrogance, his freedom from assumption towards friends,
his boldness towards men in power, the numerous contests and arguments
in which he engaged with many on behalf of the truth, not merely for
the sake of argument, but with deep piety and fervour, I must speak of
one point at least as especially worthy of note. The
Emperor The Emperor,
i.e., Julian the Apostate.
12. However, that I may dwell awhile upon
this point, and luxuriate in my story as men do who are eyewitnesses in
some marvellous event, Some edd. read
“in the spectacle,” which would make better sense, but has
not ms. authority. A dreadful
tyrant. The Evil One: with Billius and
Clémencet. Julian was antagonist, not Judge—unless we
consider that he combined unfairly the two offices.
13. Didst thou not fear for Cæsarius,
lest aught unworthy of his zeal should befall him? Nay, be ye of
good courage. For the victory is with Christ, Who overcame the
world. S. Godliness,
εὐσέβειαν:
here, as often, used in the sense of “orthodoxy.” A further
trial. Which Julian did not survive to carry out. S.
Greg. may allude to Cæsarius’ later return to Court. Persians.
The expedition in which he met his death. Ammian, Marcellin. xxv.
3, 7. Soz. vi. 2. Socr. iii. 21.
14. This victory I esteem far more sublime
and honourable than the Emperor’s mighty power and splendid
purple and costly diadem. I am more elated in describing it than
if he had won from him the half of his Empire. During the evil
days he lived in retirement, obedient herein to our Christian
law,
15. Again another wonder concerning him is a
strong argument for his parents’ piety and his own. He was
living in Bithynia, holding an office of no small importance from the
Emperor, viz., the stewardship of his revenue, and care of the
exchequer: for this had been assigned to him by the Emperor as a
prelude to the highest offices. And when, a short time ago, the
earthquake The earthquake,
described by Theodoret, H.E. ii. 26. S. Greg. Epist.
xx.
16. This, Cæsarius, is my funeral offering to
thee, this the firstfruits of my words, which thou hast often blamed me
for withholding, yet wouldst have stripped off, had they been bestowed
on thee; with this ornament I adorn thee, an ornament, I know well, far
dearer to thee than all others, though it be not of the soft flowing
tissues of silk, in which while living, with virtue for thy sole
adorning, thou didst not, like the many, rejoice; nor texture of
transparent linen, nor
17. Such is my offering; if it be slight and
inferior to his merit, God loveth that which is according to our
power.
18. What now remains? To bring the healing of the Word to those in sorrow. And a powerful remedy for mourners is sympathy, for sufferers are best consoled by those who have to bear a like suffering. To such, then, I specially address myself, of whom I should be ashamed, if, with all other virtues, they do not show the elements of patience. For even if they surpass all others in love of their children, let them equally surpass them in love of wisdom and love of Christ, and in the special practice of meditation on our departure hence, impressing it likewise on their children, making even their whole life a preparation for death. But if your misfortune still clouds your reason and, like the moisture which dims our eyes, hides from you the clear view of your duty, come, ye elders, receive the consolation of a young man, ye fathers, that of a child, who ought to be admonished by men as old as you, who have admonished many and gathered experience from your many years. Yet wonder not, if in my youth I admonish the aged; and if in aught I can see better than the hoary, I offer it to you. How much longer have we to live, ye men of honoured eld, so near to God? How long are we to suffer here? Not even man’s whole life is long, compared with the Eternity of the Divine Nature, still less the remains of life, and what I may call the parting of our human breath, the close of our frail existence. How much has Cæsarius outstripped us? How long shall we be left to mourn his departure? Are we not hastening to the same abode? Shall we not soon be covered by the same stone? Shall we not shortly be reduced to the same dust? And what in these short days will be our gain, save that after it has been ours to see, or suffer, or perchance even to do, more ill, we must discharge the common and inexorable tribute to the law of nature, by following some, preceding others, to the tomb, mourning these, being lamented by those, and receiving from some that meed of tears which we ourselves had paid to others?
19. Such, my brethren, is our existence, who
live this transient life, such our pastime upon earth: we come
into existence out of non-existence, and after existing are
dissolved. We are unsubstantial dreams, impalpable
visions,
20. Let us not then mourn Cæsarius but
ourselves, knowing what evils he has escaped to which we are left
behind, and what treasure we shall lay up, unless, earnestly cleaving
unto God and outstripping transitory things, we press towards the life
above, deserting the earth while we are still upon the earth, and
earnestly following the spirit which bears us upward. Painful as
this is to the faint-hearted, it is as nothing to men of brave
mind. And let us consider it thus. Cæsarius will not
reign, but rather will he be reigned over by others. He will
strike terror into no one, but he will be free from fear of any harsh
master, often himself unworthy even of a subject’s
position. He will not amass wealth, but neither will he be liable
to envy, or be pained at lack of success, or be ever seeking to add to
his gains as much again. For such is the disease of wealth, which
knows no limit to its desire of more, and continues to make drinking
the medicine for thirst. He will make no display of his power of
speaking, yet for his speaking will he be admired. He will not
discourse upon the dicta of Hippocrates and Galen, and their
adversaries, but neither will he be troubled by diseases, and suffer
pain at the misfortunes of others. He will not set forth the
principles of Eucleides, Ptolemæus, and Heron, but neither will he
be pained by the tumid vaunts of uncultured men. He will make no
display of the doctrines of Plato, and Aristotle, and Pyrrho, and the
names of any Democritus, and Heracleitus, Anaxagoras, Cleanthes and
Epicurus, and all the members of the venerable Porch and Academy:
but neither will he trouble himself with the solution of their cunning
syllogisms. What need of further details? Yet here are some
which all men honour or desire. Nor wife nor child will he have
beside him, but he will escape mourning for, or being mourned by them,
or leaving them to others, or being left behind himself as a memorial
of misfortune. He will inherit no property: but he will
have such heirs Heirs, Cf. S.
Basil Ep. 26 (32). Cæsarius left all his property to the
poor. This passage shows that his own family welcomed and
approved the bequest, which S. Gregory was at much pains to carry out,
but was greatly embarrassed by the rapacity of his brother’s
servants.
21. Is this inadequate for our consolation?
I will add a more potent remedy. I believe the words of the wise,
that every fair and God-beloved soul, when, set free from the bonds of
the body, it departs hence, at once enjoys a sense and perception of
the blessings which await it, inasmuch as that which darkened it has
been purged away, or laid aside—I know not how else to term
it—and feels a wondrous pleasure and exultation, and goes
rejoicing to meet its Lord, having escaped as it were from the grievous
poison of life here, and shaken off the fetters which bound it and held
down the wings of the mind, and so enters on the enjoyment of the bliss
laid up for it, of which it has even now some conception. Then, a
little later, it receives its kindred flesh, which once shared in its
pursuits of things above, from the earth which both gave and had been
entrusted with it, and in some way known to God, who knit them together
and dissolved them, enters with it upon the inheritance of the glory
there. And, as it shared, through their close union, in its
hardships, so also it
22. But now, laying aside lamentation, I
will look at myself, and examine my feelings, that I may not
unconsciously have in myself anything to be lamented. O ye sons
of men, for the words apply to you, how long will ye be hard-hearted
and gross in mind? Why do ye love vanity and seek after
leasing,
23. Would that I might mortify my members
that are upon the earth, S. S.
24. Yea, would that what we hope for might
be, according to the great kindness of our bountiful God, Who asks for
little and bestows great things, both in the present and in the future,
upon those who truly love Him;
Oration VIII.
On his Sister Gorgonia.
The exact date of this Oration is uncertain. It is certainly (§23) later than the death of Cæsarius, a.d. 369, and previous to the death of their father, a.d. 374. So much we gather from the Oration itself, and the references made by some authors to a poem of S. Gregory do not add anything certain to our knowledge (Poem. Hist. I. 1. v.v. 108, 227). The place in which it was delivered is, almost without doubt, the city in which her married life had been spent. The public details of that life are familiar to the audience. Gorgonia’s parents, and the speaker himself, although known to them, are not spoken of in terms implying intimacy such as we find in Orations known to have been delivered at Nazianzus. The spiritual father and confidant of Gorgonia is present, certainly in a position of authority, probably seated in the Episcopal throne. The husband of Gorgonia (Epitaph. 24) was named Alypius. His home, as Clémencet and Benoît agree, on the authority of Elias, was at Iconium, of which city, at the time, Faustinus was bishop. The names of Gorgonia’s two sons are unknown. Elias states that they both became bishops. S. Gregory mentions her three daughters, Alypiana, Eugenia, and Nonna, in his will. The oration is marked by an eloquence, piety, and tender feeling which make it a worthy companion of that on Cæsarius.
Funeral Oration on his Sister Gorgonia.
1. In praising my sister, I shall pay honour to one of my own family; yet my praise will not be false, because it is given to a relation, but, because it is true, will be worthy of commendation, and its truth is based not only upon its justice, but upon well-known facts. For, even if I wished, I should not be permitted to be partial; since everyone who hears me stands, like a skilful critic, between my oration and the truth, to discountenance exaggeration, yet, if he be a man of justice, demanding what is really due. So that my fear is not of outrunning the truth, but, on the contrary, of falling short of it, and lessening her just repute by the extreme inadequacy of my panegyric; for it is a hard task to match her excellences with suitable action and words. Let us not then be so unjust as to praise every characteristic of other folk, and disparage really valuable qualities because they are our own, so as to make some men gain by their absence of kindred with us, while others suffer for their relationship. For justice would be violated alike by the praise of the one and the neglect of the other, whereas if we make the truth our standard and rule, and look to her alone, disregarding all the objects of the vulgar and the mean, we shall praise or pass over everything according to its merits.
2. Yet it would be most unreasonable of all, if,
while we refuse to regard it as a righteous thing to defraud, insult,
accuse, or treat unjustly in any way, great or small, those who are our
kindred, and consider wrong done to those nearest to us the worst of
all; we were yet to imagine that it would be an act of justice to
deprive them of such an oration as is due most of all to the good, and
spend more words upon those who are evil, and beg for
3. Having now made a sufficient defence on these points, and shown how necessary it is for me to be the speaker, come, let me proceed with my eulogy, rejecting all daintiness and elegance of style (for she whom we are praising was unadorned and the absence of ornament was to her, beauty), and yet performing, as a most indispensable debt, all those funeral rites which are her due, and further instructing everyone in a zealous imitation of the same virtue, since it is my object in every word and action to promote the perfection of those committed to my charge. The task of praising the country and family of our departed one I leave to another, more scrupulous in adhering to the rules of eulogy; nor will he lack many fair topics, if he wish to deck her with external ornaments, as men deck a splendid and beautiful form with gold and precious stones, and the artistic devices of the craftsman; which, while they accentuate ugliness by their contrast, can add no attractiveness to the beauty which surpasses them. For my part, I will only conform to such rules so far as to allude to our common parents, for it would not be reverent to pass unnoticed the great blessing of having such parents and teachers, and then speedily direct my attention to herself, without further taxing the patience of those who are eager to learn what manner of woman she was.
4. Who is there who knows not the Abraham
and Sarah of these our latter days, Gregory and Nonna his wife?
For it is not well to omit the incitement to virtue of mentioning their
names. He has been justified by faith, she has dwelt with him who
is faithful; he beyond all hope has been the father of many
nations, His father’s
gods. These words, together with the reference to idols and
idolators in § 5 and the lines (Poem, Hist. I. i. 123–4,
tome 2. p. 636) ὑπ᾽
εἰδώλοις
πάρος ἦεν
ζώων have led some writers (esp. Ullmann
and Clericus) to attribute the worship of idols to the Hypsistarii, and
Clémencet points out that ζώων is only the Ep. and Ion. partic.
of ζάω, and does not
mean “of animals.” The weakness of a reliance on a
poetical expression is shown in Dict. Christ. Biog. Here the
words are the mystical application of the actual experience of Abraham,
and ἐίδωλον does not necessarily
connote material idols. It is applied by S. Greg. Nyssen, Orat.
funebr. de Placilla, p. 965. B (ed. 1615) to the worship of Jesus
Christ by the Arians. Cf. Introd. to Orat. xviii.
5. This good shepherd was the result of his wife’s prayers and guidance, and it was from her that he learned his ideal of a good shepherd’s life. He generously fled from his idols, and afterwards even put demons to flight; he never consented to eat salt with idolators: united together with a bond of one honour, of one mind, of one soul, concerned as much with virtue and fellowship with God as with the flesh; equal in length of life and hoary hairs, equal in prudence and brilliancy, rivals of each other, soaring beyond all the rest, possessed in few respects by the flesh, and translated in spirit, even before dissolution: possessing not the world, and yet possessing it, by at once despising and rightly valuing it: forsaking riches and yet being rich through their noble pursuits; rejecting things here, and purchasing instead the things yonder: possessed of a scanty remnant of this life, left over from their piety, but of an abundant and long life for which they have laboured. I will say but one word more about them: they have been rightly and fairly assigned, each to either sex; he is the ornament of men, she of women, and not only the ornament but the pattern of virtue.
6. From them Gorgonia derived both her
existence and her reputation; they sowed in her the seeds of piety,
they were the source of her fair life, and of her happy departure with
better hopes. Fair privileges these, and such as are not easily
attained by many of those who plume themselves highly upon their noble
birth, and are proud of their ancestry. But, if I must treat of
her case in a more philosophic and lofty strain, Gorgonia’s
native land was Jerusalem above,
7. This is what I know upon these
points: and therefore it is that I both am aware and assert that
her soul was more noble than those of the East,
8. In modesty she so greatly excelled, and so far surpassed, those of her own day, to say nothing of those of old time who have been illustrious for modesty, that, in regard to the two divisions of the life of all, that is, the married and the unmarried state, the latter being higher and more divine, though more difficult and dangerous, while the former is more humble and more safe, she was able to avoid the disadvantages of each, and to select and combine all that is best in both, namely, the elevation of the one and the security of the other, thus becoming modest without pride, blending the excellence of the married with that of the unmarried state, and proving that neither of them absolutely binds us to, or separates us from, God or the world (so that the one from its own nature must be utterly avoided, and the other altogether praised): but that it is mind which nobly presides over wedlock and maidenhood, and arranges and works upon them as the raw material of virtue under the master-hand of reason. For though she had entered upon a carnal union, she was not therefore separated from the spirit, nor, because her husband was her head, did she ignore her first Head: but, performing those few ministrations due to the world and nature, according to the will of the law of the flesh, or rather of Him who gave to the flesh these laws, she consecrated herself entirely to God. But what is most excellent and honourable, she also won over her husband to her side, and made of him a good fellow-servant, instead of an unreasonable master. And not only so, but she further made the fruit of her body, her children and her children’s children, to be the fruit of her spirit, dedicating to God not her single soul, but the whole family and household, and making wedlock illustrious through her own acceptability in wedlock, and the fair harvest she had reaped thereby; presenting herself, as long as she lived, as an example to her offspring of all that was good, and when summoned hence, leaving her will behind her, as a silent exhortation to her house.
9. The divine Solomon, in his instructive
wisdom, I mean his Proverbs, praises the woman
11. Enough of such topics. Of her prudence and piety no adequate account can be given, nor many examples found besides those of her natural and spiritual parents, who were her only models, and of whose virtue she in no wise fell short, with this single exception most readily admitted, that they, as she both knew and acknowledged, were the source of her goodness, and the root of her own illumination. What could be keener than the intellect of her who was recognized as a common adviser not only by those of her family, those of the same people and of the one fold, but even by all men round about, who treated her counsels and advice as a law not to be broken? What more sagacious than her words? What more prudent than her silence? Having mentioned silence, I will proceed to that which was most characteristic of her, most becoming to women, and most serviceable to these times. Who had a fuller knowledge of the things of God, both from the Divine oracles, and from her own understanding? But who was less ready to speak, confining herself within the due limits of women? Moreover, as was the bounden duty of a woman who has learned true piety, and that which is the only honourable object of insatiate desire, who, as she, adorned temples with offerings, both others and this one, which will hardly, now she is gone, be so adorned again? Or rather, who so presented herself to God as a living temple? Who again paid such honor to Priests, especially to him who was her fellow soldier and teacher of piety, whose are the good seeds, and the pair of children consecrated to God.
12. Who opened her house to those who live
according to God with a more graceful and bountiful welcome? And,
which is greater than this, who bade them welcome with such modesty and
godly greetings? Further, who showed a mind more unmoved in
sufferings? Whose soul was more sympathetic to those in
trouble? Whose hand more liberal to those in want? I should
not hesitate to honour her with the words of Job: Her door was
opened to all comers; the stranger did not lodge in the street.
She was eyes to the blind, feet to the lame, a mother to the
orphan.
13. But amid these tokens of incredible
magnanimity, she did not surrender her body to luxury, and unrestrained
pleasures of the appetite, that raging and tearing dog, as though
presuming upon her acts of benevolence, as most men do, who redeem
their luxury by compassion to the poor, and instead of healing evil
with good, receive evil as a recompense for their good deeds. Nor
did she, while Her
dust, i.e. her body.
14. O untended body, and squalid garments,
whose only flower is virtue! O soul, clinging to the body, when
reduced almost to an immaterial state through lack of food; or rather,
when the body had been mortified by force, even before dissolution,
that the soul might attain to freedom, and escape the entanglements of
the senses! O nights of vigil, and psalmody, and standing which
lasts from one day to another! O David, whose strains never seem
tedious to faithful souls! O tender limbs, flung upon the earth
and, contrary to nature, growing hard! O fountains of tears,
sowing in affliction that they might reap in joy.
15. Oh! how am I to count up all her traits,
or pass over most of them without injury to those who know them
not? Here however it is right to subjoin the rewards of her
piety, for indeed I take it that you, who knew her life well, have long
been eager and desirous to find in my speech not only things present,
or her joys yonder, beyond the conception and hearing and sight of man,
but also those which the righteous Rewarder bestowed upon her
here: a matter which often tends to the edification of
unbelievers, who from small things attain to faith in those which are
great, and from things which are seen to those which are not
seen. I will mention then some facts which are generally
notorious, others which have been from most men kept secret; and that
because her Christian principle made a point of not making a display of
her [Divine] favours. You know how her maddened mules ran away
with her carriage, and unfortunately overturned it, how horribly she
was dragged along, and seriously injured, to the scandal of unbelievers
at the permission of such accidents to the righteous, and how quickly
their unbelief was corrected: for, all crushed and bruised as she
was, in bones and limbs, alike in those exposed and in those out of
sight, she would have none of any physician, except Him Who had
permitted it; both because she shrunk from the inspection and the hands
of men, preserving, even in suffering, her modesty, and also awaiting
her justification from Him Who allowed this to happen, so that she owed
her preservation to none other than to Him: with the result that
men were no less struck by her unhoped-for recovery than by her
misfortune, and concluded that the tragedy had happened for her
glorification through sufferings, the suffering being human, the
recovery superhuman, and giving a lesson to those who come after,
exhibiting in a high degree faith in the midst of suffering, and
patience under calamity, but in a still higher degree the kindness of
God to them that are such as she. For to the beautiful promise to
the righteous “though he fall, he shall not be utterly
broken,”
16. O remarkable and wonderful
disaster! O injury more noble than security! O prophecy,
“He hath smitten, and He will bind us up, and revive us, and
after three days He will raise us up,” O best,
&c. Faustinus, bishop of Iconium, must have been present,
and S. Gregory, having asked his permission to relate the incident,
looks towards him awaiting some sign of his assent.
17. She was sick in body, and dangerously ill of an extraordinary and malignant disease, her whole frame was incessantly fevered, her blood at one time agitated and boiling, then curdling with coma, incredible pallor, and paralysis of mind and limbs: and this not at long intervals, but sometimes very frequently. Its virulence seemed beyond human aid; the skill of physicians, who carefully examined the case, both singly and in consultation, was of no avail; nor the tears of her parents, which often have great power, nor public supplications and intercessions, in which all the people joined as earnestly as if for their own preservation: for her safety was the safety of all, as, on the contrary, her suffering and sickness was a common misfortune.
18. What then did this great soul, worthy
offspring of the greatest, and what was the medicine for her disorder,
for we have now come to the great secret? Despairing of all other
aid, she betook herself to the Physician of all, and awaiting the
silent hours of night, during a slight intermission of the disease, she
approached the altar with faith, and, calling upon Him Who is honoured
thereon, with a mighty cry, and every kind of invocation, calling to
mind all His former works of power, and well she knew those both of
ancient and of later days, at last she ventured on an act of pious and
splendid effrontery: she imitated the woman whose fountain of
blood was dried up by the hem of Christ’s garment. S. S. Antitypes, i.e.
the reserved Sacrament.
19. Such was her life. Most of its
details I have left untold, lest my speech should grow to undue
proportions, and lest I should seem to be too greedy for her fair
fame: but perhaps we should be wronging her holy and illustrious
death, did we not mention some of its excellences; especially as she so
longed for and desired it. I will do so therefore, as concisely
as I can. She longed for her dissolution, for indeed she had
great boldness towards Him who called her, and preferred to be with
Christ, beyond all things on earth.
20. She had recently obtained the blessing
of cleansing and perfection, which we have all received from God as a
common gift and foundation of our new δευτέρον, lit.
“second.”
21. And now when she had all things to her mind, and nothing was lacking of her desires, and the appointed time drew nigh, being thus prepared for death and departure, she fulfilled the law which prevails in such matters, and took to her bed. After many injunctions to her husband, her children, and her friends, as was to be expected from one who was full of conjugal, maternal, and brotherly love, and after making her last day a day of solemn festival with brilliant discourse upon the things above, she fell asleep, full not of the days of man, for which she had no desire, knowing them to be evil for her, and mainly occupied with our dust and wanderings, but more exceedingly full of the days of God, than I imagine any one even of those who have departed in a wealth of hoary hairs, and have numbered many terms of years. Thus she was set free, or, it is better to say, taken to God, or flew away, or changed her abode, or anticipated by a little the departure of her body.
22. Yet what was I on the point of
omitting? But perhaps thou, who art her spiritual father, wouldst
not have allowed me, and hast carefully concealed the wonder, and made
it known to me. It is a great point for her distinction, and in
our memory of her virtue, and regret for her departure. But
trembling and tears have seized upon me, at the recollection of the
wonder. She was just passing away, and at her last breath,
surrounded by a group of relatives and friends performing the last
offices of kindness, while her aged mother bent over her, with her soul
convulsed with envy of her departure, anguish and affection being
blended in the minds of all. Some longed to hear some burning
word to be branded in their recollection; others were eager to speak,
yet no one dared; for tears were mute and the pangs of grief
unconsoled, since it seemed sacrilegious, to think that mourning could
be an honour to one who was thus passing away. So there was
solemn silence, as if her death had been a religious ceremony.
There she lay, to all appearance, breathless, motionless, speechless;
the stillness of her body seemed paralysis, as though the organs of
speech were dead, after that which could move them was gone. But
as her pastor, who in this wonderful scene, was carefully watching her,
perceived that her lips were gently moving, and placed his ear to them,
which his disposition and sympathy emboldened him to do,—but do
you expound the meaning of this mysterious calm, for no one can
disbelieve it on your word! Under her breath she was repeating a
psalm—the last words of a psalm—to say the truth, a
testimony to the boldness with which she was departing, and blessed is
he who can fall asleep with these words, “I will lay me down in
peace, and take my rest.”
23. Better, I know well, and far more
precious than eye can see, is thy present lot, the song of them that
keep holy-day,
Oration XII.
To His Father, When He Had Entrusted to Him the Care of the Church of Nazianzus.
ThisOration was
delivered a.d. 372. Two years earlier
Valens had divided Cappadocia into two provinces. Anthimus,
Bishop of Tyana, asserting that the ecclesiastical provinces were
regulated by those of the empire, claimed metropolitical rights over
the churches of Cappadocia Secunda, in opposition to S. Basil, who had
hitherto been metropolitan of the undivided province. S. Basil,
with the intention of vindicating the permanence of his former rights,
created a new see at Sasima, on the borders of the two provinces, and
with great difficulty prevailed upon S. Gregory to receive consecration
as its first Bishop. S. Gregory, who had “bent his neck,
but not his will,” Carmina Hist., xi.,
487. Ib.,
492–525.
1. I opened my
mouth, and drew in the Spirit,
2. I will speak then, since I am so
bidden. And I will speak both to the good shepherd here, and to
you, his holy flock, as I think is best both for me to speak, and for
you to hear to-day. Why is it that you have begged for one to
share your shepherd’s toil? For my speech shall begin with
you, O dear and honoured head, worthy of that of Aaron, down which runs
that spiritual and priestly ointment upon his beard and
clothing. The
Cross. The stretching out of Moses’ hands was a type of
the outstretched hands of our Lord Jesus, and His “intercession
for the transgressors,” upon the Cross.
3. What is it then that ails you? What
is your weakness? Is it physical? I am ready to sustain
you, yea I have sustained, and been sustained, like Jacob of old, by
your fatherly blessings. Made, by the
manner in which they have sought for and exercised it.
4. I have been overpowered, my friends and
brethren, for I will now, though I did not at the time, ask for your
aid. I have been overpowered by the old age of my father, and, to
use moderate terms, the kindliness of my friend. So, help me,
each of you who can, and stretch out a hand to me who am pressed down
and torn asunder by regret and enthusiasm. The one suggests
flights, mountains and deserts, and calm of soul and body, and that the
mind should retire into itself, and recall its powers from sensible
things, in order to hold pure communion with God, and be clearly
illumined by the flashing rays of the Spirit, with no admixture or
disturbance of the divine light by anything earthly or clouded, until
we come to the source of the effulgence which we enjoy here, and regret
and desire are alike stayed, when our mirrors
5. It seemed to me to be best and least dangerous
to take a middle course between desire and fear, and to yield in part
to desire, in part to the Spirit: and that this would be the
case, if I neither altogether evaded the office, and so refused the
grace, which would be dangerous, nor yet assumed a burden beyond my
powers, for it is a heavy one. The former indeed is suited to the
person of another, the latter to another’s power, or rather to
undertake both would be madness. But piety and safety would alike
advise me to proportion the office to my power, and as is the case with
food, to accept that which is within my power and refuse what is beyond
it, for health is gained for the body, and tranquillity for the soul,
by such a course of moderation. Therefore I now consent to share
in the cares of my excellent father, like an eaglet, not quite vainly
flying close to a mighty and high soaring eagle. But hereafter I
will offer my wing to the Spirit to be borne whither, and as, He
wills: no one shall force or drag me in any direction, contrary
to His counsel. For sweet it is to inherit a father’s
toils, and this flock is more familiar than a strange and foreign one;
I would even add, more precious in the sight of God, unless the spell
of affection deceives me, and the force of habit robs me of
perception: nor is there any more useful or safer course than
that willing rulers should rule willing subjects: since it is our
practice not to lead by force, or by compulsion, but by good
will. For this would not hold together even another form of
government, since that which is held in by force is wont, when
opportunity offers, to strike for freedom: but freedom of will
more than
6. This is my speech to you, my good men,
uttered in simplicity and with all good will, and this is the secret of
my mind. And may the victory rest with that which will be for the
profit of both you and me, under the Spirit’s guidance of our
affairs, (for our discourse comes back again to the same
point,) The same point,
i.e. from which it started, § 1. Hide,
etc. S. Gregory here alludes to the “economy” which
refrained from distinctly declaring the Divinity of the Holy
Ghost. Cf. Or. xliii., 68. This declaration of his was
afterwards commented on by his audience and others, cf. Epist. 58, in
which his mode of teaching is contrasted with that of S. Basil. S.
Oration XVI.
On His Father’s Silence, Because of the Plague of Hail.
ThisOration belongs to the year a.d. 373. A series of disasters had befallen the people of Nazianzus. A deadly cattle plague, which had devastated their herds, had been followed by a prolonged drought, and now their just ripened crops had been ruined by a storm of rain and hail. The people flocked to the church, and finding S. Gregory the elder so overwhelmed by his sense of these terrible misfortunes that he was unable to address them, implored his coadjutor to enter the pulpit. The occasion gave no time for preparation, so S. Gregory poured out his feelings in a discourse which was in the fullest sense of the words ex tempore. Its present form, however, as Benoît suggests, may be due to a later polishing of notes taken down at the time of delivery.
1. Why do you
infringe upon the approved order of things? Why would you do
violence to a tongue which is under obligation to the law? Why do
you challenge a speech which is in subjection to the Spirit? Why,
when you have excused the head, have you hastened to the feet?
Why do you pass by Aaron Aaron, S.
Gregory the elder. Eleazar, S. Gregory
Nazianzen.
2. I have not yet alluded to the true and
first wisdom, for which our wonderful husbandman and shepherd is
conspicuous. The first wisdom is a life worthy of praise, and
kept pure for God, or being purified for Him Who is all-pure and
all-luminous, Who demands of us, us His only sacrifice,
purification—that is, a contrite heart and the sacrifice of
praise, S.
3. Fairer in my eyes, is the beauty which we
can gaze upon than that which is painted in words: of more value
the wealth which our hands can hold, than that which is imagined in our
dreams; and more real the wisdom of which we are convinced by deeds,
than that which is set forth in splendid language. For “a
good understanding,” he saith, “have all they that do
thereafter,”
4. Do not thou, therefore, restrain a tongue
whose noble utterances and fruits have been many, which has begotten
many children of righteousness—yea, lift up thine eyes round
about and see, Loss, i.e., the
death of his father, which, from his age, could not be long
delayed. S.
5. Tell us whence come such blows and scourges,
and what account we can give of them. Is it some disordered and
irregular motion or some unguided current, some unreason of the
universe, as though there were no Ruler of the world, which is
therefore borne along by chance, as is the doctrine of the foolishly
wise, who are themselves borne along at random by the disorderly spirit
of darkness? Or are the disturbances and changes of the universe,
(which was originally constituted, blended, bound together, and set in
motion in a harmony known only to Him Who gave it motion,) directed by
reason and order under the guidance of the reins of Providence?
Whence come famines and tornadoes and hailstorms, our present warning
blow? Whence pestilences, diseases, earthquakes, tidal waves, and
fearful things in the heavens? And how is the creation, once
ordered for the enjoyment of men, their common and equal delight,
changed for the punishment of the ungodly, in order that we may be
chastised through that for which, when honoured with it, we did not
give thanks, and recognise in
6. Terrible is an unfruitful season, and the
loss of the crops. It could not be otherwise, when men are
already rejoicing in their hopes, and counting on their all but
harvested stores. Terrible again is an unseasonable harvest, when
the farmers labour with heavy hearts, sitting as it were beside the
grave of their crops, which the gentle rain nourished, but the wild
storm has rooted up, whereof the mower filleth not his hand, neither he
that bindeth up the sheaves his bosom, Another.
Either this is a wrong reading, or S. Gregory’s memory fails
him. The second quotation is also from Joel.
7. I know the glittering sword,
8. What shall we do in the day of
visitation,
9. But then what advocate shall we
have? What pretext? What false excuse? What plausible
artifice? What device contrary to the truth will impose upon the
court, and rob it of its right judgment, which places in the balance
for us all, our entire life, action, word, and thought, and weighs
against the evil that which is better, until that which preponderates
wins the day, and the decision is given in favour of the main tendency;
after which there is no appeal, no higher court, no defence on the
ground of subsequent conduct, no oil obtained from the wise virgins, or
from them that sell, for the lamps going out, S. S. S. S. S.
10. What are we to do now, my brethren, when
crushed, cast down, and drunken but not with strong drink nor with
wine,
11. Perchance He will say to me, who am not
reformed even by blows, I know that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is
an iron sinew,
12. Far be it from me that I should ever,
among other chastisements, be thus reproached by Him Who is good, but
walks contrary to me in fury
13. With these words I invoke mercy:
and if it were possible to propitiate His wrath with whole burnt
offerings or sacrifices, I would not even have spared these. Do
you also yourselves imitate your trembling priest, you, my beloved
children, sharers with me alike of the Divine correction and
loving-kindness. Possess your souls in tears, and stay His wrath
by amending your way of life. Sanctify a fast, call a solemn
assembly,
14. Come then, all of you, my brethren, let
us worship and fall down, and weep before the Lord our Maker;
15. Let us be assured that to do no
wrong To do no wrong.
etc. Clémencet quotes this as an aphorism from Demosth. de
Cor.
16. It is a fearful thing, my brethren, to
fall into the hands of a living God,
17. Only let us recognise the purpose of the
evil. Why have the crops withered, our storehouses been emptied,
the pastures of our flocks failed, the fruits of the earth been
withheld, and the plains been filled with shame instead of with
fatness: why have valleys lamented and not abounded in corn, the
mountains not dropped sweetness, as they shall do hereafter to the
righteous, but been stript and dishonoured, and received on the
contrary the curse of Gilboa?
18. One of us has oppressed the poor, and
wrested from him his portion of land, and wrongly encroached upon his
landmark by fraud or violence, and joined house to house, and field to
field, to rob his neighbour of something, and been eager to have no
neighbour, so as to dwell alone on the earth. S. S.
19. What shall be said to this by those of us who
are buyers and sellers of corn, and watch the hardships of the seasons,
in order to grow prosperous, and luxuriate in the misfor
20. Join with us, thou divine and sacred
person, in considering these questions, with the store of experience,
that source of wisdom, which thou hast gathered in thy long life.
Herewith instruct thy people. Teach them to break their bread to
the hungry, to gather together the poor that have no shelter, to cover
their nakedness and not neglect those of the same blood,
Oration XVIII.
On the Death of his Father.
ThisOration was
delivered a.d. 374. S. Gregory the elder
died early in that year, according to the Greek Menæa on the 1st
of January, though Clémencet and some others place his death a few
months later. His wife, S. Nonna, survived him, and was present
to hear the Oration, as was also S. Basil, who desired to honour one
who had consecrated him to the Episcopate. The aged Saint, who
died in his hundredth year, had originally belonged to a sect called
Hypsistarii. Our knowledge of the existence and tenets of this
sect is due to this Oration Cf. Orat. viii. §
4, note.
Funeral Oration on His Father, in the Presence of S. Basil.
1. O man of
God, The first words are
addressed to S. Basil, who was present.
2. Tell me, however, whence do you come,
what is your business, and what favour do you bring us? Since I
know that you are entirely moved with and by God, and for the benefit
of those who receive you. Are you come to inspect us, or to seek
for the pastor, or to take the oversight of the flock? You find
us no longer in existence, but for the most part having passed away
with him, unable to bear with the place of our affliction, especially
now that we have lost our skilful steersman, our light of life, to whom
we looked to direct our course as the blazing beacon of salvation above
us: he has departed with all his excellence, and all the power of
pastoral organization, which he had gathered in a long time, full of
days and wisdom, and crowned, to use the words of Solomon, with the
hoary head of glory.
3. There are, as I said, three causes to necessitate your presence, all of equal weight, ourselves, the pastor, and the flock: come then, and according to the spirit of ministry which is in you, assign to each its due, and guide your words in judgment, so that we may more than ever marvel at your wisdom. And how will you guide them? First by bestowing seemly praise upon his virtue, not only as a pure sepulchral tribute of speech to him who was pure, but also to set forth to others his conduct and example as a mark of true piety. Then bestow upon us some brief counsels concerning life and death, and the union and severance of body and soul, and the two worlds, the one present but transitory, the other spiritually perceived and abiding; and persuade us to despise that which is deceitful and disordered and uneven, carrying us and being carried, like the waves, now up, now down; but to cling to that which is firm and stable and divine and constant, free from all disturbance and confusion. For this would lessen our pain because of friends departed before us, nay we should rejoice if your words should carry us hence and set us on high, and hide distress of the present in the future, and persuade us that we also are pressing on to a good Master, and that our home is better than our pilgrimage; and that translation and removal thither is to us who are tempest-tost here like a calm haven to men at sea; or as ease and relief from toil come to men who, at the close of a long journey, escape the troubles of the wayfarer, so to those who attain to the hostel yonder comes a better and more tolerable existence than that of those who still tread the crooked and precipitous path of this life.
4. Thus might you console us; but what of
the flock? Would you first promise the oversight and leadership
of yourself, a man under whose wings we all would gladly repose, and
for whose words we thirst more eagerly than men suffering from thirst
for the purest fountain? Secondly, persuade us that the good
shepherd who laid down his life for the sheep S.
5. Leaving to the laws of panegyric the
description of his country, his family, his nobility of figure, his
external magnificence, and the other subjects of human pride, I begin
with what is of most consequence and comes closest to ourselves.
He sprang from a stock unrenowned, and not well suited for piety, for I
am not ashamed of his origin, in my confidence in the close of his
life, one that was not planted in the house of God, Humours.
This word is used Aristoph. Plut. 581, of the obscuring effect of old
prejudices.
6. Even before he was of our fold, he was
ours. His character made him one of us. For, as many of our
own are not with us, whose life alienates them from the common body,
so, many of those without are on our side, whose character anticipates
their faith, and need only the name of that which indeed they
possess. My father was one of these, an alien shoot, but inclined
by his life towards us. He was so far advanced in self control,
that he became at once most beloved and most modest, two qualities
difficult to combine. What greater and more splendid testimony
can there be to his justice than his exercise of a position second to
none in the state, without enriching himself by a single farthing,
although he saw everyone else casting the hands of Briareus upon the
public funds, and swollen with ill-gotten gain? For thus do I
term unrighteous wealth. Of his prudence this also is no slight
proof, but in the course of my speech further details will be
given. It was as a reward Reward.
Faith is, as Clémencet remarks, “the gift of
God”—but cf. S.
7. I have heard the Scripture say: Who
can find a valiant woman? Hesiod: Works
and Days, 700.
8. She indeed who was given to Adam as a
help meet for him, because it was not good for man to be
alone,
9. What time or place for prayer ever
escaped her? To this she was drawn before all other things in the
day; or rather, who had such hope of receiving an immediate answer to
her requests? Who paid such reverence to the hand and countenance
of the priests? Or honoured all kinds of philosophy? Who
reduced the flesh by more constant fast and vigil? Or stood like
a pillar at the night long and daily psalmody? Who had a greater
love for virginity, though patient of the marriage bond herself?
Who was a better patron of the orphan and the widow? Who aided as
much in the alleviation of the misfortunes of the mourner? These
things, small as they are, and perhaps contemptible in the eyes of
some, because not easily attainable by most people (for that which is
unattainable comes, through envy, to be thought not even credible), are
in my eyes most honourable, since they were the discoveries of her
faith and the undertakings of her spiritual fervour. So also in
the holy assemblies, or places, her voice was never to be heard
except Except,
etc. Lit., “except the necessary and mystical (i.e.,
liturgical) [words].”
10. And if it was a great thing for the
altar never to have had an iron tool lifted upon it,
11. I pass by in silence what is still more
ineffable, of which God is witness, and those of the faithful
handmaidens to whom she has confided such things. That which
concerns myself is perhaps undeserving of mention, since I have proved
unworthy of the hope The drop.
A familiar proverb. Choerilus, 9.
12. These were the objects of her prayers
and hopes, in the fervour of faith rather than of youth. Indeed,
none was as confident of things present as she of things hoped for,
from her experience of the generosity of God. For the salvation
of my father there was a concurrence of the gradual conviction
Conviction. Lit., “healing.” The
wonder. S. Gregory the elder ought, according to the rite of
admission to the ranks of the Catechumens, to have remained standing,
and in that position have had his ears anointed. He fell upon his
knees and the Bishop, in forgetfulness, pronounced over him the form of
ordination to the Priesthood.
13. After a short interval, wonder succeeded
wonder. I will commend the account of it to the ears of the
faithful, for to profane minds nothing that is good is
trustworthy. He was approaching that regeneration by water and
the Spirit, by which we confess to God the formation and completion of
the Christlike man, and the transformation and reformation from the
earthy to the Spirit. He was approaching the laver with warm
desire and bright hope, after all the purgation possible, and a far
greater purification of soul and body than that of the men who were to
receive the tables from Moses. Their purification extended only
to their dress, and a slight restriction of the belly, and a temporary
continence. The gift of
faith. One of the questions in some ancient rites of
administering Holy Baptism was, “What seekest thou of the
Church?” to which the answer was “Faith.” The
baptiser. The Bishop of Nazianzus—not Leontius of
Cæsarea, who had much to do with Gregory’s instruction and
had, possibly, admitted him to the order of Catechumens.
14. Nor indeed would anyone disbelieve this
who has heard and knows that Moses, when little in the eyes of men, and
not yet of any account, was called from the bush which burned but was
not consumed, or rather by Him who appeared in the bush,
15. Why need I count up all those who have
been called to Himself by God and associated with such wonders as
confirmed him in his piety? Nor was it the case that after such
and so incredible and startling beginnings, any of the former things
was put to shame by his subsequent conduct, as happens with those who
very soon acquire a distaste for what is good, and so neglect all
further progress, if they do not utterly relapse into vice. This
cannot be said of him, for he was most consistent with himself and his
early days, and kept in harmony his life before the priesthood with its
excellence, and his life after it with what had gone before, since it
would have been unbecoming to begin in one way and end in another, or
to advance to a different end from that which he had in view at
first. He was next entrusted with the priesthood, not with the
facility and disorder of the present day, but after a brief interval,
in order to add to his own cleansing the skill and power to cleanse
others; for this is the law of spiritual sequence. And when he
had been entrusted with it, the grace was the more glorified, being
really the grace of God, and not of men, and not, as the
preacher Purpose,
etc. A.V. “Vexation of
Spirit.” R.V. “Striving
after wind.”
16. He received a woodland and rustic
church, the pastoral care and oversight of which had not been bestowed
from a distance, but it had been cared for by one of his predecessors
of admirable and angelic disposition, and a more simple man than our
present rulers of the people; but, after he had been speedily taken to
God, it had, in consequence of the loss of its leader, for the most
part grown careless and run wild; accordingly, he at first strove
without harshness to soften the habits of the people, both by words of
pastoral knowledge, and by setting himself before them as an example,
like a spiritual statue, polished into the beauty of all excellent
conduct. He next, by constant meditation on the divine words,
though a late student of such matters, gathered together so much wisdom
within a short time that he was in no wise excelled by those who had
spent the greatest toil upon them, and received this special grace from
God, that he became the father and teacher of orthodoxy—not, like
our modern wise men, yielding to the spirit of the age, nor defending
our faith by indefinite and sophistical language, as if they had no
fixity of faith, or were adulterating the truth; but, he was more pious
than those who possessed rhetorical power, more skilled in rhetoric
than those who were upright in mind; or rather, while he took the
second place as an orator, he surpassed all in piety. He
acknowledged One God worshipped in Trinity, and Three, Who are united
in One Godhead; neither Sabellianising Sabellianising,
etc. Cf. II. 36, 37 (notes). Degrees.
The heretics asserted that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were arranged
in this order according to a real difference in rank.
17. What else must we say of this great man of God, the true Divine, under the influence, in regard to these subjects, of the Holy Ghost, but that through his perception of these points, he, like the great Noah, the father of this second world, made this church to be called the new Jerusalem, and a second ark borne up upon the waters; since it both surmounted the deluge of souls, and the insults of the heretics, and excelled all others in reputation no less than it fell behind them in numbers; and has had the same fortune as the sacred Bethlehem, which can without contradiction be at once said to be a little city and the metropolis of the world, since it is the nurse and mother of Christ, Who both made and overcame the world.
18. To give a proof of what I say.
When a tumult of the over-zealous part of the Church was raised against
us, and we had been decoyed by a document A
document. Benoît (I. p. 179) gives reasons for
believing that this was the creed of the council of Antioch,
a.d. 363—which accepted the Creed of
Nicæa, but explained it in terms capable of a semiarian
construction. The “over zealous part” were the
monks. Partner.
S. Gregory had a considerable share in the explanations which made
clear his father’s real orthodoxy, and re-established
peace. Orat. vi. was pronounced by him on the occasion.
19. Who could enumerate the full tale of his excellences, or, if he wished to pass by most of them, discover without difficulty what can be omitted? For each trait, as it occurs to the mind, seems superior to what has gone before; it takes possession of me, and I feel more at a loss to know what I ought to pass by, than other panegyrists are as to what they ought to say. So that the abundance of material is to some extent a hindrance to me, and my mind is itself put to the test in its efforts to test his qualities, and its inability, where all are equal, to find one which surpasses the rest. So that, just as when we see a pebble falling into still water, it becomes the centre and starting-point of circle after circle, each by its continuous agitation breaking up that which lies outside of it; this is exactly the case with myself. For as soon as one thing enters my mind, another follows and displaces it; and I am wearied out in making a choice, as what I have already grasped is ever retiring in favour of that which follows in its train.
20. Who was more anxious than he for the
common weal? Who more wise in domestic affairs, since God, who
orders all things in due variation, assigned to him a house and
suitable fortune? Who was more sympathetic in mind, more
bounteous in hand, towards the poor, that most dishonoured portion of
the nature to which equal honour is due? For he actually treated
his own property as if it were another’s, of which he was but the
steward, relieving poverty as far as he could, and expending not only
his superfluities but his necessities—a manifest proof of love
for the poor, giving a portion, not only to seven, according to the
injunction of Solomon, Better.
Clémencet compares Dem. De Corona.
21. But what is best and greatest of all,
his magnanimity was accompanied by freedom from ambition. Its
extent and character I will proceed to show. In considering their
wealth to be common to all, and in liberality in bestowing it, he and
his consort rivalled each other in their struggles after excellence;
but he intrusted the greater part of this bounty to her hand, as being
a most excellent and trusty steward of such matters. What a woman
she is? Not even the Atlantic Ocean, or if there be a greater
one, could meet her drafts upon it. So great and so boundless is
her love of liberality. In the contrary sense she has rivalled
the horse-leech
22. So bounteous was his hand—further
details I leave to those who knew him, so that if anything of the kind
is borne witness to in regard to myself, it proceeds from that
fountain, and is a portion of that stream. Who was more under the
Divine guidance in admitting men to the sanctuary, To the
Sanctuary, i.e., To the Priesthood.
23. Who did more to rebuke pride and foster lowliness? And that in no assumed or external way, as most of those who now make profession of virtue, and are in appearance as elegant as the most mindless women, who, for lack of beauty of their own, take refuge in pigments, and are, if I may say so, splendidly made up, uncomely in their comeliness, and more ugly than they originally were. For his lowliness was no matter of dress, but of spiritual disposition: nor was it expressed by a bent neck, or lowered voice, or downcast look, or length of beard, or close-shaven head, or measured gait, which can be adopted for a while, but are very quickly exposed, for nothing which is affected can be permanent. No! he was ever most lofty in life, most lowly in mind; inaccessible in virtue, most accessible in intercourse. His dress had in it nothing remarkable, avoiding equally magnificence and sordidness, while his internal brilliancy was supereminent. The disease and insatiability of the belly, he, if anyone, held in check, but without ostentation; so that he might be kept down without being puffed up, from having encouraged a new vice by his pursuit of reputation. For he held that doing and saying everything by which fame among externs might be won, is the characteristic of the politician, whose chief happiness is found in the present life: but that the spiritual and Christian man should look to one object alone, his salvation, and think much of what may contribute to this, but detest as of no value what does not; and accordingly despise what is visible, but be occupied with interior perfection alone, and estimate most highly whatever promotes his own improvement, and attracts others through himself to that which is supremely good.
24. But what was most excellent and most
characteristic, though least generally recognized, was his simplicity,
and freedom from guile and resentment. For among men of ancient
and modern days, each is supposed to have had some special success, as
each chanced S.
25. We both believe in and hear of the
dregs Dregs.
Cf. Orat. xvi. 4.
26. The dew would more easily resist the
morning rays of the sun, than any remains of anger continue in him; but
as soon as he had spoken, his indignation departed with his words,
leaving behind only his love for what is good, and never outlasting the
sun; nor did he cherish anger which destroys even the prudent, or show
any bodily trace of vice within, nay, even when roused, he preserved
calmness. The result of this was most unusual, not that he was
the only one to give rebuke, but the only one to be both loved and
admired by those whom he reproved, from the victory which his goodness
gained over warmth of feeling; and it was felt to be more serviceable
to be punished by a just man than besmeared by a bad one, for in one
case the severity becomes pleasant for its utility, in the other the
kindliness is suspected because of the evil of the man’s
character. But though his soul and character were so simple and
divine, his piety nevertheless inspired the insolent with awe: or
rather, the cause of their respect was the simplicity which they
despised. For it was impossible to him to utter either prayer or
curse without the immediate bestowal of permanent blessing or transient
pain. The one proceeded from his inmost soul, the other merely
rested upon his lips as a paternal reproof. Many indeed of those
who had injured him incurred neither lingering requital nor, as the
poet The poet.
Pindar.
27. Such and so remarkable being his gentleness,
did he yield the palm to others in
28. One of the wonders which concern him was
that he suffered from sickness and bodily pain. But what wonder
is it for even holy men to be distressed, either for the cleansing of
their clay, slight though it may be, or a touchstone of virtue and test
of philosophy, or for the education of the weaker, who learn from their
example to be patient instead of giving way under their
misfortunes? Well, he was sick, the time was the holy and
illustrious Easter, the queen of days, the brilliant night which
dissipates the darkness of sin, upon which with abundant light we keep
the feast of our salvation, putting ourselves to death along with the
Light once put to death for us, and rising again with Him who
rose. This was the time of his sufferings. Of what kind
they were, I will briefly explain. His whole frame was on fire
with an excessive, burning fever, his strength had failed, he was
unable to take food, his sleep had departed from him, he was in the
greatest distress, and agitated by palpitations. Within his
mouth, the palate and the whole of the upper surface was so completely
and painfully ulcerated, that it was difficult and dangerous to swallow
even water. The skill of physicians, the prayers, most earnest
though they were, of his friends, and every possible attention were
alike of no avail. He himself in this desperate condition, while
his breath came short and fast, had no perception of present things,
but was entirely absent, immersed in the objects he had long desired,
now made ready for him. We were in the temple, mingling
supplications with the sacred rites, for, in despair of all others, we
had betaken ourselves to the Great Physician, to the power of that
night, and to the last succour, with the intention, shall I say, of
keeping a feast, or of mourning; of holding festival, or paying funeral
honours to one no longer here? O those tears! which were shed at
that time by all the people. O voices, and cries, and hymns
blended with the psalmody! From the temple they sought the
priest, from the sacred rite the celebrant, from God their worthy
ruler, with my Miriam My
Miriam. S. Nonna.
29. What then was the response of Him who
was the God of that night and of the sick man? A shudder comes
over me as I proceed with my story. And though you, my hearers,
may shudder, do not disbelieve: for that would be impious, when I
am the speaker, and in reference to him. The time of the mystery
was come, and the reverend station and order, when silence is kept for
the solemn rites; and then he was raised up by Him who quickeneth the
dead, and by the holy night. At first he moved slightly, then
more decidedly; then in a feeble and indistinct voice he called by name
one of the servants who was in attendance upon him, and bade him come,
and bring his clothes, and support him with his hand. He came in
alarm, and gladly waited upon him, while he, leaning upon his hand as
upon a staff, imitates Moses upon the mount, arranges his feeble hands
in prayer, and in union with, or on behalf of, On behalf of,
or perhaps “at the head of.” The passage does not
mean that he actually celebrated the Holy Mysteries, but that he used
some of the prayers of the service, and united himself in intention
with the service being at the time performed in the church, and invoked
the Divine blessing upon his people in his absence. The new
day. On this feast (in another year) Orat. xliv. was
preached.
30. The same miracle occurred in the case of
my mother not long afterwards. I do not think it would be proper
to pass by this either: for we shall both pay the meed of honour
which is due to her, if to anyone at all, and gratify him, by her being
associated with him in our recital. She, who had always been
strong and vigorous and free from disease all her life, was herself
attacked by sickness. In consequence of much distress, not to
prolong my story, caused above all by inability to eat, her life was
for many days in danger, and no remedy for the disease could be
found. How did God sustain her? Not by raining down manna,
as for Israel of old
31. I was on a voyage from Alexandria to Greece over the Parthenian Sea. The voyage was quite unseasonable, undertaken in an Æginetan vessel, under the impulse of eager desire; for what specially induced me was that I had fallen in with a crew who were well known to me. After making some way on the voyage, a terrible storm came upon us, and such an one as my shipmates said they had but seldom seen before. While we were all in fear of a common death, spiritual death was what I was most afraid of; for I was in danger of departing in misery, being unbaptised, and I longed for the spiritual water among the waters of death. On this account I cried and begged and besought a slight respite. My shipmates, even in their common danger, joined in my cries, as not even my own relatives would have done, kindly souls as they were, having learned sympathy from their dangers. In this my condition, my parents felt for me, my danger having been communicated to them by a nightly vision, and they aided me from the land, soothing the waves by prayer, as I afterwards learned by calculating the time, after I had landed. This was also shown me in a wholesome sleep, of which I had experience during a slight lull of the tempest. I seemed to be holding a Fury, of fearful aspect, boding danger; for the night presented her clearly to my eyes. Another of my shipmates, a boy most kindly disposed and dear to me, and exceedingly anxious on my behalf, in my then present condition, thought he saw my mother walk upon the sea, and seize and drag the ship to land with no great exertion. We had confidence in the vision, for the sea began to grow calm, and we soon reached Rhodes after the intervention of no great discomfort. We ourselves became an offering in consequence of that peril; for we promised ourselves if we were saved, to God, and, when we had been saved, gave ourselves to Him.
32. Such were their common experiences. But
I imagine that some of those who have had an accurate knowledge of his
life must have been for a long while wondering why we have dwelt upon
these points, as if we thought
33. A further story of the same period and
the same courage. The city of Cæsarea was in an uproar about
the election of a bishop; for one One, i.e.
Dianius. One of, etc.,
Eusebius. Their, i.e., of
the Bishops.
34. The Emperor The Emperor,
Julian. In imminent
peril, lit. “on a razor’s edge.” Homer Il.
x. 173.
35. Who is so distant from this world of
ours, as to be ignorant of what is last in order, but the first and
greatest proof of his power? The same city was again in an uproar
for the same reason, in consequence of the sudden removal of the Bishop
chosen with such honourable violence, who had now departed to God, on
Whose behalf he had nobly and bravely contended in the
persecutions. The heat of the disturbance was in proportion to
its unreasonableness. The man of eminence was not unknown, but
was more conspicuous than the sun amidst the stars, in the eyes not
only of all others, but especially of that select and most pure portion
of the people, whose business is in the sanctuary, and the
Nazarites Nazarites,
i.e., “the monks.” Your divine,
etc., addressed to S. Basil.
36. The things of the Spirit were exactly known to
the man of the Spirit, and he felt that he must take up no submissive
position, nor side with factions and prejudices which depend upon
favour rather than upon God, but must make the advantage of the Church
and the common salvation his sole ob There was
lacking. The Council of Nicæa ordered that a Bishop
should be consecrated by at least three Bishops.
37. From the same zeal proceeded his opposition to the heretics, when, with the aid of the Emperor’s impiety, they made their expedition, in the hope of overpowering us also, and adding us to the number of the others whom they had, in almost all cases, succeeded in enslaving. For in this he afforded us no slight assistance, both in himself, and by hounding us on like well-bred dogs against these most savage beasts, through his training in piety. On one point I blame you both, and pray do not take amiss my plainspeaking, if I should annoy you by expressing the cause of my pain. When I was disgusted at the evils of life, and longing, if anyone of our day has longed, for solitude, and eager, as speedily as possible, to escape to some haven of safety, from the surge and dust of public life, it was you who, somehow or other seized and gave me up by the noble title of the priesthood to this base and treacherous mart of souls. In consequence, evils have already befallen me, and others are yet to be anticipated. For past experience renders a man somewhat distrustful of the future, in spite of the better suggestions of reason to the contrary.
38. Another of his excellences I must not
leave unnoticed. In general, he was a man of great endurance, and
superior to his robe of flesh: but during the pain of his last
sickness, a serious addition to the risks and burdens of old age, his
weakness was common to him and all other men; but this fitting sequel
to the other marvels, so far from being common, was peculiarly his
own. He was at no time free from the anguish of pain, but often
in the day, sometimes in the hour, his only relief was the liturgy, to
which the pain yielded, as if to an edict of banishment. At last,
after a life of almost a hundred years, exceeding David’s limit
of our age,
39. And since some living memorial of his
munificence ought to be left behind, what other is required than this
temple, which he reared for God and for us, with very little
contribution from the people in addition to the expenditure of his
private fortune? An exploit which should not be buried in
silence, since in size it is superior to most others, in beauty
absolutely to all. It surrounds itself with eight regular
equilaterals, and is raised aloft by the beauty of two stories of
pillars and porticos, while the statues placed upon them are true to
the life; its vault flashes down upon us from above, and it dazzles our
eyes with abundant sources of light on every side, being indeed the
dwelling-place of light. It
40. What sayest thou, my father? Is
this sufficient, and dost thou find an ample recompense for all thy
toils, which thou didst undergo for my learning, in this eulogy of
farewell or of entombment? And dost thou, as of old, impose
silence on my tongue, and bid me stop in due time, and so avoid
excess? Or dost thou require some addition? I know thou
bidst me cease, for I have said enough. Yet suffer me to add
this. Make known to us where thou art in glory, and the light
which encircles thee, and receive into the same abode thy partner soon
to follow thee, and the children whom thou hadst laid to rest before
thee, and me also, after no further, or but a slight addition to the
ills of this life: and before reaching that abode receive me in
this sweet stone, Stone, i.e. the
tomb in which his father was buried. Which I have
resigned, i.e., Sasima. Accepted, i.e.,
Nazianzus.
41. And what do you think of us, O judge of
my words and motions? If we have spoken adequately, and to the
satisfaction of your desire, confirm it by your decision, and we accept
it: for your decision is entirely the decision of God. But
if it falls far short of his glory and of your hope, my ally is not far
to seek. Let fall thy voice, which is awaited by his merits like
a seasonable shower. And indeed he has upon you the highest
claims, those of a pastor upon a pastor and of a father upon his son in
grace. What wonder if he, who has He who
has. S. Gregory the elder was the principal mover in S.
Basil’s election and consecration.
42. The nature of God, my mother, is not the same
as that of men; indeed, to speak generally, the nature of divine things
is not the same as that of earthly things. They possess
unchangeableness and immortality, and absolute being with its
consequences, for sure are the properties of things sure. But how
is it with what is ours? It is in a state of flux and corruption,
constantly undergoing some fresh change. Life and death, as they
are called, apparently so different, are in a sense resolved into, and
successive to, each other. For the one takes its rise from the
corruption which is our mother, runs its course through the corruption
which is the displacement of all that is present, and comes to an end
in the corruption which is the dissolution of this life; while the
other, which is able to set us free from the ills of this life, and
oftentimes translates us to the life above, is not in my opinion
accurately called death, and is more dreadful in name than in reality;
so that we are in danger of irrationally being afraid of what is not
fearful, and courting as preferable what we really ought to fear.
There is one life, to look to life. There is one death, sin, for
it is the destruction of the soul. But all else, of which some
are proud, is a dream-vision, making sport of realities, and a series
of phantasms which lead the soul astray. If this be our
condition, mother, we shall neither be proud of life, nor greatly hurt,
by death. What grievance can we find in being transferred hence
to the true
43. Does the sense of separation cause you pain? Let hope cheer you. Is widowhood grievous to you? Yet it is not so to him. And what is the good of love, if it gives itself easy things, and assigns the more difficult to its neighbour? And why should it be grievous at all, to one who is soon to pass away? The appointed day is at hand, the pain will not last long. Let us not, by ignoble reasonings, make a burden of things which are really light. We have endured a great loss—because the privilege we enjoyed was great. Loss is common to all, such a privilege to few. Let us rise superior to the one thought by the consolation of the other. For it is more reasonable, that that which is better should win the day. You have borne, in a most brave, Christian spirit, the loss of children, who were still in their prime and qualified for life; bear also the laying aside of his aged body by one who was weary of life, although his vigor of mind preserved for him his senses unimpaired. Do you want some one to care for you? Where is your Isaac, whom he left behind for you, to take his place in all respects? Ask of him small things, the support of his hand and service, and requite him with greater things, a mother’s blessing and prayers, and the consequent freedom. Are you vexed at being admonished? I praise you for it. For you have admonished many whom your long life has brought under your notice. What I have said can have no application to you, who are so truly wise; but let it be a general medicine of consolation for mourners, so that they may know that they are mortals following mortals to the grave.
Oration XXI.
On the Great Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.
The reference in §22 to “the Council which sat first at Seleucia…and afterwards at this mighty city,” leaves no room for doubting that the Oration was delivered at Constantinople. Further local colour is found in the allusions of §5. We are assured by the panegyric on S. Cyprian (Orat. xxiv. 1) that it was already the custom of the Church of Constantinople to observe annual festivals in honour of the Saints: and at present two days are kept by the Eastern Church, viz., Jan. 18th, as the day of the actual death of S. Athanasius, and May 2d, in memory of the translation of his remains to the church of S. Sophia at Constantinople. Probably, therefore, this Oration was delivered on the former day, on which Assemani holds that S. Athanasius died. Papebroke and (with some hesitation) Dr. Bright pronounce in favour of May 2d. Tillemont supposes that a.d. 379 is the year of its delivery; in which case it must have been very shortly after S. Gregory’s arrival in the city. Since, however, no allusion is made to this, it seems, on the whole, more likely that it should be assigned to a.d. 380. The sermon takes high rank, even among S. Gregory’s discourses, as the model of an ecclesiastical panegyric. It lacks, however, the charm of personal affection and intimate acquaintance with the inner life, which is characteristic of the orations concerned with his own relatives and friends.
1. In praising
Athanasius, I shall be praising virtue. To speak of him and to
praise virtue are identical, because he had, or, to speak more truly,
has embraced virtue in its entirety. For all who have lived
according to God still live unto God, though they have departed
hence. For this reason, God is called the God of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob, since He is the God, not of the dead, but of the
living. S.
2. Whoever has been permitted to escape by reason and contemplation from matter and this fleshly cloud or veil (whichever it should be called) and to hold communion with God, and be associated, as far as man’s nature can attain, with the purest Light, blessed is he, both from his ascent from hence, and for his deification there, which is conferred by true philosophy, and by rising superior to the dualism of matter, through the unity which is perceived in the Trinity. And whosoever has been depraved by being knit to the flesh, and so far oppressed by the clay that he cannot look at the rays of truth, nor rise above things below, though he is born from above, and called to things above, I hold him to be miserable in his blindness, even though he may abound in things of this world; and all the more, because he is the sport of his abundance, and is persuaded by it that something else is beautiful instead of that which is really beautiful, reaping, as the poor fruit of his poor opinion, the sentence of darkness, or the seeing Him to be fire, Whom he did not recognize as light.
3. Such has been the philosophy of few, both
nowadays and of old—for few are the men of God, though all are
His handiwork,—among lawgivers, generals, priests, Prophets,
Evangelists, Apostles, shepherds, teachers, and all the spiritual host
and band—and, among them all, of him whom now we praise.
And whom do I mean by these? Men like Enoch, Noah, Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, the twelve Patriarchs, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, the Judges,
Samuel, David, to some extent Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, the Prophets
before the captivity, those after the captivity, and, though last in
order, first in truth, those who were concerned with Christ’s
Incarnation or taking of our nature, the lamp S.
4. With some of these Athanasius vied, by some he was slightly excelled, and others, if it is not bold to say so, he surpassed: some he made his models in mental power, others in activity, others in meekness, others in zeal, others in dangers, others in most respects, others in all, gathering from one and another various forms of beauty (like men who paint figures of ideal excellence), and combining them in his single soul, he made one perfect form of virtue out of all, excelling in action men of intellectual capacity, in intellect men of action; or, if you will, surpassing in intellect men renowned for intellect, in action those of the greatest active power; outstripping those who had moderate reputation in both respects, by his eminence in either, and those who stood highest in one or other, by his powers in both; and, if it is a great thing for those who have received an example, so to use it as to attach themselves to virtue, he has no inferior title to fame, who for our advantage has set an example to those who come after him.
5. To speak of and admire him fully, would
perhaps be too long a task for the present purpose of my discourse, and
would take the form of a history rather than of a panegyric: a
history which it has been the object of my desires to commit to writing
for the pleasure and instruction of posterity, as he himself wrote the
life of the divine Antony, Antony,
“the founder of asceticism,” the most celebrated of the
monks and hermits of the Thebaid desert. His life by S.
Athanasius is certainly genuine, and even if, as some suspect,
interpolations have been inserted, its substantial integrity is
undoubted. (Newman, Ch. of the Fathers, p. 176.)
6. He was brought up, from the first, in religious
habits and practices, after a brief study of literature and philosophy,
so that he might not be utterly unskilled in such subjects, or ignorant
of matters which he had determined to despise. For his generous
and eager soul could not brook being occupied in vanities, like
unskilled athletes, who beat the air instead of their antagonists and
lose the prize. From meditating on every book of the Old and New
Testament, with a depth such as none else has applied even to one of
them, he grew
7. Thus brought up and trained, as even now
those should be who are to preside over the people, and take the
direction of the mighty body of Christ, Body of Christ,
i.e., the Church, His mystical body. S. S.
8. Thus, and for these reasons, by the vote
of the whole people, not in the evil fashion which has since prevailed,
nor by means of bloodshed and oppression, but in an apostolic and
spiritual manner, he is led up to the throne The
throne, etc., as Patriarch of Alexandria. The date of
his consecration is a.d. 326.
9. The duties of his office he discharged in
the same spirit as that in which he had been preferred to it. For
he did not at once, after taking possession of his throne, like men who
have unexpectedly seized upon some sovereignty or inheritance, grow
insolent from intoxication. This is the conduct of illegitimate
and intrusive priests, who are unworthy of their vocation; whose
preparation for the priesthood has cost them nothing, who have endured
no inconvenience for the sake of virtue, who only begin to study
religion when appointed to teach it, and undertake the cleansing of
others before being cleansed themselves; yesterday sacrilegious, to-day
sacerdotal; yesterday excluded from the sanctuary, The Sanctuary,
or “the Sacraments.” To offer more
sacrifices, i.e., These priests are not only “men which have
infirmity,” who need to offer for their own sins, as well as for
those of the people; but because they are even more sinful than their
flocks, they need a greater and more frequent atonement.
10. But why should I paint for you the
portrait of the man? St. Paul St. Paul.
To whom here the Ep. to the Hebrews is assigned. Christs.
i.e., Cenobites μιγάδες. Cf.
Orat. ii. 29; xliii. 62. S. Under the yoke,
i.e. “Married.” Cf. Orat. xlii. 11.
11. On these grounds, as I have said, I
leave others, who have leisure to admire the minor details of his
character, to admire and extol him. I call them minor details
only in comparing him and his character with his own standard, for that
which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious, even though
it be exceeding splendid by reason of the glory that
surpasseth,
12. In the palmy days of the Church, when
all was well, the present elaborate, far-fetched and artificial
treatment of Theology had not made its way into the schools of
divinity, but playing with pebbles which deceive the eye by the
quickness of their changes, or dancing before an audience with varied
and effeminate contortions, were looked upon as all one with speaking
or hearing of God in a way unusual or frivolous. But since the
Sextuses
Sextuses. Sextus Empiricus (cent. 3 a.d.) a leader of the later Sceptic school. Pyrrho
of Elis (cent. 4 b.c.) was the founder of the
earlier.
13. The beginning of this madness was Arius
(whose name is derived from frenzy Frenzy.
Cf. Orat. ii. 37; xxxiv. 8. A profane spot,
lit. “profane places”—plural as contrasted with the
ἐν τόπῳ
ἁγίῳ, Like
Judas. Cf. Epiph. Hær. 68. 7; Socr. i. 38.
Theodoret i. 4. In name, etc.,
i.e., They used the name Trinity, although it was rendered meaningless
by their false doctrine as to the inequality of the Three Blessed
Persons. To contract,
etc. On this whole passage cf. Orat. ii. 36, 37, notes. Which refers,
etc., or “which consists in personal relations.” Cf.
on ἰδιότῆς. Orat. xliii.
30. note.
14. And therefore, first in the holy Synod
of Nicæa,
Nicæa, a.d. 325.
Athanasius was present as theological assistant to Alexander of
Alexandria. S.
15. There are some who do not excuse even my
namesake
Namesake. Gregory, a Cappadocian, nominated to the
see of Alexandria, by the Arian Bishops at Antioch, after the
banishment of Athanasius, a.d. 340. ἡ χὲιρ
᾽Αβεσσαλὤμ.
“The hand of Absalom,” prob. a misquotation of Corpse,
etc. Athanasius was charged with having murdered Arsenius, and
his enemies produced a hand which, they said, had belonged to the dead
man.
16. There was a monster
Monster. George of Cappadocia, Arian intruder into
the see of Alexandria, a.d.
356–361.
17. His acts of insolence towards the saint
you all know in full detail. Often were the righteous given into
the hands of the wicked, His lot, lit.
“the dreadful (thing)” i.e. “reproach him, as having
brought his sufferings upon himself”—or “reproach him
with impiety”—the cause of his sufferings.
18. Such was the lot of Job: such at
first sight his history. In reality it was a contest between
virtue and envy: Envy, i.e., of
the devil.
19. In this case then it is not wonderful,
if George had the advantage of Athanasius; nay it would be more
wonderful, if the righteous were not tried in the fire of contumely;
nor is this very wonderful, as it would have been had the flames
availed for more than this. Then he was in retirement, and
arranged his exile most excellently, for he betook himself to the holy
and divine homes Homes,
etc. The monasteries of lower Egypt and the Thebaid. This
was a.d. 356.
20. Thus he combined the two, and so
21. Such were his surroundings when he
approved the wise counsel of Solomon that there is a time to every
purpose: Unmanly men,
the Eunuchs, the chamberlains of Constantius. Servant, etc.,
probably Acacius.
22. The crowning feat of this faction was
the council which sat first at Seleucia, the city of the holy and
illustrious virgin Thekla, and afterwards at this mighty city, thus
connecting their names, no longer with noble associations, but with
these of deepest disgrace; whether we must call that council, which
subverted and disturbed everything, a tower of Chalane, S. χάρακα lit. “a
pale”—one of the many which formed the palisade.
Perhaps there is play on the word χαρακτηρα
“a letter” in reference to the insertion of the
letter iota in the Nicene formula—which then became Homoiousion,
i.e., “Like in substance.” This action on the part of
the Semi-Arians (who formed the majority of the Council of Seleucia
a.d. 359), was the first step to the Homoion
of the Acacian party, who prevailed at the council of Constantinople,
a.d. 360, and professed great devotion to the
use of Scriptural terms.
23. Hence came their pretended
condemnation Condemnation,
i.e., of Aetius, who was banished by Constantius after the Council. Deposed.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Eustathius of Sebaste, Basil of Ancyra and
others. To sign,
etc. Cf. Orat. xviii. 18. The smoke,
etc. Cf. Orat. xvi. 6;
24. For in reality, as the Scripture says,
the shepherds became brutish, Everyone.
This was the time of which S. Jerome wrote “Ingemuit totus orbis,
et miratus est se Arianum esse.”
25. “Yet once more,” In which,
etc. This sentence probably alludes to the excessive zeal of the
monks of Nazianzus.
26. Such was Athanasius to us, when present,
the pillar of the Church; and such, even when he retired before the
insults of the wicked. For those who have plotted the capture of
some strong fort, when they see no other easy means of approaching or
taking it, betake themselves to arts, and then, after seducing the
commander by money or guile, without any effort possess themselves of
the stronghold, or, if you will, as those who plotted against Samson
first cut off his hair, The
Supporter, Constantius, who died a.d. 360. The hostile
shepherd, George. Crowning,
Clémencet renders “Appointing an evil head over an empire
which was not evil,” sc. Julian the Apostate. Camel. On
the death of Constantius, the pagans of Alexandria murdered George, and
carried his mangled body through the streets on the back of a
camel.
27. But when from this hurricane of
unrighteousness, this corrupter of godliness, this precursor of the
wicked one, such satisfaction had been exacted, in a way I cannot
praise, for we must consider not what he ought to have suffered, but
what we ought We ought,
etc. S. Gregory seems to imply that the deed had been done by
Christians. Historical writers and Julian’s letter to the
people make it clear that this was not really the case.
28. With reference to this honour there was also current some such report as the following; for I will take leave to mention it, even though it be superfluous, as a kind of flavouring to my speech, or a flower scattered in honour of his entry. After that entry, a certain officer, who had been twice Consul, was riding into the city; he was one of us, among the most noted of Cappadocians. I am sure that you know that I mean Philagrius, who won upon our affections far beyond any one else, and was honoured as much as he was loved, if I may thus briefly set forth all his distinctions: who had been for a second time entrusted with the government of the city, at the request of the citizens, by the decision of the Emperor. Then one of the common people present, thinking the crowd enormous, like an ocean whose bound no eye can see, is reported to have said to one of his comrades and friends—as often happens in such a case—“Tell me, my good fellow, have you ever before seen the people pour out in such numbers and so enthusiastically to do honour to any one man?” “No!” said the young man, “and I fancy that not even Constantius himself would be so treated;” indicating, by the mention of the Emperor, the climax of possible honour. “Do you speak of that,” said the other with a sweet and merry laugh, “as something wonderfully great? I can scarcely believe that even the great Athanasius would be welcomed like this,” adding at the same time one of our native oaths in confirmation of his words. Now the point of what he said, as I suppose you also plainly see, is this, that he set the subject of our eulogy before the Emperor himself.
29. So great was the reverence of all for the man,
and so amazing even now seems the reception which I have
described. For if divided according to birth, age and profession,
(and the city is most usually arranged in this way, when a public
honour is bestowed on anyone) how can I set forth in words that mighty
spectacle? They formed one river, and it were indeed a
poet’s task to describe that Nile, of really golden stream and
rich in crops, flowing back again from the city to the Chæreum, a
day’s journey, I take it, and more. Permit me to revel a
while longer in S.
30. He lived then as becomes the rulers of such a people, but did he fail to teach as he lived? Were his contests out of harmony with his teaching? Were his dangers less than those of men who have contended for any truth? Were his honours inferior to the objects for which he contended? Did he after his reception in any way disgrace that reception? By no means. Everything was harmonious, as an air upon a single lyre, and in the same key; his life, his teaching, his struggles, his dangers, his return, and his conduct after his return. For immediately on his restoration to his Church, he was not like those who are blinded by unrestrained passion, who, under the dominion of their anger, thrust away or strike at once whatever comes in their way, even though it might well be spared. But, thinking this to be a special time for him to consult his reputation, since one who is ill-treated is usually restrained, and one who has the power to requite a wrong is ungoverned, he treated so mildly and gently those who had injured him, that even they themselves, if I may say so, did not find his restoration distasteful.
31. He cleansed the temple of those who made
merchandise of God, and trafficked in the things of Christ, imitating
Christ S. τὸ
βούλεσθαι, lit.
“to will”—i.e. be willing to listen to, and
understand the interests for which others were contending, in a
conciliatory spirit—for the sake of truth, not of victory.
32. But yet it was not likely that envy
could brook all this, or see the Church restored again to the same
glory and health as in former days, by the speedy healing over, as in
the body, of the wounds of separation. Therefore it was, that he
raised up against Athanasius the Emperor, a rebel like
himself, He…a rebel
like himself. Envy, personifying the Evil one. Cf.
supra § 18. In three
struggles. He was thrice banished. a.d. 336 by Constantine, a.d. 356
under Constantius, and a.d. 362 by
Julian.
33. Brief was the interval before Justice
pronounced sentence, and handed over the offender The offender,
Julian. Another
king—the Emperor Jovian. A written
account. A synodal letter drawn up in council, probably at
Alexandria, and conveyed and presented to Jovian at Antioch by S.
Athanasius.
34. This confession was, it seems, greeted with respect by all, both in West and East, who were capable of life; some cherishing piety within their own bosoms, if we may credit what they say, but advancing no further, like a still-born child which dies within its mother’s womb; others kindling to some extent, as it were, sparks, so far as to escape the difficulties of the time, arising either from the more fervent of the orthodox, or the devotion of the people; while others spoke the truth with boldness, on whose side I would be, for I dare make no further boast; no longer consulting my own fearfulness—in other words, the views of men more unsound than myself (for this we have done enough and to spare, without either gaining anything from others, or guarding from injury that which was our own, just as bad stewards do) but bringing forth to light my offspring, nourishing it with eagerness, and exposing it, in its constant growth, to the eyes of all.
35. This, however, is less admirable than
his conduct. What wonder that he, who had already made actual
ventures on behalf of the truth, should confess it in writing?
Yet this point I will add to what has been said, as it seems to me
especially wonderful and cannot with impunity be passed over in a time
so fertile in disagreements as this. For his action, if we take
note of him, will afford instruction even to the men of this day.
For as, in the case of one and the same quantity of water, there is
separated from it, not only the residue which is left behind by the
hand when drawing it, but also those drops, once contained in the hand,
which trickle out through the fingers; so also there is a separation
between us and, not only those who hold aloof in their impiety, but
also those who are most pious, and that both in regard to such
doctrines as are of small consequence (a matter of less moment) and
also in regard to expressions intended to bear the same meaning.
We use in an orthodox sense the terms one Essence and three Hypostases,
the one to denote the nature of the Godhead, the other the
properties
Properties. Cf. Orat. xliii. 30. note. The Italians,
etc. Cf. Newman’s Arians, pp. 376–384. S.
Athanasius’ Orations against the Arians, Ed. Bright, p. lxxxi.
Pelav. de Trin. IV. ii. 5–10 and iv. Bound
them, etc. At the Council of Alexandria, a.d. 362. Newman’s Arians, pp. 364,
sqq.
36. This in itself was more profitable than
the long course of labours and teaching on which all writers enlarge,
for in it somewhat of ambition mingled, and consequently, perhaps,
somewhat of novelty in expressions. This again was of more value
than his many vigils and acts of discipline, Acts of
discipline. χαμευνιῶν,
“lying on the ground.” Hospitable,
etc., titles given to Zeus, and other Greek gods.
37. After such a course, as taught and
teacher, that his life and habits form the ideal of an Episcopate, and
his teaching the law of orthodoxy, what reward does he win for his
piety? It is not indeed right to pass this by. In a good
old age he closed his life, Closed his life
a.d. 373.
Introduction to the “Theological” Orations.
“It has been said
with truth,” says the writer of the Article on Gregory of
Nazianzus in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, “that these
discourses would lose their chief charm in a translation.…Critics
have rivalled each other in the praises they have heaped upon them, but
no praise is so high as that of the many Theologians who have found in
them their own best thoughts. A Critic who cannot be accused of
partiality towards Gregory has given in a few words perhaps the truest
estimate of them: ‘A solidity of thought, the concentration
of all that is spread through the writings of Hilary, Basil, and
Athanasius, a flow of softened eloquence which does not halt or lose
itself for a moment, an argument nervous without dryness on the one
hand, and without useless ornament on the other, give these five
Discourses a place to themselves among the monuments of this fine
Genius, who was not always in the same degree free from grandiloquence
and affectation. In a few pages, and in a few hours, Gregory has
summed up and closed the controversy of a whole
Century.’” De Broglie,
“L’Eglise et l’Empire,” v. 385.—“Ce
sont autant de modèles dans l’art délicat
d’imprimer la forme oratoire aux développements
philosophiques. Une pensée substantielle, formée de
tous les sucs répandus dans les écrits d’Hilaire, de
Basile et d’Athanase; un courant d’éloquence
tempérée qui ne se ralentit, ni ne s’égare en
aucun moment; une argumentation nerveuse sans sècheresse, mais
sans vaine parure d’ornements, font à ces cinq discours une
place à part parmi les monuments de ce beau génie, auquel
l’emphase et l’affectation ne furent pas toujours aussi
étrangers. En quelques pages, et en quelques heures,
Grégoire avait résumé et clos la controverse de tout un
siècle.” See Prolegomena p.
171. “There is but one divine Essence or
Substance; Father, Son, and Spirit, are one in essence, or
consubstantial. They are in one another, inseparable, and cannot
be conceived without each other. In this point the Nicene
doctrine is thoroughly monotheistic, or monarchian, in distinction from
tritheism, which is but a new form of the polytheism of the pagans. “The terms Essence (οὐσία) and Nature (φύσις), in the
philosophical sense, denote not an individual, a personality, but the
Genus or Species; not Unum in Numero, but Ens Unum in Multis. All
men are of the same substance, partake of the same human nature; though
as persons and individuals they are very different. The term
Homo-ousion, in its strict grammatical sense, differs from Mono-ousion
or Touto-ousion, as well as from Hetero-ousion, and signifies not
numerical identity, but equality of essence or community of nature
among several beings. It is clearly thus used in the Chalcedonian
Symbol, where it is said that Christ is ‘consubstantial
(Homo-ousios) with the Father as touching the Godhead, and
consubstantial with us (and yet individually distinct from us) as
touching the Manhood.’ But in the Divine Trinity
consubstantiality denotes not only sameness of kind, but at the same
time Numerical unity; not merely the Unum in Specie, but also the Unum
in Numero. The three Persons are related to the Divine Substance
not as three individuals to their species, as Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, or Peter, John, and Paul, to human nature; they are only one
God. The divine Substance is absolutely indivisible by reason of
its simplicity, and absolutely inextensible and untransferable by
reason of its infinity; whereas a corporeal substance can be divided,
and the human nature can be multiplied by generation. Three
Divine substances would limit and exclude each other, and therefore
could not be infinite or absolute. The whole fulness of the one
undivided Essence of God, with all its attributes, is in all the
Persons of the Trinity, though in each in His own way; in the Father as
Original Principle, in the Son by eternal Generation, in the Spirit by
eternal Procession. The Church teaches not One Divine Essence
and Three Persons, but One Essence In Three
Persons. Father, Son, and Spirit cannot be conceived as Three
separate individuals, but are in one another, and form a solidaric
Unity.” (Schaff, History of the Church, Nic. &
Post-Nic. Period, Div. ii. p. 672.)
Eunomius, whom Ullmann calls one of the most
interesting heretics of the Fourth Century, was by birth a Cappadocian,
and slightly older than Gregory. As a young man he was a pupil
and amanuensis of Aëtius, by whom the Arian heresy was developed
to its extreme results. The disciple never shrank from drawing
the furthest logical conclusions from his master’s premises, or
from stating them with a frankness, which to those who regarded the
premises themselves from which he reasoned as horrible blasphemies,
seemed nothing less than diabolical in its impiety. So precisely
did he complete and formulate his teacher’s heretical tenets,
that the Anomœan Arians were ever afterwards called Eunomians,
rather than Aëtians. They asserted the absolute
Unlikeness of the Being of the Father and of the Son.
Starting with the conception of God as Absolute Being, of Whom no
Generation can be predicated, Unbegotten and incapable of Begetting,
they went on to say that an Eternal Generation is inconceivable, and
that the Generation of the Son of God must have had a beginning.
Of course, therefore, the Arian conclusion followed, namely, that there
was a time when the Son did not exist (ἦν
ποτὲ ὅτε οῦκ
ἦν), and His Essence is altogether unlike that
of the Unbegotten Father. Equality of essence and Similarity of
essence, are alike untenable, from the mere fact that the one Essence
is Unbegotten, and the other is Begotten. The Son, they said, is
the First Creation of the Divine Energy, and is the Instrument by whom
God created the world, and in this sense, as the Organ of creative
power, may be said to be the Express Image and Likeness of the Energy
of the Father. Two terms borrowed
from Holy Scripture (
As they viewed the Holy Ghost as sharing the
Divine Nature in an even remoter degree, as being only the noblest
production of the Only-begotten Son, Eunomius was the first person
heretically to discontinue the practice of threefold immersion in Holy
Baptism. He also corrupted the Form of that Sacrament, by setting
aside the use of the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and
baptizing people “in the name of the Creator, and into the death
of Christ.” Therefore the Council of Constantinople ordered
that converts from Eunomianism should be baptized, although
those from other forms of Arianism were admitted into the Catholic
Church by simple imposition of hands. Through the influence of
the followers of Aëtius, Eunomius became, in 360, Bishop of
Cyzicus in Mysia, but he does not appear to have occupied the See very
long. At any rate when Gregory came, in 379, to Constantinople,
he was living in retirement near Chalcedon. All parties concur in
representing him as a consummate Dialectician, but the Orthodox
declared that he had turned Theology into a mere Technology.
Readiness of Dialectic was the great characteristic of his Sect, and it
was they who introduced into the Capital that bad spirit of theological
disputatiousness which Gregory deplores in the first of these famous
Orations. He also differed entirely from Gregory, not merely in
the conclusions at which he arrived, but in the method by which he
reached them; following the system of Aristotle, rather than of Plato,
and using an exclusively intellectual method, while Gregory treated
Religion as belonging to the entire man. The point at issue
between them, besides this of the Interior relations of the Three
Blessed Persons within the Godhead, was mainly the question as to the
complete comprehensibility of the Divine Nature, which the Eunomians
maintained, and Gregory denied. The latter argued that, while we
have a sure conviction that God is, we have not a full understanding of
What He is. He would not, however, exclude us from all
knowledge of God’s Nature, only he limits our capacity to so much
as God has been pleased to reveal to us of Himself. “In my
opinion,” he says (Or. xxiv. 4), “it is impossible to
express God, and yet more impossible to conceive Him—seeing that
the thick covering of the flesh is an obstacle to the understanding of
the truth.” Similarly in the Fourth of these Orations (Or.
xxx. 17) he says, “The Deity cannot be expressed in words.
And this is proved to us, not only by arguments, but by the wisest and
most ancient of the Hebrews, so far as they have given us reason for
conjecture. For they appropriated certain characters to the
honour of the Deity,
In the mind of Gregory, the Orthodox doctrine of the Blessed Trinity is the fundamental dogma of Christianity, in contrast with all other religions, and with all heretical systems. “Remember your confession,” he says to his hearers in an Oration against the Arians; “Into what were you baptized? The Father? Good, but still Jewish. The Son? Good; no longer Jewish, but not yet perfect. The Holy Ghost? Very good; this is perfect. Was it then simply into these, or was there some one common Name of these? Yes, there was, and it is God.” And in the same oration he calls Arianism a new Judaism, because it ascribes full Deity only to the Father; and he speaks of One Nature in Three Individualities, intelligent, perfect, self-existent, distinct numerically, but one in Godhead. “In created things,” says Ullmann, “the several individuals are embraced in a common conception, though in themselves only connected together in thought, while in fact they are not one. Manhood is only an intellectual conception; in fact there exist only Men. But in the Godhead the Three Persons are not only in conception, but in fact, One; and this Unity is not only a relative but an absolute Unity, because the Divine Being is perfect in all Three Persons, and in all in a perfect equality. In this sense therefore Gregory and all orthodox Trinitarians maintain the Unity of God. But within this Unity there is a true Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, a Trinity of Persons in a Unity of Nature.” We worship, he says (Or. xxxiii. 16), the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, One Nature in Three Individualities. So that, as he says elsewhere (Or. in laud. Athanasii, xxi. 10), the Trinity is a true Trinity; not a numbering of unlike things, but a binding together of equals. Each of the Persons is God in the fullest sense. The Son and the Holy Ghost have their Source of Being in the Father, but in such sense that They are fully consubstantial with Him, and that neither of Them differs from Him in any particular of Essence. The points of difference lie in the Personal Attributes; the Father Unoriginate, and Source of Deity; the Son deriving His Being eternally from the Father, and Himself the Source of all created existence; the Holy Ghost proceeding eternally from God, and sent into the world.
In the first of these five discourses the Preacher sets himself to clear the ground for the fitting presentation of his great theme. He endeavours to lay down the principles on which Theologians should proceed in such discussions, and very earnestly deprecates the habit of promiscuous argument in all sorts of places, upon all sorts of occasions, and before all sorts of hearers, of the deepest and most sacred truths and mysteries of the Faith. They only should be allowed to engage in such conversation who are fitted for it by the practice of Christian virtue. For others there are many other subjects upon which they can exercise their dialectical attainments, without doing or incurring any injury.
In the second oration Gregory lays down the position referred to above, that it is impossible for even the most exalted human reason fully to grasp the Nature of God, though His Existence is patent to all. We can only, he says, predicate negatives concerning Him. He gives three reasons for this incapacity. First to enhance our estimation of this knowledge, when attained hereafter; secondly to save us from the danger of falling through pride, like Lucifer, if we attained it prematurely; and thirdly, to support and sustain us in the trials and conflicts of this life, by the certainty that its attainment hereafter will be the reward of faithful service in them. The cause of our present inability is the body with which our soul is united, the grossness of whose present condition hinders us from rising to the complete apprehension of the invisible and immaterial. God, out of compassion for our weakness, has been pleased to designate Himself in Holy Scripture by various names taken from material objects, or from moral virtues; but these are only stepping-stones to the truth, and have indeed been sometimes perverted, and made a basis for polytheism. It is, however, only natural that the Divine Essence should be shrouded in Mystery, for the same is the case with the created essences also.
In the Third and Fourth he deals with the question of
the Son. His position may be summed up as follows: The Son
is absolutely of One Substance with the Father, and shares with Him all
the Attributes of Godhead. Yet He is a distinct Person, marked
off by the fact that He is begotten of the Father. But we must be
careful not to allow this term “Begotten” to suggest to us
any analogy
This position he had to defend against many assailants, and especially against the Eunomians. These heretics maintained that the use of this term necessarily implied a beginning of the Essence of the Son, and they asked the orthodox to tell them when that beginning took place. Gregory replies that the Generation of God the Son is beyond all time; pointing out that Paternity is an Essential attribute of God the Father, and therefore is as eternal as His Essence, so that there never was a time when He was not the Father, and consequently never a time when the Generation of the Son began. He admits that there is a sense in which it is possible to say that the Son and the Spirit are not unoriginate, but then you must be careful not to use the word Origin in the sense of Beginning, but in that of Cause. They derive Their Being eternally from the Father, and all Three Persons are coeternal together. In respect of cause They are not unoriginate, but the cause is not necessarily prior in time to its effect, just as the Sun is not prior to its own light. In respect of time, then, They may be said to be unoriginate, for the Sources of time cannot be subject to time. “If the Father has not ceased to beget, His Generation is an imperfect one; and if He has ceased, He must have begun, for an end implies a beginning.” “Not so,” says Gregory, “unless you are prepared to admit that what has no end has necessarily no beginning; and in that case what will you say about the Angels, or the human soul? These will have no end; had either of them therefore no beginning?” By a similar process of Reductio ad absurdum he dissipates all the quibbles of Eunomian sophistry, and lays down the orthodox Faith of the Church. Then in the remainder of the Third and Fourth Orations he goes on to examine the Scriptural testimony adduced by his opponents, and to shew by a similar catena on the other side that the overwhelming preponderance of the authority of the Bible is clearly against them. In connection with this point he lays down the canon that in the interpretation of Scripture in regard to our Lord, all expressions savouring of humility or weakness are to be referred to that pure Humanity which He assumed for our sake; while all that speaks of Majesty and Power belongs to His Godhead.
In the Fifth he deals with the doctrine of the
Holy Ghost. The heresy of Arius was at first directly concerned
only with the Person of our Lord, though not without a side-glance at
that also of the Holy Ghost. The Council of Nicæa had
confined itself to the first question, and its Creed ended with,
“We believe in the Holy Ghost.” This, it was
afterwards argued, was enough to proclaim His Divinity, and so Gregory
argues in this Oration, “If He be only a creature, how do we
believe on Him, how are we made perfect in Him, for the first of these
belongs to Deity, the second may be said of anything” (c.
vi.). The reason, however, that the Great Synod made no express
definition on the point seems to have been that the controversy had not
yet been carried so far in direct terms (cf. S. Basil, Epp. lxxviii.
ccclxxxvii.). But fifty years later the growth of the heresy
rendered a definition of the Church’s faith on this point
needful; and in 363, on his return from his fourth period of exile, S.
Athanasius held a provincial Synod at Alexandria, in whose Synodical
Letter to the Emperor Jovian the Godhead of the Holy Ghost is
maintained in terms which, as Canon Bright says, partly anticipate the
language of the Creed of Constantinople (Dict. Biog. Art. Athanasius). The new development of the heresy had
begun to appear at Constantinople as well as in Thrace and Asia
Minor. Macedonius, a Semi-Arian, had been elected Bishop of
Constantinople in 341, and in spite of violent opposition, which he met
by still more violent measures, had maintained his position till 360,
when he was deposed and driven out by the Anomœan Arians. He
then in his retirement became the leader of the Semi-Arian party.
Accepting the statement that the Son was Like in Essence to the Father,
he would not concede even this to the Holy Ghost, but declared Him to
be a mere creature (Thdt. Hist. In his Fifty-third
Epistle, addressed to S. Basil, there is an amusing instance of his
defence of this tolerant disposition, which S. Basil also displayed in
dealing with minds of this class.
With regard to the doctrine of the Procession, Gregory gives us no clear information. He is silent as to the Procession from the Son. It is enough for him that the Spirit is not Begotten but Proceeding (in SS. Lumina, c. 12), and that Procession is His distinctive Property, which involves at once His Personality and His Essential Deity.
At length in 381 the work of local Synods and episcopal conferences was completed and clinched by the Ruling of a Second Ecumenical Council. It is true that the Council which Theodosius summoned to meet at Constantinople could scarcely have regarded itself as possessing Ecumenical authority; whilst in the West it certainly was not regarded in this light before the Sixth Century. Nevertheless the honours of Ecumenicity were ultimately awarded to it by the whole Church, because it completes the series of Great Councils by which the Doctrine of the Deity of the Holy Spirit was affirmed; and in fact it expressed the final judgment of the Catholic Church upon the Macedonian controversy. Its first Canon anathematises the Semiarians or Pneumatomachi by name as well as the Eunomians or Anomœan Arians (cf. Dict. Biog. Art. Gregory of Nazianzus, by Dr. H. B. Swete).
Oration XXVII.
The First Theological Oration.
A Preliminary Discourse Against the Eunomians.
I. I am to speak
against persons who pride themselves on their eloquence; so, to begin
with a text of Scripture, “Behold, I am against thee, O thou
proud one,” S. Paul is
called a disciple of the fishermen, as having been in some sense
their follower (though in fact he was never a literal disciple of any
of them); and their teacher as having taught such Successors of
the Apostles as SS. Timothy and Titus.
II. But since they neglect every path of
righteousness, and look only to this one point, namely, which of the
propositions submitted to them they shall bind or loose, (like those
persons who in the theatres perform wrestling matches in public, but
not that kind of wrestling in which the victory is won according to the
rules of the sport, but a kind to deceive the eyes of those who are
ignorant in such matters, and to catch applause), and every marketplace
must buzz with their talking; and every dinner party be worried to
death with silly talk and boredom; and every festival be made unfestive
and full of dejection, and every occasion of mourning be consoled by a
greater calamity i.e. be thrown into
the shade by something more serious which caused them by comparison to
be scarcely felt any longer. κατάσκοποι
quasi ψευδεπίσκοποι. S.
And you must not be astonished if I speak a language which is strange to you and contrary to your custom, who profess to know everything and to teach everything in a too impetuous and generous manner…not to pain you by saying ignorant and rash.
III. Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one; the Subject is not so cheap and low; and I will add, not before every audience, nor at all times, nor on all points; but on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits.
Not to all men, because it is permitted only to those who have been examined, and are passed masters in meditation, and who have been previously purified in soul and body, or at the very least are being purified. For the impure to touch the pure is, we may safely say, not safe, just as it is unsafe to fix weak eyes upon the sun’s rays. And what is the permitted occasion? It is when we are free from all external defilement or disturbance, and when that which rules within us is not confused with vexatious or erring images; like persons mixing up good writing with bad, or filth with the sweet odours of unguents. For it is necessary to be truly at leisure to know God; and when we can get a convenient season, to discern the straight road of the things divine. And who are the permitted persons? They to whom the subject is of real concern, and not they who make it a matter of pleasant gossip, like any other thing, after the races, or the theatre, or a concert, or a dinner, or still lower employments. To such men as these, idle jests and pretty contradictions about these subjects are a part of their amusement.
IV. Next, on what subjects and to what extent may
we philosophize? On matters within our reach, and to such an
extent as the mental power and grasp of our audience may extend.
No further, lest, as excessively loud sounds injure the hearing, or
excess of food the body, or, if you will, as excessive burdens beyond
i.e. Should not only
fail to be strengthened thereby, but be actually weakened, through
their inability to understand the argument. A bad defence weakens
a good cause.
V. Now, I am not saying that it is not
needful to remember God at all times;…I must not be
misunderstood, or I shall be having these nimble and quick people down
upon me again. For we ought to think of God even more often than
we draw our breath; and if the expression is permissible, we ought to
do nothing else. Yea, I am one of those who entirely approve that
Word which bids us meditate day and night, The course of the
chariot races in the Greek Games was round the Hippodrome a certain
number of times. To facilitate this arrangement, a party wall was
built down the middle, and at either end of it certain posts were set
up called νύσσαι, or in Latin
Metæ, round which the cars were to turn. The object
of the charioteers was to turn round these as close as possible, to
save distance; and to do this well it was necessary to have the horses
under perfect control, as well as perfectly trained, to make the
semicircle at full gallop almost on the axis of the car. The
horses that got out of hand and galloped wildly round a large circle
would almost certainly lose distance enough to lose the race, while the
driver would be laughed at for his unskilfulness.
VI. Why should a man who is a hostile
listener to such words be allowed to hear about the Generation of God,
or his creation, or how God was made out of things which had no
existence, or of section and analysis and division? The allusion is to the
Arian and Eunomian habit of gossiping about the most sacred subjects in
every sort of place or company or time, in order to promote their
heresy. Such expressions as
Generation and the like would certainly be understood in a material
sense by the heathen; and so would place an unnecessary stumbling-block
in the way of their conversion.
VII. But when we have put away from the
conversation those who are strangers to it, and sent the great
legion S. John Chrysostom,
consecrated Archbishop of Constantinople in 397, incurred much
unpopularity among his clergy by insisting on the revival of the Night
Hours of prayer.
VIII. And yet, O talkative Dialectician, I
will ask thee one small question,
IX. But, be it so. Lofty thou art, even
beyond the lofty, even above the clouds, if thou wilt, a spectator of
things invisible, a hearer The disciples of
Pythagoras were made to keep silence absolutely for five years as a
qualification for initiation into the mysteries of his order.
Further, they were bidden to abstain from eating beans, as these were
said to be one receptacle of human souls in the course of their
peregrinations; and when asked for proof of their peculiar doctrines,
contented themselves with the reply, “αὐτὸς
ἔθα” “the master said
so.” Plato taught that all
things that exist are copies of certain objective archetypal Forms,
emanations from the Mind of God, which God copied in creation. He
also taught a doctrine of transmigration of souls. Epicurus, an Athenian
philosopher, of a materialistic type, taught that God had no existence,
and that the world was made by a fortuitous concourse of innumerable
atoms of matter, which are self-existent; and he placed the highest
good in pleasure, which he defined as the absence of pain. The Stoa, a school of
philosophers opposed to the Epicureans, took their name from a certain
Colonnade at Athens, in which Zeno, their founder, used to teach.
Their highest good consisted in the complete subdual of all feeling;
and so they were not unnaturally characterized by a haughty affectation
of indifference. The Cynics, so called
from their snarling way, were a school founded by Antisthenes.
They professed to despise everything human.
Oration XXVIII.
The Second Theological Oration.
I. In the former
Discourse we laid down clearly with respect to the Theologian, both
what sort of character he ought to bear, and on what kind of subject he
may philosophize, and when, and to what extent. We saw that he
ought to be, as far as may be, pure, in order that light may be
apprehended by light; and that he ought to consort with serious men, in
order that his word be not fruitless through falling on an unfruitful
soil; and that the suitable season is when we have a calm within from
the whirl of outward things; so as not like madmen A marginal
reading noted by the Benedictines gives “sobbing” or
“panting,” which is a better sense.
Arabian: So the LXX.
renders the word which in A.V.
The LXX. in
III. What is this that has happened to me, O
friends, and initiates, and fellow-lovers of the truth? I was
running to lay hold on God, and thus I went up into the Mount, and drew
aside the curtain of the Cloud, and entered away from matter and
material things, and as far as I could I withdrew within myself.
And then when I looked up, I scarce saw the back parts of God; This veil of the Mercy
Seat, spoken of in The Face of God
signifies His Essence and Deity, which were before all worlds:
His back parts are Creation and Providence, by which He reveals
Himself.
IV. Therefore we must begin again
thus. It is difficult to conceive God but to define Him in words
is an impossibility, as one of the Greek teachers of Divinity Plato, Tim., 28 E. No one doubts, say the
Benedictine Editors, that the Angels do see God, and that men, too,
will see Him, when they attain to Eternal Bliss. S. Thomas (Summa
I. qu. xii. 4) argues that the Angels have cognition of God’s
Essence not by nature but by grace: but yet (Ib. qu. lvi. 3) that
they have by nature a certain cognition of Him, as represented and as
it were mirrored in their own essence; though not the actual vision of
His Essence. The Angel, he says again (Ib. qu. lxiv. 1) has a
higher cognition of God than man has, on account of the perfection of
his intellect; and this cognition remains even in the fallen
Angels.
V. But enough has been said on this
point. As to what concerns us, it is not only the Peace of
God
VI. Now our very eyes and the Law of Nature
teach us that God exists and that He is the Efficient and Maintaining
Cause of all things: our eyes, because they fall on visible
objects, and see them in beautiful stability and progress, immovably
moving and revolving if I may so say; natural Law, because through
these visible things and their order, it reasons back to their
Author. For how could this Universe have come into being or been
put together, unless God had called it into existence, and held it
together? For every one who sees a beautifully made lute, and
considers the skill with which it has been fitted together and
arranged, or who hears its melody, would think of none but the
lutemaker, or the luteplayer, and would recur to him in mind, though he
might not know him by sight. And thus to us also is manifested
That which made and moves and preserves all created things, even though
He be not comprehended by the mind. And very wanting in sense is
he who will not willingly go thus far in following natural proofs; but
not even this which we have fancied or formed, or which reason has
sketched for us, proves the existence of a God. But if any one
has got even to some extent a comprehension of this, how is God’s
Being to be demonstrated? Who ever reached this extremity of
wisdom? Who was ever deemed worthy of so great a gift? Who
has opened the mouth of his mind and drawn in the Spirit,
VII. For what will you conceive the Deity to be,
if you rely upon all the approximations of reason? Or to what
will reason carry you, O most philosophic of men and best of
Theologians, who boast of your familiarity with the Unlimited? Is
He a body? How then is He the Infinite and Limitless, and
formless, and intangible, and invisible? or are these attributes of a
body? What arrogance for such is not the nature of a body!
Or will you say that He has a body, but not these attributes? O
stupidity, that a Deity should possess nothing more than we do.
For how is He an object of worship if He be circumscribed? Or how
shall He escape being made of elements, and therefore subject to be
resolved into them again, or even altogether dissolved? For every
compound is a starting point of strife, and strife of separation, and
VIII. And how shall we preserve the truth
that God pervades all things and fills all, as it is written “Do
not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord,” Epicurus taught that
Matter is eternal, and consists of an indefinite number of Atoms or
indivisible units, floating about in space, and mutually attracting and
repelling each other; and that all that exists is due to some chance
meeting and coalition of these atoms. This is a speculation
of Aristotle, who imagined a Fifth Element, consisting of formless
matter.
IX. And thus we see that God is not a
body. For no inspired teacher has yet asserted or admitted such a
notion, nor has the sentence of our own Court allowed it. Nothing
then remains but to conceive of Him as incorporeal. But this term
Incorporeal, though granted, does not yet set before us—or
contain within itself His Essence, any more than Unbegotten, or
Unoriginate, or Unchanging, or Incorruptible, or any other predicate
which is used concerning God or in reference to Him. For what
effect is produced upon His Being or Substance Petavius (De Trin. IV.
ii. 7) notes that ὑπόστασις seems
used here of the Essence and Nature common to the Three Persons of the
Blessed Trinity.
But a man who states what God is not without going on to
say what He is, acts much in the same way as one would who when asked
how many twice five make, should answer, “Not two, nor three, nor
four, nor five, nor twenty, nor thirty, nor in short any number below
ten, nor any multiple of ten;” but would not answer
“ten,” nor settle the mind of his questioner upon the firm
ground of the answer. For it is much easier, and more concise to
shew what a thing is not from what it
X. Now since we have ascertained that God is
incorporeal, let us proceed a little further with our
examination. Is He Nowhere or Somewhere. For if He is
Nowhere, Nowhere is in this
passage used in an ambiguous sense. As asserted of God, it means
that His being is in no way limited by place: not that He has no
existence in place, for He is everywhere, and He transcends all
place. Before the creation of the Universe He existed, and He
created Place, which therefore cannot be the seat of His Being.
XI. Now, why have I gone into all this,
perhaps too minutely for most people to listen to, and in accordance
with the present manner of discourse, which despises noble simplicity,
and has introduced a crooked and intricate v. 1.
Affected. The allusion is especially to the ostentatious
dialectics and tedious arguments of Aëtius and his followers,
Eunomius and others. cf. Plato, Tim., 10. v. 1. Most Akin
to Himself. Combefis.
XII. But whether there be other causes for
it also, let them see who are nearer God, and are eye witnesses and
spectators of His unsearchable judgments;
Therefore this darkness of the body has been
placed between us and God, like the cloud of old between the Egyptians
and the Hebrews;
XIII. This will be made clear to you as follows:—Are not Spirit, and Fire, and Light, Love, and Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Mind and Reason, and the like, the names of the First Nature? What then? Can you conceive of Spirit apart from motion and diffusion; or of Fire without its fuel and its upward motion, and its proper colour and form? Or of Light unmingled with air, and loosed from that which is as it were its father and source? And how do you conceive of a mind? Is it not that which is inherent in some person not itself, and are not its movements thoughts, silent or uttered? And Reason…what else can you think it than that which is either silent within ourselves, or else outpoured (for I shrink from saying loosed)? And if you conceive of Wisdom, what is it but the habit of mind which you know as such, and which is concerned with contemplations either divine or human? And Justice and Love, are they not praiseworthy dispositions, the one opposed to injustice, the other to hate, and at one time intensifying themselves, at another relaxed, now taking possession of us, now leaving us alone, and in a word, making us what we are, and changing us as colours do bodies? Or are we rather to leave all these things, and to look at the Deity absolutely, as best we can, collecting a fragmentary perception of It from Its images? What then is this subtile thing, which is of these, and yet is not these, or how can that Unity which is in its Nature uncomposite and incomparable, still be all of these, and each one of them perfectly? Thus our mind faints to transcend corporeal things, and to consort with the Incorporeal, stripped of all clothing of corporeal ideas, as long as it has to look with its inherent weakness at things above its strength. For every rational nature longs for God and for the First Cause, but is unable to grasp Him, for the reasons I have mentioned. Faint therefore with the desire, and as it were restive and impatient of the disability, it tries a second course, either to look at visible things, and out of some of them to make a god…(a poor contrivance, for in what respect and to what extent can that which is seen be higher and more godlike than that which sees, that this should worship that?) or else through the beauty and order of visible things to attain to that which is above sight; but not to suffer the loss of God through the magnificence of visible things.
XIV. From this cause some have made a god of the Sun, others of the Moon, others of the host of Stars, others of heaven itself with all its hosts, to which they have attributed the guiding of the Universe, according to the quality or quantity of their movement. Others again of the Elements, earth, air, water, fire, because of their useful nature, since without them human life cannot possibly exist. Others again have worshipped any chance visible objects, setting up the most beautiful of what they saw as their gods. And there are those who worship pictures and images, at first indeed of their own ancestors—at least, this is the case with the more affectionate and sensual—and honour the departed with memorials; and afterwards even those of strangers are worshipped by men of a later generation separated from them by a long interval; through ignorance of the First Nature, and following the traditional honour as lawful and necessary; for usage when confirmed by time was held to be Law. And I think that some who were courtiers of arbitrary power and extolled bodily strength and admired beauty, made a god in time out of him whom they honoured, perhaps getting hold of some fable to help on their imposture.
XV. And those of them who were most subject to
passion deified their passions, or honoured them among their gods;
Anger and Blood-thirstiness, Lust and Drunkenness, and every similar
wickedness; and made out of this an ignoble and unjust excuse for their
own sins. And some they left on earth, and some they Referring to the
mythical partition of the Universe, which gave heaven to Zeus, the sea
to Poseidon, and the infernal regions to Aidoneus. It was a very general
belief in the early Church that the gods whom the heathen worshipped
were in reality actual evil spirits; and this belief is certainly
supported by S. Paul’s argument about εἰδωλόθυτον
in
XVI. This was their course. But reason receiving us in our desire for God, and in our sense of the impossibility of being without a leader and guide, and then making us apply ourselves to things visible and meeting with the things which have been since the beginning, doth not stay its course even here. For it was not the part of Wisdom to grant the sovereignty to things which are, as observation tells us, of equal rank. By these then it leads to that which is above these, and by which being is given to these. For what is it which ordered things in heaven and things in earth, and those which pass through air, and those which live in water; or rather the things which were before these, heaven and earth, air and water? Who mingled these, and who distributed them? What is it that each has in common with the other, and their mutual dependence and agreement? For I commend the man, though he was a heathen, who said, What gave movement to these, and drives their ceaseless and unhindered motion? Is it not the Artificer of them Who implanted reason in them all, in accordance with which the Universe is moved and controlled? Is it not He who made them and brought them into being? For we cannot attribute such a power to the Accidental. For, suppose that its existence is accidental, to what will you let us ascribe its order? And if you like we will grant you this: to what then will you ascribe its preservation and protection in accordance with the terms of its first creation. Do these belong to the Accidental, or to something else? Surely not to the Accidental. And what can this Something Else be but God? Thus reason that proceeds from God, that is implanted in all from the beginning and is the first law in us, and is bound up in all, leads us up to God through visible things. Let us begin again, and reason this out.
XVII. What God is in nature and essence, no
man ever yet has discovered or can discover. Whether it will ever
be discovered is a question which he who will may examine and
decide. In my opinion it will be discovered when that within us
which is godlike and divine, I mean our mind and reason, shall have
mingled with its Like, and the image shall have ascended to the
Archetype, of which it has now the desire. And this I think is
the solution of that vexed problem as to “We shall know even as
we are known.”
XVIII. Thus Enos “hoped to call upon
the Name of the Lord.” v. l. The
Form of God, which would refer to the occasion cited below.
The reading is grammatically easier, as an accusative is required; but
in that case we might have expected the wrestling with the Angel to
have been mentioned first, as the name Penuel was given by Jacob on the
day following the night in which he wrestled, and received his own
change of name. The Benedictines, while retaining House in
text and version, express a preference for Form, because the
subject of the argument is the Vision of God.
XIX. To Elias neither the strong wind, nor
the fire, nor the earthquake, as you learn from the story, v. l. Orders, i.e. of
angels. This is a
quotation from the LXX. of
XX. If it had been permitted to Paul to
utter what the Third Heaven S.
XXI. The truth then, and the whole Word is full of difficulty and obscurity; and as it were with a small instrument we are undertaking a great work, when with merely human wisdom we pursue the knowledge of the Self-existent, and in company with, or not apart from, the senses, by which we are borne hither and thither, and led into error, we apply ourselves to the search after things which are only to be grasped by the mind, and we are unable by meeting bare realities with bare intellect to approximate somewhat more closely to the truth, and to mould the mind by its concepts.
Now the subject of God is more hard to come
at, cf. Petav. de Deo,
iii., c. 7.
XXII. For if, he says, I leave everything
else alone, and consider myself and the whole nature and constitution
of man, and how we are mingled, and what is our movement, and how the
mortal was compounded with the immortal, and how it is that I flow
downwards, and yet am borne upwards, and how the soul is
circumscribed; v. l. And how
the soul is carried round. v. l.
Invisible. Gregory is not here
speaking of the immorality of the individual soul, but of that of the
Race, which it shares with other animals, and which is effected by
continual succession.
XXIII. Shall I reckon up for you the
differences of the other animals, both from us and from each
other,—differences of nature, and of production, and of
nourishment, and of region, and of temper, and as it were of social
life? How is it that some are gregarious and others solitary,
some herbivorous and others carnivorous, some fierce and others tame,
some fond of man and domesticated, others untamable and free? And
some we might call bordering on reason and power of learning, while
others are altogether destitute of reason, and incapable of being
taught. Some with fuller senses, others with less; some
immovable, and some with the power of walking, and some very swift, and
some very slow; some surpassing in size or beauty, or in one or other
of these respects; others very small or very ugly, or both; some
strong, others weak, some apt at self-defence, others timid and
crafty The Benedictines here
insert Some well protected; but it is their own conjecture, and is not
found in the Manuscripts.
XXIV. Look also at the fishy tribe gliding
through the waters, and as it were flying through the liquid element,
and breathing its own air, but in danger when in contact with ours, as
we are in the waters; and mark their habits and dispositions, their
intercourse and their births, their size and their beauty, and their
affection for places, and their wanderings, and their assemblings and
departings, and their properties which so nearly resemble those of the
animals that dwell on land; in some cases community, in others contrast
of properties, both in name and shape. And consider the tribes of
birds, and their varieties of form and colour, both of those which are
voiceless and of songbirds. What is the reason of their melody,
and from whom came it? Who gave to the grasshopper the lute in
his breast, and the songs and chirruping on the branches, when they are
moved by the sun to make their midday music, and sing among the groves,
and escort the wayfarer with their voices? Who wove the song for
the swan when he spreads his wings to the breezes, and makes melody of
their rustling? For I will not speak of the forced voices, and
all the rest that art contrives against the truth. Whence does
the peacock, that boastful bird of Media, get his love of beauty and of
praise (for he is fully conscious of his own beauty), so that when he
sees any one approaching, or when, as they say, he would make a show
before his hens, raising his neck and spreading his tail in circle
around him, glittering like gold and studded with stars, he makes a
spectacle of his beauty to his lovers with pompous strides? Now
Holy Scripture admires the cleverness in weaving even of women, saying,
Who gave to woman skill in weaving and cleverness in the art of
embroidery?
XXV. But I would have you marvel at the natural
knowledge even of irrational creatures, and if you can, explain its
cause. How is it that birds have for nests rocks and trees and
roofs, and adapt them both for safety and beauty, and suitably for the
comfort of their nurslings? Whence do bees and spiders get their
love of work and art, by which the former plan their honeycombs, and
join them together by hexagonal and co-ordinate tubes, and construct
the foundation by means of a partition and an alternation of the angles
with straight lines; and this, as is the case, in such dusky hives and
dark combs; and the latter weave their intricate webs by such light and
almost airy threads stretched in divers ways, and this from almost
invisible beginnings, to be at once a precious dwelling, and a trap for
weaker creatures with a view to enjoyment of food? What Euclid
ever imitated these, while pursuing philosophical enquiries with lines
that have no real existence, and wearying himself with
demonstrations? From what Palamedes came the tactics, and, as the
saying is, the movements and configurations of cranes, and the systems
of their movement in ranks and their complicated flight? Who were
their Phidiæ and Zeuxides, and who were the Parrhasii and
Aglaophons who knew how to draw and mould excessively beautiful
things? What The allusion is to a
group made by Dædalus for Ariadne, representing a chorus of youths
and maidens, which seemed to be moving in musical rhythm. It is
described by Homer (Il., xviii., 592 sqq.).
XXVI. If this knowledge has come within your reach and you are familiar with these branches of science, look at the differences of plants also, up to the artistic fashion of the leaves, which is adapted both to give the utmost pleasure to the eye, and to be of the greatest advantage to the fruit. Look too at the variety and lavish abundance of fruits, and most of all at the wondrous beauty of such as are most necessary. And consider the power of roots, and juices, and flowers, and odours, not only so very sweet, but also serviceable as medicines; and the graces and qualities of colours; and again the costly value, and the brilliant transparency of precious stones. Since nature has set before you all things as in an abundant banquet free to all, both the necessaries and the luxuries of life, in order that, if nothing else, you may at any rate know God by His benefits, and by your own sense of want be made wiser than you were. Next, I pray you, traverse the length and breadth of earth, the common mother of all, and the gulfs of the sea bound together with one another and with the land, and the beautiful forests, and the rivers and springs abundant and perennial, not only of waters cold and fit for drinking, and on the surface of the earth; but also such as running beneath the earth, and flowing under caverns, are then forced out by a violent blast, and repelled, and then filled with heat by this violence of strife and repulsion, burst out by little and little wherever they get a chance, and hence supply our need of hot baths in many parts of the earth, and in conjunction with the cold give us a healing which is without cost and spontaneous. Tell me how and whence are these things? What is this great web unwrought by art? These things are no less worthy of admiration, in respect of their mutual relations than when considered separately.
How is it that the earth stands solid and unswerving? On what is it supported? What is it that props it up, and on what does that rest? For indeed even reason has nothing to lean upon, but only the Will of God. And how is it that part of it is drawn up into mountain summits, and part laid down in plains, and this in various and differing ways? And because the variations are individually small, it both supplies our needs more liberally, and is more beautiful by its variety; part being distributed into habitations, and part left uninhabited, namely all the great height of Mountains, and the various clefts of its coast line cut off from it. Is not this the clearest proof of the majestic working of God?
XXVII. And with respect to the Sea even if I
did not marvel at its greatness, yet I should have marvelled at its
gentleness, in that although loose it stands within its boundaries; and
if not at its gentleness, yet surely at its greatness; but since I
marvel at both, I will praise the Power that is in both. What
collected it? What bounded it? How is it raised and lulled
to rest, as though respecting its neighbour earth? How, moreover,
does it receive all the rivers, and yet remain the same, through the
very superabundance of its immensity, if that term be
permissible? How is the boundary of it, though it be an element
of such magnitude, only sand? Have your natural philosophers with
their knowledge of useless details anything to tell us, those men I
mean who are really endeavouring to measure the sea with a wineglass,
and such mighty works by their own conceptions? Or shall I give
the really scientific explanation of it from Scripture concisely, and
yet more satisfactorily and truly than by the longest arguments?
“He hath fenced the face of the water with His
command.”
XXVIII. And now, leaving the earth and the
things of earth, soar into the air on the wings of thought, that our
argument may advance in due path; and thence I will take you up to
heavenly things, and to heaven itself, and things which are above
heaven; for to that which is beyond my discourse hesitates to ascend,
but still it shall ascend as far as may be. Who poured forth the
air, that great and abundant wealth, not measured to men by their rank
or fortunes; not restrained by boundaries; not divided out according to
people’s ages; but like the distribution of the Manna,
Now if you have in your thought passed through the air and all the things of air, reach with me to heaven and the things of heaven. And let faith lead us rather than reason, if at least you have learnt the feebleness of the latter in matters nearer to you, and have known reason by knowing the things that are beyond reason, so as not to be altogether on the earth or of the earth, because you are ignorant even of your ignorance.
XXIX. Who spread the sky around us, and set
the stars in order? Or rather, first, can you tell me, of your
own knowledge of the things in heaven, what are the sky and the
stars; you who know not what lies at your very feet, and cannot even
take the measure of yourself, and yet must busy yourself about what is
above your nature, and gape at the illimitable? For, granted that
you understand orbits and periods, and waxings and wanings, and
settings and risings, and some degrees and minutes, and all the other
things which make you so proud of your wonderful knowledge; you have
not arrived at comprehension of the realities themselves, but only at
an observation of some movement, which, when confirmed by longer
practice, and drawing the observations of many individuals into one
generalization, and thence deducing a law, has acquired the name of
Science (just as the lunar phenomena have become generally known to our
sight), being the basis of this knowledge. But if you are very
scientific on this subject, and have a just claim to admiration, tell
me what is the cause of this order and this movement. How came
the sun to be a beacon-fire to the whole world, and to all eyes like
the leader of some chorus, concealing all the rest of the stars by his
brightness, more completely than some of them conceal others. The
proof of this is that they shine against him, but he outshines them and
does not even allow it to be perceived that they rose simultaneously
with him, fair as a bridegroom, swift and great as a giant
XXX. Have you considered the importance of
the fact that a heathen writer Plato.
Do you know the nature and phenomena of the Moon,
and the measures and courses of light, and how it is that the sun bears
rule over the day, and the moon presides over the night; and while She
gives confidence to wild beasts, He stirs Man up to work, raising or
lowering himself as may be most serviceable? Know you the bond of
Pleiades, or the fence of Orion
XXXI. What say you? Shall we pause
here, after discussing nothing further than matter and visible things,
or, since the Word knows the Tabernacle of Moses to be a figure of the
whole creation—I mean the entire system of things visible and
invisible—shall we pass the first veil, and stepping beyond the
realm of sense, shall we look into the Holy Place, the Intellectual and
Celestial creation? But not even this can we see in an
incorporeal way, though it is incorporeal, since it is called—or
is—Fire and Spirit. For He is said to make His Angels
spirits, and His Ministers a flame of fire
Oration XXIX.
The Third Theological Oration.
On the Son.
I. This then is
what might be said to cut short our opponents’ readiness to argue
and their hastiness with its consequent insecurity in all matters, but
above all in those discussions which relate to God. But since to
rebuke others is a matter of no difficulty whatever, but a very easy
thing, which any one who likes can do; whereas to substitute
one’s own belief for theirs is the part of a pious and
intelligent man; let us, relying on the Holy Ghost, Who among them is
dishonoured, but among us is adored, bring forth to the light our own
conceptions about the Godhead, whatever these may be, like some noble
and timely birth. Not that I have at other times been silent; for
on this subject alone I am full of youthful strength and daring; but
the fact is that under present circumstances I am even more bold to
declare the truth, that I may not (to use the words of Scripture) by
drawing back fall into the condemnation of being displeasing to
God.
II. The three most ancient opinions concerning God are Anarchia, Polyarchia, and Monarchia. The first two are the sport of the children of Hellas, and may they continue to be so. For Anarchy is a thing without order; and the Rule of Many is factious, and thus anarchical, and thus disorderly. For both these tend to the same thing, namely disorder; and this to dissolution, for disorder is the first step to dissolution.
But Monarchy is that which we hold in
honour. It is, however, a Monarchy that is not limited to one
Person, for it is possible for Unity if at variance with itself to come
into a condition of plurality; Billius and
others here read Authority, which is not supported by the best
mss., or by the context. Elias explains this to
mean that of old men knew only One Person in the Godhead: and
until the Incarnation this knowledge was sufficient; but from that time
forward they acknowledged a Second Person, and through Him a Third
also, the Holy Ghost. But this explanation falls far short of
Gregory’s meaning, which certainly is that the movement of
self-consciousness in God from all Eternity made the Generation of the
Son, and the Procession of the Holy Ghost, a necessity. All is
objective in God. cf. Petav. de Deo, II., viii., 16; also, Greg.
Naz., Or. xxiii. 5. προβολεὺς-προβολὴ
was a term used by the Gnostics to describe the Emanations by which the
distance between the Finite and the Infinite was according to them
bridged over; and on this account it fell under suspicion, and was
rejected by both Arius and Athanasius. Tertullian used it with an
explanation which is satisfactory as regards the προβολὴ of the Son;
but when he comes to apply it to the Procession of the Holy Ghost he
uses an illustration which is in almost the very words rejected by
Gregory (c. Prax., 7, 8. See Swete, p. 56). Origen did not
admit it. Later when this danger was past, the word came into use
again as the equivalent of ἐκπόρευσις,
at first with reserve and explanations in the text, but later on as an
accepted term. See Swete ,“On The Doctrine Of The Holy
Spirit,” p. 36. The expression is from
Plato.
III. When did these come into being? They
are above all “When.” But, if I am to speak with
something more of boldness,—when the Father did. And when
did the Father come into being. There never was a time when He
was not. And the same thing is true of the Son and the Holy
Ghost. Ask me again, and again I will answer you, When was the
Son
How then are They not alike unoriginate, if They are coeternal? Because They are from Him, though not after Him. For that which is unoriginate is eternal, but that which is eternal is not necessarily unoriginate, so long as it may be referred to the Father as its origin. Therefore in respect of Cause They are not unoriginate; but it is evident that the Cause is not necessarily prior to its effects, for the sun is not prior to its light. And yet They are in some sense unoriginate, in respect of time, even though you would scare simple minds with your quibbles, for the Sources of Time are not subject to time.
IV. But how can this generation be passionless? In that it is incorporeal. For if corporeal generation involves passion, incorporeal generation excludes it. And I will ask of you in turn, How is He God if He is created? For that which is created is not God. I refrain from reminding you that here too is passion if we take the creation in a bodily sense, as time, desire, imagination, thought, hope, pain, risk, failure, success, all of which and more than all find a place in the creature, as is evident to every one. Nay, I marvel that you do not venture so far as to conceive of marriages and times of pregnancy, and dangers of miscarriage, as if the Father could not have begotten at all if He had not begotten thus; or again, that you did not count up the modes of generation of birds and beasts and fishes, and bring under some one of them the Divine and Ineffable Generation, or even eliminate the Son out of your new hypothesis. And you cannot even see this, that as His Generation according to the flesh differs from all others (for where among men do you know of a Virgin Mother?), so does He differ also in His spiritual Generation; or rather He, Whose Existence is not the same as ours, differs from us also in His Generation.
V. Who then is that Father Who had no
beginning? One Whose very Existence had no beginning; for one
whose existence had a beginning must also have begun to be a
Father. He did not then become a Father after He began to be, for
His being had no beginning. And He is Father in the absolute
sense, for He is not also Son; just as the Son is Son in the absolute
sense, because He is not also Father. These names do not belong
to us in the absolute sense, because we are both, and not one more than
the other; and we are of both, and not of one only; and so we are
divided, and by degrees become men, and perhaps not even men, and such
as we did not desire, leaving and being left, so that only the
relations remain, without the underlying facts. Elias explains this to
refer to the fact that children leave and are left by parents; or else
to the death of either one or the other.
But, the objector says, the very form of the
expression “He begat” and “He was begotten,”
brings in the idea of a beginning of generation. But what if you
do not use this expression, but say, “He had been begotten from
the beginning” so as readily to evade your far-fetched and
time-loving objections? Will you bring Scripture against us, as
if we were forging something contrary to Scripture and to the
truth? Why, every one knows that in practice we very often find
tenses interchanged when time is spoken of; and especially is this the
custom of Holy Scripture, not only in respect of the past tense, and of
the present; but even of the future, as for instance “Why did the
heathen rage?”
VI. So much for this point. What is their next objection, how full of contentiousness and impudence? He, they say, either voluntarily begat the Son, or else involuntarily. Next, as they think, they bind us on both sides with cords; these however are not strong, but very weak. For, they say, if it was involuntarily He was under the sway of some one, and who exercised this sway? And how is He, over whom it is exercised, God? But if voluntarily, the Son is a Son of Will; how then is He of the Father?—and they thus invent a new sort of Mother for him,—the Will,—in place of the Father. There is one good point which they may allege about this argument of theirs; namely, that they desert Passion, and take refuge in Will. For Will is not Passion.
VII. Will you then let me play a little upon this word Father, for your example encourages me to be so bold? The Father is God either willingly or unwillingly; and how will you escape from your own excessive acuteness? If willingly, when did He begin to will? It could not have been before He began to be, for there was nothing prior to Him. Or is one part of Him Will and another the object of Will? If so, He is divisible. So the question arises, as the result of your argument, whether He Himself is not the Child of Will. And if unwillingly, what compelled Him to exist, and how is He God if He was compelled—and that to nothing less than to be God? How then was He begotten, says my opponent. How was He created, if as you say, He was created? For this is a part of the same difficulty. Perhaps you would say, By Will and Word. You have not yet solved the whole difficulty; for it yet remains for you to shew how Will and Word gained the power of action. For man was not created in this way.
VIII. How then was He begotten? This Generation would have been no great thing, if you could have comprehended it who have no real knowledge even of your own generation, or at least who comprehend very little of it, and of that little you are ashamed to speak; and then do you think you know the whole? You will have to undergo much labour before you discover the laws of composition, formation, manifestation, and the bond whereby soul is united to body,—mind to soul, and reason to mind; and movement, increase, assimilation of food, sense, memory, recollection, and all the rest of the parts of which you are compounded; and which of them belongs to the soul and body together, and which to each independently of the other, and which is received from each other. For those parts whose maturity comes later, yet received their laws at the time of conception. Tell me what these laws are? And do not even then venture to speculate on the Generation of God; for that would be unsafe. For even if you knew all about your own, yet you do not by any means know about God’s. And if you do not understand your own, how can you know about God’s? For in proportion as God is harder to trace out than man, so is the heavenly Generation harder to comprehend than your own. But if you assert that because you cannot comprehend it, therefore He cannot have been begotten, it will be time for you to strike out many existing things which you cannot comprehend; and first of all God Himself. For you cannot say what He is, even if you are very reckless, and excessively proud of your intelligence. First, cast away your notions of flow and divisions and sections, and your conceptions of immaterial as if it were material birth, and then you may perhaps worthily conceive of the Divine Generation. How was He begotten?—I repeat the question in indignation. The Begetting of God must be honoured by silence. It is a great thing for you to learn that He was begotten. But the manner of His generation we will not admit that even Angels can conceive, much less you. Shall I tell you how it was? It was in a manner known to the Father Who begat, and to the Son Who was begotten. Anything more than this is hidden by a cloud, and escapes your dim sight.
IX. Well, but the Father begat a Son who
This is the Arian
dilemma, “Did the Son exist before he was begotten?”
I do not admit either solution, and I declare that your question contains an absurdity, and not a difficulty to answer. If however you think, in accordance with your dialectic assumptions, that one or other of these alternatives must necessarily be true in every case, let me ask you one little question: Is time in time, or is it not in time? If it is contained in time, then in what time, and what is it but that time, and how does it contain it? But if it is not contained in time, what is that surpassing wisdom which can conceive of a time which is timeless? Now, in regard to this expression, “I am now telling a lie,” admit one of these alternatives, either that it is true, or that it is a falsehood, without qualification (for we cannot admit that it is both). But this cannot be. For necessarily he either is lying, and so is telling the truth, or else he is telling the truth, and so is lying. What wonder is it then that, as in this case contraries are true, so in that case they should both be untrue, and so your clever puzzle prove mere foolishness? Solve me one more riddle. Were you present at your own generation, and are you now present to yourself, or is neither the case? If you were and are present, who were you, and with whom are you present? And how did your single self become thus both subject and object? But if neither of the above is the case, how did you get separated from yourself, and what is the cause of this disjoining? But, you will say, it is stupid to make a fuss about the question whether or no a single individual is present to himself; for the expression is not used of oneself but of others. Well, you may be certain that it is even more stupid to discuss the question whether That which was begotten from the beginning existed before its generation or not. For such a question arises only as to matter divisible by time.
X. But they say, The Unbegotten and the
Begotten are not the same; and if this is so, neither is the Son the
same as the Father. It is clear, without saying so, that this
line of argument manifestly excludes either the Son or the Father from
the Godhead. For if to be Unbegotten is the Essence of God, to be
begotten is not that Essence; if the opposite is the case, the
Unbegotten is excluded. What argument can contradict this?
Choose then whichever blasphemy you prefer, my good inventor of a new
theology, if indeed you are anxious at all costs to embrace a
blasphemy. In the next place, in what sense do you assert that
the Unbegotten and the Begotten are not the same? If you mean
that the Uncreated and the created are not the same, I agree with you;
for certainly the Unoriginate and the created are not of the same
nature. But if you say that He That begat and That which is
begotten are not the same, the statement is inaccurate. For it is
in fact a necessary truth that they are the same. For the nature
of the relation of Father to Child is this, that the offspring is of
the same nature with the parent. Or we may argue thus
again. What do you mean by Unbegotten and Begotten, for if you
mean the simple fact of being unbegotten or begotten, these are not the
same; but if you mean Those to Whom these terms apply, how are They not
the same? For example, Wisdom and Unwisdom are not the same in
themselves, but yet both are attributes of man, who is the same; and
they mark not a difference of essence, but one external to the
essence. cf. Petavius De Trin.,
V. ii., 2.
XI. They do not however assert this, for these
qualities are common also to other beings. The Manichæans,
who believed in two eternal principles of good and evil, light and
darkness, held that darkness too was unbegotten (Elias).
XII. But, they say, if the Son is the Same
as the Father in respect of Essence, then if the Father is unbegotten,
the Son must be so likewise. Quite so—if the Essence of God
consists in being unbegotten; and so He would be a strange mixture,
begottenly unbegotten. If, however, the difference is outside the
Essence, how can you be so certain in speaking of this? Are you
also your father’s father, so as in no respect to fall short of
your father, since you are the same with him in essence? Is it
not evident that our enquiry into the Nature of the Essence of God, if
we make it, will leave Personality absolutely unaffected? But
that Unbegotten is not a synonym of God is proved thus. If it
were so, it would be necessary that since God is a relative term,
Unbegotten should be so likewise; or that since Unbegotten is an
absolute term, so must God be.…God of no one. For words
which are absolutely identical are similarly applied. But the
word Unbegotten is not used relatively. For to what is it
relative? And of what things is God the God? Why, of all
things. How then can God and Unbegotten be identical terms?
And again, since Begotten and Unbegotten are contradictories, like
possession and deprivation, it would follow that contradictory essences
would co-exist, which is impossible. Because
“Son” implies “begotten.” But (ex hyp.)
“Unbegotten” is synonymous with “God.”
XIII. What now remains of their invincible
arguments? Perhaps the last they will take refuge in is
this. If God has never ceased to beget, the Generation is
imperfect; and when will He cease? But if He has ceased, then He
must have begun. Thus again these carnal minds bring forward
carnal arguments. Whether He is eternally begotten or not, I do
not yet say, until I have looked into the statement, “Before all
the hills He begetteth Me,” The Benedictines here
translate λόγῳ
by “Scripture,” on the ground that Reason is not competent
to assert the Divinity of the Word.
XIV. And when we advance this objection against them, “What do you mean to say then? That the Son is not properly God, just as a picture of an animal is not properly an animal? And if not properly God, in what sense is He God at all?” They reply, Why should not these terms be ambiguous, and in both cases be used in a proper sense? And they will give us such instances as the land-dog and the dogfish; where the word Dog is ambiguous, and yet in both cases is properly used, for there is such a species among the ambiguously named, or any other case in which the same appellative is used for two things of different nature. But, my good friend, in this case, when you include two natures under the same name, you do not assert that either is better than the other, or that the one is prior and the other posterior, or that one is in a greater degree and the other in a lesser that which is predicated of them both, for there is no connecting link which forces this necessity upon them. One is not a dog more than the other, and one less so; either the dogfish more than the land-dog, or the land-dog than the dogfish. Why should they be, or on what principle? But the community of name is here between things of equal value, though of different nature. But in the case of which we are speaking, you couple the Name of God with adorable Majesty, and make It surpass every essence and nature (an attribute of God alone), and then you ascribe this Name to the Father, while you deprive the Son of it, and make Him subject to the Father, and give Him only a secondary honour and worship; and even if in words you bestow on Him one which is Equal, yet in practice you cut off His Deity, and pass malignantly from a use of the same Name implying an exact equality, to one which connects things which are not equal. And so the pictured and the living man are in your mouth an apter illustration of the relations of Deity than the dogs which I instanced. Or else you must concede to both an equal dignity of nature as well as a common name—even though you introduced these natures into your argument as different; and thus you destroy the analogy of your dogs, which you invented as an instance of inequality. For what is the force of your instance of ambiguity, if those whom you distinguish are not equal in honour? For it was not to prove an equality but an inequality that you took refuge in your dogs. How could anybody be more clearly convicted of fighting both against his own arguments, and against the Deity?
XV. And if, when we admit that in respect of
being the Cause the Father is greater than the Son, they should assume
the premiss that He is the Cause by Nature, and then deduce the
conclusion that He is greater by Nature also, it is difficult to say
whether they mislead most themselves or those with whom they are
arguing. For it does not absolutely follow that all that is
predicated of a class can also be predicated of all the individuals
composing it; for the different particulars may belong to different
individuals. For what hinders me, if I assume the same premiss,
namely, that the Father is greater by Nature, and then add this other,
Yet not by nature in every respect greater nor yet Father—from
concluding, Therefore the Greater is not in every respect greater, nor
the Father in every respect Father? Or, if you prefer it, let us
put it in this way: God is an Essence: But an Essence is
not in every case God; and draw the conclusion for
yourself—Therefore God is not in every case God. I think
the fallacy here is the arguing from a conditioned to an unconditioned
use of a term, Or as the schoolmen
say the fallacy is, A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, one of
the many forms of Undistributed Middle Term. Petavius, however
(De Trin.. II., v., 12), pronounces the argument of this section
unsatisfactory.
XVI. How shall we pass over the following point,
which is no less amazing than the rest? Father, they say, is a
name either of an essence or of an Action, thinking to bind us down on
both sides. If we say that it is a name of an essence, they will
say that we agree with them that the Son is of another Essence, since
there is but one Essence of God, and this, according to them, is
preoccupied by the Father. On the other hand, if we say that it
is the name of an Action, we shall be
XVII. For we have learnt to believe in and
to teach the Deity of the Son from their great and lofty
utterances. And what utterances are these? These:
God—The Word—He That Was In The Beginning and With The
Beginning, and The Beginning. “In the Beginning was The
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”
But in opposition to all these, do you reckon up
for me the expressions which make for your ignorant arrogance, such as
“My God and your God,” S. Gregory often
speaks of Human Nature as our composite being; and here he means
the Sacred Humanity exclusively; there is no shadow of suspicion of
Nestorianism or Eutychianism attaching to his name. The word οἰκονομία
is used in four principal senses: (a) The ministry of the Gospel,
cf.
XIX. For He Whom you now treat with contempt
was once above you. He Who is now Man was once the
Uncompounded. What He was He continued to be; what He was not He
took to Himself. cf. S. Leo, Serm.
xxi., De Nativ. Dei, c. ii. “Remaining what He was, and
putting on what He was not, He united the true form of a servant to
that form in which He was equal to God the Father, and combined both
natures in a union so close that the lower was not consumed by
receiving glory, nor the higher lessened by assuming lowliness. “Mediante
anima,” cf. Orat. xxxviii., 13. S. T. Aq., Summa, III.,
vi. Jungmann, de Verbo Incarn., c. 68. Forbes, On Nicene
Creed, p. 188. Petav. de Incarn, IV., xiii., 2. γενόμενος
ἄνθρωπος ὁ
κάτω θεός. The
passage is one of great difficulty. Elias Cretensis renders the
words as follows:—“Becoming Man, the inferior God, because
humanity was” etc.; but his rendering is rejected as impossible
by Petavius (de Incarn., IV., ix., 2, 3). (i.) It is
grammatically possible (Madvig, Gk. Syntax, 9 a. rem. 3) for
ὁ κάτω, standing as it does, to qualify
ἄνθρωπος. (ii.)
But the καὶ
γενόμενος
…θεός may be taken as a nom. absolute,
which would have been expressed by a gen. if ἄνθρωπος had not been
the same Person as ὁμιλήσας. As by the Incarnation
He who was God was made perfect Man, so Man was made perfect God, and
each nature retained its own qualities. Or it may mean that God
Incarnate was made Man in respect of body, soul, and mind; that is, in
all points: and the Humanity which He assumed was in all these
points Deified; and therefore they who are His kindred and imitators
share to that extent the Deification (Elias). In the First
Epistle to Cledonius (v. infra) the Priest, against Apollinarius, which
is sometimes reckoned as the 51st Oration, S. Gregory says, “The
Godhead and the Manhood are two natures, just as soul and body
are. But there are not two Sons or two Gods; although Paul did
thus entangle the outward man and the inward. And, to speak
succinctly, the Natures which make our Saviour are distinct, for the
Invisible is not the same as the visible, nor the Timeless as that
which is subject to time; but He is not two Persons, God forbid, for
both these are one in the union, God being made Man, and Man being made
God, or however else you may express it.” And upon this S.
Thomas Aquinas remarks that it is true, if by Man you understand simply
Human Nature, and not a Human Person; in this sense it was brought to
pass that Man was God; or in other words Human Nature was made that of
the Son of God. (Summa, III., xvi., 7.) “If any does not
admit Mary to be the Mother of God (θεοτόκον), he is
separated from God. If any say that He passed through the Virgin
as through a conduit, and that He was not formed in her both divinely
and humanly (divinely, because without a human father; humanly, because
in accordance with the laws of gestation), he is in like manner
atheistic. If any assert that the Humanity was thus formed, and
the Deity subsequently added, he is condemned; for this is not a
generation of God, but an evasion of generation” (S. G. N. ad
Cled., Ep. i.) S. Thomas Aquinas explains the fitness of the
title thus: The Blessed Virgin could be denied to be the Mother
of God only if either His Humanity had been conceived and born before
That Man was the Son of God:—which was the position taken up by
Photinus; or else if the Humanity had not been assumed into the unity
of the Person (or Hypostasis) of the Son of God;—which was the
position of Nestorius. Both these positions are erroneous.
Therefore to deny that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God is
heretical (Summa, III.. xxxv. 4). In the text S. Gregory merely
means that the Godhead of our Lord was not derived from His Blessed
Mother, just as his Manhood was not derived from any man; but, as the
extract at the beginning of this Note shews, he would be the last to
take up the Nestorian notion, which was afterwards condemned at the
Council of Ephesus. Both These, i.e., the
being without Father, and without Mother is a condition which belongs
only to the Godhead. S. John the Baptist
(S. Referring, perhaps, to
the tradition that at the coming of Christ into Egypt all the Idols in
the land fell down and were broken.
XX. He was baptized as Man—but He
remitted sins as God
XXI. This, then, is our reply to those who
would puzzle us; not given willingly indeed (for light talk and
contradictions of words are not agreeable to the faithful, and one
Adversary is enough for us), but of necessity, for the sake of our
assailants (for medicines exist because of diseases), that they may be
led to see that they are not all-wise nor invincible in those
superfluous arguments which make void the Gospel. For when we
leave off believing, and protect ourselves by mere strength of
argument, and destroy the claim which the Spirit has upon our faith by
questionings, and then our argument is not strong enough for the
importance of the subject (and this must necessarily be the case, since
it is put in motion by an organ of so little power as is our mind),
what is the result? The weakness of the argument appears to
belong to the mystery, and thus elegance of language makes void the
Cross, as Paul also thought.
Oration XXX.
The Fourth Theological Oration, Which is the Second Concerning the Son.
I. Since I have by
the power of the Spirit sufficiently overthrown the subtleties and
intricacies of the arguments, and already solved in the mass the
objections and oppositions drawn from Holy Scripture, with which these
sacrilegious robbers of the Bible and thieves of the sense of its
contents draw over the multitude to their side, and confuse the way of
truth; and that not without clearness, as I believe all candid persons
will say; attributing to the Deity the higher and diviner expressions,
and the lower and more human to Him Who for us men was the Second Adam,
and was God made capable of suffering to strive against sin;
II. In their eyes the following is only too
ready to hand “The Lord created me at
the beginning of His ways with a view to His works.”
III. Next is the fact of His being called
Servant See Prolegomena, sec.
ii. and
IV. Well, what is the second of their great
irresistible passages? “He must reign,”
V. Take, in the next place, the subjection
by which you subject the Son to the Father. What, you say, is He
not now subject, or must He, if He is God, be subject to God? S. Gregory would here
shew that the subjection of Christ of which S. Paul speaks in the
passage quoted, is that of the Head of the Church, representing the
members of His body. Cf. S. Ambrose, de Fide V. vi., quoted by
Petavius, de Trin. III. v. 2. I.e.
VI. The same consideration applies to
another passage, “He learnt obedience by the things which He
suffered,”
And perhaps it would not be wrong to assume this
also, that by the art Leuvenclavius
translates “The art of this lovingkindness gauges,”
etc. The Benedictines
render, “In darkness, that is, in this life, because of the veil
of the body.” The Benedictines take
παρα
φθειρέσθωσαν
in an active sense: “I would not let even the Sabellians
wrest such an expression.”
VII. As your third point you count the Word
Greater;
VIII. As to the other passages, My God would
be used in respect, not of the Word, but of the Visible Word. For
how could there be a God of Him Who is properly God? In the same
way He is Father, not of the Visible, but of the Word; for our Lord was
of two Natures; so that one expression is used properly, the other
improperly in each of the two cases; but exactly the opposite way to
their use in respect of us. For with respect to us God is
properly our God, but not properly our Father. And this is the
cause of the error of the Heretics, namely the joining of these two
Names, which are interchanged because of the Union of the
Natures. And an indication of this is found in the fact that
wherever the Natures are distinguished in our thoughts from one
another, the Names are also distinguished; as you hear in Paul’s
words, “The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of
Glory.”
IX. Fifthly, let it be alleged that it is
said of Him that He receives life,
X. Sixthly, let it be asserted that it is
written, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the
Father do. Note with the
Benedictines that S. Gregory is here speaking of our Lord alone, not of
ordinary Physicians; hence he uses the singular.
XI. And besides all this, there is the
absolutely impossible and inadmissible, as that which we are now
examining. For as we assert that it is impossible for God to be
evil, or not to exist—for this would be indicative of weakness in
God rather than of strength—or for the non-existent to exist, or
for two and two to make both four and ten, One ms. reads “to be fourteen.” cf.
XII. Let them quote in the seventh place
that The Son came down from Heaven, not to do His own Will, but the
Will of Him That sent Him. Observe that S.
Gregory expressly limits this paraphrase to the Divine Nature of our
Lord, and is not in any way denying to Him a Human Will
also;—indeed in the preceding sentence he distinctly asserts
it. The whole passage makes very strongly against the heresy of
Apollinarius, which adopted the Arian tenet that in our Lord the Divine
Logos supplied the place of the human soul. V. l.
Restoration.
XIII. The eighth passage is, That they may
know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast
sent;
XIV. Ninthly, they allege, seeing He ever
XV. Their tenth objection is the ignorance,
and the statement that Of the last day and hour knoweth no man, not
even the Son Himself, but the Father.
XVI. If then this argument is sufficient,
let us stop here, and not enquire further. But if not, our second
argument is as follows:—Just as we do in all other instances, so
let us refer His knowledge of the greatest events, in honour of the
Father, to The Cause. And I think that anyone, even if he did not
read it in the way that one of our own Students Elias thinks that the
great S. Basil is here referred to. Petavius thinks the first
argument of c. xvi. forced and unsatisfactory.
XVII. We will begin thus. The Deity cannot
be expressed in words. And this is proved to us, not only by
argument, but by the wisest and most ancient of the Hebrews, so far as
they have given us reason for conjecture. For they appropriated
certain characters to the honour of the Deity, and would not even allow
the name of anything inferior to God to be written with the same
letters as that of
XVIII. As far then as we can reach, He Who
Is, and God, are the special names of His Essence; and of these
especially He Who Is, not only because when He spake to Moses in the
mount, and Moses asked what His Name was, this was what He called
Himself, bidding him say to the people “I Am hath sent
me,” The derivation of
Θεός from
Θέειν (to
run) is given by Plato (Crat., 397c). That from Αἴθειν (to blaze) is
found also in S. John Damascene (De Fide Orth., I., 12), who however
may have borrowed it from S. Gregory, or from the source whence the
latter took it. S. Athanasius also admits it (De Defin.,
11). Other definitions are, according to Suicer, (1) Θεᾶσθαι (to
see), e.g. Greg. Nyss. in Cant. Hom., V. (2) Θεωρεῖν (to
contemplate), Athan. Quæst Misc., Qu. XI. Θεὸς
λέγεται ἀπὸ
τὸ θεωρεῖν τὰ
πάντα, οἱονεὶ
θεωρὸς καὶ
θεος, ἤγουν
θεάτης
πάντων. (3) Τιθέναι (to
place), Clem., Al. Strom., l. s. fin., θεὸς παρὰ
τὴν θέσιν
εἴρηται. Lord (Κύριος) is
simply the LXX. rendering of the word which in
reading Hebrew is substituted for the Ineffable Name. Thus in the
passages quoted, had the original language been used, the Four-Lettered
Name would have appeared.
XIX. Of the other titles, some are evidently names of His Authority, others of His Government of the world, and of this viewed under a twofold aspect, the one before the other in the Incarnation. For instance the Almighty, the King of Glory, or of The Ages, or of The Powers, or of The Beloved, or of Kings. Or again the Lord of Sabaoth, that is of Hosts, or of Powers, or of Lords; these are clearly titles belonging to His Authority. But the God either of Salvation or of Vengeance, or of Peace, or of Righteousness; or of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of all the spiritual Israel that seeth God,—these belong to His Government. For since we are governed by these three things, the fear of punishment, the hope of salvation and of glory besides, and the practice of the virtues by which these are attained, the Name of the God of Vengeance governs fear, and that of the God of Salvation our hope, and that of the God of Virtues our practice; that whoever attains to any of these may, as carrying God in himself, press on yet more unto perfection, and to that affinity which arises out of virtues. Now these are Names common to the Godhead, but the Proper Name of the Unoriginate is Father, and that of the unoriginately Begotten is Son, and that of the unbegottenly Proceeding or going forth is The Holy Ghost. Let us proceed then to the Names of the Son, which were our starting point in this part of our argument.
XX. In my opinion He is called Son because
He is identical with the Father in Essence; and not only for this
reason, but also because He is Of Him. And He is called
Only-Begotten, not because He is the only Son and of the Father alone,
and only a Son; but also because the manner of His Sonship is peculiar
to Himself and not shared by bodies. And He is called the Word,
because He is related to the Father as Word to Mind; not only on
account of His passionless Generation, but also because of the Union,
and of His declaratory function. Perhaps too this relation might
be compared to that between the Definition and the Thing
defined Of the oration on
Christmas Day, where He is called ὁ τοῦ
Πατρὸς ὅρος
καὶ λόγος, and see
Note there. Ratio (relation;
sometimes reason) Sermo (discourse) and Verbum (Word) are all
renderings of Λόγος.
XXI. These names however are still common to
Him Who is above us, and to Him Who came for our sake. But others
are peculiarly our own, and belong to that nature which He
assumed. So He is called Man, not only that through His Body He
may be apprehended by embodied creatures, whereas otherwise this would
be impossible because of His incomprehensible nature; but also that by
Himself He may sanctify humanity, and be as it were a leaven to the
whole lump; and by uniting to Himself that which was condemned may
release it from all condemnation, becoming for all men all things that
we are, except sin;—body, soul, mind and all through which death
reaches—and thus He became Man, who is the combination of all
these; God in visible form, because He retained that which is perceived
by mind alone. He is Son of Man, both on account of Adam, and of
the Virgin from Whom He came; from the one as a forefather, from the
other as His Mother, both in accordance with the law of generation, and
apart from it. He is Christ, because of His Godhead. For
this is the Anointing of His Manhood, and does not, as is the case with
all other Anointed Ones, sanctify by its action, but by the Presence in
His Fulness of the Anointing One; the effect of which is that That
which anoints is called Man, and makes that which is anointed
God. He is The Way, because He leads us through Himself; The
Door, as letting us in; the Shepherd, as making us dwell in a place of
green pastures,
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.
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 others E.g. S. Basil and S.
Gregory of Nyssa.
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; 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. Al. The
Confession.
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
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).
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 Irenæus. I.,
6. 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.
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;
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, 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.”
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. i.e. the
Phœnix. Hdt., ii. 37.
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.
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 Angels “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).
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 Homer, Il., xiv.,
189. Petavius praises this
dictum, De Trin., IV., xiii., 9.
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. 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.
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,
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, This is the famous
passage of the Witnesses in 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.
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 var. lect.,
receiving.
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,
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, Referring to the
earthquake at the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai (
XXVI. To this I may compare the case of
Theology 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.
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 disciples
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 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.).
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
Ghost v. l. Yea, even
disorder. Viz.:—where we
are told that Blasphemy against Him hath never forgiveness. As in the case of the
Centurion Cornelius, i.e. in
Confirmation.
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, As before in the case
of the Son. See above, Theol., iii. 18.
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, 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.
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.
Oration XXXIII.
Against The Arians, and Concerning Himself.
Delivered at Constantinople about the middle of the year 380.
I. Where are they
who reproach us with our poverty, and boast themselves of their own
riches; who define the Church by numbers, Shewing the absurdity
of defining the Church by counting heads. This refers to the
distinction drawn by the Arians in degree as to the Godhead, asserting
the Spirit to be great, the Son greater, and the Father greatest (cf.
Or. xlii., 16). The beginning of the
Oration was apparently disturbed by hostile demonstrations on the part
of Arian hearers.
II. Would you like me to utter to you the
words of God to Israel, stiff-necked and hardened? “O my
people what have I done unto thee, or wherein have I injured thee, or
wherein have I wearied thee?” Valens. Theodosius and
Gratian.
III. What tumultuous mob have I led against
you? What soldiers have I armed? What general boiling with
rage, and more savage than his employers, and not even a Christian, but
one who offers his impiety against us as his private worship to his own
gods? Dr. Ullmann makes this
passage refer to outrages perpetrated in Constantinople itself on
Gregory, by his Arian opponents. On one occasion, he says, in the
night time the meetingplace of the Orthodox was assailed; a mob of
Arians, and in particular women of the lowest stamp, set on by monks,
armed themselves with sticks and stones, and forced an entrance into
the peaceful place of holy worship. The champion of orthodoxy
well nigh became a martyr to his convictions; the Altar was profaned,
the consecrated wine was mixed with blood; the house of prayer was made
a scene of outrage and unbridled licentiousness. The Benedictine
Editors, however, whom Benoit follows, think the reference is to the
disturbances in Alexandria when the Arian Lucius was forcibly intruded
into the Chair of Athanasius by the Prefect Palladius. A full
account of the atrocities by which his installation was marked is to be
found in a letter of Peter, the expelled or orthodox Patriarch,
preserved in Theodoret (H. E. IV. 22). This Lucius was living in
Constantinople and abetting the Arian party there at the time when
Gregory pronounced this Oration.
IV. What wild beasts have we let loose upon the
bodies of Saints,—like some who have prostituted human
nature,—on one single accusation, that of not consenting to their
impiety; or defiled ourselves by communion with them, which we avoid
like the poison of a snake, not because it injures the body, but
because it blackens the depths of the soul? Against whom have we
made it a matter of criminal accusation that they buried the dead, whom
the very beasts reverenced? And what a charge, worthy of another
theatre and of other beasts! What Bishop’s aged flesh have
we carded with hooks in the presence of their disciples, impotent to
help them save by tears, hung up with Christ, conquering by suffering,
and sprinkling the people with their Socrates (H. E. IV. 16) gives an account of
the murder of eighty Priests by order of Valens. The Prefect of
Nicomedia, being afraid to execute the Emperor’s commands by a
public action, put these men on board a ship, as if to send them into
exile, but gave orders to the crew to set the vessel on fire on the
high seas, and leave the prisoners to their fate. Billius, however, thinks that the
reference is to the martyrdom of a single Priest, whose death in this
way is described by S. Gregory in his panegyric on Maximus (Or. xxv.
10, p. 461, 462).
V. And to speak of older things, for they
too belong to the same fraternity; whose hands living or dead have I
cut off—to bring a lying accusation against Saints, S. Athanasius was
accused by the Arians of having murdered a Meletian Bishop named
Arsenius, and cut off his hand to use for magical purposes; and at a
Synod held at Tyre in 334 they produced the alleged hand in a
box. Athanasius, however, was able to produce Arsenius alive and
unmutilated; but even so his accusers were not satisfied. The reference is
perhaps to Eusebius of Samosata, who was killed by a tile thrown at him
by an Arian woman. In dying he bound his friends by an oath not
to allow the murderess to be punished.
VI. Now since your antecedents are such, I
should be glad if you too will tell me of my crimes, that I may either
amend my life or be put to shame. My greatest wish is that I may
be found free from wrong altogether; but if this may not be, at least
to be converted from my crime; for this is the second best portion of
the prudent. For if like the just man I do not become my own
accuser in the first instance, Valens had constructed
an Aqueduct, partly subterranean, partly raised on arches, for the
supply of water to the Capital. A magnificent column
on which stood an equestrian statue of Constantine the Great.
VII. Why do you not also mention the convenience
of the site, and what I may call the contest between land and sea as to
which owns the City, and which adorns our Royal City with all their
good things? This then is our crime, that while you are great and
splendid, we are small and come from a small place? Many others
do you this wrong, indeed all those whom you excel; and must we die
be
VIII. Do you also find fault with the
raggedness of my dress, and the want of elegance in the disposition of
my face? for these are the points upon which I see that some persons
who are very insignificant pride themselves. Will you leave my
head alone, and not jeer at it, as the children did at
Elissæus? What followed I will not mention. And will
you leave out of your allegations my want of education, and what seems
to you the roughness and rusticity of my elocution? And where
will you put the fact that I am not full of small talk, nor a jester
popular with company, nor great hunter of the marketplace, nor given to
chatter and gossip with any chance people upon all sorts of subjects,
so as to make even conversation grievous; nor a frequenter of
Zeuxippus, that new Jerusalem; It is not certain what
is the allusion here. Some think a great Circus or Hippodrome for
chariot races; others say an institution in which were heretical
schools; others again, the great baths of Zeuxippus.
IX. But I am so old fashioned and such a philosopher as to believe that one heaven is common to all; and that so is the revolution of the sun and the moon, and the order and arrangement of the stars; and that all have in Common an equal share and profit in day and night, and also change of seasons, rains, fruits, and quickening power of the air; and that the flowing rivers are a common and abundant wealth to all; and that one and the same is the Earth, the mother and the tomb, from which we were taken, and to which we shall return, none having a greater share than another. And further, above this, we have in common reason, the Law, the Prophets, the very Sufferings of Christ, by which we were all without exception created anew, who partake of the same Adam, and were led astray by the serpent and slain by sin, and are saved by the heavenly Adam and brought back by the tree of shame to the tree of life from whence we had fallen.
X. I was deceived too by the Ramah of Samuel, that
little fatherland of the great man; which was no dishonour to the
Prophet, for it drew its honour not so much from itself as from him;
nor was he hindered on its account from being given to God before his
birth, or from uttering oracles, and foreseeing the future; nor only
so, but also anointing Kings and Priests, and judging the men of
illustrious cities. I heard also of Saul, how while seeking his
father’s asses he found a kingdom. And even David himself
was taken from the sheepfolds to be the shepherd of Israel. What
of Amos? Was he not, while a goatherd and scraper of sycamore
fruit entrusted with the gifts of prophecy? How is it that I have
passed over Joseph, who was both a slave and the giver of corn to
Egypt, and the father of many myriads who were promised before to
Abraham? Aye and I was deceived by the Carmel of Elias, who
received the car of fire; and by the sheepskin of Elissæus that
had more power than a silken web or than gold forced into
garments. I was deceived by the desert of John, which held the
greatest among them that are born of women, with that clothing, that
food, that girdle, which we know. And I ventured even beyond
these, and found God Himself the Patron of my rusticity. I will
range myself with Bethlehem, and will share the ignominy of the Manger;
for since you refuse on this account honour to God, it is no wonder
that on the same account you despise His herald also. And I will
bring up to you the Fishermen, and the poor to whom the Gospel is
preached, as preferred before many rich. Will you ever leave off
priding yourselves upon your cities?
XI. But perhaps some one who is very
circumscribed and carnally minded will say, “But our herald is a
stranger and a foreigner.” What of the Apostles? Were
not they strangers to the many nations and cities among whom they were
divided, that the Gospel might have free course everywhere, that
nothing might miss the illumination of the Threefold Light, or be
unenlightened by the Truth; but that the night of ignorance might be
dissolved for those who sat in darkness and the shadow of death?
You have heard the words of Paul, “that we might go the Gentiles,
and they to the Circumcision.”
XII. My friend, every one that is of high mind has one Country, the Heavenly Jerusalem, in which we store up our Citizenship. All have one family—if you look at what is here below the dust—or if you look higher, that Inbreathing of which we are partakers, and which we were bidden to keep, and with which I must stand before my Judge to give an account of my heavenly nobility, and of the Divine Image. Everyone then is noble who has guarded this through virtue and consent to his Archetype. On the other hand, everyone is ignoble who has mingled with evil, and put upon himself another form, that of the serpent. And these earthly countries and families are the playthings of this our temporary life and scene. For our country is whatever each may have first occupied, either as tyrant, or in misfortune; and in this we are all alike strangers and pilgrims, however much we may play with names. And the family is accounted noble which is either rich from old days, or is recently raised; and of ignoble birth that which is of poor parents, either owing to misfortune or to want of ambition. For how can a nobility be given from above which is at one time beginning and at another coming to an end; and which is not given to some, but is bestowed on others by letters patent? Such is my mind on this matter. Therefore I leave it to you to pride yourself on tombs or in myths, and I endeavour as far as I can, to purify myself from deceits, that I may keep if possible my nobility, or else may recover it.
XIII. It is thus then and for these reasons
that I, who am small and of a country without repute, have come upon
you, and that not of my own accord, nor self-sent, like many of those
who now seize upon the chief places; but because I was invited, and
compelled, and have followed the scruples of my conscience and the Call
of the Spirit. If it be otherwise, may I continue to fight here
to no purpose, and deliver no one from his error, but may they obtain
their desire who seek the barrenness of my soul, if I lie. But
since I am come, and perchance with no contemptible power (if I may
boast myself a little of my folly), which of those who are insatiable
have I copied, what have I emulated of opportunism, although I have
such examples, even apart from which it is hard and rare not to be
bad? Concerning what churches or property have I disputed with
you; though you have more than enough of both, and the others too
little? What imperial edict have we rejected and emulated?
What rulers have we fawned upon against you? Whose boldness have
we denounced? And what has been done on the other side against
me? “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge,” even
then I said, for I remembered in season the words of Stephen,
XIV. And if I am doing wrong in this, that when
tyrannized over I endure it, forgive me this wrong; I have borne to be
tyrannized over by others too; and I am thankful that my moderation has
brought upon me the charge of folly. For I reckon thus, using
considerations altogether higher than any of yours; what a mere
fraction are these trials of the spittings and blows which Christ, for
Whom and by Whose aid we encounter these dangers, endured. I do
not count them, taken altogether, worth the one crown of thorns which
robbed our conqueror of his crown, for whose sake also I learn that I
am crowned for the
XV. Moreover this also I reckoned and still
reckon with myself; and do you see if it is not quite correct. I
have often discussed it with you before. These men have the
houses, but we the Dweller in the house; they the Temples, we the God;
and besides it is ours to be living temples of the Living God, lively
sacrifices, reasonable burnt-offerings, perfect sacrifices, yea, gods
through the adoration of the Trinity. They have the people, we
the Angels; they rash boldness, we faith; they threatenings, we prayer;
they smiting, we endurance; they gold and silver, we the pure
word. “Thou hast built for thyself a wide house and large
chambers (recognize the words of Scripture), a house celled and pierced
with windows.”
XVI. These I call by name (for they are not
nameless like the stars which are numbered and have names), Valentinus, a celebrated Gnostic leader of the Second
Century, was one of the first Gnostics who taught in Rome. He was
probably of Ægypto-Jewish descent, and was educated at
Alexandria. He died in Cyprus about 160. His system is a
very curious one, giving the reins to the wildest vagaries of the
imagination. The original eternal Being, or Absolute Existence,
he called Bythos or Depth; and to this he assigned as a wife Sige or
Silence. From this union there sprang thirty Æons or
Emanations, who unfolded the Attributes of the Deity and created the
world. Marcion was a contemporary of Valentinus. He was a
native of Sinope in Pontus, of which city his father was Bishop.
He supposed Three Principles, the Good God, Who was first revealed by
Christ; the Just Creator, Who is the “hot tempered and
imperfect” God of the Jews; and the intrinsically evil Hyle or
Matter, which is ruled by the Devil. He also distinguished two
Messiahs; one a mere warrior prince sent by the Jewish God to restore
Israel; the other sent by the Good God for the delivery of the whole
human race. Montanus, a Phrygian enthusiast of the middle of the
Second Century, imagined himself the inspired Organ of the
Paraclete. Connected with him were two Prophetesses, Priscilla
and Maximilla, who left their husbands to follow him. His heresy,
or rather his schism, spread to Rome and Northern Africa, and threw the
whole Church into confusion. He was very early anathematized by
Bishops and Synods of Asia, but he carried the great African,
Tertullian, away by his frenzy. Manes or Mani, a Persia
philosopher, astronomer, and painter of the Third Century, who
introduced into Christianity some elements drawn from the religion of
Zoroaster, especially its πρῶτον
ψεὺδος. Dualism, the
co-eternity of two contradictory principles, Light and Darkness, Spirit
and Matter, Good and Evil. This heresy flourished till the Sixth
Century, S. Augustine himself having been for nine years led away by
it. It is believed not to be wholly extinct even now in some
parts of Eastern Christendom. Novatus was a Carthaginian Priest, who at first rebelled
against his Bishop, S. Cyprian, on account of his severity in the
treatment of persons who had lapsed in the Decian persecution. At
Rome, however, this same Novatus, either out of simple antagonism to
constituted authority, or because he had really changed his views,
adopted the extremest rigorism, and became one of the most violent
partisans of the Priest Novatian, whom his followers contrived to get
consecrated as a rival Bishop of Rome, in opposition to Cornelius, the
reigning Pope. They set up a new “church,” and
arrogated to themselves an exclusive claim to the title of Cathari, the
Pure. Sabellius, a native of the Libyan Pentapolis, rejected the
Catholic Faith of the Trinity of Persons in God, and would only allow a
Trinity of manifestations. It is hardly necessary
here to dwell on the Arian tenets; cf. Prolegomena to the Theological
Oration. Photinus was a n by birth, and flourished in the fourth
century, a little earlier than S. Gregory. He seems to have
taught that our Lord Jesus Christ was a mere man, and had no existence
previous to His Birth of the Virgin Mary. He made Jesus rise on
the basis of His human nature, by a course of moral improvement, to the
divine dignity, so that the Divine in Him is a thing of growth:
cf. Schaff, H. E. Nicene Period, vol. ii. p. 653.
XVII. These words let everyone who threatens
me to-day concede to me; the rest let whoever will claim. The
Father will not endure to be deprived of the Son, nor the Son of the
Holy Ghost. Yet that must happen if They are confined to time,
and are created Beings…for that which is created is not
God. Neither will I bear to be deprived of my consecration; One
Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. If this be cancelled, from whom
shall I get a second? What say you, you who destroy Baptism or
repeat it? Can a man be spiritual without the Spirit? Has
he a share in the Spirit who does not honour the Spirit? Can he
honour Him who is baptized into a creature and a fellow-servant?
It is not so; it is not so; for all your talk. I will not play
Thee false, O Unoriginate Father, or Thee O Only-begotten Word, or Thee
O Holy Ghost. I know Whom I have confessed, and whom I have
renounced, and to Whom I have joined myself. I will not allow
myself, after having been taught the words of the faithful, to learn
also those of the unfaithful; to confess the truth, and then range
myself with falsehood; to come down for consecration and to go back
even less hallowed; having been baptised that I might live, to be
killed by the water, like infants who die in the very birthpangs, and
receive death simultaneously with birth. Why make me at once
blessed and wretched, newly enlightened and unenlightened, Divine and
godless, that I may make shipwreck even of the hope of
regeneration? A few words will suffice. Remember your
confession. Into what were you baptised? The Father?
Good but Jewish still. The Son?…good…but not yet
perfect. The Holy Ghost?…Very good…this is
perfect. Now was it into these simply, or some common name of
Them? The latter. And what was the common Name? Why,
God. In this common Name believe, and ride on prosperously and
reign,
Oration XXXIV.
On the Arrival of the Egyptians.
This Oration was preached at Constantinople in 380, under the following circumstances: Peter, Patriarch of Alexandria, had sent a mission of five of his Suffragans to consecrate the impostor Maximus to the Throne occupied by Gregory. This had led to much trouble, but in the end the intruder had been expelled and banished. Shortly afterwards an Egyptian fleet, probably the regular corn ships, had arrived at Constantinople, apparently on the day before a Festival. The crews of the ships, landing next day to go to Church, passed by the numerous Churches held by the Arians, and betook themselves to the little Anastasia. S. Gregory felt himself moved to congratulate them specially on such an act, after what had recently passed, and accordingly pronounced the following discourse.
I. I will address
myself as is right to those who have come from Egypt; for they have
come here eagerly, having overcome illwill by zeal, from that Egypt
which is enriched by the River, raining out of the earth, and like the
sea in its season,—if I too may follow in my small measure those
who have so eloquently spoken of these matters; and which is also
enriched by Christ my Lord, Who once was a fugitive into Egypt, and now
is supplied by Egypt; the first, when He fled from Herod’s
massacre of the children;
II. For from you hath sounded forth the Word to
all men; healthfully believed and preached; and you are the best
bringers of fruit of all men, specially of those who now hold the
III. Such was Joseph your Superintendent of
corn measures, whom I may call ours also; who by his surpassing wisdom
was able both to foresee the famine and to cure it by decrees of
government, healing the ill-favoured and starving kine by means of the
fair and fat. Athanasius.
IV. Of these great men and doctors and soldiers of the truth and victors, you are the nurslings and offspring; of these neither times nor tyrants, reason nor envy, nor fear, nor accuser, nor slanderer, whether waging open war against them, or plotting secretly; nor any who appeared to be of our side, nor any stranger, nor gold—that hidden tyrant, through which now almost everything is turned upside down and made to depend on the hazard of a die; nor flatteries nor threats, nor long and distant exiles (for they only could not be affected by confiscation, because of their great riches, which were—to possess nothing) nor anything else, whether absent or present or expected, could induce to take the worse part, and to be anywise traitor to the Trinity, or to suffer loss of the Godhead. On the contrary indeed, they grew strong by dangers, and became more zealous for true religion. For to suffer thus for Christ adds to one’s love, and is as it were an earnest to high-souled men of further conflicts. These, O Egypt, are thy present tales and wonders.
V. Once thou didst praise me thy Mendesian Goats, and thy Memphite Apis, a fatted and fleshy calf, and the rites of Isis, and the mutilations of Osiris, and thy venerable Serapis, a log that was honoured by myths and ages and the madness of its worshippers, as some unknown and heavenly matter, however it may have been aided by falsehood; and things yet more shameful than these, multiform images of monstrous beasts and creeping things, all of which Christ and the heralds of Christ have conquered, both the others who have been illustrious in their own times, and also the Fathers whom I have named just now; by whom, O admirable country, thou art more famous today than all others put together, whether in ancient or modern history.
VI. Wherefore I embrace and salute thee, O
noblest of peoples and most Christian, and of warmest piety, and worthy
of thy leaders; for I can find nothing greater to say of thee than
this, nor anything by which better to welcome thee. And I greet
thee, to a small extent with my tongue, but very heartily with the
movements of my affections.
VII. But, O people of God and mine,
beautiful also was your yesterday’s assembly, which you held upon
the sea, and pleasant, if any sight ever was, to the eyes, when I saw
the sea like a forest, and hidden by a cloud made with hands, and the
beauty and speed of your ships, as though ordered for a procession, and
the slight breeze astern, as though purposely escorting you, and
wafting to the City your city of the Sea. Yet the present
assembly which we now behold is more beautiful and more
magnificent. For you have not hastened to mingle with the larger
number, nor have you reckoned religion by numbers, nor endured to be a
mere unorganized rabble, rather than a people purified by the Word of
God; but having, as is right, rendered to Cæsar the things that
are Cæsar’s, ye have offered besides to God the things that
are God’s; to the former Custom, to the latter Fear; and after
feeding the people with your cargoes, you yourselves have come to be
fed by us. For we also distribute corn, and our distribution is
perhaps not worth less than yours. Come eat of my Bread and drink
of the Wine which I have mingled for you.
VIII. I find two highest differences in things that exist, viz.:—Rule, and Service; not such as among us either tyranny has cut or poverty has severed, but which nature has distinguished, if any like to use this word. For That which is First is also above nature. Of these the former is creative, and originating, and unchangeable; but the other is created, and subject and changing; or to speak yet more plainly, the one is above time, and the other subject to time. The Former is called God, and subsists in Three Greatest, namely, the Cause, the Creator, and the Perfecter; I mean the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are neither so separated from one another as to be divided in nature, nor so contracted as to be circumscribed by a single person; the one alternative being that of the Arian madness, the other that of the Sabellian heresy; but they are on the one hand more single than what is altogether divided, and on the other more abundant than what is altogether singular. The other division is with us, and is called Creation, though one may be exalted above another according to the proportion of their nearness to God.
IX. This being so, if any be on the
Lord’s side let him come with us,
X. What must we say of the Father, Whom by common
consent all who have been preoccupied with natural conceptions share,
although
XI. For my part I revere also the Titles of the Word, which are so many, and so high and great, which even the demons respect. And I revere also the Equal Rank of the Holy Ghost; and I fear the threat pronounced against those who blaspheme Him. And blasphemy is not the reckoning Him God, but the severing Him from the Godhead. And here you must remark that That which is blasphemed is Lord, and That which is avenged is the Holy Ghost, evidently as Lord. I cannot bear to be unenlightened after my Enlightenment, by marking with a different stamp any of the Three into Whom I was baptized; and thus to be indeed buried in the water, and initiated not into Regeneration, but into death.
XII. I dare to utter something, O Trinity; and may pardon be granted to my folly, for the risk is to my soul. I too am an Image of God, of the Heavenly Glory, though I be placed on earth. I cannot believe that I am saved by one who is my equal. If the Holy Ghost is not God, let Him first be made God, and then let Him deify me His equal. But now what deceit this is on the part of grace, or rather of the givers of grace, to believe in God and to come away godless; by one set of questions and confessions leading to another set of conclusions. Alas for this fair fame, if after the Laver I am blackened, if I am to see those who are not yet cleansed brighter than myself; if I am cheated by the heresy of my Baptizer; if I seek for the stronger Spirit and find Him not. Give me a second Font before you think evil of the first. Why do you grudge me a complete regeneration? Why do you make me, who am the Temple of the Holy Ghost as of God, the habitation of a creature? Why do you honour part of what belongs to me, and dishonour part, judging falsely of the Godhead, to cut me off from the Gift, or rather to cut me in two by the gift? Either honour the Whole, or dishonour the Whole, O new Theologian, that, if you are wicked, you may at any rate be consistent with yourself, and not judge unequally of an equal nature.
XIII. To sum up my discourse:—Glorify
Him with the Cherubim, who unite the Three Holies into One
Lord,
XIV. With Luke be inspired as you study the
Acts of the Apostles. Why do you range yourself with Ananias and
Sapphira, those vain embezzlers (if indeed the theft of one’s own
property be a vain thing) and that by appropriating, not silver nor any
other cheap and worthless thing, like a wedge of gold,
XV. Speak of God with Paul, who was caught
up to the third Heaven,
Oration XXXVII.
On the Words of the Gospel, “When
Jesus Had Finished These Sayings,” Etc.—
I. Jesus Who Chose
The Fishermen, Himself also useth a net, and changeth place for
place. Why? Not only that He may gain more of those who
love God by His visitation; but also, as it seems to me, that He may
hallow more places. To the Jews He becomes as a Jew that He may
gain the Jews; to them that are under the Law as under the Law, that He
may redeem them that are under the Law; to the weak as weak, that He
may save the weak. He is made all things to all men that He may
gain all. Why do I say, All things to all men? For even
that which Paul could not endure to say of himself I find that the
Saviour suffered. For He is made not only a Jew, and not only
doth He take to Himself all monstrous and vile names, but even that
which is most monstrous of all, even very sin and very curse; not that
He is such, but He is called so. For how can He be sin, Who
setteth us free from sin; and how can He be a curse, Who redeemeth us
from the curse of the Law?
II. Therefore now also, when He had finished
these sayings He departed from Galilee and came into the coasts of
Judea beyond Jordan; He dwelleth well in Galilee, in order that the
people which sat in darkness may see great Light.
III. And great multitudes followed Him, and He
healed them there, where the multitude was greater. If He had
abode upon His own eminence, if He had not condescended to infirmity,
if He had remained what He was, keeping Himself unapproachable and
incomprehensible, a few perhaps would have followed Him—perhaps
not even a few, possibly
IV. And pardon me meanwhile that I again
suffer a human affection. I am filled with indignation and grief
for my Christ (and would that you might sympathize with me) when I see
my Christ dishonoured on this account on which He most merited
honour. Is He on this account to be dishonoured, tell me, that
for you He was humble? Is He therefore a Creature, because He
careth for the creature? Is He therefore subject to time, because
He watches over those who are subject to time? Nay, He beareth
all things, He endureth all things.
V. But, as I was saying, to return to my argument; for this reason great multitudes followed Him, because He condescended to our infirmities. What next? The Pharisees also, it says, came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying unto Him, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Again the Pharisees tempt Him; again they who read the Law do not know the Law; again they who are expounders of the Law need others to teach them. It was not enough that Sadducees should tempt Him concerning the Resurrection, and Lawyers question Him about perfection, and the Herodians about the poll-tax, and others about authority; but some one must also ask about Marriage at Him who cannot be tempted, the Creator of wedlock, Him who from the First Cause made this whole race of mankind. And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female? He knoweth how to solve some of their questions and to bridle others. When He is asked, By what authority doest thou these things? He Himself, because of the utter ignorance of those who asked Him, replies with another question; The baptism of John, was it from Heaven or of men? He on both sides entangles His questioners, so that we also are able, following the example of Christ, sometimes to check those who argue with us over-officiously, and with still more absurd questions to solve the absurdity of their questions. For we too are wise in vanity at times, if I may boast of the things of folly. But when He sees a question that calls for reasoning, then He does not deem His questioners unworthy of prudent answers.
VI. The question which you have put seems to me to
do honour to chastity, and to demand a kind reply. Chastity, in
respect of which I see that the majority of men are ill-disposed, and
that their laws are unequal and irregular. For what was the
reason why they restrained the woman, but indulged the man, and that a
woman who practises evil against her husband’s bed is an
adulteress, and the penalties of the law for this are very severe; but
if the husband commits fornication against his wife, he has no account
to give? I do not accept this legislation; I do not approve this
custom. They who made the Law were men,
VII. How then dost thou demand Chastity,
while thou dost not thyself observe it? How dost thou demand that
which thou dost not give? How, though thou art equally a body,
dost thou legislate unequally? If thou enquire into the
worse—The Woman Sinned, and so did Adam.
VIII. Churn milk and it will be
butter; An indication that S.
Gregory was himself unmarried.
IX. But what of the Pharisees? To them
this word seems harsh. Yes, for they are also displeased at other
noble words—both the older Pharisees, and the Pharisees of the
present day. For it is not only race, but disposition also that
makes a Pharisee. Thus also I reckon as an Assyrian or an
Egyptian him who is ranged among these by his character. What
then say the Pharisees? If the case of the man be so with his
wife, it is not good to marry. Is it only now, O Pharisee, that
thou understandest this, It is not good to marry?
X. Marriage is honourable; but I cannot say
that it is more lofty than virginity; for virginity were no great thing
if it were not better than a good thing. Do not however be angry,
ye women that are subject to the yoke. We must obey God rather
than man. But be ye bound together, both virgins and wives, and
be one in the Lord, and each others’ adornment. There would
be no celibate if there were no marriage. For whence would the
virgin have passed into this life? Marriage would not have been
venerable unless it had borne virgin fruit to God and to life.
Honour thou also thy mother, of whom thou wast born. Honour thou
also her who is of a mother and is a mother. The passage is
obscure. Combefis reads, “Though she be not a mother”
but the mss are against him.
XI. But He said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. Do you see the sublimity of the matter? It is found to be nearly incomprehensible. For surely it is more than carnal that that which is born of flesh should not beget to the flesh. Surely it is Angelic that she who is bound to flesh should live not according to flesh, but be loftier than her nature. The flesh bound her to the world, but reason led her up to God. The flesh weighed her down, but reason gave her wings; the flesh bound her, but desire loosed her. With thy whole soul, O Virgin, be intent upon God (I give this same injunction to men and to women); and do not take the same view in other respects of what is honourable as the mass of men do; of family, of wealth, of throne, of dynasty, of that beauty which shews itself in complexion and composition of members, the plaything of time and disease. If thou hast poured out upon God the whole of thy love; if thou hast not two objects of desire, both the passing and the abiding, both the visible and the invisible, then thou hast been so pierced by the arrow of election, and hast so learned the beauty of the Bridegroom, that thou too canst say with the bridal drama and song, thou art sweetness and altogether loveliness.
XII. You see how streams confined in lead pipes, through being much compressed and carried to one point, often so far depart from the nature of water that that which is pushed from behind will often flow constantly upwards. So if thou confine thy desire, and be wholly joined to God, thou wilt not fall downward; thou wilt not be dissipated; thou wilt remain entirely Christ’s, until thou see Christ thy Bridegroom. Keep thyself unapproachable, both in word and work and life, and thought and action. From all sides the Evil One interferes with thee; he spies thee everywhere, where he may strike, where wound thee; let him not find anything bared and ready to his stroke. The purer he sees thee, the more he strives to stain thee, for the stains on a shining garment are more conspicuous. Let not eye draw eye, nor laughter, nor familiarity night, lest night bring destruction. For that which is gradually drawn away and stolen, works a mischief which is unperceived at the time, but yet attains to the consummation of wickedness.
XIII. All men, He saith, cannot receive this
saying, but they to whom it is given. When you hear this, It is
given, do not understand it in a heretical fashion, and bring in
differences of nature, the earthly and the spiritual and the
mixed. For there are people so evilly disposed as to think that
some men are of an utterly ruined nature, and some of a nature which is
saved, and that others are of such a disposition as their will may lead
them to, either to the better, or to the worse. For that men may
have a certain aptitude, one more, another less, I too admit; but not
that this aptitude alone suffices for perfection, but that it is reason
which calls this out, that
XIV. In another place it is also said and
understood, and perhaps it is necessary that I should add it as follows
to what has already been said, in order that I may impart to you also
my wealth. The Mother of the Sons of Zebedee, in an impulse of
parental affection, asked a thing in ignorance of the measure of what
she was asking,
XV. I fear lest some monstrous reasoning may come in, as of the soul having lived elsewhere, and then having been bound to this body, and that it is from that other life that some receive the gift of prophecy, and others are condemned, namely, those who lived badly. But since such a conception is too absurd, and contrary to the traditions of the Church (others if they like may play with such doctrines, but it is unsafe for us to play with them); we must in this place too add to the words “To whom it hath been given,” this, “who are worthy;” who have not only received this character from the Father, but have given it to themselves.
XVI. For there are eunuchs which were made eunuchs from their mother’s womb, etc. I should very much like to be able to say something bold about eunuchs. Be not proud, ye who are eunuchs by nature. For, in point of self-restraint, this is perhaps unwilling. For it has not come to the test, nor has your self-restraint been proved by trial. For the good which is by nature is not a subject of merit; that which is the result of purpose is laudable. What merit has fire for burning, for it is its nature to burn? What merit has water for falling, a property given to it by its Maker? What thanks does the snow get for its coldness, or the sun for its shining?—It shines even if it does not wish. Claim merit if you please by willing the better things. You will claim it if, being carnal, you make yourself spiritual; if, while drawn down by the leaden flesh, you receive wings from reason; if though lowly born, you are found to be heavenly; if while chained down to the flesh, you shew yourself superior to the flesh.
XVII. Since then, natural chastity is not
meritorious, I demand something else from the eunuchs. Do not go
a whoring in respect of the Godhead. Having been wedded to
Christ, do not dishonour Christ. Being perfected by the spirit,
do not make the Spirit your own equal. If I yet pleased men, says
XVIII. Consider those men who are devoted to
horse racing. They are named after the colours and the sides on
which they have placed themselves. You know the names without my
mentioning them. If it is thus that you have got the name of
Christian, the mere title is a very small thing even though you pride
yourself upon it. But if it is because you believe Him to be God,
shew your faith by your works. If the Son is a creature, even now
also you are worshipping the creature instead of the Creator. If
the Holy Ghost is a creature, you are baptized in vain, and are only
sound on two sides, or rather not even on them; but on one you are
altogether in danger. Imagine the Trinity to be a single pearl,
alike on all sides and equally glistening. If any part of the
pearl be injured; the whole beauty of the stone is gone. So when
you dishonour the Son in order to honour the Father, He does not accept
your honour. The Father doth not glory in the dishonour of the
Son. If a wise Son maketh a glad Father,
XIX. For it is not only bodily sin which is
called fornication and adultery, but any sin you have committed, and
especially transgression against that which is divine. Perhaps
you ask how we can prove this:—They went a whoring, it says, with
their own inventions.
XX. There are, He says, some eunuchs which
were so born from their mother’s womb; and there are some eunuchs
which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs which have made
themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake. He
that is able to receive it, let him receive it. I think that the
discourse would sever itself from the body, and represent higher things
by bodily figures; for to stop the meaning at bodily eunuchs would be
small and very weak, and unworthy of the Word; and we must understand
in addition something worthy of the Spirit. Some, then, seem by
nature to incline to good. And when I speak of nature, I am not
slighting free will, but supposing both—an aptitude for good, and
that which brings the natural aptitude to effect. And there are
others whom reason cleanses, by cutting them off from the
passions. These I imagine to be meant by those whom men have made
Eunuchs, when the word of teaching distinguishing the better from the
worse and rejecting the one and commanding the other (like the verse,
Depart from evil and do good),
XXI. And there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake. Others, too, who have not met with teachers, have been laudable teachers to themselves. No father nor mother, no Priest or Bishop, nor any of those commissioned to teach, taught you your duty; but by moving reason in yourself and by kindling the spark of good by your free will, you made yourself a eunuch, and acquired such a habit of virtue that impulse to vice became almost an impossibility to you. Therefore I praise this kind of Eunuch-making also, and perhaps even above the others. He that is able to receive it let him receive it. Choose which part you will; either follow the Teacher or be your own teacher. One thing alone is shameful—that the passions be not extirpated. It matters not how they are extirpated. The teacher is God’s creature; and you also have the same origin; and whether the teacher grasp this grace, or the good be your own—it is equally good.
XXII. Only let us cut ourselves off from
passion, lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble us;
XXIII. I enact this for Laymen too, and I enjoin it also upon all Priests, and upon those commissioned to rule. Come to the aid of the Word, all of you to whom God has given power to aid. It is a great thing to check murder, to punish adultery, to chastise theft; much more to establish piety by law, and to bestow sound doctrine. My word will not be able to do as much in fighting for the Holy Trinity as your Edict, if you will bridle the ill disposed, if you will help the persecuted, if you will check the slayers, and prevent people from being slain. I am speaking not merely of bodily but of spiritual slaughter. For all sin is the death of the soul. Here let my discourse end.
XXIV. But it remains that I speak a prayer for those who are assembled. Husbands alike and wives, rulers and ruled, old men, and young men, and maidens, every sort of age, bear ye every loss whether of money or of body, but one thing alone do not endure—to lose the Godhead. I adore the Father, I adore the Son, I adore the Holy Ghost; or rather We adore them; I, who am speaking, before all and after all and with all, in the same Christ our Lord, to whom be the glory and the might for ever. Amen.
Oration XXXVIII.
On the Theophany, or Birthday of Christ.
The Title of this
Oration has given rise to a doubt whether it was preached on Dec. 25,
380, or on Jan. 6, 381. The word Theophania is well known as a
name for the Epiphany; which, however, according to
Schaff, H. E., Nic. Per., p.
399.
The Oration is thus analysed by Abbe Benoît:
“After an exordium which is full of the enthusiasm and joy which such a subject naturally inspires the Orator recommends his hearers to celebrate the Festival by a pious gladness, and by hearing the Word of God; and not as the heathen celebrated their feasts, by profane amusements and all kinds of excess. He will try to satisfy their desires by speaking to them of God. God is infinite, ineffable, eternal, the Sovereign Good. He created the Angels in the beginning out of goodness. The fall of the Angels was followed by the creation of the material world. Man too fell, and God shewed His mercy even in the punishment. He used various means to raise him again; and at length He came Himself. Then the speaker forcibly argues against those who misuse the infinite condescension of the Word to contest His Godhead; he rapidly traces the principal features of His Life—at once human and Divine; and ends with a recommendation to his hearers to imitate in all things the Life of Christ, so that they may have a share in His Kingdom in Heaven.”
It is considered one of the best of Gregory’s discourses. “By the grandeur of the plan,” says Benoît, “the elevation of the ideas, and the rich fund of doctrine, this discourse is incontestably one of S. Gregory’s most remarkable efforts.”
I. Christ is born,
glorify ye Him. Christ from heaven, go ye out to meet Him.
Christ on earth; be ye exalted. Sing unto the Lord all the whole
earth;
II. Again the darkness is past; again Light
is made; again Egypt is punished with darkness; again Israel is
enlightened by a pillar. The meaning clearly is
that the type presented by Melchisedec (
III. Of these on a future occasion; for the present the Festival is the Theophany or Birth-day, for it is called both, two titles being given to the one thing. For God was manifested to man by birth. On the one hand Being, and eternally Being, of the Eternal Being, above cause and word, for there was no word before The Word; and on the other hand for our sakes also Becoming, that He Who gives us our being might also give us our Well-being, or rather might restore us by His Incarnation, when we had by wickedness fallen from wellbeing. The name Theophany is given to it in reference to the Manifestation, and that of Birthday in respect of His Birth.
IV. This is our present Festival; it is this
which we are celebrating to-day, the Coming of God to Man, that we
might go forth,
V. And how shall this be? Let us not
adorn our porches, nor arrange dances, nor decorate the streets; let us
not feast the eye, nor enchant the ear with music, nor enervate the
nostrils with perfume, nor prostitute the taste, nor indulge the touch,
those roads that are so prone to evil and entrances for sin; let us not
be effeminate in clothing soft and flowing, whose beauty consists in
its uselessness, nor with the glittering of gems or the sheen of
gold
VI. Let us leave all these to the Greeks and
to the pomps and festivals of the Greeks, who call by the name of gods
beings who rejoice in the reek of sacrifices, and who consistently
worship with their belly; evil inventors and worshippers of evil
demons. But we, the Object of whose adoration is the Word, if we
must in some way have luxury, let us seek it in word, and in the Divine
Law, and in histories; especially such as are the origin of this Feast;
that our luxury may be akin to and not far removed from Him Who hath
called us together. Or do you desire (for to-day I am your
entertainer) that I should set before you, my good Guests, the story of
these things as abundantly and as nobly as I can, that ye may know how
a foreigner can feed Alluding to his own
recent arrival at Constantinople, after a life spent in the distant
country of Cappadocia, and in ministering in small and insignificant
places like Nazianzus.
We will begin from this point; and let me ask of you who delight in such matters to cleanse your mind and your ears and your thoughts, since our discourse is to be of God and Divine; that when you depart, you may have had the enjoyment of delights that really fade not away. And this same discourse shall be at once both very full and very concise, that you may neither be displeased at its deficiencies, nor find it unpleasant through satiety.
VII. God always was, The whole of this
passage occurs again verbatim in the second Oration for Easter Day, cc.
iii.–ix.
VIII. And when Infinity is considered from two
points of view, beginning and end (for that which is beyond these and
not limited by them is Infinity), when the mind looks to the depth
above, not having where to stand, and leans upon phenomena to form an
idea of God, it calls the Infinite and Unapproachable which it finds
there by the name of Unoriginate. And when it looks into the
depths below, and at the future, it calls Him Undying and
Imperishable. And when it draws a conclusion from the whole it
calls Him Eternal (αἴωνιος). For
Eternity (αἵων) is neither time nor part
of time; for it cannot be measured. But what time, measured by
the course of the sun, is to us, that Eternity is to the Everlasting,
namely, a sort of time-like movement and interval co-extensive with
their existence. This, however, is all I must now say about God;
for the present is not a suitable time, as my present subject is not
the doctrine of God, but that of the Incarnation. But when I say
God, I mean Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For Godhead is neither
diffused beyond these, so as to bring in a mob of gods; nor yet is it
bounded by a smaller compass than these, so as to condemn us for a
poverty-stricken conception of Deity; either Judaizing to save the
Monarchia, or falling into heathenism by the multitude of our
gods. For the evil on either side is the same, though found in
contrary directions. This then is the Holy of Holies, The Holy of Holies
here means the Holy Trinity. The reference is to
the Ter Sanctus or Triumphal Hymn, which is found in every
Liturgy. The previous writer referred to is thought by some to be
S. Athanasius, but by others S. Dionysius the Areopagite, who has some
words on this point in his treatise De Cœlest. Hier., c. 7.
But the most competent scholars deny the authenticity of the works
attributed to S. Dionysius, and place them from one hundred to one
hundred and fifty years later than S. Gregory’s time.
IX. But since this movement of
self-contemplation alone could not satisfy Goodness, but Good must be
poured out and go forth beyond Itself to multiply the objects of Its
beneficence, for this was essential to the highest Goodness, He first
conceived the Heavenly and Angelic Powers. And this conception
was a work fulfilled by His Word, and perfected by His Spirit.
And so the secondary Splendours came into being, as the Ministers of
the Primary Splendour; whether we are to conceive of them as
intelligent Spirits, or as Fire of an immaterial and incorruptible
kind, or as some other nature approaching this as near as may be.
I should like to say that they were incapable of movement in the
direction of evil, and susceptible only of the movement of good, as
being about God, and illumined with the first rays from God—for
earthly beings have but the second illumination; but I am obliged to
stop short of saying that, and to conceive and speak of them only as
difficult to move because of him, S. Thomas Aquinas
(Summa I., qu. 63, art. 7) gives reasons for thinking that Satan was
originally the highest of all the angelic hosts. This, however,
is an opinion in which many high authorities differ from him. At
any rate, Satan as Lucifer must have held a very high place. Evil, says Nicetas
here, has no positive existence, but is the negation of good.
“The faculties of mind and body which are used in a sinful action
are indeed things, and are the creatures of God; but the sin itself is
not a thing, and consequently not a creature. God is indeed the
Author of all that is, of every substance; but sin is not a substance,
and is not. It is a declination from substance and from being,
and not a part of it.” (Mozley, Treatise on the Augustinian
doctrine of predestination.)
X. Thus, then, and for these reasons, He gave
being to the world of thought, as far as I can reason upon these
matters, and estimate great things in my own poor language. Then
when His first creation was in good order, He conceives a second world,
material and visible; and this a system and compound of earth and sky,
and all that is in the midst of them—an admirable creation
indeed, when we look at the fair form of every part, but yet more
worthy of admiration when we consider the harmony and the unison of the
whole, and how each
XI. Mind, then, and sense, thus
distinguished from each other, had remained within their own
boundaries, and bore in themselves the magnificence of the
Creator-Word, silent praisers Sc. a microcosm.
XII. This being He placed in Paradise,
whatever the Paradise may have been, having honoured him with the gift
of Free Will (in order that God might belong to him as the result of
his choice, no less than to Him who had implanted the seeds of it), to
till the immortal plants, by which is meant perhaps the Divine
Conceptions, both the simpler and the more perfect; naked in his
simplicity and inartificial life, and without any covering or screen;
for it was fitting that he who was from the beginning should be
such. Also He gave him a Law, as a material for his Free Will to
act upon. This Law was a Commandment as to what plants he might
partake of, and which one he might not touch. This latter was the
Tree of Knowledge; not, however, because it was evil from the beginning
when planted; nor was it forbidden because God grudged it to
us…Let not the enemies of God wag their tongues in that
direction, or imitate the Serpent…But it would have been good if
partaken of at the proper time, for the tree was, according to my
theory, Contemplation, upon which it is only safe for those who have
reached maturity of habit to enter; but which is not good for those who
are still somewhat simple and greedy in their habit; just as solid food
is not good for those who are yet tender, and have need of
milk.
XIII. And having been first chastened by
Cf. Light of
Light begotten. Christ our Lord is called “The Beginning of
the Creation of God, because by Him all things were made; and He is of
the Beginning, inasmuch as God the Father is the Unoriginate Principle
of all, and the Origin and Fount of Godhead. The Scholiast here
refers to Cf. Theol.: IV.
xx., where S. Gregory says “Perhaps this Relation might be
compared to that between the Definition and the thing
defined.” Nicetas remarks that, just as the definition
declares the nature of the defined, so the Personal Word shows forth
the Nature of the Father. Suidas (in voce ὃρος) says that the phrase is used to show
the Unity of Nature between the Father and the Son. It is not,
however, of frequent occurrence. S. Gregory does not
seem to have been aware of the doctrine of the “Immaculate
Conception.” See note on In
Sancta Lumina, c. xiv.
XIV. To this what have those cavillers to
say, those bitter reasoners about Godhead, those detractors of all that
is praiseworthy, those darkeners of light, uncultured in respect of
wisdom, for whom Christ died in vain, those unthankful creatures, the
work of the Evil One? Do you turn this benefit into a reproach to
God? Wilt thou deem Him little on this account, that He humbled
Himself for thee; because the Good Shepherd, S. Gregory is
referring to the provision of the Law, which orders a man, if he see
his friend’s or his enemy’s ox or ass fallen under a burden
or going astray, to lend assistance; but the terms of his reference are
rather to the reasoning of our Lord with the Pharisees about the
Sabbath.
XV. He was sent, but as man, for He was of a
twofold Nature; for He was wearied, and hungered, and was thirsty, and
was in an agony, and shed tears, according to the nature of a corporeal
being. And if the expression be also used of Him as God, the
meaning is that the Father’s good pleasure is to be considered a
Mission, for to this He refers all that concerns Himself; both that He
may honour the Eternal Principle, and because He will not be taken to
be an antagonistic God. And whereas it is written both that He
was betrayed, and also that He gave Himself up Cf. ἐν
τῇ νυκτὶ ἐν ᾗ
παρεδίδοτο,
μᾶλλον δε
ἑαυτὸν
παρεδίδου.
Canon of Liturgy of S. Mark (Swainson p. 517). Ea nocte qua
tradidit seipsum. Lit. Copt. S. Basil (Ib.). Cum statuisset
se tradere. Coptic S. Basil (Hammond, p. 209) Rot. Vatic. and
Cod. Ross. of S. Mark, has only τ.
ν. ᾗ ἑαυτ,
παρεδ. (Swainson, 50); so too S.
Basil (Ib., 81) in Cod. B. M., 22749 and Barberini of S. Chrys. (Ib.,
91); but the whole expression is in Chrys. (cent. xi., ib., 129) and
Greek S. James (78. 272–3), but Syriac S. James has “in qua
nocte tradendus erat.” (Canon Univ., Æthiop. Hammond,
258). Pridie quam patereturis the form in the Canon
of the Roman, Ambrosian, and Sarum Missals; but the Mozarabic, which is
largely of an Eastern character, has in qua nocte
tradebatur. (Hammond, 333). The Sabellian
heresy may be briefly described as the doctrine of One God exercising
three offices, as opposed to the Catholic Faith of One God in three
Persons. Sabellius himself was a Priest of the Libyan Pentapolis,
who at Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus embraced the heresy of
Notus, which maintained that God the Father suffered for us on the
cross in the form of Christ. His followers, who openly declared
themselves first about a.d. 357, thought that
God, to Whom as the Source of all things the name of Father is given,
is called the Son when He united Himself to the humanity of Jesus for
the work of our redemption; and in like manner He is the Holy Spirit
when manifested for the work of sanctification. Sabellius was
condemned by a Council held at Rome, probably in 258; again at
Nicæa, and again at Constantinople, where Sabellian Baptism was
pronounced invalid. Arianism was the
result of a strong opposition to Sabellianism, coupled with a
misunderstanding of the argument against it. There was, no doubt,
a danger of falling into the opposite error of Tritheism, to avoid
which Arianism “divided the Substance” and
virtually—and in the end explicity—denied the Godhead of
our Lord Jesus Christ. Arius was a Priest of Alexandria, and it
was there that he began to publish his opinions, in the early years of
the Fourth Century (318); but Newman traces the origin of the heresy to
Antioch and its Judaizing tendency. At a meeting of the clergy in
Alexandria the Bishop, S. Alexander, gave an address on the coeternity,
and coequality of the Father and the Son, and used the expression
τὴν
αὐτὴν οὐσίαν
ἔχειν, that They had the same
Substance. Arius protested against this as a Sabellian statement,
and used the words κτίσμα (creature) and
ποίημα (a thing made) of
the Son, adding the sentence which became so famous, ἦν
ὅτε οὐκ
ἦν,—there was a time when the Son did not
exist. Having ineffectually tried private remonstrance, S.
Alexander brought the matter in 321 before his Provincial Synod, in
which were present about 100 Egyptian and Pentapolitan Bishops, who
after giving the matter a patient hearing, excommunicated Arius and his
principal adherents. But it was too late to undo the
mischief. The heresy spread widely, and the whole Eastern Church
was stirred by the controversy. At last a great Council of the
whole Church met at Nicæa in 325, summoned by the Emperor; and
there the heresy was unequivocally condemned, and the great Creed
propounded with its watchword, the Homoousion. The false teaching
had however struck its roots deep and wide; and though now banned by
the anathema of the Church, it was long in dying; and indeed at one
time, it seemed as if—humanly speaking—it must swamp the
whole Catholic Church. Under various forms the Semi-Arians who
claimed to differ from the faith of Nicæa only by a single letter,
the Aetians and Eunomians, who went to the furthest extreme of the
Falsehood (Anomœans), and many others, the heresy spread far and
wide: and when S. Gregory came to Constantinople there was not
one Catholic Church or Priest to be found in the place, and only a few
scattered folk who still held to the Faith of the Consubstantial.
Gregory’s wonderful discourses however came to their aid, and
partly under his presidency was held the Second Œcumenical Synod,
which condemned the heresy of Macedonius, a still further development
of Arianism, which denied also the Deity of the Holy Ghost.
Arianism survived for another two centuries among the Goths and
Vandals, the Burgundians and Lombards; but it never rose again as a
power in the Church.
XVI. A little later on you will see Jesus
submitting to be purified in the River Jordan for my Purification, or
rather, sanctifying the waters by His Purification (for indeed He had
no need of purification Who taketh away the sin of the world) and the
heavens cleft Nicetas distinguishes
between Νόσος and Μαλακία, saying that
the first is actual disease, and the second the premonitory failing of
health which prognosticates a disease. And, so he says, in
reference to the soul, Νόσος is actual sin, while
Μαλακία is the
relaxation of the will which leads and assents to actual sin.
XVII. Now then I pray you accept His
Conception, and leap before Him; if not like John from the
womb, I.e., original sin
( The Liturgy.
XVIII. One thing connected with the Birth of
Christ I would have you hate…the murder of the infants by
Herod.
Oration XXXIX.
Oration on the Holy Lights.
The Oration on the
Holy Lights was preached on the Festival of the Epiphany 381, and was
followed the next day by that on Baptism. In the Eastern Church
this Festival is regarded as more particularly the commemoration of our
Lord’s Baptism, and is accordingly one of the great days for the
solemn ministration of the Sacrament. It is generally called
Theophania,
1. The figurative Baptism of Israel by Moses in the cloud and in the Sea.
2. The preparatory Baptism of repentance ministered by S. John the Baptist.
3. The spiritual Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost given us by our Lord.
4. The glorious Baptism of Martyrdom.
5. The painful Baptism of Penance.
In speaking of this last he takes occasion to refute the extreme rigorism of the followers of Novatus, who denied absolution to certain classes of sins committed after Baptism.
In the second Oration, delivered next day, he dwells on the Sacrament of Baptism and its spiritual effects; and takes occasion to reprove the then still prevalent practice of deferring Baptism till the near approach of death. He likewise dwells on the truth that the validity and spiritual effect of the Sacrament is wholly independent of the rank or worthiness of the Priest who may minister it; and he concludes with a sketch of the obligations which its reception involves, with a very valuable exposition of the Creed, and of the Ceremonies which accompanied the administration of the Sacrament.
I. Again My Jesus,
and again a mystery; not deceitful nor disorderly, nor belonging to
Greek error or drunkenness (for so I call their solemnities, and so I
think will every man of sound sense); but a mystery lofty and divine,
and allied to the Glory above. For the Holy Day of the Lights, to
which we have come, and which we are celebrating to-day, has for its
origin the Baptism of my Christ, the True Light That lighteneth every
man that cometh into the world,
II. Therefore listen to the Voice of God,
which sounds so exceeding clearly to me, who am both disciple and
master of these mysteries, as would to God it may sound to you; I Am
The Light Of The World. I.e., the condition of
man before the fall.
III. Is there any such among the shadowy
purifications of the Law, aiding as it did with temporary sprinklings,
and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean; This is the same word
which in S.
IV. We are not concerned in these mysteries
with birth of Zeus and thefts of the Cretan Tyrant I.e. Zeus, who was
said by some to be a deified man, once tyrant of Crete, where his tomb
was shown. The allusion is to the
birth of Zeus. Kronos the Titan, father of the gods, was the
husband of Rhea, who bore him children. But an oracle having
declared that Kronos should be dethroned by his children, he swallowed
them immediately after they were born. Rhea, however, on the
birth of Zeus, aided by the Curetes, a wild band of Cretan Priests,
concealed the child, and substituted a stone, which Kronos swallowed in
his haste without perceiving the difference. The stone made him
very sick, and he vomited forth the children whom he had previously
swallowed; and by them and Zeus the prophecy was fulfilled.
Kronos was deposed and imprisoned in Tartarus. There was a temple of
Rhea in Phrygia, in which at her festivals people mutilated themselves
to do her honour. The flutes alluded to served to turn the
thoughts of the sufferers from the pain of the operation. The
Corybantes were the ministers of the goddess, who led the wild orgies
of her worship. It is believed that there is an allusion to this
practice of self-mutilation in The mythus of the Rape
of Persephone and its consequences. Dionysus was said to
have been born from the thigh of Zeus, as Athene to have sprung
full-grown and armed at all points from his head. These myths and
practices are too shameful to be described. See the Iphigenia In
Tauris of Euripides. It was a custom of the
Spartans that at their great festival of Artemis the youths who were
just coming of age (Ephebi) should scourge themselves cruelly on her
altar in honour of the goddess, and to prove their manhood.
V. And where will you place the butchery of
Pelops, The gods came to dine
with Tantalus, and he, to do them honour, boiled his son Pelops for
their food. They, however, found it out, and restored him to
life; not, however, before Demeter had unwittingly eaten his shoulder,
in the place of which they substituted one of ivory. S. Jerome, commenting
on These Mysteries were
of Persian origin, connected it is said with the worship of the
Sun. The neophytes were made to undergo twelve different kinds of
torture. The Egyptian
Mysteries. Zeus fell in love with
Isis, and carried her off in the form of a heifer. Here,
discovering the fraud, sent a gadfly, which drove Isis mad. Apis, the sacred bull,
worshipped at Memphis. i.e., that the
prosperity of the country was proportionate to the annual rise of the
River.
VI. I pass over the honours they pay to
rep
VII. Well, let these things be the amusement
of the children of the Greeks and of the demons to whom their folly is
due, who turn aside the honour of God to themselves, and divide men in
various ways in pursuit of shameful thoughts and fancies, ever since
they drove us away from the Tree of Life, by means of the Tree of
Knowledge unseasonably cf. Orat. in Theoph.
c. 12. The explanation seems to be, that the “Knowledge of
good and evil” was a necessary part of the development of
man’s intellect, but that a premature attempt to attain it per
saltum instead of by a gradual progress would prove fatal.
Had human nature gone through its originally intended educational
stages, it might have reached to the knowledge of evil without having
that knowledge alloyed and deteriorated by the experience of evil, but
might have known it, as God does, without taint. (Blount, Ann.
Bible on
VIII. But since to us grace has been given
to flee from superstitious error and to be joined to the truth and to
serve the living and true God, and to rise above creation, passing by
all that is subject to time and to first motion; let us look at and
reason upon God and things divine in a manner corresponding to this
Grace given us. But let us begin our discussion of them from the
most fitting point. And the most fitting is, as Solomon laid down
for us; us; The beginning of wisdom, he says, is to get
wisdom.
IX. Wherefore we must purify ourselves
first, and then approach this converse with the Pure; unless we would
have the same experience as Israel,
X. For the same Word is on the one hand
terrible through its nature to those who are unworthy, and on the other
through its loving kindness can be received by those who are thus
prepared, who have driven out the unclean and worldly spirit from their
souls, and have swept and adorned their own souls by self-examination,
and have not left them idle or without employment, so as again to be
occupied with greater armament by the seven spirits of
wickedness…the same number as are reckoned of virtue (for that
which is hardest to fight against calls for the sternest
efforts)…but besides fleeing from evil, practise virtue, making
Christ entirely, or at any rate to the greatest extent possible, to
dwell within them, so that the power of evil cannot meet with any empty
place to fill it again with himself, and make the last state of that
man worse than the first, by the greater energy of his assault, and the
greater strength and impregnability of the fortress. But when,
having guarded our soul with every care, and having appointed goings up
in our heart,
XI. And now, having purified the theatre by
what has been said, let us discourse a little about the Festival, and
join in celebrating this Feast with festal and pious souls. And,
since the chief point of the Festival is the remembrance of God, let us
call God to mind. For I think that the sound of those who keep
Festival There, where is the dwelling of all the Blissful, is
nothing else than this, the hymns and praises of God, sung by all who
are counted worthy of that City. Let none be astonished if what I
have to say contains some things that I have said before; for not only
will I utter the same words, but I shall speak of the same subjects,
trembling both in tongue and mind and thought when I speak of God for
you too, that you may share this laudable and blessed feeling.
And when I speak of God you must be illumined at once by one flash of
light and by three. Three in Individualities or Hypostases, if
any prefer so to call them, or persons, The sense of Person
(here πρόσωπον), which
is the usual post-Nicene equivalent of ὑπόστασις, was by
no means generally attached to that word during the first Four
Centuries, though here and there there are traces of such a use.
Throughout the Arian controversy a great deal of trouble and
misunderstanding was caused by the want of a precise definition of the
meaning of ὑπόστασις.
It seems to have been at first understood by the Eastern Church to mean
Real Personal Existence—Reality being the fundamental idea.
In this fundamental sense it was used in Theology as expressing the
distinct individuality and relative bearing of the Three
“Persons” of the Blessed Trinity to each other (τὸ ἴδίον
πὰρα τὸ
κοινόν, Suidas). But Arius
gave it a heretical twist, and said that there are Three Hypostases, in
the sense of Natures or Substances; and this doctrine was anathematized
by the Nicene Council, which, apparently regarding the term ὑπόστασις as
exactly equivalent to οὐσία (as Arius tried to make
it) condemned the proposition that the Son is ἐξ
ἑτέρας
ὑποστάσεως ἢ
οὐσίας (Symb. Nic.).
Similar is the use of the word in S. Athanasius. As against
Sabellius, however, who taught that in the Godhead there are
τρία
πρόσωπα (using this word in
the sense of Aspects only) but would not allow τρεῖς
ὑποστάσεις
(i.e., Self-existent Personalities), the post-Nicene Church regarded
ὑπόστασις as
designating the Person, and spoke freely of τρεῖς
ὑποστάσεις.
The Western Church increased the confusion by continuing to regard
ὑπόστασις as
equivalent to οὐσία, and translating it by
Substantia or Subsistentia. It was not till the word Essentia
came into use to express οὐσία that the Western Church
grasped the difference, so long accepted in the East, so as to use the
words accurately. Meantime, however, there would seem to have
grown up a difference in the use of the two words supposed to represent
ὑπόστασις, of the
same kind as that between ὑπόστασις and
οὐσία;
Substantia being appropriated to the Essence of a thing, that which is
the foundation of its being; while Subsistentia came rather to connote
a limitation, i.e., Personality. Thus the West also became
confused, and Substantia was held to be the true equivalent of
ὑπόστασις.
Hence the condemnation at Sardica (a.d. 347)
by the Western Bishops of the doctrine of Three Hypostases as
Arian. The confusion lasted long, but in 362 a Council was held
at Alexandria, when this difference was seen to be a mere logomachy,
and it was pronounced orthodox to confess either τρεῖς
ὑποστάσεις
in the sense of “Persons,” or μἰαν
ὑπόστασιν in that
of “Substance.” Our author in his Oration to the
Fathers of the Council of Constantinople fully acknowledges this.
“What do you mean,” he says, “by ὑποστάσεις or
πρόσωπα? You
mean that the Three are distinct, not in Nature, but in
Personality.” And in the Panegyric on S. Athanasius (Or.
xxi. c. 35), he remarks on the orthodoxy of the phrase μία οὐσία,
τρεῖς
ὑποστάσεις,
that the first expression refers to the Nature of the Godhead, the
second to the special properties of the Persons. With this, he
says, the Italians agree, but the poverty of their language is such
that it does not admit of the distinction between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, and
therefore has to call in the word πρόσωπον, which
if misunderstood is liable to be charged with Sabellianism.
XII. For to us there is but One God, the
Father, of Whom are all things, and One Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom are
all things; and One Holy Ghost, in Whom are all things; The Coining is simply of the adverbial form;
the Substantive is found in earlier writings. S. Gregory himself
uses it Orat. Theol. V. He uses other words also, as ἔκπεμψις,
πρόοδος, and the verbs
προέρχεσθαι,
προϊέναι. As to the question of the Double
Procession (Filioque) see Introd. to Orat. Theol. V. Dr. Swete
(Doctr. of H. S. p. 118) says, “It is instructive to notice how
at this period the two great Sees of Rome and Constantinople seem to
have agreed in abstaining from a minuter definition of the
Procession. Both in East and West the relations of the Spirit to
the Son were being examined by individual theologians; but S. Gregory
and S. Damasus appear to have alike refrained from entering upon a
question which did not touch the essentials of the Faith.”
He adds in a note “This is the more remarkable because Damasus
was of Spanish origin.”
XIII. Since then these things are so, or
rather since This is so; and His Adoration ought not to be rendered
only by Beings above, but there ought to be also worshippers on earth,
that all things may be filled with the glory of God (forasmuch as they
are filled with God Himself); therefore man was created and honored
with the hand “The rest of the Creation was made by
the command of God, but Man was formed by the hand of God.”
(Wordsworth in “There was a peculiar glory in the
creation of Man, distinguishing him from the rest of the
creatures. The creatures inferior to man were called into being
by a simple act of the Divine Will; but in the case of man, bearing as
he does the nature and the form which God was about to assume as His
own, and which, once assumed, was never again to be laid aside, the
process of creation was markedly different. Then for the first
time the Most Holy Persons of the Blessed Trinity appear upon the
scene. They are manifested as in mutual consultation and common
action personally engaged.…‘Let Us make Man in Our Image
after Our Likeness’…Then followed the exercise of creative
power as a personal act, the putting forth the Hand of God to fashion
the body of Man; ‘The Lord God formed Man of the dust of the
earth.’ Afterwards came the yet higher work in the infusion
of the immaterial invisible life enshrined in the body, perfecting the
work of God; ‘He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life
and Man became a living soul.’” (T. T. Carter, The
Divine Dispensations, p. 44.) Ullman comments on
this passage as follows: There is in it, as follows especially
from what comes after, the double sense that the Infinite Godhead
entered in Christ into the limitations of a finite human life; and in
consequence of this, since otherwise as an infinite Being it was not
fully cognisable by the finite human soul, became in this limitation
cognisable in some degree to it, as it was not before this special
manifestation in Christ. “In this and
several places πνεῦμα and νοῦς evidently denote the
Divine the Spiritual, taken in the highest and purest sense, in which
it is lifted above the σάρξ, and generally above all that is
material; in which sense S. John says, πνεῦμα ὁ
θεός.” Ullmann. “In a double
sense;—either that the Godhead is, in union with the Man Jesus,
subjected to suffering (cf. Or. XXI. 24), or that the Divine Substance,
which is unapproachable by any passion or suffering, combined itself
with a Man, whose nature cannot be free from such
emotions.” Ullmann.
XIV. At His birth we duly kept Festival,
both I, the leader of the Feast, and you, and all that is in the world
and above the world. With the Star we ran, and with the Magi we
worshipped, and with the Shepherds we were illuminated, and with the
Angels we glorified Him, and with Simeon we took Him up in our arms,
and with Anna the aged and chaste we made our responsive
confession. And thanks be to Him who came to His own in the guise
of a stranger, because He glorified the stranger. i.e., human nature,
which was severed from and made hostile to God by sin. i.e., Sasima. That the All-pure was
baptized is to remind us of our need of preparation. That He was
baptized by John is to teach us humility towards the Priesthood, even
if the Priest be socially our inferior. That He was baptized at
thirty years of age shews that the Teachers and Rulers of the Church
ought not to be very young men. Scholiast.
XV. But John baptizes, Jesus comes to
Him “He who was the
forerunner on earth, and was to be the forerunner in Hades of Christ,
Who manifested Himself on earth, and manifested Himself also in
Hades.” Elias Cretensis. One important
ms. reads “Us Who.”
XVI. But further—Jesus goeth up out of
the water…for with Himself He carries up the world…and sees
the heaven opened which Adam had shut against himself and all his
posterity, The word
Leviathan does not occur in the LXX., though
it is found twice in other Greek Versions of the Book of Job,
viz.:—
XVII. Now, since our Festival is of Baptism,
and we must endure a little hardness with Him Who for our sake took
form, and was baptized, and was crucified; let us speak about the
different kinds of Baptism, that we may come out thence purified.
Moses baptized
XVIII. I, however, for I confess myself to
be a man,—that is to say, an animal shifty and of a changeable
nature,—both eagerly receive this Baptism, and worship Him Who
has given it me, and impart it to others; and by shewing mercy make
provision for mercy. For I know that I too am compassed with
infirmity, The Novatians were
known as Cathari or Puritans. In a.d. 251 Novatus, a Presbyter of the Church of Carthage,
who with others had formed a party against S. Cyprian, their Bishop,
came to Rome, and excited Novatian to become leader in a similar schism
against Cornelius, the recently elected Bishop of the Apostolic
See. The plea urged on behalf of the schism was that Cornelius,
who was of one accord with Cyprian, had lapsed in the time of the
persecution under Decius, a.d. 250, and that
he had relaxed the discipline of the Church by admitting to Communion
on too easy terms those who had been guilty of a similar offence; and
that therefore he ought not to be recognized as a true Bishop of the
Church, but a faithful Pastor should be chosen in his place.
Consequently Novatian was elected by some who held these views, and was
consecrated by three Bishops. There seem to have been a good many
of his followers in Constantinople at this time. There had been
at one time a disposition among them to reunite themselves to the
Catholic Church, for they were orthodox in faith; but it had been
hindered by the malevolence of their party leaders; so that the schism
continued, and the Novatians must be added to the opponents with whom
S. Gregory had to deal. “This too often
ignored page gives a solemn contradiction to those who, falsifying
history as well as theology, pretended two centuries ago to revive by
their extravagant rigour the spirit of the primitive Church. The
spirit of the Church never changes. Inflexible against error, it
is full of gentleness and kindliness for repentant sinners. The
spirit of the Church is that of the Saints of all times; or rather it
is that of the Divine Shepherd, Who made Himself known above all by His
unspeakable tenderness and His inexhaustible mercy to lost
sheep.” (Benoit S. G. de N.)
XIX. But these sins were not after Baptism,
you will say. Where is your proof? Either prove it—or
refrain from condemning; and if there be any doubt, let charity
prevail. But Novatus, you say, would not receive those who lapsed
in the persecution. What do you mean by this? If they were
unrepentant he was right; I too would refuse to receive those who
either would not stoop at all or not sufficiently, and who would refuse
to make their amendment counterbalance their sin; and when I do receive
them, I will assign them their proper place; i.e., their proper
class among the Penitents.
XX. But let us venerate to-day the Baptism
of Christ; and let us keep the feast well, not in pampering the belly,
but rejoicing in spirit. And how shall we luxuriate?
“Wash you, make you clean.”
The Oration on Holy Baptism.
Preached at Constantinople Jan. 6, 381, being the day following the delivery of that on the Holy Lights.
I. Yesterday we
kept high Festival on the illustrious Day of the Holy Lights; for it
was fitting that rejoicings should be kept for our Salvation, and that
far more than for weddings and birthdays, and namedays, and
house-warmings, and registrations of children, and anniversaries, and
all the other festivities that men observe for their earthly
friends. And now to-day let us discourse briefly concerning
Baptism, and the benefits which accrue to us therefrom, even though our
discourse yesterday spoke of it cursorily; partly because the time
pressed us hard, and partly because the sermon had to avoid
tediousness. For too great length in a sermon is as much an enemy
to people’s ears, as too much food is to their bodies.…It
will be worth your while to apply your minds to what we say, and to
receive our discourse on so important a subject not perfunctorily, but
with ready mind, since to know the power of this Sacrament is itself
Enlightenment. Enlightenment
(φωτισμός) is one
of the most ancient names for Holy Baptism; the name, in fact, which S.
Gregory uses throughout this Oration, and which his Latin translator
almost invariably renders by Baptismus.
II. The Word recognizes three Births for us;
namely, the natural birth, that of Baptism, and that of the
Resurrection. Of these the first is by night, and is servile, and
involves passion; but the second is by day, and is destructive of
passion, cutting off all the veil This Veil is Original
Sin, by which the soul is darkened and as it were covered. All Mankind
(πᾶν τὸ
πλάσμα). πλάσμα would not be
correctly rendered by Creation. It is a word belonging solely to
Man, who was formed by the Hand of God, and who, alone among creatures,
has to give an account of his past life to his Creator at the Last
Day. (Edd. Bened.)
III. Concerning two of these births, the
first and the last, we have not to speak on the present occasion.
Let us discourse upon the second, which is now necessary for us, and
which gives its name to the Feast of the Lights. Illumination is
the splendour of souls, the conversion of the life, the question put to
the Godward conscience. This is the literal
version of the passage, which is somewhat loosely quoted from
IV. And as Christ the Giver of it is called by
many various names, so too is this Gift, whether it is from the
exceeding gladness of its nature (as those who are very fond of a thing
take pleasure in using its name), or that the great variety of its
benefits has reacted for us upon its names. We call it, the Gift,
the Grace, Baptism, Unction, Illumination, the Clothing of Immortality,
the Laver of Regeneration, the Seal, and everything that is
honourable. We call it the Gift, because it is given to us in
return for nothing on our part; Grace, because it is conferred even on
debtors; Baptism, because sin is buried with it in the water; Unction,
as Priestly and Royal, for such were they who were anointed;
Illumination, because of its splendour; Clothing, because it hides our
shame; the Laver, because it washes us; the Seal because it preserves
us, and is moreover the indication of Dominion. In it the heavens
rejoice; it is glorified by Angels, because of its kindred
splendour. It is the image of the heavenly bliss. We long
V. God is Light: S. Thomas Aquinas
(Summa I qu. 108) seems to solve this question in accordance with the
second of these alternatives. φώς (masc) is a common poetical word for
Man. It is probably derived from the root (Indo-Eur. Bha) of
φάω, which also
appears in φημί
and modified in φαίνω.
VI. Light was also the firstborn commandment
given to the firstborn man (for the commandment of the Law is a lamp
and a light;
VII. For since to be utterly sinless belongs
to God, and to the first and uncompounded nature (for simplicity is
peaceful, and not subject to dissension), and I venture to say also
that it belongs to the Angelic nature too; or at least, I would affirm
that nature to be very nearly sinless, because of its nearness to God;
but to sin is human and belongs to the Compound on earth (for
composition is the beginning of separation); therefore the master did
not think it right to leave His creature unaided, or to neglect its
danger of separation from Himself; but on the contrary, just as He gave
existence to that which did not exist, so He gave new creation to that
which did exist, a diviner creation and a loftier than the first, which
is to those who are beginning life a Seal, and to those who are more
mature in age both a gift and a restoration of the image which had
fallen through sin, that we may not, by becoming worse through despair,
and ever being borne downward to that which is more evil, fall
altogether from good and from virtue, through despondency; and having
fallen into a depth of evil (as it is said) despise Him;
VIII. And since we are double-made, I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the spirit; the one received visibly in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body; the one typical, the other real and cleansing the depths. And this which comes to the aid of our first birth, makes us new instead of old, and like God instead of what we now are; recasting us without fire, and creating us anew without breaking us up. For, to say it all in one word, the virtue of Baptism is to be understood as a covenant with God for a second life and a purer conversation. And indeed all need to fear this very much, and to watch our own souls, each one of us, with all care, that we do not become liars in respect of this profession. For if God is called upon as a Mediator to ratify human professions, how great is the danger if we be found transgressors of the covenant which we have made with God Himself; and if we be found guilty before the Truth Himself of that lie, besides our other transgressions…and that when there is no second regeneration, or recreation, or restoration to our former state, even though we seek it with all our might, and with many sighs and tears, by which it is cicatrized over (with great difficulty in my opinion, though we all believe that it may be cicatrized). Yet if we might wipe away even the scars I should be glad, since I too have need of mercy. But it is better not to stand in need of a second cleansing, but to stop at the first, which is, I know, common to all, and involves no labour, and is of equal price to slaves, to masters, to poor, to rich, to humble, to exalted, to gentle, to simple, to debtors, to those who are free from debt; like the breathing of the air, and the pouring forth of the light, and the changes of the seasons, and the sight of creation, that great delight which we all share alike, and the equal distribution of the faith.
IX. For it is a strange thing to substitute
for a painless remedy one which is more painful; to cast away the grace
of mercy, and owe a debt of punishment; and to measure our amendment
against sin. For how many tears must we contribute before they
can equal the fount of baptism; and who will be surety for us that
death shall wait for our cure, and that the judgment seat shall not
summon us while still debtors, and needing the fire of the other
world? You perhaps, as a good and pitiful husbandman, will
entreat the Master still to spare the figtree,
X. If after baptism the persecutor and
tempter of the light assail you (for he assailed even the Word my God
through the veil, i.e., the Sacred
Manhood.
XI. Let us then be baptized that we may win
the victory; let us partake of the cleansing waters, more purifying
than hyssop, purer than the legal blood, more sacred than the ashes of
the heifer sprinkling the unclean, There is here an
untranslatable play upon words. Again a play upon
words. Βαπτἰζεσθαι
is sometimes used in the sense of to be drowned. The word
primarily means to Immerse, and this of course, when applied to a ship,
is to sink her. The practice of immersion in Holy Baptism was
undoubtedly universal in the primitive ages, except where in cases of
necessity persons were baptized in sickness, or in prison under
sentence of death; and in such cases this “Clinic” Baptism,
though recognized as valid, and therefore not to be repeated, was
viewed as irregular, and disqualified its recipient from subsequently
receiving Holy Orders. Affusion was gradually allowed, probably
for climatic reasons, to become the prevailing practice of the West,
though immersion predominated as late as the Twelfth Century. It
is, however, a remarkable fact that the Didache, a Manual of
instruction which some date within the lifetime of the Apostles, and
nearly all are agreed in placing not later than the early years of the
Second Century, expressly permits affusion, without any hint of
irregularity, or mention of any circumstance of necessity except
scarcity of water.
XII. Why wait for a fever to bring you this blessing, and refuse it from God? Why will you have it through lapse of time, and not through reason? Why will you owe it to a plotting friend, and not to a saving desire? Why will you receive it of force and not of free will; of necessity rather than of liberty? Why must you hear of your death from another, rather than think of it as even now present? Why do you seek for drugs which will do no good, or the sweat of the crisis, when the sweat of death is perhaps upon you? Heal yourself before your extremity; have pity upon yourself the only true healer of your disease; apply to yourself the really saving medicine; while you are still sailing with a favouring breeze fear shipwreck, and you will be in less danger of it, if you make use of your terror as a helper. Give yourself occasion to celebrate the Gift with feasting, not with mourning; let the talent be cultivated, not buried in the ground; let some time intervene between the grace and death, that not only may the account of sins be wiped out, but something better may be written in its place; that you may have not only the Gift, but also the Reward; that you may not only escape the fire, but may also inherit the glory, which is bestowed by cultivation of the Gift. For to men of little soul it is a great thing to escape torment; but men of great soul aim also at attaining reward.
XIII. I know of three classes among the saved; the
slaves, the hired servants, the sons.
XIV. Sow in good season, and gather
together, and open thy barns when it is the time to do so; and plant in
season, and let the clusters be cut when they are ripe, and launch
boldly in spring, and draw thy ship on shore again at the beginning of
winter, when the sea begins to rage. And let there be to thee
also a time for war and a time for peace; a time to marry, and a time
to abstain from marrying; a time for friendship, and a time for
discord, if this be needed; and in short a time for everything, if you
will follow Solomon’s advice. Some
mss. read “A flooded
river.”
XV. But if you would fortify yourself
beforehand with the Seal, and secure yourself for the future with the
best and strongest of all aids, being signed both in body and in soul
with the unction, as Israel was of old with that blood and unction of
the firstborn at night that guarded him, Billius
suggests, though without adopting it in his text, a slight conjectural
alteration, which would read “Than funeral games and
libations;” but this, though it gives a very good sense, is a
needless departure from the mss.
XVI. But are you afraid lest you should destroy
the Gift, and do you therefore put off your cleansing, because you
cannot have it a second time? What? Would you not be afraid
of danger in time of persecution, and of losing
XVII. Art thou young? stand against thy
passions; be numbered with the alliance in the army of God: The Benedictine
Editors punctuate differently, and render “Stand against passions
with the assistance (of Baptism), be numbered in the army of
God.” remarking that David fought Goliath without allies, leaning
on God’s assistance; and that S. Gregory here certainly means
that a Christian who relies on the aid of his Baptism is to stand firm
in the battle against the Devil.
XVIII. What more? Are you living in
Virginity? Be sealed by this purification; make this the sharer
and companion of your life. Let this direct your life, your
words, every member, every movement, every sense. Honour it, that
it may honour you; that it may give to your head a crown of graces, and
with a crown of delights may shield you. ἐν
ἐξουσιᾳ evidently means Tui
juris—your own master.
XIX. But you have to live in the midst of
public affairs, and are stained by them; and it would be a terrible
thing to waste this mercy. The answer is simple. Flee, if
you can, even from the forum, along with the good company, making
yourself the wings of an eagle, or, to speak more suitably, of a
dove…for what have you to do with Cæsar or the things of
Cæsar?…until you can rest where there is no sin, and no
blackening, and no biting snake in the way to hinder your godly
steps. Snatch your soul away from the world; flee from Sodom;
flee from the burning; travel on without turning back, lest you should
be fixed as a pillar of salt.
XX. But some will say, What shall I gain,
if, when I am preoccupied by baptism, and have cut off myself by my
haste from the pleasures of life, when it was in my power to give the
reins to pleasure, and then to obtain grace? For the labourers in
the vineyard who had worked the longest time gained nothing thereby,
for equal wages were given to the very last.
XXI. But supposing that the Parable does sketch the power of the font according to your interpretation, what would prevent you, if you entered first, and bore the heat, from avoiding envy of the last, that by this very lovingkindness you might obtain more, and receive the reward, not as of grace but as of debt? And next, the workmen who receive the wages are those who have entered, not those who have missed, the vineyard; which last is like to be your case. So that if it were certain that you would obtain the Gift, though you are of such a mind, and maliciously keep back some of the labour, you might be forgiven for taking refuge in such arguments, and desiring to make unlawful gain out of the kindness of the master; though I might assure you that the very fact of being able to labour is a greater reward to any who is not altogether of a huckstering mind. But since there is a risk of your being altogether shut out of the vineyard through your bargaining, and losing the capital through stopping to pick up little gains, do let yourselves be persuaded by my words to forsake the false interpretations and contradictions, and to come forward without arguing to receive the Gift, lest you should be snatched away before you realize your hopes, and should find out that it was to your own loss that you devised these sophistries.
XXII. But then, you say, is not God merciful, and since He knows our thoughts and searches out our desires, will He not take the desire of Baptism instead of Baptism? You are speaking in riddles, if what you mean is that because of God’s mercy the unenlightened is enlightened in His sight; and he is within the kingdom of heaven who merely desires to attain to it, but refrains from doing that which pertains to the kingdom. I will, however, speak out boldly my opinion on these matters; and I think that all other sensible men will range themselves on my side. Of those who have received the gift, some were altogether alien from God and from salvation, both addicted to all manner of sin, and desirous to be bad; others were semivicious, and in a kind of mean state between good and bad; others again, while they did that which was evil, yet did not approve their own action, just as men in a fever are not pleased with their own sickness. And others even before they were illuminated were worthy of praise; partly by nature, and partly by the care with which they prepared themselves for Baptism. These after their initiation became evidently better, and less liable to fall; in the one case with a view to procuring good, and in the other in order to preserve it. And amongst these, those who gave in to some evil are better than those who were altogether bad; and better still than those who yielded a little, are those who were more zealous, and broke up their fallow ground before Baptism; they have the advantage over the others of having already laboured; for the font does not do away with good deeds as it does with sins. But better even than these are they who are also cultivating the Gift, and are polishing themselves to the utmost possible beauty.
XXIII. And so also in those who fail to
receive the Gift, some are altogether animal or bestial, according as
they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added
to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift,
but look upon it as a mere gift—to be acquiesced in if given
them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know
and honour the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some
through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it,
perhaps on account of infancy, That S. Gregory did
not reject infant Baptism is clear, from the directions given later on
in this Oration (c. xxviii; and cf. c. xvii. s. fin.). He is here
referring simply to the inability of infants to bring themselves to the
font whereby through the mistaken scruples of parents many must have
died unbaptized. i.e., The sins which
are due altogether to external tyranny do not involve guilt, inasmuch
as they are involuntary, whereas the guilt of sin is in the will.
XXIV. Therefore since you have heard these
words, come forward to it, and be enlightened, and your faces shall not
be ashamed The Festivals of
Easter and Pentecost were set apart as early as the Second Century for
the solemn administration of Holy Baptism; and S. Siricius Bishop of
Rome about the time of S. Gregory of Nazianzus, states that all the
Churches agreed in keeping these exclusively. But this is a
mistake (though Van Espen says (II., c. i., tit. 2, c. 4) that S.
Siricius acknowledges the existence of the different custom, but
condemns it, and gives reference to ad. Himerum Tarraconensem, c. 2),
for there is evidence that in many Churches the Epiphany also was thus
observed, and in some Christmas also. But Tertullian (De Bapt.)
says that no time is unsuitable. In the Western Church, however,
Papal decrees, Conciliar Canons, and Imperial Capitularies from the
VIth to the XIIIth. Centuries abound, limiting the administration,
except in cases of sickness, to the two seasons of Easter and
Pentecost, on the Vigils of which it is still provided for in the
Missals. No doubt it was felt to be a very useful limitation,
when most persons who were presented for Baptism were adults, and
required preparation. When this ceased to be the case the rule
gradually became obsolete, and has long ceased to be observed. The allusion is to the
well known story of Tantalus, whose punishment in hell was said to be
that, being tormented with hunger and thirst, he was condemned to stand
for ever in water up to his lips, but to be unable to drink, and to
have a tree laden with luscious fruit within easy reach, but to be
unable to gather of it.
XXV. Take my advice, my friend, and be slow
to do evil, but swift to your salvation; for readiness to evil and
tardiness to good are equally bad. If you are invited to a revel,
be not swift to go; if to apostasy, leap away; if a company of
evildoers say to you, “Come with us, share our bloodguiltiness,
let us hide in the earth a righteous man unjustly,” The A.V. is here used, as more accurate than the LXX. The passage is quoted freely from
XXVI. Let nothing hinder you from going on,
nor draw you away from your readiness. While your desire is still
vehement, seize upon that which you desire. While the iron is
hot, let it be tempered by the cold water, lest anything should happen
in the interval, and put an end to your desire. I am Philip; do
you be Candace’s Eunuch.
XXVII. Do not disdain to be baptized with a
poor man, if you are rich; or if you are noble, with one who is
lowborn; or if you are a master, with one who is up to the present time
your slave. Not even so will you be humbling yourself as Christ,
unto Whom you are baptized today, Who for your sake took upon Himself
even the form of a slave. From the day of your new birth all the
old marks were effaced, and Christ was put upon all in one form.
Do not disdain to confess your sins, knowing how John baptized, that by
present shame you may escape from future shame (for this too is a part
of the future punishment); and prove that you really hate sin by making
a shew of it openly, and triumphing over it as worthy of
contempt. Do not reject the medicine of exorcism, nor refuse it
because of its length. This too is a touchstone of your right
disposition for grace. What labour have you to do compared with
that of the Queen of Ethiopia,
XXVIII. Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.
A proof of this is found in the Circumcision on
the eighth day, which was a sort of typical seal, and was conferred on
children before they had the use of reason. And so is the
anointing of the doorposts, i.e. when there is no
danger.
XXIX. But, one says, Christ was thirty years
old when He was baptized, “All the
City was moved.” A.V., lit.
“shaken as by earthquake.” i.e., the reasons why
He was not baptized till He was thirty.
XXX. But for you, what necessity is there
that by following the examples which are far above you, you should do a
thing so ill-advised for yourself? For there are many other
details of the Gospel History which are quite different to what happens
nowadays, and the seasons of which do not correspond. For
instance Christ fasted a little before His temptation, we before
Easter. As far as the fasting days are concerned it is the
same, Here is an indication
that the Forty Days of Lent were a well known observance in S.
Gregory’s time. At the Council of Nicæa this period
was taken for granted. The Great Fast of the Eastern Church
begins on the Monday after the Sunday corresponding to our
Quinquagesima, and the Fast is kept to some extent even on Sunday. Note the rule of
Fasting Communion here recognized as universal.
XXXI. If then you will listen to me, you
will bid a long farewell to all such arguments, and you will jump at
this Blessing, and begin to struggle in a twofold conflict; first, to
prepare yourself for baptism by purifying yourself; and next, to
preserve the baptismal gift; for it is a matter of equal difficulty to
obtain a blessing which we have not, and to keep it when we have gained
it. For often what zeal has acquired sloth has destroyed; and
what hesitation has lost diligence has regained. A great
assistance to the attainment of what you desire are vigils, fasts,
sleeping on the ground, prayers, tears, pity of and almsgiving to those
who are in need. And let these be your thanksgiving for what you
have received, and at the same time your safeguard of them. You
have the benefit to remind you of many commandments; so do not
transgress them. Does a poor man approach you? Remember how
poor you once were, and how rich you were made. One in want of
bread or of drink, perhaps another Lazarus, Note that this
allusion implies that Communion in both Kinds was given separately, as
in the Anglican Church, not by intinction, as in the present Orthodox
Eastern Church.
XXXII. Let the laver be not for your body only,
but also for the image of God in you; not merely a washing away of sins
in you, but also a correction of your temper; let it not only wash away
the old filth, but let it purify the fountainhead. Let it not
only move you to honourable acquisition, but let it teach you also
honourably to lose possession; or, which is more easy, to make
restitution of what you have wrongfully acquired. For what profit
is it that your sin should have been forgiven you, but the loss which
you have inflicted should not be repaired to him whom you have
injured? Two sins are on your conscience, the one that you made a
dishonest gain, the
XXXIII. What say I then, and what is my
argument? Yesterday you were a Canaanite soul bent
together
XXXIV. If you were full of leprosy, that
shapeless evil, yet you scraped off the evil matter, and received again
the Image whole. Shew your cleansing to me your Priest, that I
may recognize how much more precious it is than the legal one. Do
not range yourself with the nine unthankful men, but imitate the
tenth.
XXXV. How shall this be? Remember
always the parable,
XXXVI. I will remind you again about
Illuminations, and that often, and will reckon them up from Holy
Scripture. For I myself shall be happier for remembering them
(for what is sweeter than light to those who have tasted light?) and I
will dazzle you with my words. There is sprung up a light for the
righteous, and its partner joyful gladness. Anagoge is one of the
three methods of mystical interpretation, according to the distich, Littera scripta docet: Quid credas allegoria: Quid speres anagoge; Quid agas
tropologia. cf. i.e. To view the Fire
there spoken of as Temporal punishment, with a purpose of correcting
and reforming the sinner. This is not S. Gregory’s own view
of the meaning of the passage, though he admits it to be tenable.
XXXVII. And as I know of two kinds of fire,
so also do I of light. The one is the light of our ruling power
directing our steps according to the will of God; the other is a
deceitful and meddling one, quite contrary to the true light, though
pretending to be that light, that it may cheat us by its
appearance. This really is darkness, yet has the appearance of
noonday, the high perfection of light. And so I read that passage
of those who continually flee in darkness at noonday; A strange paraphrase
of the last clause of Thus
LXX. in
XXXVIII. Let us cleanse every member,
Brethren, let us purify every sense; let nothing in us be imperfect or
of our first birth; let us leave nothing unilluminated. Let us
enlighten our eyes, Quia gula est parens
immunditiæ et luxuriæ.
XXXIX. And in addition to what has been
said, it is good with our head cleansed, as the head which is the
workshop of the senses is cleansed, to hold fast the Head of
Christ,
XL. And what of the loins, or reins, for we must
not pass these over? Let the purification take hold of these
also. Let our loins be girded about and kept in check by
conti
XLI. Besides all this and before all, keep I
pray you the good deposit, by which I live and work, and which I desire
to have as the companion of my departure; with which I endure all that
is so distressful, and despise all delights; the confession of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. This I commit unto you
to-day; with this I will baptize you and make you grow. This I
give you to share, and to defend all your life, the One Godhead and
Power, found in the Three in Unity, and comprising the Three
separately, not unequal, in substances or natures, neither increased
nor diminished by superiorities or inferiorities; in every respect
equal, in every respect the same; just as the beauty and the greatness
of the heavens is one; the infinite conjunction of Three Infinite Ones,
Each God when considered in Himself; as the Father so the Son, as the
Son so the Holy Ghost; the Three One God when contemplated together;
Each God because Consubstantial; One God because of the
Monarchia. No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined
by the Splendour of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than I
am carried back to the One. When I think of any One of the Three
I think of Him as the Whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater
part of what I am thinking of escapes me. i.e. If I think of One
Blessed Person, the other Two are not in my mind, and so the greater
part of God escapes me.
XLII. Do you fear to speak of Generation
lest you should attribute aught of passion to the impassible God?
I on the other hand fear to speak of Creation, lest I should destroy
God by the insult and the untrue division, either cutting the Son away
from the Father, or from the Son the Substance of the Spirit. For
this paradox is involved, that not only is a created Life foisted into
the Godhead by those who measure Godhead badly; but even this created
life is divided against itself. For as these low earthly minds
make the Son subject to the Father, so again is the rank of the Spirit
made inferior to that of the Son, until both God and created life are
insulted by the new Theology. No, my friends, there is nothing
servile in the Trinity, nothing created, nothing accidental, as I have
heard one of the wise S. Gregory
Thaumaturgus.
XLIII. I should like to call the Father the
XLIV. What need have I any more of
speech? It is the time for teaching, not for controversy. I
protest before God and the elect Angels, Supposing S.
Gregory’s birth to have been in 325, the earliest date which
seems at all probable, he would be under 60 in 381, when this Oration
was delivered; so that the expression on the text must be held to be a
rhetorical exaggeration. Suidas, however, pushes back the date of
his birth as far as 299 or 300; which does not fit in well with the
chronology of his life, as given by himself.
XLV. But not yet perhaps is there formed
upon your soul any writing good or bad; and you want to be written upon
today, and formed by us unto perfection. Let us go within the
cloud. Give me the tables of your heart; I will be your Moses,
though this be a bold thing to say; I will write on them with the
finger of God a new Decalogue.
XLVI. But one thing more I preach unto
you. The Station in which you shall presently stand after your
Baptism before the Great Sanctuary The word here used is
Bema, which properly means a Platform. In an Oriental Church the
East end of the building is raised by one or more steps above the
choir. A little distance East of these steps is a great Screen
called the Iconostasis, from the picture (Icons) with which it is
covered. It has three doors, one in the centre, called the Royal
Gates, leading to the Altar; one on the left hand, leading to the
Prothesis, or Credence; and one on the right to the Sacristy. The
whole raised portion is called the Bema, or sometimes the Altar, the
Altar proper being known as the Throne.
On Pentecost.
It is uncertain to what year the following Oration belongs. It was, however, certainly delivered at Constantinople; the Benedictine Editors think in the year 381, in which case the day would be May 16. An indication tending to establish this date is found in c. 14, in the expression of apprehension of personal danger to himself for his boldness in setting forth the true faith. In fact, in the earlier part of this year, after the Emperor Theodosius had put him in possession of the Patriarchal Throne, vacant by the expulsion and deposition of the Arian Demophilus, he had narrowly escaped assassination at the hands of the Arians.
The Oration deals again with the subject of the Fifth Theological Oration, the question of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, but proceeds to establish the point by quite a different set of arguments from those adopted in the former discourse, none of whose points are here repeated.
The Preacher begins by commenting on the various ways in which Festivals are kept by Jews, by Heathen and by Christians. Then he remarked on the mystical significance of the number Seven, which he illustrates by several instances; and next proceeds with his principal Subject.
God the Holy Ghost, he says, completes the work of Christ. Those who regard Him as a Created Being, as did the followers of Macedonius, are thereby guilty of blasphemy and impiety. The true Faith recognizes Him as God; and this belief is necessary to salvation; yet some reserve must be employed in applying that Name to Him. We must indeed insist on the recognition of His possession of all the attributes of Godhead; and we must at any rate bear with those who, like the Orator himself, also give Him the Name of God, which he hopes all his hearers will receive from the Holy Ghost grace to do. Then he proceeds to shew from Holy Scripture that in fact all the Attributes of Deity do belong to the Holy Spirit; and that His distinctive Personal Mark is that He is neither Unbegotten like the Father, nor Begotten like the Son. He does not touch on the question of the double Procession.
It would seem from some expressions in c. 8 that this Discourse was not delivered to his usual audience, but to an Assembly of “Religious.”
The Title of the Oration varies in different mss. Thus some have it “Of The Same On Pentecost,” to which one adds “And On The Holy Spirit;” and another puts it “Of The Same, a Homily on Pentecost.” The printed Editions before the Benedictine have “On The Holy Pentecost.”
I. Let us reason a
little about the Festival, that we may keep it spiritually. For
different persons have different ways of keeping Festival; but to the
worshipper of the Word a discourse seems best; and of discourses, that
which is best adapted to the occasion. And of all beautiful
things none gives so much joy to the lover of the beautiful, as that
the lover of festivals should keep them spiritually. Let us look
into the matter thus. The Jew keeps festival as well as we, but
only in the letter. For while following after the bodily Law, he
has not attained to the spiritual Law. The Greek too keeps
festival, but only in the body, and in honour of his own gods and
demons, some of whom are creators of passion by their own admission,
and others were honoured out of passion. Therefore even their
manner of keeping festival is passionate, as though their very sin were
an honour to God, in Whom their passion takes refuge as a thing to be
proud of. They deify bad
passions, and then act as if the gratification of them were an honour
to the gods in whom they have personified them.
II. Wherefore we must keep the feast
spiritually. And this is the beginning of our discourse; for we
must speak, even if our speech do seem a little too discursive; and we
must be diligent for the sake of those who love The followers of
Pythagoras swore by their master, who taught them the mystic properties
of the number Four, which he called the Fountain of the Universe,
because all things were made of four elements. The Simonians and Marcionites were two
Gnostic sects, the one deriving its name from Simon Magus, the other
from Marcion of Sinope. Simon, of whom we read in the Marcion was a native of Sinope in Pontus,
and flourished about the middle of the Second Century. His system
of teaching was mainly rationalistic, and did not recognize (Dr. Mansel
tells us, “Gnostic Heresies,” p. 203) any theory of
Emanations as connecting links between God and the world; for from his
point of view the Supreme God was not, even indirectly, the Author of
the world. It would seem that S. Gregory is confusing Marcion
with Valentinus, and Egyptian heresiarch who flourished about the same
time. In his theory we first find a system of
“Æons,” divided into an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a
Dodecad. Or he may mean Marcus, a follower of Valentinus, and
founder of the subordinate sect of the Marcosians.
III. As to the honour paid to Seven there
are many testimonies, but we will be content with a few out of the
many. For instance, seven precious spirits are named; for I think
Isaiah It will be worth
while, says Nicetas, to add S. John Chrysostom’s account of the
sevenfold punishment which was inflicted on Cain. The number
Seven he says (Hom. in Peninnah who had
“many” children is called Imperfect in her children,
because Many is an indefinite word; where Hannah’s one child
Samuel was so perfect a man that he was as it were seven to his
mother. For Seven is mystically, as Six or Ten is arithmetically,
the perfect number. (Six because it is the sum of its own
factors, 1, 2, 3; Ten, because it is the basis of numeration; Seven
because it is the number of Creation; for God rested on the Sabbath
Day.).
IV. And if we must also look at ancient
history, I perceive that Enoch, Different words are
used here as in the New Testament for Baskets. The second implies
a larger size; it is the word used for the “basket” in
which St. Paul was let down from the wall of Damascus,
V. We are keeping the feast of Pentecost and
of the Coming of the Spirit, and the appointed time of the Promise, and
the fulfilment of our hope. And how great, how august, is the
Mystery. The dispensations of the Body of Christ are ended; or
rather, what belongs to His Bodily Advent (for I hesitate to say the
Dispensation of His Body, as long as no discourse persuades me that it
is better to have put off the body S. Gregory makes this
explanation because there were certain heretics who taught that our
Lord at His Ascension laid aside His Humanity. It is said that
this was held by certain Manichæans, who based their idea on
The reference is to
the Macedonians or Pneumatomachi, followers of Macedonius, Patriarch of
Constantinople, who had passed from extreme or Anomœan Arianism to
Semi-Arianism, and was forcibly intruded on the See by order of
Constantius in 343, but was afterwards deposed. After his
deposition he broached the heresy known by his name, denying the Deity
of the Holy Ghost; some of its adherents, with Macedonius himself,
maintaining Him to be a mere creature; others stopping short of this;
and others calling Him a creature and servant of the Son. The
heresy was formally condemned in the Ecumenical Council of
Constantinople in 381.
VI. They who reduce the Holy Spirit to the
rank of a creature are blasphemers and wicked servants, and worst of
the wicked. For it is the part of wicked servants to despise
Lordship, and to rebel against dominion, and to make That which is free
their fellow-servant. But they who deem Him God are inspired by
God S. Gregory here
commends the practice of reserve in respect of the Deity of the Holy
Ghost. To believe it is necessary to salvation, he would
say; but in view of the prevailing ignorance it is well to be careful
before whom we give Him the Name of God. But he demands that his
hearers should give to the Holy Ghost all the Attributes of Godhead,
and should bear with those who, like himself, gave Him also the Name,
as he prays that they all may have grace to do
(Bénoît).
VII. If, my friends, you will not
acknowledge the Holy Spirit to be uncreated, nor yet eternal; clearly
such a state of mind is due to the contrary spirit—forgive me, if
in my zeal I speak somewhat over boldly. If, however, you are
sound enough to escape this evident impiety, and to place outside of
slavery Him Who gives freedom to yourselves, then see for yourselves
with the help of the Holy Ghost and of us what follows. For I am
persuaded that you are to some extent partakers of Him, so that I will
go into the question with you as kindred souls. Either shew me
some mean between lordship and servitude, that I may there place the
rank of the Spirit; or, if you shrink from imputing servitude to Him,
there is no doubt of the rank in which you must place the object of
your search. But you are dissatisfied with the syllables, and you
stumble at the word, and it is to you a stone of stumbling and a rock
of offence;
VIII. Confess, my friends, the Trinity to be
of One Godhead; or if you will, of One Nature; and we will pray the
Spirit to give you this word God. He will give it to you, I well
know, inasmuch as He has already granted you the first portion and the
second; i.e., inasmuch as He
has granted you a right faith in the Consubstantiality and Unity of the
Trinity, I am sure He will in time grant you the grace also to call Him
by the Name of God. The Constantinopolitan
followers of Macedonius at the period were noted for their strict
asceticism. The attempt to revive the Night Office among the
secular Clergy of the Diocese brought great odium on S. John Chrysostom
a few years later.
IX. The Holy Ghost, then, always existed,
and exists, and always will exist. He neither had a beginning,
nor will He have an end; but He was everlastingly ranged with and
numbered with the Father and the Son. For it was not ever fitting
that either the Son should be wanting to the Father, or the Spirit to
the Son. For then Deity would be shorn of Its Glory in its
greatest respect, for It would seem to have arrived at the consummation
of perfection as if by an afterthought. Therefore He was ever
being partaken, but not partaking; perfecting, not being perfected;
sanctifying, not being sanctified; deifying, not being deified; Himself
ever the same with Himself, and with Those with Whom He is ranged;
invisible, eternal, incomprehensible, unchangeable, without quality,
without quantity, without form, impalpable, self-moving, eternally
moving, with free-will, self-powerful, All-powerful (even though all
that is of the Spirit is referable to the First Cause, just as is all
that is of the Only-begotten); Life and Lifegiver; Light and
Lightgiver; absolute Good, and Spring of Goodness; the Right, the
Princely Spirit; the Lord, the Sender, the Separator; Builder of His
own Temple; leading, working as He wills; distributing His own Gifts;
the Spirit of Adoption, of Truth, of Wisdom, of Understanding, of
Knowledge, of Godliness, of Counsel, of Fear (which are ascribed to
Him i.e., by Isaiah.
X. Are you labouring to bring forth
objections? Well, so am I to get on with my discourse.
Honour the Day of the Spirit; restrain your tongue if you can a
little. It is the time to speak of other tongues—reverence
them or fear them, when you see that they are of fire. To-day let
us teach dogmatically; to-morrow we may discuss. To-day let us
keep the feast; to-morrow will be time enough to behave ourselves
unseemly—the first mystically, the second theatrically; the one
in the Churches, the other in the marketplace; the one among the sober,
the other among the drunken; the one as befits those who vehemently
desire, the other, as among those who
XI. He wrought first in the heavenly and angelic powers, and such as are first after God and around God. For from no other source flows their perfection and their brightness, and the difficulty or impossibility of moving them to sin, but from the Holy Ghost. And next, in the Patriarchs and Prophets, of whom the former saw Visions of God, or knew Him, and the latter also foreknew the future, having their master part moulded by the Spirit, and being associated with events that were yet future as if present, for such is the power of the Spirit. And next in the Disciples of Christ (for I omit to mention Christ Himself, in Whom He dwelt, not as energizing, but as accompanying His Equal), and that in three ways, as they were able to receive Him, and on three occasions; before Christ was glorified by the Passion, and after He was glorified by the Resurrection; and after His Ascension, or Restoration, or whatever we ought to call it, to Heaven. Now the first of these manifests Him—the healing of the sick and casting out of evil spirits, which could not be apart from the Spirit; and so does that breathing upon them after the Resurrection, which was clearly a divine inspiration; and so too the present distribution of the fiery tongues, which we are now commemorating. But the first manifested Him indistinctly, the second more expressly, this present one more perfectly, since He is no longer present only in energy, but as we may say, substantially, associating with us, and dwelling in us. For it was fitting that as the Son had lived with us in bodily form—so the Spirit too should appear in bodily form; and that after Christ had returned to His own place, He should have come down to us—Coming because He is the Lord; Sent, because He is not a rival God. For such words no less manifest the Unanimity than they mark the separate Individuality.
XII. And therefore He came after Christ,
that a Comforter should not be lacking unto us; but Another
Comforter, that you might acknowledge His co-equality. For this
word Another marks an Alter Ego, a name of equal Lordship, not of
inequality. For Another is not said, I know, of different kinds,
but of things consubstantial. And He came in the form of Tongues
because of His close relation to the Word. And they were of Fire,
perhaps because of His purifying Power (for our Scripture knows of a
purifying fire, as any one who wishes can find out), or else because of
His Substance. For our God is a consuming Fire, and a
Fire ἐπὶ
περιοπῆς; Billius
renders “In specula sua,” “On His watch
tower,” and the meaning is admissible, but the context seems
rather to point to the passive sense of Majesty or Glory. The
word is not in the Lexicon, and Suicer does not notice it; but the
corresponding adjective has only the passive sense.
Specula, however, is used in the sense of Eminence, but apparently only
geographically.
XIII. This was proclaimed by the Prophets in
such passages as the following:—The Spirit of the Lord is upon
me;
XIV. This Spirit shares with the Son in
working both the Creation and the Resurrection, as you may be shewn by
this Scripture; By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all
the power of them by the breath of His Mouth; The Hebrew word
means “a cultivator of sycamores.” The LXX. rendering is due to the process of maturing the
fruit, which grows on the stem of the trunk, and is made to mature by
puncturing it with an iron instrument, when after three days the fruit
is fit to eat. The Hebrew word occurs only this once in the
Bible; Aquila renders it by “Looking for;” Symmachus by
“propping with stakes.” Susannah.
XV. They spoke with strange tongues, and not
those of their native land; and the wonder was great, a language spoken
by those who had not learnt it. And the sign is to them that
believe not, The actual order of
the words in the Greek of
XVI. But as the old Confusion of tongues was
laudable, when men who were of one language in wickedness and impiety,
even as some now venture to be, were building the Tower; Arians, Macedonians,
and kindred sects.
XVII. Next, since it was to inhabitants of Jerusalem, most devout Jews, Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, Egyptians, and Libyans, Cretans too, and Arabians, and Mesopotamians, and my own Cappadocians, that the tongues spake, and to Jews (if any one prefer so to understand it), out of every nation under heaven thither collected; it is worth while to see who these were and of what captivity. For the captivity in Egypt and Babylon was circumscribed, and moreover had long since been brought to an end by the Return; and that under the Romans, which was exacted for their audacity against our Saviour, was not yet come to pass, though it was in the near future. It remains then to understand it of the captivity under Antiochus, which happened not so very long before this time. But if any does not accept this explanation, as being too elaborate, seeing that this captivity was neither ancient nor widespread over the world, and is looking for a more reliable—perhaps the best way to take it would be as follows. The nation was removed many times, as Esdras related; and some of the Tribes were recovered, and some were left behind; of whom probably (dispersed as they were among the nations) some would have been present and shared the miracle.
XVIII. These questions have been examined before by the studious, and perhaps not without occasion; and whatever else any one may contribute at the present day, he will be joined with us. But now it is our duty to dissolve this Assembly, for enough has been said. But the Festival is never to be put an end to; but kept now indeed with our bodies; but a little later on altogether spiritually there, where we shall see the reasons of these things more purely and clearly, in the Word Himself, and God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, the True Festival and Rejoicing of the Saved—to Whom be the glory and the worship, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, now and for ever. Amen.
Oration XLII.
The Last Farewell in the Presence of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops.
ThisOration was delivered during the Second Œcumenical Council, held at Constantinople a.d. 381. Historical as well as personal motives render the occasion of the deepest interest. The audience consisted of the one hundred and fifty Bishops of the Eastern Church who took part in the Council, and of the speaker’s own flock, the orthodox Christians of Constantinople. He had by his own exertions gathered that flock together, after it had been ravaged by heretical teachers. He had won the admiration and affection of its members, by his courageous championship of the Faith, his lucid teaching, and his fatherly care for their spiritual needs. He had been, against his will, enthroned with acclamation in the highest ecclesiastical position in the Eastern Church, and called to preside over the Synod of its assembled Bishops. Finding himself unable to guide the deliberations of the Council in regard to a question of the highest importance, and perceiving that he himself and his position were made by some of the Bishops a fresh cause of dissension, he felt bound to resign his high office, and endeavour by this personal sacrifice to restore peace to the Church. His language is worthy of the occasion. Obliged to deal with the topics which had caused dissension, he handles them with gentle and discriminating tact; he speaks with great self-restraint in his own defence; he sets forth with tenderest feeling the common experiences of himself and his flock; he gives with dignity and clearness his last public exposition of the Faith; and finally, in language of exquisite beauty, spoken with the quivering tones of an aged man, he bids a tender farewell to his flock, his cathedral, and his throne, with all their affecting associations. It was an occasion whose pathos is unsurpassed in history. Orator and audience were alike deeply moved, and the emotion has been renewed in all those who have read his words, and realised the scene of their delivery.
1. What think ye of
our affairs, dear shepherds and fellow-shepherds: whose feet are
beautiful, for you bring glad tidings of peace S.
2. What then is my defence? On behalf of,
i.e., the Christians of Constantinople, whose Pastor he had been, who
were present at the time in the church.
3. To speak in a more feeling strain,
trusting in Him Who then forsook me, as in a Father, “Abraham has
been ignorant of us, Israel has acknowledged us not, but Thou art our
Father, and unto Thee do we look; Nebuchadnezzar,
i.e., Julian. The second,
i.e. Valens.
4. To return to my original
startingpoint. This was my field, when it was small and poor,
unworthy not only of God, Who has been, and is cultivating the whole
world with the fair seeds and doctrines of piety, but, apparently, even
of any poor and needy man of slender means. Nay it did not
deserve to be called a field, requiring neither barn nor
threshing-floor, and not even worthy of the sickle; with neither heap
nor sheaves, or small and untimely sheaves, like those on the housetop,
which do not fill the hand of the reaper, nor call forth a blessing
from them which go by.
5. But since God, Who maketh poor and maketh
rich, Who killeth and maketh alive; S.
6. Such then was once this flock, and such it is
now, so healthy and well grown, and if it be not yet in perfection, it
is advancing towards it by constant increase, and I pro
7. I seem indeed to hear that voice, from
Him Who gathers together those who are broken, and welcomes the
oppressed: Enlarge thy cords, break forth on the right hand and
on the left, drive in thy stakes, spare not thy curtains. S.
8. Thou countest tens of thousands, God
counts those who are in a state of salvation; thou countest the dust
which is without number, I the vessels of election. For nothing
is so magnificent in God’s sight as pure doctrine, and a soul
perfect in all the dogmas of the truth.—For there is nothing
worthy of Him Who made all things, of Him by Whom are all things, and
for Whom are all things, To tread,
etc. The Arians for a time had been in possession of the churches
of Constantinople.
9. This I seemed to hear Him say, and to see
Him do, and besides, to hear Him shouting to His people, which once
were few and scattered and miserable, and have now become many, and
compact enough and enviable, Go through Go
through, etc. This passage refers to the restoration of
the churches to the orthodox by Theodosius, Jan. 10, a.d. 381. S.
10. These we present to you, dear shepherds,
these we offer to you, with these we welcome our friends, and guests,
and fellow pilgrims. We have nothing fairer or more splendid to
offer to you, for we have selected the greatest of all our possessions,
that you may see that, strangers as we are, we are not in want, but
though poor are making many rich.
11. Lift up thine eyes round about, and
see,
12. To those who platted this
crown—that which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord,
13. Would you have me say something still more
venturesome? Do you see the tongues of the enemy made gentle, and
those S.
14. But you are perhaps longing for me to give an exposition of the faith, in so far as I am able. For I shall myself be sanctified by the effort of memory, and the people also will be benefited, by its special delight in such discussions, and you will fully acknowledge it—unless we are the objects of groundless envy, as the rivals, in the manifestation of the truth, of those whom we do not excel. For as, of deep waters, some in the depths are utterly hidden, some foam against any obstruction, and hesitate a while before breaking (as they promise to our ears), some do actually break; so also, of those who are professors of the Divine philosophy—setting aside the utterly misguided—some keep their piety entirely secret and hidden within themselves, some are not far from the birth pangs, avoiding impiety, yet not speaking out their piety, either from cautious reserve in their teaching, or under pressure of fear, being themselves sound, as they say, in mind, but not making sound their people, as if they had been entrusted with the government of their own souls, but not of those of others; while there are some who make public their treasure, unable to restrain themselves from giving birth to their piety, and not considering that to be salvation which saves themselves alone, without bestowing upon others the overflow of their blessings. Among these would I range myself, and all who by my side have nobly dared to confess the truth.
15. One concise proclamation of our teaching, an inscription intelligible to all, is this people, which so sincerely worships the Trinity, that it would sooner sever anyone from this life, than sever one of the three from the Godhead: of one mind, of equal zeal, and united to one another, to us and to the Trinity by unity of doctrine. Briefly to run over its details: That which is without beginning, and is the beginning, and is with the beginning, is one God. For the nature of that which is without beginning does not consist in being without beginning or being unbegotten, for the nature of anything lies, not in what it is not but in what it is. It is the assertion of what is, not the denial of what is not. And the Beginning is not, because it is a beginning, separated from that which has no beginning. For its beginning is not its nature, any more than the being without beginning is the nature of the other. For these are the accompaniments of the nature, not the nature itself. That again which is with that which has no beginning, and with the beginning, is not anything else than what they are. Now, the name of that which has no beginning is the Father, and of the Beginning the Son, and of that which is with the Beginning, the Holy Ghost, and the three have one Nature—God. And the union is the Father from Whom and to Whom the order of Persons runs its course, not so as to be confounded, but so as to be possessed, without distinction of time, of will, or of power. For these things in our case produce a plurality of individuals, since each of them is separate both from every other quality, and from every other individual possession of the same quality. But to Those who have a simple nature, and whose essence is the same, the term One belongs in its highest sense.
16. Let us then bid farewell to all contentious
shiftings and balancings of the truth on either side, neither, like the
Sabellians, assailing the Trinity in the interest of the Unity, and so
destroying the distinction by a wicked confusion; nor, like the Arians,
assailing the Unity in the interest of the Trinity, and by an impious
distinction overthrowing the Oneness. For our object is not to
exchange one evil for another, but to ensure our attainment of that
which is good. These are the playthings of the Wicked One,
With three
faces (or masks). A play upon the word πρόσωπον which is
used in theology in the sense of Person.
Properties. Cf. xliii. 30, note.
17. But, to resume: let us speak of the Unbegotten, the Begotten, and the Proceeding, if anyone likes to create names: for we shall have no fear of bodily conceptions attaching to Those who are not embodied, as the calumniators of the Godhead think. For the creature must be called God’s, and this is for us a great thing, but God never. Otherwise I shall admit that God is a creature, if I become God, in the strict sense of the term. For this is the truth. If God, He is not a creature; for the creature ranks with us who are not Gods. And if a creature, he is not God, for he had a beginning in time. And there was a time when he who had a beginning was not. And that of which non-existence was its prior condition, has not being in the strict sense of the term. And how can that, which strictly has not being, be God? Not one single one, then, of the Three is a creature, nor, what is worse, came into being for my sake; for in that case he would be not only a creature, but inferior in honour to us. For, if I am for the glory of God, and he is for my sake, as the tongs for the waggon, the saw for the door, I am his superior in causality. For in whatever degree God is superior to creatures, in the same degree is he, who came into being for my sake, inferior to me who exist for God’s sake.
18. Moreover, the Moabites and Ammonites
must not even be allowed to enter
20. What then do I mean? I am no proficient in virtue without reward, having not attained to so high a degree of virtue. Give me the reward of my labours. What reward? Not that which some, prone to any suspicion would suppose, but that which it is safe for me to seek. Give me a respite from my long labours; give honour to my foreign service; elect another in my place, the one who is being eagerly sought on your behalf, someone who is clean of hands, someone who is not unskilled in voice, someone who is able to gratify you on all points, and share with you the ecclesiastical cares; for this is especially the time for such. But behold, I pray you, the condition of this body, so drained by time, by disease, by toil. What need have you of a timid and unmanly old man, who is, so to speak, dying day by day, not only in body, but even in powers of mind, who finds it difficult to enter into these details before you? Disobey not the voice of your teacher: for indeed you have never yet disobeyed it. I am weary of being charged with my gentleness. I am weary of being assailed in words and in envy by enemies, and by our own. Some aim at my breast, and are less successful in their effort, for an open enemy can be guarded against. Others lie in wait for my back, and give greater pain, for the unsuspected blow is the more fatal. If again I have been a pilot, I have been one of the most skilful; the sea has been boisterous around us, boiling about the ship, and there has been considerable uproar among the passengers, who have always been fighting about something or another, and roaring against one another and the waves. What a struggle I have had, seated at the helm, contending alike with the sea and the passengers, to bring the vessel safe to land through this double storm? Had they in every way supported me, safety would have been hardly won, and when they were opposed to me, how has it been possible to avoid making shipwreck?
21. What more need be said? But how
can I bear this holy war? For there has been said to be a holy,
as well as a Persian, war. A Holy
War. That against the Phocians to avenge their sacrilege at
Delphi.
22. § 22 is a
comparison of Ecclesiastical partisanship to the emulation and party
spirit connected with the horse races in the amphitheatre. Narrow strait,
lit. Euripus.
23. Now, consider the charges laid against
us. You have been ruler of the church, it is said, for so long,
and favoured by the course of time, and the influence of the sovereign,
a most important matter. What change have we been able to
notice? How many men have in days gone by used us
outrageously? What sufferings have we failed to undergo?
Ill-usage? Threats? Banishment? Plunder?
Confiscation? The burning The burning,
etc., cf. This was by order of Valens. Demand.
After all these persecutions, some thought S. Gregory ought to have
used his influence with Theodosius to requite or punish the former
persecutors of the orthodox.
24. Perhaps Perhaps, an
ironical passage.
25. What say you? Are you persuaded,
have you been overcome by my words? Or must I use stronger terms
in order to persuade you? Yea by the Trinity Itself, Whom you and
I alike worship, by our common hope, and for the sake of the unity of
this people, grant me this favour; dismiss me with your prayers; let
this be the proclamation of my contest; give me my certificate of
retirement, as sovereigns do to their soldiers; and, if you will, with
a favourable testimony, that I may enjoy the honour of it; if not, just
as you please; this will make no difference to me, until God sees what
my case really is. What successor then shall we elect? God
will provide Himself
26. Farewell my Anastasia,
Anastasia. The little church “of the
Resurrection” in which the orthodox Christians worshipped with S.
Gregory at first on his arrival, while the churches of the city were
held by the heretics. Apostles.
The Church of the Holy Apostles, to which Constantius translated the
relics of SS. Andrew, Luke and Timothy. Satan, i.e.,
“thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan”—in S.
Gregory’s case serious ill health. S.
27. Farewell, mighty Christ-loving
city. I will testify to the truth, though thy zeal be not
according to knowledge.
Oration XLIII.
Funeral Oration on the Great S. Basil, Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia.
S. Basil died January 1, a.d. 379. A serious illness, in addition to other causes, prevented S. Gregory from being present at his funeral (Epist. 79). Benoît holds that an expression (Epitaph, cxix. 38) in which S. Gregory says that his “lips are fettered” proves that he was still in retirement at Seleucia. This is an unwarranted deduction. In this Oration, § 2, the Saint, alluding to his illness in disparaging terms, alleges his labours at Constantinople as a more pressing reason for his absence: and says that he undertook the task according to the judgment of S. Basil. This implies that S. Gregory went to Constantinople before the death of S. Basil, or that he had then been influenced by his friend’s advice and was on the point of setting out—more probably the former, as we may be sure that, if S. Gregory had been still at Seleucia, no reason but physical incapacity would have kept him from his friend’s side. His pressing duties at Constantinople and the difficulties of the long journey were the “other causes” of his letter to S. Gregory of Nyssa: and we know that he suffered from serious illness at Constantinople (Carm. xi. 887. Orat. xxiii. 1). S. Gregory left Constantinople in June, a.d. 381, and Tillemont places the date of this Oration soon after his return to Nazianzus. Benoît thinks that it was probably delivered on the anniversary of S. Basil’s death. The Oration, as all critics are agreed, is one of great power and beauty. Its length (62 pages folio), the physical weakness of the speaker, and the limits of the endurance of even an interested audience, incline us to suppose that it was not spoken in its present form. We cannot well set aside expressions which clearly point to actual delivery, but it may have been amplified later.
1. It has then been
ordained that the great Basil, who used so constantly to furnish me
with subjects for my discourses, of which he was quite as proud as any
other man of his own, should himself now furnish me with the grandest
subject which has ever fallen to the lot of an orator. For I
think that if anyone desired, in making trial of his powers of
eloquence, to test them by the standard of that one of all his subjects
which he preferred (as painters do with epoch-making pictures), he
would choose that which stood first of all others, but would set aside
this as beyond the powers of human eloquence. So great a task is
the praise of such a man, not only to me, who have long ago laid aside
all thought of emulation, but even to those who live for eloquence, and
whose sole object is the gaining of glory by subjects like this.
Such is my opinion, and, as I persuade myself, with perfect
justice. But I know not what subject I can treat with eloquence,
if not this; or what greater favour I can do to myself, to the admirers
of virtue, or to eloquence itself, than express our admiration for this
man. To me it is the discharge of a most sacred debt. And
our speech is a debt beyond all others due to those who have been
gifted, in particular, with powers of speech. To the admirers of
virtue a discourse is at once a pleasure and an incentive to
virtue. For when For when,
etc. This seems to be the sense of an admittedly difficult
sentence.
2. These are the reasons which have urged me to
speak, and to address myself to this contest. And at my late
appearance, long after his praises have been set forth by so many, who
have publicly and privately done him honour, let no one be
surprised. Yea, may I be pardoned by that divine soul, the object
of my constant reverence! And as, when he was amongst us, he
constantly corrected me in many points, according to the rights of a
friend and the still higher law; for I am not ashamed to say this, for
he was a standard of virtue to us all; so now, looking down upon me
from above, he will treat me with indul As priests, or,
more generally, “as those who approach our temples.”
In the E. there were lavers at the entrance to the churches for the
ablutions of intending worshippers. Of the task,
i.e., of restoring the orthodox faith in Constantinople. Fetter, i.e.,
the body.
3. Had I seen him to be proud of his birth,
and the rights of birth, or any of those infinitely little objects of
those whose eyes are on the ground, we should have had to inspect a new
catalogue of the Heroes. What details as to his ancestors might I
not have laid under contribution! Nor would even history have had
any advantage over me, since I claim this advantage, that his celebrity
depends, not upon fiction or legend, but upon actual facts attested by
many witnesses. On his father’s side Pontus offers to me
many details, in no wise inferior to its wonders of old time, of which
all history and poesy are full; History and
poesy, e.g., Xenophon, Polybius, and Apollonius. Renowned,
etc. Cf. Homer, Od. ix. 27.
4. But since our subject is a man who has maintained that each man’s nobility is to be judged of according to his own worth, and that, as forms and colours, and likewise our most celebrated and most infamous horses, are tested by their own properties, so we too ought not to be depicted in borrowed plumes; after mentioning one or two traits, which, though inherited from his ancestors, he made his own by his life, and which are specially likely to give pleasure to my hearers, I will then proceed to deal with the man himself. Different families and individuals have different points of distinction and interest, great or small, which, like a patrimony of longer or shorter descent, come down to posterity: the distinction of his family on either side was piety, which I now proceed to display.
5. There was a persecution, the most
frightful and severe of all; I mean, as you know, the persecution of
Maximinus, which, following closely upon those which immediately
preceded it, made them all seem gentle, by its excessive audacity, and
by its eagerness to win the crown of violence in impiety. It was
overcome by many of our champions, who wrestled with it to the death,
or well-nigh to the death, with only life enough left in them to
survive their victory, and not pass away in the midst of the struggle;
remaining to be trainers Trainers, lit.
“anointers”—those who physically and by their advice
prepared athletes for their exercises.
6. But since their strife must needs be lawful, and the law of martyrdom alike forbids us voluntarily to go to meet it (in consideration for the persecutors, and for the weak) or to shrink from it if it comes upon us; for the former shows foolhardiness, the latter cowardice; in this respect they paid due honour to the Lawgiver; but what was their device, or rather, to what were they led by the Providence which guided them in all things? They betook themselves to a thicket on the mountains of Pontus, of which there are many deep ones of considerable extent, with very few comrades of their flight, or attendants upon their needs. Let others marvel at the length of time, for their flight was exceedingly prolonged, to about seven years, or a little more, and their mode of life, delicately nurtured as they were, was straitened and unusual, as may be imagined, with the discomfort of its exposure to frost and heat and rain: and the wilderness allowed no fellowship or converse with friends: a great trial to men accustomed to the attendance and honour of a numerous retinue. But I will proceed to speak of what is still greater and more extraordinary: nor will anyone fail to credit it, save those who, in their feeble and dangerous judgment, think little of persecutions and dangers for Christ’s sake.
7. These noble men, suffering from the lapse
of time, and feeling a distaste for ordinary food, felt a longing for
something more appetising. They did not indeed speak as Israel
did,
8. O what a wonder! They were
themselves stewards of the chase; what they would, was caught by the
mere will to do so; what was left, they sent away to the thickets, for
another meal. The cooks were extemporised, the dinner exquisite,
the guests were grateful for this wonderful foretaste of their
hopes. And hence they grew more earnest in their struggle, in
return for which they had received this blessing. Such is my
history. And do thou, my persecutor, in thy admiration for
legends, tell of thy huntresses, Huntresses,
esp. Artemis, a passion for whom was fatal to Orion and
Actæon. The maiden,
Iphigenia, daughter of Agamemnon.
9. The union of his parents, cemented as it was by a community of virtue, no less than by cohabitation, was notable for many reasons, especially for generosity to the poor, for hospitality, for purity of soul as the result of self-discipline, for the dedication to God of a portion of their property, a matter not as yet so much cared for by most men, as it now has grown to be, in consequence of such previous examples, as have given distinction to it, and for all those other points, which have been published throughout Pontus and Cappadocia, to the satisfaction of many: in my opinion, however, their greatest claim to distinction is the excellence of their children. Legend indeed has its instances of men whose children were many and beautiful, but it is practical experience which has presented to us these parents, whose own character, apart from that of their children, was sufficient for their fair fame, while the character of their children would have made them, even without their own eminence in virtue, to surpass all men by the excellence of their children. For the attainment of distinction by one or two of their offspring might be ascribed to their nature; but when all are eminent, the honour is clearly due to those who brought them up. This is proved by the blessed roll of priests and virgins, and of those who, when married, have allowed nothing in their union to hinder them from attaining an equal repute, and so have made the distinction between them to consist in the condition, rather than in the mode of their life.
10. Who has not known Basil, our archbishop’s father, a great name to everyone, who attained a father’s prayer, if anyone, I will not say as no one, ever did? For he surpassed all in virtue, and was only prevented by his son from gaining the first prize. Who has not known Emmelia, whose name was a forecast of what she became, or else whose life was an exemplification of her name? For she had a right to the name which implies gracefulness, and occupied, to speak concisely, the same place among women, as her husband among men. So that, when it was decided that he, in whose honour we are met, should be given to men to submit to the bondage of nature, as anyone of old has been given by God for the common advantage, it was neither fitting that he should be born of other parents, nor that they should possess another son: and so the two things suitably concurred. I have now, in obedience to the Divine law which bids us to pay all honour to parents, bestowed the firstfruits of my praises upon those whom I have commemorated, and proceed to treat of Basil himself, premising this, which I think will seem true to all who knew him, that we only need his own voice to pronounce his eulogium. For he is at once a brilliant subject for praise, and the only one whose powers of speech make him worthy of treating it. Beauty indeed and strength and size, in which I see that most men rejoice, I concede to anyone who will—not that even in these points he was inferior to any of those men of small minds who busy themselves about the body, while he was still young, and had not yet reduced the flesh by austerity—but that I may avoid the fate of unskilful athletes, who waste their strength in vain efforts after minor objects, and so are worsted in the crucial struggle, whose results are victory and the distinction of the crown. The praise, then, which I shall claim for him is based upon grounds which no one, I think, will consider superfluous, or beyond the scope of my oration.
11. I take it as admitted by men of sense,
that the first of our advantages is education; and not only this our
more noble form of it, which disregards rhetorical ornaments and glory,
and holds to salvation, and beauty in the objects of our
contemplation: but even that external culture which many
Christians ill-judgingly abhor, as treacherous and dangerous, and
keeping us afar from God. For as we ought not to neglect the
heavens, and earth, and air, and all such things, because some have
wrongly seized upon them, and honour God’s works instead of
God: but to reap what advantage we can from them for our life and
enjoyment, while we avoid their dangers; not raising creation, as
foolish men do, in revolt against the Creator, but from the works of
nature apprehending the Worker,
12. In his earliest years he was swathed and
fashioned, in that best and purest fashioning which the Divine David
speaks of as proceeding day by day, Centaur.
Alluding to Chiron, the tutor of Achilles.
13. When sufficiently trained at home, as he
ought to fall short in no form of excellence, and not be surpassed by
the busy bee, which gathers what is most useful from every flower, he
set out for the city of Cæsarea, Cæsarea,
the Cappadocian city, as seems plain from the context. Yet
Tillemont and Billius incline to think Cæsarea in Palestine is
meant. Chair, etc.,
Before he had studied rhetoric and philosophy.
14. Thence to Byzantium, the imperial city of the
East, for it was distinguished by the eminence of its rhetorical and
philosophic teachers, whose most valuable lessons he soon assimilated
by the quickness and force of his powers: thence he was sent by
God, and by his generous craving for culture, to Athens the home of
letters. Athens, which has been to me, if to
15. We were contained by Athens, like two
branches of some river-stream, for after leaving the common fountain of
our fatherland, we had been separated in our varying pursuit of
culture, and were now again united by the impulsion of God no less than
by our own agreement. I preceded him by a little, but he soon
followed me, to be welcomed with great and brilliant hope. For he
was versed in many languages, before his arrival, and it was a great
thing for either of us to outstrip the other in the attainment of some
object of our study. And I may well add, as a seasoning to any
speech, a short narrative, which will be a reminder to those who know
it, a source of information to those who do not. Most of the
young men at Athens in their folly are mad after rhetorical
skill—not only those who are ignobly born and unknown, but even
the noble and illustrious, in the general mass of young men difficult
to keep under control. They are just like men devoted to horses
and exhibitions, as we see, at the horse-races; they leap, They leap,
etc. This passage refers to the spectators who unite in sympathy
with, and imitate as far as possible, in their excitement, the actions
of, those who drive the chariots in the races.
16. Whenever any newcomer arrives, and falls into
the hands of those who seize upon him, either by force or willingly,
they observe this Attic law, of combined jest and earnest. He is
first conducted to the house of one of those who were the first to
receive him, or of his friends, or kinsmen, or countrymen, or of those
who are eminent in debating power, and purveyors of arguments, and
therefore especially honoured among them; and their reward consists in
the gain of adherents. He is next subjected to the raillery of
any one who will, with the intention I suppose, of checking the conceit
of the newcomers, and reducing them to subjection at once. The
raillery is of a more insolent or argumentative kind, according to the
boorishness or refinement of the railer: and the performance,
which seems very fearful and brutal to those who do not know it, is to
those who have experienced it very pleasant and humane: for its
threats are feigned rather than real. Next, he is conducted in
procession through the market place to the bath. The procession
is formed by those who are charged with it in the young man’s
honour, who arrange themselves in two ranks separated by an interval,
and precede him to the bath. But when they have approached it,
they shout and leap wildly, as if possessed, shouting that they must
not advance, but stay, since the bath will not admit them; and at the
same time frighten the youth by furiously knocking at the doors:
then allowing him to enter, they now present him with his freedom, and
receive him after the bath as an equal, and one of themselves.
This they consider the most pleasant part of the ceremony, as being a
speedy exchange and relief from annoyances. On this occasion I
not only refused to put to shame my friend the great Basil, out of
respect for the gravity of
17. This was the prelude of our
friendship. This was the kindling spark of our union: thus
we felt the wound of mutual love. Then something of this kind
happened, for I think it right not to omit even this. I find the
Armenians to be not a simple race, but very crafty and cunning.
At this time some of his special comrades and friends, who had been
intimate with him even in the early days of his father’s
instruction, for they were members of his school, came up to him under
the guise of friendship, but with envious, and not kindly intent, and
put to him questions of a disputations rather than rational kind,
trying to overwhelm him at the first onset, having known his original
natural endowments, and unable to brook the honour he had then
received. For they thought it a strange thing that they who had
put on their gowns, and been exercised in shouting, should not get the
better of one who was a stranger and a novice. I also, in my vain
love for Athens, and trusting to their professions without perceiving
their envy, when they were giving way, and turning their backs, since I
was indignant that in their persons the reputation of Athens should be
destroyed, and so speedily put to shame, supported the young men, and
restored the argument; and by the aid of my additional weight, for in
such cases a small addition makes all the difference, and, as the poet
says, “made equal their heads in the fray.” Homer Il. xi. 72. Ib. xi. 496.
18. Their efforts having thus proved fruitless, while they severely blamed their own rashness, they cherished such annoyance against me that it broke out into open hostility, and a charge of treachery, not only to them, but to Athens herself: inasmuch as they had been confuted and put to shame at the first onset, by a single student, who had not even had time to gain confidence. He moreover, according to that human feeling, which makes us, when we have all at once attained to the high hopes which we have cherished, look upon their results as inferior to our expectation, he, I say, was displeased and annoyed, and could take no delight in his arrival. He was seeking for what he had expected, and called Athens an empty happiness. I however tried to remove his annoyance, both by argumentative encounter, and by the enchantments of reasoning; alleging, as is true, that the disposition of a man cannot at once be detected, without a long time and more constant association, and that culture likewise is not made known to those who make trial of her, after a few efforts and in a short time. In this way I restored his cheerfulness, and by this mutual experience, he was the more closely united to me.
19. And when, as time went on, we
acknowledged our mutual affection, and that philosophy Philosophy,
here, a truly Christian life.
20. Such were our feelings for each other,
when we had thus supported, as Pindar Olymp. Od. vi. 1.
We were impelled by equal hopes, in a pursuit
especially obnoxious to envy, that of letters. Yet envy we knew
not, and emulation was of service to us. We struggled, not each
to gain the first place for himself, but to yield it to the other; for
we made each other’s reputation to be our own. We seemed to
have one soul, inhabiting two bodies. And if we must not believe
those whose doctrine is “All things All things,
etc., i.e. Empedocles and Anaxagoras.
21. Two ways were known to us, the first of
greater value, the second of smaller consequence: the one leading
to our sacred buildings and the teachers there, the other to secular
instructors. All others we left to those who would pursue
them—to feasts, theatres, meetings, banquets. For nothing
is in my opinion of value, save that which leads to virtue and to the
improvement of its devotees. Different men have different names,
derived from their fathers, their families, their pursuits, their
exploits: we had but one great business and name—to be and
to be called Christians of which we thought more than Gyges Gyges is said
to have had a ring by means of which he could make himself invisible,
and by thus using it was able to seize on the Kingdom of Lydia. Midas, said to
have had the power granted of turning everything he touched to
gold. Accordingly, as this power took effect on his food, he died
of hunger. Abaris, a
Hyperborean priest of Apollo, who was said to have given him an arrow,
on which he rode through the air. Pegasus, called
Argive, because caught near to Argos, the winged horse, by the aid of
which Bellerophon was said to have destroyed the Chimæra. A river,
etc. The Alpheus, a river of Arcadia. Animal.
The salamander, a lizard said to be impervious to the action of
fire. Plin. N. H. x. 67.
22. And, best of all, we were surrounded by
a far from ignoble band, under his instruction and guidance, and
delighting in the same objects, as we ran on foot beside that Lydian
car, Lydian car,
proverbial expression for anything whose speed distances all
competitors. Orestes and
Pylades, types of close comradeship in Greek tragedies. Sons of
Molione, Eurytus and Cteatus, Hom. Il. ii. 621. Their father
was Actor.
23. Who possessed such a degree of the
prudence of old age, even before his hair was gray? Since it is
by this that Solomon defines old age. Which breathes,
a phrase used Hom. Il. vi. 182 of the Chimæra. Labyrinths, the
mythical mazes of Crete, the home of the Minotaur. Minos and
Rhadamanthus, Kings of Crete and Lycia, fabled to have been made
judges in the lower world because of their justice when on earth.
24. Such was the case, and his galleon was
laden with all the learning attainable by the nature of man; for beyond
Cadiz Beyond
Cadiz. The Atlantic Ocean beyond Cadiz was reputed impassable
by the ancients.
25. Upon our return, after a slight
indulgence to the world and the stage, sufficient to gratify the
general desire, not from any inclination to theatrical display, we soon
became independent, and, after being promoted from the rank of
beardless boys to that of men, made bold advances along the road of
philosophy, for though no longer together, since envy would not allow
this, we were united by our eager desire. The city of
Cæsarea took possession of him, as a second founder and patron,
but in course of time he was occasionally absent, as a matter of
necessity due to our separation, and with a view to our determined
course of philosophy. Dutiful attendance on my aged parents, and
a succession of misfortunes kept me apart from him, perhaps without
right or justice, but so it was. And to this cause I am inclined
to ascribe all the inconsistency and difficulty which have befallen my
life, and the hindrances in the way of philosophy, which have been
unworthy of my desire and purpose. But as for my fate, let it
lead whither God pleases, only may its course be the better for his
intercessions. As regards himself, the manifold love of God
toward man,
26. For I do not praise the disorder and
irregularity which sometimes exist among us, even in those who preside
over the sanctuary. I do not venture, nor is it just, to accuse
them all. I approve the nautical custom, which first gives the
oar to the future steersman, and afterward leads him to the stern, and
entrusts him with the command, and seats him at the helm, only after a
long course of striking the sea and observing the winds. As is
the case again in military affairs: private, captain,
general. This order is the best and most advantageous for their
subordinates. And if it were so in our case, it would be of great
service. But, as it is, there is a danger of the holiest of all
offices being the most ridiculous among us. For promotion depends
not upon virtue, but upon villany; and the sacred thrones fall not to
the most Worthy, but to the most powerful. Samuel, the seer into
futurity, is among the prophets: but Saul, the rejected one, is
also there. Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, is among the kings, but
so also is Jeroboam, the slave and apostate. And there is not a
physician, or a painter who has not first studied the nature of
diseases, or mixed many colours, or practised drawing: but a
prelate is easily found, without laborious training, with a reputation
of recent date, being sown and springing up in a moment, as the
legend The legend,
i.e., of Cadmus who sowed at Thebes the dragon’s teeth from which
sprung giants.
27. Not so our great and illustrious
Basil. In this grace, as in all others, he was a public
example. For he first read to the people the sacred books, while
already able to expound them, nor did he deem himself worthy of this
rank This rank,
i.e., the office of Lector, or Reader.
28. There arose a disagreement between him
and his predecessor His
predecessor, Eusebius, Archbishop of Cæsarea. Nazarites,
i.e., the monks. Their chief,
i.e., Basil. His opponent,
lit. “the man who was vexing him,” i.e., Eusebius. Bishops.
It is uncertain who these bishops were. Clémencet thinks
they were Lucifer and Eusebius of Vercellæ. But a separation
had ere this taken place between them in consequence of Lucifer’s
rash action at Antioch. Nor is it certain that Eusebius had not
already returned to Italy.
29. What then did our noble friend, the
disciple of the Peaceable One? It was not his habit to resist his
traducers or partisans, nor was it his part to fight, or rend the body
of the Church, which was from other reasons the subject of attack, and
hardly bestead, from the great power of the heretics. With my
advice and earnest encouragement on the point, he set out from the
place with me into Pontus, and presided over the abodes of
contemplation there. He himself too founded one One, a
monastery. The rule of S. Basil is widely observed to this day in
Eastern monasteries. Cf. § 34. John, Saint
John Baptist.
30. While we were thus engaged, there
suddenly arose a cloud full of hail, with destructive roar,
overwhelming every Church upon which it burst and seized: an
Emperor, An Emperor,
Valens. Madness, cf.
ii. 37, Note. Glory.
The word δόξα
means both “doctrine” and “glory.”
Properties. ἰδιότητες.
Petav. de Trin. iv. Proem. § 2 gives other Greek equivalent
terms. The Latin terms are “notiones” (S.
Thom. Aq. Summa. I. xxxii. qu. 2), “proprietates” or
relationes. They denote those relative “attributes
ad intra” which distinguish the Persons, if they do not actually
constitute the Personality of each of the Three Divine Persons.
They are five in number, Unbegottenness, Paternity, Filiation, active
and passive Spiration. Perhaps the nearest English equivalent is
“characteristic (or distinctive) relations.”—Cf.
Orat. xlii. 15.
31. Such was his mind, and with such impiety he took the field against us. For we must consider it to be nothing else than a barbaric inroad which, instead of destroying walls, cities and houses, and other things of little worth, made with hands and capable of restoration, spent its ravages upon men’s souls. A worthy army joined in his assault, the evil rulers of the Churches, the bitter governors of his world-wide Empire. Some of the Churches they now held, some they were assaulting, others they hoped to gain by the already exercised influence of the Emperor, and the violence which he threatened. But in their purpose of perverting our own, their confidence was specially based on the smallness of mind of those whom I have mentioned, the inexperience of our prelate, and the infirmities which prevailed among us. The struggle would be fierce: the zeal of numerous troops was far from ignoble, but their array was weak, from the want of a leader and strategist to contend for them with the might of the Word and of the Spirit. What then did this noble and magnanimous and truly Christ-loving soul? No need of many words to urge his presence and aid. At once when he saw me on my mission, for the struggle on behalf of the faith was common to us both, he yielded to my entreaty; and decided by a most excellent distinction, based on spiritual reasons, that the time for punctiliousness (if indeed we may give way to such feelings at all) is a time of security, but that forbearance is required in the hour of necessity. He immediately returned with me from Pontus, and as a zealous volunteer took his place in the fight for the endangered truth, and devoted himself to the service of his mother, the Church.
32. Did then his actual efforts fall short
of his preliminary zeal? Were they directed by courage, but not
by prudence, or by skill, while he shrank from danger? Or, in
spite of their unexampled perfection on all these points, was there
left in him some trace of irritation? Far from it. He was
at once completely reconciled, and took part in every plan and
effort. He removed all the thorns and stumbling blocks which were
in our way, upon which the enemy relied in their attack upon us.
He took hold of one, grasped another, thrust away a third. He
became to some a stout wall and rampart,
33. Thus the enemy failed, and, base men as they were, for the first time were then basely put to shame and worsted, learning not to be ready to despise the Cappadocians, of all men in the world, whose special qualities are firmness in the faith, and loyal devotion to the Trinity; to Whom is due their unity and strength, and from Whom they receive an even greater and stronger assistance than they are able to give. Basil’s next business and purpose was to conciliate the prelate, to allay suspicion, to persuade all men that the irritation which had been felt was due to the temptation and effort of the Evil one, in his envy of virtuous concord: carefully complying with the laws of obedience and spiritual order. Accordingly he visited him, with instruction and advice. While obedient to his wishes, he was everything to him, a good counsellor, a skilful assistant, an expounder of the Divine Will, a guide of conduct, a staff for his old age, a support of the faith, most trusty of those within, most practical of those without, in a word, as much inclined to goodwill, as he had been thought to hostility. And so the power of the Church came into his hands almost, if not quite, to an equal degree with the occupant of the see. For in return for his good-will, he was requited with authority. And their harmony and combination of power was wonderful. The one was the leader of the people, the other of their leader, like a lion-keeper, skilfully soothing the possessor of power. For, having been recently installed in the see, and still somewhat under the influence of the world, and not yet furnished with the things of the Spirit, in the midst of the eddying tide of enemies assaulting the Church, he was in need of some one to take him by the hand and support him. Accordingly he accepted the alliance, and imagined himself the conqueror of one who had conquered him.
34. Of his care for and protection of the Church,
there are many other tokens; his boldness towards the governors and
other
Legislation. Cf. § 30. Prayers.
The liturgy of S. Basil together with that of S. Chrysostom are still
the authorized liturgies of the Eastern Church.
35. He indeed could neither rain bread from
heaven by prayer, S.
36. Such was our young furnisher of corn,
and second Joseph: though of him we can say somewhat more.
For the one made a gain from the famine, and bought up Egypt
37. After these and similar
actions—why need I stay to mention them all?—when the
prelate whose name Name, Eusebius,
i.e., “pious,” “godly.” Men.
Eusebius of Samosaba and S. Gregory the Elder.
38. Having thus been deemed worthy of the
office of prelate, as it is seemly that men should who have lived such
a life, and won such favour and consideration, he did not disgrace, by
his subsequent conduct, either his own philosophy, or the hopes of
those who had trusted him. But he ever so far surpassed himself
as he has been shown hitherto to have surpassed others, his ideas on
this point being most excellent and philosophic. For he held
that, while it is virtuous in a private individual to avoid vice, and
be to some extent good, it is a vice in a chief and ruler, especially
in such an office, to fail to surpass by far the majority of men, and
by constant progress to make his virtue correspond to his dignity and
throne: for it is difficult for one in high position to attain
the mean, and by his eminence in virtue raise up his people to the
golden mean. Or rather to treat this question more
satisfactorily, I think that the result is the same as I see in the
case of our Saviour, and of every specially wise man, I fancy, when He
was with us in that form which surpassed us and yet is ours. For
He also, the gospel says, increased in wisdom and favour, as well as in
stature, S.
39. He first of all made it plain that his
office had been bestowed upon him, not by human favour, but by the gift
of God. This will also be shown by my conduct. For in what
philosophic research did he not, about that time, join with me?
So every one thought that I should run to meet him after what had
happened, and show my delight at it (as would, perhaps, have been the
case with any one else) and claim a share in his authority, rather than
rule beside him, according to the inferences they drew from our
friendship. But, in my exceeding anxiety to avoid the annoyance
and jealousy of the time, and specially since his position was still a
painful and troubled one, I remained at home, and forcibly restrained
my eager desire, while, though he blamed me, Basil accepted my
excuse. And when, on my subsequent arrival, I refused, for the
same reason the honour of this chair, and a dignified position Dignified
position, known later as that of Vicar General.
Thomassin. Disc. Eccl. I. ii. 7. § 3.
40. His next task was to appease, and allay by
magnanimous treatment, the opposition to himself: and that
without any trace of flattery or servility, but in a most chivalrous
and magnanimous way; with a view, not merely to present exigencies, but
also to the fostering of future obedience. For, seeing that,
while tenderness leads to laxity and slackness, severity gives rise to
stubbornness and self-will, he was able to avoid the dangers of each
course
41. Affairs at home being now settled to his
mind, in a way that faithless men who did not know him would have
thought impossible, his designs became greater and took a loftier
range. For, while all others had their eyes on the ground before
them, and directed attention to their own immediate concerns, and, if
these were safe, troubled themselves no further, being incapable of any
great and chivalrous design or undertaking; he, moderate as he was in
all other respects, could not be moderate in this, but with head erect,
casting his mental eye about him, took in the whole world over which
the word of salvation has made its way. And when he saw the great
heritage of God, purchased by His own words and laws and sufferings,
the holy nation, the royal priesthood,
42. For what could be more distressing than
this calamity, or call more loudly on one whose eyes were raised aloft
for exertions on behalf of the common weal? The good or ill
success of an individual is of no consequence to the community, but
that of the community involves of necessity the like condition of the
individual. With this idea and purpose, he who was the guardian
and patron of the community (and, as Solomon says with truth, a
perceptive heart is a moth to the bones,
43. One of his devices was of the greatest
service. After a period of such recollection as was possible, and
private spiritual conference, in which, after considering all human
arguments, and penetrating into all the deep things of the Scriptures,
he drew up a sketch of pious doctrine, and by wrestling with and
attacking their opposition he beat off the daring assaults of the
heretics: overthrowing in hand to hand struggles by word of mouth
those who came to close quarters, and striking those at a distance by
arrows winged with ink, which is in no wise inferior to inscriptions on
tablets; not giving directions for one small nation only like that of
the Jews, concerning meats and drinks, temporary sacrifices, and
purifications of the flesh;
44. Why need I enter into further
detail? We were assailed again by the Anti-Christian
Emperor, Emperor.
Valens. S.
45. It is said that the King King.
Xerxes.
46. Furious indeed were his first acts of
wantonness, more furious still his final efforts against us. What
shall I speak of first? Exiles, banishments, confiscations, open
and secret plots, persuasion, where time allowed, violence, where
persuasion was impossible. Those who clung to the orthodox faith,
as we did, were extruded from their churches; others were intruded, who
agreed with the Imperial soul-destroying doctrines, and begged for
testimonials of impiety, and subscribed to statements still harder than
these. Burnings Burnings,
a.d. 370. Eighty ecclesiastics, sent on
a mission to Valens at Nicomedia, were by his orders sent to sea off
the coast of Bithynia, and, the vessel being set on fire, were burnt to
death. Jacob, i.e.,
Athanasius. Esau = George.
47. Accordingly, when, after passing through all
quarters, he made his attack in order to enslave this impregnable and
formidable mother of the Churches, the only still remaining unquenched
spark of the truth, he discovered that he had been for the first time
ill advised. For he was driven back like a missile which strikes
upon some stronger body, and recoiled like a broken hawser. Such
was the prelate of the Church that he met with, such was the bulwark by
which his efforts were broken and dissipated. Other particulars
may be heard from those who tell and recount them, from their own
experience—and none of those who recount them is destitute of
this full experience. But all must be filled with admiration who
are aware of the struggles of that time, the assaults, the promises,
the threats, the commissioners sent before him to try to prevail upon
us, men of judicial and military rank, men from the harem, who are men
among women, women among men, whose only manliness consisted in their
impiety, and being incapable of natural licentiousness, commit
fornication in the only way they can, with their tongues; the chief
cook
Nebuzaradan. Demosthenes, a creature of Valens, sent to
persuade Basil to yield to the Emperor.
48. Who has not heard of the
prefect Prefect.
Modestus.
49. Then indeed the prefect became excited, and rose from his seat, boiling with rage, and making use of harsher language. “What?” said he, “have you no fear of my authority? “Fear of what?” said Basil, “How could it affect me?” “Of what? Of any one of the resources of my power.” “What are these?” said Basil, “pray, inform me.” “Confiscation, banishment, torture, death.” “Have you no other threat?” said he, “for none of these can reach me.” “How indeed is that?” said the prefect. “Because,” he replied, “a man who has nothing, is beyond the reach of confiscation; unless you demand my tattered rags, and the few books, which are my only possessions. Banishment is impossible for me, who am confined by no limit of place, counting my own neither the land where I now dwell, nor all of that into which I may be hurled; or, rather, counting it all God’s, whose guest and dependent I am. As for tortures, what hold can they have upon one whose body has ceased to be? Unless you mean the first stroke, for this alone is in your power. Death is my benefactor, for it will send me the sooner to God, for Whom I live, and exist, and have all but died, and to Whom I have long been hastening.”
50. Amazed at this language, the prefect said, “No one has ever yet spoken thus, and with such boldness, to Modestus.” “Why, perhaps,” said Basil, “you have not met with a Bishop, or in his defence of such interests he would have used precisely the same language. For we are modest in general, and submissive to every one, according to the precept of our law. We may not treat with haughtiness even any ordinary person, to say nothing of so great a potentate. But where the interests of God are at stake, we care for nothing else, and make these our sole object. Fire and sword and wild beasts, and rakes which tear the flesh, we revel in, and fear them not. You may further insult and threaten us, and do whatever you will, to the full extent of your power. The Emperor himself may hear this—that neither by violence nor persuasion will you bring us to make common cause with impiety, not even though your threats become still more terrible.”
51. At the close of this colloquy, the prefect,
having been convinced by the attitude of Basil, that he was absolutely
impervious to threats and influence, dismissed him from the court, his
former threatening manner being replaced by somewhat of respect and
deference. He himself with all speed obtained an audience of the
Emperor, and said: “We have been worsted, Sire, by the
prelate of this Church. He is superior to threats, invincible in
argument, uninfluenced by persuasion. We must make trial of some
more feeble character; and in this case resort to open violence,
52. For he entered the Church attended by
the whole of his train; it was the festival of the Epiphany, and the
Church was crowded, and, by taking his place among the people, he made
a profession of unity. The occurrence is not to be lightly passed
over. Upon his entrance he was struck by the thundering roll of
the Psalms, by the sea of heads of the congregation, and by the angelic
rather than human order which pervaded the sanctuary and its
precincts: while Basil presided over his people, standing erect,
as the Scripture says of Samuel,
53. As for the wisdom of his conference with the Emperor, who, in his quasi-communion with us entered within the veil to see and speak to him, as he had long desired to do, what else can I say but that they were inspired words, which were heard by the courtiers and by us who had entered with them? This was the beginning and first establishment of the Emperor’s kindly feeling towards us; the impression produced by this reception put an end to the greater part of the persecution which assailed us like a river.
54. Another incident is not of less
importance than those I have mentioned. The wicked were
victorious, and the decree for his banishment was signed, to the full
satisfaction of those who furthered it. The night had come, the
chariot was ready, our haters were exultant, the pious in despair, we
surrounded the zealous traveller, to whose honourable disgrace nothing
was wanting. What next? It was undone by God. For He
Who smote the first-born of Egypt,
55. The same mischance is said to have befallen
the prefect. He also was obliged by sickness to bow beneath the
hands of the Saint, and, in reality, to men of sense a visitation
brings instruction, and affliction is often better than
prosperity. He fell sick, was in tears, and in pain, he sent for
Basil, and entreated him, crying out, “I own that you were in the
right; only save me!” His request was granted, as he
himself acknowledged, and convinced many who had known The
prefect. Eusebius.
56. The assessor of a judge was attempting to force into a distasteful marriage a lady of high birth whose husband was but recently dead. At a loss to escape from this high-handed treatment, she resorted to a device no less prudent than daring. She fled to the holy table, and placed herself under the protection of God against outrage. What, in the Name of the Trinity Itself, if I may introduce into my panegyric somewhat of the forensic style, ought to have been done, I do not say, by the great Basil, who laid down the law for us all in such matters, but by any one who, though far inferior to him, was a priest? Ought he not to have allowed her claim, to have taken charge of, and cared for, her; to have raised his hand in defence of the kindness of God and the law which gives honour to the altar? Ought he not to have been willing to do and suffer anything, rather than take part in any inhuman design against her, and outrage at once the holy table, and the faith in which she had taken sanctuary? No! said the baffled judge, all ought to yield to my authority, and Christians should betray their own laws. The suppliant whom he demanded, was at all hazards retained. Accordingly, in his rage, he at last sent some of the magistrates to search the saint’s bedchamber, with the purpose of dishonouring him, rather than from any necessity. What! Search the house of a man so free from passion, whom the angels revere, at whom women do not venture even to look? And, not content with this, he summoned him, and put him on his defence; and that, in no gentle or kindly manner, but as if he were a convict. Upon Basil’s appearance, standing, like my Jesus, before the judgment seat of Pilate, he presided at the trial, full of wrath and pride. Yet the thunderbolts did not fall, and the sword of God still glittered, and waited, while His bow, though bent, was restrained. Such indeed is the custom of God.
57. Consider another struggle between our champion
and his persecutor. His ragged pallium having been ordered to be
torn away, “I will also, if you wish it, strip off my
coat,” said he. His fleshless form was threatened with
blows, and he offered to submit to be torn with combs, and he said,
“By such laceration you will cure my liver, which, as you see, is
wearing me away.” Such was their argument. But when
the city perceived the outrage and the common danger of all—for
each one considered this insolence a danger to himself, it became all
on fire with rage; and, like a hive roused by smoke, one after another
was stirred and arose, every race and every age, but especially the men
from the small-arms factory and from the imperial weaving-sheds.
For men at work in these trades are specially hot-tempered and daring,
because of the liberty allowed them. Each man was armed with the
tool he was using, or with whatever else came to hand at the
moment. Torch in hand, amid showers of stones, with
cudgel’s ready, all ran and shouted together in their united
zeal. Anger makes a terrible soldier or general. Nor were
the women weaponless, when roused by such an occasion. Their pins
were their spears, and no longer remaining women, they were by the
strength of their eagerness endowed with masculine courage. It is
a short story. They thought that they would share among
themselves the piety of destroying him, and held him to be most pious
who first laid hands on one who had dared such deeds. What then
was the conduct of this haughty and daring judge? He begged for
mercy in a pitiable state of distress, cringing before them to an
unparalleled extent, until the arrival of the martyr without bloodshed,
who had won his crown without blows, and now restrained the people by
the force of his personal influence, and delivered the man who had
insulted him and now sought his protection. This was the doing of
the God of Saints, Who worketh and changeth all things for the best,
who resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to S.
58. This was the end and fortunate close, in
the Providence of God, of the war with the world, a close worthy of his
faith. But here at once is the beginning of the war with the
Bishops, and their allies, which involved great disgrace, and still
greater injury to their subjects. For who could persuade others
to be temperate, when such was the conduct of their prelates? For
a long time they had been unkindly disposed towards him, on three
grounds. They neither agreed with him in the matter of the faith,
except in so far as they were absolutely obliged to yield to the
majority of the faithful. Nor had they altogether laid aside the
grudge they owed him for his election. And, what was most
grievous of all to them, though they would have been most ashamed to
own it—he so far outshone them in reputation. There was
also a further cause of dissension which stirred up again the
others. When our country had been divided into two provinces and
metropolitical sees, and a great part of the former was being added to
the new one, this again roused their factious spirit. The
one The one, i.e.,
Anthimus, Bishop of Tyana. The other,
i.e., Basil. Revenues.
The dues and offerings of the people of the diocese. Orestes.
A chapel dedicated to S. Orestes at the foot of Mt. Taurus, where the
offerings were collected.
59. The holy man of God however, metropolitan as he was of the true Jerusalem above, was neither carried away with the failure of those who fell, nor allowed himself to overlook this conduct, nor did he desire any inadequate remedy for the evil. Let us see how great and wonderful it was, or, I would say, how worthy of his soul. He made of the dissension a cause of increase to the Church, and the disaster, under his most able management, resulted in the multiplication of the Bishops of the country. From this ensued three most desirable consequences; a greater care for souls, the management by each city of its own affairs, and the cessation of the war in this quarter. I am afraid that I myself was treated as an appendage to this scheme. By no other term can I readily describe the position. Greatly as I admire his whole conduct, to an extent indeed beyond my powers of expression, of this single particular I find it impossible to approve, for I will acknowledge my feelings in regard to it, though these are from other sources not unknown to most of you. I mean the change and faithlessness of his treatment of myself, a cause of pain which even time has not obliterated. For this is the source of all the inconsistency and tangle of my life; it has robbed me of the practice, or at least the reputation, of philosophy; of small moment though the latter be. The defence, which you will perhaps allow me to make for him, is this; his ideas were superhuman, and having, before his death, become superior to worldly influences, his only interests were those of the Spirit: while his regard for friendship was in no wise lessened by his readiness then, and then only, to disregard its claims, when they were in conflict with his paramount duty to God, and when the end he had in view was of greater importance than the interests he was compelled to set aside.
60. I am afraid that, in avoiding the imputation
of indifference at the hands of those The mean,
etc. A saying of Cleobulus, one of the seven Sages. Crates.
He made this proclamation when he had stripped himself of all his
possessions. In a tub, like
Diogenes, the Cynic.
61. A wondrous thing is temperance, and
fewness of wants, and freedom from the dominion of pleasures, and from
the bondage of that cruel and degrading mistress, the belly. Who
was so independent of food, and, without exaggeration, more free from
the flesh? For he flung away all satiety and surfeit to creatures
destitute of reason, whose life is slavish and debasing. He paid
little attention to such things as, next to the appetite, are of equal
rank, but, as far as possible, lived on the merest necessaries, his
only luxury being to prove himself not luxurious, and not, in
consequence, to have greater needs: but he looked to the lilies
and the birds, S.
62. A great thing is virginity, and
celibacy, and being ranked with the angels, and with the single nature;
for I shrink from calling it Christ’s, Who, though He willed to
be born for our sakes who are born, by being born of a Virgin,
enacted Enacted by his
religious rule, or as some say by a treatise on Virginity. S. Cells,
etc. This passage strongly favours the view of Clemencet that
S. Gregory uses μοναστήρια
in the literal sense of “the abodes of solitaries,” and
that there is no great distinction between κοινωνικοί
and μιγάδες. Cf. ii.
29. xxi. 10–19.
63. What more? A noble thing is
philanthropy, and the support of the poor, and the assistance of human
weakness. Go forth a little way from the city, and behold the new
city, New
city—a hospital for the sick. S. Thebes,
etc. The “seven wonders of the world.”
64. As to all this, what will be said by
those who charge him with pride and haughtiness? Severe critics
they are of such conduct, applying to him, whose life was a standard,
those who were not standards at all. Is it possible that he who
kissed the lepers, and humiliated himself to such a degree, could treat
haughtily those who were in health: and, while wasting his flesh
by abstinence, puff out his soul with empty arrogance? Is it
possible to condemn the Pharisee, and expound the debasing effect of
haughtiness, to know Christ, Who condescended to the form of a slave,
and ate with publicans, and washed the disciples’ feet, and did
not disdain the cross, in order to nail my sin to it: and, more
incredible still, to see God crucified, aye, along with robbers also,
and derided by the passers by, impassible, and beyond the reach of
suffering as He is; and yet, as his slanderers imagine, soar himself
above the clouds, and think that nothing can be on an equality with
him. Nay, what they term pride is, I fancy, the firmness and
steadfastness and stability of his character. Such persons would
readily, it seems to me, call bravery rashness, and the circumspect a
coward, and the temperate misanthropic, and the just illiberal.
For indeed this philosophic axiom is excellent, which says that the
vices The vices.
This was the doctrine of Menander and Aristotle.
65. But what are these to his renown for
eloquence, and his powers of instruction, which have won the favour of
the ends of the world? As yet we have been compassing the foot of
the mountain, to the neglect of its summit, as yet we have been
crossing a strait, paying no heed to the mighty and deep ocean.
For I think that if any one ever has become, or can become, a trumpet,
in his far sounding resonance, or a voice of God, embracing the
universe, or an earthquake of the world, by some unheard of miracle, it
is his voice and intellect which deserve these titles, for surpassing
and excelling all men as much as we surpass the irrational
creatures. Who, more than he, cleansed himself by the Spirit, and
made himself worthy to set forth divine things? Who was more
enlightened by the light of knowledge, and had a closer insight into
the depths of the Spirit, and by the aid of God beheld the things of
God? Whose language could better express intellectual truth,
without, as most men do, limping on one foot, by either failing to
express his ideas, or allowing his eloquence to outstrip his reasoning
powers? In both respects he won a like distinction, and showed
himself to be his own equal, and absolutely perfect. To search
all things, yea, the deep things of God
66. The sun is extolled by David for its
beauty, its greatness, its swift course, and its power, splendid as a
bridegroom, majestic as a giant;
67. I will only say this of him. Whenever I
handle his Hexaemeron, and take its words on my lips, I am brought into
the presence of the Creator, and understand the words of creation, and
admire the Creator more than before, using my teacher as my only means
of
Chalane. LXX. for
Babel.
68. Since I have mentioned theology, and his
most sublime treatises in this science, I will make this addition to
what I have already said. For it is of great service to the
community, to save them from being injured by an unjustifiably low
opinion of him. My remarks are directed against those evil
disposed persons who shelter their own vices under cover of their
calumnies against others. In his defence of orthodox teaching,
and of the union and coequal divinity of the Holy Trinity, to use terms
which are, I think, as exact and clear as possible, he would have
eagerly welcomed as a gain, and not a danger, not only expulsion from
his see, in which he had originally no desire to be enthroned, but even
exile, and death, and its preliminary tortures. This is manifest
from his actual conduct and sufferings. For when he had been
sentenced to banishment on behalf of the truth, the only notice which
he took of it was, to bid one of his servants to take his writing
tablet and follow him. He held it necessary, according to the
divine David’s advice, to guide his words with
discretion, Economy.
In refraining from the express assertion “The Holy Ghost is
God”—some have blamed S. Basil for this: but his
conduct has the approval of S. Athanasius. Ep. ad Palladium.
69. That he, no less than any other, acknowledged
that the Spirit is God, is plain from his often having publicly
preached this truth, whenever opportunity offered, and eagerly
confessed it when questioned in private. But he made it more
clear in his conversations with me, from whom he concealed nothing
during our conferences upon this subject. Not content with simply
asserting it, he proceeded, as he had but very seldom done before, to
imprecate upon himself that most terrible fate of separation from the
Spirit, if he did not adore the Spirit as consubstantial and coequal
with the Father and the Son. And if any one would accept me as
having been his fellow labourer in this cause, I will set forth one
point hitherto unknown to most men. Under the pressure of the
difficulties
70. Come then, there have been many men of
old days illustrious for piety, as lawgivers, generals, prophets,
teachers, and men brave to the shedding of blood. Let us compare
our prelate with them, and thus recognize his merit. Adam was
honoured by the hand of God,
71. Abraham was a great man, a patriarch,
the offerer of the new sacrifice, Defeat or
“loss of generative power.”
72. Joseph was a provider of corn, Exarch or
Metropolitan.
73. Further, to run over the Judges, or the
most illustrious of the Judges, there is “Samuel among those that
call upon His Name,” Cf.
74. Do you praise the courage of
Elijah
75. I now turn to the New Testament, and
comparing his life with those who are here illustrious, I shall find in
the teachers a source of honour for their disciple. Who was the
forerunner of Jesus? S. S. S. S. S.
76. He emulated the zeal of Peter, S.
77. So great was his virtue, and the eminence of his fame, that many of his minor characteristics, nay, even his physical defects, have been assumed by others with a view to notoriety. For instance his paleness, his beard, his gait, his thoughtful, and generally meditative, hesitation in speaking, which, in the ill-judged, inconsiderate imitation of many, took the form of melancholy. And besides, the style of his dress, the shape of his bed, and his manner of eating, none of which was to him a matter of consequence, but simply the result of accident and chance. So you might see many Basils in outward semblance, among these statues in outline, for it would be too much to call them his distant echo. For an echo, though it is the dying away of a sound, at any rate represents it with great clearness, while these men fall too far short of him to satisfy even their desire to approach him. Nor was it a slight thing, but a matter with good reason held in the highest estimation, to chance to have met him or done him some service, or to carry away the souvenir of something which he had said or done in jest or in earnest: as I know that I have myself often taken pride in doing; for his improvisations were much more precious and brilliant than the laboured efforts of other men.
78. But when, after he had finished his
course, and kept the faith,
79. He lay, drawing his last breath, and
awaited by the choir on high, towards which he had long directed his
gaze. Around him poured the whole city, unable to bear his loss,
inveighing against his departure, as if it had been an oppression, and
clinging to his soul, as though it had been capable of restraint or
compulsion at their hands or their prayers. Their suffering had
driven them distracted, all were eager, were it possible, to add to his
life a portion of their own. And when they failed, for it must
needs be proved that he was a man, and, with his last words “Into
thy Hands I commend my spirit,”
80. The saint was being carried out, lifted
high by the hands of holy men, and everyone was eager, some to seize
the hem of his garment, S.
81. Come hither then, and surround me, all ye members of his choir, both of the clergy and the laity, both of our own country and from abroad; aid me in my eulogy, by each supplying or demanding the account of some of his excellences. Regard, ye occupants of the bench, the lawgiver; ye politicians, the statesman; ye men of the people, his orderliness; ye men of letters, the instructor; ye virgins, the leader of the bride; ye who are yoked in marriage, the restrainer; ye hermits, him who gave you wings; ye cenobites, the judge; ye simple men, the guide; ye contemplatives, the divine; ye cheerful ones, the bridle; ye unfortunate men, the consoler, the staff of hoar hairs, the guide of youth, the relief of poverty, the steward of abundance. Widows also will, I imagine, praise their protector, orphans their father, poor men their friend, strangers their entertainer, brothers the man of brotherly love, the sick their physician, whatever be their sickness and the healing they need, the healthy the preserver of health, and all men him who made himself all things to all that he might gain the majority, if not all.
82. This is my offering to thee, Basil,
uttered by the tongue which once was the sweetest of all to thee, of
him who was thy fellow in age and rank. If it have approached thy
deserts, thanks are due to thee, for it was from confidence in thee
that I undertook to speak of thee. But if it fall far short of
thy expectations, what must be our feelings, who are worn out with age
and disease and regret for thee? Yet God is pleased, when we do
what we can. Yet mayest thou gaze upon us from above, thou divine
and sacred person; either stay by thy entreaties our thorn in the
flesh,
Oration XLV.
The Second Oration on Easter.
ThisOration was not, as its title would perhaps lead us to suppose, delivered immediately after the first; but an interval of many years elapsed between them, and the two have no connection with each other. Chronologically they are the first and last of S. Gregory’s Sermons. The Second was delivered in the Church of Arianzus, a village near Nazianzus, where he had inherited some property, to which he withdrew after resigning the Archbishopric of Constantinople, and then, finding the administration even of the little Bishopric of Nazianzus too much for his advancing years and declining strength, he retired to Arianzus about the end of a.d. 383, dying there in 389 or 390. “The exordium of this discourse is quite in the style of the Bible; the Orator here describes and puts words into the mouth of the Angel of the Resurrection. His object is to show the importance of the day’s solemnities, and to explain allegorically all the circumstances of the ancient Passover, applying them to Christ and the Christian life. Two passages are borrowed verbatim from the discourse on the Nativity, preached at Constantinople” (Benoît).
The Benedictine Editors profess themselves unable to determine whether this repetition is due to S. Gregory himself—or to the carelessness of some amanuensis.
I. I will stand
upon my watch, The reading
εὐδοκία of the
Received Text is pronounced by Tischendorf to have less authority than
εὐδοκίας,
which he adopts on the testimony of important mss., but chiefly on the strength of a citation and
comment three times in Origen, and because all the Latin Fathers
read bonæ voluntatis. Lachmann, Tregelles,
Westcott, and with some hesitation Alford follow him; though Tregelles
and Westcott allow εὐδοκίας a place
in the margin. Wordsworth (giving no reason); and Scrivener
because he thinks it makes better sense, read εὐδοκία, and scout
εὐδοκίας;
which, however, is found in four of the five oldest mss., and in all the Latin versions and Fathers. The
Greek Fathers, however, all but unanimously support the Received
Text.
II. The Lord’s Passover, the Passover,
and again I say the Passover to the honour of the Trinity. This
is to us a Feast of feasts and a Solemnity of solemnities ἑορτὴ ἑορτῶν,
καὶ
πανήγυρις
πανηγύριον.
ἑορτή says Nicetas, is one
thing, πανήγυρις
another. ἑορτή is the Commemoration
of a Saint; πανήγυρις is
Easter, or Ascension, or some other mystical festival. Thus
Synesius calls the Paschal Letters of the Alexandrian Patriarch
πανηγυρικὰ
γράμματα.
III. God This passage to the
end of c. ix. occurs verbatim in the oration on the Theophany, cc.
vii.–xiii. “There is no
Past in Eternity, and no Future; for that which is past has ceased to
be, and that which is future has not yet come into existence; but
Eternity is only Present; it has no Past which does not still exist nor
any Future which does not yet exist” (S. Augustine de Vera Rel.,
c. 49). The Environment here
spoken of seems to mean those created Existences of which God is the
Self-Existent Cause.
IV. And when Infinity is considered from two points of view, beginning and end (for that which is beyond these and not limited by them is Infinity), when the mind looks into the depths above, not having where to stand, and leans upon phænomena to form an idea of God it calls the Infinite and Unapproachable which it finds there by the name of Unoriginate. And when it looks into the depth below and at the future, it calls Him Undying and Imperishable. And when it draws a conclusion from the whole, it calls Him Eternal. For Eternity is neither time nor part of time; for it cannot be measured. But what time measured by the course of the sun is to us, that Eternity is to the Everlasting; namely a sort of timelike movement and interval, coextensive with Their Existence. This however is all that I must now say of God; for the present is not a suitable time, as my present subject is not the doctrine of God, but that of the Incarnation. And when I say God, I mean Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; for Godhead is neither diffused beyond These, so as to introduce a mob of gods, nor yet bounded by a smaller compass than These, so as to condemn us for a poverty stricken conception of Deity, either Judaizing to save the Monarchia, or falling into heathenism by the multitude of our gods. For the evil on either side is the same, though found in contrary directions. Thus then is the Holy of Holies, Which is hidden even from the Seraphim, and is glorified with a thrice-repeated Holy meeting in one ascription of the title Lord and God, as one of our predecessors has most beautifully and loftily reasoned out.
V. But since this movement of Self-contemplation alone could not satisfy Goodness, but Good must be poured out and go forth beyond Itself, to multiply the objects of Its beneficence (for this was essential to the highest Goodness), He first conceived the Angelic and Heavenly Powers. And this conception was a work fulfilled by His Word and perfected by His Spirit. And so the Secondary Splendours came into being, as the ministers of the Primary Splendour (whether we are to conceive of them as intelligent Spirits, or as Fire of an immaterial and incorporeal kind, or as some other nature approaching this as near as may be). I should like to say that they are incapable of movement in the direction of evil, and susceptible only of the movement of good, as being about God and illuminated with the first Rays from God (for earthly beings have but the second illumination), but I am obliged to stop short of saying that they are immovable, and to conceive and speak of them as only difficult to move, because of him who for His Splendour was called Lucifer, but became and is called Darkness through his pride; and the Apostate Hosts who are subject to him, creators of evil by their revolt against good, and our inciters.
VI. Thus then and for these reasons, He gave being
to the world of thought, as far as I can reason on these matters, and
estimate great things in my own poor language. Then, when His
first Creation was in good order, He conceives a second world, material
and visible; and this a system of earth and sky and all that is in the
midst of them; an admirable creation indeed when we look at the fair
form of every part, but yet more worthy of admiration when we consider
the harmony and unison of the whole, and how each part fits in with
every other in fair order, and all with the whole, tending to the
perfect completion of the world as a Unit. This was to shew that
He could call into being not only a nature akin to Himself, but also
one altogether alien to Him. For akin to Deity are those natures
which are intellectual, and only to be comprehended by mind; but all of
which sense can take cognizance are utterly alien to It;
VII. Mind then and sense, thus distinguished from each other, had remained within their own boundaries, and bore in themselves the magnificence of the Creator-Word, silent praisers and thrilling heralds of His mighty work. Not yet was there any mingling of both, nor any mixture of these opposites, tokens of a greater wisdom and generosity in the creation of natures; nor as yet were the whole riches of goodness made known. Now the Creator-Word, determining to exhibit this, and to produce a single living being out of both (the invisible and the visible creation, I mean) fashions Man; and taking a body from already existing matter, and placing in it a Breath taken from Himself (which the Word knew to be an intelligent soul, and the image of God), as a sort of second world, great in littleness, He placed him on the earth, a new Angel, a mingled worshipper, fully initiated into the visible creation, but only partially into the intellectual; king of all upon earth, but subject to the King above; earthly and heavenly; temporal and yet immortal; visible and yet intellectual; halfway between greatness and lowliness; in one person combining spirit and flesh; spirit because of the favour bestowed on him, flesh on account of the height to which he had been raised; the one that he might continue to live and glorify his benefactor, the other that he might suffer, and by suffering be put in remembrance, and be corrected if he became proud in his greatness; a living creature, trained here and then moved elsewhere; and to complete the mystery, deified by its inclination to God…for to this, I think, tends that light of Truth which here we possess but in measure; that we should both see and experience the Splendour of God, which is worthy of Him Who made us, and will dissolve us, and remake us after a loftier fashion.
VIII. This being He placed in
paradise—whatever that paradise may have been (having honoured
him with the gift of free will, in order that good might belong to him
as the result of his choice, no less than to Him Who had implanted the
seeds of it)—to till the immortal plants, by which is perhaps
meant the Divine conceptions, both the simpler and the more perfect;
naked in his simplicity and inartificial life; and without any covering
or screen; for it was fitting that he who was from the beginning should
be such. And He gave Him a Law, as material for his free will to
act upon. This Law was a commandment as to what plants he might
partake of, and which one he might not touch. This latter was the
Tree of Knowledge; not, however, because it was evil from the beginning
when planted; nor was it forbidden because God grudged it to
men—let not the enemies of God wag their tongues in that
direction, or imitate the serpent. But it would have been good if
partaken of at the proper time; for the Tree was, according to my
theory, Contemplation, which it is only safe for those who have reached
maturity of habit to enter upon; but which is not good for those who
are still somewhat simple and greedy; just as neither is solid food
good for those who are yet tender and have need of milk. But when
through the devil’s malice and the woman’s
caprice,
IX. And having first been chastened by many means
because his sins were many, whose root of evil sprang up through divers
causes and sundry times, by word, by law, by prophets, by benefits, by
threats, by plagues, by waters, by fires, by wars, by victories, by
defeats, by signs in heaven, and signs in the air, and in the earth,
and in the sea; by unexpected changes of men, of cities, of nations
(the object of which was the destruction of wickedness) at last he
needed a stronger remedy, for his diseases were growing worse; mutual
slaughters, adulteries, perjuries, unnatural crimes, and that first and
last of all evils, idolatry, and the transfer of worship from the
Creator to the creatures. As these required a greater aid, so
they also obtained a greater. And that was that the Word of God
Himself, Who is before all worlds, the Invisible, the Incomprehensible,
the Bodiless, the Begin
X. But perhaps some one of those who are too
impetuous and festive may say, “What has all this to do with
us? Spur on your horse to the goal; talk to us about the Festival
and the reasons for our being here to-day.” Yes, this is
what I am about to do, although I have begun at a somewhat previous
point, being compelled to do so by the needs of my argument.
There will be no harm in the eyes of scholars and lovers of the
beautiful if we say a few words about the word Pascha itself, for such
an addition will not be useless in their ears. This great and
venerable Pascha is called Phaska by the Hebrews in their own language;
and the word means Passing Over. Historically, from their flight
and migration from Egypt into the Land of Canaan; spiritually, from the
progress and ascent from things below to things above and to the Land
of Promise. And we observe that a thing which we often find to
have happened in Scripture, the change of certain nouns from an
uncertain to a clearer sense, or from a coarser to a more refined, has
taken place in this instance. For some people, supposing this to
be a name of the Sacred Passion, and in consequence Grecizing the word
by changing Phi and Kappa into Pi and Chi, called the Day
Pascha. Pascha
represents the Hebrew PHSKH. Throughout 2 Chron. the LXX. represents the word by Phasek, which like Pascha is a
transliteration of the Hebrew word. The form which the
transliteration takes is due to the fact that the Greek language does
not tolerate these two aspirates in juxtapostion. S. Gregory is
correct in remarking that Pascha has no real connection with
πάσχω (to
suffer), though it might appear to unlearned ears that it has.
XI. But before our time the Holy Apostle
declared that the Law was but a shadow of things to come, ἀφαίρεμα is given
by the Lexicons as the Heave-Offering, and it is certainly used in that
sense among others (all sacrificial) in the LXX. Suicer, however, follows Suidas in regarding
the word as quite general; he also quotes Zonaras’ definition,
“Quod offertur ἀφαίρεμα dicitur, quod
a toto mactatæ animantis corpore abstractum
sit.” Balsamon, according to the same authority,
makes it the portion which was severed from the carcase of the victim
and set apart for the Priest (i.e., the heave-offering,
XII. But we, standing midway between those whose minds are utterly dense on the one side, and on the other those who are very contemplative and exalted, that we may neither remain quite idle and immovable, nor yet be more busy than we ought, and fall short of and be estranged from our purpose—for the former course is Jewish and very low, and the latter is only fit for the dream-soothsayer, and both alike are to be condemned—let us say our say upon these matters, so far as is within our reach, and not very absurd, or exposed to the ridicule of the multitude. Our belief is that since it was needful that we, who had fallen in consequence of the original sin, and had been led away by pleasure, even as far as idolatry and unlawful bloodshed, should be recalled and raised up again to our original position through the tender mercy of God our Father, Who could not endure that such a noble work of His own hands as Man should be lost to Him; the method of our new creation, and of what should be done, was this:—that all violent remedies were disapproved, as not likely to persuade us, and as quite possibly tending to add to the plague, through our chronic pride; but that God disposed things to our restoration by a gentle and kindly method of cure. For a crooked sapling will not bear a sudden bending the other way, or violence from the hand that would straighten it, but will be more quickly broken than straightened; and a horse of a hot temper and above a certain age will not endure the tyranny of the bit without some coaxing and encouragement. Therefore the Law is given to us as an assistance, like a boundary wall between God and idols, drawing us away from one and to the Other. And it concedes a little at first, that it may receive that which is greater. It concedes the Sacrifices for a time, that it may establish God in us, and then when the fitting time shall come may abolish the Sacrifices also; thus wisely changing our minds by gradual removals, and bringing us over to the Gospel when we have already been trained to a prompt obedience.
XIII. Thus then and for this cause the
written Law came in, gathering us into Christ; and this is the account
of the Sacrifices as I account for them. And that you may not be
ignorant of the depth of His Wisdom and the riches of His unsearchable
judgments, The Jewish
Sacrifices had a deep inner meaning and mystery. In a limited
sense they may be called Sacraments of the future Atonement, which they
prefigured and appealed to. But only in a limited sense can they
be so called, because they did not convey grace to the soul, but only
appealed to the grace to come; and so the Sin-offerings of the Law are
only said to cover, not to take away sin. They
removed the spiritual disqualification for worship; but they did not
restore full Spiritual Communion with God. Still they were not
altogether unhallowed or useless like those of the heathen, inasmuch as
they did point forward and plead the merits of the One true
Sacrifice. The Greek here is very
obscure. The meaning seems to be that which Nicetas suggests,
viz.:—that our Lord in coming to earth and becoming Incarnate did
not in His Divine Nature leave Heaven, but was, while still here on
earth in His own words, “The Son of Man Which is in
Heaven.” Christ is “a
blessed crown of goodness” according to the saying of David, Thou
shalt bless the crown of the year with Thy goodness (
XIV. What more? The First Month is
introduced, or rather the beginning of months, whether it was so among
the Hebrews from the beginning, or was made so later on this account,
and became the first in consequence of the Mystery; and the tenth of
the Month, for this is the most complete number, of units the first
perfect unit, and the parent of perfection. And it is kept until
the fifth day, perhaps because the Victim, of Whom I am speaking,
purifies the five senses, from which comes falling into sin, and around
which the war rages, inasmuch as they are open to the incitements to
sin. And it was chosen, not only out of the lambs, but also out
of the inferior species, which are placed on the left hand
XV. Then comes the Sacred Night, the
Anniversary of the confused darkness of the present life, into which
the primæval darkness is dissolved, and all things come into life
and rank and form, and that which was chaos is reduced to order.
Then we flee from Egypt, that is from sullen persecuting sin; and from
Pharaoh the unseen tyrant, and the bitter taskmasters, changing our
quarters to the world above; and are delivered from the clay and the
brickmaking, and from the husks and dangers of this fleshly condition,
which for most men is only not overpowered by mere husklike
calculations. Then the Lamb is slain, and act and word are sealed
with the Precious Blood; that is, habit and action, the sideposts of
our doors; I mean, of course, of the movements of mind and opinion,
which are rightly opened and closed by contemplation, since there is a
limit even to thoughts. Then the last and gravest plague upon the
persecutors, truly worthy of the night; and Egypt mourns the first-born
of her own reasonings and actions which are also called in the
Scripture the Seed of the Chaldeans We are to part with
leaven for seven days (
XVI. Well, let them lament; we will feed on
the Lamb toward evening—for Christ’s Passion was in the
completion of the ages; because too He communicated His Disciples in
the evening with His Sacrament, destroying the darkness of sin; and not
sodden, but roast—that our word may have in it nothing that is
unconsidered or watery, or easily made away with; but may be entirely
consistent and solid, and free from all that is impure and from all
vanity. And let us be aided by the good coals, S. Gregory does not
mean to say that our Lord’s death was actually hastened by
violent actions on the part of the Jews, which we know was not the
case; but that they were anxious that it should take place before the
Sabbath began. The two thieves, who were still living, received
the coup de grace from the Roman soldiers, who broke their legs;
but our Lord, much to their astonishment was dead already, so this
course was not taken with Him, but His side was pierced with a
spear.
XVII. Nor would it be right for us to pass
over the manner of this eating either, for the Law does not do so, but
carries its mystical labour even to this point in the literal
enactment. Let us consume the Victim in haste, eating It with
unleavened bread, with bitter herbs, and with our loins girded, and our
shoes on our feet, and leaning on staves like old men; with haste, that
we fall not into that fault which was forbidden to Lot
XVIII. And let the loins of the unreasoning
animals be unbound and loose, for they have not the gift of reason
which can overcome pleasure (it is not needful to say that even they
know the limit of natural movement). But let that part of your
being which is the seat of passion, and which neighs, The expression
is often used in the LXX. to represent the
word דודג,
translated A Band, especially in 2 Kings.
XIX. And as to shoes, let him who is
about to touch the Holy Land which the feet of God have trodden, put
them off, as Moses did upon the Mount,
XX. What sayest thou? Thus it hath
pleased Him that thou shouldest come forth ἐξελθεῖν c. acc. loci;
a very rare use, but found in classical authors.
XXI. If you are a Rachel or a Leah, a
patriarchal and great soul, steal whatever idols of your father you can
find;
XXII. Have we not here the
germ of the idea, afterwards known as the Scotist, that the Incarnation
was the purpose of God independently of the Fall, for the perfecting of
Humanity; but that the Passion and death of Incarnate God were the
direct result of the sin of man?
XXIII. Now we will partake of a Passover
which is still typical; though it is plainer than the old one.
For that is ever new which is now becoming known. It is ours to
learn what is that drinking and that enjoyment, and His to teach and
communicate the Word to His disciples. For teaching is food, even
to the Giver of food. Come hither then, and let us partake of the
Law, but in a Gospel manner, not a literal one; perfectly, not
imperfectly; eternally, not temporarily. Let us make our Head,
not the earthly Jerusalem, but the heavenly City;
XXIV. If you are a Simon of Cyrene,
XXV. And if He ascend up into
Heaven,
XXVI. This passage, to
nearly the end of c. XXVII., is taken from the
Oration on the Nativity, cc. XIII–XIV. A reminiscence of S.
XXVII. He was sent, but sent according to
His Manhood (for He was of two Natures), since He was hungry and
thirsty and weary, and was distressed and wept, according to the Laws
of human nature. But even if He were sent also as God, what of
that? Consider the Mission to be the good pleasure of the Father,
to which He refers all that concerns Himself, both that He may honour
the Eternal Principle, and that He may avoid the appearance of being a
rival God. For He is said on the one hand to have been betrayed,
and on the other it is written that He gave Himself up; and so too that
He was raised and taken up by the Father, and also that of His own
power He rose and ascended. The former belongs to the Good
Pleasure, the latter to His own Authority; but you dwell upon all that
diminishes Him, while you ignore all that exalts Him. For
instance, you score that He suffered, but you do not add “of His
own Will.” Ah, what things has the Word even now to
suffer! By some He is honoured as God but confused with the
Father; by others He is dishonoured as Flesh, and is severed from
God. With whom shall He be most angry—or rather which shall
He forgive—those who falsely contract Him, or those who divide
Him? For the former ought to have made a distinction, and the
latter to have made a Union, the one in number, the other in
Godhead. Do you stumble at His Flesh? So did the
Jews. Do you call Him a Samaritan,
XXVIII. It is now needful for us to sum up our discourse as follows: We were created that we might be made happy. We were made happy when we were created. We were entrusted with Paradise that we might enjoy life. We received a Commandment that we might obtain a good repute by keeping it; not that God did not know what would take place, but because He had laid down the law of Free Will. We were deceived because we were the objects of envy. We were cast out because we transgressed. We fasted because we refused to fast, being overpowered by the Tree of Knowledge. For the Commandment was ancient, coeval with ourselves, and was a kind of education of our souls and curb of luxury, to which we were reasonably made subject, in order that we might recover by keeping it that which we had lost by not keeping it. We needed an Incarnate God, a God put to death, that we might live. We were put to death together with Him, that we might be cleansed; we rose again with Him because we were put to death with Him; we were glorified with Him, because we rose again with Him.
XXIX. Many indeed are the miracles of that time: God crucified; the sun darkened and again rekindled; for it was fitting that the creatures should suffer with their Creator; the veil rent; the Blood and Water shed from His Side; the one as from a man, the other as above man; the rocks rent for the Rock’s sake; the dead raised for a pledge of the final Resurrection of all men; the Signs at the Sepulchre and after the Sepulchre, which none can worthily celebrate; and yet none of these equal to the Miracle of my salvation. A few drops of Blood recreate the whole world, and become to all men what rennet is to milk, drawing us together and compressing us into unity.
XXX. But, O Pascha, great and holy and purifier of
all the world—for I will speak to thee as to a living
person—O Word of God and Light and Life and Wisdom and
Might—for I rejoice in all Thy names—O Offspring and
Expression and Signet of the Great Mind; O Word conceived and Man
contemplated, Who bearest all things, binding them by the Word of Thy
power; receive this discourse,
of
Saint Gregory Nazianzen,
Archbishop of Constantinople.
A Selection from the Letters of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, Sometime Archbishop of Constantinople.
————————————
Division I.
Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy.
————————————
Introduction.
The circumstances which called forth the two letters to Cledonius have already been described in the first section of the General Prolegomena, and it will not be necessary here to add much to what was there said. In the letter to Nectarius, his own successor on the throne of Constantinople, written about a.d. 383, and sometimes reckoned as Orat. XLVI., S. Gregory gives extracts from a work of Apollinarius himself, but without mentioning the title of the book. In this treatise the fundamental errors of the heresy (see Proleg. c. 1, p. 172) are laid down. Apollinarius, according to S. Gregory, declares that the Son of God was from all eternity clothed with a human body, and not from the time of His conception only by the Blessed Virgin; but that this humanity of God is without human mind, the place of which was supplied by the Godhead of the Only-begotten. And he goes even further and ascribes passibility and mortality to the very Godhead of Christ. Therefore S. Gregory earnestly protests against any toleration being granted to these heretics, or even permission to hold their assemblies; for, he says, toleration or permission would certainly be regarded by them as a condonation of their doctrinal position, and a condemnation of that of the Church. Dr. Ullman, however, thinks that while S. Gregory was certainly speaking the truth in saying that he had in his hands a pamphlet by Apollinarius, yet that he, perhaps unconsciously, exaggerated the heretical character of its contents, pushing its statements to consequences which Apollinarius would have repudiated. The one purpose of the latter was, in Dr. Ullman’s view, to safeguard the doctrine of the Unity of Christ; and he thought that the orthodox expression of Two Whole and Perfect Natures tended to a Nestorian division of the Person of Christ; and so he used language which certainly seemed to confound the natures, or at any rate to make the Incarnation imperfect, inasmuch as a Christ in Whom the human mind is absent, and its place filled up by the Godhead of the Son, cannot be said to be perfect Man. But while Epiphanius mentions these extravagances of the heresy, and does so with a lingering feeling of regret for the lapse of so good a man whose services in the past had been of so much value to the Church, yet, in the spirit common to Ecclesiastical authorities of the time, he would rather ascribe them to an expansion of Apollinarius’ teaching by his younger disciples who did not really understand what Apollinarius himself meant.
Olympius, to whom the last of this series is
addressed, was Governor of Cappadocia Secunda in a.d. 382. He was a man for whom S. Gregory had a
very high esteem, and with whom he was upon terms of close friendship,
as will be seen from other letters of Gregory to him in another
division of this Selection. The occasion of the present letter
was the necessity to appeal to the secular power for aid to punish a
sect of Apollinarians at Nazianzus, who had ventured to take advantage
of S. Gregory’s absence at the Baths of Xanxaris to procure the
consecration of a Bishop of their own way of thinking.
Technically the See was vacant, but the administration had been
committed to Gregory by the Bishops of the Province, and though he,
foreseeing some such attempt on the part of the heretics, had been very
earnest in
To Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople. (Ep. CCII.)
The Care of God, which throughout the time before
us guarded the Churches, seems to have utterly forsaken this present
life. And my soul is immersed to such a degree by calamities that
the private sufferings of my own life hardly seem to be worth reckoning
among evils (though they are so numerous and great, that if they befel
anyone else I should think them unbearable); but I can only look at the
common sufferings of the Churches; for if at the present crisis some
pains be not taken to find a remedy for them, things will gradually get
into an altogether desperate condition. Those who follow the
heresy of Arius or Eudoxius (I cannot say who stirred them up to this
folly) are making a display of their disease, as if they had attained
some degree of confidence by collecting congregations as if by
permission. And they of the Macedonian party have reached such a
pitch of folly that they are arrogating to themselves the name of
Bishops, and are wandering about our districts babbling of
Eleusius Eleusius was Bishop of
Cyzicus, a prominent leader of the Semi-Arian party. He bore a
very high character for personal holiness, and approached more nearly
to orthodoxy than most of his associates, men like Basil of Ancyra,
Eustathius of Sebaste, etc. He obstinately maintained, however,
Macedonian views on the Deity of the Holy Ghost, even after their
condemnation by the Council of Constantinople.
To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius. (Ep. CI.)
To our most reverend and God-beloved brother and fellow-priest Cledonius, Gregory, greeting in the Lord.
I desire to learn what is this fashion of
innovation in things Concerning the Church, which allows anyone who
likes, or the passerby,
The most grievous part of it is not (though this too is shocking) that the men instil their own heresy into simpler souls by means of those who are worse; but that they also tell lies about us and say that we share their opinions and sentiments; thus baiting their hooks, and by this cloak villainously fulfilling their will, and making our simplicity, which looked upon them as brothers and not as foes, into a support of their wickedness. And not only so, but they also assert, as I am told, that they have been received by the Western Synod, by which they were formerly condemned, as is well known to everyone. If, however, those who hold the views of Apollinarius have either now or formerly been received, let them prove it and we will be content. For it is evident that they can only have been so received as assenting to the Orthodox Faith, for this were an impossibility on any other terms. And they can surely prove it, either by the minutes of the Synod, or by Letters of Communion, for this is the regular custom of Synods. But if it is mere words, and an invention of their own, devised for the sake of appearances and to give them weight with the multitude through the credit of the persons, teach them to hold their tongues, and confute them; for we believe that such a task is well suited to your manner of life and orthodoxy. Do not let the men deceive themselves and others with the assertion that the “Man of the Lord,” as they call Him, Who is rather our Lord and God, is without human mind. For we do not sever the Man from the Godhead, but we lay down as a dogma the Unity and Identity of Person, Who of old was not Man but God, and the Only Son before all ages, unmingled with body or anything corporeal; but Who in these last days has assumed Manhood also for our salvation; passible in His Flesh, impassible in His Godhead; circumscript in the body, uncircumscript in the Spirit; at once earthly and heavenly, tangible and intangible, comprehensible and incomprehensible; that by One and the Same Person, Who was perfect Man and also God, the entire humanity fallen through sin might be created anew.
If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Mother
of God, he is severed from the Godhead. If anyone should assert
that He passed through the Virgin as through a channel, and was not at
once divinely and humanly formed in her (divinely, because without the
intervention of a man; humanly, because in accordance with the laws of
gestation), he is in like manner godless. If any assert that the
Manhood was formed and afterward was clothed with the Godhead, he too
is to be condemned. For this were not a Generation of God, but a
shirking of generation. If any introduce the notion of Two Sons,
one of God the Father, the other of the Mother, and discredits the
Unity and Identity, may he lose his part in the adoption promised to
those who believe aright. For God and Man are two natures, as
also soul and body are; but there are not two Sons or two Gods.
For neither in this life are there two manhoods; though Paul speaks in
some such language of the inner and outer man. And (if I am to
speak concisely) the Saviour is made of elements which are distinct
from one another (for the invisible is not the same with the visible,
nor the timeless with that which is subject to time), yet He is not two
Persons. God forbid! For both natures are one by the
combination, the Deity being made Man, and the Manhood
If any should say that it wrought in Him by grace
as in a Prophet, but was not and is not united with Him in
Essence—let him be empty of the Higher Energy, or rather full of
the opposite. If any worship not the Crucified, let him be
Anathema and be numbered among the Deicides. If any assert that
He was made perfect by works, or that after His Baptism, or after His
Resurrection from the dead, He was counted worthy of an adoptive
Sonship, like those whom the Greeks interpolate as added to the ranks
of the gods, let him be anathema. For that which has a beginning
or a progress or is made perfect, is not God, although the expressions
may be used of His gradual manifestation. If any assert that He
has now put off His holy flesh, and that His Godhead is stripped of the
body, and deny that He is now with His body and will come again with
it, let him not see the glory of His Coming. For where is His
body now, if not with Him Who assumed it? For it is not laid by
in the sun, according to the babble of the Manichæans, that it
should be honoured by a dishonour; nor was it poured forth into the air
and dissolved, as is the nature of a voice or the flow of an odour, or
the course of a lightning flash that never stands. Where in that
case were His being handled after the Resurrection, or His being seen
hereafter by them that pierced Him, for Godhead is in its nature
invisible. Nay; He will come with His body—so I have
learnt—such as He was seen by His Disciples in the Mount, or as
he shewed Himself for a moment, when his Godhead overpowered the
carnality. And as we say this to disarm suspicion, so we write
the other to correct the novel teaching. If anyone assert that
His flesh came down from heaven, and is not from hence, nor of us
though above us, let him be anathema. For the words, The Second
Man is the Lord from Heaven;
If anyone has put his trust in Him as a Man without a
human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of
salvation. For that which He has not assumed He has not healed;
but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only
half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half
also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the
whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a
whole. Let them not, then, begrudge us our complete salvation, or
clothe the Saviour only with bones and nerves and the portraiture of
humanity. For if His Manhood is without soul, even the Arians
admit this, that they may attribute His Passion to the Godhead, as that
which gives motion to the body is also that which suffers. But if
He has a soul, and yet is without a mind, how is He man, for man is not
a mindless animal? And this would necessarily involve that while
His form and tabernacle was human, His soul should be that of a horse
or an ox, or some other of the brute creation. This, then, would
be what He saves; and I have been deceived by the Truth, and led to
boast of an honour which had been bestowed upon another. But if
His Manhood is intellectual and nor without mind, let them cease to be
thus really mindless. But, says such an one, the Godhead took the
place of the human intellect. How does this touch me? For
Godhead joined to flesh alone is not man, nor to soul alone, nor to
both apart from intellect, which is the most essential part of
man. Keep then the whole man, and mingle Godhead therewith, that
you may benefit me in my completeness. But, he asserts, He could
not contain Two perfect Natures. Not if you only look at Him in a
bodily fashion. For a bushel measure will not hold two bushels,
nor will the space of one body hold two or more bodies. But if
you will look at what is mental and incorporeal, remember that I in my
one personality can contain soul and reason and mind and the Holy
Spirit; and before me this world, by which I mean the system of things
visible and invisible, contained Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For
such is the nature of intellectual Existences, that they can mingle
with one another and with bodies, in
But, it may be said, our mind is subject to
condemnation. What then of our flesh? Is that not subject
to condemnation? You must therefore either set aside the latter
on account of sin, or admit the former on account of salvation.
If He assumed the worse that He might sanctify it by His incarnation,
may He not assume the better that it may be sanctified by His becoming
Man? If the clay was leavened and has become a new lump, O ye
wise men, shall not the Image be leavened and mingled with God, being
deified by His Godhead? And I will add this also: If the
mind was utterly rejected, as prone to sin and subject to damnation,
and for this reason He assumed a body but left out the mind, then there
is an excuse for them who sin with the mind; for the witness of
God—according to you—has shewn the impossibility of healing
it. Let me state the greater results. You, my good sir,
dishonour my mind (you a Sarcolater, if I am an Anthropolater The Apollinarians seem
to have charged the Orthodox with being Anthropolaters, or worshippers
of a mere Man. S. Gregory retorts upon them that if so, they are
worse themselves, being actually Sarcolaters, or worshippers of mere
flesh, denying Mind to Him whom they adore as Lord and Saviour.
Further let us see what is their account of the
assumption of Manhood, or the assumption of Flesh, as they call
it. If it was in order that God, otherwise incomprehensible,
might be comprehended, and might converse with men through His Flesh as
through a veil, their mask and the drama which they represent is a
pretty one, not to say that it was open to Him to converse with us in
other ways, as of old, in the burning bush
If, however, they rely on the passage, The Word
was made Flesh and dwelt among us,
Moreover, in no other way was it possible for the
Love of God toward us to be manifested than by making mention of our
flesh, and that for our sake He descended even to our lower part.
For that flesh is less precious than soul, everyone who has a spark of
sense will acknowledge. And so the passage, The Word was made
Flesh, seems to me to be equivalent to that in which it is said that He
was made sin,
But there is a matter which is graver than these,
a special point which it is necessary that I should not pass
over. I would they were even cut off that trouble you,
But since, puffed up by their theory of the Trinity, they falsely accuse us of being unsound in the Faith and entice the multitude, it is necessary that people should know that Apollinarius, while granting the Name of Godhead to the Holy Ghost, did not preserve the Power of the Godhead. For to make the Trinity consist of Great, Greater, and Greatest, as of Light, Ray, and Sun, the Spirit and the Son and the Father (as is clearly stated in his writings), is a ladder of Godhead not leading to Heaven, but down from Heaven. But we recognize God the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and these not as bare titles, dividing inequalities of ranks or of power, but as there is one and the same title, so there is one nature and one substance in the Godhead.
But if anyone who thinks we have spoken rightly on
this subject reproaches us with holding communion with heretics, let
him prove that we are open to this charge, and we will either convince
him or retire. But it is not safe to make any innovation before
judgment is given, especially in a matter of such importance, and
connected with so great issues. We have protested and continue to
protest this before God and men. And not even now, be well
assured, should we have written this, if we had not seen that the
Church was being torn asunder and divided, among their other tricks, by
their present synagogue of vanity.
Against Apollinarius; The Second Letter to Cledonius. (Ep. CII.)
Forasmuch as many persons have come to your Reverence seeking confirmation of their faith, and therefore you have affectionately asked me to put forth a brief definition and rule of my opinion, I therefore write to your Reverence, what indeed you knew before, that I never have and never can honour anything above the Nicene Faith, that of the Holy Fathers who met there to destroy the Arian heresy; but am, and by God’s help ever will be, of that faith; completing in detail that which was incompletely said by them concerning the Holy Ghost; for that question had not then been mooted, namely, that we are to believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are of one Godhead, thus confessing the Spirit also to be God. Receive then to communion those who think and teach thus, as I also do; but those who are otherwise minded refuse, and hold them as strangers to God and the Catholic Church. And since a question has also been mooted concerning the Divine Assumption of humanity, or Incarnation, state this also clearly to all concerning me, that I join in One the Son, who was begotten of the Father, and afterward of the Virgin Mary, and that I do not call Him two Sons, but worship Him as One and the same in undivided Godhead and honour. But if anyone does not assent to this statement, either now or hereafter, he shall give account to God at the day of judgment.
Now, what we object and oppose to their mindless
opinion about His Mind is this, to put it shortly; for they are almost
alone in the condition which they lay down, as it is through want of
mind that they mutilate His mind. But, that they may not accuse
us of having once accepted but of now repudiating the faith of their
beloved Vitalius Vitalius or Vitalis
was one of the principal followers of Apollinarius, and by him was
consecrated schismatical Bishop of Antioch, where, while yet orthodox,
he had been ordained a priest by Meletius. But he quarrelled with
his Bishop through jealousy of another priest, and then fell under the
influence of Apollinarius. He was summoned to Rome to clear
himself of the charge of heresy; and by a clever manipulation of
language he produced a confession which the Pope, Damasus, accepted as
orthodox; but the Pope remitted the whole case to Paulinus, who was at
that time recognized by the Western Church as rightful Bishop.
Vitalius, however, was unable to accept the test required, and
seceded. On his return from Rome he had visited Nazianzus, where
S. Gregory received him as a brother in the faith, though further
acquaintance compelled him to withdraw from this position.
Vitalius, while admitting that our Lord had both a human body and a
human soul, denied Him a human mind; whose place, according to his
teaching, was supplied by Divinity.
Thus, then, they interpret wrongly the words, But
we have the Mind of Christ,
They play the same trick with the word that
describes the Incarnation, viz.: He was made Man, explaining it
to mean, not, He was in the human nature with which He surrounded
Himself, according to the Scripture, He knew what was in man;
Since then these expressions, rightly understood, make for orthodoxy, but wrongly interpreted are heretical, what is there to be surprised at if we received the words of Vitalius in the more orthodox sense; our desire that they should be so meant persuading us, though others are angry at the intention of his writings? This is, I think, the reason why Damasus himself, having been subsequently better informed, and at the same time learning that they hold by their former explanations, excommunicated them and overturned their written confession of faith with an Anathema; as well as because he was vexed at the deceit which he had suffered from them through simplicity.
Since, then, they have been openly convicted of this, let them not be angry, but let them be ashamed of themselves; and let them not slander us, but abase themselves and wipe off from their portals that great and marvellous proclamation and boast of their orthodoxy, meeting all who go in at once with the question and distinction that we must worship, not a God-bearing Man, but a flesh-bearing God. What could be more unreasonable than this, though these new heralds of truth think a great deal of the title? For though it has a certain sophistical grace through the quickness of its antithesis, and a sort of juggling quackery grateful to the uninstructed, yet it is the most absurd of absurdities and the most foolish of follies. For if one were to change the word Man or Flesh into God (the first would please us, the second them), and then were to use this wonderful antithesis, so divinely recognized, what conclusion should we arrive at? That we must worship, not a God-bearing Flesh, but a Man-bearing God. O monstrous absurdity! They proclaim to us to-day a wisdom hidden ever since the time of Christ—a thing worthy of our tears. For if the faith began thirty years ago, when nearly four hundred years had passed since Christ was manifested, vain all that time will have been our Gospel, and vain our faith; in vain will the Martyrs have borne their witness, and in vain have so many and so great Prelates presided over the people; and Grace is a matter of metres and not of the faith.
And who will not marvel at their learning, in that
on their own authority they divide the things of Christ, and assign to
His Manhood such sayings as He was born, He was tempted, He was hungry,
He was thirsty, He was wearied, He was asleep; but reckon to His
Divinity such as these: He was glorified by Angels, He overcame
the Tempter, He fed the people in the wilderness, and He fed them in
such a manner, and He walked upon the sea; and say on the one hand that
the “Where have ye laid Lazarus?”
Ep. CXXV. To Olympius.
Even hoar hairs have something to learn; and old age, it would seem, cannot in all respects be trusted for wisdom. I at any rate, knowing better than anyone, as I did, the thoughts and the heresy of the Apollinarians, and seeing that their folly was intolerable; yet thinking that I could tame them by patience and soften them by degrees, I let my hopes make me eager to attain this object. But, as it seems, I overlooked the fact that I was making them worse, and injuring the Church by my untimely philosophy. For gentleness does not put bad men out of countenance. And now if it had been possible for me to teach you this myself, I should not have hesitated, you may be sure, even to undertake a journey beyond my strength to throw myself at the feet of your Excellency. But since my illness has brought me too far, and it has become necessary for me to try the hot baths of Xanxaris at the advice of my medical men, I send a letter to represent me. These wicked and utterly abandoned men have dared, in addition to all their other misdeeds, either to summon, or to make a bad use of the passage (I am not prepared to say precisely which) of certain Bishops, deprived by the whole Synod of the Eastern and Western Church; and, in violation of all Imperial Ordinances, and of your commands, to confer the name of Bishop on a certain individual of their own misbelieving and deceitful crew; encouraged to do so, as I believe, by nothing so much as my great infirmity; for I must mention this. If this is to be tolerated, your Excellency will tolerate it, and I too will bear it, as I have often before. But if it is serious, and not to be endured by our most august Emperors, pray punish what has been done—though more mildly than such madness merits.
Correspondence with Saint Basil the Great, Archbishop of Cæsarea.
Ep. I. To Basil His Comrade.
(Perhaps about a.d. 357 or 358; in answer to a letter which is not now extant.)
I have failed, I confess, to keep my promise. I had engaged even at Athens, at the time of our friendship and intimate connection there (for I can find no better word for it), to join you in a life of philosophy. But I failed to keep my promise, not of my own will, but because one law prevailed against another; I mean the law which bids us honour our parents overpowered the law of our friendship and intercourse. Yet I will not fail you altogether, if you will accept this offer. I shall be with you half the time, and half of it you will be with me, that we may have the whole in common, and that our friendship may be on equal terms; and so it will be arranged in such a way that my parents will not be grieved, and yet I shall gain you.
Ep. II.
(Written about the same time, in reply to another letter now lost.)
I do not like being joked about Tiberina and its mud and its winters, O my friend, who are so free from mud, and who walk on tiptoe, and trample on the plains. You who have wings and are borne aloft, and fly like the arrows of Abaris, in order that, Cappadocian though you are, you may flee from Cappadocia. Have we done you an injury, because while you are pale and breathing hard and measuring the sun, we are sleek and well fed and not pressed for room? Yet this is your condition. You are luxurious and rich, and go to market. I do not approve of this. Either then cease to reproach us with our mud (for you did not build your city, nor we make our winter), or else for our mud we will bring against you your hucksters, and the rest of the crop of nuisances which infest cities.
Ep. IV.
(In answer to Ep. XIV., of Basil, about 361.)
You may mock and pull to pieces my affairs, whether in jest or in earnest. This is a matter of no consequence; only laugh, and take your fill of culture, and enjoy my friendship. Everything that comes from you is pleasant to me, no matter what it may be, and how it may look. For I think you are chaffing about things here, not for the sake of chaffing, but that you may draw me to yourself, if I understand you at all; just like people who block up streams in order to draw them into another channel. That is how your sayings always seem to me.
For my part I will admire your Pontus and your Pontic
darkness, and your dwelling place so worthy of exile, and the hills
over your head, and the wild beasts which test your faith, and your
sequestered spot that lies under them…or as I should say your
mousehole with the stately names of Abode of Thought, Monastery,
School; and your thickets of wild bushes, and crown of precipitous
mountains, by which may you be, not crowned but, cloistered; and your
limited air; and the sun, for which you long, and can only see as
through a chimney, O sunless Cimmerians of Pontus, who are condemned
not only to a six months’ night, as
Ep. V.
(Circa a.d. 361.)
Since you do take my jokes kindly, I send you the rest. My prelude is from Homer.
“Come now and change thy theme,
And sing of the inner adornment.”
—Od. viii. 492.
Your roofless and doorless hut, your fireless and smokeless hearth, your walls dried by fire, that we may not be hit by the drops of the mud, condemned like Tantalus thirsting in the midst of waters, and that pitiable feast with nothing to eat, to which we were invited from Cappadocia, not as to a Lotus-eater’s poverty, but to a table of Alcinous—we young and miserable survivors of a wreck. For I remember those loaves and the broth (so it was called), yes, and I shall remember them too, and my poor teeth that slipped on your hunks of bread, and then braced themselves up, and pulled themselves as it were out of mud. You yourself will raise these things to a higher strain of tragedy, having learnt to talk big through your own sufferings…for if we had not been quickly delivered by that great supporter of the poor—I mean your mother—who appeared opportunely like a harbour to men tossed by a storm, we should long ago have been dead, rather pitied than admired for our faith in Pontus. How shall I pass over that garden which was no garden and had no vegetables, and the Augean dunghill which we cleared out of the house, and with which we filled it up (sc. the garden), when we drew that mountainous wagon, I the vintager, and you the valiant, with our necks and hands, which still bear the traces of our labours. “O earth and sun, O air and virtue” (for I will indulge a little in tragic tones), not that we might bridge the Hellespont, but that we might level a precipice. If you are not put out by the mention of the circumstances, no more am I; but if you are, how much more was I by the reality. I pass by the rest, through respect for the others from whom I received much enjoyment.
Ep. VI.
(Written about the same time, in a more serious vein.)
What I wrote before about our stay in Pontus was
in joke, not in earnest; what I write now is very much in
earnest. O that one would place me as in the month of those
former days,
Ep. VIII.
(Written to S. Basil shortly after his Ordination as Priest, probably toward the end of a.d. 362.)
I approve the beginning of your letter; but what
is there of yours that I do not approve? And you are convicted of
having written just like me; The Editors render
“And you were captured just as I also was circumscribed,”
etc., but the Greek hardly bears this rendering.
Ep. XIX.
(This Epistle should be read in connection with the three addressed to Eusebius of Cæsarea, to which it refers. For the circumstances see General Prolegomena, § 1, p. 194.)
It is a time for prudence and endurance, and that we should not let anyone appear to be of higher courage than ourselves, or let all our labours and toils be in an instant brought to nothing. Why do I write this, and wherefore? Our Bishop Eusebius, very dear to God (for so we must for the future both think and write of him), is very much disposed to agreement and friendship with us; and as fire softens iron, so has time softened him; and I think a letter of appeal and invitation will come to you from him, as he intimated to me, and as many persons who are well acquainted with his affairs assure me. Let us be beforehand with him then, either by going to him, or by writing to him; or rather by first writing and then going; in order that we may not by and by be put to shame by being defeated when it was in our power to secure a victory by being honourably and philosophically beaten, which so many are asking from us. Be persuaded by me then, and come; both on this account and on account of the bad times; for a conspiracy of heretics is assailing the Church; some of them are here now, and are troubling us; and others, rumour says, are coming; and there is reason to fear lest the Word of Truth should be swept away, unless there be stirred up very soon the spirit of a Bezaleel, the wise Master builder of such arguments and dogmas. If you think I ought to go too, to stay with you and travel with you, I will not refuse to do even this.
(We insert here the three letters to Eusebius, which are so closely connected with the above as not to seem out of place.)
Ep. XVI. To Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea.
Since I am addressing a man who does not love falsehood,
and who is the keenest man I know at detecting it in another, however
it may be twined in skilful and varied labyrinths; and, moreover, on my
own part I will say it, though against the grain I do not like
artifice, either, both from my natural constitution, and because
God’s Word has formed me so. There
Ep. XVII. To Eusebius, Archbishop of Cæsarea.
I did not write in an insolent spirit, as you complain of my letter, but rather in a spiritual and philosophical one, and as was fitting, unless this too wrongs “your most eloquent Gregory.” For though you are my Superior in rank, yet you will grant me something of liberty and just freedom of speech. Therefore be kinder to me. But if you regard my letter as coming from a servant, and from one who has not the right even to look you in the face, I will in this instance accept your stripes and not even shed a tear. Will you blame me for this also? That would befit anyone rather than your Reverence. For it is the part of a high-souled man to accept more readily the freedom of a friend than the flattery of an enemy.
Ep. XVIII. To Eusebius of Cæsarea.
I was never meanly disposed towards your Reverence; do not find me guilty. But after allowing myself a little liberty and boldness, just to relieve and heal my grief, I at once bowed and submitted, and willingly subjected myself to the Canon. What else could I have done, knowing both you and the Law of the Spirit? But if I had been ever so mean and ignoble in my sentiments, yet the present time would not allow such feelings, nor the wild beasts which are rushing on the Church, nor your own courage and manliness, so purely and genuinely fighting for the Church. I will come then, if you wish it, and take part with you in prayers and in conflict, and will serve you, and like cheering boys will stir up the noble athlete by my exhortations.
Ep. XL. To the Great Basil.
(About the middle of the year 370. On the death of Eusebius Basil seems to have formed a desire that his friend Gregory should succeed to the vacant Metropolitanate; and so he wrote to him, without mentioning the death of the Archbishop, to come to him at Cæsarea, representing himself as dangerously ill. Gregory, deeply grieved at the news, set off at once, but had not proceeded far on his way when he learned that Basil was in his usual health, and that the Bishops of the Province were assembling at Cæsarea for the Election of a Metropolitan. He saw through the artifice at once; and thinking that Basil had wished to secure his presence at the Metropolis in order that his influence might bring about his own (Basil’s) Election, he wrote him the following indignant letter. Nevertheless both he and his father felt that no one was so well fitted to succeed to the vacant throne; and so Gregory wrote in his father’s name the three letters which we have placed next, addressed respectively to the people of Cæsarea, to the Bishops attending the Synod, and to Eusebius Bishop of Samosata.)
Do not be surprized if I say something strange, which
has not been said before by anyone. I think you have the
reputation of being a steady
Ep. XLI. To the People of Cæsarea, in His Father’s Name.
I am a little shepherd, and preside over a tiny
flock, and I am among the least of the servants of the Spirit.
But Grace is not narrow, or circumscribed by place. Wherefore let
freedom of speech be given even to the small,—especially when the
subject matter is of such great importance, and one in which all are
interested—even to deliberate with men of hoary hairs, who speak
with perhaps greater wisdom than the ordinary run of men. You are
deliberating on no ordinary or unimportant matter, but on one by which
the common interest must necessarily be promoted or injured according
to the decision at which you arrive. For our subject matter is
the Church, for which Christ died, and the guide who is to present it
and lead it to God. For the light of the body is the
eye,
I believe that there are others among you worthy of the
Primacy, both because of the greatness of your city, and because it has
been governed in times past so excellently and by such great men; but
there is one man among you to whom I cannot prefer any, our son well
beloved of God, Basil the Priest (I speak before God as my witness); a
man of pure life and word, and alone, or almost alone, of all qualified
in both respects to stand against the present times, and the prevailing
wordiness of the heretics. I write this to men of the priestly
and monastic Orders, and also to the dignitaries and councillors, and
to the whole people. If you should approve it, and my vote should
prevail, being so just and right, and given with God’s aid, I am
and will be with you in spirit; or rather I have already set my hand to
the work and am bold in
Ep. XLIII. To the Bishops.
(The comprovincial Bishops had notified the elder Gregory of their Synod, but without mentioning its date or purpose or inviting him to take part in it—probably because they knew how strongly he would support the election of Basil, to which they were unfavourable. S. Gregory therefore wrote the following letter in his father’s name.)
How sweet and kind you are, and how full of
love. You have invited me to the Metropolis, because, as I
imagine, you are going to take some counsel about a Bishop. So
much I learn from you, though you have not told me either that I am to
be present, or why, or when, but have merely announced to me suddenly
that you were setting out, as though resolved not to respect me, and as
not desirous that I should share your counsels, but rather putting a
hindrance in the way of my coming, that you may not meet me even
against my will. This is your way of action, and I will put up
with the insult, but I will set before you my view and how I
feel. Various people will put forward various candidates, each
according to his own inclinations and interests, as is usually the case
at such times. But I cannot prefer anyone, for my conscience
would not allow it, to my dear son and fellow priest Basil. For
whom of all my acquaintance do I find more approved in his life, or
more powerful in his word, or more furnished altogether with the beauty
of virtue? But if you allege weak health against him, I reply
that we are choosing not an athlete but a teacher. And at the
same time is seen in this case the power of Him that strengthens and
supports the weak, if such they be. If you accept this vote I
will come and take part, either in spirit or in body. But if you
are marching to a foregone conclusion, and faction is to overrule
justice, I shall rejoice to have been overlooked. The work must
be yours; but pray for me. There is here a
various reading (the difference being merely the result of itacism)
which seems to give a better sense; “Ours is to pray for
you.”
Ep. XLII. To Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata.
(There still seemed a probability that intrigues and party spirit would carry the day, and so the two Gregories determined to call in the aid of Eusebius of Samosata, though he did not belong to the Province. He had been a conspicuous champion of orthodoxy against the Arian Emperor Valens, and the Gregories hoped much from his presence at the Synod. He responded to their appeal, and undertook the three hundred miles of very difficult travelling to throw in his influence with the cause which they had at heart. He saw, however, that it was necessary that the aged Bishop of Nazianzus, notwithstanding his years and infirmities, should make the effort, and he persuaded him to go. The result was all that could be desired; for Basil was elected by a unanimous vote. The letter, which S. Gregory wrote in his own name to thank him, will be found later on.)
O that I had the wings of a dove, or that my old age
could be renewed, that I might be able to go to your charity, and to
satisfy the longings that I have to see you, and to tell you the
troubles of my soul, and in you to find some comfort for my
afflictions. For since the death of the blessed Bishop Eusebius I
am not a little afraid lest they who on a former occasion set traps for
our Metropolis, and wanted to fill it with heretical tares, should now
seize the opportunity, and uproot by their evil teaching the piety
which has with so much labour been sown in the hearts of men, and
should tear asunder its unity, as they have done in many
Churches. As soon as I received letters from the Clergy asking me
not to forget them in their present circumstances, I looked round about
me, and remembered your love and your right faith and the zeal with
which you are ever possessed for the Churches of God; and therefore I
sent my beloved Eustathius, my Deacon and helper, to warn your
Reverence, and to entreat you, in addition to all your toils for the
Churches, to meet me, and both to refresh my old age by your coming,
and to establish in the Orthodox Church that piety which is so famous,
by giving her with us (if we may be deemed worthy to have a share with
you in the good work) a Shepherd according to the will of the Lord, who
shall be able to rule His people. For we have a
Ep. XLV. To Basil.
(After the Consecration every one thought that Gregory would at once join his friend; and Basil himself much wished for his assistance. But Gregory thought it better to restrain his desire to see his friend until jealousies had time to calm down. So he wrote the following letter to explain the reasons for his staying away at this juncture.)
When I learnt that you had been placed on the lofty throne, and that the Spirit had prevailed to publish the candle upon the candlestick, which even before shone with no dim light, I was glad, I confess. Why should I not be, seeing as I did that the commonwealth of the Church was in sorry plight, and needed such a guiding hand? Yet I did not run to you off hand, nor shall I run to you, not even if you ask me yourself. First, in order that I may be careful of your dignity, and that you may not seem to be collecting partisans under the influence of bad taste and hot temper, as your calumniators would say; and secondly that I may make for myself a reputation for stability, and above illwill. When then will you come, perhaps you will ask, and how long will you put it off? As long as God shall bid me, and until the shadow of the present enmity and slander shall have passed away. For the lepers, I well know, will not hold out very long to keep our David out of Jerusalem.
Ep. XLVI. To Basil.
(The new Archbishop seems not to have been satisfied with the reasons given in Gregory’s last letter; so the latter writes again.)
How can any affairs of yours be mere grape-gleanings to me, O dear and sacred friend?
“What a word has escaped the fence of your teeth,” or how could you dare to say such a thing, if I too may be somewhat daring? How could your mind set it going, or your ink write it, or your paper receive it, O lectures and Athens and virtues and literary labours! You almost make me write a tragedy by what you have written. Do you not know me or yourself, you eye of the world, and great voice and trumpet and palace of learning? Your affairs trifles to Gregory? What then on earth could any one admire, if Gregory admire not you? There is one spring among the seasons, one sun among the stars, and one heaven that embraces all things; and so your voice is unique among all things, if I am capable of judging such things, and not deceived by my affection—and this I do not think to be the case. But if it is because I do not value you according to your worth that you blame me, you must also blame all mankind; for no one else has or will sufficiently admire you, unless it be yourself, and your own eloquence, at least if it were possible to praise oneself, and if such were the custom of our speech. But if you are accusing me of despising you, why not rather of being mad? Or are you vexed because I am acting like a philosopher? Give me leave to say that this and this alone is higher than even your conversation.
Ep. XLVII. To Basil.
(The division of the civil Province of Cappadocia into two Provinces in the year 372 was followed by ecclesiastical troubles. Anthimus, the Bishop of Tyana, the civil metropolis of the new division of Cappadocia Secunda, maintained that the Ecclesiastical divisions must necessarily follow the civil, and by consequence claimed for himself that the purely civil action of the State had ipso facto elevated him to the dignity of Metropolitan of the new Province; and this pretension was supported by the Bishops of that district, who were as a rule not well disposed towards the great Archbishop. The next three letters are connected with this dispute.)
I hear that you are being troubled by this fresh
innovation, and are being worried by some sophistical and not unusual
officiousness on the part of those in power; and it is not to be
wondered at. For I was not ignorant of their envy, or of the fact
that many of those
Ep. XLVIII. To Basil.
(Shortly after the events described above, Basil determined to strengthen his own hands by creating a number of new Bishoprics in the disputed Province, to one of which, Sasima, he consecrated Gregory, very much against the will of the latter, who felt that he had been hardly used, and did not attempt to disguise his reluctance. See Gen. Prolegg. p. 195.)
Do leave off speaking of me as an ill-educated and uncouth and unfriendly man, not even worthy to live, because I have ventured to be conscious of the way in which I have been treated. You yourself would admit that I have not done wrong in any other respect, and my own conscience does not reproach me with having been unkind to you in either great or small matters; and I hope it never may. I only know that I saw that I had been deceived—too late indeed, but I saw it—and I throw the blame on your throne, as having on a sudden lifted you above yourself; and I am weary of being blamed for faults of yours, and of having to make excuses for them to people who know both our former and our present relations. For of all that I have to endure this is the most ridiculous or most pitiable thing, that the same person should have both to suffer the wrong and to bear the blame, and this is my present case. Different people blame me for different things according to the tastes of each, or each man’s disposition, or the measure of their ill feeling on my account; but the kindest reproach me with contempt and disdain, and they throw me on one side after making use of me, like the most valueless vessels, or those frames upon which arches are built, which after the building is complete are taken down and cast aside. We will let them be and say what they please; no one shall curb their freedom of speech. And do you, as my reward, pay off those blessed and empty hopes, which you devised against the evil speakers, who accused you of insulting me on pretence of honouring me, as though I were lightminded and easily taken in by such treatment. Now I will plainly speak out the state of my mind, and you must not be angry with me. For I will tell you just what I said at the moment of the suffering, not in a fit of anger or so much in the sense of astonishment at what had happened as to lose my reason or not to know what I said. I will not take up arms, nor will I learn tactics which I did not learn in former times, when the occasion seemed more suitable, as every one was arming and in frenzy (you know the illness of the weak), nor will I face the martial Anthimus, though he be an untimely warrior, being myself unarmed and unwarlike, and thus the more exposed to wounds. Fight with him yourself if you wish (for necessity often makes warriors even of the weak), or look out for some one to fight when he seizes your mules, keeping guard over a defile, and like Amalek of old, barring the way against Israel. Give me before all things quiet. Why should I fight for sucking pigs and fowls, and those not my own, as though for souls and canons? Why should I deprive the Metropolis of the celebrated Sasima, or lay bare and unveil the secret of your mind, when I ought to join in concealing it? Do you then play the man and be strong and draw all parties to your own conclusion, as the rivers do the winter torrents, without regard for friendship or intimacy in good, or for the reputation which such a course will bring you. Give yourself up to the Spirit alone. I shall gain this only from your friendship, that I shall learn not to trust in friends, or to esteem anything more valuable than God.
Ep. XLIX. To Basil. (The Praises of Quiet.)
You accuse me of laziness and idleness, because I did
not accept your Sasima, and because I have not bestirred myself like a
Bishop,
Ep. L. To Basil.
(At the request of Anthimus it would appear that S. Gregory wrote to S. Basil a letter, not now extant, proposing a conference between the rival Metropolitans. Basil took umbrage at the well-meant proposal, and wrote a stiff letter to S. Gregory, to which the following is the reply.)
How hotly and like a colt you skip in your letters. Nor do I wonder that when you have just become the property of glory you should wish to shew me what you find glory to be, so that you may make yourself more majestic, like those painters who picture the seasons. But, to explain the whole matter about the Bishops, and the letter by which you were annoyed; what was my starting point, and how far I went, and where I stopped, appears to me to be too long a matter for a letter, and to be a subject not so much for an apology as for a history. To explain it to you concisely:—the most noble Anthimus came to us with certain Bishops, whether to visit my Father (this at least was the pretext), or to act as he did act. He sounded me in many ways and on many subjects; dioceses, the marshes of Sasima, my ordination,…flattering, questioning, threatening, pleading, blaming, praising, drawing circles round himself, as though I ought only to look at him and his new Metropolis, as being the greater. Why, I said, do you draw your line to include our city, for we too deem our Church to be really a Mother of Churches, and that too from ancient times? In the end he went away without having gained his object, much out of breath, and reproaching me with Basilism, as if it were a kind of Philipism. Do you think I did you wrong in this? And now look at the letter from me, who, you say, insulted you. They fashioned a Synodal summons to me; and when I declined it and said that the thing was an insult, they then asked as an alternative that through me you should be invited to deliberate upon these matters. This I promised, in order to prevent their first plan being carried out; placing the whole matter in your hands, if you choose to call them together, and where and when. And if I have not injured you in this, tell me where there is room for injury. If you have to learn this from me, I will read you the letter which Anthimus sent me, after invading the marshes, notwithstanding my prohibitions and threats, insulting and reviling me, and as it were singing a song of triumph over my defeat. And what reason is there that I should offend him for your sake and at the same time displease you, as though I were currying favour with him? You ought to have learnt this first, my dear friend; and even if it had been so, you should not have insulted me,—if only because I am a Priest. But if you are very much disposed to ostentation and quarrelsomeness, and speak as my Superior—as the Metropolitan to an insignificant Suffragan, or even as to a Bishop without a See—I too have a little pride to set against yours. That is very easy to anybody, and is perhaps the most suitable course.
Ep. LVIII. To Basil.
(An attack had been made in Gregory’s presence on the orthodoxy of Basil in respect of the Deity of God the Holy Ghost; and in this letter he gives his friend an account of the way in which he had defended him. Unfortunately Basil was not pleased with the letter, taking it as intended to convey reproach under the guise of friendly sympathy.)
From the first I have taken you, and I take you still,
for my guide of life and my teacher of the faith, and for every thing
honourable that can be said; and if any one else praises your merits,
he is altogether with me, or even behind me, so far am I surpassed by
your piety, and so thoroughly am I yours. And no wonder; for the
longer the intimacy the greater the experience; and where the
experience is more abundant the testimony is more perfect. And if
I get any profit in life it is from your friendship and company.
This is my disposition in regard to these matters, and I hope always
will
Many people have condemned us as not firm in our faith; those, I mean, who think and think rightly that we thoroughly agree. Some openly charge us with heresy, others with cowardice; with heresy, those who believe that our language is not sound; with cowardice, they who blame our reserve. I need not report what other people say; I will tell you what has recently happened.
There was a party here at which a great many distinguished friends of ours were present, and amongst them was a man who wore the name and dress which betoken piety (i.e. a Monk). They had not yet begun to drink, but were talking about us, as often happens at such parties, and made us rather than anything else the subject of their conversation. They admired everything connected with you, and they brought me in as professing the same philosophy; and they spoke of our friendship, and of Athens, and of our conformity of views and feelings on all points. Our Philosopher was annoyed by this. “What is this, gentlemen?” he said, with a very mighty shout, “what liars and flatterers you are. You may praise these men for other reasons if you like, and I will not contradict you; but I cannot concede to you the most important point, their orthodoxy. Basil and Gregory are falsely praised; the former, because his words are a betrayal of the faith, the latter, because his toleration aids the treason.”
What is this, said I, O vain man and new Dathan
and Abiram in folly? Where do you come from to lay down the law
for us? How do you set yourself up as a judge of such great
matters? “I have just come,” he replied, “from
the festival of the Martyr Eupsychius He suffered under the
Emperor Hadrian. The Festival was Sept. 7.
“It is,” I said, “because I (living as I do in a corner, and unknown to most men who do not know what I say, and hardly that I speak at all) can philosophize without danger; but his word is of greater weight, because he is better known, both on his own account and on that of his Church. And everything that he says is public, and the war around him is great, as the heretics try to snatch every naked word from Basil’s lips, to get him expelled from the Church; because he is almost the only spark of truth left and the vital force, all else around having been destroyed; so that evil may be rooted in the city, and may spread over the whole world as from a centre in that Church. Surely then it is better to use some reserve in the truth, and ourselves to give way a little to circumstances as to a cloud, rather than by the openness of the proclamation to risk its destruction. For no harm will come to us if we recognize the Spirit as God from other phrases which lead to this conclusion (for the truth consists not so much in sound as in sense), but a very great injury would be done to the Church if the truth were driven away in the person of one man.” The company present would not receive my economy, as out of date and mocking them; but they shouted me down as practising it rather from cowardice than for reason. It would be much better, they said, to protect our own people by the truth, than by your so-called Economy to weaken them while failing to win over the others. It would be a long business and perhaps unnecessary to tell you all the details of what I said, and of what I heard, and how vexed I was with the opponents, perhaps immoderately and contrary to my own usual temper. But, in fine, I sent them away in the same fashion. But do you O divine and sacred head, instruct me how far I ought to go in setting forth the Deity of the Spirit; and what words I ought to use, and how far to use reserve; that I may be furnished against opponents. For if I, who more than any one else know both you and your opinions, and have often both given and received assurance on this point, still need to be taught the truth of this matter, I shall be of all men the most ignorant and miserable.
(The reply to Basil’s somewhat angry answer to the last.)
This was a case which any wiser man would have foreseen; but I who am very simple and foolish did not fear it in writing to you. My letter grieved you; but in my opinion neither rightly nor justly, but quite unreasonably. And whilst you did not acknowledge that you were hurt, neither did you conceal it, or if you did it was with great skill, as with a mask, hiding your vexation under an appearance of respect. But as to myself if I acted in this deceitfully or maliciously, I shall be punished not more by your vexation than by the truth itself; but if in simplicity and with my accustomed goodwill, I will lay the blame on my own sins rather than on your temper. But it would have been better to have set this matter straight, rather than to be angry with those who offer you counsel. But you must see to your own affairs, inasmuch as you are quite capable of giving the same advice to others. You may look upon me as very ready, if God will, both to come to you, and to join you in the conflict, and to contribute all that I can. For who would flinch, who would not rather take courage in speaking and contending for the truth under you and by your side?
Ep. LX. To Basil.
(Gregory was not able, owing to the serious illness of his Mother, to carry out the promise at the end of Ep. LIX.; so he writes to explain and excuse himself.)
The Carrying Out of your bidding depends partly on me; but partly, and I venture to think principally, on your Reverence. What depends on me is the good will and eagerness, for I never yet avoided meeting you, but have always sought opportunities, and at the present moment am even more desirous of doing so. What depends on your Holiness is that my affairs be set straight. For I am sitting by my lady Mother, who has for a long time been suffering from illness. And if I could leave her out of danger you might be well assured that I would not deprive myself of the pleasure of going to you. So give me the help of your prayers for her restoration to health, and for my journey to you.
Miscellaneous Letters.
§1. Letters to His Brother Cæsarius.
Ep. VII.
(On the death of the Emperor Constantius the undisputed succession devolved on his cousin Julian the Apostate, who at once began to employ all the power of the Empire to discourage, while not absolutely persecuting, Christianity, and to restore the supremacy of the ancient Paganism. One of his first acts was to dismiss all the men who had held high dignities under his predecessor. S. Cæsarius, Gregory’s brother, was however to be excepted; Julian, who had perhaps known and esteemed him at Athens, did all that he could to keep him at Court, and to attach him to himself. This caused much anxiety to Gregory and other friends of Cæsarius, who foresaw that Julian would do his utmost to shake the young man’s faith, and could not feel sure that he would have courage to resist such assaults. In his trouble Gregory wrote him the following letter. Shortly afterwards the expected attempt was made. S. Cæsarius bravely held his ground against the Emperor, and after declaring his unalterable determination to hold firm to his faith, resigned his office at Court and withdrew to Nazianzus.)
I have had enough to blush for in you; that I was
grieved, it is hardly necessary to say to him who of all men knows me
best. But, not to speak of my own feelings, or of the distress
with which the rumour about you filled me (and let me say also the
fear), I should have liked you, had it been possible, to have heard
what was said by others, both relations and outsiders, who are any way
acquainted with us (Christians I mean, of course,) about you and me;
and not only some of them, but everyone in turn alike; for men are
always more ready to philosophize about strangers than about their own
relations. Such speeches as the following have become a sort of
exercise among them: Now a Bishop’s son takes service in
the army; now he covets exterior power and fame; now he is a slave of
money, when the fire is being rekindled for all, and men are running
the race for life; and he does not deem the one only glory and safety
and wealth to be to stand nobly against the times, and to place himself
as far as possible out of reach of every abomination and
defilement. How then can the Bishop exhort others not to be
carried along with the times, or to be mixed up with idols? How
can he rebuke those who do wrong in other ways, seeing his own home
takes away his right to speak freely? We have every day to hear
this, and even more severe things, some of the speakers perhaps saying
them from a motive of friendship, and others with unfriendly
feelings. How do you think we feel, and what is the state of mind
with which we, men professing to serve God, and to deem the only good
to be to look forward to the hopes of the future, hear such things as
these? Our venerable Father is very much distressed by all that
he hears, which even disgusts him with life. I console and
comfort him as best I can, by making myself surety for your mind, and
assuring him that you will not continue thus to grieve us. But if
our dear Mother were to hear about you (so far we have kept her in the
dark by various devices), I think she would be altogether inconsolable;
being, as a woman, of a weak mind, and besides unable, through her
great piety, to control her feelings on such matters. If then you
care at all for yourself and us, try some better and safer
course. Our means are certainly enough for an independent life,
at least for a man of moderate desires, who is not insatiable in his
lust for more. Moreover, I do not see what occasion for your
settling down we are to wait for, if we let this one pass. But if
you cling to the same opinion, and every
Ep. XIV. and XXIII.
(Under the Emperor Valens Cæsarius returned to public life and was made Quæstor of Bithynia. While he was in this office the following letters were written to him by his brother on behalf of two cousins, Eulalius, who afterwards succeeded Gregory in the Bishopric of Nazianzus, and with whom Gregory was on terms of intimate friendship, and Amphilochius, who, through the roguery of a partner, had got into some trouble at Constantinople about money matters, and for whom he asks aid and advice. Some however think that this letter is not addressed to his brother (who may have been at Constantinople at the time), but to some other officer of high rank at the Imperial Court. Amphilochius soon after retired from the world, and by a.d. 347 was already bishop of the important See of Iconium. Gregory’s letters to him are given later in this division.)
Do a kindness to yourself and to me, of a kind that you will not often have an opportunity of doing, because opportunities for such kindnesses do not often occur. Undertake a most righteous protection of my dear cousins, who are worried more than enough about a property which they bought as suitable for retirement, and capable of providing them with some means of living; but after having completed the purchase they have fallen into many troubles, partly through finding the vendors dishonest, and partly through being plundered and robbed by their neighbours, so that it would be a gain to them to get rid of their acquisition for the price they gave for it, plus the not small sum they have spent on it besides. If, then, you would like to transfer the business to yourself, after examining the contract to see how it may be best and most securely done, this course would be most acceptable both to them and me; but if you would rather not, the next best course would be to oppose yourself to the officiousness and dishonesty of the man, that he may not succeed in gaining one advantage over their want of business habits, either by wronging them if they retain their property, or by inflicting loss upon them if they part with it. I am really ashamed to write to you on such a subject. All the same, since we owe it to them, on account both of their relationship and of their profession (for of whom would one rather take care than of such, or what would one be more ashamed of than of being unwilling to confer such a benefit?) do you either for your own sake, or for mine, or for the sake of the men themselves, or for all these sakes put together, by all means do them this kindness.
Ep. XXIII.
Do not be surprized if I ask of you a great favour; for it is from a great man that I am asking it, and the request must be measured by him of whom it is made; for it is equally absurd to ask great things from a small man, and small things from a great man, the one being unseasonable, and the other mean. I therefore present to you with my own hand my most precious son Amphilochius, a man so famous (even beyond his years) for his gentlemanly bearing, that I myself, though an old man, and a Priest, and your friend, would be quite content to be as much esteemed. What wonder is it if he was cheated by a man’s pretended friendship, and did not suspect the swindle? For not being himself a rogue, he did not suspect roguery, but thought that correction of language rather than of character was what was wanted, and therefore entered into partnership with him in business. What blame can attach to him for this with honest men? Do not then allow wickedness to get the better of virtue; and do not dishonour my grey hairs, but do honour to my testimony, and add your kindness to my benedictions, which are perhaps of some account with God before Whom we stand.
Ep. XX.
(In a.d. 368 the City of
Nicæa in Bithynia was almost entirely destroyed by a terrible
earthquake. Cæsarius lost his house, and his personal escape
was almost miraculous. Gregory writes (as also did Basil) to
congratulate him on his escape, and profits by the occasion to urge
upon him retirement from his secular avocations. Cæsarius
soon resolved to follow this advice, and was taking steps to carry this
reso
Even frights are not without use to the wise; or,
as I should say, they are very valuable and salutary. For,
although we pray that they may not happen, yet when they do they
instruct us. For the afflicted soul, as Peter Source of the
quotation unknown.
§2. To S. Gregory of Nyssa.
(Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, was a younger brother of Basil the Great. Ordained a Reader at an early age he grew tired of his vocation, and became a professor of Rhetoric. This gave scandal in the Church and occasioned much grief to his friends. Gregory of Nazianzus, wrote him the following letter of remonstrance, which was not without effect, for shortly afterwards he gave up his secular avocation, and retired to the Monastery which his brother Basil had founded in Pontus. Here he spent several years in the study of Holy Scripture and the best Commentators.)
Ep. I.
There is one good point in my character, and I
will boast myself of one point out of many. I am equally vexed
with myself and my friends over a bad plan. Since, then, all are
friends and kinsfolk who live according to God, and walk by the same
Gospel, why should you not hear from me in plain words what all men are
saying in whispers? They do not approve your inglorious glory (to
borrow a phrase from your own art), and your gradual descent to the
lower life, and your ambition, the worst of demons, according to
Euripides. Phœn., 534.
Ep. LXXII.
(When S. Gregory was consecrated Bishop of Nyssa the Imperial Throne was occupied by Valens, an ardent Arian, whose mind was bent on the destruction of the Nicene Faith. He appointed, with this object, one Demosthenes, a former clerk of the Imperial Kitchen, to be Vicar of the civil Diocese of Pontus. An old quarrel with Basil had made this man unfriendly to Gregory, and after persecuting him in various small ways for some time he procured, a.d. 275, the summoning of a Synod to enquire into some allegations of irregularity in his consecration, and to try Gregory on some frivolous charges of malversation of Church funds. Gregory was unable to attend this Synod, which met at Ancyra, on account of an attack of pleurisy; and another was summoned to meet at Nyssa itself. Gregory however refused to appear, and was deposed as contumacious. Thereupon Valens banished him, and he seems to have fallen into very low spirits, almost into despondency at the apparent triumph of the heretical party. The three letters which follow throw some light upon his state at this time. They were written in answer to letters of his now lost, and their object was to comfort him in his trouble and to encourage him to take heart again in the hope of a good day coming. This more cheerful tone was justified by the event, for on the death of Valens, a.d. 378, the exiled Bishops were restored by Gratian, and Gregory was replaced in his Episcopal Throne, to the great joy of the faithful of his Diocese.)
Do not let your troubles distress you too much. For the less we grieve over things, the less grievous they are. It is nothing strange that the heretics have thawed, and are taking courage from the springtime, and creeping out of their holes, as you write. They will hiss for a short time, I know, and then will hide themselves again, overcome both by the truth and the times, and all the more so the more we commit the whole matter to God.
Ep. LXXIII.
As to the subject of your letter, these are my sentiments. I am not angry at being overlooked, but I am glad when I am honoured. The one is my own desert, the other is a proof of your respect. Pray for me. Excuse this short letter, for anyhow, though it is short, it is longer than silence.
Ep. LXXIV.
Although I am at home, my love is expatriated with you, for affection makes us have all things common. Trusting in the mercy of God, and in your prayers, I have great hopes that all will turn out according to your mind, and that the hurricane will be turned into a gentle breeze, and that God will give you this reward for your orthodoxy, that you will overcome your opponents. Most of all I long to see you shortly, and to have a good time with you, as I pray. But if you delay owing to the pressure of affairs, at any rate cheer me by a letter, and do not disdain to tell me all about your circumstances, and to pray for me, as you are accustomed to do. May God grant you health and good spirits in all circumstances,—you who are the common prop of the whole Church.
Ep. LXXVI.
(Basil the Great died Jan. 1, a.d. 379. Gregory of Nazianzus was prevented by very serious illness from attending his funeral, and therefore wrote as follows to Gregory of Nyssa.)
This, then, was also reserved for my sad life, to hear
of the death of Basil, and the departure
Ep. LXXXI.
You are distressed by your travels, and think yourself unsteady, like a stick carried along by a stream. But, my dear friend, you must not let yourself feel so at all. For the travels of the stick are involuntary, but your course is ordained by God, and your stability is in doing good to others, even though you are not fixed to a place; unless indeed one ought to find fault with the sun, for going about the world scattering his rays, and giving life to all things on which he shines; or, while praising the fixed stars, one should revile the planets, whose very wandering is harmonious.
Ep. CLXXXII.
(Gregory after his resignation of the Patriarchal See of Constantinople had retired to Nazianzus, and had been persuaded to undertake the administration of the diocese then vacant, until the vacancy should be filled. The Bishops of the Province wished him to retain it altogether, and therefore were in no hurry to proceed to election. At length however they yielded to the continually expressed wishes of Gregory and chose his cousin Eulalius. Soon however Gregory’s enemies spread abroad a report that this election had been made against his wishes, and with the intention of unfairly ousting him from the administration of that Church. The following letter was written in consequence of this slander.)
Woe is me that my sojourning is prolonged, and, which is the greatest of my misfortunes, that war and dissensions are among us, and that we have not kept the peace which we received from our holy fathers. This I doubt not you will restore, in the power of the Spirit who upholds you and yours. But let no one, I beg, spread false reports about me and my lords the bishops, as though they had proclaimed another bishop in my place against my will. But being in great need, owing to my feeble health, and fearing the responsibility of a Church neglected, I asked this favour of them, which was not opposed to the Canon Law, and was a relief to me, that they would give a Pastor to the Church. He has been given to your prayers, a man worthy of your piety, and I now place him in your hands, the most reverend Eulalius, a bishop very dear to God, in whose arms I should like to die. If any be of opinion that it is not right to ordain another in the lifetime of a Bishop, let him know that he will not in this matter gain any hold upon us. For it is well known that I was appointed, not to Nazianzus, but to Sasima, although for a short time out of reverence for my father, I as a stranger undertook the government.
Ep. CXCVII. A Letter of Condolence on the Death of His Sister Theosebia.
(The writer of the article on Gregory Nyssen in
the Dict. Biogr. supposes her to have been his wife, but produces no
evidence of this beyond the ambiguous expression in this letter which
speaks of her as “the true consort of a priest,” but on the
other hand she is expressly called his Sister in the same letter.
Some writers have imagined that she was the wife of Gregory Nazianzen
himself, but there is no evidence to show that he was ever
married. The date of her death is uncertain, but it was probably
subsequent to a.d. 381. It would seem
that the term Consort might have a general application to those who
shared in the
I had started in all haste to go to you, and had
got as far as Euphemias, when I was delayed by the festival which you
are celebrating in honour of the Holy Martyrs; partly because I could
not take part in it, owing to my bad health, partly because my coming
at so unsuitable a time might be inconvenient to you. I had
started partly for the sake of seeing you after so long, and partly
that I might admire your patience and philosophy (for I had heard of
it) at the departure of your holy and blessed sister, as a good and
perfect man, a minister of God, who knows better than any the things
both of God and man; and who regards as a very light thing that which
to others would be most heavy, namely to have lived with such a soul,
and to send her away and store her up in the safe garners, like a shock
of the threshingfloor gathered in due season, Referring to her
office as a Deaconess.
§3. To Eusebius Bishop of Samosata.
Ep. XLII.
(This letter, urging his friend to attend at Cæsarea for the election of a Metropolitan in succession to Eusebius, has been already given in the second division of this Selection.)
Ep. XLIV.
(Eusebius, having in response to the appeal referred to above, betaken himself to Cæsarea, the Elder Gregory, though in very feeble health, resolved to attend the Synod in person, that Basil’s Election might be secured by their joint exertions, Gregory the Younger sent the following letter by his father to explain to his friend the reason why he had not come too. The date is about September of the year 379.)
Whence shall I begin your praises, and by what
name shall I give you your right appellation? The pillar and
ground of the church, or a light in the world, using the very words of
the apostle, or a crown of glory to the remaining portion of
christendom; Alluding to his work
in opposing the prevalence of Arianism.
But our mother church, Cæsarea I mean, is now
really putting off the garments of her widowhood at the sight of you,
and putting on again her robe of cheerfulness, and will be yet more
resplendent when she receives a pastor Alluding to the effort
made by his father.
Ep. LXIV.
(In the year 374 Eusebius and other orthodox Bishops of the East were banished by Valens and their thrones filled with Arian intruders. Eusebius was ordered to retire to Thrace, and his journey lay through Cappadocia, where he saw Basil, but Gregory to his great grief was too unwell to leave his house and go to meet him. Instead he sent the following letter.)
When Your Reverence was passing through our country I was so ill as not to be able even to look out of my house. And I was grieved not so much on account of the illness, though it brought about the fear of the worst, as by the inability to meet your holiness and goodness. My longing to see your venerable face was like that which a man would naturally feel who needed healing of spiritual wounds, and expected to receive it from you. But though at that time the effect of my sins was that I missed the meeting with you, it is now by your goodness possible for me to find a remedy for my trouble, for if you will deign to remember me in your acceptable prayers, this will be to me a store of every blessing from God, both in this my life and in the age to come. For that such a man, such a combatant for the Faith of the Gospel, one who has endured such persecutions, and won for himself such confidence before the all-righteous God by his patience in tribulation—that such a man should deign to be my patron also in his prayers will gain for me, I am persuaded, as much strength as I should have gained through one of the holy martyrs. Therefore let me entreat you to remember your Gregory without ceasing in all the matters in which I desire to be worthy of your remembrance.
Ep. LXV.
(Eusebius having replied to the former letter Gregory wrote again, having an opportunity of communicating with his friend through one Eupraxius, a disciple of Eusebius, who passed through Cappadocia on his way to visit his master. This letter is sometimes attributed to Basil.)
Our reverend brother Eupraxius has always been
dear to me and a true friend, but he has shewn himself dearer and truer
through his affections for you, inasmuch as even at the present time he
has hurried to your reverence, like, to use David’s words, a hart
to quench his great and unendurable thirst
Happy indeed are they who are permitted to come near
you, and happier still is he who can place upon his sufferings for
Christ’s sake and upon his labours for the truth, a crown such as
few of those who fear God have obtained. For it is not an
untested virtue that you have shown, nor is it only, in a time of calm
that you have sailed aright and steered the souls of others, but you
have shone in the difficulties of temptations, and have been greater
than your persecutors, having nobly departed from the land of your
birth. Others possess the threshold of their fathers,—we
the heavenly City; others perhaps hold our throne, but we Christ.
O what a profitable exchange! How little we give up, to receive
how much! We went through fire and water, and I believe that we
shall also come out into a place of refreshment. For God will not
forsake us for ever, or abandon the true faith to persecution, but
according to the multitude of our pains His comforts shall make us
glad. This at any rate we believe and desire. But do you, I
beg, pray for our humility. And as often
Ep. LXVI.
(The following letter is sometimes attributed to Basil, and is found in his works as well as in those of Gregory. The mss. however, with only a single exception, give it to the latter.)
You give me pleasure both by writing and remembering me, and a much greater pleasure by sending me your blessing in your letter. But if I were worthy of your sufferings and of your conflicts for Christ and through Christ I should have been counted worthy also to come to you, to embrace Your Piety, and to take example by your patience in your sufferings. But since I am not worthy of this, being troubled with many afflictions and hindrances I do what is next best. I address Your Perfection, and I beg you not to be weary of remembering me. For to be deemed worthy of your letters is not only profitable to me, but is also a matter to boast of to many people, and is an honour, because I am considered by a man of so great virtue, and such near relations with God, that he can bring others also by word and example into relation to Him.
§4. To Sophronius, Prefect of Constantinople.
(Sophronius, a native of the Cappadocian Cæsarea, was an early friend and fellow-student of Gregory and Basil. He entered the Civil Service, and soon rose to high office. In a.d. 365 he was appointed Prefect of Constantinople, as a reward for timely intimation which he gave to the Emperor Valens of the usurpation attempted by Procopius. He is chiefly known to us by the letters of Gregory and Basil, invoking his good offices for various persons. Ep. 21 was written in a.d. 369 to commend to him Nicobulus, Gregory’s nephew by marriage, the husband of Alypiana, daughter of his sister Gorgonia. This Nicobulus was a man of great wealth and ability, but much disinclined for public life. Gregory constantly writes to one and another high official to get him excused from appointments which had been thrust upon him.)
Ep. XXI.
Gold is changed and transformed into various forms at various times, being fashioned into many ornaments, and used by art for many purposes; yet it remains what it is—gold; and it is not the substance but the form which admits of change. So also, believing that your kindness will remain unchanged for your friends, although you are ever climbing higher, I have ventured to send you this request, because I do not more reverence your high rank than I trust your kind disposition. I entreat you to be favourable to my most respectable son Nicobulus, who is in all respects allied with me, both by kindred and by intimacy, and, which is more important, by disposition. In what matters, and to what extent? In whatever he may ask your aid, and as far as may seem to you to befit your Magnanimity. I on my part will repay you the best I have. I have the power of speech, and of proclaiming your goodness, if not nearly according to its worth, at any rate to the best of my ability.
Ep. XXII.
(Is for Amphilochius, written at the same time and in consequence of the same trouble as that which we have placed second of the letters to Cæsarius.)
As we know gold and stones by their look, so too
we may distinguish good men from bad in the same way, and do not need a
very long trial. For I should not have needed many words in
pleading for my most honourable son Amphilochius with Your
Magnanimity. I should rather have expected some strange and
incredible thing to happen than that he would do anything
dishonourable, or think of such a thing, in a matter of money; such a
universal reputation has he as a gentleman, and as wiser than his
years. But what must he suffer? Nothing escapes envy, for
some word of blame has touched even him, a man who has fallen under
accusation of crime through simplicity rather than depravity of
disposition. But do not allow it to be tolerable to you to
overlook him in his vexations and trouble. Not so, I entreat your
sacred and great mind, but honour your country Sophronius and
Amphilochius were natives of Cæsarea.
Ep. XXIX.
(Of the same year. Here Cæsarius had
bequeathed all his property to the poor; but
You see how matters stand with me, and how the circle of human affairs goes round, now some now others flourishing or the reverse, and neither prosperity nor adversity remaining constant with us, as the saying is, but ever changing and altering, so that one might trust the breezes, or letters written in the waters, rather than human prosperity. For what reason is this? I think it is in order that by the contemplation of the uncertainty and anomaly of all these things we may learn the rather to have recourse to God and to the future, giving scanty thoughts to shadows and dreams. But what has produced this talk, for it is not without a cause that I thus philosophize, and I am not idly boasting?
Cæsarius was once one of your not least distinguished friends; indeed, unless my brotherly affection deceives me, he was one of your most distinguished, for he was remarkably well informed, and for gentlemanly conduct was above the average, and was celebrated for the number of his friends; among the very first of these, as he always thought and as he persuaded me, Your Excellency held the first place. These are old stories, and you will add to them of your own accord in rendering honours to his memory; for it is human nature to add something to the praises of the departed. But now (that you may not pass over this story without a tear, or that you may weep to some good and useful purpose), he lies dead, friendless, solitary, pitiable, deemed worthy of a little myrrh (if even of so much), and of the last small coverings, and it is much that he has found even thus much compassion. But his enemies, as I hear, have fallen upon his estate, and from all quarters with great violence are plundering it, or are about to do so. O cruelty! O savagery! And there is no one to hinder them; but even the kindest of his friends only calls upon the laws as his utmost favour. If I may put it concisely, I am become a mere drama, who once was wont to be happy. Do not let this seem to you to be tolerable, but help me by sympathy and by sharing my indignation, and do right by the dead Cæsarius. Yes, in the name of friendship herself; yes, by all that you hold dearest; by your hope (which may you make secure by shewing yourself faithful and true to the departed), I pray you do this kindness to the living, and make them of good hope. Do you think that I am grieved about the money? It would have been a more intolerable disgrace to me if Cæsarius alone, who thought he had so many friends, turned out to have none. Such is my request, and from such a cause does it arise, for perhaps my affairs are not altogether matters of indifference to you. In what you will assist me, and by what means, and how, the matter itself will suggest and your wisdom will consider.
Ep. XXXVII.
(A letter of recommendation for Eudoxius a Rhetorician for whom Gregory had a warm regard.)
To honour a mother is a religious duty. Now, different individuals have different mothers; but the common mother of all is our country. This mother you have honoured by the splendour of your whole life; and you will honour her again now by obtaining for me that which I entreat. And what is my request? You certainly know Eudoxius the Rhetorician, the most learned of her sons. His son, to speak concisely, another Eudoxius both in life and learning, now approaches you through me. In order then to get yourself a yet better name, be helpful to him in the matters for which he asks your assistance. For it were a shame were you, who are the universal Patron of our Country, and who have done good to so many, and I will add, who will yet continue to do so, should not honour above all him who is most excellent in learning and in his eloquence, which you ought to honour, if for no other reason, because he uses it to praise your goodness.
Ep. XXXIX.
(About the same date. A recommendation of one Amazonius, whose learning was much respected by Gregory.)
I wish well to all my friends. And when I speak of
friends, I mean honourable and good men, linked with me in virtue, if
indeed I myself have any claim to it. Therefore at
Ep. XCIII.
(Written soon after Gregory’s resignation of the Archbishopric.)
Our retreat and leisure and quiet have about them something very agreeable to me; but the fact that they cut me off from your friendship and society is not so advantageous but rather the other way. Others enjoy your Perfection, to me it would be really a great boon if I might have just that shadow of conversation which comes in a letter. Shall I see you again? Shall I embrace again him of whom I am so proud, and shall this be granted to the remnant of my life? If so, all thanks to God: if not, the best part of my life is over. Pray remember your friend Gregory and pray for him.
Ep. CXXXV.
(About the middle of a.d. 382 Theodosius, on the recommendation of S. Damasus, summoned a new Synod of Eastern Bishops to meet at Constantinople, to try and heal the schism which had been embittered by the election of Flavian at Antioch. As soon as Gregory heard of the convocation of this Synod he wrote to several of his influential friends at Court, to beg them to do their utmost for the promotion of peace.)
I am philosophizing at leisure. That is the injury my enemies have done me, and I should be glad if they would do more of the same sort, that I might look upon them still more as benefactors. For it often happens that those who are wronged get a benefit, while they, whom we would treat well, suffer injury. That is the state of my affairs. But if I cannot make every one believe this, I am very anxious, that at all events you, for them all, to whom I most willingly give an account of my affairs, should know, or rather I feel certain that you do know it, and can persuade those who do not. You, however, I beg to give all diligence, now at any rate, if you have not done so before, to bring together to one voice and mind the sections of the world that are so unhappily divided; and above all if you should perceive, as I have observed, that they are divided not on account of the Faith, but by petty private interests. To succeed in doing this would earn you a reward; and my retirement would have less to grieve over if I could see that I did not grasp at it to no purpose, but was like a Jonas, willingly casting myself into the sea, that the storm might cease and the sailors be saved. If, however, they are still as storm-tost as ever, I at all events have done what I could.
§5. To Amphilochius the Younger.
Ep. IX.
(Constantine and Constantius had granted exemption from the military tax to all clerics. This privilege was, however, abolished by Julian, and was restored by Valentinian and Valens: but the collectors of revenue often tried to levy it on them in spite of the exemption. The collector at Nazianzus tried to do this in the case of a Deacon named Euthalius, in whose behalf Gregory wrote the following letter to Amphilochius, who was at the time one of the principal magistrates of the province. The date of the letter is given as a.d. 372, the year of Gregory’s Ordination to the Priesthood. For further particulars about this Amphilochius, see introd. to letters II. and III. to Cæsarius Epp. 22, 23.)
Support a wellbuilt chamber with columns of gold,
as Pindar Olymp., Od. vi.,
1.
Ep. XIII.
(See the first letter to Sophronius. The nature of the trouble here alluded to is unknown. There are several letters to various persons in reference to his troubles and difficulties, many of them coming from his reluctance to undertake the duties of any public office. He died at an early age, leaving his widow, Alypiana, with a large family to bring up in very reduced circumstances. Her troubles and the education of her children were matters of much concern to Gregory, whose frequent letters on the subject will be found below.)
I approve the statement of Theognis, who, while not praising the friendship which goes no further than cups and pleasures, praises that which extends to actions in these words,
Beside a full wine cup a man has many friends:
But they are fewer when grave troubles press.
We, however, have not shared winecups with each other, nor indeed have we often met (though we ought to have been very careful to do so, both for our own sake, and for the sake of the friendship which we inherited from our fathers), but we do ask for the goodwill which shews itself in acts. A struggle is at hand, and a very serious struggle. My son Nicobulus has got into unexpected troubles, from a quarter from which troubles would least be looked for. Therefore I beg you to come and help us as soon as you can, both to take part in trying the case, and to plead our cause, if you find that a wrong is being done us. But if you cannot come, at any rate do not let yourself be previously retained by the other side, or sell for a small gain the freedom which we know from everybody’s testimony has always characterized you.
Ep. XXV.
(Amphilochius was acquitted of the charges made against him, referred to in former letters; but the result of the accusation on his own mind was such that he resigned his office, and retired to a sort of hermitage at a place called Ozizala, not far from Nazianzus, where he devoted his hours of labour to the cultivation of vegetables. The four letters which follow are of no special importance, and are only given as specimens of the lighter style which Gregory could use with his intimate friends.)
I did not ask you for bread, just as I would not ask for water from the inhabitants of Ostracine. But if I were to ask for vegetables from a man of Ozizala it were no strange thing, nor too great a strain on friendship; for you have plenty of them, and we a great dearth. I beg you then to send me some vegetables, and plenty of them, and the best quality, or as many as you can (for even small things are great to the poor); for I am going to receive the great Basil, and you, who have had experience of him full and philosophical, would not like to know him hungry and irritated.
Ep. XXVI.
What a very small quantity of vegetables you have sent me! They must surely be golden vegetables! And yet your whole wealth consists of orchards and rivers and groves and gardens, and your country is productive of vegetables as other lands are of gold, and
You dwell among meadowy leafage.
But corn is for you a fabulous happiness, and your bread is the bread of angels, as the saying is, so welcome is it, and so little can you reckon upon it. Either, then, send me your vegetables less grudgingly, or—I won’t threaten you with anything else, but I won’t send you any corn, and will see whether there is any truth in the saying that grasshoppers live on dew!
Ep. XXVII.
You make a joke of it; but I know the danger of an Ozizalean starving when he has taken most pains with his husbandry. There is only this praise to be given them, that even if they die of hunger they smell sweet, and have a gorgeous funeral. How so? Because they are covered with plenty of all sorts of flowers.
In visiting the mountain cities which border on Pamphylia I fished up in the Mountains a sea Glaucus; I did not drag the fish out of the depths with a net of flax, but I snared my game with the love of a friend. And having once taught my Glaucus to travel by land, I sent him as the bearer of a letter to Your Goodness. Please receive him kindly, and honour him with the hospitality commended in the Bible, not forgetting the vegetables.
Ep. LXII.
(The Armenian referred to is probably Eustathius Bishop of Sebaste, the capital of Armenia Minor. He had been a disciple of Arius, but more than once professed the Nicene Faith, changing his opinions with his company. His personal character however stood very high, and for a long time S. Basil regarded him with affectionate esteem. Indeed S. Basil’s Rule for Monks is based on one drawn up by him. But after Basil’s elevation to the Episcopate Eustathius began to oppose him and to calumniate him on all sides, and even entered openly into communion with the Arians. It would seem that this man tried to get Amphilochius round to his side, and through him Gregory.)
The Injunction of your inimitable Honour is not barbaric, but Greek, or rather christian; but as for the Armenian on whom you pride yourself so, he is a downright barbarian, and far from our honour.
Ep. LXIII. To Amphilochius the Elder.
(In a.d. 374 Amphilochius was made Bishop of Iconium; and his father, a man of the same name, was deeply aggrieved at being thus deprived of his son, to whom he had looked to support him in his old age, and accused Gregory of being the cause. Gregory, who had just lost his own father, writes to undeceive him, and to convince him how much he dreads the burden of the responsibilities of the episcopate for his friend as well as for himself.)
Are you grieving? I, of course, am full of joy! Are you weeping? I, as you see, am keeping festival and glorying in the present state of things! Are you grieved because your son is taken from you and promoted to honour on account of his virtue, and do you think it a terrible misfortune that he is no longer with you to tend your old age, and, as his custom is, to bestow on you all due care and service? But it is no grief to me that my father has left me for the last journey, from which he will return to me no more, and I shall never see him again! Then I for my part do not blame you, nor do I ask you for due condolence, knowing as I do that private troubles allow no leisure for those of strangers; for no man is so friendly and so philosophical as to be above his own suffering and to comfort another when needing comfort himself. But you on the contrary heap blow on blow, when you blame me, as I hear you do, and think that your son and my brother is neglected by us, or even betrayed by us, which is a still heavier charge; or that we do not recognize the loss which all his friends and relatives have suffered, and I more than all, because I had placed in him my hopes of life, and looked upon him as the only bulwark, the only good counsellor, and the only sharer of my piety. And yet, on what grounds do you form this opinion? If on the first, be assured that I came over to you on purpose, and because I was troubled by the rumour, and I was ready to share your deliberations while it was still time for consultation about the matter; and you imparted anything to me rather than this, whether because you were in the same distress, or with some other purpose, I know not what. But if the last, I was prevented from meeting you again by my grief, and the honour I owed my father, and his funeral, over which I could not give anything precedence, and that when my sorrow was fresh, and it would not only have been wrong but also quite improper to be unseasonably philosophical, and above human nature. Moreover, I thought that I was previously engaged by the circumstances, especially as his had come to such a conclusion as seemed good to Him who governs all our affairs. So much concerning this matter. Now I beg you to put aside your grief, which is most unreasonable I am sure; and if you have any further grievance, bring it forward that you may not grieve both me in part and yourself, and put yourself in a position unworthy of your nobility, blaming me instead of others, though I have done you no wrong, but, if I must say the truth, have been equally tyrannized over by our common friend, although you used to think me your only benefactor.
Scarcely yet delivered from the pains of my
illness, I hasten to you, the guardian of my cure. For the tongue
of a priest meditating of the Lord raises the sick. Do then the
greater thing in your priestly ministration, and loose the great mass
of my sins when you lay hold of the Sacrifice of Resurrection.
For your affairs are a care to me waking or sleeping, and you are to me
a good plectrum, and have made a welltuned lyre to dwell within my
soul, because by your numerous letters you have trained my soul to
science. But, most reverend friend, cease not both to pray and to
plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when with a
bloodless cutting you sever the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your
voice for the glaive. A very clear assertion
of the Real Presence.
Ep. CLXXXIV.
(Bosporius, Bishop of Colonia in Cappadocia Secunda, who had apparently taken a prominent part in the election and consecration of Eulalius to the See of Nazianzus, was accused of heresy by Helladius Archbishop of Cæsarea, and a Council met at Parnassus to try him, a.d. 383. Gregory, not being able personally to attend this Synod, writes to Amphilochius, to beg him to undertake the defence of the accused. The letter is lost, but Gregory’s friend carried out his mission with success, and the following letter is to thank him for his kindness.)
The Lord fulfil all thy petitions (do not despise a father’s prayer), for you have abundantly refreshed my age, both by having gone to Parnassus, as you were invited to do, and by having refuted the calumny against the most Reverend and God-beloved Bishop. For evil men love to set down their own faults to those who convict them. For the age of this man is stronger than all the accusations, and so is his life, and we too who have often heard from him and taught others, and those whom he has recovered from error and added to the common body of the church; but yet the present evil times called for more accurate proof on account of the slanderers and evil-disposed; and this you have supplied us with, or rather you have supplied it to those who are of fickler mind and easily led away by such men. But if you will undertake a longer journey, and will personally give testimony, and settle the matter with the other bishops, you will be doing a spiritual work worthy of your Perfection. I and those with me salute your Fraternity.
§6. To Nectarius Archbishop of Constantinople.
(Gregory, having failed to persuade the Council of a.d. 381 to end the schism at Antioch by recognizing Paulinus as successor to Meletius, thought it best for the sake of peace to resign the Archbishopric. The Council elected in his place Nectarius, a catechumen at the time, who was Prætor of Constantinople, and he was consecrated and enthroned June 9, 381. Gregory always maintained cordial relations with him; and the following letter was written in answer to the formal announcement of his election.)
Ep. LXXXVIII.
It was needful that the Royal Image should adorn the Royal City. For this reason it wears you upon its bosom, as was fitting, with the virtues and the eloquence, and the other beauties with which the Divine Favour has conspicuously enriched you. Us it has treated with utter contempt, and has cast away like refuse and chaff or a wave of the sea. But since friends have a common interest in each other’s affairs, I claim a share in your welfare, and feel myself a partaker in your glory and the rest of your prosperity. Do you also, as is fitting, partake of the anxieties and reverses of your exiles, and not only (as the tragedians say) hold and stick to happy circumstances, but also take your part with your friend in troubles; that you may be perfectly just, living justly and equally in respect of friendship and of your friends. May good fortune abide with you long, that you may do yet more good; yes, may it be with you irrevocably and eternally, after your prosperity here, unto the passage to that other world.
Ep. XCI.
(A letter of no great importance, except as shewing the friendly feelings which Gregory continued to maintain towards his successor.)
Affairs with us go on as usual: we are quiet
without strifes and disputes, valuing as we do the reward (which has no
risk attaching to it) of silence, beyond everything. And we have
derived some profit from this rest, having by God’s mercy fairly
recovered from our illness. Do
Ep. CLI.
(Written about a.d. 382, commending his friend George, a deacon of Nazianzus, to the good offices of the Archbishop and the Count of the Domestics, or Master of the Imperial Household, on account of his private troubles and anxieties.)
People in general make a very good guess at your disposition—or rather, they do not conjecture, but they do not refuse to believe me when I pride myself on the fact that you deem me worthy of no small respect and honour. One of these people is my very precious son George, who having fallen into many losses, and being very much overwhelmed by his troubles, can find only one harbour of safety, namely, to be introduced to you by us, and to obtain some favour at the hands of the Most Illustrious the Count of the Domestics. Grant them this favour, either to him and his need, or else, if you prefer it, to me, to whom I know you have resolved to grant all favours; and facts also persuade me that this is true of you.
Ep. CLXXXV.
(See Introduction to Ep. CLXXXIV. above, p. 469. Bosporius was to be sent to Constantinople that his cause might there be tried in the Civil Courts. Gregory therefore writes to the Archbishop to point out what a serious infringement of the rights of the Church this would be. Probably the attitude which Nectarius took up at the suggestion of Gregory was the occasion of the Edict which Theodosius addressed in February, a.d. 384 or 5, to the Augustal Prefect, withdrawing all clerics from the jurisdiction of the civil tribunals, and placing them under the exclusive control of the episcopal courts.)
Whenever different people praise different points in you, and all are pushing forward your good fame, as in a marketplace, I contribute whatever I can, and not less than any of them, because you deign also to honour me, to cheer my old age, as a well-beloved son does that of his father. For this reason I now also venture to offer to you this appeal on behalf of the Most Reverend and God-beloved Bishop Bosporius; though ashamed on the one hand that such a man should need any letter from me, since his venerable character is assured both by his daily life and by his age; and on the other hand not less ashamed to keep silence and not to say a word for him, while I have a voice, and honour faith, and know the man most intimately. The controversy about the dioceses you will no doubt yourself resolve according to the grace of the Spirit which is in you, and to the order of the canons. But I hope Your Reverence will see that it is not to be endured that our affairs are to be posted up in the secular courts. For even if they who are judges of such courts are Christians, as by the mercy of God they are, what is there in common between the Sword and the Spirit? And even if we yield this point, how or where can it be just that a dispute concerning the faith should be interwoven with the other questions? Is our God-beloved Bishop Bosporius to-day a heretic? Is it to-day that his hoar hair is set in the balance, who has brought back so many from their error, and has given so great proof of his orthodoxy, and is a teacher of us all? No, I entreat you, do not give place to such slanders; but if possible reconcile the opposing parties and add this to your praises; but if this may not be, at all events do not allow us all, (with whom he has lived, and with whom he has grown old,) to be outraged by such insolence,—us whom you know to be accurate preachers of the Gospel, both when to be so was dangerous, and when it is free from risk; and to be unable to endure any detraction from the One Unapproachable Godhead. And I beg you to pray for me who am suffering from serious illness. I and all who are with me salute the brethren who surround you. May you, strong and of good courage and of good fame in the Lord, grant to us and the Churches the support which all in common demand.
Ep. CLXXXVI.
(A letter of introduction for a relative.)
What would you have done if I had come in person and
taken up your time? I am quite certain you would have undertaken
with all S.
Ep. CCII.
(An important letter on the Apollinarian controversy has already been given above.)
§7. To Theodore, Bishop of Tyana.
(Theodore, a native of Arianzus, and an intimate friend of Gregory, accompanied him to Constantinople a.d. 379, and shared his persecution by the Arians, who broke into their church during the celebration of the divine liturgy, and pelted the clergy with stones. Theodore could not bring himself to put up with this, and declared his intention of prosecuting the aggressors. Gregory wrote the following letter to dissuade him from this course, by shewing him how much more noble it is to forgive than to revenge.)
Ep. LXXVII.
I hear that you are indignant at the outrages which have been committed on us by the Monks and the Mendicants. And it is no wonder, seeing that you never yet had felt a blow, and were without experience of the evils we have to endure, that you did feel angry at such a thing. But we as experienced in many sorts of evil, and as having had our share of insult, may be considered worthy of belief when we exhort Your Reverence, as old age teaches and as reason suggests. Certainly what has happened was dreadful, and more than dreadful,—no one will deny it: that our altars were insulted, our mysteries disturbed, and that we ourselves had to stand between the communicants and those who would stone them, and to make our intercessions a cure for stonings; that the reverence due to virgins was forgotten, and the good order of monks, and the calamity of the poor, who lost even their pity through ferocity. But perhaps it would be better to be patient, and to give an example of patience to many by our sufferings. For argument is not so persuasive of the world in general as is practice, that silent exhortation.
We think it an important matter to obtain penalties from those who have wronged us: an important matter, I say, (for even this is sometimes useful for the correction of others)—but it is far greater and more Godlike, to bear with injuries. For the former course curbs wickedness, but the latter makes men good, which is much better and more perfect than merely being not wicked. Let us consider that the great pursuit of mercifulness is set before us, and let us forgive the wrongs done to us that we also may obtain forgiveness, and let us by kindness lay up a store of kindness.
Phineas was called Zelotes because he ran through
the Midianitish woman with the man who was committing fornication with
her,
O Ephraim what shall I do unto thee, S. S.
Having so many examples let us imitate the mercy
of God, and not desire to learn from ourselves how great an evil is
requital of sin. You see the sequence of goodness. First it
makes laws, then it commands, threatens, reproaches, holds out
warnings, restrains, threatens again, and only when forced to do so
strikes the blow, but this little by little, opening the way to
amendment. Let us then not strike suddenly (for it is not safe to
do so), but being self-restrained in our fear let us conquer by mercy,
and make them our debtors by our kindness, tormenting them by their
conscience rather than by anger. Let us not dry up a fig tree
which may yet bear fruit, S.
Ep. CXV.
(Sent about Easter a.d. 382 with a copy of the Philocalia, or Chrestomathy of Origen’s works edited by himself and S. Basil.)
You anticipate the Festival, and the letters, and, which is better still, the time by your eagerness, and you bestow on us a preliminary festival. Such is what Your Reverence gives us. And we in return give you the greatest thing we have, our prayers. But that you may have some small thing to remember us by, we send you the volume of the Philocalia of Origen, containing a selection of passages useful to students of literature. Deign to accept this, and give us a proof of its usefulness, being aided by diligence and the Spirit.
Ep. CXXI.
(Written a little later, as a letter of thanks for an Easter Gift. Theodore had quite recently been made Archbishop of Tyana.)
We rejoice in the tokens of love, and especially
at such a season, and from one at once so young a man, and so perfect;
and, to greet you with the words of Scripture, stablished in your
youth, It seems clear, as
Benoît remarks, that this expression refers to Spiritual
fatherhood. Theodore does not appear to have been married.
Ep. CXXII.
You owe me, even as a sick man, tending, for one
of the commandments is the visitation of the sick. And you also
owe to the Holy Martyrs their annual honour, which we celebrate in your
own Arianzus on the 23rd of the month which we call Dathusa. Probably July.
Ep. CXXIII.
(To excuse himself for postponing his acceptance of an invitation.)
I reverence your presence, and I delight in your
company; although otherwise I counsel
Ep. CXXIV.
(A little later on, when the weather was more settled, Gregory accepts the invitation and proposes to come at once, but declines to attend the Provincial Synod.)
You call me? And I hasten, and that for a private visit. Synods and Conventions I salute from afar, since I have experienced that most of them (to speak moderately) are but sorry affairs. What then remains? Help with your prayers my just desires that I may obtain that for which I am anxious.
Ep. CLII.
(On his retirement from Constantinople Gregory had at the request of the Bishops of the Province, and especially of Theodore of Tyana the Metropolitan, and Bosporius Bishop of Colonia (see letters above) and at the earnest solicitation of the people, undertaken the charge of the Diocese of Nazianzus; but he very soon found that his health was not equal to so great a task, and that he could not fulfil its calls upon him. He struggled on for some time, but at length, finding himself quite unequal to it, he wrote as follows to the Metropolitan:)
It is time for me to use these words of Scripture,
To whom shall I cry when I am wronged? Chorepiscopi;—a
grade of clergy called into existence in the latter part of the Third
Century, first in Asia Minor, to meet the difficulty of providing
Episcopal supervision in the country districts of large Dioceses.
They seemed to have been allowed to confer the Minor, but not the Holy
Orders, unless by special commission from the Diocesan, on the ground
of their lack of original Jurisdiction. That they were originally
possessed of full Episcopal Orders there can be no doubt, but
eventually the position was allowed to be held by Priests, and in the
West the office became practically merged in that of the
Archdeacon. The Apollinarians.
Ep. CLIII. To Bosporius, Bishop of Colonia.
(S. Gregory had to carry out his threat. He resigned the care of Nazianzus, and nothing would induce him to withdraw his resignation. Bosporius wrote him an urgent letter with this object, but he replied as follows:)
Twice I have been tripped up by you, and have been
deceived (you know what I mean), and, if it was justly, may the Lord
smell from you an odour of sweet savour;
Ep. CLVII. To Theodore, Archbishop of Tyana.
(S. Gregory succeeded at the end of a.d. 382 in convincing the Metropolitan and his
Comprovincials of his sincerity in desiring to retire; and so they
began to cast about for a Successor. Gregory desired that his
cousin the
Our spiritual affairs have reached their limit: I will not trouble you any further. Join together: take your precautions: take counsel against us: let our enemies have the victory: let the canons be accurately observed, beginning with us, the most ignorant of men. There is no ill-will in accuracy; only do not let the rights of friendship be impeded. The children of my very honoured son Nicobulus have come to the city to learn shorthand. Be kind enough to look upon them with a fatherly and kindly eye (for the canons do not forbid this), but especially take care that they live near the Church. For I desire that they should be moulded in character to virtue by continual association with Your Perfectness.
Ep. CLXIII.
(George a layman of Paspasus, was sent by Theodore of Tyana to Saint Gregory that the latter might convince him of his error and sin in repudiating an oath which he had taken, on the ground that it was taken in writing and not viva voce. Gregory seems to have brought him to a better mind, and sent him back to the Metropolitan with the following letter, requesting that due penance be imposed upon him, and have its length regulated by his contrition. This letter was read to the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, by Euphrantes, a successor of Theodore in the See of Tyana, and was accepted by the Fathers, wherefore it is regarded as having almost the force of a Canon of the Church Universal.)
God grant you to the Churches, both for our glory, and for the benefit of many, being as you are so circumspect and cautious in spiritual matters as to make us also more cautious who are considered to have some advantage over you in years. Since, however, you have wished to take us as partners in your spiritual inquiry (I mean about the oath which George of Paspasus appears to have sworn), we will declare to Your Reverence what presents itself to our mind. Very many people, as it seems to me, delude themselves by considering oaths which are taken with the sanction of spoken imprecations to be real oaths, but those which are written and not verbally uttered, to be mere matter of form, and no oaths at all. For how can we suppose that while a written schedule of debts is more binding than a verbal acknowledgment, yet a written oath is something other than an oath? Or to speak concisely, we hold an oath to be the assurance given to one who asked for and obtained it. Nor is it sufficient to say that he suffered violence (for the violence was the Law by which he bound himself), nor that afterwards he won the cause in the Law Court—for the very fact that he went to law was a breach of his oath. I have persuaded our brother George of this, not to pretend excuses for his sin, and not to seek out arguments to defend his transgression, but to recognize the writing as an oath, and to bewail his sin before God and Your Reverence, even though he formerly deceived himself and took a different view of it. This is what we have personally argued with him; and it is evident that if you will discourse with him more carefully, you will deepen his contrition, since you are a great healer of souls, and having treated him according to the Canon for as long a time as shall seem right, you will afterwards be able to confer indulgence upon him in the matter of time. And the measure of the time must be the measure of his compunction.
Ep. CLXXXIII.
(Helladius, Archbishop of Cæsarea, contested the validity of the election of Eulalius to the Bishopric of Nazianzus, and accused Bosporius of heresy. S. Gregory here throws the whole weight of his authority into the other scale. It is however manifest from the very terms of the letter that the person addressed is not Theodore of Tyana. It was conjectured by Clémencet that perhaps he was Theodore of Mopsuestia.)
Envy, which no one easily escapes, has got some
foothold amongst us. See, even we Cappadocians are in a state of
faction, so to speak—a calamity never heard of before, and not to
be believed—so that no flesh may glory Basil’s
successor.
Ep. CXXXIX.
(This letter is written at a somewhat earlier date in reference to the consent he had been induced to give to remaining for some time longer as administrator of the See of Nazianzus. It is certainly not addressed to Theodore of Tyana, and it is not known who this Theodore is.)
He Who raised David His servant from the
Shepherd’s work to the Throne, and Your Reverence from the flock
to the Work of the Shepherd: He that orders our affairs and those
of all who hope in Him according to His own Will: may He now put
it into the mind of Your Reverence to know the dishonour which I have
suffered at the hands of my Lords the Bishops in the matter of their
votes, in that they have agreed to the Election, See Introd. to Ep.
157. Probably equivalent to
A Monk.
§8. To Nicobulus.
(See the introduction to the first letter to Sophronius above.)
Ep. XII. (About a.d. 365).
You joke me about Alypiana as being little and
unworthy of your size, you tall and immense and monstrous fellow both
in form and strength. For now I understand that soul is a matter
of measure, and virtue of weight, and that rocks are more valuable than
pearls, and crows more respectable than nightingales. Well, well!
rejoice in your bigness and your cubits, and be in no respect inferior
to the famed sons of Aloeus. Otus and Ephialtes,
the two Homeric Giants, who piled Pelion on Ossa and Olympus on Pelion
in the vain endeavour to reach heaven and dethrone Zeus, but were slain
by Apollo. (See Hom., Odyss., xi., 305–320.) An instrument used in
weaving to make the web firm and close. From his own Poem
against women who take too much pains about adorning themselves (i.,
267).
Ep. LI.
(An answer to a request made by Nicobulus for a treatise on the art of writing letters. Benoît thinks this and the following ones were written to the Younger Nicobulus.)
Of those who write letters, since this is what you ask,
some write at too great a length, and others err on the side of
deficiency; and both miss the mean, like archers shooting at a mark and
sending some shafts short of it and others beyond it; for the missing
is the same though on opposite sides. Now the measure of letters
is their usefulness: and we must neither write at very great
length when there is little to say, nor very briefly when there is a
great deal. What? Are we to measure our wisdom by the
Persian Schœne, or by the cubits of a child, and to write so
imperfectly as not to write at all but to copy the midday shadows, or
lines which meet right in front of you, whose lengths are foreshortened
and which show themselves in glimpses rather than plainly, being
recognized only by certain of their extremities? We must in both
respects avoid the want of moderation and hit off the moderate.
This is my opinion as to brevity; as to perspicuity it is clear that
one should avoid the oratorical form as much as possible and lean
rather to the chatty: and, to speak concisely, that is the best
and most beautiful letter which can convince either an unlearned or an
educated reader; the one, as being within the reach of the many; the
other, as above the many; and it should be intelligible in
itself. It is equally disagreeable to think out a riddle and to
have to interpret a letter. The third point about a letter is
grace: and this we shall safeguard if we do not write in any way
that is dry and unpleasing or unadorned and badly arranged and
untrimmed, as they call it; as for instance a style destitute of maxims
and proverbs and pithy sayings, or even jokes and enigmas, by which
language is sweetened. Yet we must not seem to abuse these things
by an excessive employment of them. Their entire omission shews
rusticity, but the abuse of them shews insatiability. We may use
them about as much as purple is used in woven stuffs. Figures of
speech we shall admit, but few and modest. Antitheses and
balanced clauses and nicely divided sentences, we shall leave to the
sophists, or if we do sometimes admit them, we shall do so rather in
play than in earnest. My final remark shall be one which I heard
a clever man make about the eagle, that when the birds were electing a
king, and came with various adornment, the most beautiful point about
him was that he did not think himself beautiful. This point is to
be especially attended to in letter-writing, to be without adventitious
orna
Ep. LII.
(Nicobulus asked Gregory to publish a collection of his letters. Gregory forwards a copy.)
You are asking flowers from an autumn meadow, and
arming Nestor in his old age, in demanding from me now something clever
in the way of language, after I have long neglected all that is
enjoyable in language and in life. But yet (since it is not an
Eurysthean or Herculean labour that you are imposing on me, but rather
one which is very agreeable and quiet, to collect for you as many of my
own letters as I can), do you place this volume among your
books—a work not amatory but oratorical, and not for display so
much as for use, and that for our own home. I.e. as a model of
Christian style.
Ep. LIII.
(Gregory put a collection of Basil’s letters with his own, and gave them the first place. Nicobulus seems to have been surprised at this, and asked the reason. Gregory explains as follows.)
I have always preferred the Great Basil to myself, though he was of the contrary opinion; and so I do now, not less for truth’s sake than for friendship’s. This is the reason why I have given his letters the first place and my own the second. For I hope we two will always be coupled together; and also I would supply others with an example of modesty and submission.
Ep. LIV.
On Laconicism. To be laconic is not merely, as you suppose, to write few words, but to say a great deal in few words. Thus I call Homer very brief and Antimachus lengthy. Why? Because I measure the length by the matter and not by the letters.
Ep. LV.
An Invitation. You flee when I pursue you: perhaps in accordance with the laws of love, to make yourself more valuable. Come then, and fill up at last the loss I have suffered by your long delay. And if any home affairs detain you, you shall leave us again, and so make yourself more precious as an object of desire.
§9. To Olympius.
(Olympius was Prefect of Cappadocia Secunda in 382. One letter to him against the Apollinarians, has already been given; the rest, which are to follow are mainly recommendations of various persons to his patronage.)
Ep. CIV.
All The Other favours which I have received I know to be due to your kindness; and may God reward you for them with His own mercies; and may one of these be, that you may discharge your office of prefect with good fame and splendour from beginning to end. In what I now ask I come rather to give than to receive, if it is not arrogant to say so. I personally introduce poor Philumena to you, to entreat your justice, and to move you to the tears with which she afflicts my soul. She herself will explain to you in what and by whom she has been wronged, for it would not be right for me to bring accusations against any one. But this much it is necessary for me to say, that widowhood and orphanhood have a right to the assistance of all right-minded men, and especially of those who have wife and children, those great pledges of pity, since we—ourselves only men—are set to judge men. Pardon me that I plead with you for these by letter, since it is by ill health that I am deprived of seeing a ruler so kind and so conspicuous for virtue that even the prelude of your administration is more precious than the good fame of others even at the end of their term.
Ep. CV.
The time is swift, the struggle great, and my sickness
severer, reducing me almost to immovability. What is left but to
pray to God, and to supplicate your kindness, the one, that
Ep. CVI.
Here is another laying before you a letter, of which, if the truth may be said, you are the cause yourself, for you provoke them by the honour you do them. Here too is another petitioner for you, a prisoner of fear, our kinsman Eustratius, who with us and by us entreats your goodness, inasmuch as he cannot endure to be in perpetual rebellion against your government, even though a just terror has frightened him, nor does he choose to entreat you by anyone else than me, that he may make your mercy to him more conspicuous through his use of such intercessors, whom at all events you yourself make great by thus accepting their appeal. I will say one thing, and that briefly. All the other favours you conferred upon me; but this you will confer upon your own judgment, since once you purposed to comfort our age and infirmity with such honours. And I will add that you are continually rendering God more propitious to you.
Ep. CXXV.
(Given above, § 1.)
Ep. CXXVI.
(While Gregory was at Xantharis an opportunity presented itself for seeing Olympius, but a return of illness prevented him from taking advantage of it. He writes to express his regret, and takes the opportunity also to request that Nicobulus may be exempted from the charge of the Imperial Posts.)
I was happy in a dream. For having been brought as far as the Monastery to obtain some comfort from the bath, and then hoping to meet you, and having this good fortune almost in my hands, and having delayed a few days, I was suddenly carried away by my illness, which was already painful in some respects and threatening in others. And, if one must find some conjecture to account for the misfortune, I suffered in the same way as the polypods do, which if torn by force from the rocks risk the loss of the suckers by which they attach themselves to the rocks, or carry off some portion of the latter. Something of this kind is my case. And what I should have asked Your Excellency for had I seen you, I now venture to ask for though I am absent. I found my son Nicobulus much worried by the care of the Post, and by close attention to the Monastery. He is not a strong man, and has great distaste for solitude. Make use of him for anything else you please, for he is eager to serve your authority in all things; but if it be possible set him free from this charge, if for no other reason, at any rate to do him honour as my Hospitaller. Since I have asked many favours from you for many people, and have obtained them, I need also your kindness for myself.
Ep. CXXXI.
(In 382 Gregory was summoned to a Synod at Constantinople; he wrote to Procopius, the Prefectus Urbi, and declined to go, on the ground of his great dislike to Episcopal Synods, from which, he said, he had never known any good to result. However he seems to have received a more urgent summons through Icarius and Olympius. His reply to Icarius has been lost; that to Olympius is as follows.)
It is more serious to me than my illness, that no one will believe that I am ill, but that so long a journey is enjoined upon me, and I am pushed into the midst of troubles from which I rejoiced to have withdrawn, and almost thought that I ought to be grateful for this to my bodily affliction. For quiet and freedom from affairs is more precious than the splendour of a busy life. I wrote this yesterday to the Most Illustrious Icarius, from whom I received the same summons: and I now beg your Magnanimity also to write this for me, for you are a very trustworthy witness of my ill health. Another proof of my inability is the loss which I have now suffered in having been unable even to come and enjoy your society, who are so kind a Governor, and so admirable for virtue that even the preludes of your term of office are more honourable than the good fame which others can earn by the end of theirs.
Ep. CXL.
Again I write when I ought to come: but I gain
confidence to do so from yourself, O Umpire of spiritual matters (to
put the first thing first), and Corrector of the Commonweal—and
both by Divine Providence: who have also received as the reward
of your piety that your affairs would prosper to your mind,
Ep. CXLI.
(The people of Nazianzus had in some way incurred the loss of civic rights; and the Order for the forfeiture of the title of City had been signed by Olympius. This led to something like a revolt on the part of a certain number of the younger citizens: and this Olympius determined to punish by the total destruction of the place. S. Gregory was again prevented by sickness from appearing in person before the Governor: but he pleaded the cause of his native city (using its official Latin name of Diocæsarea) in the following letters so successfully as to induce Olympius to pardon the outbreak.)
Again an opportunity for kindness: and again I am bold enough to commit to a letter my entreaty about so important a matter. My illness makes me thus bold, for it does not even allow me to go out, and it does not permit me to make a fitting entrance to you. What then is my Embassy? Pray receive it from me gently and kindly. The death of a single man, who to-day is and to-morrow will not be and will not return to us is of course a dreadful thing. But it is much more dreadful for a City to die, which Kings founded, and time compacted, and a long series of years has preserved. I speak of Diocæsarea, once a City, a City no longer, unless you grant it mercy. Think that this place now falls at your feet by me: let it have a voice, and be clothed in mourning and cut off its hair as in a tragedy, and let it speak to you in such words as these:
Give a hand to me that lie in the dust: help the strengthless: do not add the weight of your hand to time, nor destroy what the Persians have left me. It is more honourable to you to raise up cities than to destroy those that are distressed. Be my founder, either by adding to what I possess, or by preserving me as I am. Do not suffer that up to the time of your administration I should be a City, and after you should be so no longer: do not give occasion to after times to speak evil of you, that you received me numbered among cities, and left me an uninhabited spot, which was once a city, only recognizable by mountains and precipices and woods.
This let the City of my imagination do and say to your
mercy. But deign to receive an exhortation from me as your
friend: certainly chastise those who have rebelled against the
Edict of your authority. On this behalf I am not bold to say
anything, although this piece of audacity was not, they say, of
universal design, but was only the unreasoning anger of a few young
men. But dismiss the greater part of your anger, and use a larger
reasoning. They were grieved for their Mother’s being put
to death; they could not endure to be called citizens, and yet to be
without political rights: they were mad: they committed an
offence against the law: they threw away their own safety:
the unexpectedness of the calamity deprived them of reason. Is it
really necessary that for this the city should cease to be a
city? Surely not. Most excellent, do not write the order
for this to be done. Rather respect the supplication of all
citizens and statesmen and men of rank—for remember the calamity
will touch all alike—even if the greatness of your authority
keeps them silent, sighing as it were in secret. Respect also my
gray hair: for it would be dreadful to me, after having had a
great city, now to have none at all, and that after your government the
Temple which we have raised to God, and our love for its adornment, is
to become a dwelling for beasts. It is not a terrible thing if
some statues were thrown down—though in itself it would be
so—but I would not have you think that I am speaking of this,
when all my care is for more important things: but it is dreadful
if an ancient city is to be destroyed with them—one which has
Ep. CXLII.
Though my desire to meet you is warm, and the need of your petitioners is great, yet my illness is invincible. Therefore I am bold to commit my intercession to writing. Have respect to our gray hair, which you have already often reverenced by good actions. Have respect also to my infirmity, to which my labours for God have in part contributed, if I may swagger a little. For this cause spare the citizens who look to me because I use some freedom of speech with you. And spare also the others who are under my care. For public affairs will suffer no damage through mercy, since you can do more by fear than others by punishment. May you, as your reward for this, obtain such a Judge as you shew yourself to your petitioners and to me their intercessor.
Ep. CXLIII.
What does much experience, and experience of good do for men? It teaches kindness, and inclines them to those who entreat them. There is no such education in pity as the previous reception of goodness. This has happened to myself among others. I have learned compassion by the things which I have suffered. And do you see my greatness of soul when I myself need your gentleness in my own affairs? I intercede for others, and do not fear lest I should exhaust all your kindness on other men’s concerns. I am writing thus on behalf of the Presbyter Leontius—or, if I may so describe him, the ex-Presbyter. If he has suffered sufficiently for what he has done, let us stop there, lest excess become injustice. And if there is still any balance of punishment due, and the consequences of his crime have not yet equalled his offence, yet remit it for our sake and God’s, and that of the sanctuary, and the general assembly of the priests, among whom he was once numbered, even though he has now shewn himself unworthy of them, both by what he has done and by what he has suffered. If I can prevail with you it will be best; but if not, I will bring to you a more powerful intercessor, her who is the partner both of your rule and of your good fame.
Ep. CXLIV.
(Verianus, a citizen of Nazianzus, had been offended by his son-in-law, and on this account wished his daughter to sue for a divorce. Olympius referred the matter to the Episcopal arbitration of S. Gregory, who refused to countenance the proceeding, and writes the two following letters, the first to the Prefect, the second to Verianus himself.)
Haste is not always praiseworthy. For this
reason I have deferred my answer until now about the daughter of the
most honorable Verianus, both to allow for time setting matters right,
and also because I conjecture that Your Goodness does not approve of
the divorce, inasmuch as you entrusted the enquiry to me, whom you knew
to be neither hasty nor uncircumspect in such matters. Therefore
I have refrained myself till now, and, I venture to think, not without
reason. But since we have come nearly to the end of the allotted
time, and it is necessary that you should be informed of the result of
the examination I will inform you. The young lady seems to me to
be of two minds, divided between reverence for her parents and
affection for her husband. Her words are on their side, but her
mind, I rather think, is with her husband, as is shewn by her
tears. You will do what commends itself to your justice, and to
God who directs you in all things. I should most willingly have
given my opinion to my son Verianus that he should pass over much of
what is in question, with a view not to confirm the divorce, which is
entirely contrary to our law, The law of the
Church.
Public executioners commit no crime, for they are the servants of the laws: nor is the sword unlawful with which we punish criminals. But nevertheless, the public executioner is not a laudable character, nor is the death-bearing sword received joyfully. Just so neither can I endure to become hated by confirming the divorce by my hand and tongue. It is far better to be the means of union and of friendship than of division and parting of life. I suppose it was with this in his mind that our admirable Governor entrusted me with the enquiry about your daughter, as one who could not proceed to divorce abruptly or unfeelingly. For he proposed me not as Judge, but as Bishop, and placed me as a mediator in your unhappy circumstances. I beg you therefore, to make some allowance for my timidity, and if the better prevail, to use me as a servant of your desire: I rejoice in receiving such commands. But if the worse and more cruel course is to be taken, seek for some one more suitable to your purpose. I have not time, for the sake of favouring your friendship (though in all respects I have the highest regard for you), to offend against God, to Whom I have to give account of every action and thought. I will believe your daughter (for the truth shall be told) when she can lay aside her awe of you, and boldly declare the truth. At present her condition is pitiable—for she assigns her words to you, and her tears to her husband.
To Olympius. Ep. CXLVI.
This is what I said as if by a sort of prophecy, when I found you favourable to every request, and was making insatiable use of your gentleness, that I fear I shall exhaust your kindness upon the affairs of others. For see, a contest of my own has come (if that is mine which concerns my own relations), and I cannot speak with the same freedom. First, because it is my own. For to entreat for myself, though it may be more useful, is more humiliating. And next, I am afraid of excess as destroying pleasure, and opposing all that is good. So matters stand, and I conjecture only too rightly. Nevertheless with confidence in God before Whom I stand, and in your magnanimity in doing good, I am bold to present this petition.
Suppose Nicobulus to be the worst of men:—though his only crime is that through me he is an object of envy, and more free than he ought to be. And suppose that my present opponent is the most just of men. For I am ashamed to accuse before Your Uprightness one whom yesterday I was supporting: but I do not know if it will seem to you just that punishment should be demanded for one man’s crimes from another, though these were quite strange to him, and had not even his consent; from the man who has so stirred his household and been so upset as to have surrendered to his accuser more readily than the latter wished. Must Nicobulus or his children be reduced to slavery as his persecutors desire? I am ashamed both of the ground of the persecution and of the time, if this is to be done while both you are in power and I have influence with you. Not so, most admirable friend, let not this be suggested to Your Integrity. But recognizing by the winged swiftness of your mind the malice from which this proceeds, and having respect to me your admirer, shew yourself a merciful judge to those who are being disturbed—for to-day you are not merely judging between man and man, but between virtue and vice; and to this more consideration than by an ordinary man must be given by those who are like you in virtue and are skilful governors. And in return for this you shall have from me not only the matter of my prayers, which I know you do not, like so many men, despise; but also that I will make your government famous with all to whom I am known.
Ep. CLIV.
To me you are Prefect even after the expiry of
your term of office—for I judge things differently from the run
of men—because you embrace in yourself every prefectoral
virtue. For many of those who sit on lofty thrones are to me
base, all those whose hand makes them base and slaves of their
subjects. I.e. who are
accessible to bribery.
Genesis
1 1:2 1:2 1:5 1:6 1:11 1:11 1:14 1:16 1:24 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:27 1:27 1:27 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:16 2:17 2:18 3:3 3:5 3:6 3:6-23 3:8 3:15 3:15 3:17-18 3:19 3:22 3:24 3:24 4:1 4:12 4:24 4:24 4:26 4:26 4:26 5:3 5:21 5:22 6:8 6:13 8:11 8:21 9:6 11:4 11:4 11:7 12:1 12:6 13:12 14:10 14:14 14:22 15:6 15:16 17:5 18:1 18:2 18:5 18:10 18:18 18:25 18:27 19:1 19:5 19:15 19:17 19:17 19:23 19:24 19:24 19:24 19:24 19:24 19:26 21:12 21:19 21:21 22:1 22:2 22:8 22:11 24:3 24:43 27:21 27:28 27:28 28:2 28:12 29:21 31:19 32:28 32:28 32:30 35:19 36:11 36:15 36:42 37:28 41:1 41:29 41:38 41:39 41:40 46:29 48:7 49:8 49:8 49:9 49:9 49:10 49:11 49:17 49:22
Exodus
1:8 2:8 2:12 2:15 3:1 3:2 3:2 3:4 3:5 3:6 3:6 3:7 3:14 4:2 4:10 4:10 4:13 4:22 4:27 4:27 5:6 7:1 7:1 7:8 7:19 7:22 9:10 10:21 11:2 11:5 12 12:9 12:11 12:15 12:15 12:22 12:22 12:23 12:29 12:37 13:20 13:21 14:9 14:15 14:20 14:20 14:21 14:21 14:22 14:23 14:28 15:20 16:2 16:4 16:13 16:14 16:15 16:15 16:18 17:6 17:6 17:6 17:10-11 17:11 17:12 19:10 19:13 19:13 19:14 19:15 19:16 19:16-18 20:19 20:19 20:21 21:2 21:17 24:1 24:1-2 24:1-2 24:8 24:15 24:18 25:32 25:37 25:40 26:31 26:33 28:36 29:4 30:22-25 30:33 30:38 31:1-6 31:2 31:3 32:4 32:11 32:15 32:20 32:26 33:13 33:17 33:19 33:19 33:20 33:20 33:20 33:22 33:22 33:23 33:23 34:1 34:5-7 34:8 34:9 34:30 34:30 36:1 37:7 37:7 38:28
Leviticus
3:4 4:5 4:16 6:16 6:22 7:14 7:32 7:34 8:2 8:3 8:31 8:33 10:1 10:1 11 12:8 14:8 16:34 20:9 21:17 22:19 26:1 26:27-28
Numbers
1:3 1:12 11:24-25 11:26 11:28 11:29 11:29 12:3 12:7 12:7 12:40 17:8 17:10 20:17 21:9 21:9 21:22 24:7 24:9 25:6 35:7 708
Deuteronomy
4:10 4:15 4:24 4:24 4:24 5:16 5:26 5:27 6:7 9:10 9:20 13:4 14:1 18:10-11 18:15 19:15 22:27 23:3 23:3 27:5 28:39 28:66 32:5 32:6 32:6 32:15 32:21 32:25 32:32 32:34 32:34 32:49 33:2 34:9 34:9
Joshua
1:2 2:11 3:1 3:15-16 3:16 5:14 6:4 6:20 6:25 7:19 7:19 7:21 10:12 10:13 14:1 14:6 18:1 19:15 23:12 24:12
Judges
3:10 6:34 7:5 11:29 13:6 13:22 13:23 16:19
1 Samuel
1:10 1:13 1:20 1:20 2:5 2:6 2:6 2:8 2:11 2:12 2:15 2:19 2:23 2:30 6:1 7:5 9:3 9:9 9:9 10:11 10:22 15:26 15:28 16:7 16:13 16:16 16:23 17:14 17:32 17:49 17:49 18:7 19:20 19:24 23:23
2 Samuel
1:21 5:1 6:2 6:6 6:14 12 12:13 12:16 14:19 15:5 16:10-11 23:2 23:14
1 Kings
1:4 1:39 3:12 4:29 5:4 6:23-26 8:6 8:6-7 8:27 10:1 11:14 11:33 12:2 13:6 17:4 17:6 17:8 17:14 17:21 17:21 18:4 18:33 18:33 18:42 18:44 19:8 19:10 19:11 19:11-12 19:18 21:29
2 Kings
1:1 2:11 2:11 2:11 2:11 2:11 2:13 2:15 4:25 4:34 5:25 20:1 20:1 24:13 25:7 25:11
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
6:18 15:1 20:7 20:14 24:20-21 33:6 33:12-13 33:12-13 36:7 36:32 38:12
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
1:1 1:3 1:21 2:7 3:6 3:8 3:9 5:8-9 5:19 5:26 7:9 7:18 9:8 9:8 9:9 9:23 9:24 10:10-11 10:11 10:22 11:7 12:8 12:14 12:24 14:7-10 14:9 14:14 14:14 15:8 16:2 17:16 19:26 20:8 21:13 21:18 26:8 26:10 28:14 29:2 29:15 29:16 29:18 31:26-27 31:32 33:4 36:27 37:9-10 37:10 37:16 37:22 37:23 38:1 38:1 38:2-3 38:3 38:3 38:4 38:11 38:14 38:17 38:28 38:28 38:29 38:31 38:36 38:37 38:37 39:16 39:26 40:3 40:4 40:14 40:20 40:23 40:26 41:5 41:13 41:15 41:22 41:24
Psalms
1:1 1:2 1:5 1:6 2:1 2:1 2:2 2:3 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:10 2:11 2:12 2:25-26 3:15 3:20 4 4:2 4:3 4:3 4:4 4:4 4:4-5 4:7 4:8 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:24 4:25 4:26 4:30 5:9 5:10 5:13 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:18 5:32 6:5 6:6 6:23 6:30 6:30-31 6:37 6:39 6:39 7:6 7:7 7:9 7:9 7:10 7:32 7:32 7:40 8:1 8:3 8:3 8:5 9:1 9:1-3 9:6 9:18 9:25 9:25 10:1 10:1 10:1 10:1 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:7 10:7 11:2 11:6 11:7 11:10 12:1 12:5 12:7 12:9 12:9 13:3 13:7 14:3 14:3 14:3 14:6 14:7 14:7 15:17 16:1 16:4 16:6 16:6 16:7 16:8 16:10 16:11 17:8 18:8 18:9 18:9 18:11 18:12 18:12 18:19 18:22 18:24 18:32 18:33 18:39 18:46 19:1 19:1 19:2 19:3 19:4 19:5 19:5 19:5 19:6 19:6 19:10 19:21 19:24 19:37 19:91 19:103 19:103 19:105 19:131 19:131 19:164 19:176 20:7 22 22:1 22:1 22:2 22:9 22:11 22:15 22:18 23:1-3 23:2 23:2 23:2 23:5 23:5 23:5 23:5 24 24:3 24:7 24:7 24:7 24:10 25:3 25:4 26:4 26:5 26:5 26:5 26:5 26:6 26:7 26:8 26:12 27:1 27:4 28:14 29:3 29:7 29:9 30:1 30:3 30:3 30:5 31:6 31:16 31:20 32:1 32:1 32:1 32:1 32:1 32:4 32:5 32:6 32:6 32:11 32:13-14 32:15 32:17 33:6 33:6 33:6 33:9 33:19 34 34:1 34:3 34:3 34:5 34:5 34:8 34:9 34:16 35:7 35:18 36 36:5 36:6 36:7 36:8 36:9 36:9 36:9 36:9 36:12 37:7 37:24 37:27 37:27 37:34 38:5 38:9 38:9 38:11 38:14 39:4-5 39:7-8 39:7-15 39:8 39:8 39:11 39:12 39:12 39:16 39:21 40:2 40:3 40:3 40:9 41:3 41:4 41:4 41:5 41:9 41:10 42 42:1 42:4 42:5 42:8 43:1 43:3 43:4-5 43:5 43:10 43:10 43:10 44:2 44:5 44:19 44:20 45:2 45:4 45:4 45:6 45:6 45:6-7 45:7 45:10 45:14 45:19 46:4 46:10 46:10 47:1 47:4 47:4 47:4 47:5 47:6 47:8 47:14 47:16 48:4 48:4 48:5 48:5 48:7 48:8 48:12 49:1 49:6 50:3 50:6 50:14 50:18 50:21 50:21 50:23 51:5 51:7 51:8 51:10 51:11 51:12 51:12 51:19 52 52:2 52:4 52:10 53:5 55:6 55:7 55:9 55:17 55:21 57:4 57:9 58:4 58:4-5 58:5-6 59:3 59:6 60:2-3 62:10 63:1 64:32 65:2 65:9 65:10 65:11 66:6 66:7 66:10-12 66:12 67:6 67:6 68:4 68:5 68:9 68:11 68:17 68:18 68:25 68:26 68:31 68:35 69:2 69:2 69:21 72 72:5 72:5 72:6 72:6 72:6 72:6-7 72:17 73:2 73:8 73:9 73:20 73:23-24 74:12 74:13 74:14 75:8 75:9 75:10 76:4 76:7 77:19 77:20 77:20 78:15 78:24 78:24 78:25 78:50 78:70 79:4 79:6 79:12 79:12 79:13 80:1 80:8 80:9 80:12 80:17-18 81:6 81:10 81:11 82:1 82:6 82:8 83:13 84:5 84:6 84:7 85:8 85:11 85:13 87:4 87:7 88:1 88:4 88:4 88:5 88:5 88:5 88:5 88:8 88:10 88:13 89:22 89:26-27 89:29 89:35-37 89:36 89:37 89:37 90:10 91:5 91:14 92:13 93:1 93:2 94:1 94:11 94:17 94:17 95:1 95:2 95:6 95:7-8 96:1 96:11 96:11 97:3 97:11 99:6 102:25-27 104:2 104:6 105:32 107:9 112:5 119:6 119:60 119:81 119:103 120:4 127:2 129:6 133:2 137:6 139:6 139:13 140:3 143:8 144:1 145:21 146:8
Proverbs
1 1:7 1:11 1:16 2:3 3:12 3:24 3:28 4:7 4:25 4:25 4:27 5:3 5:15 5:17 6:6 6:6-8 6:9 6:23 6:27 7:3 8:22 8:22 8:25 9 9:5 10:1 10:7 11:18 11:26 13:9 14:30 14:30 15:7 16:31 16:31 17:4-6 17:6 18:3 18:17 19:17 20:6 20:10 22:20 22:20 24:32 25:3 25:12 25:16 26:12 27:1 29:20 30:15 30:15 30:21-22 30:29-30 30:33 31 31:7 31:10 31:10
Ecclesiastes
1:14 1:17 1:18 2:6 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:2 5:9 7:23 7:24 7:29 9:7-8 9:11 10:4 10:5 10:16 11:1 11:2 11:2 11:9 11:10 11:28 12:1 12:2 12:3 12:5 12:5 12:6 12:8 12:13 12:14
Song of Solomon
1:3 1:3 1:4 2:10 2:11 2:12 2:14 2:14 3:1 3:3-4 3:11 3:11 4:1-2 4:11 4:12 4:14 4:15 5:1 5:1 5:3 5:3 5:3 5:12 5:16 6:1 6:3 8:4 8:7 11:15
Isaiah
1:3 1:5 1:6 1:6 1:6 1:8 1:9 1:9 1:10 1:10 1:11 1:12 1:14 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:17-18 1:18 1:19-20 1:22 1:23 1:26 2:2 2:3 3:4 3:7 3:9 3:12 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:34 4:4 5:1 5:1-2 5:2 5:6 5:8 5:8 5:10 5:24 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:2 6:2-3 6:3 6:6 6:6-7 6:8 6:10 7:2 7:9 7:10-14 7:11 7:14 7:14 7:23 8:14 8:18 8:18 8:19 8:19 8:21 9:1 9:5 9:6 9:6 9:7 9:13 9:15 9:16 10:3 10:22 10:22-23 11:1-3 11:2 11:2 11:2 11:2 11:3 11:10 13:3 16:3 19:1 19:11 21:2 21:2 21:6 23:4 24:2 25:6 25:7 25:8 25:8 26:6 26:11 26:13 26:18 26:19 26:19 26:20 27:1 27:11 28:1 28:11 28:15 28:16 28:16 28:17 28:19 28:25 29:9 29:10 29:21 30:10 30:15 30:17 32:20 34:4 35:4-6 35:6 37:31 38:8 38:8 40:2 40:2 40:3 40:3 40:3 40:9 40:9 40:9-10 40:12 40:12 40:12 40:12 40:18 40:22 40:22 40:25 40:31 41:4 41:4 41:8 41:22 42:1 42:1 42:8 42:14 42:19 43:10 44:1 44:2 44:3 44:17 44:21 44:22 45:3 45:7 45:7 45:14-15 45:16-17 46:3 47:13 47:14 48:4 48:16 48:16 48:29 49:1 49:2 49:3 49:5 49:6 49:6 49:7 49:13 49:18 49:18 50:4 50:4 50:6 50:6 50:11 51:1 51:1 51:2 51:6 51:17 52:5 52:5 52:7 52:7 52:13 52:15 53:1 53:1 53:1 53:2 53:4 53:4 53:4-5 53:7 53:7 53:7 53:7 53:7 53:7-8 53:8 53:8-9 53:9 53:9 53:11 53:11 53:12 53:12 53:23 54:2 54:8 54:13 55:1 55:1 55:2 57:1 57:1 57:2 57:4 57:13 57:14 58:5 58:7 58:7 58:9 59:21 60:1 60:4 60:8 61:1 61:1 61:1 61:1-2 61:10 61:10 61:10 62:3 62:4 62:4 62:6 62:10 62:10 62:11 63:1 63:1-2 63:10 63:10 63:11 63:11 63:14 63:16 63:16 63:19 64:1 64:2 64:4 64:5 64:8 64:12 65:2 65:2 65:2 65:8 65:9 65:15 65:15 65:15-16 65:18 66:1 66:1 66:1 66:5 66:8 66:10 66:18 66:19
Jeremiah
1:5 1:5 1:5 1:6 1:6 1:10 1:18 2:8 2:10 2:21 2:21 2:21 2:27 3:9 3:14 3:15 4:3 4:3 4:4 4:19 4:19 4:22 5:3 5:6 5:7 5:7 5:8 5:8 6:29 8:1 8:5 9:1 9:21 10:16 10:16 10:21 10:21 10:24 11:19 11:19 11:19 12:1 12:8 12:10 13:23 15:10 18:12 22:14 23:1-2 23:18 23:24 23:24 23:24 23:29 25:34 26:18 32:15 32:18-19 37:16 39:18-19 42:16 49:7 49:20 50:25 50:31 51:34
Lamentations
1:1 3:19 3:28 3:34 3:53 4:7 4:20 4:20 4:20
Ezekiel
1:4-28 1:6-11 1:16 1:28 2 3:18 3:20 7:26 8:3 10:1 10:21 11:5 11:5 11:24 13:14 14:5 14:14 14:20 18:20-23 18:31 18:31 21:9 22:24 22:26 23:42 25:13 28:1-2 28:12 28:12-17 31 33:2 33:3 33:8 34:2 34:6 34:6 34:8 34:12 34:14 36:25 36:25 36:26 36:27 37:1 37:1 37:3 37:7 37:10 37:12 39:17
Daniel
2:26 2:31 2:35 2:44 2:45 2:45 3:5 3:12 4:9 4:33 4:34 4:34 5:3 5:12 5:25 5:31 6:22 6:22 6:23 7:7 7:9 7:9 7:9-14 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:13 7:13-14 7:14 7:21 7:23 7:23 7:24 7:24 7:25 7:27 9:1 9:5 9:18 9:23 9:25 10:6 10:9 10:11 10:11 10:12 10:16 10:16-17 10:18 10:18 12:1 12:1-2 12:2 12:2 12:3 12:3 12:7 12:9 12:11 12:12 14:33
Hosea
2:20 3:4 4:2 4:2 4:6 4:6 4:9 4:12 4:13 5:1-2 5:13 6:1-2 6:2 6:4 6:5 6:6 7:7 8:3 8:4 8:11 9:7 9:10 9:12 10:1 10:1 10:6 10:12 11:1 13:7-8 13:14 13:14
Joel
1:4 1:10 1:13 1:19 2:3 2:5 2:14 2:15 2:17 2:17 2:23 2:28 2:28 2:28 2:29 2:31 3:18
Amos
1:12 2:7 2:8 4:7 4:9 4:13 4:13 5:8 5:8 5:10 5:10 5:26 6:4-6 7:14 8:5 8:9 8:10 8:11 8:11 9:6 9:6
Obadiah
Jonah
1:3 1:3 1:6 1:12 1:12 2:1 2:2 2:6 2:8 3:5 3:7-10 3:10 4:8
Micah
2:3 3:8 3:10-12 3:12 3:12 4:2 5:2 5:2 5:2 5:3 6:3 7:1 7:1-4 7:2 7:6
Nahum
Habakkuk
1:2 1:5 1:16 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:15 2:16 3:2 3:3 3:13
Zephaniah
3:4 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:9 3:10 3:14-15
Haggai
1:1 1:9 2:4 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:12
Zechariah
1:6 2:10-11 3:1 3:9 4:7 4:10 5:1 5:8 7:11 7:13 9:9 9:9 9:11 9:11 10:3 11:2 11:2 11:3 11:5 11:5 11:5-6 11:12 11:12 11:13 11:15 12:1 12:10 12:12 12:12 12:12 13:7 13:7 14:4 14:6-7 14:7
Malachi
1:1 1:6 1:7 1:10 1:11 1:13 2:5-7 2:13 3:1 3:1-3 3:2-3 3:5 3:6 3:8 4:2 4:2
Matthew
1:1 1:20 1:23 1:24 1:25 2 2:2 2:4 2:6 2:9 2:9 2:11 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:16 3:3 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:5 3:6 3:6 3:7 3:7 3:10 3:11 3:11 3:11 3:12 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13-17 3:14 3:16 3:17 3:17 3:17 3:17 3:17 4:1-11 4:2 4:2 4:6 4:9 4:11 4:17 4:23 5:4 5:6 5:6 5:14 5:14 5:15 5:16 5:16 5:16 5:17 5:17 5:18 5:23 5:28 5:28 5:30 5:40 5:45 5:48 6:8 6:19 6:19 6:22 6:24 6:26 6:26 7:2 7:2 7:6 7:6 7:6 7:6 7:6 7:6 7:13 7:13-14 7:14 7:15 7:26 8:8 8:17 8:17 8:17 8:24 8:24 8:25-26 8:25-26 8:32 9:2 9:6 9:6 9:13 9:14 9:15 9:20 9:20 9:25 9:33 10:7-8 10:8 10:9 10:9 10:10 10:16 10:20 10:23 10:23 10:28 10:29 10:34 10:35 10:37 11:3 11:3 11:11 11:11 11:11 11:12 11:13 11:15 11:20 11:25 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:28 11:28 11:28 11:29 12:28 12:29 12:31 12:31 12:32 12:32 12:34 12:35 12:36 12:40 12:42 13:5 13:7 13:13 13:13 13:15 13:15 13:16 13:21 13:25 13:31 13:32 13:43 13:43 13:43 13:46 13:47 14:10 14:19 14:25 14:29 14:29 14:30 15:4 15:17 15:21 15:27 16:1 16:16-17 16:17 16:18 16:19 16:19 16:19 16:22-23 17:2 17:2 17:20 17:24 18:6 18:10 18:10 18:12 18:12 18:19 18:20 18:21 18:22 18:22 18:23 18:28 19:1 19:10 19:16-18 19:21 19:24 19:26 19:26 19:29 20:1 20:12 20:12 20:14 20:18 20:20 20:30 21:9 21:9 21:10 21:19 21:31 21:31 22:10 22:12 22:12 22:13 22:32 22:32 22:43 23:2 23:7 23:12 23:13 23:15 23:25-26 23:27 23:37 23:38 23:39 24 24:2 24:2 24:3 24:3-4 24:4 24:5 24:6 24:10 24:12 24:12 24:14 24:15 24:15 24:16 24:21 24:22 24:23 24:23 24:24 24:27 24:29 24:30 24:30 24:30 24:30 24:31 24:35 24:42 24:42 24:44 24:50 25:2 25:8 25:12 25:15 25:21 25:26 25:27 25:27 25:29 25:31 25:32 25:33 25:34 25:35 25:35-36 25:41 25:41 25:46 26:2 26:2 26:15 26:25 26:26 26:28 26:39 26:41 26:49 26:49 26:63 26:64 26:67 27:3 27:3 27:5 27:5 27:7 27:13 27:24 27:24-25 27:26 27:28 27:34 27:35 27:45 27:45 27:48 27:50 27:51 27:51 27:52 27:52 27:52 27:52-53 27:54 27:60 27:63 27:63 27:65 28:5 28:5 28:7 28:7 28:9 28:9 28:13 28:19 28:19 28:20 38:14
Mark
1:1 1:4 1:4 1:5 1:24 2:4 2:15-16 2:19 3:17 3:23 3:29 4:3 4:14 4:34 4:38 5:3 5:13 6:5 7:5 7:32 9:24 9:24 9:44 10:17 10:21 10:38 11:1 11:23 13:32 13:32 14:31 14:32 14:38 14:51 15:21 15:23 15:46 16:16 16:17 16:19
Luke
1 1:1 1:17 1:23 1:26-27 1:32 1:33 1:33 1:34-35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:41 1:41 1:41 1:43 1:44 1:45 1:53 1:67 1:69 1:76 1:76 1:78 2:1-5 2:4-5 2:7 2:9 2:10-11 2:11 2:14 2:14 2:14-15 2:24 2:26-35 2:29-30 2:33 2:41 2:41 2:49 2:52 2:52 3:3 3:4 3:9 3:11 3:22 3:22 3:23 3:23 3:29 3:34 4:1 4:1 4:2 4:6 4:6 4:18 4:23 4:29-30 4:34 4:41 5:8 5:8 5:29 6:6 6:12 6:16 6:44 7:26 7:38 8:6 8:6 8:14 8:18 8:28-33 8:31 8:44 9:1 9:3 9:5 9:30-31 9:32 9:34 9:54 9:60 10:17 10:18 10:18 10:18 10:18 10:19 10:19 10:22 10:30 11:13 11:24 11:24 11:36 12:11-12 12:18 12:28 12:42 12:44 12:46 12:47 12:49 12:49 12:49 12:49 13:7 13:8 13:8 13:10 13:11 13:15 14:5 14:16 14:16 14:28 15:2 15:4 15:4 15:4-5 15:5-6 15:7 15:8 15:8-9 15:9 15:10 15:20 16:9 16:9 16:13 16:19 16:24 17:5 17:12 17:34 17:35 18:1 18:13 18:14 18:19 19:1 19:3 19:9 19:13 19:23 19:23 19:35 21:11 21:11 21:20-24 21:28 22:44 22:48 22:50 23:6-7 23:7 23:9 23:12 23:14 23:40 23:41 23:42 23:43 23:43 23:43 23:43 23:46 23:50 23:52 24:1 24:5 24:32 24:36-53 24:37 24:39 24:39 24:41 24:49 24:50 24:51
John
1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1-3 1:2 1:2 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:5 1:8 1:9 1:9 1:9 1:9 1:10-11 1:11 1:11 1:12 1:12 1:12-13 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:23 1:23 1:27 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:32 1:33 1:33 2:1-11 2:1-11 2:15 2:15 2:16 2:25 3:3 3:3 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:8 3:8 3:8 3:8 3:13 3:13 3:14 3:16 3:18 3:18 3:18 3:24 3:24 3:29 3:33 3:34 3:34-35 3:36 3:36 3:36 3:39 4:7 4:14 4:23 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:29 4:34 4:36 5:1 5:8 5:14 5:14 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:21 5:22 5:22 5:22 5:23 5:23 5:24 5:24 5:24 5:26 5:27 5:29 5:29 5:30 5:34 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:37 5:43 6:10 6:27 6:27 6:32-33 6:33 6:33 6:38 6:40 6:45 6:46 6:46 6:50 6:51 6:53 6:57 6:63 6:63 7:7 7:12 7:17 7:19 7:37 7:38-39 8:12 8:25 8:29 8:38 8:39 8:40 8:41 8:44 8:48 8:48 8:49 8:54 8:56 8:58 8:59 9:5 9:28 10:1 10:7 10:9 10:9 10:11 10:11 10:11 10:11 10:14 10:15 10:15 10:15 10:18 10:18 10:18 10:18 10:30 10:36 11:14-44 11:34 11:43 11:43 11:43 11:47 12:13 12:23 12:24 12:25 12:25 12:35 12:48 12:49 13:4 13:4-5 13:9 13:31 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:9 14:9 14:9 14:11 14:16 14:16 14:16 14:16 14:16-17 14:16-17 14:23 14:24 14:25 14:25 14:26 14:26 14:26 14:28 14:30 14:31 15:1 15:1 15:3 15:4 15:5 15:5 15:10 15:26 15:26 15:26 15:26 16:7 16:7 16:7 16:8 16:8 16:12 16:12 16:12-15 16:13 16:13-14 16:14-15 16:15 16:28 16:33 16:33 17:2 17:2 17:3 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:10 17:24 17:25 17:25 18:8 18:18 19:1 19:15 19:17 19:19 19:22 19:24 19:26-27 19:29 19:29 19:30 19:34 19:39 19:39 19:41 19:41 20:1 20:3 20:3-4 20:11 20:13 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:22 20:25 20:28 20:28 21:15 21:17 21:25
Acts
1 1:5 1:7 1:18 2:2 2:2 2:3 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:6 2:8 2:9 2:13 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:34 2:36 2:36 2:37 2:41 2:42 2:58 3:1 3:15 3:21 4:8 4:8 4:13 4:13 4:32 5:3 5:3 5:4 5:8 5:9 5:12 5:13-16 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:16 5:32 5:42 6:2 6:3 6:8 6:10 6:15 7:14 7:37 7:44 7:48 7:51 7:55 7:58 7:59 7:59 8 8:5 8:7 8:13 8:17 8:17 8:18 8:18-21 8:19 8:20 8:27 8:29 8:32 8:36 9:3 9:3 9:3-8 9:17 9:21 9:25 9:41 10:9 10:11-16 10:19 10:36 10:38 10:44 10:48 11:24 11:26 11:28 13:2 13:2 13:2-4 13:41 14:15 15:20 15:28-29 15:29 16:3 16:18 17:21 17:28 17:28 17:32 18:8 18:25 19:1-6 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:14 19:19 20:9-12 20:23 20:23 20:35 21:21 21:24 21:26 26:24 26:28 28:25
Romans
1:3 1:3 1:3-4 1:4 1:6 1:19 1:20 1:22-31 1:23 1:25 1:27 1:28 1:28 2:15-16 2:18 2:20 2:24 2:24 2:25 2:29 3:12 3:30 4 4:11 4:17 4:17 4:17-18 4:18 4:19 5:3 5:12 5:14 5:17 5:17-18 5:20 5:20 5:20 6:3 6:3-4 6:3-4 6:3-14 6:4 6:4 6:4 6:4 6:5 6:5 6:6 6:11 6:12 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:14 6:17 6:19 6:22 7:16 7:23 7:23 8:9 8:9 8:11 8:11 8:11 8:14 8:14 8:15 8:15-16 8:17 8:18 8:26 8:26 8:26 8:28 8:29 8:34 8:35 9:3 9:5 9:11 9:16 9:17 9:27 9:28 9:28 9:33 10:2 10:2 10:2 10:6-7 10:15 10:18 11:4 11:16 11:16 11:20 11:23 11:24 11:33 11:33 11:33 11:33 11:35 11:36 11:36 11:36 12:1 12:1 12:1 12:4 13:1-3 13:13 13:13 14:2 14:3 14:6 14:9 15:1 15:12 15:16 15:19 15:19 15:21 16:17 19
1 Corinthians
1:9 1:9 1:17 1:18 1:23 1:23 1:23 1:24 1:24 1:27 1:29 2:4 2:4 2:6 2:6 2:7 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10-11 2:10-11 2:11 2:11 2:13 2:13 2:16 2:16 2:17 3:1-2 3:2 3:2 3:6 3:6 3:9 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12-13 3:12-19 3:13 3:15 3:15 3:18 4:1 4:1 4:3 4:5 4:9 4:9 4:9 4:12 4:12 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:21 4:21 5:5 5:8 5:17 6:1 6:7 6:9-10 6:19 6:19 6:19 7:3 7:5 7:8 7:8-9 7:9 7:25 7:31 7:40 8:2 8:5-6 8:5-6 8:5-6 8:6 8:6 9:3 9:18 9:22 9:22 9:22 9:22 9:27 10:2 10:4 10:10 10:11 10:14-21 10:19-21 10:20 10:21 10:33 11:2 11:3 11:3 11:3 11:7 11:23 11:23 12:1 12:3 12:4 12:7-11 12:8 12:8 12:8-9 12:9-10 12:11 12:11 12:11 12:12 12:20 12:23 12:28 12:29 13 13:7 13:7 13:9 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 14:2 14:8 14:15 14:19 14:22 14:22 14:23 14:24 14:28 14:28 14:29 14:32 14:34 15:1-4 15:3-4 15:4 15:5-6 15:7 15:8 15:9 15:9 15:10 15:14-15 15:16 15:17 15:19 15:20 15:20 15:22 15:25 15:25 15:27-28 15:28 15:28 15:28 15:35 15:35 15:36 15:36 15:41 15:45 15:47 15:47 15:49 15:49 15:49 15:49 15:52 15:53 15:55 15:55 15:55 16:20
2 Corinthians
1:3 1:3 1:22 1:22 2:6 2:7 2:8 2:11 2:15 2:16-17 3:1 3:3 3:6-7 3:7 3:10 3:14-15 3:18 3:18 3:18 4:3 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:5 4:6 4:7 4:10 4:18 5:1 5:4 5:6 5:16 5:17 5:17 5:20 5:21 5:21 6 6:1 6:2 6:2 6:7 6:7 6:7-8 6:10 6:14 6:14 6:16 6:16 6:16 8:3 8:6 8:9 8:9 8:9 9:7 10:5 10:14-16 11:6 11:6 11:14 11:14 11:16 11:17 11:23 11:23 11:28 11:28-29 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:4 12:4 12:4 12:7 12:7 12:9-10 12:13 12:17 13:3 13:3 13:4 13:5-7 13:14
Galatians
1:8-9 1:10 1:10 2:2 2:2 2:7 2:8-9 2:9 2:9 2:18 3:1 3:10 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:24 3:24 3:27 3:27 3:28 4:2 4:4 4:4-6 4:6 4:10 4:25 4:26 4:26 5:10 5:12 5:12 5:16 5:22 5:22-23 6:6 6:14 6:14 7:7-17
Ephesians
1:3 1:5 1:7 1:11 1:13 1:13 1:17 1:17 1:17-18 1:18 1:19-20 1:23 1:23 2 2:4 2:8 2:10 2:10 2:14 2:22 3:2 3:5 3:6 3:9 3:11 3:13 3:14-15 3:14-15 3:14-16 3:17 3:17 4:5 4:8 4:11 4:11 4:13 4:14 4:15 4:15 4:16 4:22 4:22 4:22 4:24 4:24 4:26 4:27 4:30 5:6 5:7 5:11 5:14 5:14 5:22 5:22 5:25 5:25 5:26 5:26 5:27 5:32 6:1-4 6:5 6:9 6:11 6:11 6:12 6:12 6:14 6:15 6:16 6:16 6:17 6:17 6:18-19 7:6
Philippians
1:11 1:19 1:23 1:23 1:23 1:23 2:4 2:6 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:9 2:10 2:11 2:11 2:15 2:15-16 2:16 2:17 3:1 3:3 3:4 3:8 3:13 3:14 3:21 3:21 3:21 4:1 4:4 4:7 4:13
Colossians
1:5 1:11 1:15 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16-17 1:17 1:18 1:18 1:20 1:20 1:25 2:5 2:8 2:8 2:10 2:11 2:11-12 2:12 2:12 2:14 2:15 2:15 3:1 3:3 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:9 3:9 3:10 3:10 3:11 3:20 4:18 712
1 Thessalonians
2:16 2:19 4:13 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16-17 4:17 4:17 5:18 5:19 5:21-22 5:21-22 5:23 5:23
2 Thessalonians
2:3-10 2:4 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:11-12 2:15 3:5
1 Timothy
1:13 1:13 1:14 1:17 1:17 2:2 2:2 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:8 2:12 2:16 3 3:2 3:2 3:15 3:16 4:1 4:3 5:21 5:21 5:23 6:8 6:10 6:13-14 6:15-16 6:16 6:16 6:16 6:19 6:20 6:20 6:20 7:15
2 Timothy
1:10 1:11 1:11 1:14 1:14 1:14 2:3 2:4 2:5 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:13 2:16 3:8 4:2 4:3 4:3 4:7
Titus
Hebrews
1:1 1:2 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:6 1:8 1:9 1:10-12 1:10-12 1:13 1:14 2:4 2:12 2:13 2:13 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14-15 2:18 3:1 3:7 3:13 3:14 3:15 4:12 4:14 4:15 4:15 4:16 5:2 5:4-6 5:7 5:7 5:8 5:8 5:9 5:12 5:12 5:12-14 5:14 5:14 5:14 6:11-14 6:13-20 6:18 7:3 7:10 7:13 7:21 7:23 7:24 7:25 7:27 8:2 8:8-13 9:3 9:7 9:7 9:10 9:11 9:11 9:14 9:19 9:19 9:24 9:24 9:24 9:26 10:1 10:1 10:4 10:12 10:15 10:19 10:20 10:22 10:29 10:31 10:38 11:1-2 11:5 11:6 11:8 11:8-10 11:9 11:11-12 11:19 11:26 11:27 11:27 11:34 11:37 11:38 11:38 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:9 12:15 12:15 12:16 12:18 12:20 12:21 12:22 12:22-23 12:23 12:23 12:26 12:26 12:26 12:27 12:27 13 13:4 13:4 13:8 13:8 13:15 13:20 13:20
James
1:2 1:5 1:12-13 1:17 1:21 2:17 2:19 2:21 2:23 2:25 3:9 3:16 4:6 4:8 5:16-17 5:17
1 Peter
1:7 1:11 1:17 1:19 2:1 2:1 2:4-6 2:5 2:6 2:8 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:22 2:22-23 2:24 3:4 3:15 3:19 3:21 3:22 4:19 5:2 5:4 5:4 5:6 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:9 5:9
2 Peter
1 John
1:5 1:5 1:7 1:8 1:9 2:1 2:15 2:19 2:20 2:20-28 2:22 2:22 2:23 2:23 3:8 3:10 4:18 5:1 5:7 5:7 5:8 5:8 5:20 10:9 14:6
2 John
Jude
Revelation
1:1 1:7 1:8 2:1 2:5 2:7 5:5 5:6 5:12 7:17 12:7 12:17 17:11 18:1 21:23 22:5 22:14
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
1:2 1:6 1:7 2:12 2:24 2:24 3:7 3:15 4:8 5:9 5:10 6:16 7:25 7:26 9:15 13:5 13:5
Baruch
2:25 3:17 3:35 3:35-37 3:37 3:37
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Sirach
1:2 3:9 3:10 3:11 3:21-22 3:22 4:30 4:31 25:1 25:9 25:9 32:3 38:16 45:12 49:14
i iii v vii ix x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi xvii xviii xix xx xxi xxii xxiii xxiv xxv xxvi xxvii xxviii xxix xxx xxxi xxxii xxxiii xxxiv xxxv xxxvi xxxvii xxxviii xxxix xl xli xlii xliii xliv xlv xlvi xlvii xlviii xlix l li lii liii liv lv lvi lvii lviii lix lx lxi lxii lxiii lxiv lxv lxvi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 185 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482