A SELECT LIBRARY
OF THE
NICENE AND
POST-NICENE FATHERS
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
SECOND SERIES
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
Edited by
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 IX
Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
__________________________________________________
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
St. Hilary of Poitiers.
Select Works.
Translated
by
The Rev. E. W. Watson, M.A.
Warden of the Society of St. Andrew, Salisbury,
The Rev. L. Pullan, M.A.
Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford,
and Others.
Edited
by
The Rev. W. Sanday, D.D., LL.D.
Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
Preface.
————————————
This volume of the series of Nicene Fathers has been unfortunately delayed. When I consented in the first instance to edit the volume, it was with the distinct understanding that I could not myself undertake the translation, but that I would do my best to find translators and see the work through the press. It has been several times placed in the hands of very competent scholars; but the fact that work of this kind can only be done in the intervals of regular duties, and the almost inevitable drawback that the best men are also the busiest, has repeatedly stood in the way and caused the work to be returned to me. That it sees the light now is due mainly to the zeal, ability, and scholarship of the Rev. E. W. Watson. It was late in the day when Mr. Watson first undertook a share in the work which has since then been constantly increased. He has co-operated with me in the most loyal and efficient manner; and while I am glad to think that the whole of the Introduction and a full half of the translation are from his hand, there is hardly a page (except in the translation of the De Synodis, which was complete before he joined the work) which does not owe to him many and marked improvements. My own personal debt to Mr. Watson is very great indeed, and that of the subscribers to the series is, I believe, hardly less.
For the translator of Hilary has before him a very difficult task. It has not been with this as with other volumes of the series, where an excellent translation already existed and careful revision was all that was needed. A small beginning had been made for the De Trinitate by the late Dr. Short, Bishop of Adelaide, whose manuscript was kindly lent to one of the contributors to this volume. But with this exception no English translation of Hilary’s works has been hitherto attempted. That which is now offered is the first in the field. And it must be confessed that Hilary is a formidable writer. I do not think that I know any Latin writer so formidable, unless it is Victorinus Afer, or Tertullian. And the terse, vigorous, incisive sentences of Tertullian, when once the obscurities of meaning have been mastered, run more easily into English than the involved and overloaded periods of Hilary. It is true that in a period of decline Hilary preserves more than most of his contemporaries of the tradition of Roman culture; but it is the culture of the rhetorical schools at almost the extreme point of their artificiality and mannerism. Hilary was too sincere a man and too thoroughly in earnest to be essentially mannered or artificial; but his training had taken too strong a hold upon him to allow him to express his thought with ease and simplicity. And his very merits all tended in the same direction. He has the copia verborum; he has the weight and force of character which naturally goes with a certain amplitude of style; he has the seriousness and depth of conviction which keeps him at a high level of dignity and gravity but is unrelieved by lighter touches.
Few writers deserve their place in the library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers more thoroughly than Hilary. He might be said to be the one Latin theologian before the age of St. Augustine and St. Leo. Tertullian had a still greater influence upon the writers who followed him. He came at a still more formative and critical time, and the vis vivida of his original and wayward genius has rarely been equalled. But the particular influence which Tertullian exerted in coining the terms and marking out the main lines of Latin theology came to him almost by accident. He was primarily a lawyer, and his special gift did not lie in the region of speculation. It is a strange fortune which gave to the language on which he set his stamp so great a control of the future. The influence of Hilary on the other hand is his by right. His intercourse with the East had a marked effect upon him. It quickened a natural bent for speculation unusual in the West. The reader will find in Mr. Watson’s Introduction a description and estimate of Hilary’s theology which is in my opinion at once accurate, candid and judicious. No attempt is made to gloss over the defects, especially in what we might call the more superficial exegesis of Hilary’s argument; but behind and beneath this we feel that we are in contact with a very powerful mind. We feel that we are in contact with a mind that has seized and holds fast the central truth of the Christian system, which at that particular crisis of the Church’s history was gravely imperiled. The nerve of all Hilary’s thinking lies in his belief, a belief to which he clung more tenaciously than to life itself, that Christ was the Son of God not in name and metaphor only, but in fullest and deepest reality. The great Athanasius himself has not given to this belief a more impressive or more weighty expression. And when like assaults come round, as they are constantly doing, in what is in many respects the inferior arena of our own day, it is both morally bracing and intellectually helpful to go back to these protagonists of the elder time.
And yet, although Hilary is thus one of the chief builders up of a metaphysical theology in the West—although, in other words, he stands upon the direct line of the origin of the Quicumque vult, it is well to remember that no one could be more conscious than he was of the inadequacy of human thought and human language to deal with these high matters. The accusation of intruding with a light heart into mysteries is very far from touching him. “The heretics compel us to speak where we would far rather be silent. If anything is said, this is what must be said,” is his constant burden. In this respect too Hilary affords a noble pattern not only to the Christian theologian but to the student of theology, however humble.
It has been an unfortunate necessity that use has had to
be made almost throughout of an untrustworthy text. The critical
edition which is being produced for the Corpus Scriptorum
The treatise De Synodis was translated by the Rev. L. Pullan, and has been in print for some time. The Introduction and the translation of De Trinitate i.–vii. are the work of Mr. Watson. Books viii. and xii. were undertaken Mr. E. N. Bennett, Fellow of Hertford, and Books ix.–xi. by the Rev. S. C. Gayford, late Scholar of Exeter. The specimens of the Commentary on the Psalms were translated by the Rev. H. F. Stewart, Vice-Principal of the Theological College, Salisbury, who has also made himself responsible for the double Index.
A word of special thanks is due to the printers, Messrs. Parker, who have carried out their part of the work with conspicuous intelligence and with the most conscientious care.
W. Sanday
Christ Church,
Oxford,
July 12, 1898.
Introduction.
————————————
Chapter I.—The Life and Writings of St. Hilary of Poitiers.
St. Hilary of Poitiers is
one of the greatest, yet least studied, of the Fathers of the Western
Church. He has suffered thus, partly from a certain obscurity in
his style of writing, partly from the difficulty of the thoughts which
he attempted to convey. But there are other reasons for the
comparative neglect into which he has fallen. He learnt his
theology, as we shall see, from Eastern authorities, and was not
content to carry on and develop the traditional teaching of the West;
and the disciple of Origen, who found his natural allies in the
Cappadocian school of Basil and the Gregories An actual dependence on
Gregory of Nyssa has sometimes been ascribed to Hilary. But
Gregory was surely too young for this. He may himself have
borrowed from Hilary; but more probably both derived their common
element from Eastern writers like Basil of Ancyra. This is certainly the
best translation of Tractatus; the word is discussed on a later
page.
Hilary of Poitiers, the most impersonal of writers, is so silent about himself, he is so rarely mentioned by contemporary writers—in all the voluminous works of Athanasius he is never once named,—and the ancient historians of the Church knew so little concerning him beyond what we, as well as they, can learn from his writings, that nothing more than a very scanty narrative can be constructed from these, as seen in the light of the general history of the time and combined with the few notices of him found elsewhere. But the account, though short, cannot be seriously defective. Apart from one or two episodes, it is eminently the history of a mind, and of a singularly consistent mind, whose antecedents we can, in the main, recognise, and whose changes of thought are few, and can be followed.
He was born, probably about the year 300
a.d. The latest date which I
have seen assigned for his birth is 320, by Fechtrup, in
Wetzer-Welte’s Encyclopædia. But this is surely
inconsistent with his styling Ursacius and Valens, in his first Epistle
to Constantine, ‘ignorant and unprincipled youths.’
This was written about the year 355 before Hilary knew much of the
Arian controversy or the combatants, and was ludicrously inappropriate,
for Ursacius and Valens were elderly men. He had found the words
either in some of Athanasius’ writings or in the records of the
Council of Sardica, and borrowed them without enquiry. He could
not have done so had he been only some thirty-five years of age; at
fifty-five they are natural enough. It is impossible to
agree with Zingerle (Comment. Wölfflin. p. 218) that Hilary
was under the necessity of using a Greek and Latin Glossary. Such
a passage as Tract. in Ps. cxxxviii. 43, to which he appeals,
shows rather the extent than the smallness of Hilary’s knowledge
of Greek. What he frankly confesses, there as elsewhere, is
ignorance of Hebrew. The words of Jerome (Ep. 34, 3 f.)
about Hilary’s friend, the presbyter Heliodorus, to whom he used
to refer for explanations of Origen on the Psalms, are equally
incapable of being employed to prove Hilary’s defective
Greek. Heliodorus knew Hebrew, and Hilary for want of Hebrew
found Origen’s notes on the Hebrew text difficult to understand,
and for this reason, according to Jerome, used to consult his friend;
not because he was unfamiliar with Greek. His vocabulary is very
poorly treated in the dictionaries; one of the many signs of the
neglect into which he has fallen. There are at least twenty-four
words in the Tractatus super Psalmos which are omitted in the
last edition of Georges’ lexicon, and these good Latin words, not
technical terms invented for purposes of argument. Among the most
interesting is quotiensque for quotienscumque; an
unnoticed use is the frequent cum quando for
quandoquidem. Of Hilary’s other writings there is as
yet no trustworthy text; from them the list of new words could at least
be doubled. Ep. 70,
5,ad Magnum. Ep. 58,
10,ad Paulinum. Comm. in Gall.
ii.pref. Cf. Tract. in
Ps. xiii. 1, Trin. i. 38. Yet he strangely
reproaches his Old Latin Bible with the use of nimis for
ualde, Tract. in Ps. cxxxviii. 38. This employment
of relative for positive terms had been common in literature for at
least a century and a half.
Philosophy in those days was regarded as
incomplete unless it included some knowledge of natural phenomena, to
be used for purposes of analogy. Origen and Athanasius display a
considerable interest in, and acquaintance with, physical and
physiological matters, and Hilary shares the taste. The
conditions of human or animal birth and life and death are often
discussed E.g. Trin. v.
11, vii. 14, ix. 4. Trin. ii. 22. Trin. x.
14. This is a very remarkable allusion. Celsus, vii.
præf., confidently assumes that all surgical operation must
be painful. Comm. in Matt.
xxi. 8. Trin. xi. 15. Tract. in Tract. in Ps.
lvii. 3. It suggests Virgil, Ovid, Silius, and others. Trin. vii.
3. Ep. 70, 5,
Vir. Ill. 100.
Hilary’s speculative thought, like that of every
serious adherent of the pagan creed, had certainly been inspired by
Neoplatonism. We cannot take the account of his spiritual
progress up to the full Catholic faith, which he gives in the beginning
of the De Trinitate, and of which we find a less finished sketch
in the Homily on Tract. in Ps. i. 7,
lxi. 2, lxiii. 5, &c. As usual, Hilary does not name his
opponents.
It was, then, as a man of mature age, of literary skill
and philosophical training, that Hilary approached Christianity.
He had been drawn towards the Faith by desire for a truth which he had
not found in philosophy; and his conviction that this truth was
Christianity was established by independent study of Scripture, not by
intercourse with Christian teachers; so much we may safely conclude
from the early pages of the De Trinitate. It must
remain doubtful whether the works of Origen, who influenced his thought
so profoundly, had fallen into his hands before his conversion, or
whether it was as a Christian, seeking for further light upon the
Faith, that he first studied them. For it is certainly improbable
that he would find among the Christians of his own district many who
could help him in intellectual difficulties. The educated classes
were still largely pagan, and the Christian body, which was, we may
say, unanimously and undoubtingly Catholic, held, without much mental
activity, a traditional and inherited faith. Into this body
Hilary entered by Baptism, at some unknown date. His age at the
time, his employment, whether or no he was married Hilary’s legendary
daughter Abra, to whom he is said to have written a letter printed in
the editions of his works, is now generally abandoned by the best
authorities, e.g. by Fechtrup, the writer, in Wetzer-Welte’s
Encyclopædia, of the best short life of Hilary.
He had come to the Faith, St. Augustine
says De Doctr. Chr.
ii. 40. Trin. viii.
13–17. This is on the
assumption, which seems probable, that Irenæus was not yet
translated from the Greek. He certainly influenced Tertullian,
and through him Hilary; and his doctrine of the recapitulation
of mankind in Christ, reappearing as it does in Hilary, though not in
Tertullian, suggests that our writer had made an independent study of
Irenæus. Even if the present wretched translation existed,
he would certainly read the Greek.
But such a religion could not satisfy ardent and logical
minds, like those of St. Hilary and his two great successors, St.
Ambrose and St. Augustine. To such men it was a necessity of
their faith that they should know, and know in its right proportions,
the truth so far as it had been revealed, and trace the appointed
limits which human knowledge might not overpass. For their own
assurance and for effective warfare against heresy a reasoned system of
theology was necessary. Hilary, the earliest, had the greatest
difficulty. To aid him in the interpretation of Scripture he had
only one writer in his own tongue, Tertullian, whose teaching, in the
matters which interested Hilary, though orthodox, was behind the
times. His strong insistence upon the subordination of the Son to
the Father, due to the same danger which still, in the fourth century,
seemed in the East the most formidable, was not in harmony with the
prevalent thought of the West. Thus Hilary, in his search for
reasons for the Faith, was practically isolated; there was little at
home which could help him to construct his system. To an
intellect so self-reliant as his this may have been no great
trial. Scrupulous though he was in confining his speculations
within the bounds of inherited and acknowledged truth, yet in matters
still undecided he exercised a singularly free judgment, now advancing
beyond, now lingering behind, the usual belief of his
contemporaries. In following out his thoughts, loyally yet
independently, he was conscious that he was breaking what was new
ground to his older fellow-Christians, almost as much as to himself,
the convert
For such independence of thought he could find
precedent in Alexandrian theology, of which he was obviously a careful
student and, in his free use of his own judgment upon it, a true
disciple. When he was drawn into the Arian controversy and
studied its literature, his thoughts to some extent were modified; but
he never ceases to leave upon his reader the impression of an Oriental
isolated in the West. From the Christian Platonists of
Alexandria Dr. Bigg’s Bampton
Lectures upon them are full of hints for the student of Hilary. Vir. Ill.
100. E.g. Tract. in
Ps. cxxix. 4 f. E.g.
Trin. ix. 6.
There is one of St. Hilary’s writings,
evidently the earliest of those extant and probably the earliest of
all, which may be noticed here, as it gives no sign of being written by
a Bishop. It is the Commentary on St. Matthew. It
is, in the strictest sense, a commentary, and not, like the work upon
the Psalms, a series of exegetical discourses. It deals with the
text of the Gospel, as it stood in Hilary’s Latin version,
without comment or criticism upon its peculiarities, and draws out the
meaning, chiefly allegorical, not of the whole Gospel,
Comm. in Matt. v.
1. It may be mentioned that the chapters of the Commentary do not
coincide with those of the Gospel. Comm. in Matt.
xvi. 4, theotetam quam deitatem Latini nuncupant, xxvi. 5,
theotetam quam deitatem nuncupamus. The strange accusative
theotetam makes it the more probable that we have here a
specimen of the primitive Greek vocabulary of Latin Christendom of
which so few examples, e.g. Baptism and Eucharist, have survived.
Cyprian had probably the chief share in destroying it; but the subject
has never been examined as it deserves. So especially xii.
18. There is similarly a possible allusion to Marcellus’
teaching in xi. 9, which, however, may equally well be a reminiscence
of some cognate earlier heresy. Maffei’s
Introduction, §15. xxxi. 3, penes quem
erat antequam nasceretur See Ebert,
Litteratur des Mittelalters, i. 139.
About the year 350 Hilary was consecrated Bishop
of Poitiers. So we may infer from his own words Syn. 91;
regeneratus pridem et in episcopatu aliquantisper manens.
The renderings ‘long ago’ and ‘for some time’
in this translation seem rather too strong. E.g. Trin.
viii. 1. The bishop is a prince of the Church. Sacerdos in
Hilary, as in all writers till near the end of the fourth century,
means ‘bishop’ always.
The general history of Arianism and the tendencies
of Christian thought at this time have been so fully and admirably
delineated in the introduction to the translation of St. Athanasius in
this series By Dr.
Robertson of King’s College, London. This, and Professor
Gwatkin’s Studies of Arianism, are the best English
accounts. Syn. 91. The Apologia
contra Arianos, p. 100 ff. in Dr. Robertson’s
translation.
By this time Hilary had definitely taken his side,
and it will be well to consider his relation to the parties in the
controversy. And first as to Arianism. As we have seen,
Arian prelates were now in possession of the two great sees of Arles
and Milan in his own neighbourhood; and Arianisers of different shades,
or at least men tolerant of Arianism, held a clear majority of the
Eastern bishoprics, except in the wholly Catholic Egypt. But it
is certain that, in the West at any rate, the fundamental difference of
the Arian from the Catholic position was not generally
recognised. Arian practice and Arian practical teaching was
indistinguishable from Catholic; and unless ultimate principles were
questioned, Catholic clergy might work, and the multitudes of Catholic
laity might live and die, without knowing that their bishop’s
creed was different from their own. The Abbé Duchesne has
made the very probable suggestion that the stately Ambrosian ritual of
Milan was really introduced from the East by Auxentius, the Arian
intruder from Cappadocia, of whom we have spoken Origines du culte
chrétien, p. 88. Gwatkin,
Studies of Arianism, p. 134. Ib., p. 28. Trin. vii. 3.
His own devotion, from the time of his conversion
to the Catholic Faith, which almost all around him held, was not the
less sincere because it did not find its natural expression in the
Nicene Creed. That document, which primarily concerned only
bishops, and them only when their orthodoxy was in question, was hardly
known in the West, where the bishops had as yet had little occasion for
doubting one another’s faith. Hilary had never heard
it,—he can hardly have avoided hearing of it,—till just
before his exile. In his earlier conflicts he rarely mentions it,
and when he does it is in connection with the local circumstances of
the East. In later life he, with Western Christendom at large,
recognised its value as a rallying point for the faithful; but even
then there is no attachment to the Creed for its own sake. It
might almost seem that the Creed, by his defence of which Athanasius
has earned such glory, owed its original celebrity to him rather than
he to it. His unjust persecution and heroic endurance excited
interest in the symbol of which he was the champion. If it were
otherwise, there has been a strange conspiracy of silence among Western
theologians. In their great works on the Trinity, Hilary most
rarely, and Augustine never, allude to it; the Council of Aquileia,
held in the same interests and almost at the same time as that of
Constantinople in 381, absolutely ignores it There is much more
evidence to this effect in Reuter, Augustinische Studien, p. 182
f. It was probably due to jealousy between West and East; cf. the
way in which John of Jerusalem ignored the African decision in
Pelagius’ case. But the West was ignorant, as well as
jealous, of the East. Even in his last years, after his sojourn
in Asia Minor, Hilary believed that Jerusalem was, as had been
prophesied, an uninhabited ruin; Tr. in Ps. cxxiv. § 2,
cxxxi. §§ 18, 23, cxlvi. § 1.
The time had now come for Hilary, holding these
views of Arianism and of the Faith, to take an active part in the
conflict. We have seen that he was not at Milan; he was therefore
not personally compromised, but the honour of the Church compelled him
to move. He exerted himself to induce the bishops of Gaul to
withdraw from communion with Saturninus, and with Ursacius and Valens,
disciples of Arius during his exile on the banks of the Danube thirty
years before, and now high in favour with Constantius, and his
ministers, we might almost say, for the ecclesiastical affairs of the
Western provinces. We do not know how many bishops were enlisted
by Hilary against Saturninus. It is probable that not many would
follow him in so bold a venture; even men of like mind with himself
might well think it unwise. It was almost a revolutionary act; an
importation of the methods of Eastern controversy into the peaceful
West, for this was not the constitutional action of a synod but the
private venture of Hilary and his allies. However righteous and
necessary, in the interests of morality and religion, their conduct may
have seemed to them, to Constantius and his advisers it must have
appeared an act of defiance to the law, both of Church and State.
And Hilary would certainly not win favour with the Emperor by his
letter of protest, the First Epistle to Constantius, written
about the end of the year 355. He adopts the usual tone of the
time, that of exaggerated laudation and even servility towards the
Emperor. Such language was, of course, in great measure
conventional; we know from Cicero’s letters how little
superlatives, whether of flattery or abuse, need mean, and language had
certainly not grown more sincere under the Empire. The letter
was, in fact, a singularly bold manifesto, and one which Hilary himself
must have foreseen was likely to bring upon him the
It was, indeed, from the Emperor’s point of view,
a most provocatory Epistle. He and his advisers were convinced
that compromise was the way of peace. They had no quarrel with
the orthodoxy of the West, if only that orthodoxy would concede that
Arianisers were entitled to office in the Church, or would at least be
silent; and they were animated by a persistent hatred of
Athanasius. Moreover, the whole tendency of thought, since
Constantine began to favour the Church, had run towards glorification
of the Emperor as the vice-regent of God; and the orthodox had had
their full share in encouraging the idea. That a bishop, with no
status to justify his interference, should renounce communion with his
own superior, the Emperor’s friend, at Arles; should forbid the
officers of state to meddle in the Church’s affairs, and demand
an entirely new thing, recognition by the state as lawful members of
the Church while yet they rejected the prelates whom the state
recognised; should declare that peace was impossible because the
conflicting doctrines were as different as light and darkness, and that
the Emperor’s friends were execrable heretics; should assert,
while denying that he or his friends had any treasonable purpose, that
men were ready to die rather than submit; should denounce two Councils,
lawfully held, and demand reinstatement of those who had opposed the
decision of those Councils; should, above all, take the part of
Athanasius, now obviously doomed to another exile;—all this must
have savoured of rebellion. And rebellion was no imaginary
danger.
We cannot wonder that Hilary’s letter had no
effect upon the policy of Constantius. It is somewhat surprising
that several months elapsed before he was punished. In the spring
of the year 356 Saturninus presided at a Council held at Béziers,
at which Hilary was, he tells us, compelled to attend. In what
the compulsion consisted we do not know. It may simply have been
that he was summoned to attend; a summons which he could not with
dignity refuse, knowing, as he must have done, that charges would be
brought against himself. Of the proceedings of the Synod we know
little. The complaints against Hilary concerned his conduct, not
his faith. This latter was, of course, above suspicion, and it
was not the policy of the court party to attack orthodoxy in
Gaul. He seems to have been charged with exciting popular
discontent; and this, as we have seen, was an accusation which his own
letter had rendered plausible. He tried to raise the question of
the Faith, challenging the doctrine of his opponents. But though
a large majority of a council of Gallic bishops would certainly be in
sympathy with him, he had no success. Their position was not
threatened; Hilary, like Paulinus, was accused of no doctrinal error,
and these victims of Constantius, if they had raised no questions
concerning their neighbours’ faith and made no objections to the
Emperor’s tyranny, might also have passed their days in
peace. The tone of the episcopate in Gaul was, in fact, by no
means heroic. If we may trust Sulpicius Severus Chron. ii.
39.
We now come to the most important period of
Hilary’s life. He was already, as we have seen, a Greek
scholar and a follower of Greek theology. He was now to come into
immediate contact with the great problems of the day in the field on
which they were being constantly debated. And he was well
prepared to take his part. He had formed his own convictions
before he was acquainted with homoousion, homoiousion or the
Nicene Syn. 91. This sparing of
Marcellus, in the case of a Western like Hilary, may have been a
concession to the incapacity of the West, e.g. Julius of Rome and the
Council of Sardica, to see his error. But this is not so likely
as that it was a falling in with the general policy of Athanasius, as
was the rare mention of the homoousion; cf. Gwatkin, op.
cit. 42 n. Hilary was singularly independent of Western
opinion, and his whole aim was to win the East. No such
examination seems to have been made as that to which Reuter in his
admirable Augustinische Studien has subjected some of the
thoughts of St. Augustine. Harnack,
Dogmengeschichte, ii. p. 243 n. (ed. 3). Hilary is,
‘making all allowance for dependence on Athanasius, an
independent thinker, who has, indeed, excelled the bishop of Alexandria
as a theologian.’
Athanasius and Hilary can never have met face to
face. But the eyes and the agents of Athanasius were everywhere,
and he must have known something of the exile and of the services of
Hilary, who was, of course, well acquainted with the history of
Athanasius, though, with the rest of Gaul, he may not have been
whole-hearted in his defence. And now he was the more likely to
be drawn towards him because this was the time of his approximation to
the younger generation of the Conservative School. For it is with
them that Hilary’s affinities are closest and most obvious.
The great Cappadocians were devoted Origenists—we know the
service they rendered to their master by the publication of the
Philocalia,—and there could be no stronger bond of union
between Hilary and themselves. They were the outgrowth of that
great Asiatic school to which the name of Semiarians, somewhat unkindly
given by Epiphanius, has clung, and which was steadily increasing in
influence over the thought of Asia, the dominant province, at this
time, of the whole Empire. Gregory of Nazianzus, the eldest of
the three great writers, was probably not more than twenty-five years
of age when Hilary was sent into exile, and none of them can have
seriously affected even his latest works. But they represented,
in a more perfect form, the teaching of the best men of the
Conservative School; and when we find that Hilary, who was old enough
to be the father of Basil and the two Gregories, has thoughts in common
with them which are not to be found in Athanasius, we may safely assign
this peculiar teaching to the influence upon Hilary, predisposed by his
loyalty to Origen to listen to the representatives of the Origenist
tradition, of this school of theology. We see one side of this
influence in Hilary’s understatement of the doctrine of the Holy
Ghost. The Semiarians were coming to be of one mind with the
Nicenes as to the consubstantial Deity of the Son; none of them, in all
probability, at this time would have admitted the Hort, Two
Dissertations, p. 27. Trin. viii.
40. Cf. Gwatkin,
Studies of Arianism, p. 130. Ib., p.
159. It would not be fair to judge Hilary by the de
Synodis alone. The would-be diplomatist, in his eagerness to
bring about a reconciliation, is not quite just either to the facts or
to his own feelings.
With these affinities, with an adequate knowledge
of the Greek language and a strong sympathy, as well as a great
familiarity, with Greek modes of thought, Hilary found himself in the
summer of the year 356 an exile in Asia Minor. It was exile in
the most favourable circumstances. He was still bishop of
Poitiers, recognised as such by the government, which only forbade him,
for reasons of state ostensibly not connected with theology, to reside
within his diocese. He held free communication with his
fellow-bishops in Gaul, and was allowed to administer his own diocese,
so far as administration by letter was possible, without
interruption. And his diocese did not forget him. We learn
from Sulpicius Severus Chron. ii. 39.
It is certain that Hilary was busily engaged in writing his great work upon the Trinity, and that some parts of it were actually published, during his exile. But as this work in its final form would appear to belong to the next stage of Hilary’s life, it will be well to postpone its consideration for the present, and proceed at once to his share in the conciliar action of the time. We have no information concerning his conduct before the year 358, but it is necessary to say something about the important events which preceded his publication of the De Synodis and his participation in the Council of Seleucia.
It was a time when new combinations of parties were being formed. Arianism was shewing itself openly, as it had not dared to do since Nicæa. In 357 Hilary’s adversaries, Ursacius and Valens, in a Synod at Sirmium, published a creed which was Arian without concealment; it was, indeed, as serious a blow to the Emperor’s policy of compromise as anything that Athanasius or Hilary had ventured. But it was the work of friends of the Emperor, and shewed that, for the moment at any rate, the Court had been won over to the extreme party. But the forces of Conservatism were still the strongest. Within a few months, early in 358, the great Asiatic prelates, soon to be divided over the question of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit but still at one, Basil of Ancyra, Macedonius and others, met at Ancyra and repudiated Arianism while ignoring, after their manner, the Nicene definition. Then their delegates proceeded to the Court, now at Sirmium, and won Constantius back to his old position. Ursacius and Valens, who had no scruples, signed a Conservative creed, as did the weak Liberius of Rome, anxious to escape from an exile to which he had been consigned soon after the banishment of Hilary. It was a great triumph to have induced so prominent a bishop to minimise—we cannot say that he denied—his own belief and that of the Western churches. And the Asiatic leaders were determined to have the spoils of victory. Liberius, of course, was allowed to return home, for he had proved compliant, and the Conservatives had no quarrel with those who held the homoousion. But the most prominent of the Arian leaders, those who had the courage of their conviction, to the number, it is said, of seventy, were exiled. It is true that Constantius was quickly persuaded by other influences to restore them; but the theological difference was embittered by the sense of personal injury, and further conflicts rendered inevitable between Conservatives and Arians.
It was with this Conservative party, victorious for the
moment, that Hilary had to deal. Its leaders, and especially
Basil of Ancyra, had the ear of the Emperor, and seemed to hold the
future of the Church in their hands. Hilary was on friendly terms
with Basil, with whom, as we have seen, he had much in common, and
corresponded on his behalf with the Western Bishops. He was,
indeed, by the peculiar combination in him of the Eastern and the
Western, perhaps the only man who could have played the part he
undertook. He was thoroughly and outspokenly orthodox, yet had no
prejudice in favour of the Nicene definition. He would have been
content, like the earlier generation of Eastern bishops, with a simple
formulary; the Apostles’ Creed, the traditional standard of the
West, satisfied the exigencies even of his own precise thought.
And if a personal jealousy of Athanasius and his school on the part of
the Asiatic Conservatives was one of the chief obstacles to peace, here
again Hilary had certain advantages. We have seen that there was
no personal communication between him and Athanasius; he could ignore,
and may even have been ignorant of, the antipathy of Asia to
Alexandria. And he was no absolute follower of Athanasius’
teaching. We saw that in some important respects he was an
independent
Hilary threw himself heartily into it. He
travelled, we know, extensively; so much so, that his letters from Gaul
failed to reach him in the year 358. This was a serious
matter. We have seen that the exiles from the West had derived
great support from their flocks. Hilary’s own weight as a
negotiator must have depended upon the general knowledge that he did
not stand alone, but represented the public opinion of a great
province. For this reason, as well as for his own peace of mind,
it must have been a welcome relief to him to learn, when letters came
at last, that his friends had not forgotten or deserted him; and he
seized the opportunity of reply to send to the bishops of all the
Gallic provinces and of Britain the circular letter which we call the
De Synodis, translated in this volume. The Introduction to
it, here given, makes it unnecessary to describe its contents. It
may suffice to say that it is an able and well-written attempt to
explain the Eastern position to Western theologians. He shews
that the Eastern creeds, which had been composed since the Nicene, were
susceptible of an orthodox meaning, and felicitously brings out their
merits by contrast with the unmitigated heresy of the second creed of
Sirmium, which he cites at full length. It must be admitted that
there is a certain amount of special pleading; that his eyes are
resolutely shut to any other aspect of the documents than that which he
is commending to the attention of his readers in Gaul. And he is
as boldly original in his Syn. 32. Ib. 78.
Gwatkin,
Studies of Arianism, p. 163. Sulp. Sev.
Chron. ii. 42. Sulp. Sev. ii. 42,
iuxta ea, quæ Nicææ erant a patribus
conscripta.
But when the deputation, with whom Hilary travelled,
reached Constantinople, they found that the position was entirely
different from their expectation. The intriguing party, whose aim
was to punish and displace the Semiarians, had contrived a double
treason. They misrepresented the Western Council to the Emperor
as in agreement with themselves; Sulpicius Severus,
Chron. ii. 45, says that he addressed at this time three
petitions to the Emperor. This is, of course, not impossible; but
it is more likely that he had in his mind the two appeals, that before
the exile and the present one, and the Invective.
In this address, to which we cannot wonder that Constantius made no response, there is much that is remarkable. There is no doubt that Hilary’s exile had been a political measure, and that the Emperor, in this as in the numerous other cases of the same kind, had acted deliberately and with full knowledge of the circumstances in the way that seemed to him most conducive to the interests of permanent peace. Hilary’s assumption that Constantius had been deceived is a legitimate allusion, which no one could misunderstand, to a fact which could not be respectfully stated. That he should have spoken as he did, and indeed that he should have raised the subject at all, is a clear sign of the uncertainty of the times. A timorous appeal for mercy would have been useless; a bold statement of innocence, although, as things turned out, it failed, was an effort worth making to check the Homoean advance. Saturninus, as we saw, was one of the Court party among the bishops, and he was an enemy of Julian, who was soon to permit his deposition. Julian’s knowledge of Hilary can have been but small; his exile began within a month or two of the Cæsar’s arrival in Gaul, and Julian was not responsible for it. For good or for evil, he had little to say in the case. But the suspicions were already aroused which were soon to lead to Julian’s revolt, and Constantius had begun to give the orders which would lessen Julian’s military force, and were, as he supposed, intended to prepare his downfall. To appeal to Julian and to attack Saturninus was to remind Constantius very broadly that great interests were at stake, and that a protector might be found for the creed which he persecuted. And his double mention of the West (§§ 8, 10) as able to teach the truth, and as needing to be reconciled with the East, has a political ring. It suggests that the Western provinces are a united force, with which the Emperor must reckon. The fact that Constantius, though he did not grant the meeting in his own presence with Saturninus, which Hilary had asked for, yet did grant the substance of his prayer, allowing him to return without obstacle to his diocese, seems to shew that the Emperor felt the need for caution and concession in the West.
The theological part of the letter is even more
remarkable. Its doctrine is, of course, exactly that of the De
Trinitate. The summary of Scripture proofs for the
doctrine in § 11, the allusion to unlearned fishermen who have
been teachers of the Faith Cf. Trin.
ii. 13 ff. Reading
habet for habeo, but the text is obscure. It is true that the
Nicene Council is not named here, but the allusion is obvious.
The Conservatives had actually objected to the novelty of the Creed;
and the Arians had, as Hilary goes on to say, used the pretext of
novelty to destroy the Gospel. The Council of Nicæa was
thirty-five years before, and is very accurately described as a
‘Synod of our fathers.’ Cf. Gwatkin,
Studies of Arianism, p. 182.
In the late revolution, though the Faith had suffered, individual Catholics had gained. But the party to which Hilary had attached himself, and from which he had hoped so much was crushed; and his personal advantage did not compensate, in his eyes, for the injury to truth. He has left us a memorial of his feelings in the Invective against Constantius, one of the bitterest documents of a controversy in which all who engaged were too earnest to spare their opponents. It is an admirable piece of rhetoric suffused with passion, not the less spontaneous because its form, according to the canons of taste of that time, is perfect. For we must remember that the education of the day was literary, its aim being to provide the recipient with a prompt and felicitous expression of his thoughts, whatever they might be. The invective was certainly written in the first place as a relief to Hilary’s own feelings; he could not anticipate that Constantius had changed his views for the last time; that he would soon cease to be the master of Gaul, and would be dead within some eighteen months. But the existence of other attacks upon Constantius, composed about this time, makes it probable that there was some secret circulation of such documents; and we can as little accuse the writers of cowardice, when we consider the Emperor’s far-reaching power, as we can attribute to them injustice towards him.
The book begins with an animated summons to
resistance:—‘The time for speech is come, the time of
silence past. Let us look for Christ’s coming, for
Antichrist is already in power. Let the shepherds cry aloud, for
the hirelings are fled. Let us lay down our lives for the sheep,
for the thieves have entered in and the ravening lion prowls
around. With such words on our lips let us go forth to martyrdom,
for the angel of Satan has transfigured himself into an angel of
light.’ After more Scriptural language of the same kind,
Hilary goes on to say (§ 2) that, though he had been fully
conscious of the extent of the danger to the Faith, he had been
strictly moderate in his conduct. After the exiling of orthodox
bishops at Arles and Milan, he and the bishops of Gaul had contented
themselves with abstaining from communion with Saturninus, Ursacius and
Valens. Other heretical bishops had been allowed a time for
repentance. And even after he had been forced to attend the Synod
of Béziers, refused a hearing for the charges of heresy which he
wished to bring, and finally exiled, he had never, in word or writing,
uttered any denunciation against his opponents, the Synagogue of Satan,
who falsely claimed to be the Church of Christ. He had not
faltered in his own belief, but had welcomed every suggestion that held
out a hope of unity; and in that hope he had even refrained from
blaming those who associated or worshipped with the
excommunicate. Setting all personal considerations on one side,
he had laboured for a restoration of the Church through a general
repentance. His reserve and consistency (§ 3) is evidence
that what he is about to say is not due to personal irritation.
He speaks in the name of Christ, and his prolonged silence makes it his
duty to speak plainly. It had been happy for him had he lived in
the days of Nero or Decius (§ 4). The Holy Spirit would have
fired him to endure as did the martyrs of Scripture; torments and death
would have been welcome. It would have been a fair fight with an
open enemy. But now (§ 5) Constantius was Antichrist, and
waged his warfare by deceit and flattery. It was scourging then,
pampering now; no longer freedom in prison, but slavery at court, and
gold as deadly as the sword had ‘Bodies lifted up
without support, women hanging by the feet without their garments
falling about their face.’ The other references which the
Benedictine editor gives for this curious statement are evidently
borrowed from this of Hilary. From the time of the first
Apologists exorcism is, of course, constantly appealed to as an
evidence of the truth of Christianity, but usually, in somewhat
perfunctory language, and without the assertion that the writer has
himself seen what he records. Hilary himself does not profess to
be an eye-witness. This is a telling
point. Constantius had been notoriously unsuccessful in his
Persian Wars. The text is
corrupt, but it is not probable that Hilary means that Paulinus was
first relegated to Phrygia and then to some pagan frontier district, if
such there was. It is quite in Hilary’s present vein to
assume that because the Montanists were usually called after the
province of their origin, in which they were still numerous, therefore
all Phrygians were heretics and outside the pale of Christendom.
If hordeo be read for horreo the passage is
improved. Paulinus had either to be satisfied with rations of
barley bread, the food of slaves, or else to beg from the
heretics. Such treatment is very improbable, when we remember
Hilary’s own comfort in exile. But passions were excited,
and men believed the worst of their opponents. We may compare the
falsehoods in Walker’s Sufferings of the Clergy, and in
Neal’s Puritans, which were eagerly believed in and after
our own Civil War. Hilary had previously
(§ 27) asserted that ‘the Apostle has taught us to
communicate with the tombs of the saints.’ This is an
allusion to
Here, again, there is much of interest.
Hilary’s painful feeling of isolation is manifest. He had
withdrawn from communion with Saturninus and the few Arians of Gaul,
but has to confess that his own friends were not equally
uncompromising. The Gallic bishops, with their enormous dioceses,
had probably few occasions for meeting, and prudent men could easily
avoid a conflict which the Arians, a feeble minority, would certainly
not provoke. The bishops had been courteous, or more than
courteous; and Hilary dared not protest. His whole importance as
a negotiator in the East depended on the belief that he was the
representative of a harmonious body of opinion. To advertise this
departure from his policy of warfare would have been fatal to his
influence. And if weakness, as he must have judged it, was
leading his brethren at home into a recognition of Arians, Constantius
and his Homoean counsellors had ingeniously contrived a still more
serious break in the orthodox line of battle. There was reason in
his bitter complaint of the Emperor’s generosity. He was
lavish with his money, and it was well worth a bishop’s while to
be his friend. And of this expenditure Nicenes were enjoying
their share, and that without having to surrender their personal
belief, for all that was required was that they should not be
inquisitive as to their neighbours’ heresies. But Nicene
bishops, of an accommodating character, were not only holding their
own; they were enjoying a share of the spoils of the routed
Semiarians. It was almost a stroke of genius thus to shatter
Hilary’s alliance; for it was certainly not by chance that among
the sees to which Nicenes, in full and formal communion with him, were
preferred, was Ancyra itself, from which his chosen friend Basil had
been ejected. Disgusted though Hilary must have been with such
subservience, and saddened by the downfall of his friends, it is clear
that the Emperor’s policy had some success, even with him.
His former hopes being dashed to the ground, he now turns, with an
interest he had never before shewn, to the Nicene Creed as a bulwark of
the Faith. And we can see the same feeling at work in his very
cold recognition that there was ‘some piety in the words of
some’ among his friends at Seleucia. It would be unjust to
think of Hilary as a timeserver, but we must admit that there is
something almost too businesslike in this dismission from his mind of
former hopes and friendships. He looked always to a practical
result in the establishment of truth, and a judgment so sound as his
could not fail to see that the Asiatic negotiations were a closed
chapter in his life. And his mind must have been full of the
thought that he was returning to the West, which had its own interests
and its own prejudices, and was impartially suspicious of all Eastern
theologians; whose ‘selfish coldness Gwatkin, Studies
of Arianism, p. 244.
The historical statements of the Invective, as has been
said, cannot always be verified. The account of the Synod of
Seleucia is, however, unjust to Constantius. It was the free
The deposition of the Semiarian leaders took place
very early in the year 360, and Hilary’s dismissal homewards, one
of the same series of measures, must soon have followed. If he
had formed the plan of his invective before he left Constantinople, it
is not probable that he wrote it there. It was more probably the
employment of his long homeward journey. His natural route would
be by the great Egnatian Way, which led through Thessalonica to
Durazzo, thence by sea to Brindisi, and so to Rome and the North.
It is true that the historians, or rather Rufinus, from whom the rest
appear to have borrowed all their knowledge, say that Illyricum was one
sphere of his labours for the restoration of the Faith. But a
journey by land through Illyricum, the country of Valens and Ursacius
and thoroughly indoctrinated with Arianism, would not only have been
dangerous but useless. For Hilary’s purpose was to confirm
the faithful among the bishops and to win back to orthodoxy those who
had been terrorised or deceived into error, and thus to cement a new
confederacy against the Homoeans; not to make a vain assault upon what
was, for the present, an impregnable position. And though the
Western portion of the Via Egnatia did not pass through the
existing political division called Illyricum, it did lie within the
region called in history and literature by that name. Again, the
evidence that Hilary passed through Rome is not convincing; but since
it was his best road, and he would find there the most important person
among those who had wavered in their allegiance to truth, we may safely
accept it. He made it his business, we are told Rufinus, Hist.
Eccl. i. 30, 31, and, dependent on him, Socrates iii. 10 and
Sozomen v. 13. Cf. Dr. Bright,
Waymarks, p. 217. n. Hist. Eccl. i.
30, 31. Op. cit. i.
31. The recantation of Liberius and of the Italian bishops may be
read in Hilary’s 12th Fragment.
In the passage just quoted Rufinus directly connects the publication of Hilary’s masterpiece, usually called the De Trinitate, with this work of reconciliation. After speaking of his success in it, he proceeds, ‘Moreover he published his books Concerning the Faith, composed in a lofty style, wherein he displayed the guile of the heretics and the deceptions practiced upon our friends, together with the credulous and misplaced sincerity of the latter, with such skill that his ample instructions amended the errors not only of those whom he encountered, but also of those whom distance hindered him from meeting face to face.’ Some of the twelve books of which the work is composed had certainly been published during his exile, and it is possible that certain portions may date from his later residence in Gaul. But a study of the work itself leads to the conclusion that Rufinus was right in the main in placing it at this stage of Hilary’s life; this was certainly the earliest date at which it can have been widely influential.
The title which Hilary gave to his work as a whole
was certainly De Fide, Concerning the Faith, the name by which,
as we saw, Rufinus describes it. It is probable that its
controversial purpose was indicated by the addition of contra
Arianos; but it is certain that its present title, De
Trinitate, was not given to it by Hilary. The word
Trinitas is of extraordinarily rare occurrence in his writings;
the only instances seem to be in Trin. i. 22, 36, where he is
giving a very condensed summary of the contents of his work. In
the actual course of his argument the word is scrupulously avoided, as
it is in all his other writings. In E.g. Trin.
i. 17.
The composite character of the treatise, which
must still for convenience be called the De Trinitate, is
manifest. The beginnings of several of its books, which contain
far more preliminary, and often rhetorical, matter than is necessary to
link them on to their predecessors, point to a separate publication of
each; a course which was, indeed, necessary under the literary
conditions of the time. This piecemeal publication is further
proved by the elaborate summaries of the contents of previous books
which are given as, e.g., at the beginning of Trin. x.; and by
the frequent repetition of earlier arguments at a later stage, which
shews that the writer could not trust to the reader’s possession
of the whole. Though no such attention has been devoted to the
growth of this work as Noeldechen has paid to that of the treatises of
Tertullian, yet some account of the process can be given. For
although Hilary himself, in arranging the complete treatise, has done
much to make it run smoothly and consecutively, and though the scribes
who have copied it have probably made it appear still more homogeneous,
yet some clues to its construction are left. The first is his
description of the first book as the second (v. 3). This implies
that the fourth is the first; and when we examine the fourth we find
that, if we leave out of consideration a little preliminary matter, it
is the beginning of a refutation of Arianism. It states the Arian
case, explains the necessity of the term homoousios, gives a
list of the texts on which the Arians relied, and sets out at length
one of their statements of doctrine, the Epistle of Arius to Alexander,
which it proceeds to demolish, in the remainder of the fourth book and
in the fifth, by arguments from particular passages and from the
general sense of the Old Testament. In the sixth book, for the
reason already given, the Arian Creed is repeated, after a vivid
account of the evils of the time, and the refutation continued by
arguments from the New Testament. In § 2 of this book there
is further evidence of the composite character of the treatise.
Hilary says that though in the first book he has already set out
the Arian manifesto, yet he thinks good, as he is still dealing with
it, to repeat it in this sixth. Hilary seems to have
overlooked the discrepancy, which some officious scribe has half
corrected Similarly in iv. 2 he
alludes to the first book, meaning that which we call first, though, as
we saw, in v. 3 he speaks of our fifth as his second. i.e. in the passage
introduced as a connecting link with the books which now precede it,
when the whole work was put into its present shape.
In the beginning of the fourth book Hilary refers back to the proof furnished in the previous books, written some time ago, of the Scriptural character of his faith and of the unscriptural nature of all the heresies. Setting aside the first book, which does not correspond to this description, we find what he describes in the second and third. These form a short connected treatise, complete in itself. It is much more academic than that of which we have already spoken; it deals briefly with all the current heresies (ii. 4 ff.), but shews no sign that one of them, more than the others, was an urgent danger. There is none of the passion of conflict; Hilary is in the mood for rhetoric, and makes the most of his opportunities. He expatiates, for instance, on the greatness of his theme (ii. 5), harps almost to excess upon the fisherman to whom mysteries so great were revealed (ii. 13 ff.), dilates, after the manner of a sermon, upon the condescension and the glory manifested in the Incarnation, describes miracles with much liveliness of detail (iii. 5, 20), and ends the treatise (iii. 24–26) with a nobly eloquent statement of the paradox of wisdom which is folly and folly which is wisdom, and of faith as the only means of knowing God. The little work, though it deals professedly with certain heresies, is in the main constructive. It contains far more of positive assertion of the truth, without reference to opponents, than it does of criticism of their views. In sustained calmness of tone—it recognises the existence of honest doubt (iii. 1),—and in literary workmanship, it excels any other part of the De Trinitate and in the latter respect is certainly superior to the more conversational Homilies on the Psalms. But it suffers, in comparison with the books which follow, by a certain want of intensity; the reader feels that it was written, in one sense, for the sake of writing it, and written, in another sense, for purposes of general utility. It is not, as later portions of the work were, forged as a weapon for use in a conflict of life and death. Yet, standing as it does, at the beginning of the whole great treatise, it serves admirably as an introduction. It is clear, convincing and interesting, and its eloquent peroration carries the reader on to the central portion of the work, which begins with the fourth book. Except that the second book has lost its exordium, for the same reason that the seventh has lost its conclusion, the two books are complete as well as homogeneous. Of the date nothing definite can be said. There is no sign of any special interest in Arianism; and Hilary’s leisure for a paper conflict with a dead foe like Ebionism suggests that he was writing before the strife had reached Gaul. The general tone of the two books is quite consistent with this; and we may regard it as more probable than not that they were composed before the exile; whether they were published at the time as a separate treatise, or laid on one side for a while, cannot be known; the former supposition is the more reasonable.
The remaining books, from the eighth to the twelfth,
appear to have been written E.g. ix. 31 to iii.
12, ix. 43 to vii. 17. E.g. x. 54
in. viii. 1, x. 4. This heresy is not even
mentioned in xii. 6, where the opening was obvious. Dr. Gwatkin,
Studies of Arianism, p. 226.
There remains the first book, which was obviously, as
Erasmus saw, the last to be composed. It is a survey of the
accomplished task, beginning with that account of Hilary’s
spiritual birth and growth which has already been mentioned. This
is a piece of writing which it is no undue praise to rank, for dignity
and felicity of language, among the noblest examples of Roman
eloquence. Hooker, among English authors, is the one whom it most
suggests. Then there follows a brief summary of the argument of
the successive books, and a prayer for the success of the work.
This reads, and perhaps it was meant to read, as though it were a
prayer that he might worthily execute a plan which as yet existed only
in his brain; but it may also be interpreted, in the more natural
sense, as a petition that his hope might not be frustrated, and that
his book might appear to others what he trusted,
After speaking of the construction of the work, as
Hilary framed it, something must be said of certain interpolations
which it has suffered. The most important are those at the end of
book ix. and in x. 8, which flatly contradict his teaching Cf.
Gore’s Dissertations, p. 134. St. E.g. the cento
from the De Trinitate attached to the Invective against
Constantius.
Hilary certainly intended his work to be regarded
as a whole; as a treatise Concerning the Faith, for it had grown
into something more than a refutation of Arianism. He has
carefully avoided, so far as the circumstances of the time and the
composite character of the treatise would allow him, any allusion to
names and events of temporary interest; there is, in fact, nothing more
definite than a repetition of the wish expressed in the Second Epistle
to Constantius, that it were possible to recur to the Baptismal formula
as the authoritative statement of the Faith ii. I. Newman,
Arians of the Fourth Century, ii. v. 2.
This was the deliberate purpose of Hilary, and he had
certainly counted its cost in immediate popularity and success.
For though, as we have seen, the work did produce, as it deserved, a
considerable effect at the time of its publication, it has remained
ever since, in spite of all its merits, in a certain obscurity.
There can be no doubt that this is largely due to the Mezentian union
with such a document as Arius’ Epistle v. 6.
Yet the whole work has defects of its own.
It is burdened with much repetition; subjects, especially, which have
been treated in books ii. and iii. are discussed again at great length
in later books E.g. bk. iii. is
largely reproduced in ix.; ii. 9 f. = xi. 46 f. E.g. i. 19, ii. 2, iii. 1,
iv. 2, viii. 53, xi. 46 f. Cf. v. 1 (beginning of
column 130 in Migne), x. 4. E.g. v. 3
fin. Cf. Ad
Const. ii. 8, in writing which his own words in the De
Trinitate must have come into his mind. He had probably
borrowed the thought from Origen, contra Celsum, i. 62.
Similar apostrophes are in v. 19, vi. 19 f., 33.
The same attention which Hilary demands from his
readers has obviously been bestowed upon the work by himself. It
is the selected and compressed result not only of his general study of
theology, but of his familiarity with the literature and the many
phases of the great Arian controversy Cf. x. 57
in. All instance is xi.
24 in. E.g. in his masterly
treatment, from his point of view, of the Old Testament Theophanies,
iv. 15 f. Cf. viii. 26 f., ix.
41.
These, after all, are but petty flaws in so great a
work. Not only as a thinker, but as a pioneer of thought, whose
treasures have enriched, often unrecognised, the pages Orosius,
Apol. 1. E.g. iv. 42,
fin. E.g. i. 17.
Whether the De Trinitate were complete or
not at the time of his return to Poitiers, after the triumphal passage
through Italy, its publication in its final form must very shortly have
followed. But literature was, for the present, to claim only the
smaller share of his attention. Heartily as he must have rejoiced
to be again in his home, he had many anxieties to face. The
bishops of Gaul, as we saw from the Invective against Constantius, had
been less militant against their Arian neighbours than he had
wished. There had been peace in the Church; such peace as could
be produced by a mutual ignoring of differences. And it may well
be that the Gallican bishops, in their prejudice against the East,
thought that Hilary himself had gone too far in the path of
conciliation, and that his alliance with the Semiarians was a much
longer step towards compromise with heresy than their own prudent
neutrality. Each side must have felt that there was something to
be explained. Hilary, for his part, by the publication of the
De Trinitate had made it perfectly clear that his faith was
above suspicion; and his abstinence in that work from all mention of
existing parties or phases of the controversy shewed that he had
withdrawn from his earlier position. He was now once more a
Western bishop, concerned only with absolute truth and the interests of
the Church in his own province. But he had to reckon with the
sterner champions of the Nicene faith, who Cf. Krüger,
Lucifer Bischof von Calaris, p. 39.
For a great change was taking place in public
affairs. When Hilary left Constantinople, early in the spring of
the year 360, it was probably a profound secret in the capital that a
rupture between Constantius and Julian was becoming inevitable.
In affairs, civil and ecclesiastical, the Emperor and his favourite,
the bishop Saturnine, must have seemed secure of their dominance in
Gaul. But events moved rapidly. Constantius needed troops
to strengthen the Eastern armies, never adequate to an emergency, for
an impending war with Persia; he may also have desired to weaken the
forces of Julian. He demanded men; those whom Julian detached for
Eastern service refused to march, and proclaim Julian Emperor at
Paris. This was in May, some months, at the least, before Hilary,
delayed by his Italian labours in the cause of orthodoxy, can have
reached home. Julian temporised; he kept up negotiations with
Constantius, and employed his army in frontier warfare. But there
could be no doubt of the issue. Conflict was inevitable, and the
West could have little fear as to the result. The Western armies
were the strongest in the Empire; it was with them that, in the last
great trial of strength, Fragment xi. Chron. ii.
45.
These events happened before Julian left the country, in the middle of the summer of 361, on his march against Constantius; or at least, if the actual proceedings were subsequent to his departure, they must have quickly followed it, for his sanction was necessary, and when that was obtained there was no motive for delay. And now, for some years, Hilary disappears from sight. He tells us nothing in his writings of the ordinary course of his life and work; even his informal and discursive Homilies cast no light upon his methods of administration, his successes or failures, and very little on the character of his flock. There was no further conflict within the Church of Gaul during Hilary’s lifetime. The death of Constantius, which happened before Julian could meet him in battle, removed all political anxiety. Julian himself was too busy with the revival of paganism in the East to concern himself seriously with its promotion in the Latin-speaking provinces, from which he was absent, and for which he cared less. The orthodox cause in Gaul did not suffer by his apostasy. His short reign was followed by the still briefer rule of the Catholic Jovian. Next came Valentinian, personally orthodox, but steadily refusing to allow depositions on account of doctrine. Under him Arianism dwindled away; Catholic successors were elected to Arian prelates, and the process would have been hastened but by a few years had Hilary been permitted to expel Auxentius from Milan, as we shall presently see him attempting to do.
This was his last interference in the politics of
the Church, and does not concern us as yet. His chief interest
henceforth was to be in literary work; in popularising and, as he
thought, improving upon the teaching of Origen. He commented upon
the book of Job, as we know from Jerome and Augustine. The former
says that this, and his work on the Psalms, were translations from
Origen. But that is far from an accurate account of the latter
work, and may be equally inaccurate concerning the former. The
two fragments which St. Augustine has preserved from the Commentary on
Job are so short that we cannot draw from them any conclusion as to the
character of the book. If we may trust Jerome, its length was
somewhat more than a quarter of that of the Homilies on the
Psalms Jerome, Apol.
adv. Rufinum, i. 2, says that the total length of the Commentaries
on Job and the Psalms was about 40,000 lines, i.e. Virgilian
hexameters. The latter, at a tough estimate, must be nearly
35,000 lines in its present state. But Jerome, as we shall see,
was not acquainted with so many Homilies as have come down to us; we
must deduct about 5,000 lines, and this will leave l0,000 for the
Commentary on Job, making it two sevenths of the length of the
other. Jerome, however, is not careful in his statements of
lengths; he calls the short De Synodis ‘a very long
book,’ Ep. v. 2.
Hilary’s other adaptation from Origen, the
Homilies on the Psalms, happily remains to us. It is at
least as great a work as the De Trinitate, and one from which we
can learn even more what manner of man its writer was. For the
De Trinitate is an appeal to all thoughtful Christians of the
time, and written for future generations as well as for them;
characteristic, as it is, in many ways of the author, the compass of
the work and the stateliness of its rhetoric tend to conceal his
personality. But the Homilies
Tractatusought to be translated thus. It is the
term, and the only term, used so early as this for the bishop’s
address to the congregation; in fact, one might almost say that
tractare, tractatus in Christian language had no other
meaning. It is an anachronism in the fourth century to render
prædicare by ‘preach;’ cf. Duchesne, Liber
Pontificalis, i. 126. E.g.
fundamen, Tr. in Ps. cxxviii. 10, germen, cxxxiv.
1, revolubilis, ii. 23, peccamen, ii. 9 fin. and
often. The shape of sentences, though simple, is always good; to
take one test word, sæpe, which was almost if not quite
extinct in common use, occurs fairly often near the end of a period,
where it was needed for rhythm, which frequenter would have
spoiled. Some Psalms, e.g. xiii., xiv., are treated more
rhetorically than others.
There remains only one trace, though it is
sufficient, of the original circumstances of delivery. The Homily
on
It is probably due to the accidents of time that
our present copies of the Homilies are imperfect. We are, indeed,
better off than was Jerome. His manuscript contained Homilies on
So Zingerle, Preface,
p. xiv, to whom we owe the excellent Vienna Edition of the Homilies,
the only part of Hilary’s writing which has as yet appeared in a
critical text. The writer of the former of these two Homilies, in
§ 2, says that the title of a Psalm always corresponds to the
contents. This is quite contrary to Hilary’s teaching, who
frequently points out and ingeniously explains what seem to him, to be
discrepancies.
He was conversing in pastoral intimacy with his
people, and hence we cannot be surprised that he draws, perhaps
unconsciously, on the results of his own previous labours. For
instance, on E.g. in the
Instruction or discourse preparatory to the Homilies, and in the
introductory sections of that on E.g. Instr. in
Ps., § 12, the fifty days of rejoicing during which Christians
must not prostrate themselves in prayer, nor fast.
It has been said that the practical teaching of
Hilary is that of Cyprian. But this is not a literary
debt The account of
exorcism given on
Unhappily the remains of Origen’s work upon
the Psalms, though considerable, are fragmentary, and of the fragments
scattered through Catenæ no complete or critical edition
has yet been made. Still, insufficient as the material would be
for a detailed study and comparison, enough survives to enable us to
form a general idea of the relation between the two writers.
Origen He is here cited
by the volume and page of the edition by Lommatzsch. His system
of interpretation is admirably described in the fourth of Dr.
Bigg’s Bampton Lectures, The Christian Platonists of
Alexandria.
A comparison of the two writers shews the
closeness of their relation, and if we had Origen’s complete
Homilies, and not mere excerpts, the debt of Hilary would certainly be
still more manifest. For the compilers of Catenæ have
naturally selected what was best in Origen, and most suited for short
extracts; his eccentricities have been in great measure omitted.
Hence we may err in attributing to Hilary much that is perverse in his
comments; there is an abundance of wild mysticism in the fragments of
Origen, but its proportion to the whole is undoubtedly less in their
present state than in their original condition. Hilary’s
method was that of paraphrasing, not of servile translation.
There is apparently only one literal rendering of an extant passage of
Origen, and that a short one Hil. Tr. in
Ps. 13, § 3, his igitur ita grassantibus, sq. =
Origen (ed. Lommatzsch) xii. 38. E.g. Instr. in
Ps., § 15 = Origen in Eusebius, H.E. vi. 25 (Philocalia
3), Hilary on Hæres. 64,
12 f. Origen xiii.
134. Hilary has omitted this from his Homily on Instances of
such independence are E.g.
But the chief interest of the comparison between
the writings of these two Fathers upon the Psalms lies in the insight
which it affords into their respective modes of thought.
Fragmentary as they are, Origen’s words are a manifestly genuine
and not inadequate expression of his mind; and Hilary, a recognised
authority and conscious of his powers, has so moulded and transformed
his original, now adapting and now rejecting, that he has made it, even
on the ground which is common to both, a true and sufficient
representation of his own mental attitude. The Roman contrasts
broadly with the Greek. He constantly illustrates his discourse
with historical incidents of Scripture, taken in their literal sense;
there are few such in Origen. Origen is full, as usual, of
praises of the contemplative state; in speculation upon Divine things
consists for him the happiness everywhere promised to the saints.
Hilary ignores abstract speculation, whether as a method of
interpretation or as a hope for the future, and actually
describes Origen xiii. 72;
Hilary, Cf. also Cf.
The Homilies on the Psalms have never been a popular work. Readable as they are, and free from most of the difficulties which beset the De Trinitate, posterity allowed them to be mutilated, and, as we saw, only a portion has come down to us. Their chief influence, like that of the other treatise, has been that which Hilary has exercised through them upon writers of greater fame. Ambrose has borrowed from them liberally and quite uncritically for his own exposition of certain of the Psalms; and Ambrose, accredited by his own fame and that of his greater friend Augustine, has quite overshadowed the fame of Hilary. The Homilies may, perhaps, have also suffered from an undeserved suspicion that anything written by the author of the De Trinitate would be hard to read. They have, in any case, been little read; and yet, as the first important example in Latin literature of the allegorical method, and as furnishing the staple of a widely studied work of St. Ambrose, they have profoundly affected the course of Christian thought. Their historical interest as well as their intrinsic value commands our respect.
In his Homily on Vir. Ill.
100. J. F. Gamurrini,
S. Hilarii Tractatus de Mysteriis et Hymni, etc., 4to., Rome,
1887. The De Mysteriis occupies pp. 3–28. Ed. Gamurrini, p.
5. Ib. p.
17. Ib. p.
21; there is the not uncommon play on the two senses of
colligere. Ib. p. 27. It must be
confessed that some authorities refuse to regard this work as the De
Mysteriis of Hilary. Among these is Ebert, Litteratur des
Mittelalters, p. 142, who admits that the matter might be
Hilary’s, but denies that the manner and style are
his.
In this same manuscript, discovered by Gamurrini
at Arezzo, are the remains of what professes to be Hilary’s
collection of hymns. He has always had the fame of being the
earliest Latin hymn writer. This was, indeed, a task which the
circumstances of his life must have suggested to him. The
conflict with Arianism forced him to become the pioneer of systematic
theology in the Latin tongue; it also drove him into exile in the East,
where he must have acquainted himself with the controversial use made
of hymnody by the Arians. Thus it was natural that he should have
introduced hymns also into the West. But if the De
Trinitate had little success, the hymns were still more
unfortunate. Jerome tells us that Hilary complained of finding
the Gauls unteachable in sacred song Comm. in Ep. ad
Gal. ii. pref.: Hilarius in hymnorum
carmine Gallos indociles vocat. This may mean that Hilary
actually used the words ‘stubborn Gauls’ in one of his
hymns. There would be nothing extraordinary in this; the early
efforts, and especially those of the Arians which Hilary imitated for a
better purpose, often departed widely from the propriety of later
compositions, as we shall see in one of those attributed to Hilary
himself. It is true
that the Fourth Council of Toledo (a.d. 633)
in its 13th canon couples Hilary with Ambrose as the writer of hymns in
actual use. But these canons are verbose productions, and this
may be a mere literary flourish, natural enough in countrymen and
contemporaries of Isidore of Seville, who knew, no doubt from
Jerome’s Viri Illustres, that Hilary was the first Latin
hymn writer.
Hilary’s own opinion concerning the use of hymns
can best be learnt from his Homilies of
But, when we come to the examination of these
hymns in detail, the gravest doubts arise. The first three were
discovered in the same manuscript to which we owe the De
Mysteriis. They formed part of a small collection, which
cannot have numbered more than seven or eight hymns, of which these
three only have escaped, not without some mutilation. That which
stands first is the confession of faith, the matter of which contains
nothing that is inconsistent with Hilary’s time. But beyond
this, and the fact that the manuscript ascribes it to Hilary, there is
nothing to suggest his authorship. It is a dreary production in a
limping imitation of an Horatian metre; an involved argumentative
statement of Catholic doctrine, in which it would be difficult to say
whether verse or subject suffers the more from their unwanted
union. The sequence of thought is helped out by the mechanical
device of an alphabetical arrangement of the stanzas, but even this
assistance could not make it intelligible to an ordinary
congregation Two of the simplest
stanzas are as follows:— Extra quam caper potest mens humana manet Filius in Patre, rursus quem penes sit Pater dignus, qui genitus est Filius in Deum. Felix quid potuit fide res tantas penitus credulus assequi, ut incorporeo ex Deo profectus fuerit primogenitus Dei. It is written in stanzas of six
lines in the ms.; the metre is the second
Asclepiad. Gamurrini, the discoverer, and Fechtrup (in
Wetzer-Welte’s Encyclopædia) regard it as the work of
Hilary, but the weight of opinion is against them.
In the same manuscript there follow, after an
unfortunate gap, the two hymns to which it has been suggested that
Hilary alludes in his Homily on By Gamurrini in
Studì e documenti, 1884, p. 83 f.
The spurious letter to his imaginary daughter Abra
was apparently written with the ingenious purpose of fathering upon
Hilary the morning hymn, Lucis Largitor splendide. This is
a hymn of considerable beauty, in the same metre as the genuine
Ambrosian hymns. But there is this essential difference, that
while in the latter the rules of classical versification as regards the
length of syllables are scrupulously followed, in the former these
rules are ignored, and rhythm takes the place of quantity. This
is a sufficient proof that the hymn is of a later date than Ambrose,
and, a fortiori, than Hilary. There remains the so-called
evening hymn, which has been supposed to be the companion to the
last Printed in full
by Mai, Patrum Nova Bibliotheca, p. 490. He suspends
judgment, and will not say that it is unworthy of Hilary. The
Benedictine editor, Coustant, gives a few stanzas as specimens, and
summarily rejects it. The four quarters of
the universe are ortus, occasus, aquilo, septentrio; one
of these last must mean the south. This would point to some
German land as the home of the author; in no country of Romance tongue
could such an error have been perpetrated. Perire is used
for perdere, but this is not unparalleled.
Omitting certain fragments of treatises of which
Hilary may, or may not, have been the author In
Mai’s Patrum Nova Bibliotheca, vol. i., is a short
treatise on the Genealogies of Christ. The method of
interpretation is the same as Hilary’s, but the language is not
his; and the terms used of the Virgin in §§ 11, 12, are not
as early as the fourth century. In the same volume is an
exposition of the beginning of St. John’s Gospel in an anti-Arian
sense. In spite of some difference of vocabulary, there is no
strong reason why this should not be by Hilary; cf. especially,
§§ 5–7. Mai also prints in the same volume a
short fragment on the Paralytic (St.
Hilary, then, in company with his any Eusebius, hastened
to Milan in order to influence the mind of Valentinian against
Auxentius, and to waken the dormant orthodoxy of the Milanese
Church. For there seems to have been little local opposition to
the Arian bishop: no organised congregation of Catholics in the
city rejected his communion. On the other hand, there was no
militant Arianism; the worship conducted by Auxentius could excite no
scruples, and in his teaching he would certainly avoid the points of
difference. He and his school had no desire to persecute
orthodoxy because it was orthodox. From their point of view, the
Faith had been settled in such a way that their own position was
unassailable, and all they wished was to live and to let live.
And we must remember that the Council of Rimini, disgraceful as the
manner was in which its decision had been reached, was still the rule
of the Faith for the Western Church. Hilary and Eusebius had
induced a multitude of bishops, amid the applause of their flocks, to
recant; but private expressions of opinion, however numerous, could not
erase the definitions of Rimini from Contra
Auxentium, §7.
But Hilary, silenced in the city, exerted himself
at court. With urgent importunity, he tells us, he pressed his
charges against Auxentius, and induced the Emperor to appoint a
commission to consider them. In due time this commission
met. It consisted of two lay officials, with ‘some
ten’ bishops as assessors It is clear from
Hilary’s account (Contra Auxentium, § 7) that the
decision lay with the laymen. Auxentius, in his account of the
matter, does not even mention the bishops.
Hilary’s account of the proceedings must certainly be accepted. But, though his moral and dialectical victory was complete, it is obvious that he had gained no advantage for his cause. He had taunted Auxentius as an adherent of Arius. Auxentius had an immediate reply, which put his opponent in the wrong. We cannot doubt that he spoke the truth, when he said that he had never known Arius; and it certainly was the case, that in the early years of the fourth century, inadequate statements of the doctrine of the Trinity were widely prevalent and passed without dispute. It was also true that the dominant faction at the court of Constantius, of which Auxentius had been a leader, had in the most effectual way disclaimed complicity with Arianism by ejecting its honest professors from their sees and by joining with their lips in the universal condemnation of the founder of that heresy. But if this was their shame, it was also, in such circumstances as those of Auxentius, their protection. And Auxentius held one of the greatest positions in the church, and even in the state, now that Milan was to be, so it seemed, the capital of the West. The spirit of the government at that time was one of almost Chinese reverence for official rank; and it must have seemed an outrage that the irresponsible bishop of a city, mean in comparison with Milan, should assail Auxentius in such terms as Hilary had used. Even though he had admitted, instead of repudiating, the affinity with Arius, there would have been an impropriety in the use of that familiar weapon, the labelling of a party with the name of its most discredited and unpopular member. We may be sure that Auxentius, a man of the world, would derive all possible advantage from this excessive vehemence of his adversary. In the debate itself, where Hilary would have the advantage not only of a sound cause, but of greater earnestness, we cannot be surprised that he won the victory. Auxentius was probably indifferent at heart; Hilary had devoted his life and all his talents to the cause, but such a victory could have no results, beyond lowering Auxentius in public esteem and self-respect. It does not appear from his words or from those of Hilary, that the actual creed of Rimini was imported into the dispute. It was on it that Auxentius relied; if he did not expressly contradict its terms, the debate became a mere discussion concerning abstract truth. The legal standard of doctrine was no more affected by his unwilling concession than it had been a few years before by the numerous repudiations, prompted by Hilary and Eusebius, of the vote given at Rimini. The confession which Hilary annexed in triumph to his narrative was the mere incidental expression of a private opinion, which Auxentius, in his further plea, could afford to leave unnoticed.
The commissioners no doubt made their report privately
to the Emperor. We do not know its tenour, but from the sequel we
may be sure that they gave it as their opinion that Auxentius was the
lawful bishop of Milan. Some time passed before Valentinian
spoke. Whether Hilary took any further steps to influence his
decision is unknown; but we possess a memorial addressed ‘to the
most blessed and glorious Emperors Valentinian and Valens’ by
Auxentius. The two brothers were, by mutual arrangement, each
sovereign within his own dominion, but they ruled as colleagues, not as
rivals; and Auxentius must have taken courage from the thought that it
would seem unnatural and impolitic for the elder to seize this first
opportunity of proclaiming his dissent from the cherished convictions
of the younger, by degrading one of the very school which his brother
delighted to honour. For what had been proposed was not the
silent filling of a vacant place, but the public ejection of a bishop
whose This was a gross
exaggeration. They cannot have been more than 400, and probably
were less and we must remember that the Homoean decision was only
obtained by fraud, as Auxentius well knew.
The Church seeks for secular support, and in so doing insults Christ by the implication that his support is insufficient. She in her turn holds out the threat of exile and prison. It was her endurance of these that drew men to her; now she imposes her faith by violence. She craves for favours at the hands of her communicants; once it was her consecration that she braved the threatenings of persecutors. Bishops in exile spread the Faith; now it is she that exiles bishops. She boasts that the world loves her; the world’s hatred was the evidence that she was Christ’s. The ruin is obvious which has fallen upon the Church. The time of Antichrist, disguised as an angel of light, has come. The true Christ is hidden from almost every mind and heart. Antichrist is now obscuring the truth that he may assert falsehood hereafter. Hence the conflicting opinions of the time, the doctrine of Arius and of his heirs, Valens, Ursacius, Auxentius and their fellows. Their preaching of novelties concerning Christ is the work of Antichrist, who is using them to introduce his own worship. This is proved (§ 6) by a statement of their minimising and prevaricating doctrine, which has, however, made no impression upon the guileless and well-meaning laity. Then (§§ 7–9) comes Hilary’s account of his proceedings at Milan, strongly coloured by the intensity of his feelings. The Emperor’s first refusal to interfere with Auxentius is a ‘command that the Church of the Milanese, which confesses that Christ is true God, of one divinity and substance with the Father, should be thrown into confusion under the pretext, and with the desire, of unity.’ The canons of Rimini are described as those of the Thracian Nicæa; Auxentius’ protest that he had never known Arius is met by the assertion that he had been ordained to the presbyterate in an Arian Church under George of Alexandria. Hilary refuses to discuss the Council of Rimini; it had been universally and righteously repudiated. His ejection from Milan, in spite of his protests that Auxentius was a liar and a renegade, is a revelation of the mystery of ungodliness. For Auxentius (§§ 10, 11) had spoken with two contrary voices; the one that of the confession which Hilary had driven him to sign, the other that of Rimini. His skill in words could deceive even the elect, but he had been clearly exposed. Finally (§ 12) Hilary regrets that he cannot state the case to each bishop and Church in person. He begs them to make the best of his letter; he dares not make it fully intelligible by circulating with it the Arian blasphemies which he had assailed. He bids them beware of Antichrist, and warns against love and reverence for the material structure of their churches, wherein Antichrist will one day have his seat. Mountains and woods and dens of beasts and prison and morasses are the places of safety; in them some of the Prophets had lived, and some had died. He bids them shun Auxentius as an angel of Satan, an enemy of Christ, a deceiver and a blasphemer. ‘Let him assemble against me what synods he will, let him proclaim me, as he has often done already, a heretic by public advertisement, let him direct, at his will, the wrath of the mighty against me; yet, being an Arian, he shall be nothing less than a devil in my eyes. Never will I desire peace except with them who, following the doctrine of our fathers at Nicæa, shall make the Arians anathema and proclaim the true divinity of Christ.’
These are the concluding words of Hilary’s last
public utterance. We see him again giving an unreserved adhesion,
in word as well as in heart, to the Nicene confession. It was the
course dictated by policy as well as by conviction. His cautious
language in earlier days had done good service to the Church in the
East, and had made it easier for those who had compromised themselves
at Rimini to reconcile themselves with him and with the truth for
§4.
There remains one work of Hilary to be considered.
This was a history of the Arian controversy in such of its
aspects as had fallen under his own observation. We know from
Jerome’s biography of Hilary that he wrote a book against Valens
and Ursacius, containing an account of the Councils of Rimini and
Seleucia. They had been his adversaries throughout his career,
and had held their own against him. To them, at least as much as
to Constantius, the overthrow of his Asiatic friends was due, and to
them he owed the favour, which must have galled him, of permission to
return to his diocese. Auxentius was one of their allies, and the
failure of Hilary’s attack upon him made it clear that these men
too, as subjects of Valentinian, were safe from merited
deposition. Their worldly success was manifest; it was a natural
and righteous task which Hilary undertook when he exposed their true
character. It was clear that while Valens and Valentinian
lived—and they were in early middle life—there would be an
armed peace within the Western Church; that the overthrow of bishop by
bishop in theological strife would be There are fifteen in
the collection, but the second and third which are as long as the rest
together, and are obviously extracts from the same work, are not by
Hilary. He expressly says (Fragm. i. § 6) that he will
commence with the council of Arles and the exile of Paulinus.
These documents narrate at great length events which began six years
earlier, and with which Hilary and his province had no direct
concern. This proves that the fragments are not a portion of the
Liber adversus Ursacium et Valentem. Internal evidence
proves not less clearly that they cannot be excerpts from some other
work of Hilary. In Fragm. ii. § 21 we are told that
apparently in the year 349, Athanasius excommunicated Marcellus of
Ancyra. It is of course, notorious that he never did so; the
mistake is one which Hilary could not possibly have made. None
the less, these fragments are both in themselves and in the documents
which they embody, one of our most important authorities for the
transactions they narrate, and are indisputably contemporary and
authentic. Nor is there any reasonable doubt as to the
genuineness of the thirteen. Those of them which reveal the
inconstancy of Liberius have been assailed by some Roman Catholic
writers, though they are accepted by others. The same suspicion
has extended to others among the fragments, because they are found in
company with these revelations concerning Liberius. But the
doubts have been suggested by the wish to disbelieve. This correspondence
which Hilary has preserved (Fragm. xiii.–xv.) is interesting as
shewing how difficult it must have been for the laity to determine who
was, and who was not, a heretic, when all parties used the same
Scriptural terms in commendation of themselves and condemnation of
their opponents. It begins with a public letter in which
Germinius makes a declaration of faith in Homoeousion terms, without
any mention of the reasons which had induced him to depart from the
Homoean position. This is followed by a reproachful letter, also
intended for publicity, from Valens, Ursacius, and others. They
had refused to attend to the rumour of his defection; but now are
compelled, by his own published letter, to ask the plain question,
whether or not he adheres to ‘the Catholic Faith set forth and
confirmed by the Holy Council at Rimini.’ If he had added
to the Homoean formula, which was that the Son is ‘like the
Father,’ the words ‘in substance’ or ‘in all
things,’ he had fallen into the justly condemned heresy of Basil
of Ancyra. They demand an explicit statement that he never had
said, and never would say, anything of the kind; and warn him that he
is gravely suspected, complaints of his teaching having been made by
certain of his clergy to neighbouring bishops, which they trust will be
proved groundless. Germinius made no direct reply to this letter,
but addressed a manifesto to a number of more sympathetic bishops,
containing the scriptural proofs of the divinity of Christ and
recalling the fact that the Homoean leaders, before their own victory,
had acquiesced in the Homoeousian confession. Any teaching to the
contrary is the work, not of God, but of the spirit of this world, and
he entreats those whom he addresses to circulate his letter as widely
as possible, lest any should fall through ignorance into the snares of
the devil. Germinius was assured of safety in writing thus.
Valentinian’s support of Auxentius had proved that bishops might
hold what opinions they would on the great question provided they were
not avowed Arians. Germinius had been a leader of the Homoean
party, and it is at least possible that his change of front was due to
his knowledge that the Emperor, though he would not eject Homoeans, had
no sympathy with them and would allow them no influence. In fact,
the smaller the share of conscience, the greater the historical
interest of Germinius’ action as shewing the decline of Homoean
influence in the West.
But though we have reached the term of Hilary’s
life, there remains one topic on which something must be said, his
relation to St. Martin of Tours. Martin, born in Pannonia, the
country of Valens and Ursacius, but converted from paganism under
Catholic influences, was attracted by Hilary, already a bishop, and
spent some years in his society before the outbreak of the Arian strife
in Gaul. Hilary, we are told, wished to ordain him a priest, but
at his urgent wish refrained, and admitted him instead to the humble
rank of an exorcist. At an uncertain date, which cannot have long
preceded Hilary’s exile, he felt himself moved to return to his
native province in order to convert his parents, who were still
pagans. He succeeded in the case of his mother and of many of his
countrymen. But he was soon compelled to abandon his labours, for
he had, as a true disciple of Hilary, regarded it as his duty to oppose
the Arianism dominant in
We have now reached the end of Hilary’s
life. Sulpicius Severus Chron. ii.
45.
This Chapter offers no
more than a tentative and imperfect outline of the theology of St.
Hilary; it is an essay, not a monograph. Little attempt will be
made to estimate the value of his opinions from the point of view of
modern thought; little will be said about his relation to earlier and
contemporary thought, a subject on which he is habitually silent, and
nothing about the after fate of his speculations. Yet the task,
thus narrowed, is not without its difficulties. Much more
attention, it is true, has been paid to Hilary’s theology than to
the history of his life, and the student cannot presume to dispense
with the assistance of the books already written Those which have
been in constant use in the preparation of this chapter have been an
excellent article by Th. Förster in the Theologische Studien
und Kritiken for 1888, p. 645 ff., and two full and valuable papers
by Dr. Baltzer on the Theologie and Christologie of
Hilary in the Programm of the Rottweil Gymnasium for 1879 and
1889 respectively. I have unfortunately not had access to
Wirthmüller’s work, Die Lehre d. hl. Hil.
über die Selbstentäusserung Christi, but the
citations in Baltzer and Schwane give some clue to its contents.
The Introduction to the Benedictine edition is useful, though its value
is lessened by an evident desire to make Hilary conform to the accepted
opinions of a later age. Dorner’s great work on the
Doctrine of the Person of Christ, in the English translation,
with the Dogmengeschichte of Schwane (ed. 2, 1895) and that of
Harnack (ed. 3, 1894) have also been constantly and profitably
consulted. Indebtedness to other works is from time to time
acknowledged in the notes.
This desultory mode of composition had its advantages in
life and warmth of present interest, and gives to Hilary’s
writings a value as historical documents which a formal and
comprehensive treatise would have lacked. But it seriously
increases the difficulty of the present undertaking. It was
inevitable that Hilary’s method, though he is a singularly
consistent thinker, should sometimes lead him into self-contradiction
and sometimes leave his meaning in obscurity. In such cases
probabilities must be balanced, with due regard to the opinion of
former theologians who have studied his writings, and a definite
conclusion must be given, though space cannot be found for the
considerations upon which it is based. But though the writer may
be satisfied that he has, on the whole, fairly represented
Hilary’s belief, it is impossible that a summary of doctrine can
be an adequate reflection of a great teacher’s mind.
Proportions are altogether changed; a doctrine once stated and then
dismissed must be set down on the same scale as another to which the
author recurs again
In his effort to render a reason for his belief
Hilary’s constant appeal is to Scripture; and he avails himself
freely of the thoughts of earlier theologians. But he never makes
himself their slave; he is not the avowed adherent of any school, and
never cites the names of those whose arguments he adopts. These
he adjusts to his own system of thought, and presents for acceptance,
not on authority, but on their own merits. For Scripture,
however, he has an unbounded reverence. Everything that he
believes, save the fundamental truth of Theism, of which man has an
innate consciousness, being unable to gaze upon the heavens without the
conviction that God exists and has His home there Tr. in Ps.
xvii. 2, 4. As e.g.
Trin. vi. 45. St.
In Hilary’s eyes the two Testaments form one
homogeneous revelation, of equal value throughout Thus the Book of
Baruch, regarded as part of Jeremiah, is cited with the same confidence
as Isaiah and the other prophets in Trin. v. 39. E.g. Tr. in
Ps. cxviii. Aleph. 1, cxxviii. 12. cxxxi. 8. It must
be confessed that Hilary’s illustrations of the principle are not
always fortunate. Thus in
Trin. xi. 15, in commenting on Cf. also
Trin. x. 67. Tr. in Ps.
cxxxviii. 3. Trin. ix.
62. There is a similar argument in § 63. E.g. Tr. in
Ps. cxxv. 1. Cf. Tr. in
Ps. cxlii. 1. Tr. in Ps.
cxxxii. 6. E.g. Tr. in
Ps. lxiii. 2; Trin. iv. 14, ix. 59. Comm. in Matt.
xix. 4, xxi. 13. Tr. in
Ps.cxlii. 1; cf. ib. cxxxi. 24, cxxxiii. 4, cl.
1. Similar
arguments are often used: cf. Tr. in Ps. cxlv.
1. Tr. in Ps.
cxx. 4. Ib. cxlvi.
11. Comm. in Matt.
v. 11. E.g. Comm. in
Matt. xviii. 2; Tr. in Ps. cxix. 20, cxxxiv. 12, cxxxvi. 6,
7; Trin. iv. 38.
But though Hilary throughout his whole period of
authorship uses the mystical method of interpretation, never doubting
that everywhere in Scripture there is a spiritual meaning which can be
elicited, and that whatever sense, consistent with truth otherwise
ascertained, can be extracted from it, may be extracted, yet there is a
manifest increase in sobriety in his later as compared with his earlier
writings. From the riotous profusion of mysticisms in the
commentary on St. Matthew, where, for instance, every character and
detail in the incident of St. John Baptist’s death becomes a
symbol, it is a great advance to the almost Athanasian cautiousness in
exegesis of the De Trinitate; though even here, especially in
the early books which deal with the Old Testament, there is some
extravagance and a very liberal employment of the method E.g.
Trin. i. 6.
Though Hilary was not its inventor, and was forced
by the large part played by Old Testament exegesis in the Arian
controversy to employ it, whether he would or not The
unhesitating use of the Theophanies of the Old Testament as direct
evidence for the divinity of Christ is noteworthy. Similar to the
usual proofs for the distinction of Persons within the Trinity, from
the alternate use of plural and singular, are the arguments in Tr.
in Ps. cxviii., Iod, 5, cxxvii. 4. It is worth notice
that he makes no use of Origen’s mystical interpretation of the
Canticles. Silence in such a case is itself a criticism. Compare such a
passage as Trin. x. 24 with his use of the proof-texts against
Arianism. Tr. in Ps.
cxxvii. 10. E.g. Tr. in
Ps. xci. 10, cxviii. Iod, 15, cxxxiv. 1, cxxxv.
1.
His sense of the value of Scripture is heightened
by his belief in the sacredness of language. Names belong
inseparably to the things which they signify; words are themselves a
revelation. This is a lesson learnt from Origen; and the false
antithesis between the nature and the name of God, of which, according
to the Arians, Christ had the latter only, made it of special use to
Hilary E g.
Trin. vii. 13; and cf. the argument which is also Athanasian, of
vii. 31. Beside the
passages mentioned on p. xxx., it only occurs in Instructio
Psalmorum § 13. The translation
of the De Trinitate in this volume may give a somewhat false
impression in this respect. For the sake of conciseness the word
Person has been often used in the English where it is absent,
and absent designedly in the Latin. The word occurs Trin.
iii. 23 in., iv. 42, v. 10, 26, vii. 39, 40, and in a few other
places.
Concorporatio, Comm. in Matt. vi. 1;
corporatio, Tr. in Ps. i. 14, ii. 3, and often;
corporatus Deus, Comm. in Matt. iv. 14, Tr. in
Ps. li. 16; corporalitas, Comm. in Matt.
iv. 14 (twice), Instr. Ps. vi. In the De Trinitate
he usually prefers a periphrasis;—assumpta caro,
assumpsit carnem. Corporatiois used of
man’s dwelling in a body in Trin. xi. 15, and De
Mysteriis, ed. Gamurrini, p. 5. It occurs in
the De Synodis 69, but in that work Hilary is writing as an
advocate in defence of language used by others, not as the exponent of
his own thoughts. It also occurs once or twice in translations
from the Greek, probably by another hand than Hilary’s; but from
his own authorship it is completely absent. Trin.
v. 10,Syn. 69, ‘God is One not in Person, but in
nature,’ Trin. iv. 42, ‘Not by oneness of Person but
by unity of substance;’ vi. 35, ‘the birth of a living
Nature from a living Nature.’ Often enough the substance or
nature of God or Christ is simply a periphrasis. The two natures
in the Incarnate Christ are also mentioned, though, as we shall see,
Hilary here also avoids a precise nomenclature.
Though, as we have seen, the contemplative state
is not the ultimate happiness of man, yet the knowledge of God is
essential to salvation Tr. in Ps.
cxxxi. 6, ‘The supreme achievement of Christ was to render
man, instructed in the knowledge of God, worthy to be God’s
dwelling-place;’ cf. ib. § 23. Tr. in
Ps.cxviii, Aleph., § 1. Trin. x.
7. Cf. Tr. in
Ps. cxix. 10; Trin. v. 1, 26, vi. 46 ff., viii. 37, &c.,
&c. Trin. iv. 2,
xi. 44. Trin.
ii. 2, in vitium vitio coaretamur alieno.
In a great measure he has succeeded in retaining
this simplicity in regard to the doctrine of God. He had the full
Greek sense of the divine unity; there is no suggestion of the
possession by the Persons of the Trinity of contrasted or complementary
qualities. The revelation he would defend is that of God, One,
perfect, infinite, immutable. This absolute God has manifested
Himself under the name ‘He that
is,’ to which Hilary constantly recurs. It is only
through His own revelation of Himself that God can be known. But
here we are faced by a difficulty; our reason is inadequate and tends
to be fallacious. The argument from analogy, which we should
naturally use, cannot be a sufficient guide, since it must proceed from
the finite to the infinite. Hilary has set this forth with great
force and frequency, and with a picturesque variety of
illustration. Again, our partial glimpses of the truth are often
in apparent contradiction; when this is the case, we need to be on our
guard against the
Of God as Father Hilary has little that is new to
say. He is called Father in Scripture; therefore He is Father and
necessarily has a Son. And conversely the fact that Scripture
speaks of God the Son is proof of the fatherhood. In fact, the
name ‘Son’ contains a revelation so necessary for the times
that it has practically banished that of ‘the Word,’ which
we should have expected Hilary, as a disciple of Origen, to employ by
preference Deus
Verbumoften; Verbum alone rarely, if ever.
Dorner with his iteration of ‘Logos,’ gives an altogether
false impression of Hilary’s vocabulary. Trin. i. 17
and often. Doctrine of the
Person of Christ, I. ii. p. 302, English translation.
The passages to which he refers are Comm. in Matt. xi. 12;
Tr. in Ps. xci. 6; Trin. ii. 3, ix. 69. There is a
good, though brief, statement of this view in Mason’s Faith of
the Gospel, p. 56.
The Arian controversy was chiefly waged over the
question of the eternal generation of the Son. By the time that
Hilary began to write, every text of Scripture which could be made
applicable to the point in dispute had been used to the utmost.
There was little or nothing that remained to be done in the discovery
or combination of passages. Of that controversy Athanasius was
the hero; the arguments which he used and those which he refuted are
admirably set forth in the introduction to the translation of his
writings in this series. In writing the De Trinitate, so
far as it dealt directly with the original controversy, it was neither
possible nor desirable that Hilary should leave the beaten path.
His object was to provide his readers with a compendious statement of
ascertained truth for their own guidance, and with an armoury of
weapons which had been tried and found effective in the conflicts of
the day. It would, therefore, be superfluous to give in this
place a detailed account of his reasonings concerning the generation of
the Son, nor would such an account be of any assistance to those who
have his writings in their hands. Hilary’s treatment of the
Scriptural evidence is very complete, as was, indeed, necessary in a
work which was intended as a handbook for practical use. The
Father alone is unbegotten; the Son is truly the Son, neither created
nor adopted. The Son is the Creator of the worlds, the Wisdom of
God, Who alone knows the Father, Who manifested God to man in the
various Theophanies of the Old Testament. His birth is without
parallel, inasmuch as other births imply a previous non-existence,
while that of the Son is from eternity. For the generation on the
part of the Father and the birth on the part of the Son are not
connected as by Trin. xii.
21, ‘the birth is in the generation and the generation in the
birth.’ Discourses
against the Arians, iii. 58 ff; see Robertson’s notes in the
Athanasius volume of this series, p. 426. E.g. Syn.
35, 37, 59, Trin. iii. 4, vi. 21, viii. 54. Cf. Baltzer,
Theologie d. hl. Hil. p. 19 f. Hort, Two
Dissertations, p. 21, and cf. p. xvi., above. It constantly
appears, though with all due safeguards, in the De Synodis,
where sympathy as well as policy impelled him to approximate the
language used by his friends. Similarly in Trin. iii. 23,
he argues, from the admitted likeness, that there can be no
difference. But, as we saw, this part of the De Trinitate
is probably an early work, and does not represent Hilary’s later
thought. Trin. v.
38. Trin. viii. 13
ff.
But, notwithstanding this unity, there is a true
numerical duality of Person. Sabellius, we must remember, had
held for two generations the pre-eminence among heretics. To the
Greek-speaking world outside Egypt the error which he and Paul of
Samosata had taught, that God is one Person, was still the most
dangerous of falsehoods; the supreme victory of truth had not been won
in their eyes when Arius was condemned at Nicæa, but when Paul was
deposed at Antioch. The Nicene leaders had certainly counted the
cost when they adopted as the test of orthodoxy the same word which
Paul had used for the inculcation of error. But the
homoousion, however great its value as a permanent safeguard of
truth, was the immediate cause of alienation and suspicion. And
not only did it make the East misunderstand the West, but it furnished
the Arians with the most effective of instruments for widening the
breach between the two forces opposed to them. They had an excuse
for calling their opponents in Egypt and the West by the name of
Sabellians, the very name most likely to engender distrust in
Asia Cf. Sulp
Sev., Chron. ii. 42 for the Eastern suspicion that the West held
a trionyma unio;—one Person under three
names. Sulpicius ascribes it to Arian slander, but its causes lay
deeper than this. This was the
doctrine of all the earlier theologians, soon to be displaced in the
stress of controversy by the opinion that the inferiority concerns the
Son only as united with man. See the citations in
Westcott’s Gospel of St. John, additional note to xiv.
28. Tr. in Ps.
cxxxviii. 17. Ib. cxli.
6. Trin. xi. 21 ff.,
on 1 Cor. xv, 21 ff. Trin. ix. 58
ff.
Such is Hilary’s argument, very briefly
stated. We may read almost all of it, where Hilary himself had
certainly read it, in the Discourses against the Arians and
elsewhere in the writings of Athanasius. How far, however, he was
borrowing from the latter must remain doubtful, as must the question as
to the originality of Athanasius. For the controversy was
universal, and both of these great writers had the practical purpose of
collecting the best arguments out of the multitude which were suggested
in ephemeral literature or verbal debate. Their victory,
intellectual as well as moral, over their adversaries was decisive, and
the more striking because it was the Arians who had made the attack on
ground chosen by themselves. The authority of Scripture as the
final court of appeal was their premise as well as that of their
opponents; and they had selected the texts on which the verdict of
Scripture was to be based. Out of their own mouth they were
condemned, and the work done in the fourth century can never need to be
repeated. It was, of course, an unfinished work. As we have
seen, Hilary concerns himself with two Persons, not with three; and
since he states the contrasted truths of plurality and unity without
such explanation of the mystery as the speculative genius of Augustine
was to supply, he leaves, in spite of all his efforts, a certain
impression of excessive dualism. But these defects do not lessen
the permanent value of his work.. Indeed, we may even assert that
they, together with some strange speculations and many instances of
which interpretation, which are, however, no part of the structure of
his argument and could not affect its solidity, actually enhance its
human and historical interest. The De Trinitate remains
‘the most perfect literary achievement called forth by the Arian
controversy Bardenhewer,
Patrologie, p. 377.
Hitherto we have been considering the relations
within the Godhead of Father and Son, together with certain characters
which belong to the Son in virtue of His eternal birth. We now
come to the more original part of Hilary’s teaching, which must
be treated in greater detail. Till now he has spoken only of the
Son; he now comes to speak of Christ, the name which the Son bears in
relation to the world. We have seen that Hilary regards the Son
as the Creator This is one of
Hilary’s many reminiscences of Origen. Athanasius brought
the father into direct connection with the world; cf. Harnack,
Dogmengesch. ii. 206 (ed. 3). Trin. xii.
35 ff. The passage is treated at much greater length in
Athanasius’ Discourses against the Arians, ii. 18 ff.,
where see Robertson’s notes. Trin. xii. 45; at
the Incarnation Christ is ‘created in the body,’ and this
is connected with His creation for the beginning of the ways of
God. Westcott, essay on
‘The Gospel of Creation,’ in his edition of St.
John’s Epistles, where, however Hilary is not mentioned. Cf. Trin.
xi. 49. Trin.
ii. 6, xii. 4, &c. He is also often named Jesus Christ
in this connection, e.g. Trin. iv. 6. According to
Eusebius’ computation, which Hilary would probably accept without
dispute, there were 5,228 years from the creation to our Lord’s
commencement of his mission in the 15th year of Tiberius, a.d. 29.
Christ, for so we must henceforth call Him, has
not only sustained in being the universe which He created, but has also
imparted to men a steadily increasing knowledge of God. For such
knowledge, we remember, man was made, and his salvation depends upon
its possession. All the Theophanies of the Old Testament are such
revelations by Him of Himself; and it was He that spoke by the mouth of
Moses and the Prophets. But however significant and valuable this
Divine teaching and manifestation might be, it was not complete in
itself, but was designed to prepare men’s minds to expect its
fulfilment in the Incarnation. Just as the Law was preliminary to
the Gospel, so the appearances of Christ in human form to Abraham and
to others were a foreshadowing of the true humanity which He was to
assume. They were true revelations, as far as they went; but
their purpose was not simply to impart so much knowledge as they
explicitly conveyed, but also to lead men on to expect more, and to
expect it in the very form in which it ultimately came E.g. Trin.
iv. 27; Tr. in Ps. lxviii. 19. Trin. iii. 9;
cf. St.
The doctrine of the Incarnation, or Embodiment as
Hilary prefers to call it, is presented very fully in the De
Trinitate, and with much originality. The Godhead of Christ
is secured by His identity with the eternal Son and by the fact that at
the very time of His humilia Trin. ii. 25
and often. Trin.
ii. 27. The same conclusion is constantly drawn in the
Comm. in Matt. E g.
Trin. ix. 4, 14, 51; Tr. in Ps. ii. 11, 25. Trin. ii. 26,
xii. 6, &c.
But the incarnate Christ is as truly man as He is
truly God. We have seen that He is ‘created in the
body’; and Hilary constantly insists that His humanity is neither
fictitious nor different in kind from ours E.g. Tr. in
Ps. cxxxviii. 3. This, in
contrast with God, Who is Life, is proved by the fact that certain
bodily growths can be removed without our being conscious of the
operation; Trin. vii. 28. Cf.
Trin. vii. 28, x. 15, 16. Similarly in the
Eumenides 637, Æschylus makes Apollo excuse Orestes’
murder of Clytænnestra on the ground that the mother is not the
parent, but only the nurse of the germ. This is contrary to
Aristotle’s teaching; Æschylus and Hilary evidently
represent a rival current of ancient opinion. Trin. x.
20. In Tr. in Ps. cxviii., Iod, 6, 7, this thought
is developed. Man has a double origin. First, he is made
after the likeness of God. This is the soul, which is immaterial
and has no resemblance and owes no debt, as of effect to cause, to any
other nature (i.e. substance) than God. It is not His likeness,
but is after His likeness. Secondly, there is the body, composed
of earthly matter. Trin. ii. 30 f.,
viii. 23 f. Trin. x. 16,
caro non aliunde originem sumpserat quam ex Verbo, and
ib. 15, 18, 25. Dorner, I. ii., p. 403, n. 1, points out
that this is exactly the teaching of Gregory of Nyssa. This view that
the conception by the Holy Ghost means conception by the Son is
consistently held by Hilary throughout his writings. It appears
in the earliest of them; in Comm. in Matt. ii. 5, Christ is
‘born of a woman;…Made flesh through the Word.’
So in Trin. ii. 24, He is ‘born of the Virgin and of the
Holy Ghost, Himself ministering to Himself in this operation.…By
His own, that is God’s, overshadowing power He sowed for Himself
the beginnings of His body and ordained that His flesh should commence
to exist; and Trin. x 16. Trin.
x. 16; cf. ib. 17. In the Instructio
Psalmorum, § 6, he speaks in more usual
language;—adventus Domini ex virgine in hominem
procreandi, and also in some other passages. Dorner’s
view (I. ii. 403 f. and note 74, p. 533) differs from that here
taken. But he is influenced (see especially p. 404) by the desire
to save Hilary’s consistency rather than to state his actual
opinion. And Hilary was too early in the field, too anxiously
employed in feeling his way past the pitfalls of heresy, to escape the
danger of occasional inconsistency. Trin. iii. 19,
perfectum ipsa de suis non imminuta generavit. So
ib. ii. 25, unigenitus
Deus.…Virginis utero insertus accrescit.
He grew there, but nothing more. In Virginem
exactly corresponds to ex Virgine. Trin.
xii. 50; it would be a watering of the sense to regard commixtio
in this passage as simply equivalent to coitio. Trin. x.
16. Irenæus, i. 1,
13. He often and
emphatically repudiates the use which the Monarchians made of them,
e.g. Trin. iv. 4.
Thus the Son becomes flesh, and that by true maternity
on the Virgin’s part. But man is more than flesh; he is
soul as well, and it is the soul which makes him man instead of
matter. The soul, as we saw, is created by a special act of God
at the beginning of the separate existence of each human being; and
Christ, to be true man and not merely true flesh, created for Himself
the human soul which was necessary for true humanity. He had
borrowed from the Apollinarians, consciously no doubt, their
interpretation of one of their favourite passages, ‘The Word
became flesh’; here again we find an argument of heretics
rendered harmless and adopted by orthodoxy. For the strange
Apollinarian E.g.
Trin. x. 22 in. The human soul is clearly
intended. Schwane, ii. 268, justly praises Hilary for greater
accuracy than his contemporaries in laying stress upon each of the
constituent elements of Christ’s humanity, and especially upon
the soul; in this respect following Tertullian and Origen. In Trin.
x. 21 f. is an argument analogous to that of the De Synodis
concerning the Godhead. Christ is Man because He is perfectly
like man, just as in the Homœusian argument He is God because He
is perfectly like God. E.g. Comm.
in Matt. i.; Tr. in Ps. lxviii. 19.
Christ, then, Who had been perfect God from
eternity, became perfect Man by His self-wrought act of creation.
Thus there was an approximation between God and man; man was raised by
God, Who humbled Himself to meet Him. On the one hand the Virgin
was sanctified in preparation for her sacred motherhood Trin. ii.
26. Ib. viii.
45, 47, ix. 14, &c. This
‘evacuation’ or ‘exinanition’ is represented in
Tr. in Ps. lxviii. 4 by the more precise metaphor of a vessel
drained of its liquid contents. Hilary has devoted
his Homily on Baltzer and Schwane
have been followed in this matter, in opposition to Dorner. Trin. ix.
38, habitus demutatio, and similarly ib.
14. Tr. in Ps.
lxviii. 25. E.g.
Trin. viii. 45. Trin. ix. 14,
concursus utriusque formæ. It is very
characteristic that it lies outside Cyprian’s vocabulary and
range of ideas. Trin. ix. 38
in., and especially ib. 39. The unity of glory
departed through His obedience in the Dispensation. Trin. xi. 48;
cf. the end of this section and xii. 6. Cf. Baltzer,
Christologie, p. 10 f., Schwane, p. 272 f. Other
explanations which have been suggested are quite inadmissible.
Dorner, p. 407, takes the passage cited above about
‘substance’ too seriously, and wavers between the equally
impossible interpretations of ‘countenance’ and
‘personality.’ Förster (l.c. p. 659) understands
the word to mean ‘mode of existence.’
Wirthmüller, cited by Schwane, p. 273, has the courage to regard
‘form of God’ and ‘form of a servant’ as
equivalent to Divinity and humanity.
Thus the Son made possible the union of humanity
with Himself. He ‘shrank from God into man Trin. xii. 6,
decedere ex Deo in hominem. Perhaps it should be
decidere, as in Tr. in Ps. lxviii. 4. Tr. in Ps.
lxviii. 25. Trin. xi. 48,
‘emptying Himself’ might have been a single act;
‘hiding Himself within Himself’ was a sustained course of
conduct.
Thus in Him God is united with man; these two
natures form the ‘elements’ or ‘parts’ of one
Person Genus is
fairly common, though much rarer than natura; pars
occurs in Trin. xi. 14, 15, and cf. ib.
40. Elementa is, I think, somewhat more
frequent. Trin. xi. 40,
naturæ assumpti corporis nostri natura paternæ divinitatis
invecta. Conversely, Trin. ix. 54,
nova natura in Deum illata. But such expressions are rare;
hominem ad sumpsit is the normal phrase. In Tr.
in Ps. lxviii. 4, he speaks as if the two natures had been forced
to coalesce by a Power higher than either. But, as we have seen,
in this part of the Homily Hilary’s language is destitute of
theological exactness. Tr. in Ps. liv.
2. E.g. Trin.
ix. 11, 39, x. 16. The expression utriusque,
naturæ persona in Trin. ix. 14 is susceptible of
another interpretation. E.g.
Trin. x. 22. Trin. x. 22,
quia totus hominis filius totus Dei filius sit. Cf. Gore’s
Dissertations, p. 138 f. But Hilary, though he shares and
even exaggerates the general tendency of his time, has also a strong
sense of the danger of Apollinarianism. Homo assumptus
is constantly used, and similarly homo noster for our
manhood, e.g. Trin. ix. 7. This often leads to an
awkwardness of which Hilary must have been fully conscious, though he
regarded it as a less evil than the use of an abstract term.
Hence the body of Christ has a character peculiar
to itself. It is a heavenly body Corpus
cœleste, x. 18. Tr. in Ps. ii.
11, from St. Trin.
x. 47 f.; Tr. in Ps. cxxxviii. 3. Trin. x.
25. Trin. x.
24. The purpose of the Old Testament Theophanies, it will be
remembered, was the same. God appeared as man, in order to make
men familiar with the future reality and so more ready to
believe. See Trin. v. 17.
When we examine the interpretation of Scripture by
which Hilary reaches the desired conclusions we find it, in many
instances, strange indeed. The letter of the Gospels tells us of
bodily needs and of suffering; Christ, though more than man, is proved
to be Man by His obvious submission to the conditions of human
life. But according to Hilary all human suffering is due to the
union of an imperfect soul with an imperfect body. The soul of
Christ, though truly human, was perfect; His body was that of a Person
Divine as well as human. Thus both elements were perfect of their
kind, and therefore as free from infirmity Trin. x. 14,
15. Trin.
ii. 26 f., iii. 18 f. and often, especially in the Comm. in
Matt. E.g.
Trin. ix. 4, xi. 48. Ib. x. 11,
61. Trin. x.
14. Comm. in
Matt. iii. 2; Trin. x. 45. The freedom of
Christian martyrs from pain is frequently noticed in early
writers. Cf. p. lxvi. Hilary was
undoubtedly influenced more than he knew by the Latin words pati
and dolere, the one purely objective, the other
subjective. By a line of thought which recalls that of Mozley
concerning Miracles he refuses to argue from our experience to that of
Christ. That He suffered, in the sense of having wounds and death
inflicted upon Him, is a fact; that He was conscious of suffering is an
inference, a supposition (putatur dolere quia patitur, Tr. in
Ps. cxxxviii. 3, fallitur ergo humanæ æstimationis
opinio putans hunc dolere quod patitur, Trin. x. 47),
and one which we are not entitled to make. In fact, the passage
last cited states that He has no natura dolendi; so also x. 23,
35, and cf. Tr. in Tr. in Ps.
cxxxviii. 26. Trin. x.
24. Ib. 28. Ib. 29. Ib. 27. Ib. 11. Ib. 23.
These instances of His power are used as a direct proof of
Christ’s incapacity of pain. Hilary is willing to confess
that He could feel it, if it be shewn that we can follow Him in these
respects. loc. cit. Tr. in Ps.
liv. 6. Comm. in
Matt. iii. 2. Ib.
xxxi. 1–7. These were not immature speculations, abandoned
by a riper judgment. The explanation of ‘even unto
death’ is repeated, and that concerning the cup implied, in
Trin. x. 36, 37. Trin. x.
41. Westcott and Hort insert it within brackets. Even if
the passage be retained, Hilary has an explanation which agrees with
his theory. Ib. 24. loc. cit., Tr.
in Ps. liii. 7. In Tr. in
Ps. liii. 7, there is also the moral purpose. He prays
humbly. His prayer expresses no need of His own, but is meant to
teach us the lesson of meekness. Trin.
x. 45. Yet Hilary himself is not always consistent. In the
purely homiletical writing of Tr. in Ps. lxviii. 1, he dwells
upon Christ’s endurance of pain. His argument obliged Him
to emphasize the suffering; it was natural, though not logical, that he
should sometimes insist also upon the feeling.
It is obvious that Hilary’s theory offers a
perfect defence against the two dangers of the day, Arianism and
Apollinarianism. The tables are turned upon the former by
emphatic insistence upon the power manifested in the humiliation and
suffering of Christ. That He, being what He was, should be able
to place Himself in such circumstances was the most impressive evidence
of His Divinity. And if His humanity was endowed with Divine
properties, much more must His Divinity rise above that inferiority to
which the Arians consigned it. Apollinarianism is controverted by
the demonstration of His true humanity. No language can be too
strong to describe its glories; but the true wonder is not that Christ,
as God, has such attributes, but that He Who has them is very
Man. The theory was well adapted for service in the controversies
of the day; for us, however we may admire the courage and ingenuity it
displays, it can be no more than a curiosity of doctrinal
history. Yet, whatever its defects as an explanation of the
facts, the skill with which dangers on either hand are avoided, the
manifest anxiety to be loyal to established doctrine, deserve
recognition and respect. It has been said that Hilary
‘constantly withdraws in the second clause what he has asserted
in the first Harnack,
Dogmengesch. ii. 301 n. The words are
Förster’s, op. cit. p. 662, and are accepted as
representing their opinion by Bardenhewer, Patrologie, p. 382,
and Baltzer, Christologie, p. 32.
Strom. vi. § 71. Bigg, Christian
Platonists, p. 71, gives other sources, by which Hilary is less
likely to have been influenced, from which he may have derived this
teaching. This is not the only coincidence between him and
Clement. Trin. ii.
2,in vitium vitio coarctamur alieno.
Christ, Whose properties as incarnate are thus
described by Hilary, is one Person. This, of course, needs no
proof, but something must be said of the use which he makes of the
doctrine. It is by Christ’s own work, by an act of power,
even of violence Tr. in
Ps.lxviii. 4. The unity is also strongly put in
Trin. viii. 13, x. 61. Trin. x.
34. This was Hilary’s deliberate belief. But in
earlier life he had written rashly of the Holy Spirit (i.e. God the
Son) surrendering His humanity to be tempted, and of the cry upon the
Cross ‘testifying the departure of God the Word from Him’
(Comm. in Matt. iii. 1, xxxiii. 6). This, if it had
represented Hilary’s teaching in that treatise would have proved
it heretical; but the whole tenour of the commentary proves that this
was simply carelessness. In the Homilies on the Psalms he also
writes somewhat loosely on occasion; e.g. liii. 4
fin., where he mentions Christ’s former
nature, i.e. the Divinity, and ib. 5, where he speaks of
‘Him Who after being God (ex Deo) had died
as man.’ But only malevolence could give an evil
interpretation to these passages, delivered as they were for the
edification of Hilary’s flock, and with no thought of theological
accuracy. It is, indeed, quite possible that they were never
revised, or even intended, for publication by him. E.g.
Trin. ix. 6, and often in the Homilies on the Psalms, as
cxxxviii. 13. Tr. in Ps.
liii. 12. loc. cit. Tr. in Ps.
cxxxix. 15. Trin. x.
63. Similarly in Tr. in Ps. lxvii. 2l, he speaks of
‘the passion, the cross, the death, the burial of
God.’ Trin. in Ps.
liii. 4. Trin. ix.
3. Tr. in Ps.
cxli. 4. There is no evidence that the text is corrupt, though
the words as they stand are rank Apollinarianism, and the more
significant as dating from the maturity of Hilary’s
thought. But here, as often, we must remember that the Homilies
are familiar addresses.
But though distinctions may be drawn, and though
for the sake of emphasis and brevity Christ may be called by the name
of one only of His two natures, the essential fact is never forgotten
that He is God and man, one Person in two forms, God’s and the
servant’s. And these two natures do not stand isolated and
apart, merely contained within the limits of one personality.
Just as we saw that Hilary recognises a complete mutual indwelling and
interpenetration of Father and Son, so he teaches that in the narrower
sphere of the Incarnation there is an equally exact and comprehensive
union of the Godhead and Manhood in Christ. Jesus is Christ, and
Christ is Jesus Trin. x.
52. We must remember not only that heretical distinctions had
been made, but that Christ is the name of the Son in pretemporal
relation to the world (see p. lxvii.), as well as in the world. Ib. 22, 52. Cf. Gore,
Dissertations, p. 211. It is in relation to the
self-emptying that Hilary uses such definite language:
Trin. xi. 48, intra suam ipse vacuefactus
potestatem.…Se ipsum intra se vacuefaciens continuit; xii. 6,
se evacuavit in sese.
Offensio, Trin.
ix. 38. Trin. x. 22,
A se dividuus. E.g Trin.
ix. 38. Trin. ix.
6. On earth Christ is Deus and homo; in glory He is
totus Deus and totus homo.
Thus Christ’s life in the world was a period
of transition. He had descended; this was the time of preparation for
an equal, and even loftier, ascent. We must now consider in what
the preparation consisted; and here, at first sight, Hilary has
involved himself in a grave difficulty. For it is manifest that
his theory of Christ’s life as one lived without effort,
spiritual or physical, or rather as a life whose exertion consisted in
a steady self accommodation to the infirmities of men, varied by
occasional and special acts of condescension to suffering, excludes the
possibility of an advance, a growth in grace as well as in stature,
such as Athanasius scripturally taught E.g.
Discourses against the Arians, iii. 53, p. 422 of the
translation in this series. Bp. Westcott on Cyril
of Alexandria in St. John’s Gospel (Speaker’s Commentary),
p. xcv. Dorner, I. ii.
415. The liberty has been taken of putting ‘Himself’
for ‘itself.’ On the same page Dorner speaks of
‘ever increasing return of the Logos into equality with
Himself.’ This is a contradiction of his own
explanation. God has become God-man. He could not again
become simply the Logos. The key to Hilary’s position is
the double nature of Christ. The Godhead and the Manhood are
aspects in revelation, abstractions in argument. That which
connects them and gives them reality is the one Person, the object of
thought and faith.
It was on behalf of mankind that this great
sacrifice was made by the Son. While it separated Him from the
Father, it united Him to men. We must now consider what was the
spiritual constitution of the humanity which He assumed, as we have
already considered the physical Man, as we saw (p. lxix.) is
constituted of body and soul, an outward and an inward substance, the
one earthly, the other heavenly Tr. in
Ps. cxviii., Iod, 6, cxxix. 5. Ib. cxxix.
5. Ib. Iod,
1. Tr. in
Ps. cxviii., Koph, 8. Ib. li. 16,
naturam in se universæ carnis adsumpsit, ib. liv. 9,
universitatis nostræ caro est factus; so also
Trin. xi. 16 in., and often. This latter is
the argument of Trin. viii. 13 f. Trin. ii. 24;
in Him there is the universi generis humani corpus because He is
homo factus ex virgine. Tr. in Ps.
cxxv. 6. Comm. in
Matt. iv. 12; habitatio, as is often the case in late Latin
with abstracts, is collective. Hilary also speaks of Christ as
gerens nos, Trin. x. 25, which recalls the
gestans of Tertullian and the portans of
Cyprian. Tr. in Ps. ii.
16, lvii. 3, lxii. 3, and often. Trin. xi.
40–42.
The course of this elevation is represented by
Hilary as a succession of births, in continuation of the majestic
series. First there had been the eternal generation of the Son;
then His creation for the ways and for the works of God, His
appointment, which Hilary regards as equivalent in importance to
another birth, to the office of Creator; next the Incarnation, the
birth in time which makes Him what He was not before, namely
Man Tr. in Ps. ii.
27. Comm. in
Matt. ii. 6; Tr. in Ps. ii. 29; Trin. viii.
25. Yet he twice (Trin. vi. 23; Tr. in Ps.
cxxxviii. 6) gives the ordinary text, without any hint that he
knew of an important variant. Tr. in
Ps. ii. 29, ipse Deo renascebatur in filium
perfectum. Trin. viii. 25, perfecta
nativitas. Dorner, I. ii.
417. Dorner overlooks the birth in Baptism. Tr. in Ps. ii.
27, liii. 14. Ib. cxxxviii.
19. Ib. liii.
14. Ib. lv.
12. Trin. xi. 40,
49. Ib. 40,
habens in sacramento subiectionis esse ac manere quod non
est. Trin. xi. 42,
incrementum glorificati in eo Dei.
In the fact that humanity is thus elevated in
Christ consists the hope of individual men. Man in Him has, in a
true sense, become God E.g.
Trin. ix. 4, x. 7. Trin. in
Ps.lxii. 3; cf. Comm. in Matt. xvi. 5. Tr. in. Ps.
lvi. 7, liii. 5. We must remember the importance of names in
Hilary’s eyes. They are not arbitrary symbols, but belong
essentially to the objects which they signify. Had there been no
sin, from which man needed to be saved, he would still required raising
to his name and nature. Ib.
cxviii., Aleph, 1, cxxxi. 6. Ib. cxxxi.
23. Trin. iii.
9.
We have now followed Hilary through his great
theory, in which we may safely say that no other theologian entirely
agrees, and which, where it is most original, diverges most widely from
the usual lines of Christian thought. Yet it nowhere contradicts
the accepted standards of belief; and if it errs it does so in
explanation, not in the statement of the truths which it undertakes to
explain. Hilary has the distinction of being the only one of his
contemporaries with the speculative genius to imagine this development
ending in the abolition of incongruity and in the restoration of the
full majesty of the Son and of man with Him
Förster, op. cit.
But before we approach the practical theology of
Hilary something must be said of his teaching concerning the Third
Person of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is little
developed in his writings. The cause was, in part, his sympathy
with Eastern thought. The West, in this as in some other
respects, was in advance of the contemporary Greeks; but Hilary was too
independent to accept conclusions which were as yet unreasoned Cf. Harnack,
Dogmengesch. ii. 281. But Harnack is unjust in saying that
Hilary had not quite made up his own mind. Gwatkin,
Studies of Arianism, p. 206 n.
‘Hilary’s belief in the deity of the Holy Spirit is hardly
more doubtful than St. John’s: yet he nowhere states it in
so many words.’ If the word may be
admitted for the sake of clearness. Hilary never calls the Spirit
a Person. §§
23, 25, 30; so also ix. 69 and notably in x. 16. Similarly in
Comm. in Matt. iii. 1, the Spirit means Christ. Trin. viii.
20, ix. 73 fin., and especially ii. 4. This last is not a
reference to the Macedonian heresy, but to the logical result of
Arianism. Trin. i. 17,
v. 1, 35, vii. 8, 31, viii. 31, 36, x. 6 &c. Baltzer,
Theologie des hl. Hilarius, p. 51. Trin. viii.
21, xii. 55. The work by
Tertullian in which the doctrine of the Spirit is most fully brought
out; in which, in fact, He is first expressly named God, is the
Adversus Praxean. It was written after his secession from
the Church, and Hilary, upon whom it had more influence than any other
of Tertullian’s writings, may have suspected that this teaching
was the expression of his Montanism rather than a legitimate deduction
from Scripture, and so have been misled by over caution. He may
also have been influenced by such Biblical passages as
We may now turn to the practical teaching of
Hilary. Henceforth he will be no longer the compiler of the best
Latin handbook of the Arian controversy, or the somewhat unsystematic
investigator of unexplored regions of theology. We shall find him
No subject illustrates this inconsistency better
than that of sin, of which Hilary gives two accounts, the one Eastern
and traditional, the other an anticipation of Augustinianism.
These are never compared and weighed the one against the other.
In the passages where each appears, it is adduced confidently, without
any reservation or hint that he is aware of another explanation of the
facts of experience. The more usual account is that which is
required by Hilary’s doctrine of the separate creation of every
human soul, which is good, because it is God’s immediate work,
and has a natural tendency to, and fitness for, perfection.
Because God, after Whose image man is made, is free, therefore man also
is free; he has absolute liberty, and is under no compulsion to good or
to evil E.g. Tr.
in Ps. ii. l6, li. 23. Ib. lvii.
3. Ib.
cxviii., Teth, 4, lxiv. 5. Ib.
cxviii., Gimel, 3, 4. Ib., Daleth,
1. Ib. cxix. 19
(12). Ib. lxviii.
9. E.g. ib.
cxviii., Aleph, 8, lii. 12. Natura
infirmitatis is a favourite phrase. E.g. ib.
lii. 9, cxviii., Gimel, 12, Vau, 6. Ib.
cxviii. Daleth, 8; cf. He, 16. Ib. lii.
12. Ib. lxviii.
22, based on St. Ib. lii. 11,
12. E.g. ib.
cxviii., Prolog. 2, Aleph, 12, Phe, 8. Tr. in
Ps. cxviii., He. 12, Nun 20. But in the
former passage the perseverance also depends upon the
Christian. Trin. ii.
35. Tr. in
Ps. cxviii., Nun, 11 f. Förster,
loc. cit. So also the
sin against the Holy Ghost is primarily intellectual, not ethical;
Comm. in Matt. v. 15, xii. 17.
Against these, the expressions of Hilary’s
usual opinion, must be set others in which he anticipates the language
of St. Augustine in the Pelagian controversy. But certain
deductions must be made, before we can rightly judge the weight of his
testimony on the side of original sin. Passages where he is
merely amplifying the words of Scripture must be excluded, as also
those which are obviously exhibitions of unguarded rhetoric. For
instance such words as these, ‘Ever since the sin and unbelief of
our first parent, we of later generations have had sin for the father
of our body and unbelief for the mother of our soul Ib. x.
23. Trin.
iv. 21; Tr. in Ps. lxvi. 2; Comm. in Matt. xviii.
6. Tr. in
Ps. cxviii., He, 16. Tr. in
Ps. lix. 4 in. Ib.
cxlii. 6, cxviii., Iod, 2. In regard to the latter passage
we must remember once more what importance Hilary attaches to
names. Comm. in
Matt. x. 24, originis nostræ peccata; Tr. in
Ps. cxviii, Tau, 6, scit sub peccati origine et sub
peccati lege se esse natum. Other passages must be cited from
quotations in St. Augustine, but Förster, p. 676, has given reason
for doubting Hilary’s authorship. E.g.
Comm. in Matt. x. 24. Tr. in
Ps. cxviii., Vau, 4, Lamed, 1; cf. Nun,
20.
We may now turn to the Atonement, by which Christ
has overcome sin. Hilary’s language concerning it is, as a
rule, simply Scriptural E.g.
Trin. ix. 10; Tr. in Ps. cxxix. 9. Tr. in. Ps.
liii. 13 fin. Comm. in
Matt. xxxiii. 6. Ib. iii.
2. Ib. iii.
3. Tr. in Ps.
lxviii. 8. Tr. in Ps.
lxi. 2. Trin. ix.
7. E.g.
Trin. x. 23, 47 in. E.g.
ib. x. 11. Comm. in
Matt. iii. 2. E.g. Tr.
in Ps. liii. 12, 13 (translated in this volume) lxiv. 4. Cf. Harnack, ii.
177; Schwane, ii. 271. E.g.
Tr. in Ps. liii. 4.
In regard to the manner in which man is to profit
by the Atonement, Hilary shews the same inconsistency as in the case of
sin. On the one hand, he lays frequent stress on knowledge
concerning God and concerning the nature of sin as the first conditions
of salvation; on the other, he insists, less often yet with equal
emphasis, upon its being God’s spontaneous gift to men, to be
appropriated only by faith. We have already seen that one of
Hilary’s positions is that man must take the first step towards
God; that if we will make the beginning He will give the
increase Cf. p.
lxxxv. fin. In Tr. in Ps. cxviii., Nun, 20,
Hilary says ‘the reward of the consummation attained depends upon
the initiative of the will;’ so also Trin. i.
11. Tr. in Ps. ii.
40. Hilary is commenting
on the words, ‘I know, O Lord, that Thy judgments are
right.’ Tr. in
Ps.cxviii., Iod, 12. E.g.
Trin. x. 70, xi. 1. Tr. in Ps.
cxviii., prolog. 4. Ib. cxxxv. 3;
confessio is paraphrased by professa cognitio.
Similar language is used in cxxxvii. 2 f. Ib.
ii. 38; cf. lii. 12 in., cxix. 11 (4). It is always
confession to God directly. There is no hint of public or
ceremonial confession, or of absolution. But Hilary’s
abstinence from allusion to the practical system of the Church is so
complete that no argument can ever be drawn from his silence as to the
existence, or the importance in his eyes, of her institutions. Tr. in Ps.
lxvi. 2, lvi. 3. Ib. cxviii.,
Koph, 6. Trin. i. 12. Comm. in Matt.
ix. 9.
We must first premise that Christ’s work as
our Example as well as our Saviour is fully recognised. Many of
his deeds on earth were done by way of dispensation, in order to set us
a pattern of life and thought E.g. Tr. in
Ps. liii. 7. E.g. Trin.
i. 18. Tr. in Ps.
cxviii.,Gimel, 5. Hilary never mentions
Confirmation. Tr. in Ps. li.
16, 17. E.g. ib.
cxxxi. 23; Trin. viii. 13. The latter is the only passage
in Hilary’s writings in which the subject is discussed at length;
and even here it is not introduced for its own sake.
The Christian life is thus a life of hope and of
high possibilities. But Hilary frankly and often recognises the
serious short-comings of the average believers of his day E.g. Tr. in
Ps. i. 9 f., cxviii., Koph, 6. Conduct in church was
not more exemplary than outside. The most innocent employment
which he attributes to many of his people during the reading of the
lessons is the casting up of their business accounts, Tr. in Ps.
cxxxv. 1. Tr. in Ps. lii.
9–12. Trin. ii. 35. Tr. in
Ps.cxviii., Aleph, 1. Ib.
Phe, 9. Ib. i. 12. E.g.
Trin. i. 14, vi. 19. Ib. li. 21. Ib.
cxviii., Ain, 16, 17. Ib.,
He, 14. E.g.
ib. liii. 10. Tr. in Ps.
cxxxvii. 16. Cf. Trin. x. 55, where he refuses to
believe that it was with real sorrow that our Lord wept over Jerusalem,
that godless and murderous city. His tears were a
dispensation. Tr. in Ps. xiv.
10, est enim necessarium plerumque mendacium, et nonnunquam falsitas
utilis est. The latter apparently refers to his second
example. Hermas,
Mand. iii. 3, confesses to wholesale lying; he had never heard
that it was wrong. But the writer of the Shepherd does not
represent his mouthpiece as a model of virtue. It is more
significant that Tertullian, Pud. 19, classes breach of trust
and lying among slight sins which may happen to anyone any day.
This was in his strictest and most censorious period. There are
grave difficulties in reconciling some of Cyprian’s statements
concerning his opponents with one another and with probability, but he
has not ventured upon any general extenuation of the vice. Tr. in Ps.
cxxxiv. 1.
Hilary is not content with setting a standard
which his flock must strive to reach. He would have them attain
to a higher level than is commanded, and at the same time constantly
remember that they are failing to perform their duty to God. This
higher life is set before his whole audience as their aim. He
recognises the peculiar honour of the widow and the virgin Ib.
cxxxi. 24, cxxvii. 7, and especially cxviii., Nun,
14. Tr. in Ps.
cxviii., Nun, 13, 15. It is in this passage that
Hilary gives his views most fully. His antithesis is
between legitima and voluntaria. l.c. Nun,
14, Comm. in Matt. v. 2. In the latter passage there is a
piece of practical advice which shews that public fasts were generally
recognised. Hilary tells his readers that they must not take
literally our Lord’s command to anoint themselves when they
fast. If they do, they will render themselves conspicuous and
ridiculous. The passage, Comm. in Matt. xxvii. 5, 6, on
the parables of the Virgins with their lamps and of the Talents cannot
be taken, as by Förster, as evidence that Hilary rejected the
later doctrine of the supererogatory righteousness of the Saints.
He is speaking of the impossibility of contemporaries conveying
righteousness to one another in the present life, and his words have no
bearing on that doctrine. Tr. in Ps.
cxliii. 11. Ib. li.
16. E.g.
ib. lxi. 6, cxviii., He, 12, Nun, 20, Koph,
6. Ib. cxxxv.
4. Ib. li. 21. Ib.
cxviii, Lamed, 15. Similar passages are fairly numerous;
e.g. Comm. in Matt. iv. 26.
Thus the thought of salvation by works greatly
preponderates over that of salvation by grace. Hilary is fearful
of weakening man’s sense of moral responsibility by dwelling too
much upon God’s work which, however, he does not fail to
recognise. Of the two great dangers, that of faith and that of
life, the former seemed to him the more serious. God’s
requirements in that respect were easy of fulfilment; He had stated the
truth and He expected it to be unhesitatingly accepted. But if
belief, being an exertion of the will, was easy, misbelief must be
peculiarly and fatally wicked. The confession of St. Peter, the
foundation upon which the Church is built, is that Christ is
God Trin. vi.
36. Comm. in
Matt. xii. 17, xxxi. 5. Trin. i.
14. Ib. ix. 8,
commenting on
There still remains to be considered
Hilary’s account of the future state. The human soul, being
created after the image of God, is imperishable; resurrection is as
inevitable as death Tr. in Ps.
li. 18, lxiii. 9. Ib. ii.
41. Ib.
cxviii,Gimel, 3. Ib. lii.
17. Comm. in Matt.
x. 19. Tr. in Ps. i.
19. Ib. i.
19 ff., translated in this volume. For the good, see also
ib. lvii. 7; for the bad, lvii. 5, Trin. vi.
3. Tr. in
Ps.cxviii., Gimel, 12. Trin. vi.
3. Tr. in. Ps.
lii. 17, lxix. 3.
We have now completed the survey of Hilary’s
thoughts. Many of these were strange and new to his
contemporaries, and his originality, we may be sure, deprived him of
some of the influence he wished to exert in the controversies of his
day. Yet he shared the spirit and entered heartily into the
interests and conflicts of his age, and therefore his thoughts in many
ways were different from our own. To this we owe, no doubt, the
preservation of his works; writings which anticipated modern opinion
would have been powerless for good in that day, and would not have
survived to ours. Thus from his own century to ours Hilary has
been somewhat isolated and neglected, and even misunderstood. Yet
he is one of the most notable figures in the history of the early
Church, and must be numbered among those who have done most to make
Christian thought richer and more exact. If we would appreciate
him aright as one of the builders of the dogmatic structure of the
Faith, we must omit from the materials of our estimate a great part of
his writings, and a part which has had a wider influence than any
other. His interpretation of the letter, though not of the
spirit, of Scripture must be dismissed; interesting as it always is,
and often suggestive, it was not his own and was a hindrance, though he
did not see it, to the freedom of his thought. Yet his exegesis
in detail is often admirable. For instance, it would not be easy
to overpraise his insight and courage in resisting the conventional
orthodoxy, sanctioned by Athanasius in his own generation and by
Augustine in the next, which interpreted St. Paul’s
‘first-born of every creature’ as signifying the
Incarnation of Christ, and not His eternal generation Trin.
viii. 50; Tr. in Ps. ii. 28. Cf. Lightfoot on Dorner, I. ii.
399. Gore,
Dissertations, p. 151.
This is, indeed, worthy of all admiration.
On the moral side of Christianity we see him insisting upon the
voluntary character of Christ’s work; upon His acts of will,
which are a satisfaction to God and an appeal to us Schwane, ii.
271, says, ‘Though we reject that part of it which attributes a
natural impassibility to the body of Christ, yet Hilary’s
exposition presents one truth more clearly than the earlier Fathers had
stated it, by giving to the doctrine of the representative satisfaction
of Christ its reasonable explanation as a free service of
satisfaction. He conceives rightly of the Lord’s whole life
on earth, with all its troubles and infirmities, as a sacrifice of free
love on the part of the God-Man; it is only his closer definition of
this sacrifice that is inaccurate.…Hilary lays especial stress
upon the freedom of the Lord s acceptance of death.’ He
quotes Trin. x. 11. He had evidently
been long familiar with it (Life, i. 155), but the first mention
of its use for missionary purposes is in 1862 (ib. i.
137). He began the translation into Arabic at Tunis in 1890,
after his resignation of the bishopric of Lahore (ii. 333), but it
seems doubtful whether he was able to make any progress with it at
Muscat. His biographer says nothing of the amount actually
accomplished. For Bishop
French’s view of the importance of this doctrine, see his
Life, i. 84.
But, above all, it is Hilary’s doctrine
concerning the Incarnation as the eternal purpose of God for the union
of the creature with the Creator, that must excite our interest and
awaken our thoughts. He renders it, on the one hand, impossible
to rate too highly the dignity of man, created to share the nature and
the life of God; impossible, on the other hand, to estimate highly
enough the condescension of Christ in assuming humanity. It is by
His humiliation that we are saved; by the fact that the nature of man
was taken by his Maker, not by the fact that Christ, being man,
remained sinless. For sin began against God’s will and
after His counsel was formed; it might deflect the march of His purpose
towards fulfilment, but could no more impede its consummation than it
could cause its inception. The true salvation of man is not that
which rescues him, when corrupt, from sin and its consequences, but
that which raises him, corruptible, because free, even though he had
not become corrupt, into the safety of union with the nature of
God. Human life, though pure from actual sin, would have been
aimless and hopeless without the Incarnation. And the human body
would have had no glory, for its glory is that Christ has taken it,
worn it awhile in its imperfect state, laid it aside and finally
resumed it in its perfection. All this He must have done, in
accordance with God’s purpose, even though the Fall had never
occurred. Hence the Incarnation and the Resurrection are the
facts of paramount interest; the death of Christ, corresponding as it
does to the hypothetical laying aside of the unglorified flesh, loses
something of its usual prominence in Christian thought. It is
represented as being primarily for Christ the moment of transition, for
the Christian the act which enables him to profit by the Incarnation;
but it is the Incarnation itself whereby, in Hilary’s words, we
are saved into the nature and the name of God. But though we may
feel that this great truth is not stated in its full impressiveness, we
must allow that the thought which has taken the foremost place is no
mere academic speculation. And, after all, sin and the Atonement
are copiously treated in his writings, though they do not control his
exposition of the Incarnation. Yet even in this there are large
spaces of his argument where these considerations have a place, though
only to give local colour, so to speak, and a sense of reality to the
description of a purpose formed and a work done for man because he is
man, not because he is fallen. But if Hilary has somewhat erred
in placing the Cross in the background, he is not in error in
magnifying the scope of the reconciliation Compare Bishop
Lightfoot’s comprehensive words on
Introduction to the Treatise De Synodis.
————————————
Hilary had taken no part in the Synod held at Ancyra in the spring of a.d. 358, but he had been made acquainted with its decisions and even with the anathemas which the legates of that Synod concealed at Sirmium. He saw that these decisions marked an approach. The horror which was felt at the Sirmian Blasphemia by those Eusebians whose only objection to the Nicene faith was that they did not understand it, augured well for the future. At the same time the majority of the Eastern bishops were deliberately heretical. It was natural that Hilary should be anxious about the episcopate of the West.
He had been in exile about three years and had corresponded with the Western bishops. From several quarters letters had now ceased to arrive, and the fear came that the bishops did not care to write to one whose convictions were different to their own. Great was his joy when, at the end of the year 358, he received a letter which not only explained that the innocent cause of their silence was ignorance of his address, but also that they had persistently refused communion with Saturninus and condemned the Blasphemia.
Early in 359 he dispatched to them the Liber de Synodis. It is a double letter, addressed to Western bishops, but containing passages intended for Orientals, into whose hands the letter would doubtless come in time. Hilary had recognized that the orthodox of the West had kept aloof from the orthodox of the East, firstly from ignorance of events, secondly from misunderstanding of the word ὁμοούσιος, and thirdly from the feelings of distrust then prevalent. These facts determined the contents of his letter.
He begins with an expression of the delight he experienced on receiving the news that the Gallican bishops had condemned the notorious Sirmian formula. He praises the constancy of their faith.
He then mentions that he has received from certain of their number a request that he would furnish them with an account of the creeds which had been composed in the East. He modestly accedes to this request beseeching his readers not to criticise his letter until they have read the whole letter and mastered the complete argument. His aim throughout is to frustrate the heretic and assist the Catholic.
In the first or historical division of the letter he promises a transcription, with explanations, of all the creeds drawn up since the Council of Νιχͅα. He protests that he is not responsible for any statement contained in these creeds, and leaves his readers to judge of their orthodoxy.
The Greek confessions had already been translated into Latin, but Hilary considered it necessary to give his own independent translations, the previous versions having been half-unintelligible on account of their slavish adherence to the original.
The historical part of the book consists of
fifty-four chapters (c. 10–63). It begins with the second
Sirmian formula, and the opposing formula promulgated at Ancyra in
a.d. 358. The Sirmian creed being given
in c. 10, Hilary, before proceeding to give the twelve anathemas
directed against its teaching by the bishops who assembled at Ancyra,
explains
In the second division (c. 29–33) of the historical part, Hilary considers the Dedication creed drawn up at Antioch in a.d. 341. He interprets it somewhat favourably. After stating that the creed is perhaps not sufficiently explicit in declaring the exact likeness of the Father and the Son, he excuses this inadequacy by pointing out that the Synod was not held to contradict Anomœan teaching, but teaching of a Sabellian tendency. The complete similarity of the Son’s essence to that of the Father appears to him to be guarded by the phrase Deum de Deo, totum ex toto.
The third division (c. 34–37) contains the creed drawn up by the Synod, or Cabal Synod, which met at Philippopolis in a.d. 343. Hilary does not discuss the authority of the Synod; it was enough for his purpose that it was composed of Orientals, and that its language emphatically condemns genuine Arianism and asserts the Son is God of God. The anathema which the creed pronounces on those who declare the Son to have been begotten without the Father’s will, is interpreted by Hilary as an assertion that the eternal Birth was not conditioned by those passions which affect human generation.
The fourth division (c. 38–61) contains the long formula drawn up at Sirmium in a.d. 351 against Photinus. The twenty-seven anathemas are then separately considered and commended. The two remaining chapters of the historical part of the work include a reflection on the many-sided character of these creeds both in their positive and negative aspects. God is infinitus et immensus, and therefore short statements concerning His nature may often prove misleading. The bishops have used many definitions and phrases because clearness will remove a danger. These frequent definitions would have been quite unnecessary if it had not been for the prevalence of heresy. Asia as a whole is ignorant of God, presenting a piteous contrast to the fidelity of the Western bishops.
The theological part of the work opens in c. 64 with Hilary’s exposition of his own belief. He denies that there is in God only one personality, as he denies that there is any difference of substance. The Father is greater in that He is Father, the Son is not less because He is Son. He asks his readers to remember that if his words fall short, his meaning is sound. This done, he passes to discuss the meaning of the word ὀμοούσιον. Three wrong meanings may be attributed to it. Firstly, it may be understood to deny the personal distinctions in the Trinity. Secondly, it may be thought to imply that the divine essence is capable of division. Thirdly, it may be represented as implying that the Father and the Son both equally partake of one prior substance. A short expression like ὁμοούσιος must therefore receive an exact explanation. A risk is attached to its use, but there is no risk if we understand it to mean that the Father is unbegotten and the Son derives His being from the Father, and is like Him in power, and honour, and nature. The Son is subordinate to the Father as to the Author of His being, yet it was not by a robbery that He made Himself equal with God. He is not from nothing. He is wholly God. He is not the Author of the divine life, but the Image. He is no creature, but is God. Not a second God, but one God with the Father through similarity of essence. This is the ideal meaning of ὁμοούσιος, and in this sense it is not an error to assert, but to deny, the consubstantiality.
Hilary then makes a direct appeal to the Western
bishops. They might forget the contents of the word while
retaining the sound, but provided that the meaning was granted, what
objection could be made to the word? Was the word ὁμοιούσιον
free from all possible objections? Hilary (c. 72–75)
shews that really like means really equal.
Scripture is appealed to as proving the assertion that the Son is both
like God and equal to God. This essential likeness can alone
justify the statement that the Father and the Son are one.
It
The saint now turns to the Eastern bishops, a small number of whom still remained faithful. He bestows upon them titles of praise, and expresses his joy at the decisions they had made, and at the Emperor’s repudiation of his former mistake. With Pauline fervour Hilary exclaims that he would remain in exile all his life, if only truth might be preached.
Then, in a chapter which displays alike his knowledge of the Bible and his power of refined sarcasm, he unveils his suspicions concerning Valens and Ursacius. He doubts whether they could have been so inexperienced as to be ignorant of the meaning of the word ὁμοούσιον when they signed the third Sirmian Creed. Furthermore he is obliged to point out a defect in the letter which the Oriental bishops wrote at the Synod of Ancyra. The word ὁμοούσιον is there rejected. The three grounds for such rejection could only be that the word was thought to imply a prior substance, or the teaching of Paul of Samosata, or that the word was not in Scripture. The first two grounds were only illusions, the third was equally fatal to the word ὁμοιούσιον. Those who intelligibly maintained ὁμοούσιον or ὁμοιούσιον , meant the same thing and condemned the same impiety (c. 82). Why should any one wish to decline the word which the Council of Nicæa had used for an end which was unquestionably good? The argument is enforced by the insertion of the Nicene Creed in full. True, the word ὁμοούσιον is quite capable of misconstruction. But the application of this test to the difficult passages in the Bible would lead to the chaos of all belief. The possible abuse of the word does not abolish its use. The authority of the eighty bishops who condemned the Samosatene abuse of it does not affect the authority of the three hundred and eighteen who ratified its Nicene meaning. Hilary adds a statement of great importance. Before he was acquainted with the term he had personally believed what it implied. The term has merely invigorated his previous faith (c. 88, cf. c. 91). In other words, Hilary tells his contemporaries and tells posterity that the word ὁμοούσιον, is Scripture because it is the sense of Scripture, and is truly conservative because it alone adequately preserves the faith of the fathers. The argument is interwoven with a spirited appeal to the Eastern bishops to return to that faith as expressed at Nicæa.
The last chapter (c. 92) is addressed to the Western bishops. It modestly defends the action of Hilary in writing, and urges a corresponding energy on the part of his readers. The whole concludes with a devout prayer.
The Liber de Synodis, like other works in which Catholicism has endeavoured to be conciliatory, did not pass unchallenged. It satisfied neither the genuine Arian nor the violently orthodox. The notes or fragments which we call Hilary’s Apology throw light upon the latter fact. Hilary has to explain that he had not meant that the Eastern bishops had stated the true faith at Ancyra, and tells his Lord and brother Lucifer that it was against his will that he had mentioned the word ὁμοιούσιον. We must ourselves confess that Hilary puts an interpretation on the meaning of the Eastern formulæ which would have been impossible if he had written after the Synod of Ariminum. Speaking when he did, his arguments were not only pardonable but right.
————————————
To the most dearly loved and blessed brethren our fellow-bishops of the province of Germania Prima and Germania Secunda, Belgica Prima and Belgica Secunda, Lugdunensis Prima and Lugdunensis Secunda, and the province of Aquitania, and the province of Novempopulana, and to the laity and clergy of Tolosa in the Provincia Narbonensis, and to the bishops of the provinces of Britain, Hilary the servant of Christ, eternal salvation in God our Lord.
I had determined, beloved
brethren, to send no letter to you concerning the affairs of the Church
in consequence of your prolonged silence. For when I had by
writing from several cities of the Roman world frequently informed you
of the faith and efforts of our religious brethren, the bishops of the
East, and how the Evil One profiting by the discords of the times had
with envenomed lips and tongue hissed out his deadly doctrine, I was
afraid. I feared lest while so many bishops were involved in the
serious danger of disastrous sin or disastrous mistake, you were
holding your peace because a defiled and sin-stained conscience tempted
you to despair. Ignorance I could not attribute to you; you had
been too often warned. I judged therefore that I also ought to
observe silence towards you, carefully remembering the Lord’s
saying, that those who after a first and second entreaty, and in spite
of the witness of the Church, neglect to hear, are to be unto us as
heathen men and publicans
2. But when I received the letters that your blessed faith inspired, and understood that their slow arrival and their paucity were due to the remoteness and secrecy of my place of exile, I rejoiced in the Lord that you had continued pure and undefiled by the contagion of any execrable heresy, and that you were united with me in faith and spirit, and so were partakers of that exile into which Saturninus, fearing his own conscience, had thrust me after beguiling the Emperor, and after that you had denied him communion for the whole three years ago until now. I equally rejoiced that the impious and infidel creed which was sent straightway to you from Sirmium was not only not accepted by you, but condemned as soon as reported and notified. I felt that it was now binding on me as a religious duty to write sound and faithful words to you as my fellow-bishops, who communicate with me in Christ. I, who through fear of what might have been could at one time only rejoice with my own conscience that I was free from all these errors, was now bound to express delight at the purity of our common faith. Praise God for the unshaken stability of your noble hearts, for your firm house built on the foundation of the faithful rock, for the undefiled and unswerving constancy of a will that has proved immaculate! For since the good profession at the Council of Biterræ, where I denounced the ringleaders of this heresy with some of you for my witnesses, it has remained and still continues to remain, pure, unspotted and scrupulous.
3. You awaited the noble triumph of a holy and
steadfast perseverance without yielding to the threats, the powers and
the assaults of Saturninus: and when all the waves of awakening
blasphemy struggled against God, you who still remain with me faithful
in Christ did not give way when threatened with the onset of heresy,
and now by meeting that onset you have broken all its violence.
Yes, brethren, you have conquered, to the abundant joy of those who
share your faith: and your unimpaired constancy gained the double
glory of keeping a pure conscience and giving an authoritative
example. For the fame of your Hosius,
bishop of Cordova in Spain, had been sent by Constantine to Alexandria
at the outbreak of the Arian controversy. He had presided at the
Council of Nicæa in 325, and had taken part in the Council of
Sardica in 343, when the Nicene Creed was reaffirmed. In his
extreme old age he was forced with blows to accept this extreme Arian
Creed drawn up at the third Council of Sirmium in the summer of
357. This is what is stated by Socrates, and it is corroborated
by Athanasius, Hist. Arian, c. 45, where it is added that he
anathematized Arianism before dying. Hilary certainly does Hosius
an injustice in declaring him to be joint-author of the
‘blasphemous’ creed.
4. But your invincible faith keeps the honourable distinction of conscious worth, and content with repudiating crafty, vague, or hesitating action, safely abides in Christ, preserving the profession of its liberty. You abstain from communion with those who oppose their bishops with their blasphemies and keep them in exile, and do not by assenting to any crafty subterfuge bring yourselves under a charge of unrighteous judgment. For since we all suffered deep and grievous pain at the actions of the wicked against God, within our boundaries alone is communion in Christ to be found from the time that the Church began to be harried by disturbances such as the expatriation of bishops, the deposition of priests, the intimidation of the people, the threatening of the faith, and the determination of the meaning of Christ’s doctrine by human will and power. Your resolute faith does not pretend to be ignorant of these facts or profess that it can tolerate them, perceiving that by the act of hypocritical assent it would bring itself before the bar of conscience.
5. And although in all your actions, past and present, you bear witness to the uninterrupted independence and security of your faith; yet in particular you prove your warmth and fervour of spirit by the fact that some of you whose letters have succeeded in reaching me have expressed a wish that I, unfit as I am, should notify to you what the Easterns have since said in their confessions of faith. They affectionately laid the additional burden upon me of indicating my sentiments on all their decisions. I know that my skill and learning are inadequate, for I feel it most difficult to express in words my own belief as I understand it in my heart; far less easy must it be to expound the statements of others.
6. Now I beseech you by the mercy of the
Lord, that as I will in this letter according to your desire write to
you of divine things and of the witness of a pure conscience to our
faith, no one will think to judge me by the beginning of my letter
before he has read the conclusion of my argument. For it is
unfair before the complete argument has been grasped, to conceive a
prejudice on account of initial statements, the reason of which is yet
unknown, since it is not with imperfect statements before us that we
must make a decision for the sake of investigation, but on the
conclusion for the sake of knowledge. I have some fear, not about
you, as God is witness of my heart, but about some who in their own
esteem are very cautious and prudent but do not understand the blessed
apostle’s precept not to think of themselves more highly than
they ought
7. Therefore I comply with your affectionate and urgent wish, and I have set down all the creeds which have been promulgated at different times and places since the holy Council of Nicæa, with my appended explanations of all the phrases and even words employed. If they be thought to contain anything faulty, no one can impute the fault to me: for I am only a reporter, as you wished me to be, and not an author. But if anything is found to be laid down in right and apostolic fashion, no one can doubt that it is no credit to the interpreter but to the originator. In any case I have sent you a faithful account of these transactions: it is for you to determine by the decision your faith inspires whether their spirit is Catholic or heretical.
8. For although it was necessary to reply to
9. Now it seems to me right and appropriate, before I begin my argument about suspicions and dissensions as to words, to give as complete an account as possible of the decisions of the Eastern bishops adverse to the heresy compiled at Sirmium. Others have published all these transactions very plainly, but much obscurity is caused by a translation from Greek into Latin, and to be absolutely literal is to be sometimes partly unintelligible.
10. You remember that in the Blasphemia, lately written at Sirmium, the object of the authors was to proclaim the Father to be the one and only God of all things, and deny the Son to be God: and while they determined that men should hold their peace about ὁμοούσιον and ὁμοιούσιον, they determined that God the Son should be asserted to be born not of God the Father, but of nothing, as the first creatures were, or of another essence than God, as the later creatures. And further that in saying the Father was greater in honour, dignity, splendour and majesty, they implied that the Son lacked those things which constitute the Father’s superiority. Lastly, that while it is affirmed that His birth is unknowable, we were commanded by this Compulsory Ignorance Act not to know that He is of God: just as if it could be commanded or decreed that a man should know what in future he is to be ignorant of, or be ignorant of what he already knows. I have subjoined in full this pestilent and godless blasphemy, though against my will, to facilitate a more complete knowledge of the worth and reason of the replies made on the opposite side by those Easterns who endeavoured to counteract all the wiles of the heretics according to their understanding and comprehension.
A copy of the Blasphemiacomposed at Sirmium by Osius and Polamius.
11. Since there appeared to be some misunderstanding respecting the faith, all points have been carefully investigated and discussed at Sirmium in the presence of our most reverend brothers and fellow-bishops, Valens, Ursacius and Germinius.
It is evident that there is one God, the Father
Almighty, according as it is believed throughout the whole world; and
His only Son Jesus Christ our Saviour, begotten of Him before the
ages. But we cannot and ought not to say that there are two Gods,
for the Lord Himself said, I will go unto My Father and your Father,
unto My God and your God
But since some or many persons were disturbed by
questions concerning substance, called in Greek οὐσία, that is, to make it
understood more exactly, as to ὁμοούσιον, or what
is called ὁμοιούσιον
, there ought to be no mention made of these at all. Nor ought
any exposition to be made of them for the reason and consideration that
they are not contained in the divine Scriptures, and that they are
above man’s understanding, nor can any man declare the birth of
the Son, of whom it is written, Who shall declare His
generation
12. After these many and most impious statements had been made, the Eastern bishops on their side again met together and composed definitions of their confession. Since, however, we have frequently to mention the words essence and substance, we must determine the meaning of essence, lest in discussing facts we prove ignorant of the signification of our words. Essence is a reality which is, or the reality of those things from which it is, and which subsists inasmuch as it is permanent. Now we can speak of the essence, or nature, or genus, or substance of anything. And the strict reason why the word essence is employed is because it is always. But this is identical with substance, because a thing which is, necessarily subsists in itself, and whatever thus subsists possesses unquestionably a permanent genus, nature or substance. When, therefore, we say that essence signifies nature, or genus, or substance, we mean the essence of that thing which permanently exists in the nature, genus, or substance. Now, therefore, let us review the definitions of faith drawn up by the Easterns.
I. “If any one hearing that the Son is the image of the invisible God, says that the image of God is the same as the invisible God, as though refusing to confess that He is truly Son: let him be anathema.”
13. Hereby is excluded the assertion of those who wish to represent the relationship of Father and Son as a matter of names, inasmuch as every image is similar in species to that of which it is an image. For no one is himself his own image, but it is necessary that the image should demonstrate him of whom it is an image. So an image is the figured and indistinguishable likeness of one thing equated with another. Therefore the Father is, and the Son is, because the Son is the image of the Father: and he who is an image, if he is to be truly an image, must have in himself his original’s species, nature and essence in virtue of the fact that he is an image.
II. “And if any one hearing the Son
say, As the Father hath life in Himself, so also hath He given to
the Son to have life in Himself
14. The person of the recipient and of the giver are distinguished so that the same should not be made one and sole. For since he is under anathema who has believed that, when recipient and giver are mentioned one solitary and unique person is implied, we may not suppose that the selfsame person who gave received from Himself. For He who lives and He through whom He lives are not identical, for one lives to Himself, the other declares that He lives through the Author of His life, and no one will declare that He who enjoys life and He through whom His life is caused are personally identical.
III. “And if any one hearing that the Only-begotten Son is like the invisible God, denies that the Son who is the image of the invisible God (whose image is understood to include essence) is Son in essence, as though denying His true Sonship: let him be anathema.”
15. It is here insisted that the nature is
indistinguishable and entirely similar. For since He is the
Only-begotten Son of God and the image of the invisible God, it is
necessary that He should be of an essence similar in species and
nature. Or what distinction can be made between Father and Son
affecting their nature with its similar genus, when the Son subsisting
through the nature begotten in Him is invested with the properties of
the Father, viz., glory, worth, power, invisibility, essence? And
while these prerogatives of divinity are equal we neither understand
the one to be less because He is Son, nor the other to be greater
because
IV. “And if any one hearing this text,
For as the Father hath life in Himself so also He hath given to the
Son to have life in Himself
16. With the Son’s origin as thus stated is connected the perfect birth of the undivided nature. For what in each is life, that in each is signified by essence. And in the life which is begotten of life, i.e. in the essence which is born of essence, seeing that it is not born unlike (and that because life is of life), He keeps in Himself a nature wholly similar to His original, because there is no diversity in the likeness of the essence that is born and that begets, that is, of the life which is possessed and which has been given. For though God begat Him of Himself, in likeness to His own nature, He in whom is the unbegotten likeness did not relinquish the property of His natural substance. For He only has what He gave; and as possessing life He gave life to be possessed. And thus what is born of essence, as life of life, is essentially like itself, and the essence of Him who is begotten and of Him who begets admits no diversity or unlikeness.
V. “If any one hearing the words
formed or created it and begat me spoken by the
same lips
17. Those who say that the Son of God is only a creature or formation are opposed on the fact that they say they have read The Lord formed or created me, which seems to imply formation or creation; but they omit the following sentence, which is the key to the first, and from the first wrest authority for their impious statement that the Son is a creature, because Wisdom has said that she was created. But if she were created, how could she be also born? For all birth, of whatever kind, attains its own nature from the nature that begets it: but creation takes its beginning from the power of the Creator, the Creator being able to form a creature from nothing. So Wisdom, who said that she was created, does in the next sentence say that she was also begotten, using the word creation of the act of the changeless nature of her Parent, which nature, unlike the manner and wont of human parturition, without any detriment or change of self created from itself what it begat. Similarly a Creator has no need of passion or intercourse or parturition. And that which is created out of nothing begins to exist at a definite moment. And He who creates makes His object through His mere power, and creation is the work of might, not the birth of a nature from a nature that besets it. But because the Son of God was not begotten after the manner of corporeal childbearing, but was born perfect God of perfect God; therefore Wisdom says that she was created, excluding in her manner of birth every kind of corporeal process.
18. Moreover, to shew that she possesses a nature
that was born and not created, Wisdom has added that she was begotten,
that by declaring that she was created and also begotten, she might
completely explain her birth. By speaking of creation she implies
that the nature of the Father is changeless, and she also shews that
the substance of her nature begotten of God the Father is genuine and
real. And so her words about creation and generation have
explained the perfection of her birth: the former that the Father
is changeless, the latter the reality of her own nature. The two
things combined become one, and that one is both in perfection:
for the Son being born of God without any change in God, is so born of
the Father as to be created; and the Father, who is changeless in
Himself and the Son’s Father by nature, so forms the Son as to
beget Him. Therefore the heresy which has dared to aver that the
Son of God is a creature is condemned because while the first statement
shews the impossible perfection of the divinity, the second, which
asserts His natural generation, crushes the
VI. “And if any one grant the Son only
a likeness of activity, but rob Him of the likeness of essence which is
the corner-stone of our faith, in spite of the fact that the Son
Himself reveals His essential likeness with the Father in the words,
For as the Father hath life in Himself, so also hath He given to the
Son to have life in Himself
19. The heretics when beset by authoritative passages in Scripture are wont only to grant that the Son is like the Father in might while they deprive Him of similarity of nature. This is foolish and impious, for they do not understand that similar might can only be the result of a similar nature. For a lower nature can never attain to the might of a higher and more powerful nature. What will the men who make these assertions say about the omnipotence of God the Father, if the might of a lower nature is made equal to His own? For they cannot deny that the Son’s power is the same, seeing that He has said What things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
No, a similarity of nature follows on a similarity of might when He says, As the Father hath life in Himself, so also hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself. In life is implied nature and essence; this, Christ teaches, has been given Him to have as the Father hath. Therefore similarity of life contains similarity of might: for there cannot be similarity of life where the nature is dissimilar. So it is necessary that similarity of essence follows on similarity of might: for as what the Father does, the Son does also, so the life that the Father has He has given to the Son to have likewise. Therefore we condemn the rash and impious statements of those who confess a similarity of might but have dared to preach a dissimilarity of nature, since it is the chief ground of our hope to confess that in the Father and the Son there is an identical divine substance.
VII. “And if any one professing that he believes that there is a Father and a Son, says that the Father is Father of an essence unlike Himself but of similar activity; for speaking profane and novel words against the essence of the Son and nullifying His true divine Sonship, let him be anathema.”
20. By confused and involved expressions the heretics very frequently elude the truth and secure the ears of the unwary by the mere sound of common words, such as the titles Father and Son, which they do not truthfully utter to express a natural and genuine community of essence: for they are aware that God is called the Father of all creation, and remember that all the saints are named sons of God. In like manner they declare that the relationship between the Father and the Son resembles that between the Father and the universe, so that the names Father and Son are rather titular than real. For the names are titular if the Persons have a distinct nature of a different essence, since no reality can be attached to the name of father unless it be based on the nature of his offspring. So the Father cannot be called Father of an alien substance unlike His own, for a perfect birth manifests no diversity between itself and the original substance. Therefore we repudiate all the impious assertions that the Father is Father of a Son begotten of Himself and yet not of His own nature. We shall not call God Father for having a creature like Him in might and activity, but for begetting a nature of an essence not unlike or alien to Himself: for a natural birth does not admit of any dissimilarity with the Father’s nature. Therefore those are anathema who assert that the Father is Father of a nature unlike Himself, so that something other than God is born of God, and who suppose that the essence of the Father degenerated in begetting the Son. For so far as in them lies they destroy the very birthless and changeless essence of the Father by daring to attribute to Him in the birth of His Only-begotten an alteration and degeneration of His natural essence.
VIII. “And if any one understanding that the Son is like in essence to Him whose Son He is admitted to be, says that the Son is the same as the Father, or part of the Father, or that it is through an emanation or any such passion as is necessary for the procreation of corporeal children that the incorporeal Son draws His life from the incorporeal Father: let him be anathema.”
21. We have always to beware of the vices of particular perversions, and countenance no opportunity for delusion. For many heretics say that the Son is like the Father in divinity in order to support the theory that in virtue of this similarity the Son is the same Person as the Father: for this undivided similarity appears to countenance a belief in a single monad. For what does not differ in kind seems to retain identity of nature.
22. But birth does not countenance this
IX. “And if any one, because the
Father is never admitted to be the Son and the Son is never admitted to
be the Father, when he says that the Son is other than the Father
(because the Father is one Person and the Son another, inasmuch as it
is said, There is another that beareth witness of Me, even the
father who sent Me
23. It was said unto the apostles of the
Lord, Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves
X. “And if any one admits that God
became Father of the Only-begotten Son at any point in time and not
that the Only-begotten Son came into existence without passion beyond
all times and beyond all human calculation: for contravening the
teaching of the Gospel which scorned any interval of times between the
being of the Father and the Son and faithfully has instructed us that
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God
24. It is a pious saying that the Father is not
limited by times: for the true meaning of the name of Father
which He bore before time began surpasses comprehension. Although
religion teaches us to ascribe to Him this name of Father through which
comes the
XI. “And if any one says that the Father is older in time than His Only-begotten Son, and that the Son is younger than the Father: let him be anathema.”
25. The essential likeness conformed to the Father’s essence in kind is also taught to be identical in time: lest He who is the image of God, who is the Word, who is God with God in the beginning, who is like the Father, by the insertion of times between Himself and the Father should not have in Himself in perfection that which is both image, and Word, and God. For if He be proclaimed to be younger in time, He has lost the truth of the image and likeness: for that is no longer likeness which is found to be dissimilar in time. For that very fact that God is Father prevents there being any time in which He was not Father: consequently there can be no time in the Son’s existence in which He was not Son. Wherefore we must neither call the Father older than the Son nor the Son younger than the Father: for the true meaning of neither name can exist without the other.
XII. “And if any one attributes the
timeless substance (i.e. Person) of the Only-begotten Son
derived from the Father to the unborn essence of God, as though calling
the Father Son: let him be anathema Substantia is
in this passage used as the equivalent of Person. The word was
used by Tertullian in the sense of οὐσία, and this early Latin use
of the word is the use which eventually prevailed. The meaning of
the word in Hilary is influenced by its philological equivalent in
Greek. At the beginning of the fourth century ὑπόστασις was used
in the same sense as οὐσία. The latter word
meant ‘reality,’ the former word ‘the basis of
existence.’ Athanasius, however, began the practice of
restricting ὑπόστασις to
the divine Persons. Hilary consequently here uses
substantia in this new sense of the word ὑπόστασις.
The Alexandrine Council of 362 sanctioned as allowable the use of
ὑπόστασις in the
sense of Person, and by the end of the century the old usage
practically disappeared.
26. The above definition when it denied that the idea of time could be applied to the birth of the Son seemed to have given an occasion for heresy (we saw that it would be monstrous if the Father were limited by time, but that He would be so limited if the Son were subjected to time), so that by the help of this repudiation of time, the Father who is unborn might under the appellation of Son be proclaimed as both Father and Son in a single and unique Person. For in excluding times from the Son’s birth it seemed to countenance the opinion that there was no birth, so that He whose birth is not in time might be considered not to have been born at all. Wherefore, lest at the suggestion of this denial of time the heresy of the unity of Persons should insinuate itself, that impiety is condemned which dares to refer the timeless birth to the unique and singular Person of the unborn essence. For it is one thing to be outside time and another to be unborn; the first admits of birth (though outside time), the other, so far as it is, is the one sole author from eternity of its being what it is.
27. We have reviewed, beloved brethren, all the definitions of faith made by the Eastern bishops which they formulated in their assembly against the recently emerging heresy. And we, as far as we have been able, have adapted the wording of our exposition to express their meaning, following their diction rather than desiring to be thought the originators of new phrases. In these words they decree the principles of their conscience and a long maintained doctrine against a new and profane impiety. Those who compiled this heresy at Sirmium, or accepted it after its compilation, they have thereby compelled to confess their ignorance and to sign such decrees. There the Son is the perfect image of the Father: there under the qualities of an identical essence, the Person of the Son is not annihilated and confounded with the Father: there the Son is declared to be image of the Father in virtue of a real likeness, and does not differ in substance from the Father, whose image He is: there on account of the life which the Father has and the life which the Son has received, the Father can have nothing different in substance (this being implied in life) from that which the Son received to have: there the begotten Son is not a creature, but is a Person undistinguished from the Father’s nature: there, just as an identical might belongs to the Father and the Son, so their essence admits of no difference: there the Father by begetting the Son in no wise degenerates from Himself in Him through any difference of nature: there, though the likeness of nature is the same in each, the proper qualities which mark this likeness are repugnant to a confusion of Persons, so that there is not one subsisting Person who is called both Father and Son: there, though it is piously affirmed that there is both a Father who sends and a Son who is sent, yet no distinction in essence is drawn between the Father and the Son, the Sent and the Sender: there the truth of God’s Fatherhood is not bound by limits of time: there the Son is not later in time: there beyond all time is a perfect birth which refutes the error that the Son could not be born.
An exposition of the faith of the Church made at the
Council held on the occasion of the Dedication of the
church at Antioch by ninety-seven bishops there present, because of
suspicions felt as to the orthodoxy of a certain bishop The Council
at Antioch of 341, generally known as the Dedication Council,
assembled for the dedication of the great cathedral church which had
been commenced there by the emperor Constantine, who did not live to
see its completion. Four creeds were then drawn up, if we reckon
a document which was drawn up at Antioch by a continuation of the
Council in the following year. The second, and most important, of
these creeds became the creed of the Semi-Nicene party. Capable
of a wholly orthodox interpretation, it was insufficient of itself to
repel Arianism, but not insufficient to be used as an auxiliary means
of opposing it. Hilary throughout assumes that it is not to be
interpreted in an Arian sense, and uses it as an introduction to Nicene
theology.
29. “We believe in accordance with evangelical and apostolic tradition in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator, Maker and Disposer of all things that are, and from whom are all things.
“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, His
Only-begotten Son, God through whom are all things, who was begotten of
the Father, God of God, whole God of whole God, One of One, perfect God
of perfect God, King of King, Lord of Lord, the Word, the Wisdom, the
Life, true Light, true Way, the Resurrection, the Shepherd, the Gate,
unable to change or alter, the unvarying image of the essence and might
and glory of the Godhead, the first-born of all creation, who always
was in the beginning with God, the Word of God, according to what is
said in the Gospel, and the Word was God, through whom all
things were made, and in whom all things subsist, who in the last days
came down from above, and was born of a virgin according to the
Scriptures, and was made the Lamb Lamb is
Hilary’s mistake for Man. He doubtless read the
original in a Greek manuscript which had the word ἄνθρωπον written in its
abbreviated form ἀνον. This would readily be mistaken
for the word ἀρνίον, lamb. The
Latin word used by Hilary as a substitute for Apostle is
prædestinatus, for which word it seems impossible to
account.
“And in the Holy Ghost, who was given to
them that believe, to comfort, sanctify and perfect, even as our Lord
Jesus Christ ordained His disciples, saying, Go ye, and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost
30. “Having therefore held this faith from the beginning, and being resolved to hold it to the end in the sight of God and Christ, we say anathema to every heretical and perverted sect, and if any man teaches contrary to the wholesome and right faith of the Scriptures, saying that there is or was time, or space, or age before the Son was begotten, let him be anathema. And if any one say that the Son is a formation like one of the things that are formed, or a birth resembling other births, or a creature like the creatures, and not as the divine Scriptures have affirmed in each passage aforesaid, or teaches or proclaims as the Gospel anything else than what we have received: let him be anathema. For all those things which were written in the divine Scriptures by Prophets and by Apostles we believe and follow truly and with fear.”
31. Perhaps this creed has not spoken expressly enough of the identical similarity of the Father and the Son, especially in concluding that the names Father, Son and Holy Ghost referred to the Person and order and glory of each of those who are named to teach us that they are three Persons, but in agreement one.
32. But in the first place we must remember that
the bishops did not assemble at Antioch to oppose the heresy which has
dared to declare that the substance of the Son is unlike that of the
Father, but to oppose that which, in spite of the Council of
Nicæa, presumed to attribute the three names to the Father.
Of this we will treat in its proper place. I recollect that at
the beginning of my argument I besought the patience and forbearance of
my readers and hearers until the completion
33. Further the whole of the above statement has drawn no distinction whatever between the essence and nature of the Father and the Son. For when it is said, God of God, whole God of whole God, there is no room for doubting that whole God is born of whole God. For the nature of God who is of God admits of no difference, and as whole God of whole God He is in all in which the Father is. One of One excludes the passions of a human birth and conception, so that since He is One of One, He comes from no other source, nor is different nor alien, for He is One of One, perfect God of perfect God. Except in having a cause of its origin His birth does not differ from the birthless nature since the perfection of both Persons is the same. King of King. A power that is expressed by one and the same title allows no dissimilarity of power. Lord of Lord. In ‘Lord’ also the lordship is equal: there can be no difference where domination is confessed of both without diversity. But plainest of all is the statement appended after several others, unable to change or alter, the unvarying image of the Godhead and essence and might and glory. For as God of God, whole God of whole God, One of One, perfect God of perfect God, King of King and Lord of Lord, since in all that glory and nature of Godhead in which the Father ever abides, the Son born of Him also subsists; He derives this also from the Father’s substance that He is unable to change. For in His birth that nature from which He is born is not changed; but the Son has maintained a changeless essence since His origin is in a changeless nature. For though He is an image, yet the image cannot alter, since in Him was born the image of the Father’s essence, and there could not be in Him a change of nature caused by any unlikeness to the Father’s essence from which He was begotten. Now when we are taught that He was brought into being as the first of all creation, and He is Himself said to have always been in the beginning with God as God the Word, the fact that He was brought into being shews that He was born, and the fact that He always was, shews that He is not separated from the Father by time. Therefore this Council by dividing the three substances, which it did to exclude a monad God with a threefold title, did not introduce any separation of substance between the Father and the Son. The whole exposition of faith makes no distinction between Father and Son, the Unborn and the Only-begotten, in time, or name, or essence, or dignity, or domination. But our common conscience demands that we should gain a knowledge of the other creeds of the same Eastern bishops, composed at different times and places, that by the study of many confessions we may understand the sincerity of their faith.
The Creed according to the Council of the East.
34. “We, the holy synod met in Sardica
from different provinces of the East, namely, Thebais, Egypt,
Palestine, Arabia, Phœnicia, Cœle Syria, Mesopotamia,
Cilicia, Cappadocia, Pontus, Paphlagonia, Galatia, Bithynia and
Hellespont, from Asia, namely, the two provinces of Phrygia, Pisidia,
the islands of the Cyclades, Pamphylia, Caria, Lydia, from Europe,
namely, Thrace, Hæmimontus Mount Haemus is the
mountain range which at this period formed the boundary between the
provinces of Thracia and Mœsia Inferior. Hæmimontus was
grouped with Mœsia Inferior under the Vicarius of Thrace.
“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator and Maker of all things, from whom all fatherhood in heaven and earth is named:
“And we believe in His Only-begotten Son our Lord
Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten of the Father, God of
God, Light of Light, through whom were made all things which are in
heaven and earth, visible and invisible: who is the Word and
Wisdom and Might and Life and true Light: and who in the last
days for our sake was incarnate, and was born of the holy Virgin, who
was crucified and dead and buried, And rose from the dead on the third
day, And
“We believe also in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete, whom according to His promise He sent to His apostles after His return into the heavens to teach them and to bring all things to their remembrance, through whom also the souls of them that believe sincerely in Him are sanctified.
“But those who say that the Son of God is sprung from things non-existent or from another substance and not from God, and that there was a time or age when He was not, the holy Catholic Church holds them as aliens. Likewise also those who say that there are three Gods, or that Christ is not God and that before the ages He was neither Christ nor Son of God, or that He Himself is the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, or that the Son is incapable of birth; or that the Father begat the Son without purpose or will: the holy Catholic Church anathematizes.”
35. In the exposition of this creed, concise but complete definitions have been employed. For in condemning those who said that the Son sprang from things non-existent, it attributed to Him a source which had no beginning but continues perpetually. And lest this source from which He drew His permanent birth should be understood to be any other substance than that of God, it also declares to be blasphemers those who said that the Son was born of some other substance and not of God. And so since He does not draw His subsistence from nothing, or spring from any other source than God, it cannot be doubted that He was born with those qualities which are God’s; since the Only-begotten essence of the Son is generated neither from things which are non-existent nor from any other substance than the birthless and eternal substance of the Father. But the creed also rejects intervals of times or ages: on the assumption that He who does not differ in nature cannot be separable by time.
36. On every side, where anxiety might be felt, approach is barred to the arguments of heretics lest it should be declared that there is any difference in the Son. For those are anathematized who say that there are three Gods: because according to God’s true nature His substance does not admit a number of applications of the title, except as it is given to individual men and angels in recognition of their merit, though the substance of their nature and that of God is different. In that sense there are consequently many gods. Furthermore in the nature of God, God is one, yet in such a way that the Son also is God, because in Him there is not a different nature: and since He is God of God, both must be God, and since there is no difference of kind between them there is no distinction in their essence. A number of titular Gods is rejected; because there is no diversity in the quality of the divine nature. Since therefore he is anathema who says there are many Gods and he is anathema who denies that the Son is God; it is fully shewn that the fact that each has one and the same name arises from the real character of the similar substance in each: since in confessing the Unborn God the Father, and the Only-begotten God the Son, with no dissimilarity of essence between them, each is called God, yet God must be believed and be declared to be one. So by the diligent and watchful care of the bishops the creed guards the similarity of the nature begotten and the nature begetting, confirming it by the application of one name.
37. Yet to prevent the declaration of one God seeming to affirm that God is a solitary monad without offspring of His own, it immediately condemns the rash suggestion that because God is one, therefore God the Father is one and solitary, having in Himself the name of Father and of Son: since in the Father who begets and the Son who comes to birth one God must be declared to exist on account of the substance of their nature being similar in each. The faith of the saints knows nothing of the Son being incapable of birth: because the nature of the Son only draws its existence from birth. But the nature of the birth is in Him so perfect that He who was born of the substance of God is born also of His purpose and will. For from His will and purpose, not from the process of a corporeal nature, springs the absolute perfection of the essence of God born from the essence of God. It follows that we should now consider that creed which was compiled not long ago when Photinus was deposed from the episcopate.
A copy of the creed composed at Sirmium by the Easterns to oppose Photinus.
38. “We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker, from whom every fatherhood in heaven and in earth is named.
“And in His only Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who
was born of the Father before all ages, God of God, Light of Light,
through whom
“And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete, whom according to His promise He sent to the apostles after He ascended into heaven to teach them and to remind them of all things, through whom also are sanctified the souls of those who believe sincerely in Him.
I. “But those who say that the Son is sprung from things non-existent, or from another substance and not from God, and that there was a time or age when He was not, the holy Catholic Church regards as aliens.
II. “If any man says that the Father and the Son are two Gods: let him be anathema.
III. “And if any man says that God is one, but does not confess that Christ, God the Son of God, ministered to the Father in the creation of all things: let him be anathema.
IV. “And if any man dares to say that the Unborn God, or a part of Him, was born of Mary: let him be anathema.
V. “And if any man say that the Son born of Mary was, before born of Mary, Son only according to foreknowledge or predestination, and denies that He was born of the Father before the ages and was with God, and that all things were made through Him: let him be anathema.
VI. “If any man says that the substance of God is expanded and contracted: let him be anathema.
VII. “If any man says that the expanded substance of God makes the Son; or names Son His supposed expanded substance: let him be anathema.
VIII. “If any man says that the Son of God is the internal or uttered Word of God: let him be anathema.
IX. “If any man says that the man alone born of Mary is the Son: let him be anathema.
X. “If any man though saying that God and Man was born of Mary, understands thereby the Unborn God: let him be anathema.
XI. “If any man hearing The Word
was made Flesh
XII. “If any man hearing that the only Son of God was crucified, says that His divinity suffered corruption, or pain, or change, or diminution, or destruction: let him be anathema.
XIII. “If any man says Let us make
man
XIV. “If any man says that the Son did not appear to Abraham, but the Unborn God, or a part of Him: let him be anathema.
XV. “If any man says that the Son did not wrestle with Jacob as a man, but the Unborn God, or a part of Him: let him be anathema.
XVI. “If any man does not understand The Lord rained from the Lord to be spoken of the Father and the Son, but that the Father rained from Himself: let him be anathema. For the Lord the Son rained from the Lord the Father.
XVII. “If any man says that the Lord
and the Lord, the Father and the Son are two Gods, because of the
aforesaid words: let him be anathema. For we do not make
the Son the equal or peer of the Father, but understand the Son to be
subject. For He did not come down to Sodom without the
Father’s will, nor rain from Himself but from the Lord, to
wit by the Father’s authority; nor does He sit at the
Father’s right hand by His own authority, but He hears the Father
saying. Sit thou on My right hand
XVIII. “If any man says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are one Person: let him be anathema.
XIX. “If any man speaking of the Holy Ghost the Paraclete says that He is the Unborn God: let him be anathema.
XX. “If any man denies that, as the
Lord has taught us, the Paraclete is different from the Son; for He
said, And the Father shall send you another Comforter, whom I shall
ask
XXI. “If any man says that the Holy Spirit is a part of the Father or of the Son: let him be anathema.
XXII. “If any man says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three Gods: let him be anathema.
XXIII. “If any man after the example
of the Jews understands as said for the destruction of the Eternal
Only-begotten God the words, I am the first God, and I am the
last
XXIV. “If any man says that the Son was made by the will of God, like any object in creation: let him be anathema.
XXV. “If any man says that the Son was born against the will of the Father: let him be anathema. For the Father was not forced against His own will, or induced by any necessity of nature to beget the Son: but as soon as He willed, before time and without passion He begat Him of Himself and shewed Him forth.
XXVI. “If any man says that the Son is incapable of birth and without beginning, saying as though there were two incapable of birth and unborn and without beginning, and makes two Gods: let him be anathema. For the Head, which is the beginning of all things, is the Son; but the Head or beginning of Christ is God: for so to One who is without beginning and is the beginning of all things, we refer the whole world through Christ.
XXVII. “Once more we strengthen the understanding of Christianity by saying, If any man denies that Christ who is God and Son of God, personally existed before time began and aided the Father in the perfecting of all things; but says that only from the time that He was born of Mary did He gain the name of Christ and Son and a beginning of His deity: let him be anathema.”
39. The necessity of the moment urged the Council to set forth a wider and broader exposition of the creed including many intricate questions, because the heresy which Photinus was reviving was sapping our Catholic home by many secret mines. Their purpose was to oppose every form of stealthy subtle heresy by a corresponding form of pure and unsullied faith, and to have as many complete explanations of the faith as there were instances of peculiar faithlessness. Immediately after the universal and unquestioned statement of the Christian mysteries, the explanation of the faith against the heretics begins as follows.
I. “But those who say that the Son is sprung from things non-existent, or from another substance and not from God, and that there was a time or age when He was not, the holy Catholic Church regards as aliens.”
40. What ambiguity is there here? What is omitted that the consciousness of a sincere faith could suggest? He does not spring from things non-existent: therefore His origin has existence. There is no other substance extant to be His origin, but that of God: therefore nothing else can be born in Him but all that is God; because His existence is not from nothing, and He draws subsistence from no other source. He does not differ in time: therefore the Son like the Father is eternal. And so the Unborn Father and the Only-begotten Son share all the same qualities. They are equal in years, and that very similarity between the sole-existing paternal essence and its offspring prevents distinction in any quality.
II. “If any man says that the Father and the Son are two Gods: let him be anathema.
III. “And if any man says that God is one, but does not confess that Christ who is God and eternal Son of God ministered to the Father in the creation of all things: let him be anathema.”
41. The very statement of the name as our religion states it gives us a clear insight into the fact. For since it is condemned to say that the Father and the Son are two Gods, and it is also accursed to deny that the Son is God, any opinion as to the substance of the one being different from that of the other in asserting two Gods is excluded. For there is no other essence, except that of God the Father, from which God the Son of God was born before time. For since we are compelled to confess God the Father, and roundly declare that Christ the Son of God is God, and between these two truths lies the impious confession of two Gods: They must on the ground of their identity of nature and name be one in the kind of their essence if the name of their essence is necessarily one.
IV. “If any one dares to say that the Unborn God, or a part of Him, was born of Mary: let him be anathema.”
42. The fact of the essence declared to be one in the Father and the Son having one name on account of their similarity of nature seemed to offer an opportunity to heretics to declare that the Unborn God, or a part of Him, was born of Mary. The danger was met by the wholesome resolution that he who declared this should be anathema. For the unity of the name which religion employs and which is based on the exact similarity of their natural essence, has not repudiated the Person of the begotten essence so as to represent, under cover of the unity of name, that the substance of God is singular and undifferentiated because we predicate one name for the essence of each, that is, predicate one God, on account of the exactly similar substance of the undivided nature in each Person.
V. “If any man say that the Son existed
before Mary only according to foreknowledge or predestination, and
denies that He was born of the Father before the ages and with
43. While denying that the God of us all, the Son of God, existed before He was born in bodily form, some assert that He existed according to foreknowledge and predestination, and not according to the essence of a personally subsistent nature: that is, because the Father predestined the Son to have existence some day by being born of the Virgin, He was announced to us by the Father’s foreknowledge rather than born and existent before the ages in the substance of the divine nature, and that all things which He Himself spake in the prophets concerning the mysteries of His incarnation and passion were simply said concerning Him by the Father according to His foreknowledge. Consequently this perverse doctrine is condemned, so that we know that the Only-begotten Son of God was born of the Father before all worlds, and formed the worlds and all creation, and that He was not merely predestined to be born.
VI. “If any man says that the substance of God is expanded and contracted: let him be anathema.”
44. To contract and expand are bodily affections: but God who is a Spirit and breathes where He listeth, does not expand or contract Himself through any change of substance. Remaining free and outside the bond of any bodily nature, He supplies out of Himself what He wills, when He wills, and where He wills. Therefore it is impious to ascribe any change of substance to such an unfettered Power.
VII. “If any man says that the expanded substance of God makes the Son, or names Son His expanded substance: let him be anathema.”
45. The above opinion, although meant to teach the immutability of God, yet prepared the way for the following heresy. Some have ventured to say that the Unborn God by expansion of His substance extended Himself as far as the holy Virgin, in order that this extension produced by the increase of His nature and assuming manhood might be called Son. They denied that the Son who is perfect God born before time began was the same as He who was afterwards born as Man. Therefore the Catholic Faith condemns all denial of the immutability of the Father and of the birth of the Son.
VIII. “If any man says that the Son is the internal or uttered Word of God: let him be anathema.”
46. Heretics, destroying as far as in them lies the Son of God, confess Him to be only the word, going forth as an utterance from the speaker’s lips and the unembodied sound of an impersonal voice: so that God the Father has as Son a word resembling any word we utter in virtue of our inborn power of speaking. Therefore this dangerous deceit is condemned, which asserts that God the Word, who was in the beginning with God, is only the word of a voice sometimes internal and sometimes expressed.
IX. “If any man says that the man alone born of Mary is the Son: let him be anathema.”
We cannot declare that the Son of God is born of Mary without declaring Him to be both Man and God. But lest the declaration that He is both God and Man should give occasion to deceit, the Council immediately adds,
X. “If any man though saying that God and Man was born of Mary, understands thereby the Unborn God: let him be anathema.”
47. Thus is preserved both the name and power of the divine substance. For since he is anathema who says that the Son of God by Mary is man and not God; and he falls under the same condemnation who says that the Unborn God became man: God made Man is not denied to be God but denied to be the Unborn God, the Father being distinguished from the Son not under the head of nature or by diversity of substance, but only by such pre-eminence as His birthless nature gives.
XI. “If any man hearing The Word was made Flesh thinks that the Word was transformed into Flesh, or says that He suffered change in taking Flesh: let him be anathema.”
48. This preserves the dignity of the
Godhead: so that in the fact that the Word was made Flesh, the
Word, in becoming Flesh, has not lost through being Flesh what
constituted the Word, nor has become transformed into Flesh, so as to
cease to be the Word; but the Word was made Flesh The Flesh,
without ceasing to be truly flesh, is represented as becoming divine
like the Word. That is, the humanity becomes so endowed with
power, and knowledge, and holiness through the unction of the Holy
Ghost that its natural properties are “deified.”
These and similar phrases are freely used by the Fathers of the fourth
century, and may be compared with
XII. “If any man hearing that the only Son
49. It is clearly shewn why the Word, though
He was made Flesh, was nevertheless not transformed into Flesh.
Though these kinds of suffering affect the infirmity of the flesh, yet
God the Word when made Flesh could not change under suffering.
Suffering and change are not identical. Suffering of every kind
causes all flesh to change through sensitiveness and endurance of
pain. But the Word that was made Flesh, although He made Himself
subject to suffering, was nevertheless unchanged by the liability to
suffer. For He was able to suffer, and yet the Word was not
possible. Possibility denotes a nature that is weak; but
suffering in itself is the endurance of pains inflicted, and since the
Godhead is immutable and yet the Word was made Flesh, such pains found
in Him a material which they could affect though the Person of the Word
had no infirmity or possibility. And so when He suffered His
Nature remained immutable because like His Father, His Person is of an
impassible essence, though it is born Passibility
may not be affirmed of the divine nature of Christ which is incapable
of any change or limitation within itself. At the same time the
Word may be said to have suffered inasmuch as the suffering affected
the flesh which He assumed. This subject was afterwards,
carefully developed by St. John of Damascus περὶ
ὀρθοδόξου
πίστεως, III. 4. In c.
79, Hilary criticises the Arian statement that the Son “jointly
suffered,” a word which meant that the divine nature of the Son
shared in the sufferings which were endured by His humanity. This
phrase, like the statement of Arius that the Logos was “capable
of change” implied that the Son only possessed a secondary
divinity.
XIII. “If any man says Let us make
man
XIV. “If any man says that the Son did
not appear to Abraham
XV. “If any man says that the Son did
not wrestle with Jacob as a man
XVI. “If any man does not understand
The Lord rained from the Lord
50. These points had to be inserted into the creed because Photinus, against whom the synod was held, denied them. They were inserted lest any one should dare to assert that the Son of God did not exist before the Son of the Virgin, and should attach to the Unborn God with the foolish perversity of an insane heresy all the above passages which refer to the Son of God, and while applying them to the Father, deny the Person of the Son. The clearness of these statements absolves us from the necessity of interpreting them.
XVII. “If any man says that the Lord
and the Lord, the Father and the Son, are two Gods because of the
aforesaid words: let him be anathema. For we do not make
the Son the equal or peer of the Father, but understand the Son to be
subject. For He did not come down to Sodom without the
Father’s will, nor rain from Himself but from the Lord, to
wit, by the Father’s authority; nor does He sit at the
Father’s right hand by His own authority, but because He hears
the Father saying, Sit Thou on My right hand
51. The foregoing and the following statements
utterly remove any ground for suspecting that this definition asserts a
diversity of different deities in the Lord and the Lord. No
comparison is made because it was seen to be impious to say that there
are two Gods: not that they refrain from making the Son equal and
peer of the Father in order to deny that He is God. For, since he
is anathema who denies that Christ is God, it is not on that score that
it is profane to speak of two equal Gods. God is One on account
of the true character of His natural essence and because from the
Unborn God the Father, who is the one God, the Only-begotten God the
Son is born, and draws His divine Being only from God; and since the
essence of Him who is begotten is exactly similar to the essence of Him
who begot Him, there must be one name for the exactly similar
nature. That the Son is not on a level with the Father and is not
equal to Him is chiefly shewn in the fact that He was subjected to Him
to render obedience, in that the Lord rained from the Lord and that the
Father did not, as Photinus and Sabellius say, rain from Himself, as
the Lord from the Lord; in that He then sat down at the right hand of
God when it was told Him to seat Himself; in that He is sent, in that
He receives, in that He submits in all things to the will of Him who
sent Him. But the subordination of filial love is not a
diminution of essence, nor does pious duty cause a degeneration of
nature, since in spite of the fact that both the Unborn Father is God
and the Only-begotten Son of God is God, God is nevertheless One, and
the subjection and dignity of the Son are both taught in that by being
called Son He is made subject to that name which because it implies
that God is His Father is yet a name which denotes His nature.
Having a name which
XVIII. “If any man says that the Father and the Son are one Person: let him be anathema.”
52. Sheer perversity calls for no contradiction: and yet the mad frenzy of certain men has been so violent as to dare to predicate one Person with two names.
XIX. “If any man speaking of the Holy Ghost the Paraclete say that He is the Unborn God: let him be anathema.”
53. The further clause makes liable to anathema the predicating Unborn God of the Paraclete. For it is most impious to say that He who was sent by the Son for our consolation is the Unborn God.
XX. “If any man deny that, as the Lord has taught us, the Paraclete is different from the Son; for He said, And the Further shall send you another Comforter, whom I shall ask: let him be anathema.”
54. We remember that the Paraclete was sent
by the Son, and at the beginning the creed explained this. But
since through the virtue of His nature, which is exactly similar, the
Son has frequently called His own works the works of the Father,
saying, I do the works of My Father
XXI. “If any man says that the Holy Spirit is a part of the Father or of the Son: let him be anathema.”
55. The insane frenzy of the heretics, and not any genuine difficulty, rendered it necessary that this should be written. For since the name of Holy Spirit has its own signification, and the Holy Spirit the Paraclete has the office and rank peculiar to His Person, and since the Father and the Son are everywhere declared to be immutable: how could the Holy Spirit be asserted to be a part either of the Father or of the Son? But since this folly is often affirmed amid other follies by godless men, it was needful that the pious should condemn it.
XXII. “If any man says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three Gods: let him be anathema.”
56. Since it is contrary to religion to say that there are two Gods, because we remember and declare that nowhere has it been affirmed that there is more than one God: how much more worthy of condemnation is it to name three Gods in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Nevertheless, since heretics say this, Catholics rightly condemn it.
XXIII. “If any man, after the example
of the Jews, understand as said for the destruction of the Eternal
Only-begotten God, the words, I am the first God, and I am the last
God, and beside Me there is no God
57. Though we condemn a plurality of gods and declare that God is only one, we cannot deny that the Son of God is God. Nay, the true character of His nature causes the name that is denied to a plurality to be the privilege of His essence. The words, Beside Me there is no God, cannot rob the Son of His divinity: because beside Him who is of God there is no other God. And these words of God the Father cannot annul the divinity of Him who was born of Himself with an essence in no way different from His own nature. The Jews interpret this passage as proving the bare unity of God, because they are ignorant of the Only-begotten God. But we, while we deny that there are two Gods, abhor the idea of a diversity of natural essence in the Father and the Son. The words, Beside Me there is no God, take away an impious belief in false gods. In confessing that God is One, and also saying that the Son is God, our use of the same name affirms that there is no difference of substance between the two Persons.
XXIV. “If any man says that the Son was made by the will of God, like any object in creation: let him be anathema.”
58. To all creatures the will of God has given
substance: but a perfect birth gave to the Son a nature from a
substance that is impossible and itself unborn. All created
things are such as God willed them to be: but the Son who is born
of God has such a personality as God has. God’s nature did
not produce a nature unlike itself: but the Son begotten of
God’s substance has derived the essence of His nature by virtue
of His origin,
XXV. “If any man says that the Son was born against the will of the Father: let him be anathema. For the Father was not forced against His own will, or induced against His will by any necessity of nature, to beget His Son; but as soon as He willed, before time and without passion He begat Him of Himself and shewed Him forth.”
59. Since it was taught that the Son did not, like all other things, owe His existence to God’s will, lest He should be thought to derive His essence only at His Father’s will and not in virtue of His own nature, an opportunity seemed thereby to be given to heretics to attribute to God the Father a necessity of begetting the Son from Himself, as though He had brought forth the Son by a law of nature in spite of Himself. But such liability to be acted upon does not exist in God the Father: in the ineffable and perfect birth of the Son it was neither mere will that begat Him nor was the Father’s essence changed or forced at the bidding of a natural law. Nor was any substance sought for to beget Him, nor is the nature of the Begetter changed in the Begotten, nor is the Father’s unique name affected by time. Before all time the Father, out of the essence of His nature, with a desire that was subject to no passion, gave to the Son a birth that conveyed the essence of His nature.
XXVI. “If any man says that the Son is incapable of birth and without beginning, speaking as though there were two incapable of birth and unborn and without beginning, and makes two Gods: let him be anathema. For the Head, which is the beginning of all things, is the Son; but the Head or beginning of Christ is God: for so to One who is without beginning and is the beginning of all things, we refer the whole world through Christ.”
60. To declare the Son to be incapable of birth is the height of impiety. God would no longer be One: for the nature of the one Unborn God demands that we should confess that God is one. Since therefore God is one, there cannot be two incapable of birth: because God is one (although both the Father is God and the Son of God is God) for the very reason that incapability of birth is the only quality that can belong to one Person only. The Son is God for the very reason that He derives His birth from that essence which cannot be born. Therefore our holy faith rejects the idea that the Son is incapable of birth in order to predicate one God incapable of birth and consequently one God, and in order to embrace the Only-begotten nature, begotten from the unborn essence, in the one name of the Unborn God. For the Head of all things is the Son: but the Head of the Son is God. And to one God through this stepping-stone and by this confession all things are referred, since the whole world takes its beginning from Him to whom God Himself is the beginning.
XXVII. “Once more we strengthen the understanding of Christianity by saying, If any man denies that Christ, who is God and the Son of God, existed before time began and aided the Father in the perfecting of all things; but says that only from the time that He was born of Mary did He gain the name of Christ and Son and a beginning of His deity: let him be anathema.”
61. A condemnation of that heresy on account of which the Synod was held necessarily concluded with an explanation of the whole faith that was being opposed. This heresy falsely stated that the beginning of the Son of God dated from His birth of Mary. According to evangelical and apostolic doctrine the corner-stone of our faith is that our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God and Son of God, cannot be separated from the Father in title or power or difference of substance or interval of time.
62. You perceive that the truth has been sought by many paths through the advice and opinions of different bishops, and the ground of their views has been set forth by the separate declarations inscribed in this creed. Every separate point of heretical assertion has been successfully refuted. The infinite and boundless God cannot be made comprehensible by a few words of human speech. Brevity often misleads both learner and teacher, and a concentrated discourse either causes a subject not to be understood, or spoils the meaning of an argument where a thing is hinted at, and is not proved by full demonstration. The bishops fully understood this, and therefore have used for the purpose of teaching many definitions and a profusion of words that the ordinary understanding might find no difficulty, but that their hearers might be saturated with the truth thus differently expressed, and that in treating of divine things these adequate and manifold definitions might leave no room for danger or obscurity.
63. You must not be surprised, dear brethren, that
so many creeds have recently been written. The frenzy of heretics
makes it necessary. The danger of the Eastern Churches is so
great that it is rare to find either priest or layman that belongs to
this faith, of the orthodoxy of which you may judge. Certain
individuals have acted so wrongly as to support the side of evil, and
the strength of the wicked Eleusius is
criticised by Socrates II. 40, for disliking any attempt at a
repudiation of the “Dedication” creed of 341, although the
“Dedication” creed was little better than a repudiation of
the Nicene creed. He was, in fact, a semi-Arian. But his
vigorous opposition to the extreme form of Arianism and the hopefulness
with which Hilary always regarded the semi-Arians, here invest him with
a reputation for the “true knowledge of God.” In 381
he refused to accept the Nicene creed or take part in the Council of
Constantinople.
64. Kept always from guile by the gift of the Holy Spirit, we confess and write of our own will that there are not two Gods but one God; nor do we therefore deny that the Son of God is also God; for He is God of God. We deny that there are two incapable of birth, because God is one through the prerogative of being incapable of birth; nor does it follow that the Unbegotten is not God, for His source is the Unborn substance. There is not one subsistent Person, but a similar substance in both Persons. There is not one name of God applied to dissimilar natures, but a wholly similar essence belonging to one name and nature. One is not superior to the other on account of the kind of His substance, but one is subject to the other because born of the other. The Father is greater because He is Father, the Son is not the less because He is Son. The difference is one of the meaning of a name and not of a nature. We confess that the Father is not affected by time, but do not deny that the Son is equally eternal. We assert that the Father is in the Son because the Son has nothing in Himself unlike the Father: we confess that the Son is in the Father because the existence of the Son is not from any other source. We recognize that their nature is mutual and similar because equal: we do not think them to be one Person because they are one: we declare that they are through the similarity of an identical nature one, in such a way that they nevertheless are not one Person.
65. I have expounded, beloved brethren, my belief in our common faith so far as our wonted human speech permitted and the Lord, whom I have ever besought, as He is my witness, has given me power. If I have said too little, nay, if I have said almost nothing, I ask you to remember that it is not belief but words that are lacking. Perhaps I shall thereby prove that my human nature, though not my will, is weak: and I pardon my human nature if it cannot speak as it would of God, for it is enough for its salvation to have believed the things of God.
66. Since your faith and mine, so far as I am
conscious, is in no danger before God, and I have shewn you, as you
wished, the creeds that have been set forth by the Eastern bishops
(though I repeat that they were few in number, for, considering how
numerous the Eastern Churches are, that faith is held by few), I have
also declared my own convictions about divine things, according to the
doctrine of the apostles. It remains for you to investigate
without suspicion the points that mislead the unguarded temper of our
simple minds, for there is now no opportunity left of hearing.
And although I shall no longer fear that sentence will not be passed
upon me in accordance with the whole exposition of the creed, I ask you
to allow me to express
67. Many of us, beloved brethren, declare the substance of the Father and the Son to be one in such a spirit that I consider the statement to be quite as much wrong as right. The expression contains both a conscientious conviction and the opportunity for delusion. If we assert the one substance, understanding it to mean the likeness of natural qualities and such a likeness as includes not only the species but the genus, we assert it in a truly religious spirit, provided we believe that the one substance signifies such a similitude of qualities that the unity is not the unity of a monad but of equals. By equality I mean exact similarity so that the likeness may be called an equality, provided that the equality imply unity because it implies an equal pair, and that the unity which implies an equal pair be not wrested to mean a single Person. Therefore the one substance will be asserted piously if it does not abolish the subsistent personality or divide the one substance into two, for their substance by the true character of the Son’s birth and by their natural likeness is so free from difference that it is called one.
68. But if we attribute one substance to the Father and the Son to teach that there is a solitary personal existence although denoted by two titles: then though we confess the Son with our lips we do not keep Him in our hearts, since in confessing one substance we then really say that the Father and the Son constitute one undifferentiated Person. Nay, there immediately arises an opportunity for the erroneous belief that the Father is divided, and that He cut off a portion of Himself to be His Son. That is what the heretics mean when they say the substance is one: and the terminology of our good confession so gratifies them that it aids heresy when the word ὁμοούσιος is left by itself, undefined and ambiguous. There is also a third error. When the Father and the Son are said to be of one substance this is thought to imply a prior substance, which the two equal Persons both possess. Consequently the word implies three things, one original substance and two Persons, who are as it were fellow-heirs of this one substance. For as two fellow-heirs are two, and the heritage of which they are fellow-heirs is anterior to them, so the two equal Persons might appear to be sharers in one anterior substance. The assertion of the one substance of the Father and the Son signifies either that there is one Person who has two titles, or one divided substance that has made two imperfect substances, or that there is a third prior substance which has been usurped and assumed by two and which is called one because it was one before it was severed into two. Where then is there room for the Son’s birth? Where is the Father or the Son, if these names are explained not by the birth of the divine nature but a severing or sharing of one anterior substance?
69. Therefore amid the numerous dangers which threaten the faith, brevity of words must be employed sparingly, lest what is piously meant be thought to be impiously expressed, and a word be judged guilty of occasioning heresy when it has been used in conscientious and unsuspecting innocence. A Catholic about to state that the substance of the Father and the Son is one, must not begin at that point: nor hold this word all important as though true faith did not exist where the word was not used. He will be safe in asserting the one substance if he has first said that the Father is unbegotten, that the Son is born, that He draws His personal subsistence from the Father, that He is like the Father in might, honour and nature, that He is subject to the Father as to the Author of His being, that He did not commit robbery by making Himself equal with God, in whose form He remained, that He was obedient unto death. He did not spring from nothing, but was born. He is not incapable of birth but equally eternal. He is not the Father, but the Son begotten of Him. He is not any portion of God, but is whole God. He is not Himself the source but the image; the image of God born of God to be God. He is not a creature but is God. Not another God in the kind of His substance, but the one God in virtue of the essence of His exactly similar substance. God is not one in Person but in nature, for the Born and the Begetter have nothing different or unlike. After saying all this, he does not err in declaring one substance of the Father and the Son. Nay, if he now denies the one substance he sins.
70. Therefore let no one think that our words were
meant to deny the one substance. We are giving the very reason
why it should not be denied. Let no one think that the word ought
to be used by itself and unexplained. Otherwise the word
ὁμοούσιος is
not used in a religious spirit. I will not endure to hear that
Christ was born of Mary unless I also hear, In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was God
71. Beloved brethren, we must not deny that there is one substance of the Father and the Son, but we must not declare it without giving our reasons. The one substance must be derived from the true character of the begotten nature, not from any division, any confusion of Persons, any sharing of an anterior substance. It may be right to assert the one substance, it may be right to keep silence about it. You believe in the birth and you believe in the likeness. Why should the word cause mutual suspicions, when we view the fact in the same way? Let us believe and say that there is one substance, but in virtue of the true character of the nature and not to imply a blasphemous unity of Persons. Let the oneness be due to the fact that there are similar Persons and not a solitary Person.
72. But perhaps the word similarity may not seem fully appropriate. If so, I ask how I can express the equality of one Person with the other except by such a word? Or is to be like not the same thing as to be equal? If I say the divine nature is one I am suspected of meaning that it is undifferentiated: if I say the Persons are similar, I mean that I compare what is exactly like. I ask what position equal holds between like and one? I enquire whether it means similarity rather than singularity. Equality does not exist between things unlike, nor does similarity exist in one. What is the difference between those that are similar and those that are equal? Can one equal be distinguished from the other? So those who are equal are not unlike. If then those who are unlike are not equals, what can those who are like be but equals?
73. Therefore, beloved brethren, in
declaring that the Son is like in all things to the Father, we declare
nothing else than that He is equal. Likeness means perfect
equality, and this fact we may gather from the Holy Scriptures, And
Adam lived two hundred and thirty years, and begat a son according to
his own image and according to his own likeness; and called his name
Seth
74. I am aware, dear brethren, that there are some
who confess the likeness, but deny the equality. Let them speak
as they will, and insert the poison of their blasphemy into ignorant
ears. If they say that there is a difference between likeness and
equality, I ask whence equality can be obtained? If the Son is
like the Father in essence, might, glory and eternity, I ask why they
decline to say He is equal? In the above creed an anathema was
pronounced on any man who should say that the Father was Father of an
essence unlike Himself. Therefore if He gave to Him whom
Proprietas, or sharing one’s own. The
word proprietas is not here used in a technical sense. In
its technical sense proprietas or ἰδιότης signifies the
special property of each Person of the Godhead, and the word is used to
secure the distinctions of the three Persons and exclude any Sabellian
misunderstanding.
75. Although general conviction and divine
authority sanction no difference between likeness and equality, since
both Moses and John would lead us to believe the Son is like the Father
and also His equal, yet let us consider whether the Lord, when the Jews
were angry with Him for calling God His Father and thus making Himself
equal with God, did Himself teach that He was equal with God. He
says, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the
Father do
76. Therefore, brethren, likeness of nature can be attacked by no cavil, and the Son cannot be said to lack the true qualities of the Father’s nature because He is like Him. No real likeness exists where there is no equality of nature, and equality of nature cannot exist unless it imply unity, not unity of person but of kind. It is right to believe, religious to feel, and wholesome to confess, that we do not deny that the substance of the Father and the Son is one because it is similar, and that it is similar because they are one.
77. Beloved, after explaining in a faithful and godly manner the meaning of the phrases one substance, in Greek ὁμοούσιον, and similar substance or ὁμοιούσιον, and shewing very completely the faults which may arise from a deceitful brevity or dangerous simplicity of language, it only remains for me to address myself to the holy bishops of the East. We have no longer any mutual suspicions about our faith, and those which before now have been due to mere misunderstanding are being cleared away. They will pardon me if I proceed to speak somewhat freely with them on the basis of our common faith.
78. Ye who have begun to be eager for apostolic
and evangelical doctrine, kindled by the fire of faith amid the thick
darkness of a night of heresy, with how great a hope of recalling the
true faith have you inspired us by consistently checking the bold
attack of infidelity! In former days it was only in obscure
corners that our Lord Jesus Christ was denied to be the Son of God
according to His nature, and was asserted to have no share in the
Father’s essence, but like the creatures to have received His
origin from things that were not. But the heresy now bursts forth
backed by civil authority, and what it once muttered in secret it has
of late boasted of in open triumph. Whereas in former times it
has tried by secret mines to creep into the Catholic Church, it has now
put forth every power of this world in the fawning manners of a false
religion. For the perversity of these men has been so audacious
that when they dared not preach this doctrine publicly themselves, they
beguiled the Emperor to give them hearing. For they did beguile
an ignorant sovereign so successfully that though he was busy with war
he expounded their infidel creed, and before he was regenerate by
baptism imposed a form of faith upon the churches. Opposing
bishops they drove into exile. They drove me also to wish for
exile, by trying to force me to commit blasphemy. May I always be
an exile, if only the truth begins to be preached again! I thank
God that the Emperor, through your warnings,
79. These are deceivers, I both fear and believe they are deceivers, beloved brethren; for they have ever deceived. This very document is marked by hypocrisy. They excuse themselves for having desired silence as to ὁμοούσιον and ὁμοιούσιον on the ground that they taught that the meaning of the words was identical. Rustic bishops, I trow, and untutored in the significance of ὁμοοίσιον: as though there had never been any Council about the matter, or any dispute. But suppose they did not know what ὁμοούσιον was, or were really unaware that ὁμοιούσιον meant of a like essence. Granted that they were ignorant of this, why did they wish to be ignorant of the generation of the Son? If it cannot be expressed in words, is it therefore unknowable? But if we cannot know how He was born, can we refuse to know even this, that God the Son being born not of another substance but of God, has not an essence differing from the Father’s? Have they not read that the Son is to be honoured even as the Father, that they prefer the Father in honour? Were they ignorant that the Father is seen in the Son, that they make the Son differ in dignity, splendour and majesty? Is this due to ignorance that the Son, like all other things, is made subject to the Father, and while thus subjected is not distinguished from them? A distinction does exist, for the subjection of the Son is filial reverence, the subjection of all other things is the weakness of things created. They knew that He suffered, but when, may I ask, did they come to know that He jointly suffered? They avoid the words ὁμοούσιον and ὁμοιούσιον, because they are not in Scripture: I enquire whence they gathered that the Son jointly suffered? Can they mean that there were two Persons who suffered? This is what the word leads us to believe. What of those words, Jesus Christ the Son of God? Is Jesus Christ one, and the Son of God another? If the Son of God is not one and the same inwardly and outwardly, if ignorance on such a point is permissible, then believe that they were ignorant of the meaning of ὁμοούσιον. But if on these points ignorance leads to blasphemy and yet cannot find even a false excuse, I fear that they lied in professing ignorance of the word ὁμοιούσιον. I do not greatly complain of the pardon you extended them; it is reverent to reserve for God His own prerogatives, and mistakes of ignorance are but human. But the two bishops, Ursacius and Valens, must pardon me for not believing that at their age and with their experience they were really ignorant. It is very difficult not to think they are lying, seeing that it is only by a falsehood that they can clear themselves on another score. But God rather grant that I am mistaken than that they really knew. For I had rather be judged in the wrong than that your faith should be contaminated by communion with the guilt of heresy.
80. Now I beseech you, holy brethren, to
listen to my anxieties with indulgence. The Lord is my witness
that in no matter do I wish to criticise the definitions of your faith,
which you brought to Sirmium. But forgive me if I do not
understand certain points; I will comfort myself with the recollection
that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the
prophets
81. Your letter on the meaning of ὁμοούσιον and
ὁμοιούσιον,
which Valens, Ursacius and Germinius demanded should be read at
Sirmium, I understand to have been on certain points no less cautious
than outspoken. And with regard to ὁμοούσιον and
ὁμοιούσιον
your proof has left no difficulty untouched. As to the latter,
which implies the similarity of essence, our opinions are the
same. But in dealing with the ὁμοούσιον, or the
one essence, you declared that it ought to be rejected because the use
of this word led to the idea that there was a prior substance which two
Persons had divided between themselves. I see the flaw in that
way of taking it. Any such sense is profane, and must be rejected
by the Church’s common decision. The second reason that you
added was that our fathers, when Paul of Samosata was pronounced a
heretic, also rejected the word ὁμοούσιον, on the
ground that by attributing this title to God he had taught that He was
single and undifferentiated, and at once Father and to Himself.
Wherefore the Church still regards it as most profane to exclude the
different personal qualities, and, under the mask
82. But I am not needlessly critical on this point. For I had rather use an expression that is new than commit sin by rejecting it. So, then, we will pass by this question of innovation, and see whether the real question is not reduced to something which all our fellow-Christians unanimously condemn. What man in his senses will ever declare that there is a third substance, which is common to both the Father and the Son? And who that has been reborn in Christ and confessed both the Son and the Father will follow him of Samosata in confessing that Christ is Himself to Himself both Father and Son? So in condemning the blasphemies of the heretics we hold the same opinion, and such an interpretation of ὁμοούσιον we not only reject but hate. The question of an erroneous interpretation is at an end, when we agree in condemning the error.
83. But when I at last turn to speak on the third
point, I pray you to let there be no conflict of suspicions where there
is peace at heart. Do not think I would advance anything hurtful
to the progress of unity. For it is absurd to fear cavil about a
word when the fact expressed by the word presents no difficulty.
Who objects to the fact that the Council of Nicæa adopted the word
ὁμοούσιον́̈ He who does so, must
necessarily like its rejection by the Arians. The Arians
rejected the word, that God the Son might not be asserted to be
born of the substance of God the Father, but formed out of
nothing, like the creatures. This is no new thing that I
speak of. The perfidy of the Arians is to be found in many
of their letters and is its own witness. If the godlessness
of the negation then gave a godly meaning to the assertion, I ask
why we should now criticise a word which was then rightly adopted
because it was wrongly denied? If it was rightly adopted,
why after supporting the right should that which extinguished the
wrong be called to account? Having been used as the
instrument of evil it came to be the instrument of good Impiare seis
used by Plautus, Rud. 1, 3, 8, in the sense of
ἀσεβεῖν. The sentence
probably refers to the misuse of the word by Paul of Samosata.
84. Let us see, therefore, what the Council of Nicæa intended by saying ὁμοούσιον, that is, of one substance: not certainly to hatch the heresy which arises from an erroneous interpretation of ὁμοούσιον. I do not think the Council says that the Father and the Son divided and shared a previously existing substance to make it their own. It will not be adverse to religion to insert in our argument the creed which was then composed to preserve religion.
“We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:
“And in one our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, born not made, of one substance with the Father (which in Greek they call ὁμοοίσιον); By whom all things were made which are in heaven and in earth, Who for our salvation came down, And was incarnate, And was made man, And suffered, And rose again the third day, And ascended into heaven, And shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
“And in the Holy Ghost.
“But those who say, There was when He was not, And before He was born He was not, And that He was made of things that existed not, or of another substance and essence, saying that God was able to change and alter, to these the Catholic Church says anathema.”
Here the Holy Council of religious men introduces no
prior substance divided between two Persons, but the Son born of the
substance of the Father. Do we, too, deny or confess anything
else? And after other explanations of our common faith, it says,
Born not made, of one substance with the Father (which in Greek they
call ὁμοούσιον).
What occasion is there here for an erroneous interpretation? The
Son is declared to be born of the substance of the Father, not
made: lest while the word born implies His divinity, the word
made should imply He is a creature. For the same reason we have
of one substance, not to teach that there is one solitary divine
Person, but that the Son is born of the substance of God and subsists
from no other source, nor in any diversity caused by a difference of
substance. Surely again this is our faith, that He subsists from
no other source, and He is not unlike the
85. But perhaps on the opposite side it will
be said that it ought to meet with disapproval, because an erroneous
interpretation is generally put upon it. If such is our fear, we
ought to erase the words of the Apostle, There is one Mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
Methuselah’sage was a favourite problem with the
early Church. See Aug. de Civ. Dei, xv. 13, and de
pecc. orig. ii. 23, where it is said to be one of those points on
which a Christian can afford to be ignorant. According to the
Septuagint, Methuselah lived for fourteen years after the deluge, so
that more than ‘eight souls’ survived, and
86. Some misunderstand ὁμοούσιον; does that prevent me from understanding it? The Samosatene was wrong in using the word ὁμοούσιον; does that make the Arians right in denying it? Eighty bishops once rejected it; but three hundred and eighteen recently accepted it. And for my own part I think the number sacred, for with such a number Abraham overcame the wicked kings, and was blessed by Him who is a type of the eternal priesthood. The former disapproved of it to oppose a heretic: the latter surely approved of it to oppose a heretic. The authority of the fathers is weighty, is the sanctity of their successors trivial? If their opinions were contradictory, we ought to decide which is the better: but if both their approval and disapproval established the same fact, why do we carp at such good decisions?
87. But perhaps you will reply, ‘Some of
those who were then present at Nicæa have now decreed that we
ought to keep silence about the word ὁμοούσιον.’
Against my will I must answer: Do not the very same men rule that
we must keep silence about the word ὁμοιούσιον?
I beseech you that there may be
88. Holy brethren, I understand by ὁμοούσιον God of God, not of an essence that is unlike, not divided but born, and that the Son has a birth which is unique, of the substance of the unborn God, that He is begotten yet co-eternal and wholly like the Father. I believed this before I knew the word ὁμοούσιον but it greatly helped my belief. Why do you condemn my faith when I express it by ὁμοούσιον while you cannot disapprove it when expressed by ὁμοιούσιον? For you condemn my faith, or rather your own, when you condemn its verbal equivalent. Do others misunderstand it? Let us join in condemning the misunderstanding, but not deprive our faith of its security. Do you think we must subscribe to the Samosatene Council to prevent any one from using ὁμοούσιον in the sense of Paul of Samosata? Then let us also subscribe to the Council of Nicæa, so that the Arians may not impugn the word. Have we to fear that ὁμοιούσιον does not imply the same belief as ὁμοούσιον? Let us decree that there is no difference between being of one or of a similar substance. The word ὁμοούσιον can be understood in a wrong sense. Let us prove that it can be understood in a very good sense. We hold one and the same sacred truth. I beseech you that we should agree that this truth, which is one and the same, should be regarded as sacred. Forgive me, brethren, as I have so often asked you to do. You are not Arians: why should you be thought to be Arians by denying the ὁμοούσιον?
89. But you say: ‘The ambiguity of the word ὁμοούσιον troubles and offends me.’ I pray you hear me again and be not offended. I am troubled by the inadequacy of the word ὁμοιούσιον. Many deceptions come from similarity. I distrust vessels plated with gold, for I may be deceived by the metal underneath: and yet that which is seen resembles gold. I distrust anything that looks like milk, lest that which is offered to me be milk but not sheep’s milk: for cow’s milk certainly looks like it. Sheep’s milk cannot be really like sheep’s milk unless drawn from a sheep. True likeness belongs to a true natural connection. But when the true natural connection exists, the ὁμοούσιον is implied. It is a likeness according to essence when one piece of metal is like another and not plated, if milk which is of the same colour as other milk is not different in taste. Nothing can be like gold but gold, or like milk that did not belong to that species. I have often been deceived by the colour of wine: and yet by tasting the liquor have recognized that it was of another kind. I have seen meat look like other meat, but afterwards the flavour has revealed the difference to me. Yes, I fear those resemblances which are not due to a unity of nature.
90. I am afraid, brethren, of the brood of heresies which are successively produced in the East: and I have already read what I tell you I fear. There was nothing whatever suspicious in the document which some of you, with the assent of certain Orientals, took on your embassy to Sirmium to be there subscribed. But some misunderstanding has arisen in reference to certain statements at the beginning which I believe you, my holy brethren, Basil, Eustathius, and Eleusius, omitted to mention lest they should give offence. If it was right to draw them up, it was wrong to bury them in silence. But if they are now unmentioned because they were wrong we must beware lest they should be repeated at some future time. Out of consideration for you I have hitherto said nothing about this: yet you know as well as I do that this creed was not identical with the creed of Ancyra. I am not talking gossip: I possess a copy of the creed, and I did not get it from laymen, it was given me by bishops.
91. I pray you, brethren, remove all suspicion and
leave no occasion for it. To approve of ὁμοιούσιον,
we need not disapprove of ὁμοούσιον.
Let us think of the many holy prelates now at rest: what judgment
will the Lord pronounce upon us if we now say anathema to them?
What will be our case if we push the matter so far as to deny that they
were bishops and so deny that we are ourselves bishops? We were
ordained by them and are their successors. Let us renounce our
episcopate, if we took its office from men under anathema.
Brethren, forgive my anguish: it is an impious act that you are
attempting. I cannot endure to hear the man anathematized who
says ὁμοούσιον and says
it in the right sense. No fault can be found with a word which
does no harm to the meaning of religion. I do not know the word
ὁμοιούσιον,
or understand it, unless it confesses a similarity of essence. I
call the God of heaven and earth to witness, that when I had heard
neither word, my belief was always such that I should have interpreted
ὁμοιούσιον by
ὁμοούσιον.
That is, I believed that nothing could be similar according to nature
92. Beloved brethren, I have passed beyond the bounds of courtesy, and forgetting my modesty I have been compelled by my affection for you to write thus of many abstruse matters which until this our age were unattempted and left in silence. I have spoken what I myself believed, conscious that I owed it as my soldier’s service to the Church to send to you in accordance with the teaching of the Gospel by these letters the voice of the office which I hold in Christ. It is yours to discuss, to provide and to act, that the inviolable fidelity in which you stand you may still keep with conscientious hearts, and that you may continue to hold what you hold now. Remember my exile in your holy prayers. I do not know, now that I have thus expounded the faith, whether it would be as sweet to return unto you again in the Lord Jesus Christ as it would be full of peace to die. That our God and Lord may keep you pure and undefiled unto the day of His appearing is my desire, dearest brethren.
Introduction to the De Trinitate.
————————————
Since the circumstances in which the De Trinitate was written, and the character and object of the work, are discussed in the general Introduction, it will suffice to give here a brief summary of its contents, adapted, in the main, from the Benedictine edition.
Book I. The treatise begins with St. Hilary’s own spiritual history, the events of which are displayed, no doubt, more logically and symmetrically in the narrative than they had occurred in the writer’s experience. He tells of the efforts of a pure and noble soul, impeded, so far as we hear, neither by unworthy desires nor by indifference, to find an adequate end and aim of life. He rises first to the conception of the old philosophers, and then by successive advances, as he learns more and more of the Divine revelation in Scripture, he attains the object of his search in the apprehension of God as revealed in the Catholic Faith. But this happiness is not the result of a mere intellectual knowledge, but of belief as well. In §§ 1–14 we have this advance from ignorance and fear to knowledge and peace. And here he might have rested, had he not been charged with the sacerdotal (i.e., in the language of that time, the episcopal) office, which laid upon him the duty of caring for the salvation of others. And such care was needed, for (§§ 15, 16) heresies were abroad, and chiefly two; the Sabellian which said that Father and Son were mere names or aspects of one Divine Person, and therefore there had been no true birth of the Son; and the Arian (which, however, Hilary rarely calls by the name of its advocate, preferring to style it the ‘new heresy’) asserting more or less openly that the Son is created and not born, and therefore is different in kind from the Father, and not, in the true sense, God. Hilary declares (§ 17) that his purpose is to refute these heresies and to demonstrate the true faith by the evidence of Scripture. He demands from his hearers a loyal belief in the Scriptures which he will cite; without such faith his arguments will not profit them (§ 18); and in § 19 he warns them of the limits of the argument from analogy, which he must employ, inadequate as it is in respect of the finite illustrations which he must use to express the infinite. Then in § 20 he speaks with a modest pride of his careful marshalling of the arguments which shall lead his readers to the right conclusion, and in §§ 21–36 he gives a summary of the contents of the work. He concludes the first Book (§§ 37, 38) with a prayer which expresses his certainty that what he holds is the truth, and entreats the Father and the Son that he may have the eloquence of language and the cogency of reasoning needed for the worthy presentation of the truth concerning Them.
Book II. He begins with
the command to baptize all nations (St.
Book III. In
§§ 1–4, the words, I in the Father and the Father in
Me, are taken as typical. Man cannot comprehend, but only
apprehend them. So far as they are explicable Hilary explains
them. But God’s self revelation is always mysterious.
The miracles of Christ are inexplicable (§§ 5–8); this
is God’s way, and meant to check presumption. Human wisdom
is limited, and when it passes its bounds, and invades the realm of
faith, it becomes folly. Next, in §§ 9–17, the
passage, St.
Book IV. This book
is in a sense the beginning of the treatise, and is sometimes cited
later on as the first. Its three predecessors, he says in §
1, had been written some time before. They had contained a
statement of the truth concerning the Divinity of Christ, and a summary
refutation of the various heresies. He now commences his main
attack upon Arianism. First (§ 2) he repeats what his
difficulty is; that human language and thought cannot cope with the
Infinite. Then (§ 3) he tells how the Arians explain away
the eternal Sonship of Christ. As a defence against this
tampering with the truth, the Church has adopted the term
Homoousion (§§ 4–7); Hilary explains and defends
its use. In § 8 he shews, by a collection of the passages of
Scripture which they wrest to their own purposes, that such a
definition is necessary, and in §§ 9, 10 that their use of
these passages is dishonest. In § 11 he tells us exactly
what the Arian teaching is, and sets it forth in one of their own
formularies, the Epistola Arii ad Alexandrum (§§ 12,
13). In § 14 this doctrine is denounced; it does not
explain, but explains away. The proclamation made through Moses,
Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is One, upon which the Arians
take their stand, reveals only one aspect of the truth (§
15). It does not exhaust the truth; for God is represented as not
one solitary Person in the history of creation (§§
16–22), in the life of Abraham (§§ 23–31), and in
that of Moses (§§ 32–34). And this again is the
teaching of the Prophets, as is shewn by passages selected from Isaiah,
Hosea, and Jeremiah (§§ 35–42).
Book V. Hilary now points out (§ 1) the controversial strength of the Arian position. If he is silent in face of their assertion, they will claim that he agrees with them that the Son is God only in some inferior sense. On the other hand, if he opposes them, he will seem to be contradicting the Mosaic revelation of the Divine unity. In § 2 he recapitulates the argument of Book IV., that the witness of Scripture proves that God is not a solitary Person; that, as he says, there is God and God. But the Arians had a further loophole; their creed asserted (§ 3) one true God. They might argue that Christ is indeed God, but of a nature different from that of the Father. In refutation of this Hilary goes once more through the history of creation (§§ 4–10), proving that the narrative reveals not only the Son’s share in that work, but also His equality and oneness of nature with the Father; in other words, that He is not only God but true God. The same truth is demonstrated from the life of Abraham (§§ 11–16). Moreover, these self-revelations of the Son (as the Angel, on various occasions) are anticipations of the Incarnation. He was first seen in flesh, afterwards born in flesh. The Arians concentrate their attention on the humble conditions of Christ’s human life, and so, from want of a comprehensive view, fail to discern His true Godhead. But Hilary will not anticipate the evidence of the Gospels (§§ 17, 18). He returns to the Old Testament, and proves his point from Jacob’s visions (§§ 19, 20), and by the revelations made to Moses (§§ 21–23). After a summary and an enforcement of the preceding arguments (§§ 24, 25), he proceeds to prove from certain passages of Isaiah that the Prophet recognised the Son as true God (§§ 26–31), and that St. Paul understood him in that sense (§§ 32, 33). Then, in §§ 34, 35, the result which has been attained is dwelt upon. Hilary shews that it is the Arians who fail to recognise the one true God; for Christ is true God, yet not a second God. Finally, in §§ 36–39, Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah are adduced as testifying that Christ is God from God, and God in God.
Book VI. Hilary begins by
lamenting the wide extension of Arianism; his love for souls leads him
to combat the heresy, whose insidiousness makes it the more dangerous
(§§ 1–4). He repeats in §§ 5, 6 the
same Arian creed which he had given in Book IV. The heretics here
gain the appearance of orthodoxy by condemning errors inconsistent with
their own; and this condemnation is designed to cast upon the Catholic
faith the suspicion of complicity in such errors. Hence he must
postpone his appeal to the New Testament till he has examined them
(§§ 7, 8). Accordingly in §§ 9–12 he
explains successively the doctrines of Valentinus, Manichæus,
Sabellius and Hieracas, and shews that the Church rejects them all, as
she does (§ 13) the doctrine which the Arians in their creed have
falsely assigned to her. Their object is to deny that the Son is
coeternal with the Father and of one substance with Him (§§
14, 15); but this denial is clean contrary to Scripture, which it is
blasphemy to oppose (§§ 16, 17). The Arians would make
a creature of Christ (§ 18), to Whom, in §§ 19–21,
Hilary turns with an impassioned declaration of certainty that He is
very God. He then resumes the argument, and proves that Christ is
Son by birth, not by adoption, from the words both of Father and of Son
as recorded in the Gospel (§§ 22–25). This is
confirmed (§§ 26, 27) by the Gospel account of His acts,
which are otherwise inexplicable. The argument is clenched by a
discussion of St.
Book VII. The Arians are adepts at concealing their meaning; at the use of Scripture terms in unscriptural senses (§ 1). They have already been refuted by the proof that Christ is the true and coeternal Son; and Hilary now advances to the proof of the true Divinity of Christ, which is logically inseparable from His true Sonship (§ 2). But the danger is great lest, in attacking one heresy, he should use language which would sanction others (§ 3). Yet the truth is one, while heresies are manifold. Each of them can be trusted to demolish the others, while none can establish its own case. He illustrates this by the mutually destructive arguments of Sabellius, Arius and Photinus (§§ 5–7). Christ is proved to be God by the name God which is given Him in Scripture: The Word was God (§§ 8, 9). The name is His in the strict sense, and not any derivative meaning (§§ 10, 11). Yet Father and Son are not two, but one God (§ 13). Being the Son of God, He has the nature of God, and therefore is God (§§ 14–17), and yet not one Person with the Father (§ 18). Again, His power, manifested in His works, proves His Godhead (§ 19), as does the fact that all judgment has been given Him by the Father (§ 20). Christ’s own words display the truth (§ 21). The Arians are blind to the plain sense of Scripture, and are more blasphemous than the Jews; Christ’s reply to the latter meets the objections of the former (§§ 22–24). He asserts His unity with the Father (§ 25), and makes His works the proof (§ 26). The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father (§ 27): this is illustrated by the transmission of physical properties from parent to child and from flame to flame (§§ 28–30). In fact, the Catholic is the only rational explanation of the words of Scripture (§§ 31, 32). Again (§§ 33–38), the way to the Father is through the Son, and knowledge of the Son is knowledge of the Father. This would be impossible, were not the Son God in the same sense in which the Father is God. Thus the contrary doctrines of Sabellius and of Arius are confuted; there is neither one Person, nor yet two Gods (§§ 39, 40). Christ calls upon us to believe the truth, and belief is not only possible but reasonable (§ 41).
Book VIII. Piety is
necessary in a Bishop, but he needs also knowledge and dialectical
skill in the face of such heresies as were rampant in Hilary’s
day; for the heretics outdo the orthodox in zeal, and are masters in
the art of devising pitfalls for the unwary reasoner (§§
1–3). He maintains (§ 4) that hitherto he has
established his case; and now turns, in § 5, to the Arian
interpretation of I and the Father are One, as meaning that They
are one in will, not in nature. The fallacy of this is shewn by a
comparison of the unity of Christians in Christ (§§
7–9); a unity which is confessedly one of nature, yet is not more
natural than that of Father and Son, of which it is a type (§
10). And indeed the words, I and the Father are One, are
ill-adapted to express a mere harmony of will (§ 11). This
gift of unity of nature could not be given, as it is, through the
Incarnation and the Eucharist, to Christians, unless the Givers
Themselves possessed it; i.e. unless Father and Son were One God
(§§ 12–14). As a matter of fact, we have a
perfect union, through the mediation of Christ, with the Father; and it
is a unity of nature, a permanent abiding; an assurance to us of the
indwelling of Father in Son and Son in Father, and of the fact that
Christ is not a creature, one in will with the Father, but a Son, one
in nature with Him (§§ 15–18). For, again
(§§ 19–21), the Mission of the Holy Ghost is jointly
from the Father and the Son; He is called sometimes the Spirit of the
Father, sometimes the Spirit of the Son, and this is a further proof of
the unity in nature of Father and Son. Hilary now enquires
(§§ 22–25) into the senses in which Scripture speaks of
the Holy Spirit. Sometimes this
Book IX. After a
summary (§ 1) of the results already obtained, Hilary returns, in
§ 2, to certain of the Arian proof-texts, and warns his readers
that their life depends on the recognition in Christ of true God and
true man, for it is this twofold nature which makes Him the Mediator
(§ 3). Universal analogy and our consciousness of the
capacity to rise to the life in God convince us of these two natures in
Him, Who makes this rise possible (§ 4). But heresy lays
hold of words spoken by Christ Incarnate, appropriate to His humility
as Man, and assigns them to Him in His previous state; thus they make
Him deny His true Godhead. But His utterances before the
Incarnation, during His life on earth, and after His return to glory,
must be carefully distinguished (§§ 5, 6). Hilary now
examines the aims and achievements of Christ Incarnate, and shews that
His work for men was a Divine work, accomplished by Him for us only
because He was throughout both God and Man, the two natures in Him
being inseparable (§§ 7–14). After reaching this
conclusion from a general survey of Christ’s life on earth, he
examines in the light of it the Arian arguments from isolated
words. They assert that Christ refused to be called Good
or Master. He refused neither title, and yet declared that
both belong to God only (§§ 15–18). And, indeed,
He could not have associated Himself more closely than He did with the
Father, while yet He kept His Person distinct (§ 19). The
Father Himself bears witness to the Son; and the sin and loss of the
Jews is this, that, seeing the Father’s works done by
Christ,
Book X. Theological
differences are not the result of honest reasoning, but of reasoning
distorted, as in the case of the Arians, by preconceived opinions,
whose cause is sin and their result hypocrisy (§§
1–3). Hilary has fallen on the evil times foretold by the
Apostle; truth is banished and so is he, yet his sufferings do not
affect his joy in the Lord (§ 4). In the preceding books he
has stated the exact truth, of which he now gives a summary
(§§ 5–8). But the further objection is raised
that, while God is impassible, Christ in His Passion suffered fear and
pain (§ 9). But He Who taught others not to fear death could
not fear
Book XI. The Faith is
one, even as God is One; but the faiths of heretics are many
(§§ 1, 2). Hilary has now demonstrated the truth about
Christ, so that it cannot be denied; it is attested also by miracles
even in his own day (§ 3). The Arians preach another, a
created Christ; and in making Christ a creature they proclaim another
God, not a Father but a Creator (§ 4). The Son, as the
Image, is of one nature with the Father; if He is inferior He is not
the Image (§ 5). But the Arians explain the oneness away by
arguments from His condescension to our estate (§ 6), and, even
after His Resurrection, plead that He confesses His inequality.
They argue thus from
Book XII. Hilary
gives a final explanation of the great Arian text, The Lord created
me for a beginning of His ways; the words must not be taken
literally. Christ is not created,
————————————
Book I.
1. When I was seeking an employment adequate to the powers of human life and righteous in itself, whether prompted by nature or suggested by the researches of the wise, whereby I might attain to some result worthy of that Divine gift of understanding which has been given us, many things occurred to me which in general esteem were thought to render life both useful and desirable. And especially that which now, as always in the past, is regarded as most to be desired, leisure combined with wealth, came before my mind. The one without the other seemed rather a source of evil than an opportunity for good, for leisure in poverty is felt to be almost an exile from life itself, while wealth possessed amid anxiety is in itself an affliction, rendered the worse by the deeper humiliation which he must suffer who loses, after possessing, the things that most are wished and sought. And yet, though these two embrace the highest and best of the luxuries of life, they seem not far removed from the normal pleasures of the beasts which, as they roam through shady places rich in herbage, enjoy at once their safety from toil and the abundance of their food. For if this be regarded as the best and most perfect conduct of the life of man, it results that one object is common, though the range of feelings differ, to us and the whole unreasoning animal world, since all of them, in that bounteous provision and absolute leisure which nature bestows, have full scope for enjoyment without anxiety for possession.
2. I believe that the mass of mankind have spurned from themselves and censured in others this acquiescence in a thoughtless, animal life, for no other reason than that nature herself has taught them that it is unworthy of humanity to hold themselves born only to gratify their greed and their sloth, and ushered into life for no high aim of glorious deed or fair accomplishment, and that this very life was granted without the power of progress towards immortality; a life, indeed, which then we should confidently assert did not deserve to be regarded as a gift of God, since, racked by pain and laden with trouble, it wastes itself upon itself from the blank mind of infancy to the wanderings of age. I believe that men, prompted by nature herself, have raised themselves through teaching and practice to the virtues which we name patience and temperance and forbearance, under the conviction that right living means right action and right thought, and that Immortal God has not given life only to end in death; for none can believe that the Giver of good has bestowed the pleasant sense of life in order that it may be overcast by the gloomy fear of dying.
3. And yet, though I could not tax with folly and uselessness this counsel of theirs to keep the soul free from blame, and evade by foresight or elude by skill or endure with patience the troubles of life, still I could not regard these men as guides competent to lead me to the good and happy Life. Their precepts were platitudes, on the mere level of human impulse; animal instinct could not fail to comprehend them, and he who understood but disobeyed would have fallen into an insanity baser than animal unreason. Moreover, my soul was eager not merely to do the things, neglect of which brings shame and suffering, but to know the God and Father Who had given this great gift, to Whom, it felt, it owed its whole self, Whose service was its true honour, on Whom all its hopes were fixed, in Whose lovingkindness, as in a safe home and haven, it could rest amid all the troubles of this anxious life. It was inflamed with a passionate desire to apprehend Him or to know Him.
4. Some of these teachers brought forward large
households of dubious deities, and under the persuasion that there is a
sexual activity in divine beings narrated births and lineages from god
to god. Others asserted that there were gods greater and less, of
distinction propor
5. While my mind was dwelling on these and
on many like thoughts, I chanced upon the books which, according to the
tradition of the Hebrew faith, were written by Moses and the prophets,
and found in these words spoken by God the Creator testifying of
Himself ‘I Am that I Am, and again,
He that is hath sent me unto
you
6. For such an indication of God’s
infinity the words ‘I Am that I
Am’ were clearly adequate; but, in addition, we needed to
apprehend the operation of His majesty and power. For while
absolute existence is peculiar to Him Who, abiding eternally, had no
beginning in a past however remote, we hear again an utterance worthy
of Himself issuing from the eternal and Holy God, Who says, Who
holdeth the heaven in His palm and the earth in His hand Reading mens
finita and naturæ finitatim for the infinita and
infinitatem of the Benedictine Edition.
7. Therefore, although my soul drew joy from
the apprehension of this august and unfathomable Mind, because it could
worship as its own Father and Creator so limitless an Infinity, yet
with a still more eager desire it sought to know the true aspect of its
infinite and eternal Lord, that it might be able to believe that that
immeasurable Deity was apparelled in splendour befitting the beauty of
His wisdom. Then, while the devout soul was baffled and astray
through its own feebleness, it caught from the prophet’s voice
this scale of comparison for God, admirably expressed, By the
greatness of His works and the beauty of the things that He hath made
the Creator of worlds is rightly discerned
8. Thus my mind, full of these results which by its own reflection and the teaching of Scripture it had attained, rested with assurance, as on some peaceful watch-tower, upon that glorious conclusion, recognising that its true nature made it capable of one homage to its Creator, and of none other, whether greater or less; the homage namely of conviction that His is a greatness too vast for our comprehension but not for our faith. For a reasonable faith is akin to reason and accepts its aid, even though that same reason cannot cope with the vastness of eternal Omnipotence.
9. Beneath all these thoughts lay an instinctive hope, which strengthened my assertion of the faith, in some perfect blessedness hereafter to be earned by devout thoughts concerning God and upright life; the reward, as it were, that awaits the triumphant warrior. For true faith in God would pass unrewarded, if the soul be destroyed by death, and quenched in the extinction of bodily life. Even unaided reason pleaded that it was unworthy of God to usher man into an existence which has some share of His thought and wisdom, only to await the sentence of life withdrawn and of eternal death; to create him out of nothing to take his place in the World, only that when he has taken it he may perish. For, on the only rational theory of creation, its purpose was that things non-existent should come into being, not that things existing should cease to be.
10. Yet my soul was weighed down with fear
both for itself and for the body. It retained a firm conviction,
and a devout loyalty to the true faith concerning God, but had come to
harbour a deep anxiety concerning itself and the bodily dwelling which
must, it thought, share its destruction. While in this state, in
addition to its knowledge of the teaching of the Law and Prophets, it
learned the truths taught by the Apostle in the Gospel;—In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things
were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made.
That which was made in Him is life Cf. Hilary’s
explanation of this passage in Book ii. §§ 19, 20. St.
11. Herein my soul, trembling and distressed, found a hope wider than it had imagined. First came its introduction to the knowledge of God the Father. Then it learnt that the eternity and infinity and beauty which, by the light of natural reason, it had attributed to its Creator belonged also to God the Only-begotten. It did not disperse its faith among a plurality of deities, for it heard that He is God of God; nor did it fall into the error of attributing a difference of nature to this God of God, for it learnt that He is full of grace and truth. Nor yet did my soul perceive anything contrary to reason in God of God, since He was revealed as having been in the beginning God with God. It saw that there are very few who attain to the knowledge of this saving faith, though its reward be great, for even His own received Him not though they who receive Him are promoted to be sons of God by a birth, not of the flesh but of faith. It learnt also that this sonship to God is not a compulsion but a possibility, for, while the Divine gift is offered to all, it is no heredity inevitably imprinted but a prize awarded to willing choice. And lest this very truth that whosoever will may become a son of God should stagger the weakness of our faith (for most we desire, but least expect, that which from its very greatness we find it hard to hope for), God the Word became flesh, that through His Incarnation our flesh might attain to union with God the Word. And lest we should think that this incarnate Word was some other than God the Word, or that His flesh was of a body different from ours, He dwelt among us that by His dwelling He might be known as the indwelling God, and, by His dwelling among us, known as God incarnate in no other flesh than our own, and moreover, though He had condescended to take our flesh, not destitute of His own attributes; for He, the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, is fully possessed of His own attributes and truly endowed with ours.
12. This lesson in the Divine mysteries was gladly welcomed by my soul, now drawing near through the flesh to God, called to new birth through faith, entrusted with liberty and power to win the heavenly regeneration, conscious of the love of its Father and Creator, sure that He would not annihilate a creature whom He had summoned out of nothing into life. And it could estimate how high are these truths above the mental vision of man; for the reason which deals with the common objects of thought can conceive of nothing as existent beyond what it perceives within itself or can create out of itself. My soul measured the mighty workings of God, wrought on the scale of His eternal omnipotence, not by its own powers of perception but by a boundless faith; and therefore refused to disbelieve, because it could not understand, that God was in the beginning with God, and that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, but bore in mind the truth that with the will to believe would come the power to understand.
13. And lest the soul should stray and
linger in some delusion of heathen philosophy, it receives this further
lesson of perfect loyalty to the holy faith, taught by the Apostle in
words inspired:—Beware lest any man spoil you through
philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the word, and not after Christ; for in Him dwelleth all
the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and ye are made full in Him, Which
is the Head of all principality and power; in Whom ye were also
circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in putting off the
body, of the flesh, but with the circumcision of Christ; buried with
Him in Baptism, wherein also ye have risen again through faith in the
working of God, Who raised Him from the dead. And you, when ye
were dead in sins and in the
14. In this calm assurance of safety did my soul gladly and hopefully take its rest, and feared so little the interruption of death, that death seemed only a name for eternal life. And the life of this present body was so far from seeming a burden or affliction that it was regarded as children regard their alphabet, sick men their draught, shipwrecked sailors their swim, young men the training for their profession, future commanders their first campaign; that is, as an endurable submission to present necessities, bearing the promise of a blissful immortality. And further, I began to proclaim those truths in which my soul had a personal faith, as a duty of the episcopate which had been laid upon me, employing my office to promote the salvation of all men.
15. While I was thus engaged there came to light certain fallacies of rash and wicked men, hopeless for themselves and merciless towards others, who made their own feeble nature the measure of the might of God’s nature. They claimed, not that they had ascended to an infinite knowledge of infinite things, but that they had reduced all knowledge, undefined before, within the scope of ordinary reason, and fixed the limits of the faith. Whereas the true work of religion is a service of obedience; and these were men heedless of their own weakness, reckless of Divine realities, who undertook to improve upon the teaching of God.
16. Not to touch upon the vain enquiries of other
heretics—concerning whom however, when the course of my argument
gives occasion, I will not be silent—there are those who tamper
with the faith of the Gospel by denying, under the cloak of loyalty to
the One God, the birth of God the Only-begotten. They assert that
there was an extension of God into man, not a descent; that He, Who for
the season that He took our flesh was Son of Man, had not been
previously, nor was then, Son of God; that there was no Divine birth in
His case, but an identity of Begetter and Begotten; and (to maintain
what they consider a perfect loyalty
17. My soul has been burning to answer these insane attacks. I call to mind that the very centre of a saving faith is the belief not merely in God, but in God as a Father; not merely in Christ, but in Christ as the Son of God; in Him, not as a creature, but as God the Creator, born of God. My prime object is by the clear assertions of prophets and evangelists to refute the insanity and ignorance of men who use the unity of God (in itself a pious and profitable confession) as a cloak for their denial either that in Christ God was born, or else that He is very God. Their purpose is to isolate a solitary God at the heart of the faith by making Christ, though mighty, only a creature; because, so they allege, a birth of God widens the believer’s faith into a trust in more gods than one. But we, divinely taught to confess neither two Gods nor yet a solitary God, will adduce the evidence of the Gospels and the prophets for our confession of God the Father and God the Son, united, not confounded, in our faith. We will not admit Their identity nor allow, as a compromise, that Christ is God in some imperfect sense; for God, born of God, cannot be the same as His Father, since He is His Son, nor yet can He be different in nature.
18. And you, whose warmth of faith and
passion for a truth unknown to the world and its philosophers shall
prompt to read me, must remember to eschew the feeble and baseless
conjectures of earthly minds, and in devout willingness to learn must
break down the barriers of prejudice and half-knowledge. The new
faculties of the regenerate intellect are needed; each must have his
understanding enlightened by the heavenly gift imparted to the
soul. First he must take his stand upon the sure ground
[substantia = ὑποστάσει]
of God, as holy Jeremiah says
19. If in our discussion of the nature and birth of God we adduce certain analogies, let no one suppose that such comparisons are perfect and complete. There can be no comparison between God and earthly things, yet the weakness of our understanding forces us to seek for illustrations from a lower sphere to explain our meaning about loftier themes. The course of daily life shews how our experience in ordinary matters enables us to form conclusions on unfamiliar subjects. We must therefore regard any comparison as helpful to man rather than as descriptive of God, since it suggests, rather than exhausts, the sense we seek. Nor let such a comparison be thought too bold when it sets side by side carnal and spiritual natures, things invisible and things palpable, since it avows itself a necessary aid to the weakness of the human mind, and deprecates the condemnation due to an imperfect analogy. On this principle I proceed with my task, intending to use the terms supplied by God, yet colouring my argument with illustrations drawn from human life.
20. And first, I have so laid out the plan of the
whole work as to consult the advantage of the reader by the logical
order in which its books are arranged. It has been my resolve to
publish no half-finished and ill-considered treatise, lest its
disorderly array should resemble the confused clamour of a mob of
peasants. And since no one can scale a precipice unless there be
jutting ledges to aid his progress to the summit, I have here set down
21. Thus, after the present first book, the second expounds the mystery of the Divine birth, that those who shall be baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost may know the true Names, and not be perplexed about their sense but accurately informed as to fact and meaning, and so receive full assurance that in the words which are used they have the true Names, and that those Names involve the truth.
22. After this short and simple discourse
concerning the Trinity, the third book makes further progress, sure
though slow. Citing the greatest instances of His power, it
brings within the range of faith’s understanding that saying, in
itself beyond our comprehension, I in the Father and the Father in
Me St.
23. The fourth book starts with the
doctrines of the heretics, and disowns complicity in the fallacies
whereby they are traducing the faith of the Church. It publishes
that infidel creed which a number of them have lately
promulgated The letter of Arius to
Alexander; Book iv., §§ 12, 13.
24. The fifth book follows in reply the sequence of heretical assertion. They had falsely declared that they followed the law in the sense which they assigned to the unity of God, and that they had proved from it that the true God is of one Person; and this in order to rob the Lord Christ of His birth by their conclusion concerning the One true God, for birth is the evidence of origin. In answer I assert, step by step, what they deny; for from the Law and the Prophets I demonstrate that there are not two gods, nor one isolated true God, neither perverting the faith in the Divine unity nor denying the birth of Christ. And since they say that the Lord Jesus Christ, created rather than born, bears the Divine Name by gift and not by right, I have proved His true Divinity from the Prophets in such a way that, He being acknowledged very God, the assurance of His inherent Godhead shall hold us fast to the certainty that God is One.
25. The sixth book reveals the full deceitfulness of this heretical teaching. To win credit for their assertions they denounce the impious doctrine of heretics:—of Valentinus, to wit, and Sabellius and Manichæus and Hieracas, and appropriate the godly language of the Church as a cover for their blasphemy. They reprove and alter the language of these heretics, correcting it into a vague resemblance to orthodoxy, in order to suppress the holy faith while apparently denouncing heresy. But we state clearly what is the language and what the doctrine of each of these men, and acquit the Church of any complicity or fellowship with condemned heretics. Their words which deserve condemnation we condemn, and those which claim our humble acceptance we accept. Thus that Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, which is the object of their most strenuous denial, we prove by the witness of the Father, by Christ’s own assertion, by the preaching of Apostles, by the faith of believers, by the cries of devils, by the contradiction of Jews, in itself a confession, by the recognition of the heathen who had not known God; and all this to rescue from dispute a truth of which Christ had left us no excuse for ignorance.
26. Next the seventh book, starting from the basis
of a true faith now attained, delivers its verdict in the great
debate. First, armed with its sound and incontrovertible proof of
the impregnable faith, it takes part in the conflict raging between
Sabellius and Hebion and these opponents of the true Godhead. It
joins issue with Sabellius on his denial of the pre-existence of
Christ, and with his assailants on their assertion that He is a
creature. Sabellius overlooked the eternity of the Son, but
believed that true God worked in a human body. Our present
adversaries deny that He was born, assert that He was created, and fail
to see in His deeds the works of very God. What both sides
dispute, we believe. Sabellius denies that it was the Son who was
working, and he is wrong; but he proves his case triumphantly when he
alleges that the work done was that of true God. The Church
shares his victory over those who deny that in Christ was very
God. But when Sabellius denies that Christ existed before the
worlds, his adversaries prove to conviction that Christ’s
activity is from everlasting, and we are on their side in this
confutation of
27. No one can doubt that we have taken the course of true reverence and of sound doctrine when, after proving from Law and Prophets first that Christ is the Son of God, and next that He is true God, and this without breach of the mysterious unity, we proceed to support the Law and the Prophets by the evidence of the Gospels, and prove from them also that He is the Son of God and Himself very God. It is the easiest of tasks, after demonstrating His right to the Name of Son, to shew that the Name truly describes His relation to the Father; though indeed universal usage regards the granting of the name of son as convincing evidence of sonship. But, to leave no loophole for the trickery and deceit of these traducers of the true birth of God the Only-begotten, we have used His true Godhead as evidence of His true Sonship; to shew that He Who (as is confessed by all) bears the Name of Son of God is actually God, we have adduced His Name, His birth, His nature, His power, His assertions. We have proved that His Name is an accurate description of Himself, that the title of Son is an evidence of birth, that in His birth He retained His Divine Nature, and with His nature His power, and that that power manifested itself in conscious and deliberate self-revelation. I have set down the Gospel proofs of each several point, shewing how His self-revelation displays His power, how His power reveals His nature, how His nature is His by birthright, and from His birth comes His title to the name of Son. Thus every whisper of blasphemy is silenced, for the Lord Jesus Christ Himself by the witness of His own mouth has taught us that He is, as His Name, His birth, His nature, His power declare, in the true sense of Deity, very God of very God.
28. While its two predecessors have been
devoted to the confirmation of the faith in Christ as Son of God and
true God, the eighth book is taken up with the proof of the unity of
God, shewing that this unity is consistent with the birth of the Son,
and that the birth involves no duality in the Godhead. First it
exposes the sophistry with which these heretics have attempted to
avoid, though they could not deny, the confession of the real existence
of God, Father and Son; it demolishes their helpless and absurd plea
that in such passages as, And the multitude of them that believed
were one soul and heart St.
29. In matters essential to salvation it is
not enough to advance the proofs which faith supplies and finds
sufficient. Arguments which we have not tested may delude us into
a misapprehension of the meaning of our own words, unless we take the
offensive by exposing the hollowness of the enemy’s proofs, and
so establish our own faith upon the demonstrated absurdity of
his. The ninth book, therefore, is employed in refuting the
arguments by which the heretics attempt to invalidate the birth of God
the Only-begotten;—heretics who ignore the mystery of the
revelation hidden from the beginning of the world, and forget that the
Gospel faith proclaims the union of God and man. For their denial
that our Lord Jesus Christ is God, like unto God and equal with God as
Son with Father, born of God and by right of His birth subsisting as
very Spirit, they are accustomed to appeal to such words of our Lord
as, Why callest thou Me good? None is good save One, even
God St. St. St.
30. We therefore expose the blasphemous
misunderstanding at which they have arrived by distortion and
perversion of the meaning of Christ’s words. We account for
those words by stating what manner of questions He was answering, at
what times He was speaking, what partial knowledge He was deigning to
impart; we make the circumstances explain the words, and do not force
the former into consistency with the latter. Thus each case of
variance, that for instance between The Father is greater than
I St. St. St. St. Reading
nativitas et nomen. The clause above, which is bracketed
in Migne, appears to be a gloss.
31. The purpose of the tenth book is one in
harmony with the faith. For since, in the folly which passes with
them for wisdom, the heretics have twisted some of the circumstances
and utterances of the Passion into an insolent contradiction of the
Divine nature and power of the Lord Jesus Christ, I am compelled to
prove that this is a blasphemous misinterpretation, and that these
things were put on record by the Lord Himself as evidences of His true
and absolute majesty. In their parody of the faith they deceive
themselves with words such as, My soul is sorrowful even unto
death St. St.
32. Their folly being as great as their
blasphemy, they fail to mark that Christ’s words, spoken under
similar circumstances, are always consistent; they cleave to the letter
and ignore the purpose of His words. There is the widest
difference between My soul is sorrowful even unto death St. St. St. St. St. Reading non
desiderasse.
33. And so—for not even the glory of
the Resurrection has opened the eyes of these lost men and kept them
within the manifest bounds of the faith—they have forged a weapon
for their blasphemy out of a pretended reverence, and even perverted
the revelation of a mystery into an insult to God. From the
words, I ascend unto My Father and your Father, to My God and your
God St.
34. In this treatise we have followed the
course which we know is pursued in every branch of education.
First come easy lessons and a familiarity, slowly attained by practice,
with the groundwork of the subject; then the student may make proof, in
the business of life, of the training which he has received. Thus
the soldier, when he is perfect in his exercises, can go out to battle;
the advocate ventures into the conflicts of the courts when he is
versed in the pleadings of the school of rhetoric; the sailor who has
learned to navigate his ship in the land-locked harbour of his home may
be trusted amid the storms of open seas and distant climes. Such
has been our proceeding in this most serious and difficult science in
which the whole faith is taught. First came simple instruction
for the untaught believer in the birth, the name, the Divinity, the
true Divinity of Christ; since then we have quietly and steadily
advanced till our readers can demolish every plea of the heretics; and
now at last we have pitted them against the adversary in the present
great and glorious conflict. The mind of men is powerless with
the ordinary resources of unaided reason to grasp the idea of an
eternal birth, but they attain by study of things Divine to the
apprehension of mysteries which lie beyond the range of common
thought. They can explode that paradox concerning the Lord Jesus,
which derives all its strength and semblance of cogency from a purblind
pagan philosophy: the paradox which asserts, There was a time
when He was not, and He was not before He was born, and He was
made out of
35. Ignorance of prophetic diction and
unskilfulness in interpreting Scripture has led them into a perversion
of the point and meaning of the passage, The Lord created Me for a
beginning of His ways for His works Here, as often in early
writers, the Sapiential books are included under this name.
36. Having thus concluded that we must reject the word ‘creation’ from our confession of faith in God the Only-begotten, we proceed to lay down the teachings of reason and of piety concerning the Holy Spirit, that the reader, whose convictions have been established by patient and earnest study of the preceding books, may be provided with a complete presentation of the faith. This end will be attained when the blasphemies of heretical teaching on this theme also have been swept away, and the mystery, pure and undefiled, of the Trinity which regenerates us has been fixed in terms of saving precision on the authority of Apostles and Evangelists. Men will no longer dare, on the strength of mere human reasoning, to rank among creatures that Divine Spirit, Whom we receive as the pledge of immortality and source of fellowship with the sinless nature of God.
37. I know, O Lord God Almighty, that I owe
Thee, as the chief duty of my life, the devotion of all my words and
thoughts to Thyself. The gift of speech which Thou hast bestowed
can bring me no higher reward than the opportunity of service in
preaching Thee and displaying Thee as Thou art, as Father and Father of
God the Only-begotten, to the world in its blindness and the heretic in
his rebellion. But this is the mere expression of my own desire;
I must pray also for the gift of Thy help and compassion, that the
breath of Thy Spirit may fill the sails of faith and confession which I
have spread, and a favouring wind be sent to forward me on my voyage of
instruction. We can trust the promise of Him Who said, Ask,
and it shall be given you, seek, and ye shall find, knock, and it shall
be opened unto you St.
38. And therefore we look to Thy support for the
first trembling steps of this undertaking, to Thy aid that it may gain
strength and prosper. We look to Thee to give us the fellowship
of that Spirit Who guided the Prophets and the Apostles, that we may
take their words in the sense in which they spoke and assign its right
shade of meaning to every
1. Believers have
always found their satisfaction in that Divine utterance, which our
ears heard recited from the Gospel at the moment when that Power, which
is its attestation, was bestowed upon us:—Go now and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
command you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world
2. But the errors of heretics and blasphemers force us to deal with unlawful matters, to scale perilous heights, to speak unutterable words, to trespass on forbidden ground. Faith ought in silence to fulfil the commandments, worshipping the Father, reverencing with Him the Son, abounding in the Holy Ghost, but we must strain the poor resources of our language to express thoughts too great for words. The error of others compels us to err in daring to embody in human terms truths which ought to be hidden in the silent veneration of the heart.
3. For there have risen many who have given to the plain words of Holy Writ some arbitrary interpretation of their own, instead of its true and only sense, and this in defiance of the clear meaning of words. Heresy lies in the sense assigned, not in the word written; the guilt is that of the expositor, not of the text. Is not truth indestructible? When we hear the name Father, is not sonship involved in that Name? The Holy Ghost is mentioned by name; must He not exist? We can no more separate fatherhood from the Father or sonship from the Son than we can deny the existence in the Holy Ghost of that gift which we receive. Yet men of distorted mind plunge the whole matter in doubt and difficulty, fatuously reversing the clear meaning of words, and depriving the Father of His fatherhood because they wish to strip the Son of His sonship. They take away the fatherhood by asserting that the Son is not a Son by nature; for a son is not of the nature of his father when begetter and begotten have not the same properties, and he is no son whose being is different from that of the father, and unlike it. Yet in what sense is God a Father (as He is), if He have not begotten in His Son that same substance and nature which are His own?
4. Since, therefore, they cannot make any
change in the facts recorded, they bring novel principles and theories
of man’s device to bear upon them. Sabellius, for instance,
makes the Son an extension of the Father, and the faith in this regard
a matter of words rather than of reality, for he makes one and the same
Person, Son to Himself and also Father. Hebion allows no
beginning to the Son of God except from Mary, and represents Him not as
first God and then man, but as first man then God; declares that the
Virgin did not receive into herself One previously existent, Who had
been in the beginning God the Word dwelling with God, but that through
the agency of the Word she bore Flesh; the ‘Word’ meaning
in his opinion not the nature of the pre-existent Only-begotten
God Reading non
antea.
5. Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement, beyond the statements of Scripture, upon this grave and abstruse matter. The Lord said that the nations were to be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The words of the faith are clear; the heretics do their utmost to involve the meaning in doubt. We may not on this account add to the appointed form, yet we must set a limit to their license of interpretation. Since their malice, inspired by the devil’s cunning, empties the doctrine of its meaning while it retains the Names which convey the truth, we must emphasise the truth which those Names convey. We must proclaim, exactly as we shall find them in the words of Scripture, the majesty and functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so debar the heretics from robbing these Names of their connotation of Divine character, and compel them by means of these very Names to confine their use of terms to their proper meaning. I cannot conceive what manner of mind our opponents have, who pervert the truth, darken the light, divide the indivisible, rend the scatheless, dissolve the perfect unity. It may seem to them a light thing to tear up Perfection, to make laws for Omnipotence, to limit Infinity; as for me, the task of answering them fills me with anxiety; my brain whirls, my intellect is stunned, my very words must be a confession, not that I am weak of utterance, but that I am dumb. Yet a wish to undertake the task forces itself upon me; it means withstanding the proud, guiding the wanderer, warning the ignorant. But the subject is inexhaustible; I can see no limit to my venture of speaking concerning God in terms more precise than He Himself has used. He has assigned the Names—Father, Son and Holy Ghost,—which are our information of the Divine nature. Words cannot express or feeling embrace or reason apprehend the results of enquiry carried further; all is ineffable, unattainable, incomprehensible. Language is exhausted by the magnitude of the theme, the splendour of its effulgence blinds the gazing eye, the intellect cannot compass its boundless extent. Still, under the necessity that is laid upon us, with a prayer for pardon to Him Whose attributes these are, we will venture, enquire and speak; and moreover—it is the only promise that in so grave a matter we dare to make—we will accept whatever conclusion He shall indicate.
6. It is the Father to Whom all existence owes its
origin. In Christ and through Christ He is the source of
all. In contrast to all else He is self-existent. He does
not draw His being from without, but possesses it from Himself and in
Himself. He is infinite, for nothing contains Him and He contains
all things; He is eternally unconditioned by space, for He is
illimitable; eternally anterior to time, for time is His
creation. Let imagination range to what you may suppose is
God’s utmost limit, and you will find Him present there; strain
as you will there is always a further horizon towards which to
strain. Infinity is His property, just as the power of making
such effort is yours. Words will fail you, but His being will not
be circumscribed. Or again, turn back the pages of history, and
you will find Him ever present; should numbers fail to express the
antiquity to which you have penetrated, yet God’s eternity is not
diminished. Gird up your intellect to comprehend Him as a whole;
He eludes you. God, as a whole, has left something within your
grasp, but this something is inextricably involved in His
entirety. Thus you have missed the whole, since it is only a part
which remains in your hands; nay, not even a part, for you are dealing
with a whole which you have failed to divide. For a part implies
division, a whole is undivided, and God is everywhere and wholly
present wherever He is. Cf. St.
7. It is easier for me to feel this
concerning the Father than to say it. I am well aware that no
words are adequate to describe His attributes. We must feel that
He is invisible, incomprehensible, eternal. But to say that He is
self-existent and self-originating and self-sustained, that He is
invisible and incomprehensible and immortal; all this is an
acknowledgment of His glory, a hint of our meaning, a sketch of our
thoughts, but speech is powerless to tell us what God is, words cannot
express the reality. You hear that He is self-existent; human
reason cannot explain such independence. We can find objects
which uphold, and objects which are upheld, but that which thus exists
is obviously distinct from that which is the cause of its
existence. Again, if you hear that He is self-originating, no
instance can be found in which the giver of the gift of life is
identical with the life that is given. If you hear that He is
immortal, then there is something which does not spring from Him and
with which He has, by His very nature Reading a
se, instead of alter. This is merely a
verbal paradox, to illustrate the inadequacy of language to treat of
God. God is ex hypothesi author of all things, and
contains all things in Himself. But the negative term
‘immortal’ excludes death, and its concomitants of disease,
pain, &c., from God’s sphere.
8. We have now exchanged the perils of a
harbourless coast for the storms of the open sea. We can neither
safely advance nor safely retreat, yet the way that lies before us has
greater hardships than that which lies behind. The Father is what
He is, and as He is manifested, so we must believe. The mind
shrinks in dread from treating of the Son; at every word I tremble lest
I be betrayed into treason. For He is the Offspring of the
Unbegotten, One from One, true from true, living from living, perfect
from perfect; the Power of Power, the Wisdom of Wisdom, the Glory of
Glory, the Likeness of the invisible God, the Image of the Unbegotten
Father. Yet in what sense can we conceive that the Only-begotten
is the Offspring of the Unbegotten? Repeatedly the Father cries
from heaven, This is My beloved Son in Whom I am well
pleased St. St. Omitting
esse.
9. The manner of this birth is therefore a secret confined to the Two. If any one lays upon his personal incapacity his failure to solve the mystery, in spite of the certainty that Father and Son stand to Each Other in those relations, he will be still more pained at the ignorance to which I confess. I, too, am in the dark, yet I ask no questions. I look for comfort to the fact that Archangels share my ignorance, that Angels have not heard the explanation, and worlds do not contain it, that no prophet has espied it and no Apostle sought for it, that the Son Himself has not revealed it. Let such pitiful complaints cease. Whoever you are that search into these mysteries, I do not bid you resume your exploration of height and breadth and depth; I ask you rather to acquiesce patiently in your ignorance of the mode of Divine generation, seeing that you know not how His creatures come into existence. Answer me this one question:—Do your senses give you any evidence that you yourself were begotten? Can you explain the process by which you became a father? I do not ask whence you drew perception, how you obtained life, whence your reason comes, what is the nature of your senses of smell, touch, sight, hearing; the fact that we have the use of all these is the evidence that they exist. What I ask is:—How do you give them to your children? How do you ingraft the senses, lighten the eyes, implant the mind? Tell me, if you can. You have, then, powers which you do not understand, you impart gifts which you cannot comprehend. You are calmly indifferent to the mysteries of your own being, profanely impatient of ignorance concerning the mysteries of God’s.
10. Listen then to the Unbegotten Father,
listen to the Only-begotten Son. Hear His words, The Father is
greater than I St. The citation which is
interpolated in § 8, where see the note, and cf. St. St. Reading
observa. St.
11. The Son draws His life from that Father
Who truly has life; the Only begotten from the Unbegotten, Offspring
from Parent, Living from Living. As the Father hath life in
Himself, even so gave He to the Son also to have life in
Himself St.
12. It remains to say something more
concerning the mysterious generation of the Son; or rather this
something more is everything. I quiver, I linger, my powers fail,
I know not where to begin. I cannot tell the time of the
Son’s birth; it were impious not to be certain of the fact.
Whom shall I entreat? Whom shall I call to my aid? From
what books shall I borrow the terms needed to state so hard a
problem? Shall I ransack the philosophy of Greece?
No! I have read, Where is The healing of the
blind man, St.
13. Look now to see a thing not less
miraculous than lame men running, blind men seeing, the flight of
devils, the life from the dead. There stands by my side, to guide
me through the difficulties which I have enunciated, a poor fisherman,
ignorant, uneducated, fishing-lines in hand, clothes dripping, muddy
feet, every inch a sailor. Consider and decide whether it were
the greater feat to raise the dead or impart to an untrained mind the
knowledge of mysteries so deep as he reveals by saying, In the
beginning was the Word St.
14. But perhaps we shall find that our
fisherman has been guilty of departure from the terms of the problem
proposed for solution I.e. how to reconcile
the Unity of God with the Divinity of Christ. To say that the
Word is God might seem to contradict the Unity by asserting the
existence of a second God. Reading a
cognitione temporis.
15. For you will plead that a word is the sound of a voice; that it is a naming of things, an utterance of thoughts. This Word was with God, and was in the beginning; the expression of the eternal Thinker’s thoughts must be eternal. For the present I will give you a brief answer of my own on the fisherman’s behalf, till we see what defence he has to make for his own simplicity. The nature, then, of a word is that it is first a potentiality, afterwards a past event; an existing thing only while it is being heard. How can we say, In the beginning was the Word, when a word neither exists before, nor lives after, a definite point of time? Can we even say that there is a point of time in which a word exists? Not only are the words in a speaker’s mouth non-existent until they are spoken, and perished the instant they are uttered, but even in the moment of utterance there is a change from the sound which commences to that which ends a word. Such is the reply that suggests itself to me as a bystander. But your opponent the Fisherman has an answer of his own. He will begin by reproving you for your inattention. Even though your unpractised ear failed to catch the first clause, In the beginning was the Word, why complain of the next, And the Word was with God? Was it And the Word was in God that you heard,—the dictum of some profound philosophy? Or is it that your provincial dialect makes no distinction between in and with? The assertion is that Which was in the beginning was with, not in, Another. But I will not argue from the beginning of the sentence; the sequel can take care of itself. Hear now the rank and the name of the Word:—And the Word was God. Your plea that the Word is the sound of a voice, the utterance of a thought, falls to the ground. The Word is a reality, not a sound, a Being, not a speech, God, not a nonentity.
16. But I tremble to say it; the audacity
staggers me. I hear, And the Word was God; I, whom the
prophets have taught that God is One. To save me from further
fears, give me, friend Fisherman, a fuller imparting of this great
mystery. Show that these assertions are consistent with the unity
of God;
17. We are still waiting, Fisherman, for your full description of the Word. He was in the beginning, it may be said, but perhaps He was not before the beginning. To this also I will furnish a reply on my Fisherman’s behalf. The Word could not be other than He was; that was is unconditional and unlimited. But what says the Fisherman for himself? All things were made through Him. Thus, since nothing exists apart from Him through Whom the universe came into being, He, the Author of all things, must have an immeasurable existence. For time is a cognisable and divisible measure of extension, not in space, but in duration. All things are from Him, without exception; time then itself is His creature.
18. But, my Fisherman, the objection will be raised that you are reckless and extravagant in your language; that All things were made through Him needs qualification. There is the Unbegotten, made of none; there is also the Son, begotten of the Unborn Father. This All things is an unguarded statement, admitting no exceptions. While we are silent, not daring to answer or trying to think of some reply, do you break in with, And without Him was nothing made. You have restored the Author of the Godhead to His place, while proclaiming that He has a Companion. From your saying that nothing was made without Him, I learn that He was not alone. He through Whom the work was done is One; He without Whom it was not done is Another: a distinction is drawn between Creator and Companion.
19. Reverence for the One Unbegotten Creator
distressed me, lest in your sweeping assertion that all things were
made by the Word you had included Him. You have banished my fears
by your Without Him was nothing made. Yet this same
Without Him was nothing made brings trouble and
distraction. There was, then, something made by that Other; not
made, it is true, without Him. If the Other did make
anything, even though the Word were present at the making, then it is
untrue that through Him all things were made. It is one
thing to be the Creator’s Companion, quite another to be the
Creator’s Self. I could find answers of my own to the
previous objections; in this case, Fisherman, I can only turn at once
to your words, All things were made through Him. And now I
understand, for the Apostle has enlightened me:—Things visible
and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
powers, all are through Him and in Him
20. Since, then, all things were made
through Him, come to our help and tell us what it was that was made not
without Him. That which was made in Him is life.
That which was made in Him was certainly not made without
Him; for that which was made in Him was also made through
Him. All things were created in Him and through Him Cf. I.e.
potentially. St. St.
St.
22. This faith, and every part of it, is
impressed upon us by the evidence of the Gospels, by the teaching of
the Apostles, by the futility of the treacherous attacks which heretics
make on every side. The foundation stands firm and unshaken in
face of winds and rains and torrents; storms cannot overthrow it, nor
dripping waters hollow it, nor floods sweep it away. Its
excellence is proved by the failure of countless assaults to impair
it. Certain remedies are so compounded as to be of value not
merely against some single disease but against all; they are of
universal efficacy. So it is with the Catholic faith. It is
not a medicine for some special malady, but for every ill; virulence
cannot master, nor numbers defeat, nor complexity baffle it. One
and unchanging it faces and conquers all its foes. Marvellous it
is that one form of words should contain a remedy for every disease, a
statement of truth to confront every contrivance of falsehood.
Let heresy muster its forces and every sect come forth to battle.
Let our answer to their challenge be that there is One Unbegotten God
the Father, and One Only-begotten Son of God, perfect Offspring of
perfect Parent; that the Sun was begotten by no lessening of the Father
or subtraction from His Substance, but that He Who possesses all things
begot an all-possessing Son; a Son not emanating nor proceeding from
the Father, but compact of, and inherent in, the whole Divinity, of Him
Who wherever He is present is present eternally; One free from time,
unlimited in duration, since by Him all things were made Reading
sint.
23. Let Sabellius, if he dare, confound
Father and Son as two names with one meaning, making of them not Unity
but One Person. He shall have a prompt answer from the Gospels,
not once or twice, but often repeated, This is My beloved Son, in
Whom I am well pleased St. St. St. St. St.
24. In what remains we have the appointment of the
Father’s will. The Virgin, the birth, the Body, then the
Cross, the death, the visit to the lower world; these things are our
salvation. For the sake of
25. What worthy return can we make for so great a condescension? The One Only-begotten God, ineffably born of God, entered the Virgin’s womb and grew and took the frame of poor humanity. He Who upholds the universe, within Whom and through Whom are all things, was brought forth by common childbirth; He at Whose voice Archangels and Angels tremble, and heaven and earth and all the elements of this world are melted, was heard in childish wailing. The Invisible and Incomprehensible, Whom sight and feeling and touch cannot gauge, was wrapped in a cradle. If any man deem all this unworthy of God, the greater must he own his debt for the benefit conferred the less such condescension befits the majesty of God. He by Whom man was made had nothing to gain by becoming Man; it was our gain that God was incarnate and dwelt among us, making all flesh His home by taking upon Him the flesh of One. We were raised because He was lowered; shame to Him was glory to us. He, being God, made flesh His residence, and we in return are lifted anew from the flesh to God.
26. But lest perchance fastidious minds be
exercised by cradle and wailing, birth and conception, we must render
to God the glory which each of these contains, that we may approach His
self-abasement with souls duly filled with His claim to reign, and not
forget His majesty in His condescension. Let us note, therefore,
who were attendant on His conception. An Angel speaks to
Zacharias; fertility is given to the barren; the priest comes forth
dumb from the place of incense; John bursts forth into speech while yet
confined within his mother’s womb; an Angel blesses Mary and
promises that she, a virgin, shall be the mother of the Son of
God. Conscious of her virginity, she is distressed at this hard
thing; the Angel explains to her the mighty working of God, saying,
The Holy Ghost shall come from above into thee, and the power of the
Most High shall overshadow thee St. St.
27. And now let us consider the glory which accompanies the birth, the wailing and the cradle. The Angel tells Joseph that the Virgin shall bear a Son, and that Son shall be named Emmanuel, that is, God with us. The Spirit foretells it through the prophet, the Angel bears witness; He that is born is God with us. The light of a new star shines forth for the Magi; a heavenly sign escorts the Lord of heaven. An Angel brings to the shepherds the news that Christ the Lord is born, the Saviour of the world. A multitude of the heavenly host flock together to sing the praise of that childbirth; the rejoicing of the Divine company proclaims the fulfilment of the mighty work. Then glory to God in heaven, and peace on earth to men of good will is announced. And now the Magi come and worship Him wrapped in swaddling clothes; after a life devoted to mystic rites of vain philosophy they bow the knee before a Babe laid in His cradle. Thus the Magi stoop to reverence the infirmities of Infancy; its cries are saluted by the heavenly joy of angels; the Spirit Who inspired the prophet, the heralding Angel, the light of the new star, all minister around Him. In such wise was it that the Holy Ghost’s descent and the overshadowing power of the Most High brought Him to His birth. The inward reality is widely different from the outward appearance; the eye sees one thing, the soul another. A virgin bears; her child is of God. An Infant wails; angels are heard in praise. There are coarse swaddling clothes; God is being worshipped. The glory of His Majesty is not forfeited when He assumes the lowliness of flesh.
28. So was it also during His further life on
earth. The whole time which He passed in
29. Concerning the Holy Spirit I ought not
to be silent, and yet I have no need to speak; still, for the sake of
those who are in ignorance, I cannot refrain. There is no need to
speak, because we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as He does,
from Father and Son Qui Patre et Filio
auctoribus confitendus est; A comparison with dum et usum
et auctorem eius ignorant in § 4 makes this appear the
probable translation. It might, of course, mean confess Him on
the evidence of Father and Son.
30. The reason, I believe, why certain people continue in ignorance or doubt is that they see this third Name, that of the Holy Spirit, often used to signify the Father or the Son. No objection need be raised to this; whether it be Father or Son, He is Spirit, and He is holy.
31. But the words of the Gospel, For God
is Spirit St.
32. The words of the Apostle are of like
purport; For the Lord is Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord
is, there is liberty
33. Let us hear from our Lord’s own
words what is the work of the Holy Ghost within us. He says, I
have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them
now St.
34. The next step naturally is to listen to
the Apostle’s account of the powers and functions of this
Gift. He says, As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these
are the children of God. For ye received not the Spirit of
bondage again unto fear, but ye received the Spirit of adoption whereby
we cry, Abba, Father
35. Let us therefore make use of this great
benefit, and seek for personal experience of this most needful
Gift. For the Apostle says, in words I have already cited, But
we have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is
of God, that we may know the things that are given unto us by
God
1. The words of the
Lord, I in the Father, and the Father in Me St.
2. In order to solve as easily as possible this most difficult problem, we must first master the knowledge which the Divine Scriptures give of Father and of Son, that so we may speak with more precision, as dealing with familiar and accustomed matters. The eternity of the Father, as we concluded after full discussion in the last Book, transcends space, and time, and appearance, and all the forms of human thought. He is without and within all things, He contains all and can be contained by none, is incapable of change by increase or diminution, invisible, incomprehensible, full, perfect, eternal, not deriving anything that He has from another, but, if ought be derived from Him, still complete and self-sufficing.
3. He therefore, the Unbegotten, before time
was begot a Son from Himself; not from any pre-existent matter, for all
things are through the Son; not from nothing, for the Son is from the
Father’s self; not by way of childbirth, for in God there is
neither change nor void; not as a piece of Himself cut or torn off or
stretched out, for God is passionless and bodiless, and only a possible
and embodied being could so be treated, and, as the Apostle says, in
Christ dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily
4. He, therefore, being the perfect
Father’s perfect Son, the Only-begotten Offspring of the
unbegotten God, who has received all from Him Who possesses all, being
God from God, Spirit from Spirit, Light from Light, says boldly, The
Father in Me, and I in the Father St.
5. Such powers are there in God; powers which the methods of our reason cannot comprehend, but of which our faith, on the sure evidence of His action, is convinced. We shall find instances of this action in the bodily sphere as well as in the spiritual, its manifestation taking, not the form of an analogy which might illustrate the Birth, but of a deed marvellous yet comprehensible. On the wedding day in Galilee water was made wine. Have we words to tell or senses to ascertain what methods produced the change by which the tastelessness of water disappeared, and was replaced by the full flavour of wine? It was not a mixing; it was a creation, and a creation which was not a beginning, but a transformation. A weaker liquid was not obtained by admixture of a stronger element; an existing thing perished and a new thing came into being. The bridegroom was anxious, the household in confusion, the harmony of the marriage feast imperilled. Jesus is asked for help. He does not rise or busy Himself; He does the work without an effort. Water is poured into the vessels, wine drawn out in the cups. The evidence of the senses of the pourer contradicts that of the drawer. They who poured expect water to be drawn; they who draw think that wine must have been poured in. The intervening time cannot account for any gain or loss of character in the liquid. The mode of action baffles sight and sense, but the power of God is manifest in the result achieved.
6. In the case of the five loaves a miracle of the same type excites our wonder. By their increase five thousand men and countless women and children are saved from hunger; the method eludes our powers of observation. Five loaves are offered and broken; while the Apostles are dividing them a succession of new-created portions passes, they cannot tell how, through their hands. The loaf which they are dividing grows no smaller, yet their hands are continually full of the pieces. The swiftness of the process baffles sight; you follow with the eye a hand full of portions, and meantime you see that the contents of the other hand are not diminished, and all the while the heap of pieces grows. The carvers are busy at their task, the eaters are hard at work; the hungry are satisfied, and the fragments fill twelve baskets. Sight or sense cannot discover the mode of so noteworthy a miracle. What was not existent is created; what we see passes our understanding. Our only resource is faith in God’s omnipotence.
7. There is no deception in these miracles of God, no subtle pretence to please or to deceive. These works of the Son of God were done from no desire for self-display; He Whom countless myriads of angels serve never deluded man. What was there of ours that He could need, through Whom all that we have was created? Did He demand praise from us who now are heavy with sleep, now sated with lust, now laden with the guilt of riot and bloodshed, now drunken from revelling;—He Whom Archangels, and Dominions, and Principalities, and Powers, without sleep or cessation or sin, praise in heaven with everlasting and unwearied voice? They praise Him because He, the Image of the Invisible God, created all their host in Himself, made the worlds, established the heavens, appointed the stars, fixed the earth, laid the foundations of the deep; because in after time He was born, He conquered death, broke the gates of hell, won for Himself a people to be His fellow-heirs, lifted flesh from corruption up to the glory of eternity. There was nothing, then, that He might gain from us, that could induce Him to assume the splendour of these mysterious and inexplicable works, as though He needed our praise. But God foresaw how human sin and folly would be misled, and knew that disbelief would dare to pass its judgment even on the things of God, and therefore He vanquished presumption by tokens of His power which must give pause to our boldest.
8. For there are many of those wise men of
the world whose wisdom is folly with God, who contradict our
proclamation of God from God, True from True, Perfect from Perfect, One
from One, as though we taught things impossible. They pin their
faith to certain conclusions which they have reached by process of
logic:—Nothing can be born of one, for every birth requires
two parents, and If this Son be born of One He has received a
part of His Begetter: if He be a part, then Neither of the Two is
perfect, for something is missing from Him from Whom the Son issued,
and
9. The Son of God, therefore, having the
charge of mankind, was first made man, that men might believe on Him;
that He might be to us a witness, sprung from ourselves, of things
Divine, and preach to us, weak and carnal as we are, through the
weakness of the flesh concerning God the Father, so fulfilling the
Father’s will, even as He says, I came not to do Mine own
will, but the will of Him that sent Me St.
10. He says, Father the hour is come;
glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son may glorify Thee. He says that
the hour, not the day nor the time, is come. An hour is a
fraction of a day. What hour must this be? The hour, of
course, of which He speaks, to strengthen His disciples, at the time of
His passion:—Lo, the hour is come that the Son of Man should
be glorified St. Reading
intelligimus.
11. And next? The centurion of the
co St.
12. But perhaps some may suppose that He was destitute of that glory for which He prayed, and that His looking to be glorified by a Greater is evidence of want of power. Who, indeed, would deny that the Father is the greater; the Unbegotten greater than the Begotten, the Father than the Son, the Sender than the Sent, He that wills than He that obeys? He Himself shall be His own witness:—The Father is greater than I. It is a fact which we must recognise, but we must take heed lest with unskilled thinkers the majesty of the Father should obscure the glory of the Son. Such obscuration is forbidden by this same glory for which the Son prays; for the prayer, Father glorify Thy Son, is completed by, That the Son may glorify Thee. Thus there is no lack of power in the Son, Who, when He has received this glory, will make His return for it in glory. But why, if He were not in want, did He make the prayer? No one makes request except for something which he needs. Or can it be that the Father too is in want? Or has He given His glory away so recklessly that He needs to have it returned Him by the Son? No; the One has never been in want, nor the Other needed to ask, and yet Each shall give to the Other. Thus the prayer for glory to be given and to be paid back is neither a robbery of the Father nor a depreciation of the Son, but a demonstration of the power of one Godhead resident in Both. The Son prays that He may be glorified by the Father; the Father deems it no humiliation to be glorified by the Son. The exchange of glory given and received proclaims the unity of power in Father and in Son.
13. We must next ascertain what and whence this glorifying is. God, I am sure, is subject to no change; His eternity admits not of defect or amendment, of gain or of loss. It is the character of Him alone, that what He is, He is from everlasting. What He from everlasting is, it is by His nature impossible that He should ever cease to be. How then can He receive glory, a thing which He fully possesses, and of which His store does not diminish; there being no fresh glory which He can obtain, and none that He has lost and can recover? We are brought to a standstill. But the Evangelist does not fail us, though our reason has displayed its helplessness. To tell us what return of glory it was that the Son should make to the Father, he gives the words: Even as Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that whatsoever Thou hast given Him He may give it eternal life. And this is life eternal that they should know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent. The Father, then, is glorified through the Son, by His being made known to us. And the glory was this, that the Son, being made flesh, received from Him power over all flesh, and the charge of restoring eternal life to us, ephemeral beings burdened with the body. Eternal life for us was the result not of work done, but of innate power; not by a new creation, but simply by knowledge of God, was the glory of that eternity to be acquired. Nothing was added to God’s glory; it had not decreased, and so could not be replenished. But He is glorified through the Son in the sight of us, ignorant, exiled, defiled, dwelling in hopeless death and lawless darkness; glorified inasmuch as the Son, by virtue of that power over all flesh which the Father gave Him, was to bestow on us eternal life. It is through this work of the Son that the Father is glorified. So when the Son received all things from the Father, the Father glorified Him; and conversely, when all things were made through the Son, He glorified the Father. The return of glory given lies herein, that all the glory which the Son has is the glory of the Father, since everything He has is the Father’s gift. For the glory of Him who executes a charge redounds to the glory of Him Who gave it, the glory of the Begotten to the glory of the Begetter.
14. But in what does eternity of life
consist? His own words tell us:—That they may know Thee
the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent. Is
there any doubt or difficulty here, or any inconsistency? It is
life to know the true God; but the bare knowledge of Him does not give
it. What, then, does He add? And Jesus Christ Whom Thou
hast sent. In Thee, the only true God, the Son
15. And so the Son glorifies the Father fully and finally in the words which follow, I have glorified Thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which Thou hast given Me to do. All the Father’s praise is from the Son, for every praise bestowed upon the Son is praise of the Father, since all that He accomplished is what the Father had willed. The Son of God is born as man; but the power of God is in the virgin-birth. The Son of God is seen as man; but God is present in His human actions. The Son of God is nailed to the cross; but on the cross God conquers human death. Christ, the Son of God, dies; but all flesh is made alive in Christ. The Son of God is in hell; but man is carried back to heaven. In proportion to our praise of Christ for these His works, will be the praise we bring to Him from Whom Christ’s Godhead is. These are the ways in which the Father glorifies the Son on earth; and in return the Son reveals by works of power to the ignorance of the heathen and to the foolishness of the world, Him from Whom He is. This exchange of glory, given and received, implies no augmentation of the Godhead, but means the praises rendered for the knowledge granted to those who had lived in ignorance of God. What, indeed, could there be which the Father, from Whom are all things, did not richly possess? In what was the Son lacking, in Whom all the fulness of the Godhead had been pleased to dwell? The Father is glorified on earth because the work which He had commanded is finished.
16. Next let us see what this glory is which the Son expects to receive from the Father; and then our exposition will be complete. The sequel is, I have glorified Thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which Thou hast given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own Self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was. I have manifested Thy name unto men. It is, then, by the Son’s works that the Father is glorified, in that He is recognised as God, as Father of God the Only-begotten, Who for our salvation willed that His Son should be born as man, even of a virgin; that Son Whose whole life, consummated in the Passion, was consistent with the humiliation of the virgin birth. Thus, because the Son of God, all-perfect and born from everlasting in the fulness of the Godhead, had now by incarnation become Man and was ready for His death, He prays that He may be glorified with God, even as He was glorifying His Father on the earth; for at that moment the powers of God were being glorified in the flesh before the eyes of a world that knew Him not. But what is this glory with the Father, for which He looks? It is that, of course, which He had with Him before the world was. He had the fulness of the Godhead; He has it still, for He is God’s Son. But He Who was the Son of God had become the Son of man also, for The Word was made flesh. He had not lost His former being, but He had become what He was not before; He had not abdicated His own position, yet He had taken ours; He prays that the nature which He had assumed may be promoted to the glory which He had never renounced. Therefore, since the Son is the Word, and the Word was made flesh, and the Word was God, and was in the beginning with God, and the Word was Son before the foundation of the world; this Son, now incarnate, prayed that flesh might be to the Father what the Son had been. He prayed that flesh, born in time, might receive the splendour of the everlasting glory, that the corruption of the flesh might be swallowed up, transformed into the power of God and the purity of the Spirit. It is His prayer to God, the Son’s confession of the Father, the entreaty of that flesh wherein all shall see Him on the Judgment-day, pierced and bearing the marks of the cross; of that flesh wherein His glory was foreshown upon the Mount, wherein He ascended to heaven and is set down at the right hand of God, wherein Paul saw Him, and Stephen paid Him worship.
17. The name Father has thus been
revealed to men; the question arises, What is this Father’s own
name? Yet surely the name of God has never been unknown.
Moses heard it from the bush, Genesis announces it at the beginning of
the history of creation, the Law has proclaimed and the prophets
extolled it, the history of the world has made mankind familiar with
it; the very heathen have worshipped it under a veil of
falsehood. Men have never been left in ignorance of the name of
God. And yet they were, in very truth,
18. The Son, wishing to assure us of the truth of this, His Divine birth, has appointed His works to serve as an illustration, that from the ineffable power displayed in ineffable deeds we may learn the lesson of the ineffable birth. For instance, when water was made wine, and five loaves satisfied five thousand men, beside women and children, and twelve baskets were filled with the fragments, we see a fact though we cannot understand it; a deed is done though it baffles our reason; the process cannot be followed, though the result is obvious. It is folly to intrude in the spirit of carping, when the matter into which we enquire is such that we cannot probe it to the bottom. For even as the Father is ineffable because He is Unbegotten, so is the Son ineffable because He is the Only-begotten, since the Begotten is the Image of the Unbegotten. Now it is by the use of our senses and of language that we have to form our conception of an image; and it must be by the same means that we form our idea of that which the image represents. But in this case we, whose faculties can deal only with visible and tangible things, are straining after the invisible, and striving to grasp the impalpable. Yet we take no shame to ourselves, we reproach ourselves with no irreverence, when we doubt and criticise the mysteries and powers of God. How is He the Son? Whence is He? What did the Father lose by His birth? Of what portion of the Father was He born? So we ask; yet all the while there has been confronting us the evidence of works done to assure us that God’s action is not limited by our power of comprehending His methods.
19. You ask what was the manner in which, as
the Spirit teaches, the Son was born? I will put a question to
you as to things corporal. I ask not in what manner He was born
of a virgin; I ask only whether her flesh, in the course of bringing
His flesh to readiness for birth, suffered any loss. Assuredly
she did not conceive Him in the common way, or suffer the shame of
human intercourse, in order to bear Him: yet she bore Him,
complete in His human Body, without loss of her own completeness.
Surely piety requires that we should regard as possible with God a
thing which we see became possible through his power in the case of a
human being This is an
argument against the objection that God, if Christ is His Son, must
have suffered loss. If God is His Father and the sole source of
His existence, Christ must have come into being by separation from the
Father; i.e. the Father must have suffered diminution and lost His
completeness. The answer is that a woman—and a
fortiori the Virgin, who was the only human parent
Christ—suffers no loss of bodily completeness through becoming a
mother. There is no allusion to the belief in the perpetual
virginity of the Mother of our Lord.
20. But you, whoever you are that would seek
into the unsearchable, and in all seriousness form an opinion upon the
mysteries and powers of God;—I turn to you for counsel, and beg
you to enlighten me, an unskilled and simple believer of all that God
says, as to a circumstance which I am about to mention. I listen
to the Lord’s words and, since I believe what is recorded, I am
sure that after His Resurrection He offered Himself repeatedly in the
Body to the sight of multitudes of unbelievers. At any rate, He
did so to Thomas who had protested that he would not believe unless he
handled His wounds. His words are, Unless I shall see in His
hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the
nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not
believe St.
21. Nay more, the whole constitution of nature would bear us out against the impiety of doubting the works and powers of God. And yet our disbelief tilts even against obvious truth; we strive in our fury to pluck even God from His throne. If we could, we would climb by bodily strength to heaven, would fling into confusion the ordered courses of sun and stars, would disarrange the ebb and flow of tides, check rivers at their source or make their waters flow backward, would shake the foundations of the world, in the utter irreverence of our rage against the paternal work of God. It is well that our bodily limitations confine us within more modest bounds. Assuredly, there is no concealment of the mischief we would do if we could. In one respect we are free; and so with blasphemous insolence we distort the truth and turn our weapons against the words of God.
22. The Son has said, Father, I have manifested Thy Name unto men. What reason is there for denunciation or fury here? Do you deny the Father? Why, it was the primary purpose of the Son to enable us to know the Father. But in fact you do deny Him when, according to you, the Son was not born of Him. Yet why should He have the name of Son if He be, as others are, an arbitrary creation of God? I could feel awe of God as Creator of Christ as well as Founder of the universe; it were an exercise of power worthy of Him to be the Maker of Him Who made Archangels and Angels, things visible and things invisible, heaven and earth and the whole creation around us. But the work which the Lord came to do was not to enable you to recognise the omnipotence of God as Creator of all things, but to enable you to know Him as the Father of that Son Who addresses you. In heaven there are Powers beside Himself, Powers mighty and eternal; there is but one Only-begotten Son, and the difference between Him and them is not one of mere degree of might, but that they all were made through Him. Since He is the true and only Son, let us not make Him a bastard by asserting that He was made out of nothing. You hear the name Son; believe that He is the Son. You hear the name Father; fix it in your mind that He is the Father. Why surround these names with doubt and illwill and hostility? The things of God are provided with names which give a true indication of the realities; why force an arbitrary meaning upon their obvious sense? Father and Son are spoken of; doubt not that the words mean what they say. The end and aim of the revelation of the Son is that you should know the Father. Why frustrate the labours of the Prophets, the Incarnation of the Word, the Virgin’s travail, the effect of miracles, the cross of Christ? It was all spent upon you, it is all offered to you, that through it all Father and Son may be manifest to you. And you replace the truth by a theory of arbitrary action, of creation or adoption. Turn your thoughts to the warfare, the conflict waged by Christ. He describes it thus:—Father, I have manifested Thy Name unto men. He does not say, Thou hast created the Creator of all the heavens, orThou hast made the Maker of the whole earth. He says, Father, I have manifested Thy Name unto men. Accept your Saviour’s gift of knowledge. Be assured that there is a Father Who begot, a Son Who was born; born in the truth of His Nature of the Father, Who is. Remember that the revelation is not of the Father manifested as God, but of God manifested as the Father.
23. You hear the words, I and the Father
are one St. St.
24. Again, we must not repose so blind a
confidence in human intellect as to imagine that we have complete
knowledge of the objects of our thought, or that the ultimate problem
is solved as soon as we have formed a symmetrical and consistent
theory. Finite minds cannot conceive the Infinite; a being
dependent for its existence upon another cannot attain to perfect
knowledge either of its Creator or of itself, for its consciousness of
self is coloured by its circumstances, and bounds are set which its
perception cannot pass. Its activity is not self-caused, but due
to the Creator, and a being dependent on a Creator Omitting in
aliud.
Substitutio: this word seems, except in technical senses
of the law, to be very late and very rare. The only meaning, and
that one not attested in the dictionaries, which will suit this
passage, seems to be that of the jackdaw dressed in peacock’s
feathers.
25. Hence the Apostle, familiar with the narrow
assumption of human thought that what it does not know is not truth,
says that he does not speak in the language of knowledge, lest his
preaching should be in vain. To save himself from being regarded
as a preacher of foolishness he adds that the word of the cross is
foolishness to them that perish. He knew that the unbelievers
held that the only true knowledge was that which formed their own
wisdom, and that, since their wisdom was cognisant only of matters
which lay within
26. And therefore the action of God must not be canvassed by human faculties; the Creator must not be judged by those who are the work of His hands. We must clothe ourselves in foolishness that we may gain wisdom; not in the foolishness of hazardous conclusions, but in the foolishness of a modest sense of our own infirmity, that so the evidence of God’s power may teach us truths to which the arguments of earthly philosophy cannot attain. For when we are fully conscious of our own foolishness, and have felt the helplessness and destitution of our reason, then through the counsels of Divine Wisdom we shall be initiated into the wisdom of God; setting no bounds to boundless majesty and power, nor tying the Lord of nature down to nature’s laws; sure that for us the one true faith concerning God is that of which He is at once the Author and the Witness.
1. The earlier books of this treatise, written some time ago, contain, I think, an invincible proof that we hold and profess the faith in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is taught by the Evangelists and Apostles, and that no commerce is possible between us and the heretics, inasmuch as they deny unconditionally, irrationally, and recklessly, the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet certain points remained which I have felt myself bound to include in this and the following books, in order to make our assurance of the faith even more certain by exposure of every one of their falsehoods and blasphemies. Accordingly, we will enquire first what are the dangers of their teaching, the risks involved by such irreverence; next, what principles they hold, and what arguments they advance against the apostolic faith to which we adhere, and by what sleight of language they impose upon the candour of their hearers; and lastly, by what method of comment they disarm the words of Scripture of their force and meaning.
2. We are well aware that neither the speech
of men nor the analogy of human nature can give us a full insight into
the things of God. The ineffable cannot submit to the bounds and
limits of definition; that which is spiritual is distinct from every
class or instance of bodily things. Yet, since our subject is
that of heavenly natures, we must employ ordinary natures and ordinary
speech as our means of expressing what our mind apprehends; a means no
doubt unworthy of the majesty of God, but forced upon us by feebleness
of our intellect, which can use only our own circumstances and our own
words to convey to others our perceptions and our conclusions.
This truth has been enforced already in the first book § 19.
3. For the heretics say that Christ is not from God, that is, that the Son is not born from the Father, and is God not by nature but by appointment; in other words, that He has received an adoption which consists in the giving of a name, being God’s Son in the sense in which many are sons of God; again, that Christ’s majesty is an evidence of God’s widespread bounty, He being God in the sense in which there are gods many; although they admit that in His adoption and naming as God a more liberal affection than in other cases was shewn, His adoption being the first in order of time, and He greater than other adopted sons, and first in rank among the creatures because of the greater splendour which accompanied His creation. Some add, by way of confessing the omnipotence of God, that He was created into God’s likeness, and that it was out of nothing that He, like other creatures, was raised up to be the Image of the eternal Creator, bidden at a word to spring from non-existence into being by the power of God, Who can frame out of nothing the likeness of Himself.
4. Moreover, they use their knowledge of the
historical fact that bishops of a former time have taught that Father
and Son are of one substance, to subvert the truth by the ingenious
plea that this is a heretical notion. They say that this term
‘of one substance,’ in the Greek homoousion, is used to mean and express that the
Father is the same as the Son; that is, that He extended Himself out of
infinity into the Virgin, and took a body from her, and gave to
Himself, in the body which He had taken, the name of Son. This is
their first lie concerning the homoousion. Their next lie is that this word
homoousion implies that
Father and Son participate in something antecedent to Either and
distinct from Both, and that a certain imaginary substance, or
ousia, anterior to all matter
whatsoever, has existed heretofore and been divided and wholly
distributed between the Two; which proves, they say, that Each of the
Two is of a nature pro-existent to Himself, and Each identical in
matter with the Other. And so they profess to condemn the
confession of the homoousion
on the ground that that term does not discriminate between Father and
Son, and makes the Father subsequent in time to that matter which He
has in common with the Son. And they have devised this third
5. They think also that they have a compendious refutation of Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles alike, in their assertion that the Son was born within time. They pronounce us illogical for saying that the Son has existed from everlasting; and, since they reject the possibility of His eternity, they are forced to believe that He was born at a point in time. For if He has not always existed, there was a time when He was not; and if there be a time when He was not, time was anterior to Him. He who has not existed everlastingly began to exist within time, while He Who is free from the limits of time is necessarily eternal. The reason they give for their rejection of the eternity of the Son is that His everlasting existence contradicts the faith in His birth; as though by confessing that He has existed eternally, we made His birth impossible.
6. What foolish and godless fears! What
impious anxiety on God’s behalf! The meaning which they
profess to detect in the word homoousion, and in the assertion of the eternity
of the Son, is detested, rejected, denounced by the Church. She
confesses one God from Whom are all things; she confesses one Jesus
Christ our Lord, through whom are all things; One from Whom, One
through Whom; One the Source of all, One the Agent through Whom all
were created. In the One from Whom are all things she recognises
the Majesty which has no beginning, and in the One through Whom are all
things she recognises a might coequal with His Source; for Both are
jointly supreme in the work of creation and in rule over created
things. In the Spirit she recognises God as Spirit, impassible
and indivisible, for she has learnt from the Lord that Spirit has
neither flesh nor bones St. In § 4.
7. To assure ourselves of the needfulness of these two phrases, adopted and employed as the best of safeguards against the heretical rabble of that day, I think it best to reply to the obstinate misbelief of our present heretics, and refute their vain and pestilent teaching by the witness of the evangelists and apostles. They flatter themselves that they can furnish a proof for each of their propositions; they have, in fact, appended to each some passages or other from holy Writ; passages so grossly misinterpreted as to ensnare none but the illiterate by the semblance of truth with which perverted ingenuity has masked their explanation.
8. For they attempt, by praising the Godhead
of the Father only, to deprive the Son of His Divinity, pleading that
it is written, Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is One St. Omitting
solus innascibilis et, which are out of place here. St. St. St. St. St.
9. Who can fail to observe that these statements are full of fraud and fallacy? Cleverly as issues have been confused and texts combined, malice and folly is the character indelibly imprinted upon this laborious effort of cunning and clumsiness. For instance, among their points of faith they have included this, that they confess the Father only to be unborn; as though any one on our side could suppose that He, Who begot Him through Whom are all things, derived His being from any external source. The very fact that He bears the name of Father reveals Him as the cause of His Son’s existence. That name of Father gives no hint that He who bears it is Himself descended from another, while it tells us plainly from Whom it is that the Son is begotten. Let us therefore leave to the Father His own special and incommunicable property, confessing that in Him reside the eternal powers of an omnipotence without beginning. None, I am sure, can doubt that the reason why, in their confession of God the Father, certain attributes are dwelt upon as peculiarly and inalienably His own, is that He may be left in isolated possession of them. For when they say that He alone is true, alone is righteous, alone is wise, alone is invisible, alone is good, alone is mighty, alone is immortal, they are raising up this word alone as a barrier to cut off the Son from His share in these attributes. He Who is alone, they say, has no partner in His properties. But if we suppose that these attributes reside in the Father only, and not in the Son also, then we must believe that God the Son has neither truth nor wisdom; that He is a bodily being compact of visible and material elements, ill-disposed and feeble and void of immortality; for we exclude Him from all these attributes of which we make the Father the solitary Possessor.
11. Now that we have exposed their plan of
belittling the Son under cover of magnifying the Father, the next step
is to listen to the exact terms in which they express their own belief
concerning the Son. For, since we have to answer in succession
each of their allegations and to display on the evidence of Holy
Scripture the impiety of their doctrines, we must append, to what they
say of the Father, the decisions which they have put on record
concerning the Son, that by a comparison of their confession of the
Father with their confession of the Son we may follow a uniform order
in our solution of the questions as they arise. They state as
their verdict that the Son is not derived from any pre-existent matter,
for through Him all things were created, nor yet begotten from God, for
nothing can be withdrawn from God; but that He was made out of what was
nonexistent, that is, that He is a perfect creature of God, though
different from His other creatures. They argue that He is a
creature, because it is written, The Lord hath created Me for a
beginning of His ways St. St.
12. “We confess One God, alone unmade,
alone eternal, alone unoriginate, alone true, alone possessing
immortality, alone good, alone mighty, Creator, Ordainer and Disposer
of all things, unchangeable and unalterable, righteous and good, of the
Law and the Prophets and the New Testament. We believe that this
God gave birth to the Only-begotten Son before all worlds, through Whom
He made the world and all things; that He gave birth to Him not in
semblance, but in truth, following His own Will, so that He is
unchangeable and unalterable, God’s perfect creature but not as
one of His other creatures, His handiwork, but not as His other works;
not, as Valentinus maintained, that the Son is a development of the
Father; nor, as Manichæus has declared of the Son, a
consubstantial part of the Father; nor, as Sabellius, who makes two out
of one, Son and Father at once; nor, as Hieracas, a light from a light,
or a lamp with two flames; nor as if He was previously in being and
afterwards born or created afresh to be a Son, a notion often condemned
by thyself, blessed Pope Of Alexandria.
13. “So there are three Persons,
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. God, for His part, is the cause of
all things, utterly unoriginate and separate from all; while the Son,
put forth by the Father outside time, and created and established
before the worlds, did not exist before He was born, but, being born
outside time before the worlds, came into being as the Only Son of the
Only Father. For He is neither eternal, nor co-eternal, nor
co-uncreate with the Father, nor has He an existence collateral with
the Father, as some say, who Omitting
aut aliqui. This Epistle
of Arius to Alexander is translated substantially as in Newman’s
Arians of the Fourth Century, ch. II., § 5, though there
are differences of some importance between Hilary’s Latin version
and the Greek in Athanasius de Synodis, § 16, from which
Newman’s version is made.
14. Such is their error, such their pestilent teaching; to support it they borrow the words of Scripture, perverting its meaning and using the ignorance of men as their opportunity of gaining credence for their lies. Yet it is certainly by these same words of God that we must come to understand the things of God. For human feebleness cannot by any strength of its own attain to the knowledge of heavenly things; the faculties which deal with bodily matters can form no notion of the unseen world. Neither our created bodily substance, nor the reason given by God for the purposes of ordinary life, is capable of ascertaining and pronouncing upon the nature and work of God. Our wits cannot rise to the level of heavenly knowledge, our powers of perception lack the strength to apprehend that limitless might. We must believe God’s word concerning Himself, and humbly accept such insight as He vouchsafes to give. We must make our choice between rejecting His witness, as the heathen do, or else believing in Him as He is, and this in the only possible way, by thinking of Him in the aspect in which He presents Himself to us. Therefore let private judgment cease; let human reason refrain from passing barriers divinely set. In this spirit we eschew all blasphemous and reckless assertion concerning God, and cleave to the very letter of revelation. Each point in our enquiry shall be considered in the light of His instruction, Who is our theme; there shall be no stringing together of isolated phrases whose context is suppressed, to trick and misinform the unpractised listener. The meaning of words shall be ascertained by considering the circumstances under which they were spoken; words must be explained by circumstances not circumstances forced into conformity with words. We, at any rate, will treat our subject completely; we will state both the circumstances under which words were spoken, and the true purport of the words. Each point shall be considered in orderly sequence.
15. Their starting-point is this; We
confess, they say, One only God, because Moses says, Hear, O Israel,
the Lord thy God is One
16. Since, therefore, the words of the
Apostle, One God the Father, from Whom are all things, and one Jesus
Christ, our Lord, through Whom are all things St.
17. When the world was complete and its
inhabitant was to be created, the words spoken concerning him were,
Let Us make man after Our image and likeness Reading
Filii.
18. Thus, when we read, Let Us make man
after Our image and likeness, these two words Us and
Our reveal that there is neither one isolated God, nor yet one
God in two dissimilar Persons; and our confession must be framed in
harmony with the second as well as with the first truth. For the
words our image—not our images—prove that
there is
19. It may seem waste of time to bring
forward further arguments, for truths concerning God gain no strength
by repetition; a single statement suffices to establish them. Yet
it is well for us to know all that has been revealed upon the subject,
for though we are not responsible for the words of Scripture, yet we
shall have to render an account for the sense we have assigned to
them. One of the many commandments which God gave to Noah is,
Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, for his blood shall his life be
shed, for after the image of God made I man I.e. by the word
Our.
20. If you still wish to assert that God the Father in solitude said these words to Himself, I can go with you as far as to admit the possibility that He might in solitude have spoken to Himself as if He were conversing with a companion, and that it is credible that He wished the words I have made man after the image of God to be equivalent to I have made man after My own image. But your own confession of faith will refute you. For you have confessed that all things are from the Father, but all through the Son; and the words, Let Us make man, shew that the Source from Whom are all things is He Who spoke thus, while God made him after the image of God clearly points to Him through Whom the work was done.
21. And furthermore, to make all
self-deception unlawful, that Wisdom, which you have yourself confessed
to be Christ, shall confront you with the words, When He was
establishing the fountains under the heaven, when He was making strong
the foundations of the earth, I was with Him, setting them in
order. It was I, over Whom He rejoiced. Moreover, I was
daily rejoicing in His sight, all the while that He was rejoicing in
the world that He had made, and in the sons of men
22. I am aware that the full explanation of these words involves the discussion of many and weighty problems. I do not shirk them, but postpone them for the present, reserving their consideration for later stages of the enquiry. For the present I devote myself to that article of the blasphemers’ faith, or rather faithlessness, which asserts that Moses proclaims the solitude of God. We do not forget that the assertion is true in the sense that there is One God, from Whom are all things; but neither do we forget that this truth is no excuse for denying the Godhead of the Son, since Moses throughout the course of his writings clearly indicates the existence of God and God. We must examine how the history of God’s choice, and of the giving of the Law, proclaims God co-ordinate with God.
23. After God had often spoken with Abraham,
Sarah was moved to wrath against Hagar, being jealous that she, the
mistress, was barren, while her handmaid had conceived a son.
Then, when Hagar had departed from her sight, the Spirit speaks thus
concerning her, And the angel of the Lord said unto Hagar, Return to
thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel
of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, and it
shall not be numbered for multitude, and again, And she called the Name
of the Lord that spake with her, Thou art God, Who hast seen
me The parenthesis
which follows: “Now angel of God has two senses,
that of Him Who is, and that of Him Whose He is” interrupts the
sense and seems quite out of place. The same distinction in the
case of the word Spirit, in Book II. § 32 may be
compared.
24. In this passage the one Deity is first
the Angel of God, and then, successively, Lord and God. But to
Abraham He is God only. For when the distinction of Persons had
first been made, as a safeguard against the delusion that God is a
solitary Being, then His true and unqualified name could safely be
uttered. And so it is written. And God said to Abraham,
Behold Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his
name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an
everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as far
Ishmael, behold. I have heard thee and have blessed him, and will
multiply him exceedingly; twelve nations shall he beget, and I will
make him a great nation
25. In another instance the Scripture
reveals through Abraham that it was God Who spoke. He receives
the further promise of a son, Isaac. Afterwards there appear to
him three men. Abraham, though he sees three, worships One, and
acknowledges Him as Lord. Three were standing before him,
Scripture says, but he knew well Which it was that he must worship and
confess. There was nothing in outward appearance to distinguish
them, but by the eye of faith, the vision of the soul, he knew his
Lord. Then the Scripture goes on, And He said unto him, I
will
26. What blind faithlessness it is, what dulness of an unbelieving heart, what headstrong impiety, to abide in ignorance of all this, or else to know and yet neglect it! Assuredly it is written for the very purpose that error or oblivion may not hinder the recognition of the truth. If, as we shall prove, it is impossible to escape knowledge of the facts, then it must be nothing less than blasphemy to deny them. This record begins with the speech of the Angel to Hagar, His promise to multiply Ishmael into a great nation and to give him a countless offspring. She listens, and by her confession reveals that He is Lord and God. The story begins with His appearance as the Angel of God; at its termination He stands confessed as God Himself. Thus He Who, while He executes the ministry of declaring the great counsel is God’s Angel, is Himself in name and nature God. The name corresponds to the nature; the nature is not falsified to make it conform to the name. Again, God speaks to Abraham of this same matter; he is told that Ishmael has already received a blessing, and shall be increased into a nation; I have blessed him, God says. This is no change from the Person indicated before; He shews that it was He Who had already given the blessing. The Scripture has obviously been consistent throughout in its progress from mystery to clear revelation; it began with the Angel of God, and proceeds to reveal that it was God Himself Who had spoken in this same matter.
27. The course of the Divine narrative is
accompanied by a progressive development of doctrine. In the
passage which we have discussed God speaks to Abraham, and promises
that Sarah shall bear a son. Afterwards three men stand by him;
he worships One and acknowledges Him as Lord. After this worship
and acknowledgment by Abraham, the One promises that He will return
hereafter at the same season, and that then Sarah shall have her
son. This One again is seen by Abraham in the guise of a man, and
salutes him with the same promise. The change is one of name
only; Abraham’s acknowledgment in each case is the same. It
was a Man whom he saw, yet Abraham worshipped Him as Lord; he beheld,
no doubt, in a mystery the coming Incarnation. Faith so strong
has not missed its recognition; the Lord says in the Gospel, Your
father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was
glad St.
28. Lest you fall into the error of
supposing that this acknowledgment of the One was a payment of honor to
all the three whom Abraham saw in company, mark the words of Lot when
he saw the two who had departed; And when Lot saw them, he rose up
to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; and
he said, Behold, my lords, turn in to your servant’s
house
29. And now there falls on Sodom and
Gomorrah the vengeance of a righteous judgment. What can we learn
from it for the purposes of our enquiry? The Lord rained
brimstone and fire from the Lord. It is The Lord from the
Lord; Scripture makes no distinction, by difference of name,
between Their natures, but discriminates between Themselves. For
we read in the Gospel, The Father judgeth no man, but hath given all
judgment to the Son St.
30. You have now had evidence of God the
Judge as Lord and Lord; learn next that there is the same joint
ownership of name in the case of God and God. Jacob, when he fled
through fear of his brother, saw in his dream a ladder resting upon the
earth and reaching to heaven, and the angels of God ascending and
descending upon it, and the Lord resting above it, Who gave him all the
blessings which He had bestowed upon Abraham and Isaac. At a
later time God spoke to him thus: And God said unto Jacob,
Arise, go up to the place Bethel, and dwell there, and make there an
altar unto God, that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the
face of thy brother
31. Here again there occur to me considerations which must be taken into account in a complete treatment of the subject. But the order of defence must adapt itself to the order of attack, and I reserve these outstanding questions for discussion in the next book. For the present, in regard to God Who demanded honour for God, it will suffice for me to point out that He Who was the Angel of God, when He spoke with Hagar, was God and Lord when He spoke of the same matter with Abraham; that the Man Who spoke with Abraham was also God and Lord, while the two angels, who were seen with the Lord and whom He sent to Lot, are described by the prophet as angels, and nothing more. Nor was it to Abraham only that God appeared in human guise; He appeared as Man to Jacob also. And not only did He appear, but, so we are told, He wrestled; and not only did He wrestle, but He was vanquished by His adversary. Neither the time at my disposal, nor the subject, will allow me to discuss the typical meaning of this wrestling. It was certainly God Who wrestled, for Jacob prevailed against God, and Israel saw God.
32. And now let us enquire whether elsewhere than
in the case of Hagar the Angel of God has been discovered to be God
Himself. He has been so discovered, and found to be not only God,
but the God of Abraham
33. Continue your study of the witness borne
by Moses; mark how diligently he seizes every opportunity of
proclaiming the Lord and God. You take note of the passage,
Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is One Dei
naturalis: cf. Book ix. § 39.
34. Let this be taken as our answer from the books of Moses, or rather as the answer of Moses himself. The heretics imagine that they can use his assertion of the Unity of God in disproof of the Divinity of God the Son; a blasphemy in defiance of the clear warning of their own witness, for whenever he confesses that God is One he never fails to teach the Son’s Divinity. Our next step must be to adduce the manifold utterance of the prophets concerning the same Son.
35. You know the words, Hear, O Israel,
the Lord thy God is One; would that you knew them aright! As
you interpret them, I seek in vain for their sense. It is said in
the Psalms, God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee His human nature
also; cf. next §, and Book xi. § 18.
36. But lest these words, For I am, and
before Me there is no other God, nor shall be after Me, be made a
handle for blasphemous presumption, as proving that the Son is not God,
since after the God, Whom no God precedes, there follows no other God,
the purpose of the passage must be considered. God is His own
best interpreter, but His chosen Servant joins with Him to assure us
that there is no God before Him, nor shall be after Him. His own
witness concerning Himself is, indeed, sufficient, but He has added the
witness of the Servant Whom He has chosen. Thus we have the
united testimony of the Two, that there is no God before Him; we accept
the truth, because all things are from Him. We have Their witness
also that there shall be no God after Him; but They do not deny that
God has been born from Him in the past. Already there was the
Servant speaking thus, and bearing witness to the Father; the Servant
born in that tribe from which God’s elect was to spring. He
sets forth also the same truth in the Gospels: Behold, My
Servant Whom I have chosen, My Beloved in Whom My soul is well
pleased St.
37. The fact is obvious from His own
words. For He says to Hosea the prophet, I will no more have
mercy upon the house of Israel, but will altogether be their
enemy. But I will have mercy upon the children of Judah, and will
save them in the Lord their God I.e. We cannot
say Thy God of the Father.
38. Again, how clear is the declaration made
by God the Father through Isaiah concerning our Lord! He says,
For thus saith the Lord, the holy God of Israel, Who made the things
to come, Ask me concerning your sons and your daughters, and concerning
the works of My hands command ye Me. I have made the earth and
man upon it, I have commanded all the stars, I have raised up a King
with righteousness, and all His ways are straight. He shall build
My city, and shall turn back the captivity of My people, not for price
nor reward, saith the Lord of Sabaoth. Egypt shall
labour, Reading
ex for et.
39. As for the men of stature who shall come
over to Him and follow Him in chains, there is no doubt who they
are. Turn to the Gospels; Peter, when he is to follow his Lord,
is girded up. Read the Apostles: Paul, the servant of
Christ, boasts of his bonds. Let us see whether this
‘prisoner of Jesus Christ’ conforms in his teaching to the
prophecies uttered by God concerning God His Son. God had said,
They shall make supplication, for God is in Thee. Now mark
and digest these words of the Apostle:—God was in Christ,
reconciling the world to Himself
40. Thus God is in God, and it is God in Whom God dwells. But how is There is no God beside Thee true, if God be within Him? Heretic! In support of your confession of a solitary Father you employ the words, There is no God beside Me; what sense can you assign to the solemn declaration of God the Father, There is no God beside Thee, if your explanation of There is no God beside Me be a denial of the Godhead of the Son? To whom, in that case, can God have said, There is no God beside Thee? You cannot suggest that this solitary Being said it to Himself. It was to the King Whom He summoned that the Lord said, by the mouth of the men of stature who worshipped and made supplication, For God is in Thee. The facts are inconsistent with solitude. In Thee implies that there was One present within range, if I may say so, of the Speaker’s voice. The complete sentence, God is in Thee, reveals not only God present, but also God abiding in Him Who is present. The words distinguish the Indweller from Him in Whom He dwells, but it is a distinction of Person only, not of character. God is in Him, and He, in Whom God is, is God. The residence of God cannot be within a nature strange and alien to His own. He abides in One Who is His own, born from Himself. God is in God, because God is from God. For Thou art God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, the Saviour.
41. My next book is devoted to the refutation of
your denial that God is in God; for the
42. As you have listened already to Moses
and Isaiah, so listen now to Jeremiah inculcating the same truth as
they:—This is our God, and there shall be none other likened
unto Him, Who hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given
it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward
did He shew Himself upon earth and dwelt among men St.
1. Our reply, in
the previous books, to the mad and blasphemous doctrines of the
heretics has led us with open eyes into the difficulty that our readers
incur an equal danger whether we refute our opponents, or whether we
forbear. For while unbelief with boisterous irreverence was
thrusting upon us the unity of God, a unity which devout and reasonable
faith cannot deny, the scrupulous soul was caught in the dilemma that,
whether it asserted or denied the proposition, the danger of blasphemy
was equally incurred. To human logic it may seem ridiculous and
irrational to say that it can be impious to assert, and impious to
deny, the same doctrine, since what it is godly to maintain it must be
godless to dispute; if it serve a good purpose to demolish a statement,
it may seem folly to dream that good can come from supporting it.
But human logic is fallacy in the presence of the counsels of God, and
folly when it would cope with the wisdom of heaven; its thoughts are
fettered by its limitations, its philosophy confined by the feebleness
of natural reason. It must be foolish in its own eyes before it
can be wise unto God; that is, it must learn the poverty of its own
faculties and seek after Divine wisdom. It must become wise, not
by the standard of human philosophy, but of that which mounts to God,
before it can enter into His wisdom, and its eyes be opened to the
folly of the world. The heretics have ingeniously contrived that
this folly, which passes for wisdom, shall be their engine. They
employ the confession of One God, for which they appeal to the witness
of the Law and the Gospels in the words, Hear, O Israel, the Lord
thy God is One Reading
recideretue.
2. But we who have attained this wisdom of God,
which is folly to the world, and purpose, by means of the sound and
saving profession of true faith in the Lord, to unmask the snake-like
treachery of their teaching; we have so laid out the plan of our
undertaking as to gain a vantage ground for the display of the truth
without entangling ourselves in the dangers of heretical
assertion. We carefully avoid either extreme; not denying that
God is One, yet setting forth distinctly, on the evidence of the
Lawgiver who proclaims the unity of God, the truth that there is God
and God. We teach that it is by no confusion of the Two that God
is One; we do not rend Him in pieces by preaching a plurality of Gods,
nor yet do we profess a distinction only in name. But we present
Him as God and God, postponing at present for fuller discussion
hereafter the question of the Divine unity. For the Gospels tell
us that Moses taught the truth when he proclaimed that God is One; and
Moses by his proclamation of One God confirms the lesson of the
Gospels, which tell of God and God.
3. And so the arrangement of our treatise
follows closely the order of the objections raised. Since the
next article of their blasphemous and dishonest confession is, We
confess One true God From the beginning
of the Arian Creed, Book iv. § 12. The first three
books are regarded as preliminary. The direct refutation began
with Book iv.
4. And now, since we accept as common ground
the fact that God recognises His Son as God, I ask you: how does
the creation of the world disprove our assertion that the Son is true
God? There is no doubt that all things are through the Son, for,
in the Apostle’s words, All things are through Him, and in
Him i.e. His freedom of
action is proved by His satisfaction with the result.
5. When the Law says, And God said, Let
there be a firmament, and then adds, And God made the
firmament, it introduces no other distinction than that of
Person. It indicates no difference of power or nature, and makes
no change of name. Under the one title of God it reveals,
first, the thought of Him Who spoke, and then the action of Him Who
created. The language of the narrator says nothing to deprive Him
of Divine nature and power; nay rather, how precisely does it inculcate
His true Godhead. The power to give effect to the word of
creation belongs only to that Nature with Whom to speak is the same as
to fulfil. How then is He not true God, Who creates, if He is
true God, Who commands? If the word spoken was truly Divine, the
deed done was truly Divine also. God spoke, and God created; if
it was true God Who spoke, He Who created was true God also; unless
indeed, while the presence of true Godhead was displayed in the speech
of the One, its absence was manifested in the action of the
Other. Thus in the Son of God we behold the true Divine
nature. He is God, He is Creator, He is Son of God, He is
omnipotent. It is not merely that He can do whatever He will, for
will is always the concomitant of power; but He can do also whatever is
commanded Him. Absolute power is this, that its possessor can
execute as Agent whatever His words as Speaker can express. When
unlimited power of expression is combined with unlimited power of
execution, then this creative power, commensurate with the commanding
word, possesses the true nature of God. Thus the Son of God is
not false God, nor God by adoption, nor God by gift of the name, but
true God. Nothing would be gained by the statement of the
arguments by which His true Godhead is opposed. His possession of
the name and of the nature of God is conclusive proof. He, by
Whom all things were made, is God. So much the creation of the
world tells me about Him. He is God, equal with God in name; true
God, equal with true God in power. The might of God is revealed
to us in the creative word; the might of God is manifested also in the
creative act. And now again I ask by what authority you deny, in
your confession of Father and Son, the true Divine nature of
6. My reader must bear in mind that I am silent about the current objections through no forgetfulness, and no distrust of my cause. For that constantly cited text, The Father is greater than I, and its cognate passages are perfectly familiar to me, and I have my interpretation of them ready, which makes them witness to the true Divine nature of the Son. But it serves my purpose best to adhere in reply to the order of attack, that our pious effort may follow close upon the progress of their impious scheme, and when we see them diverge into godless heresy we may at once obliterate the track of error. To this end we postpone to the end of our work the testimony of the Evangelists and Apostles, and join battle with the blasphemers for the present on the ground of the Law and the Prophets, silencing their crooked argument, based on misinterpretation and deceit, by the very texts with which they strive to delude us. The sound method of demonstrating a truth is to expose the fallacy of the objections raised against it; and the disgrace of the deceiver is complete if his own lie be converted into an evidence for the truth. And, indeed, the universal experience of mankind has learned that falsehood and truth are incompatible, and cannot be reconciled or made coherent; that by their very nature they are among those opposites which are eternally repugnant, and can never combine or agree.
7. This being the case, I ask how a distinction can be made in the words, Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness, between a true God and a false. The words express a meaning, the meaning is the outcome of thought; the thought is set in motion by truth. Let us follow the words back to their meaning, and learn from the meaning the thought, and from the thought attain to the underlying truth. Thy enquiry is, whether He to Whom the words Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness were spoken, was not thought of as true by Him Who spoke; for they undoubtedly express the feeling and thought of the Speaker. In saying Let Us make, He clearly indicates One in no discord with Himself, no alien or powerless Being, but One endowed with power to do the thing of which He speaks. His own words assure us that this is the sense in which we must understand that they were spoken.
8. To assure us still more fully of the true Godhead manifested in the nature and work of the Son, He, Who expressed His meaning in the words I have cited, shews that His thought was suggested by the true Divinity of Him to Whom He said, After Our own image and likeness. How is He falsely called God, to Whom the true God says, After Our own image and likeness? Our is inconsistent with isolation, and with difference either in purpose or in nature. Man is created, taking the words in their strict sense, in Their common image. Now there can be nothing common to the true and to the false. God, the Speaker, is speaking to God; man is being created in the image of Father and of Son. The Two are One in name and One in nature. It is only one image after which man is made. The time has not yet come for me to discuss this matter; hereafter I will explain what is this image of God the Father and of God the Son into which man was created. For the present we will stick to the question, was, or was not, He true God, to Whom the true God said, Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness? Separate, if you can, the true from the false elements in this image common to Both; in your heretical madness divide the indivisible. For They Two are One, of Whose one image and likeness man is the one copy.
9. But now let us continue our reading of this Scripture, to shew how the consistency of truth is unaffected by these dishonest objections. The next words are, And God made man; after the image of God made He him. The image is in common; God made man after the image of God. I would ask him who denies that God’s Son is true God, in what God’s image he supposes that God made man? He must bear constantly in mind that all things are through the Son; heretical ingenuity must not, for its own purposes, twist this passage into action on the part of the Father. If, therefore, man is created through God the Son after the image of God the Father, he is created also after the image of the Son; for all admit that the words After Our image and likeness were spoken to the Son. Thus His true Godhead is as explicitly asserted by the Divine words as manifested in the Divine action; so that it is God Who moulds man into the image of God, Who reveals Himself as God, and, moreover, as true God. For His joint possession of the Divine image proves Him true God, while His creative action displays Him as God the Son.
10. What wild insanity of abandoned
souls! What blind audacity of reckless blasphemy! You hear
of God and God; you hear of Our image. Why suggest that
One is, and One is not, true God? Why distinguish between God by
nature and God in name? Why, under pretext of defending the
faith, do you destroy the faith? Why struggle to
11. But let us travel once more in our
journey of instruction over the lessons taught in the holy Law of
God. The Angel of God speaks to Hagar; and this same Angel is
God. But perhaps His being the Angel of God means that He is not
true God. For this title seems to indicate a lower nature; where
the name points to a difference in kind, it is thought that true
equality must be absent. The last book has already exposed the
hollowness of this objection; the title of Angel informs us of His
office, not of His nature. I have prophetic evidence for this
explanation; Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a
flaming fire
12. Faith burns with passionate ardour; the burden of silence is intolerable, and my thoughts imperiously demand an utterance. Already, in the preceding book I have departed from the intended method of my demonstration. I was denouncing that blasphemous sense in which the heretics speak of One God, and expounding the passages in which Moses speaks of God and God. I hastened on with a precipitate, though devout, zeal to the true sense in which we hold the unity of God. And now again, wrapped up in the pursuit of another enquiry, I have suffered myself to wander from the course, and, while I was engaged upon the true Divinity of the Son, the ardour of my soul has hurried me on before the time to make the confession of true God as Father and as Son. But our own faith must wait its proper place in the treatise. This preliminary statement of it has been made as a safeguard for the reader; it shall be so developed and explained hereafter as to frustrate the schemes of the gainsayer.
13. To resume the argument; this title of office indicates no difference of nature, for He, Who is the Angel of God, is God. The test of His true Godhead shall be, whether or no His words and acts were those of God. He increases Ishmael into a great people, and promises that many nations shall bear his name. Is this, I ask, within an angel’s power? If not, and this is the power of God, why do you refuse true Divinity to Him Who, on your own confession, has the true power of God? Thus He possesses the true and perfect powers of the Divine nature. True God, in all the types in which He reveals Himself for the world’s salvation, is not, nor ever can be, other than true God.
14. Now first, I ask, what is the meaning of these
terms, ‘true God’ and ‘not true God’? If
any one says to me ‘This is fire, but not true fire; water, but
not true water,’ I can attach no intelligible meaning to his
words. What difference in kind can there be between one true
specimen, and another true specimen, of the same class? If a
thing be fire, it must be true fire; while its nature remains the same
it cannot lose this character of true fire. Deprive water of its
watery nature, and by so doing you destroy it as true water; let it
15. But perhaps it will be argued that, when the Angel of God is called God, He receives the name as a favour, through adoption, and has in consequence a nominal, not a true, Godhead. If He gave us an inadequate revelation of His Divine nature at the time when He was styled the Angel of God, judge whether He has not fully manifested His true Godhead under the name of a nature lower than the angelic. For a Man spoke to Abraham, and Abraham worshipped Him as God. Pestilent heretic! Abraham confessed Him, you deny Him, to be God. What hope is there for you, in your blasphemy, of the blessings promised to Abraham? He is Father of the Gentiles, but not for you; you cannot go forth from your regeneration to join the household of his seed, through the blessings given to his faith. You are no son, raised up to Abraham from the stones; you are a generation of vipers, an adversary of his belief. You are not the Israel of God, the heir of Abraham, justified by faith; for you have disbelieved God, while Abraham was justified and appointed to be the Father of the Gentiles through that faith wherein he worshipped the God Whose word he trusted. God it was Whom that blessed and faithful Patriarch worshipped then; and mark how truly He was God, to Whom, in His own words, all things are possible. Is there any, but God alone, to Whom nothing is impossible? And He, to Whom all things are possible, does He fall short of true Divinity?
16. I ask further, Who is this God Who
overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah? For the Lord rained from the
Lord Book iv. §
12. The latter expression is cited inaccurately.
17. His merciful and mysterious self-revelations
are in no wise inconsistent with His true heavenly nature; and His
faithful saints never fail to penetrate the guise He has assumed in
order that faith may see Him. The types of the Law foreshew the
mysteries of the Gospel; they enable the Patriarch to see and to
believe what hereafter the Apostle is to gaze on and publish.
For, since the Law is the shadow of things to come, the shadow that was
seen was a true outline of the reality which cast it. God was
seen and believed and worshipped as Man, Who was indeed to be born as
Man in the fulness of time. He takes upon Him, to meet the
Patriarch’s eye, a semblance which foreshadows the future
truth. In that old day God was only seen, not born, as Man; in
due time He was born, as well as seen. Familiarity with the human
appearance, which He took that men might behold Him, was to prepare
them for the time when He should, in very truth, be born as Man.
Then it was that the shadow took substance, the semblance reality, the
vision
18. But godless unbelief finds it very hard to apprehend the true faith. Their capacity for devotion has never been expanded by belief, and is too narrow to receive a full presentment of the truth. Hence the unbelieving soul cannot grasp the great work done by God in being born as Man to accomplish the salvation of mankind; in the work of its salvation it fails to see the power of God. They think of the travail of His birth, the feebleness of infancy, the growth of childhood, the attainment of maturity, of bodily suffering and of the Cross with which it ended, and of the death upon the Cross; and all this conceals His true Godhead from their eyes. Yet He had called into being all these capacities for Himself, as additions to His nature; capacities which in His true Divine nature He had not possessed. Thus He acquired them without loss of His true Divinity, and ceased not to be God when He became Man; when He, Who is God eternally, became Man at a point in time. They cannot see an exercise of the true God’s power in His becoming what He was not before, yet never ceasing to be His former Self. And yet there would have been no acceptance of our feeble nature, had not He by the strength of His own omnipotent nature, while remaining what He was, come to be what previously He was not. What blindness of heresy, what foolish wisdom of the world, which cannot see that the reproach of Christ is the power of God, the folly of faith the wisdom of God! So Christ in your eyes is not God because He, Who was from eternity, was born, because the Unchangeable grew with years, the Impassible suffered, the Living died, the Dead lives; because all His history contradicts the common course of nature! Is not all this simply to say that He, being God, was omnipotent? Not yet, ye holy and venerable Gospels, do I turn your pages, to prove from them that Christ Jesus, amid these changes and sufferings, is God. For the Law is the forerunner of the Gospels, and the Law must teach us that, when God clothed Himself in infirmity, He lost not His Godhead. The types of the Law are our convincing assurance of the mysteries of the Gospel faith.
19. Be with me now in thy faithful spirit,
holy and blessed Patriarch Jacob, to combat the poisonous hissings of
the serpent of unbelief. Prevail once more in thy wrestling with
the Man, and, being the stronger, once more entreat His blessing.
Why pray for what thou mightest demand from thy weaker Opponent?
Thy strong arm has vanquished Him Whose blessing thou prayest.
Thy bodily victory is in broad contrast to thy soul’s humility,
thy deeds to thy thoughts. It is a Man whom thou holdest
powerless in thy strong grasp; but in thine eye this Man is true God,
and God not in name only, but in nature. It is not the blessing
of a God by adoption that thou dost claim, but the true God’s
blessing. With Man thou strivest; but face to face thou seest
God. What thou seest with the bodily eye is different far from
what thou beholdest with the vision of faith. Thou hast felt Him
to be weak Man; but thy soul has been saved because it saw God in
Him. When thou wast wrestling thou wast Jacob; thou art Israel
now, through faith in the blessing which thou didst claim.
According to the flesh, the Man is thy inferior, for a type of His
passion in the flesh; but thou canst recognise God in that weak flesh,
for a sign of His blessing in the Spirit. The witness of the eye
does not disturb thy faith; His feebleness does not mislead thee into
neglect of His blessing. Though He is Man, His humanity is no bar
to His being God, His Godhead no bar to His being true God; for, being
God, He must indeed be true Omitting et
benedicendo et transferendo et nuncupando.
20. The Law in its progress still follows the
sequence of the Gospel mystery, of which it is the shadow; its types
are a faithful anticipation of the truths taught by the Apostles.
In the vision of his dream the blessed Jacob saw God; this was the
revelation of a mystery, not
21. Human judgment must not pass its
sentence upon God. Our nature is not such that it can lift itself
by its own forces to the contemplation of heavenly things. We
must learn from God what we are to think of God; we have no source of
knowledge but Himself. You may be as carefully trained as you
will in secular philosophy; you may have lived a life of
righteousness. All this will contribute to your mental
satisfaction, but it will not help you to know God. Moses was
adopted as the son of the queen, and instructed in all the wisdom of
the Egyptians; he had, moreover, out of loyalty to his race avenged the
wrong of the Hebrew by slaying the Egyptian This act is used as
the evidence of Moses’ righteousness.
22. It is the Angel of God Who appeared in
the fire from the bush; and it is God Who spoke from the bush amid the
fire. He is manifested as Angel; that is His office, not His
nature. The name which expresses His nature is given you as God;
for the Angel of God is God. But perhaps He is not true
God. Is the God of Abraham, then, the God of Isaac, the God of
Jacob, not true God? For the Angel Who speaks from the bush is
their God eternally. And, lest you insinuate that the name is His
only by adoption, it is the absolute God Who speaks to Moses.
These are His words:—And the Lord said unto Moses, I Am that I
Am; and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, He
that is hath sent me unto you
23. What further fictions can the futile
folly of insane blasphemy devise? Do you still persist in your
nightly sowing of tares, predestined to be burnt, among the pure wheat,
when the knowledge of all the Patriarchs contradicts you? Nay
more: if you believed Moses, you would believe also in God, the
Son of God; unless perchance you deny that it was of Him that Moses
spoke. If you propose to deny that, you must listen to the words
of God:—For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me
also, for he wrote of Me St. Reading
viveres.
24. This long discussion has, I believe, brought out the truth that no sound argument has ever been adduced in favour of a distinction between One Who is, and One Who is not, true God, in those passages where the Law speaks of God and God, of Lord and Lord. I have proved that these terms are inconsistent with difference between Them in name or in nature, and that we can use the name as a test of the nature, and the nature as a clue to the name. Thus I have shewn that the character, the power, the attributes, the name of God are inherent in Him Whom the Law has called God. I have shewn also that the Law, gradually unfolding the Gospel mystery, reveals the Son as a Person by manifesting God as obedient, in the creation of the world, to the words of God, and in the formation of man making what is the joint image of God, and of God; and again, that in the judgment of the men of Sodom the Lord is Judge from the Lord; that, in the giving of blessings and ordaining of the mysteries of the Law, the Angel of God is God. Thus, in support of the saving confession of God as ever manifested in the Persons of Father and of Son, we have shewn how the Law teaches the true Godhead by the use of the strict name of God; for, while the Law states clearly that They are Two, it casts no shadow of doubt upon the true Godhead of either.
25. And now the time has come for us to put
a stop to that cunning artifice of heresy, by which they pervert the
devout and godly teachings of the Law into a support for their own
godless delusion. They preface their denial of the Son of God
with the words, Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is One; and
then, because their blasphemy would be refuted by the identity of name,
since the Law speaks of God and God, they invoke the authority of the
prophetic words, They shall bless Thee, the true God, to prove
that the name is not used in the true sense. They argue that
these words teach that God is One, and that God, the Son of God, has
His name only and not His nature; and that therefore we must conclude
that the true God is one Person only. But perhaps you imagine,
fool, that we shall contradict these texts of yours, and so deny that
there is one true God. Assuredly we do not contradict them by a
confession conceived in your sense. Our faith receives them, our
reason accepts them, our words declare them. We recognise One
God, and Him true God. The name of God has no dangers for our
confession, which proclaims that in the nature of the Son there is the
One true God. Learn the meaning of your own words, recognise the
One true God, and then you will be able to make a faithful confession
of God, One and true. It is the words of our faith which you are
turning into the instrument of your blasphemy, preserving the sound and
perverting the sense. Masquerading in a foolish garb of imaginary
wisdom, under cover of loyalty to truth you are the truth’s
destroyer. You confess that God is One and true, on purpose to
deny the truth which you confess. Your language claims a
reputation for piety on the strength of its impiety, for truth on the
strength of its falsehood. Your preaching of One true God leads
up to a denial of Him. For you deny that the Son is true God,
though you admit that He is God, but God in name only, not in
nature. If His birth be in name, not in nature, then you are
justified in denying His true right to the name; but if He be truly
born as God, how then can He fail to be true God by virtue of His
birth? Deny the fact, and you may deny the consequence; if you
admit the fact, how can He be other than Himself? No being can
alter its own essential nature. About His birth I shall speak
presently; meantime I will refute your blasphemous falsehoods
concerning His true Divine nature by the utterances of prophets.
But I shall
26. Blasphemy is incompatible with wisdom;
where the fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom, is absent, no
glimmer of intelligence survives. An instance of this is seen in
the heretics’ citation of the prophet’s words, And they
shall bless Thee, the true God, as evidence against the Godhead of
the Son. First, we see here the folly, which clogs unbelief in
the misunderstanding or (if it were understood) in the suppression of
the earlier part of the prophecy: and again we see it in their
fraudulent interpolation of that one little word, not to be found in
the book itself. This proceeding is as stupid as it is dishonest,
since no one would trust them so far as to accept their reading without
referring for corroboration to the prophetic text. For that text
does not stand thus: They shall bless Thee, the true God,
but thus: They shall bless the true God
27. To ensure that our explanation of the
passage shall be complete and certain, I cite the words in
full:—Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold, they that serve
Me shall eat, but ye shall be hungry, behold, they that serve Me shall
drink, but ye shall be thirsty, behold, they that serve Me shall
rejoice with gladness, but ye shall cry for sorrow of your heart, and
shall howl for vexation of spirit. For ye shall leave your name
for a rejoicing unto My chosen, but the Lord shall slay you. But
My servants shall be called by a new name, which shall be blessed upon
earth; and they shall bless the true God, and they that swear upon the
earth shall swear by the true God Cf. Book iii. §
17.
28. Therefore thus saith the Lord,
Behold, they that serve Me shall eat, but ye shall be hungry; behold,
they that serve Me shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty. Note
that one clause contains two different tenses, in order to teach truth
concerning two different times; They that serve Me shall
eat. Present piety is rewarded with a future prize, and
similarly present godlessness shall suffer the penalty of future thirst
and hunger. Then He adds, Behold, they that serve Me shall
rejoice with gladness, but ye shall cry for sorrow of your heart, and
shall howl for vexation of spirit. Here again, as before,
there is a revelation for the future and for the present. They
who serve now shall rejoice with gladness, while they who do not serve
shall abide in crying and howling through sorrow of heart and vexation
of spirit. He proceeds, For ye shall leave your name for a
rejoicing unto My chosen, but the Lord shall slay you. These
words, dealing with a future time, are addressed to the carnal Israel,
which is taunted with the prospect of having to surrender its name to
the chosen of God. What is this name? Israel, of course;
for to Israel the prophecy was addressed. And now I ask, What is
Israel to-day? The Apostle gives the answer:—They who are
in the spirit, not in the letter, they who walk in the Law of Christ,
are the Israel of God Cf.
29. Furthermore, we must form a conclusion
why it is that the words cited above, Therefore thus saith the
Lord, are followed by But the Lord shall slay you, and as to
the meaning of the next sentence, But my servants shall be called by
a new name, which shall be blessed upon earth. There can be
no doubt that both Therefore thus saith the
30. And now come words in perfect harmony with the inward assurance of our faith. He says, And they shall bless the true God, and they that swear upon earth shall swear by the true God. And indeed they who in God’s service have received the new name shall bless God; and moreover the God by Whom they shall swear is the true God. What doubt is there as to Who this true God is, by Whom men shall swear and Whom they shall bless, through Whom a new and blessed name shall be given to them that serve Him? I have on my side, in opposition to the blasphemous misrepresentations of heresy, the clear and definite evidence of the Church’s faith; the witness of the new name which Thou, O Christ, hast given, of the blessed title which Thou hast bestowed in reward of loyal service. It swears that Thou art true God. Every mouth, O Christ, of them that believe tells that Thou art God. The faith of all believers swears that Thou art God, confesses, proclaims, is inwardly assured, that Thou art true God.
31. And thus this passage of prophecy, taken
with its whole context, clearly describes as God both Him Whom we serve
for the new name’s sake, and Him through Whom the new name is
blessed upon earth. It tells us Who it is that is blessed as true
God, and Who is sworn by as true God. And this is the confession
of faith made, in the fulness of time, by the Church in loyal devotion
to Christ her Lord. We can see how exactly the words of prophecy
conform to the truth, by their refraining from the insertion of that
pronoun of the second person. Had the words been Thee, the
true God, then they might have been interpreted as spoken to
another. The true God can refer to none but the
Speaker. The passage, taken by itself, shews to Whom it refers;
the preceding words, taken in connexion with it, declare Who the
Speaker is Who makes this confession of God. They are
these:—I have appeared openly to them that asked not for Me,
and, I have been found of them that sought Me not. I said, Here
am I, unto a nation that called not on My name. I have spread out
My hands all the day to an unbelieving and gainsaying
people Cf.
32. If heresy, in its folly and wickedness,
shall attempt to entice the simple-minded and uninstructed away from
the true belief that these words were spoken in reference to God the
Son, by feigning that they are an utterance of God the Father
concerning Himself, it shall hear sentence passed upon the lie by the
Apostle and Teacher of the Gentiles. He interprets all these
prophecies as allusions to the passion of the Lord and to the times of
Gospel faith, when he is reproving the unbelief of Israel, which will
not recognise that the Lord is come in the flesh. His words
are:—For whosoever shall have called upon the name of the Lord
shall be saved. How shall they call on Him in Whom they have not
believed? But how shall they believe
33. But it may be argued that the Apostle
was not inspired by the Spirit of prophecy when he borrowed these
prophetic words; that he was only interpreting at random the words of
another man, and though, no doubt, everything the Apostle says of
himself comes to him by revelation from Christ, yet his knowledge of
the words of Isaiah is only derived from the book. I answer that
in the beginning of that utterance in which it is said that the
servants of the true God shall bless Him and swear by Him, we read this
adoration by the prophet:—From everlasting we have not heard,
nor have our eyes seen God, except Thee, and Thy works which Thou wilt
do for them that await Thy mercy St.
34. Thus the Only-begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, has told us of God, Whom no man has seen. Either disprove the fact that the Son has thus informed us, or else believe Him Who has been seen, Who appeared to them who knew Him not, and became the God of the Gentiles who called not upon Him and spread out His hands before a gainsaying people. And believe this also concerning Him, that they who serve Him are called by a new name, and that on earth men bless Him and swear by Him as true God. Prophecy tells, the Gospel confirms, the Apostle explains, the Church confesses, that He Who was seen is true God; but none venture to say that God the Father was seen. And yet the madness of heresy has run to such lengths that, while they profess to recognise this truth, they really deny it. They deny it by means of the newfangled and godless device of evading the truth, while making a studied pretence of adhesion to it. For when they confess one God, alone true and alone righteous, alone wise, alone unchangeable, alone immortal, alone mighty, they attach to Him a Son different in substance, not born from God to be God, but adopted through creation to be a Son, having the name of God not by nature, but as a title received by adoption; and thus they inevitably deprive the Son of all those attributes which they accumulate upon the Father in His lonely majesty.
35. The distorted mind of heresy is incapable of
knowing and confessing the One true God; the sound faith and reason
necessary for such confession is incompatible with unbelief. We
must confess Father and Son before we can apprehend God as One and
true. When we have known the mysteries of man’s salvation,
accomplished in us through the power of regeneration unto life in the
36. The true method of our enquiry demands
that we should begin with him, through whom God first manifested
Himself to the world, that is, with Moses, by whose mouth God the
Only-begotten thus declared Himself; See, see that I am God, and
there is no God beside Me Book iv. §
33.
37. That true and absolute and perfect
doctrine, which forms our faith, is the confession of God from God and
God in God, by no bodily process but by Divine power, by no transfusion
from nature into nature but through the secret and mighty working of
the One nature; God from God, not by division or extension or
emanation, but by the operation of a nature which brings into
existence, by means of birth, a nature One with itself. The facts
shall receive a fuller treatment in the next book, which is to be
devoted to an exposition of the teaching of the Evangelists and
Apostles; for the present we must maintain our assertion and belief by
means of the Law and the Prophets. The nature with which God is
born is necessarily the same as that of His Source. He cannot
come into existence as other than God, since His origin is from none
other than God. His nature is the same, not in the sense that the
Begetter also was begotten—for then the Unbegotten, having been
begotten, would not be Himself—but that the substance of the
Begotten consists in all those elements which are summed up in the
substance of the Begetter, Who is His only Origin. Thus it is due
to no external cause that His origin is from the One, and that His
existence partakes the Unity; there is no novel element in Him, because
His life is from the Living; no element absent, because the Living
begot Him to partake His own life. Hence, in the generation of
the Son, the incorporeal and unchangeable God begets, in accordance
with His own nature, God incorporeal and unchangeable; and this perfect
birth of incorporeal and unchangeable God from incorporeal and
unchangeable God involves, as we see in the light of the revelation of
God from God, no diminution of the Begetter’s substance.
And so God the Only-begotten bears witness through the holy Moses;
See, see that I am God, and there is no God beside Me. For
there is no second Divine nature, and so there can be no God beside
Him, since He is God, yet by the powers of His nature God is also in
Him. And because He is God and God is in Him, there is no God
beside Him; for God, than Whom there is no other Source of Deity,
is
38. This saving faith which we profess is
sustained by the spirit of prophecy, speaking with one voice through
many mouths, and never, through long and changing ages, bearing an
uncertain witness to the truths of revelation. For instance, the
words which, as we are told through Moses, were spoken by God the
Only-begotten, are confirmed for our better instruction by the
prophetic spirit, speaking this time through those men of
stature,—For God is in Thee, and there is no God beside
Thee. Thou art God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, the
Saviour. Let heresy fling itself with its utmost effort of
despair and rage against this declaration of a name and nature
inseparably joined, and rend in twain, if its furious struggles can, a
union perfect in title and in fact. God is in God and beside Him
there is no God. Let heresy, if it can, divide the God within
from the God within Whom He is, and classify, Each after His kind, the
members of that mystic union. For when He says God is in
Thee, He teaches that the true nature of God the Father is present
in God the Son; for we must understand that it is the God Who
is
39. Jeremiah also, a prophet equally
inspired, has taught that God the Only-begotten is of a nature one with
that of God the Father. His words are:—This is our God,
and there shall be none other likened unto Him, Who hath found out all
the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob His servant, and to
Israel His beloved. Afterward He was seen upon earth, and dwelt
among men
1. It is with a full knowledge of the dangers and passions of the time that I have ventured to attack this wild and godless heresy, which asserts that the Son of God is a creature. Multitudes of Churches, in almost every province of the Roman Empire, have already caught the plague of this deadly doctrine; error, persistently inculcated and falsely claiming to be the truth, has become ingrained in minds which vainly imagine that they are loyal to the faith. I know how hardly the will is moved to a thorough recantation, when zeal for a mistaken cause is encouraged by the sense of numbers and confirmed by the sanction of general approval. A multitude under delusion can only be approached with difficulty and danger. When the crowd has gone astray, even though it know that it is in the wrong, it is ashamed to return. It claims consideration for its numbers, and has the assurance to command that its folly shall be accounted wisdom. It assumes that its size is evidence of the correctness of its opinions; and thus a falsehood which has found general credence is boldly asserted to have established its truth.
2. For my own part, it was not only the
claim which my vocation has upon me, the duty of diligently preaching
the Gospel which, as a bishop, I owe to the Church, that has led me
on. My eagerness to write has increased with the increasing
numbers endangered and enthralled by this heretical theory. There
was a rich prospect of joy in the thought of multitudes who might be
saved, if they could know the mysteries of the right faith in God, and
abandon the blasphemous principles of human folly, desert the heretics
and surrender themselves to God; if they would forsake the bait with
which the fowler snares his prey, and soar aloft in freedom and safety,
following Christ as Leader, prophets as instructors, apostles as
guides, and accepting the perfect faith and sure salvation in the
confession of Father and of Son. So would they, in obedience to
the words of the Lord, He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not
the Father which hath sent Him St.
3. For of late the infection of a mortal evil has gone abroad among mankind, whose ravages have dealt destruction and death on every hand. The sudden desolation of cities smitten, with their people in them, by earthquake to the ground, the terrible slaughter of recurring wars, the widespread mortality of an irresistible pestilence, have never wrought such fatal mischief as the progress of this heresy throughout the world. For God, unto Whom all the dead live, destroys those only who are self-destroyed. From Him Who is to be the Judge of all, Whose Majesty will temper with mercy the punishment allotted to the mistakes of ignorance, they who deny Him can expect not even judgment, but only denial.
4. For this mad heresy does deny; it denies
the mystery of the true faith by means of statements borrowed from our
confession, which it employs for its own godless ends. The
confession of their misbelief, which I have already cited in an earlier
book, begins thus:—”We confess one God, alone unmade, alone
eternal, alone unoriginate, alone true, alone possessing immortality,
alone good, alone mighty.” Thus they parade the opening
words of our own confession, which runs, “One God, alone unmade
and alone un-originate,” that this semblance of truth may serve
as introduction to their blasphemous additions. For, after a
multitude of words in which an equally insincere devotion to the Son is
expressed, their confession continues, “God’s perfect
creature, but not as one of His other creatures, His Handiwork, but not
as His other works.” And again, after an interval in which
true statements are occasionally interspersed in order to veil their
impious purpose of alleging, as by sophistry they try to prove, that He
came into existence out of nothing, they add, “He, created and
established before the worlds, did not exist before He was
born.” And lastly, as though every point of their false
doctrine, that He is to be regarded neither as Son nor as God, were
guarded impregnably against assault, they continue:—“As to
such phrases as from Him, and from the womb, and I went out from the
Father and am come, if they be understood to denote that the Father
ex Reading
quarto instead of primo; but cf. v. § 3.
5. “We confess one God, alone unmade, alone eternal, alone unoriginate, alone possessing immortality, alone good, alone mighty, Creator, Ordainer and Disposer of all things, unchangeable and unalterable, righteous and good, of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament. We believe that this God gave birth to the Only-begotten Son before all worlds, through Whom He made the world and all things, that He gave birth to Him not in semblance, but in truth, following His own will, so that He is unchangeable and unalterable, God’s perfect Creature, but not as one of His other creatures, His Handiwork, but not as His other works; not, as Valentinus maintained, that the Son is a development of the Father, nor, as Manichæus has declared of the Son, a consubstantial part of the Father, nor, as Sabellius, who makes two out of One, Son and Father at once, nor, as Hieracas, a light from a light, or a lamp with two flames, nor, as if He was previously in being and afterwards born, or created afresh, to be a Son, a notion often condemned by thyself, blessed Pope, publicly in the Church, and in the assembly of the brethren. But, as we have affirmed, we believe that He was created by the will of God before times and worlds, and has His life and existence from the Father, Who gave Him to share His own glorious perfections. For, when the Father gave to Him the inheritance of all things, He did not thereby deprive Himself of attributes which are His without origination, He being the source of all things.
6. “So there are three Persons,
Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God, for His part, is the Cause of
all things, utterly unoriginate and separate from all; while the Son,
put forth by the Father outside time, and created and established
before the worlds, did not exist before He was born, but, being born
outside time before the worlds, came into being as the Only Son of the
Only Father. For He is neither eternal, nor co-eternal, nor
co-uncreate with the Father, nor has He an existence collateral with
the Father, as some say who postulate two unborn principles. But
God is before all things, as being indivisible and the beginning of
all. Wherefore He is before the Son also, as indeed we have
learnt from thee in thy public preaching. Inasmuch then as He has
His being from God, and His glorious perfections, and His life, and is
entrusted with all things, for this reason God is His Source. For
He rules over Him, as being His God, since He is before Him. As
to such phrases as from Him, and from the womb, and I
went out from the Father and am come, if they be understood to
denote that the Father extends a part and, as it were, a development of
that one Substance, then the Father will be of a compound nature and
divisible and changeable and corporeal, according to them; and thus, as
far as their words go, the incorporeal God will be subjected to the
properties of matter The
Epistola Arii ad Alexandrum, repeated from Book iv. §§
12, 13, where see the notes. The only difference in the text is
that this copy omits alone true, at the beginning.
7. Who can fail to see here the slimy windings of the serpent’s track: the coiled adder, with forces concentrated for the spring, concealing the deadly weapon of its poisonous fangs within its folds? Presently we shall stretch it out and examine it, and expose the venom of this hidden head. For their plan is first to impress with certain sound statements, and then to infuse the poison of their heresy. They speak us fair, in order to work us secret harm. Yet, amid all their specious professions, I nowhere hear God’s Son entitled God; I never hear sonship attributed to the Son. They say much about His having the name of Son, but nothing about His having the nature. That is kept out of sight, that He may seem to have no right even to the name. They make a show of unmasking other heresies to conceal the fact that they are heretics themselves. They strenuously assert that there is One only, One true God, to the end that they may strip the Son of God of His true and personal Divinity.
8. And therefore, although in the two last books I
have proved from the teaching of the Law and Prophets that God and God,
true God and true God, true God the Father
9. For instance, these heretics would have
it that the Son of God is not from God; that God was not born from God
out of, and in, the nature of God. To this end, when they have
solemnly borne witness to “One God, alone true,” they
refrain from adding “The Father.” And then, in order
to escape from confessing one true Godhead of Father and of Son by a
denial of the true birth, they proceed, “Not, as Valentinus
maintained, that the Son is a development of the Father.”
Thus they think to cast discredit upon the birth of God from God by
calling it a “development,” as though it were a form of the
Valentinian heresy. For Valentinus was the author of foul and
foolish imaginations; beside the chief God, he invented a whole
household of deities and countless powers called æons, and taught
that our Lord Jesus Christ was a development mysteriously brought about
by a secret action of will. The faith of the Church, the faith of
the Evangelists and Apostles, knows nothing of this imaginary
development, sprung from the brain of a reckless and senseless
dreamer. It knows nothing of the “Depth” and
“Silence” and the thrice ten æons of Valentinus.
It knows none but One God the Father, from Whom are all things, and One
Jesus Christ, our Lord, through Whom are all things, Who is God born
from God. But it occurred to them that He, in being born as God
from God, neither withdrew anything from the Divinity of His Author nor
was Himself born other than God; that He became God not by a new
beginning of Deity but by birth from the existing God; and that every
birth appears, as far as human faculties can judge, to be a
development, so that even that birth might be regarded as a
development. And these considerations have induced them to make
an attack upon the Valentinian heresy of development as a means of
destroying faith in the true birth of the Son. For the experience
of common life leads worldly wisdom to suppose that there is no great
difference between a birth and a development. The mind of man,
dull and slow to grasp the things of God, needs to be constantly
reminded of the principle, which I have stated more than once E.g. i.
§ 10, iv. § 2; reading non semel.
10. And then, in continuation of this same
fraudulent assault upon the faith, their confession proceeds
thus:—“Nor, as Manichæus has declared of the Son, a
consubstantial part of the Father.” They have already
denied that He is a development, in order to escape from the admission
of His birth; now they introduce, labelled with the name of
Manichæus, the doctrine that the Son is a portion of the one
Divine substance, and deny it, in order to subvert the belief in God
from God. For Manichæus, the furious adversary of the Law
and Prophets, the strenuous champion of the devil’s cause and
blind worshipper of the sun, taught that That which was in the
Virgin’s womb was a portion of the one Divine
11. What follows is this:—“Nor,
as Sabellius, who makes two out of One, Son and Father at
once.” Sabellius holds this in wilful blindness to the
revelation of the Evangelists and Apostles. But what we see here
is not one heretic honestly denouncing another. It is the wish to
leave no point of union between Father and Son that prompts them to
reproach Sabellius with his division of an indivisible Person; a
division which does not result in the birth of a second Person, but
cuts the One Person into two parts, one of which enters the
Virgin’s womb Reading
virginem.
12. Their next clause is:—“Nor, as
Hieracas, a light from a light, or a lamp with two flames, nor as if He
was previously in being, and afterwards born, or created afresh, to be
a Son.” Hieracas ignores the birth of the Only-begotten,
and, in complete unconsciousness of the meaning of the Gospel
revelations, talks of two flames from one lamp. This symmetrical
pair of flames, fed by the supply of oil contained in one bowl, is His
illustration of the substance of Father and Son. It is as though
that substance were something separate from Either Person, like the oil
in the lamp, which is distinct from the two flames, though they depend
upon it for their existence; or like the wick, of one material
throughout and burning at both ends, which is distinct from the flames,
yet provides them and connects them together. All this is a mere
delusion of human folly, which has trusted to itself, and not to God,
for knowledge. But the true faith asserts that God is born from
God, as light from light, which pours itself forth without
self-diminution, giving what it has yet having what it gave. It
asserts that by His birth He was what He is, for as He is so was He
born; that His birth was the gift of the existing Life, a gift which
did not lessen the store from which it was taken; and that They Two are
One, for He, from Whom He is born, is as Himself, and He that was born
has neither another source nor another nature, for He is Light from
Light. It is in order to draw men’s faith away from this,
the true doctrine, that I.e. a line of
lights.
13. And again, what a wonderful example of heretical ingenuity is this:—“Nor as if He were previously in being, and afterwards born or created afresh, to be a Son.” God, since He was born from God, was assuredly not born from nothing, nor from things non-existent. His birth was that of the eternally living nature. Yet, though He is God, He is not identical with the pre-existing God; God was born from God Who existed before Him; in, and by, His birth He partook of the nature of His Source. If we are speaking words of our own, all this is mere irreverence; but if, as we shall prove, God Himself has taught us how to speak, then the necessity is laid upon us of confessing the Divine birth in the sense revealed by God. And it is this unity of nature in Father and in Son, this ineffable mystery of the living birth, which the madness of heresy is struggling to banish from belief, when it says, “Nor as if He were previously in being, and afterwards born, or created afresh, to be a Son.” Now who is senseless enough to suppose that the Father ceased to be Himself; that the same Person Who had previously existed was afterwards born, or created afresh, to be the Son? That God disappeared, and that His disappearance was followed by an emergence in birth, when, in fact, that birth is evidence of the continuous existence of its Author? Or who is so insane as to suppose that a Son can come into existence otherwise than through birth? Who so void of reason as to say that the birth of God resulted in anything else than in God being born? The abiding God was not born, but God was born from the abiding God; the nature bestowed in that birth was the very nature of the Begetter. And God by His birth, which was from God into God, received, because His was a true birth, not things new-created but things which were and are the permanent possession of God. Thus it is not the pre-existent God that was born; yet God was born, and began to exist, out of and with the properties of God. And thus we see how heresy, throughout this long prelude, has been treacherously leading up to this most blasphemous doctrine. Its object being to deny God the Only-begotten, it starts with what purports to be a defence of truth, to go on to the assertion that Christ is born not from God but out of nothing, and that His birth is due to the Divine counsel of creation from the non-existent.
14. And then again, after an interval
designed to prepare us for what is coming, their heresy delivers this
assault;—“While the Son, put forth outside time, and
created and established before the worlds, did not exist before He was
born.” This “He did not exist before He was
born” is a form of words by which the heresy flatters itself that
it gains two ends; support for its blasphemy, and a screen for itself
if its doctrine be arraigned. A support for its blasphemy,
because, if He did not exist before He was born, He cannot be of one
nature with His eternal Origin. He must have His beginning out of
nothing, if He have no powers but such as are coeval with His
birth. And a screen for its heresy, for if this statement be
condemned, it furnishes a ready answer. He that did exist, it
will be said, could not be born; being in existence already, He could
not possibly come into being by passing through the process of birth,
for the very meaning of birth is the entry into existence of the being
that is born. Fool and blasphemer! Who dreams of birth in
the case of Him Who is the unborn and eternal? How can we think
of God, Who is
15. But the fiery zeal of this heresy is such that it cannot restrain itself from passionate outbreak. In its effort to prove, in conformity with its assertion that He did not exist before He was born, that the Son was born from the non-existent, that is, that He was not born from God the Father to be God the Son by a true and perfect birth, it winds up its confession by rising in rage and hatred to the highest pitch of possible blasphemy:—“As to such phrases as from Him, and from the womb, and I went out from the Father and am come, if they be understood to denote that the Father extends a part, and, as it were, a development of that one substance, then the Father will be of a compound nature and divisible and changeable and corporeal, according to them; and thus, as far as their words go, the incorporeal God will be subjected to the properties of matter.” The defence of the true faith against the falsehoods of heresy would indeed be a task of toil and difficulty, if it were needful for us to follow the processes of thought as far as they have plunged into the depths of godlessness. Happily for our purpose it is shallowness of thought that has engendered their eagerness to blaspheme. And hence, while it is easy to refute the folly, it is difficult to amend the fool, for he will neither think out right conclusions for himself, nor accept them when offered by another. Yet I trust that they who in pious ignorance, not in wilful folly bred of self-conceit, are enchained by error, will welcome correction. For our demonstration of the truth will afford convincing proof that heresy is nothing else than folly.
16. You said in your unreason, and you are
still repeating to-day, ignorant that your wisdom is a defiance of God,
“As to such phrases as from Him, and from the womb,
and I went out from the Father and am come,” I ask you,
Are these phrases, or are they not, words of God? They certainly
are His; and, since they are spoken by God about Himself, we are bound
to accept them exactly as they were spoken. Concerning the
phrases themselves, and the precise force of each, we shall speak in
the proper place. For the present I will only put this question
to the intelligence of every reader; When we see From Himself,
are we to take it as equivalent to “From some one else,” or
to “From nothing,” or are we to accept it as the
truth? It is not “From some one else,” for it is
From Himself; that is, His Godhead has no other source than
God. It is not “From nothing,” for it is From
Himself; a declaration of the nature from which His birth is.
It is not “Himself,” but From Himself; a statement
that They are related as Father and Son. And next, when the
revelation From the womb is made, I ask whether we can possibly
believe that He is born from nothing, when the truth of His birth is
clearly indicated in terms borrowed from bodily functions. It is
not because He has bodily members, that God records the generation of
the Son in the words, I bore Thee from the womb before the morning
star
17. But meanwhile let us see what ground these men
have for the confidence with which they forbid us to accept as true the
utterances of God concerning Himself; utterances, the authenticity of
which they do not deny. What more grievous insult could be flung
by human folly and insolence at God’s self-revelation, than a
condemnation of it, shewn in correction? For not even doubt and
criticism will satisfy them. What more grievous than this profane
handling and disputing of the nature and power of God? Than the
presumption of saying that, if the Son is from God, then God is
changeable and corporeal, since He has extended or developed a part of
Himself to be His Son? Whence this anxiety to prove the
immutability of God? We confess the birth, we proclaim the
Only-begotten, for so God has taught us. You, in order to banish
the birth and the Only-begotten from the faith of the Church, confront
us with an unchangeable
18. For you attribute, most godless of
heretics, the birth of the Son to an act of creative will; you say that
He is not born from God, but that He was created and came into
existence by the choice of the Creator. And the unity of the
Godhead, as you interpret it, will not allow Him to be God, for, since
God remains One, the Son cannot retain His original nature in that
state into which He has been born. He has been endowed, through
creation, you say, with a substance different from the Divine,
although, being in a sense the Only-begotten, He is superior to
God’s other creatures and works. You say that He was raised
up, that He in His turn might perform the task committed to Him of
raising up the created world; but that His birth did not confer upon
Him the Divine nature. He was born, according to you, in the
sense that He came into existence out of nothing. You call Him a
Son, not because He was born from God, but because He was created by
God. For you call to mind that God has deemed even holy men
worthy of this title, and you consider that it is assigned to the Son
in exactly the same sense in which the words, I have said, Ye are
Gods, and all of you sons of the Most High
19. And now, Almighty God, I first must pray Thee to forgive my excess of indignation, and permit me to address Thee; and next to grant me, dust and ashes as I am, yet bound in loyal devotion to Thyself, freedom of utterance in this debate. There was a time when I, poor wretch, was not; before my life and consciousness and personality began to exist. It is to Thy mercy that I owe my life; and I doubt not that Thou, in Thy goodness, didst give me my birth for my good, for Thou, Who hast no need of me, wouldst never have made the beginning of my life the beginning of evil. And then, when Thou hadst breathed into me the breath of life and endowed me with the power of thought, Thou didst instruct me in the knowledge of Thyself, by means of the sacred volumes given us through Thy servants Moses and the prophets. From them I learnt Thy revelation, that we must not worship Thee as a lonely God. For their pages taught me of God, not different from Thee in nature but One with Thee in mysterious unity of substance. I learnt that Thou art God in God, by no mingling or confusion but by Thy very nature, since the Divinity which is Thyself dwells in Him Who is from Thee. But the true doctrine of the perfect birth revealed that Thou, the Indwelt, and Thou, the Indweller, are not One Person, yet that Thou dost dwell in Him Who is from Thee. And the voices of Evangelists and Apostles repeat the lesson, and the very words which fell from the holy mouth of Thy Only-begotten are recorded, telling how Thy Son, God the Only-begotten from Thee the Unbegotten God, was born of the Virgin as man to fulfil the mystery of my salvation; how Thou dwellest in Him, by virtue of His true generation from Thyself, and He in Thee, because of the nature given in His abiding birth from Thee.
20. What is this hopeless quagmire of error into
which Thou hast plunged me? For I have learnt all this and have
come to believe it; this faith is so ingrained into my mind that I have
neither the power nor the wish to change it. Why this deception
of an unhappy man, this ruin of a poor wretch in body and soul, by
deluding him with falsehoods concerning Thyself? After the Red
Sea had been divided, the splendour on the face of Moses, descending
from the Mount, deceived me. He had gazed, in Thy presence, upon
all the mysteries of heaven, and I believed his words, dictated by
Thee, concerning Thyself. And David, the man that was found after
Thine own heart, has betrayed me to destruction, and Solomon, who was
thought worthy of the gift of Divine Wisdom, and Isaiah, who saw the
Lord of Sabaoth and prophesied, and Jeremiah consecrated in the womb,
before he was fashioned, Reading
et ad omne. Cf.
21. These are the men who have taught me the doctrines which I hold, and so deeply am I impregnated with their teaching that no antidote can release me from their influence. Forgive me, O God Almighty, my powerlessness to change, my willingness to die in this belief. These propagators of blasphemy, for so they seem to me, are a product of these last times, too modern to avail me. It is too late for them to correct the faith which I received from Thee. Before I had ever heard their names, I had put my trust in Thee, had received regeneration from Thee and become Thine, as still I am. I know that Thou art omnipotent; I look not that Thou shouldst reveal to me the mystery of that ineffable birth which is secret between Thyself and Thy Only-begotten. Nothing is impossible with Thee, and I doubt not that in begetting Thy Son Thou didst exert Thy full omnipotence. To doubt it would be to deny that Thou art omnipotent. For my own birth teaches me that Thou art good, and therefore I am sure that in the birth of Thine Only-begotten Thou didst grudge Him no good gift. I believe that all that is Thine is His, and all that is His is Thine. The creation of the world is sufficient evidence to me that Thou art wise; and I am sure that Thy Wisdom, Who is like Thee, must have been begotten from Thyself. And Thou art One God, in very truth, in my eyes; I will never believe that in Him, Who is God from Thee, there is ought that is not Thine. Judge me in Him, if it be sin in me that, through Thy Son, I have trusted too well in Law and Prophets and Apostles.
22. But this wild talk must cease; the rhetoric of exposing heretical folly must give place to the drudgery of framing arguments. So, I trust, those among them who are capable of being saved will set their faces towards the true faith taught by the Evangelists and Apostles, and recognise Him Who is the true Son of God, not by adoption but by nature. For the plan of our reply must be that of first proving that He is the Son of God, and therefore fully endowed with that Divine nature in the possession of which His Sonship consists. For the chief aim of the heresy, which we are considering, is to deny that our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and truly the Son of God. Many evidences assure us that our Lord Jesus Christ is, and is revealed to be, God the Only-begotten, truly the Son of God. His Father bears witness to it, He Himself asserts it, the Apostles proclaim it, the faithful believe it, devils confess it, Jews deny it, the heathen at His passion recognised it. The name of God is given Him in the right of absolute ownership, not because He has been admitted to joint use with others of the title. Every work and word of Christ transcends the power of those who bear the title of sons; the foremost lesson that we learn from all that is most prominent in His life is that He is the Son of God, and that He does not hold the name of Son as a title shared with a widespread company of friends.
23. I will not weaken the evidence for this
truth by intermixing words of my own. Let us hear the Father,
when the baptism of Jesus Christ was accomplished, speaking, as often,
concerning His Only-begotten, in order to save us from being misled by
His visible body into a failure to recognise Him as the Son. His
words are:—This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well
pleased St.
24. And again, because the life of believers
was involved in the confession of this faith,—for there is no
other way to eternal life than the assurance that Jesus Christ, God the
Only-begotten, is the Son of God—the Apostles heard once more the
voice from heaven repeating the same message, in order to strengthen
this life-giving belief, in negation of which is death. When the
Lord, apparelled in splendour, was standing upon the Mountain, with
Moses and Elias at His side, and the three Pillars of the churches who
had been chosen as witnesses to the truth of the vision and the voice,
the Father spoke thus from heaven:—This is My beloved Son in
Whom I am well pleased; hear Him St.
25. I can conceive of no man so destitute of
ordinary reason as to recognise in each of the Gospels confessions by
the Son of the humiliation to which He has submitted in taking a body
upon Him,—as for instance His words, often repeated, Father,
glorify Me St. St. St. St. St. St.
26. And thus, although nothing but a sincere
belief that these names are truly significant,—that, when we
read, This is My Son and My Father, the words really
indicate Persons of Whom, and to Whom, they were spoken—can make
them intelligible, yet, lest it be supposed that Son and
Father are titles the one merely of adoption, the other merely
of dignity, let us see what are the attributes attached, by the Son
Himself, to His name of Son. He says, All things are delivered
Me of My Father, and no one knoweth the Son but the Father, neither
knoweth any the Father save the Son, and he to Whom the Son will reveal
Him St.
27. The Son speaks thus:—For the
works which the Father hath given Me to finish, the same works which I
do, bear witness of Me that the Father hath sent Me ; and the Father
Himself which hath sent Me hath borne witness of Me St.
28. And indeed the Son never makes for
Himself a lower claim than is contained in this designation, given Him
by His Father. The Father’s words, This is My Son,
reveal His nature; those which follow, Hear Him, are a summons
to us to listen to the mystery and the faith which He came down from
heaven to bring; to learn that, if we would be saved, our confession
must be a copy of His teaching. And in like manner the Son
Himself teaches us, in words of His own, that He was truly born and
truly came;—Ye neither know Me, nor know ye whence I am, for I
am not come of Myself, but He that sent Me is true, Whom ye know not,
but I know Him, for I am from Him, and He hath sent Me St.
29. But He immediately adds, For I am
from Him, and He hath sent Me, to debar heresy from the violent
assumption that His being from God dates from the time of His
Advent. The Gospel revelation of the mystery proceeds in a
logical sequence; first He is born, then He is sent. Similarly,
in the previous declaration, we were told of ignorance Reading
nesciretur; cf. St.
30. They are blankly ignorant who separate
the Divine name from the Divine nature; ignorant, and content to be
ignorant. But let them listen to the reproof which the Son
inflicts upon unbelievers for their want of this knowledge, when the
Jews said that God was their Father:—If God were your Father,
ye St. i.e. in the
Incarnation. St. Nativitas
here, as normally in Hilary, means the eternal generation.
31. To this the Lord’s words bear
witness;—I will not say unto you that I will pray the Father
for you, for the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved Me,
and believe that I went forth from God, and am come from the Father
into this world St.
32. In the order of our defence, as I have
arranged it in my mind, this has seemed the most convenient place for
proving that, thirdly Firstly, the
Father’s witness is given in §§ 23–27; secondly,
the Son’s, §§ 28–31; thirdly, that of the
Apostles, §§ 32–46.
33. After many dark sayings, spoken in
parables by Him Whom they already knew as the Christ foretold by Moses
and the Prophets, Whom Nathanael had confessed as the Son of God and
King of Israel, Who had Himself reproached Philip, in his question
about the Father, for not perceiving, by the works which He did, that
the Father was in Him and He in the Father; after He had already often
taught them that He was sent from the Father; still, it was not till
they had heard Him assert that He had gone forth from God that they
confessed, in the words which immediately follow in the
Gospel;—His disciples say unto Him, Now speakest Thou plainly,
and speakest no proverb. Now therefore we are sure that Thou
knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask Thee; by
this we believe that Thou wentest forth from God St.
34. By this the holy Apostles did not
understand that He had gone forth, in the sense of having been sent,
from God. For they had often heard Him confess, in His earlier
discourses, that He was sent; but what they hear now is the express
statement that He had gone forth from God. This opens their eyes
to perceive from His works His Divine nature. The fact that He
had gone forth from God makes clear to them His true Divinity, and so
they say, Now therefore we are sure that Thou knowest all things,
and needest not that any man should ask Thee; by this we believe that
Thou wentest forth from God. The reason why they believe that
He went forth from God is that He both can, and does, perform the works
of God. Their perfect assurance of His Divine nature is the
result of their knowledge, not that He is come from God, but that He
did go forth from God. Accordingly we find that it is this truth,
now heard for the first time, which clenches their faith. The
Lord had made two statements; I went forth from God, and I am
come from the Father into this world. One of these, I am
come from the Father into this world, they had often heard, and it
awakens no surprise. But their reply makes it manifest that they
now believe and understand the other, that is, I went
forth
35. For God is not born from God by the ordinary process of a human childbirth; this is no case of one being issuing from another by the exertion of natural forces. That birth is pure and perfect and stainless; indeed, we must call it rather a proceeding forth than a birth. For it is One from One; no partition, or withdrawing, or lessening, or efflux, or extension, or suffering of change, but the birth of living nature from living nature. It is God going forth from God, not a creature picked out to bear the name of God. His existence did not take its beginning out of nothing, but went forth from the Eternal; and this going forth is rightly entitled a birth, though it would be false to call it a beginning. For the proceeding forth of God from God is a thing entirely different from the coming into existence of a new substance. And though our apprehension of this truth, which is ineffable, cannot be defined in words, yet the teaching of the Son, as He reveals to us that He went forth from God, imparts to it the certainty of an assured faith.
36. A belief that the Son of God is Son in
name only and not in nature, is not the faith of the Gospels and of the
Apostles. If this be a mere title, to which adoption is His only
claim; if He be not the Son in virtue of having proceeded forth from
God, whence, I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar-Jona confessed to
Him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God St. St. St. Hilary
takes them as an allusion to the I am (qui est) of
37. This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father’s gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature. What blasphemous madness and pitiful folly is it, that will not heed the venerable age and faith of that blessed martyr, Peter himself, for whom the Father was prayed that his faith might not fail in temptation; who twice repeated the declaration of love for God that was demanded of him, and was grieved that he was tested by a third renewal of the question, as though it were a doubtful and wavering devotion, and then, because this third trial had cleansed him of his infirmities, had the reward of hearing the Lord’s commission, Feed My sheep, a third time repeated; who, when all the Apostles were silent, alone recognised by the Father’s revelation the Son of God, and won the pre-eminence of a glory beyond the reach of human frailty by his confession of his blissful faith! What are the conclusions forced upon us by the study of his words? He confessed that Christ is the Son of God; you, lying bishop of the new apostolate, thrust upon us your modern notion that Christ is a creature, made out of nothing. What violence is this, that so distorts the glorious words? The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father’s revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth. Through revelation Peter learnt the mystery hidden from the beginning of the world, proclaimed the faith, published the Divine nature, confessed the Son of God. He who would deny all this truth and confess Christ a creature, must first deny the apostleship of Peter, his faith, his blessedness, his episcopate, his martyrdom. And when he has done all this, he must learn that he has severed himself from Christ; for it was by confessing Him that Peter won these glories.
38. Do you think, wretched heretic of today,
that Peter would have been the more blessed now, if he had said,
‘Thou art Christ, God’s perfect creature, His handiwork,
though excelling all His other works. Thy beginning was from
nothing, and through the goodness of God, Who alone is good, the name
of Son has been given Thee by adoption, although in fact Thou wast not
born from God?’ What answer, think you, would have been
given to such words as these, when this same Peter’s reply to the
announcement of the Passion, Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall
not be, was rebuked with, Get thee behind Me, Satan, thou art an
offence unto Me St. Omitting
nec. Reading
ecclesiæ.
39. Let us therefore cite every example of a
statement of the faith made by an Apostle. All of them, when they
confess the Son of God, confess Him not as a nominal and adoptive Son,
but as Son by possession of the Divine nature. They never degrade
Him to the level of a creature, but assign Him the splendour of a true
birth from God. Let John speak to us, while he is waiting, just
as he is, for the coming of the Lord; John, who was left behind and
appointed to a destiny hidden in the counsel of God, for he is not told
that he shall not die, but only that he shall tarry. Let him
speak to us in his own familiar voice:—No one hath seen God
at St.
40. I defer the consideration of the words,
which is in the bosom of the Father, to a more appropriate
place. My present enquiry is into the sense of
Only-begotten, and the claim upon us which that sense may
make. And first let us see whether the word mean, as you assert,
a perfect creature of God; Only-begotten being equivalent to
perfect, and Son a synonym for creature. But John
described the Only-begotten Son as God, not as a perfect
creature. His words, Which is in the bosom of the Father,
shew that he anticipated these blasphemous designations; and, indeed,
he had heard his Lord say, For God so loved the world that He gave
His Only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not
perish but have everlasting life
41. I appeal not now to any of the titles
which are given to the Son; there is no loss in delay when it is the
result of an embarrassing abundance of choice. My present
argument is that a successful result implies a sufficient cause; some
clear and cogent motive must underlie every effectual
performance. And so the Evangelist has been obliged to reveal his
motive in writing. Let us see what is the purpose which he
confesses;—But these things are written that ye may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God St.
42. To believe, therefore, that Jesus Christ
is the Son of God is true salvation, is the acceptable service of an
unfeigned faith. For we have no love within us towards God the
Father except through faith in the Son. Let us hear Him speaking
to us in the words of the Epistle;—Every one that loveth the
Father loveth Him that is born from Him
44. And the persecutor, who was converted to
be an Apostle and a chosen vessel, delivers the very same
message. What discourse is there of his which does not presuppose
the confession of the Son? What Epistle of his that does not
begin with a confession of that mysterious truth? When he says,
We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son
45. But now let us learn what is this faith
concerning the Son of God, which the Apostle holds. For though
there is no single discourse, among the many which he delivered
concerning the Church’s doctrine, in which he mentions the Father
without also making confession of the Son, yet, in order to display the
truth of the relation which that name conveys with the utmost
definiteness of which human language is capable, he speaks
thus:—What then? If God be for us, who can be against
us? Who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for
us Yet His
own (proprius) is on the whole characteristic of the Old
Latin mss., still in existence. This
passage is important as indicating the independence of scribes.
Hilary seems to take it for granted that each will modify at his
discretion the text from which he is copying.
46. This is no universal and inevitable
error; they who deny the Son cannot lay the fault upon their ignorance,
for ignorance of the truth which they deny is impossible. They
describe the Son of God as a creature who came into being out of
nothing. If the Father has never asserted this, nor the Son
confirmed it, nor the Apostles proclaimed it, then the dating which
prompts their allegation is bred not of ignorance, but of hatred for
Christ. When the Father says of His Son, This is St. St. St.
47. What is the hope of which this futile
passion of yours is in pursuit? What is the assurance of your
salvation which emboldens you with blasphemous licence of tongue to
maintain that Christ is a creature, and not a Son? It was your
duty to know this mystery, from the Gospels, and to hold the knowledge
fast. For though the Lord can do all things, yet He resolved that
every one who prays for His effectual help must earn it by a true
confession of Himself. Not, indeed, that the suppliant’s
confession could augment the power of Him, Who is the Power of God; but
the earning was to be the reward of faith. So, when He asked
Martha, who was entreating Him for Lazarus, whether she believed that
they who had believed in Him should not die eternally, her answer
expressed the trust of her soul;—Yea, Lord, I believe that
Thou art the Christ, the Son of God, Who art come into this
world St.
48. The Lord had given sight to a man blind from
his birth; the Lord of nature had removed a defect of nature.
Because this blind man had been born for the glory of God, that
God’s work might be made manifest in the work of Christ, the Lord
did not delay till the man had given evidence of his faith by a
confession of it. But though he knew not at the time Who it was
that had bestowed the great gift of eyesight, yet afterwards he earned
a knowledge of the faith. For it was not the dispelling of his
blindness that won him eternal life. And so, when the man was
already healed and had suffered St. Reading
vitam.
49. Did devils fail to understand the full
meaning of this name of Son? For we are valuing the heretics at
their true worth if we refute them no longer by the teaching of
Apostles, but out of the mouth of devils. They cry, and cry
often, What have I to do with Thee, Jesus, Thou Son of God most
High St.
50. If you will not learn Who Christ is from
those that know Him, learn it at least from those that know Him
not. So shall the confession, which their ignorance is forced to
make, rebuke your blasphemy. The Jews did not recognise Christ,
come in the body, though they knew that the true Christ must be the Son
of God. And so, when they were employing false witnesses, without
one word of truth in their testimony, against Him, their priest asked
Him, Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed St. St.
51. The confession of the Apostles, for whom
by a word of command the raging wind and troubled sea were restored to
calm, was an opportunity for you. You might have confessed, as
they did, that He is God’s true Son; you might have borrowed
their very words, Of a truth, this is the Son of God St.
52. If this witness of the voyagers seem
inconclusive to you because they were Apostles,—though to me it
comes with the greater weight for the same reason, though it surprises
me the less,—accept at any rate a corroboration given by the
Gentiles. Hear how the soldier of the Roman cohort, one of the
stern guard around the Cross, was humbled to the faith. The
centurion sees the mighty workings of Christ’s power; and this is
the witness borne by him:—Truly this was the Son of
God St.
1. This is the seventh book of our treatise against the wild extravagance of modern heresy. In order of place it must follow its predecessors; in order of importance, as an exposition of the mysteries of the right faith, it precedes and excels them all. I am well aware how hard and steep is the path of evangelical instruction up which we are mounting. The fears inspired by consciousness of my own incapacity are plucking me back, but the warmth of faith urges me on; the assaults of heresy heat my blood, and the dangers of the ignorant excite my compassion. I fear to speak, and yet I cannot be silent. A double dread subdues my spirit; it may be that speech, it may be that silence, will render me guilty of a desertion of the truth. For this cunning heresy has hedged itself round with marvellous devices of perverted ingenuity. First there is the semblance of devotion; then the language carefully chosen to lull the suspicions of a candid listener; and again, the accommodation of their views to secular philosophy; and finally, their withdrawing of attention from manifest truth by a pretended explanation of Divine methods. Their loud profession of the unity of God is a fraudulent imitation of the faith; their assertion that Christ is the Son of God a play upon words for the delusion of their hearers; their saying that He did not exist before He was born a bid for the support of the world’s philosophers; their confession of God as incorporeal and immutable leads, by a display of fallacious logic, up to a denial of the birth of God from God. They turn our arguments against ourselves; the Church’s faith is made the engine of its own destruction. They have contrived to involve us in the perplexing position of an equal danger, whether we reason with them or whether we refrain. For they use the fact that we allow certain of their assumptions to pass unchallenged as an argument on behalf of those which we do contradict.
2. We call to mind that in the preceding
books the reader has been urged to study the whole of that blasphemous
manifesto The
Epistola Arii ad Alexandrum; see Books iv. 12, vi. 5.
3. Nothing is more harassing to human nature than
the sense of impending danger. If calamities unknown or
unanticipated befall Cf. Lucan. IX. 696
ff. Marcellus of
Ancyra. Arius. Photinus of
Sirmium.
4. But I trust that the Church, by the light of
her doctrine, will so enlighten the world’s vain wisdom, that,
even though it accept not the mystery of the faith, it will recognise
that in our conflict with heretics we, and not they, are the true
representatives of that mystery. For great is the force of truth;
not only is it its own sufficient witness, but the more it is assailed
the more evident it becomes; the daily shocks which it receives only
increase its inherent stability. It is the peculiar property of
the Church that when she is buffeted she is triumphant, when she is
assaulted with argument she proves herself in the right, when she is
deserted by her supporters she holds the field. It is her wish
that all men should remain at her side and in her bosom; if it lay with
her, none would become unworthy to abide under the shelter of that
august mother, none would be cast out or suffered to depart from her
calm retreat. But when heretics desert her or she expels them,
the loss she endures, in that she cannot save them, is compensated by
an increased assurance that she alone can offer bliss. This is a
truth which the passionate zeal of rival heresies brings into the
clearest prominence. The Church, ordained by the Lord and
established by His Apostles, is one for all; but the frantic folly of
discordant sects has severed them from her. And it is obvious
that these dissensions concerning the faith result from a distorted
mind, which twists the words of Scripture into conformity with its
opinion, instead of adjusting that opinion to the words of
Scripture. And thus, amid the clash of mutually destructive
errors, the Church stands revealed not only by her own teaching, but by
that of her rivals. They are ranged, all of them, against her;
and the very fact that she stands single and alone is her sufficient
answer to their godless delusions. The hosts of heresy assemble
themselves against her; each of them can defeat all the others, but not
one can win a victory for itself. The only victory is the triumph
which the Church celebrates over them all. Each heresy wields
against its adversary some weapon
5. Sabellius sweeps away the birth of the
Son, and then preaches the unity of God; but he does not doubt that the
mighty Nature, which acted in the human Christ, was God. He shuts
his eyes to the revealed mystery of the Sonship; the works done seem to
him so marvellous that he cannot believe that He who performed them
could undergo a true generation. When he hears the words, He
that hath seen Me hath seen the Father also St. Cf. St.
6. Set our modern heresy in array against
the delusion, equally wild, of Sabellius; let them make the best of
their case. The new heretics will advance the passage.
The Father is greater than I
7. Again, how glorious a victory for our faith is
that in which Ebion—in other words, Photinus—both wins the
day and loses it! He castigates Sabellius for denying that the
Son of God is Man, and in his turn has to submit to the reproaches of
Arian fanatics for failing to see that this Man is the Son of
God. Against Sabellius he calls the Gospels to his aid, with
their evidence concerning the Son of Mary; Arius deprives him of this
ally by proving that the Gospels make Christ some
8. I felt that I must spare a little space to point this out. It has been from no love for amplification, but that it might serve as a warning. First, I wished to expose the vague and confused character of this crowd of heresies, whose mutual feuds turn, as we have seen, to our advantage. Secondly, in my warfare against the blasphemous doctrines of modern heresy; that is, in my task of proclaiming that both God the Father and God the Son are God,—in other words, that Father and Son are One in name, One in nature, One in the kind of Divinity which they possess,—I wished to shield myself from any charge which might be brought against me, either as an advocate of two Gods or of one lonely and isolated Deity. For in God the Father and God the Son, as I have set them forth, no confusion of Persons can be detected; nor in my exposition of Their common nature can any difference between the Godhead of the One and of the Other be discerned. In the preceding book I have sufficiently refuted, by the witness of the Gospels, those who deny the subsistence of God the Son by a true birth from God; my present duty is to shew that He, Who in the truth of His nature is Son of God, is also in the truth of His nature God. But this proof must not degenerate into the fatal profession of a solitary God, or of a second God. It shall manifest God as One yet not alone; but in its care to avoid the error of making Him lonely it shall not fall into the error of denying His unity.
9. Thus we have all these different
assurances of the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ:—His name,
His birth, His nature, His power, His own assertion. As to the
name, I conceive that no doubt is possible. It is written, In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God St.
10. Consider the other recorded instances in
which this name was given by favour or assumed. To Moses it was
said, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh
11. But in this case the Word in very
truth is God; the essence of the Godhead exists in the Word, and that
essence is expressed in the Word’s name. For the name Word
is inherent in the Son of God as a consequence of His mysterious birth,
as are also the names Wisdom and Power. These,
together with the substance which is His by a true birth, were called
into existence to be the Son of God I.e. These are the
elements of which His Person is composed by the eternal generation. Word, Wisdom,
Power. By the
Sabellians.
12. And now let us see whether the
confession of Thomas the Apostle, when he cried, My Lord and My
God, corresponds with this assertion of the Evangelist. We
see that he speaks of Him, Whom he confesses to be God, as My
God. Now Thomas was undoubtedly familiar with those words of
the Lord, Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is One. How
then could the faith of an Apostle become so oblivious of that primary
command as to confess Christ as God, when life is conditional upon the
confession of the Divine unity? It was because, in the light of
the Resurrection, the whole mystery of the faith had become visible to
the Apostle. He had often heard such words as, I and the
Father are One, and, All things that the Father hath are
Mine, and, I in the Father and the Father in Me St.
13. Thus the name which expresses His nature proves the truth of our confession of the faith. For the name, which indicates any single substance, points out also any other substance of the same kind; and, in this instance, there are not two substances but one substance, of the one kind. For the Son of God is God; this is the truth expressed in His name. The one name does not embrace two Gods; for the one name God is the name of one indivisible nature. For since the Father is God and the Son is God, and that name which is peculiar to the Divine nature is inherent in Each, therefore the Two are One. For the Son, though He subsists through a birth from the Divine nature, yet preserves the unity in His name; and this birth of the Son does not compel loyal believers to acknowledge two Gods, since our confession declares that Father and Son are One, both in nature and in name. Thus the Son of God has the Divine name as the result of His birth. Now the second step in our demonstration was to be that of shewing that it is by virtue of His birth that He is God. I have still to bring forward the evidence of the Apostles that the Divine name is used of Him in an exact sense; but for the present I purpose to continue our enquiry into the language of the Gospels.
14. And first I ask what new element,
destructive of His Godhead, can have been imported by birth into the
nature of the Son? Universal reason rejects the supposition that
a being can become different in nature, by the process of birth, from
the being to which its birth is due; although we recognise the
possibility that from parents, different in kind, an offspring sharing
the nature of both, yet diverse from either, may be propagated.
The fact is familiar in the case of beasts, both tame and wild.
But even in this case there is no real novelty; the new qualities
already exist, concealed in the two different parental natures, and are
only developed by the connexion. The birth of their joint
offspring is not the cause of that offspring’s difference from
its parents. The difference is a gift from them of various
diversities, which are received and combined in one frame. When
this is the case as to the transmission and reception even of bodily
differences, is it not a form of madness to assert that the birth of
God the Only-begotten was the birth from God of a nature inferior to
Himself? For the giving of birth is a function of the true nature
of the transmitter of life; and without the presence and action of that
true nature there can be no birth. The object of all this heat
and passion is to prove that there was no birth, but a creation, of the
Son of God; that the Divine nature is not His origin and that He does
not possess that nature in His personal subsistence, but draws, from
what was non-existent, a nature different in kind from the
Divine. They are angry because He says, That which is born of
the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is
Spirit St.
15. Again, any one who is in doubt
concerning this matter may gain from the Jews an accurate knowledge of
Christ’s nature; or rather learn that He was truly born from the
Gospel, where it is written, Therefore the Jews sought the more to
kill Him because He not only broke the Sabbath, but said also that God
was His own Father, making Himself equal with God St.
16. And now, although we have found the
sense of Scripture, as we understand it, in harmony with the
conclusions of ordinary reason, the two agreeing that equality is
incompatible either with diversity or with isolation, yet we must seek
a fresh support for our contention from actual words of our Lord.
For only so can we check that licence of arbitrary interpretation
whereby these bold traducers of the faith would even venture to cavil
at the Lord’s solemn self-revelation. His answer to the
Jews was this:—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. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth Him
all things that Himself doeth; and He will shew Him greater works than
these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead
and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will. For
the Father judgeth no man, but hath given all judgment to the Son, that
all may honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He that
honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent
Him St.
17. The chief reason why the Jews wished to
kill the Lord was that, in calling God His Father, He had made Himself
equal with God; and therefore He put His answer, in which He reproved
their evil passion, into the form of an exposition of the whole mystery
of our faith. For just before this, when He had healed the
paralytic and they had passed their judgment upon Him that He was
worthy of death for breaking the Sabbath, He had said, My Father
worketh hitherto, and I work
18. The next words are, For what things soever He—the Father—doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. This likewise is added to indicate His birth; whatsoever and same to indicate the true Divinity of His nature. Whatsoever and same make it impossible that there should be any actions of His that are different from or outside, the actions of the Father. Thus He, Whose nature has power to do all the same things as the Father, is included in the same nature with the Father. But when, in contrast with this, we read that all these same things are done by the Son likewise, the fact that the works are like those of Another is fatal to the supposition that He Who does them works in isolation. Thus the same things that the Father does are all done likewise by the Son. Here we have clear proof of His true birth, and at the same time a convincing attestation of the Mystery of our faith, which, with its foundation in the Unity of the nature of God, confesses that there resides in Father and Son an indivisible Divinity. For the Son does the same things as the Father, and does them likewise; while acting in like manner He does the same things. Two truths are combined in one proposition; that His works are done likewise proves His birth; that they are the same works proves His nature.
19. Thus the progressive revelation
contained in our Lord’s reply is at one with the progressive
statement of truth in the Church’s confession of faith.
Neither of them divides the nature, and both declare the birth.
For the next words of Christ are, For the Father loveth the Son, and
sheweth Him all things that Himself doeth; and He will shew Him greater
works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth
up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He
will. Can there be any other purpose in this revelation of
the manner in which God works, except that of inculcating the true
birth; the faith in a subsisting Son born from the subsisting God, His
Father? The only other explanation is that God the Only-begotten
was so ignorant that He needed the instruction conveyed in this
showing; but the reckless blasphemy of the suggestion makes this
alternative impossible. For He, knowing, as He does, everything
that He is taught, has no need of the teaching. And accordingly,
after the words, The Father loveth the Son, and sheweth Him all
things that Himself doeth, we are next informed that all this
shewing is for our instruction in the faith; that the Father and the
Son may have their equal share in our confession, and we be saved, by
this statement that the Father shews all that He does to the Son, from
the delusion that the Son’s knowledge is imperfect. With
this object He goes on to say, And He will shew Him greater works
than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the
dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He
will. We see that the Son has full knowledge of the future
works which the Father will shew Him hereafter. He knows that He
will be shewn how, after His Father’s example, He is to give life
to the dead. For He says that the Father will shew to the Son
things at which they shall marvel; and at once proceeds to tell them
what these things are; For as the Father raiseth up the dead and
quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will. The
power is equal because the nature is one and the same. The
shewing of the works is an aid, not to ignorance in
20. And next, lest it should seem that to give life to whom He will is not within the power of One Who has been truly born, but is only the prerogative of ingenerate Omnipotence, He hastens to add, For the Father judgeth no man, but hath given all judgment to the Son. The statement that all judgment is given teaches both His birth and His Sonship; for only a nature which is altogether one with the Father’s could possess all things; and a Son can possess nothing, except by gift. But all judgment has been given Him for He quickens whom He will. Now we cannot suppose that judgment is taken away from the Father, although He does not exercise it; for the Son’s whole power of judgment proceeds from the Father’s, being a gift from Him. And there is no concealment of the reason why judgment has been given to the Son, for the words which follow are, But He hath given all judgment to the Son, that all men may honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father Which hath sent Him. What possible excuse remains for doubt, or for the irreverence of denial? The reason for the gift of judgment is that the Son may receive an honour equal to that which is paid to the Father; and thus he who dishonours the Son is guilty of dishonouring the Father also. How, after this proof, can we imagine that the nature given Him by birth is different from the Father’s, when He is the Father’s equal in work, in power, in honour, in the punishment awarded to gainsayers? Thus this whole Divine reply is nothing else than an unfolding of the mystery of His birth. And the only distinction that it is right or possible to make between Father and Son is that the Latter was born; yet born in such a sense as to be One with His Father.
21. Thus the Father works hitherto and the
Son works. In Father and Son you have the names which express
Their nature in relation to Each other. Note also that it is the
Divine nature, that through which God works, that is working
here. And remember, lest you fall into the error of imagining
that the operation of two unlike natures is here described, how it was
said concerning the blind man, But that the works of God may be made
manifest in him, I must work the works of Him that sent Me St.
22. And furthermore, let His own Divine
words bear witness to Himself. He says, They that are of My
sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give
unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any
man pluck them of My hand. That which My Father hath given Me is
greater than all, and no man shall be able to pluck them out of My
Father’s hand. I and the Father are one St. I.e. He is not
Unbegotten.
23. There still remains, if I read them
aright, the same desire in these maddened souls, though their
opportunity for fulfilling it is lost. Their bitter hearts still
cherish a longing for mischief which they can no longer hope to
satisfy. The Lord is on His throne in heaven, and the furious
hatred of heresy cannot drag Him, as the Jews did, to the Cross.
But the spirit of unbelief is the same, though now it takes the form of
rejecting His Godhead. They bid defiance to His words, though
they cannot deny that He spoke them. They vent their hatred in
blasphemy; instead of stones they shower abuse. If they could
they would bring Him down from His throne to a second
crucifixion. When the Jews were moved to wrath by the novelty of
Christ’s teaching we read, The Jews therefore took up stones
to stone Him. He answered them, Many good works have I shewed you
from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone Me? The
Jews answered Him, For a good work we stone Thee not, but for
blasphemy; and because Thou, being a man, makest Thyself
God St.
24. The mystery contained in those words,
I and the Father are One, moves you to wrath. The Jew
answered, Thou, being a man makest Thyself God; your blasphemy
is a match for his:—‘Thou, being a creature, makest Thyself
God.’ You say, in effect, ‘Thou art not a Son by
birth, Thou art not God in truth; Thou art a creature, excelling all
other creatures. But Thou wast not born to be God, for I refuse
to believe that the incorporeal God gave birth to Thy nature.
Thou and the Father are not One. Nay more. Thou art not the
Son, Thou art not like God, Thou art not God.’ The Lord had
His answer for the Jews; an answer that meets the case of your
blasphemy even better than it met theirs:—Is it not written in
the Law, I said, Ye are gods? If, therefore, He called them gods,
unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say
ye of Me, Whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into this world,
that I have blasphemed, because I said I am the Son of God? If I
do not the works of the Father, believe Me not; but if I do, and ye
will not believe Me, believe the works, that ye may know and be sure
that the Father is in Me, and I in Him St.
25. There remains, I conceive, no possibility of doubt but that the words, I and the Father are One, were spoken with regard to the nature which is His by birth. The Jews had rebuked Him because by these words He, being a man, made Himself God. The course of His answer proves that, in this I and the Father are One, He did profess Himself the Son of God, first in name, then in nature, and lastly by birth. For I and Father are the names of substantive Beings; One is a declaration of Their nature, namely, that it is essentially the same in Both; are forbids us to confound Them together; are one, while forbidding confusion, teaches that the unity of the Two is the result of a birth. Now all this truth is drawn out from that name, the Son of God, which He being sanctified by the Father, bestows upon Himself; a name, His right to which is confirmed by His assertion, I and the Father are One. For birth cannot confer any nature upon the offspring other than that of the parent from whom that offspring is born.
26. Once more, God the Only-begotten has
summed up for us, in words of His own, the whole revealed mystery of
the faith. When He had given His answer to the charge that He,
being a man, made Himself God, He determined to shew that His words,
I and the Father are One, are a clear and necessary conclusion;
and therefore He thus pursued His argument;—Ye say that I have
blasphemed, because I said, I am the Son of God. If I do not the
works of the Father, believe Me not; but if I do, and ye will not
believe Me, believe the works, that ye may know and be sure that the
Father is in Me, and I in the Father. After this, heresy that
still persists in its course perpetrates a wilful outrage in conscious
despair; the assertion of unbelief is deliberate shamelessness.
They who make it take pride in folly and are dead to the faith, for it
is not ignorance, but madness, to contradict this saying. The
Lord had said, I and the Father are One; and the mystery of His
birth, which He revealed, was the unity in nature of Father and
Son. Again, when He was accused for claiming the Divine nature,
He justified His claim by advancing a reason;—If I do not the
works of the Father, believe Me not. We are not to believe
His assertion that He is the Son of God, unless He does His
Father’s works. Hence we see that His birth has given Him
no new or alien nature, for His doing of the Father’s works is to
be the reason why we must believe that He is the Son. What room
is there here for adoption, or for leave to use the name, or for denial
that He was born from the nature of God, when the proof that He is
God’s Son is that He does the works which belong to the
Father’s nature? No creature is equal or like to God, no
nature external to His is comparable in might to Him; it is only the
Son, born from Himself, Whom we can without blasphemy liken and equal
to Him. Nothing outside Himself can be compared to God without
insult to His august majesty. If any being, not born from
God’s self, can be discovered that is like Him and equal to Him
in power, then God, in admitting a partner to share His throne,
forfeits His pre-eminence. No longer is God One, for a second,
indistinguishable from Himself, has arisen. On the other hand,
there is no insult in making His own true Son His equal. For then
that which is like Him is His own; that which is compared with Him is
born from Himself; the Power that can do His own works is not external
to Him. Nay more, it is an actual heightening of His glory, that
He has begotten Omnipotence, and yet not severed that Omnipotent nature
from Himself. The Son performs the Father’s works, and on
that ground demands that we should believe that He is God’s
Son. This is no
27. And so the Son, Who does the
Father’s works and demands of us that, if we believe not Him, at
least we believe His works, is bound to tell us what the point is as to
which we are to believe the works. And He does tell us in the
words which follow:—But if I do, and ye will not believe Me,
believe the works, that ye may know and be sure that the Father is in
Me, and I in Him. It is the same truth as is contained in
I am the Son of God, and I and the Father are One.
This is the nature which is His by birth; this the mystery of the
saving faith, that we must not divide the unity, nor separate the
nature from the birth, but must confess that the living God was in
truth born from the living God. God, Who is Life, is not a Being
built up of various and lifeless portions; He is Power, and not compact
of feeble elements, Light, intermingled with no shades of darkness,
Spirit, that can harmonise with no incongruities. All that is
within Him is One; what is Spirit is Light and Power and Life, and what
is Life is Light and Power and Spirit. He Who says, I am, and
I change not St.
28. I call to mind that, at the beginning of
our treatise Book i. § 19,
iv. § 2, vi. § 9. Cf. the next
section.
29. Another analogy which casts some light upon the meaning of the faith is that of fire as containing fire in itself and as abiding in fire. Fire contains the brightness of light, the heat which is its essential nature, the property of destroying by combustion the flickering inconstancy of flame. Yet all the while it is fire, and in all these manifestations there is but one nature. Its weakness is that it is dependent for its existence upon inflammable matter, and that it perishes with the matter on which it has lived. A comparison with fire gives us, in some measure, an insight into the incomparable nature of God; it helps us to believe in the properties of God that we find them, to a certain extent, present in an earthly element. I ask, then, whether in fire derived from fire there is any division or separation. When one flame is kindled from another, is the original nature cut off from the derived, so as not to abide in it? Does it not rather follow on, and dwell in the second flame by a kind of increase, as it were by birth? For no portion has been cut off from the nature of the first flame, and yet there is light from light. Does not the first flame live on in the second, which owes its existence, though not by division, to the first? Does not the second still dwell in the first, from which it was not cut off; from which it went forth, retaining its unity with the substance to which its nature belongs? Are not the two one, when it is physically impossible to derive light from light by division, and logically impossible to distinguish between them in nature.
30. These illustrations, I repeat, must only
be used as aids to apprehension of the faith, not as standards of
comparison for the Divine majesty. Our method is that of using
bodily instances as a clue to the invisible. Reverence and reason
justify us in using such help, which we find used in God’s
witness to Himself, while yet we do not aspire to find a parallel to
the nature of God. But the minds of simple believers have been
distressed by the mad heretical objection that it is wrong to accept a
doctrine concerning God which needs, in order to become intelligible,
the help of bodily analogies. And therefore, in accordance with
that word of our Lord which we have already cited, That which is
born of the flesh is flesh, but that which is born of the Spirit is
Spirit St.
31. We see how the living Son of the living
Father, He Who is God from God, reveals the unity of the Divine nature,
indissolubly One and the same, and the mystery of His birth in these
words, I and the Father are One. Because the seeming
arrogance of them engendered a prejudice against Him, He made it more
clear that He had spoken in the conscious possession of Divinity by
saying, Ye say that I have blasphemed because I said, I am the Son
of God; thus shewing that the oneness of His nature with that of
God was due to birth from God. And then, to clench their faith in
His birth by a positive assertion, and to guard them, at the same time,
from imagining that the birth involves a difference of nature, He
crowns His argument with the words, Believe the works, that the
Father is in Me, and I in the Father. Does His birth, as here
revealed, display His Divinity as not His by nature, as not His own by
right? Each is in the Other; the birth of the Son is from the
Father only; no alien or unlike nature has been raised to Godhead and
subsists as God. God from God, eternally abiding, owes His
Godhead to none other than God. Import, if you see your
opportunity, two gods into the Church’s faith; separate Son from
Father as far as you can, consistently with the birth which you admit;
yet still the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, and
this by no interchange of emanations but by the perfect birth of the
living nature. Thus you cannot add together God the Father and
God the Son, and count Them as two Gods,
32. We will leave it to him to preach two Gods, who can preach One God without confessing the unity; he shall proclaim that God is solitary, who can deny that there are two Persons, Each dwelling in the Other by the power of Their nature and the mystery of birth given and received. And that man may assign a different nature to Each of the Two, who is ignorant that the unity of Father and of Son is a revealed truth. Let the heretics blot out this record of the Son’s self-revelation I in the Father and the Father in Me; then, and not till then, shall they assert that there are two Gods, or one God in loneliness. There is no hint of more natures than one in what we are told of Their possession of the one Divine nature. The truth that God is from God does not multiply God by two; the birth destroys the supposition of a lonely God. And again, because They are interdependent They form an unity; and that They are interdependent is proved by Their being One from One. For the One, in begetting the One, conferred upon Him nothing that was not His own; and the One, in being begotten, received from the One only what belongs to one. Thus the apostolic faith, in proclaiming the Father, will proclaim Him as One God, and in confessing the Son will confess Him as One God; since one and the same Divine nature exists in Both, and because, the Father being God and the Son being God, and the one name of God expressing the nature of Both, the term ‘One God’ signifies the Two. God from God, or God in God, does not mean that there are two Gods, for God abides, One from One, eternally with the one Divine nature and the one Divine name; nor does God dwindle down to a single Person, for One and One can never be in solitude.
33. The Lord has not left in doubt or
obscurity the teaching conveyed in this great mystery; He has not
abandoned us to lose our way in dim uncertainty. Listen to Him as
He reveals the full knowledge of this faith to His Apostles;—I
am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father
but through Me. If ye know Me, ye know My Father also; and from
henceforth ye shall know Him, and have seen Him. Philip saith
unto Him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus
saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and ye have not
known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father
also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father? Dost thou not
believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The
words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself, but the Father that
dwelleth in Me, He doeth His works. Believe Me, that I am in the
Father, and the Father in Me; or else believe for the very works’
sake St.
34. The words which follow those last cited
are, If ye know Me, ye know My Father also. It is the Man,
Jesus Christ, Whom they behold. How can a knowledge of Him be a
knowledge of the Father? For the Apostles see Him wearing the
aspect of that human nature which belongs to Him; but God is not
encumbered with body and flesh, and
35. But the novel sound of these words
disturbed the Apostle Philip. A Man is before their eyes; this
Man avows Himself the Son of God, and declares that when they have
known Him they will know the Father. He tells them that they have
seen the Father, and that, because they have seen Him, they shall know
Him hereafter. This truth is too broad for the grasp of weak
humanity; their faith fails in the presence of these paradoxes.
Christ says that the Father has been seen already and shall now be
known; and this, although sight, is knowledge. He says that if
the Son has been known, the Father has been known also; and this though
the Son has imparted knowledge of Himself through the bodily senses of
sight and sound, while the Father’s nature, different altogether
from that Reading ab
ea.
36. And therefore the Lord answered Philip thus;—Have I been so long time with you, and ye have not known Me, Philip? He rebukes the Apostle for defective knowledge of Himself; for previously He had said that when He was known the Father was known also. But what is the meaning of this complaint that for so long they had not known Him? It means this; that if they had known Him, they must have recognised in Him the Godhead which belongs to His Father’s nature. For His works were the peculiar works of God. He walked upon the waves, commanded the winds, manifestly, though none could tell how, changed the water into wine and multiplied the loaves, put devils to flight, healed diseases, restored injured limbs and repaired the defects of nature, forgave sins and raised the dead to life. And all this He did while wearing flesh; and He accompanied the works with the assertion that He was the Son of God. Hence it is that He justly complains that they did not recognise in His mysterious human birth and life the action of the nature of God, performing these deeds through the Manhood which He had assumed.
37. And therefore the Lord reproached them
that they had not known Him, though He had so long been doing these
works, and answered their prayer that He would shew them the Father by
saying, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father also. He
was not speaking of a bodily manifestation, of perception by the eye of
flesh, but by that eye of which He had once spoken;—Say not
ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? Behold, I
say unto you, Lift up your eyes and look on the fields; for they are
white to harvest St.
38. Such is the meaning of this passage, Have I been so long time with you, and ye have not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father? Dost thou not believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? It is only the Word of God, of Whom we men are enabled, in our discourse concerning Divine things, to reason. All else that belongs to the Godhead is dark and difficult, dangerous and obscure. If any man propose to express what is known in other words than those supplied by God, he must inevitably either display his own ignorance, or else leave his readers’ minds in utter perplexity. The Lord, when He was asked to shew the Father, said, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father also. He that would alter this is an antichrist, he that would deny it is a Jew, he that is ignorant a Pagan. If we find ourselves in difficulty, let us lay the fault to our own reason; if God’s declaration seem involved in obscurity, let us assume that our want of faith is the cause. These words state with precision that God is not solitary, and yet that there are no differences within the Divine nature. For the Father is seen in the Son, and this could be the case neither if He were a lonely Being, nor yet if He were unlike the Son. It is through the Son that the Father is seen: and this mystery which the Son reveals is that They are One God, but not one Person. What other meaning can you attach to this saying of the Lord’s, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father also? This is no case of identity; the use of the conjunction also shews that the Father is named in addition to the Son. These words, The Father also, are incompatible with the notion of an isolated and single Person. No conclusion is possible but that the Father was made visible through the Son, because They are One and are alike in nature. And, lest our faith in this regard should be left in any doubt, the Lord proceeded, How sayest thou, Shew us the Father? The Father had been seen in the Son; how then could men be ignorant of the Father? What need could there be for Him to be shewn?
39. Again, the unity of Begetter and
Begotten, manifested in sameness of nature and true oneness of kind,
proves that the Father was seen in His true nature. And this is
shewn by the Lord’s next words, Believe ye not that I am in
the Father, and the Father in Me? In no other words than
these, which the Son has used, can the fact be stated that Father and
Son, being alike in nature, are inseparable. The Son, Who is the
Way and the Truth and the Life, is not deceiving us by some theatrical
transformation of names and aspects, when He, while wearing Manhood,
styles Himself the Son of God. He is not falsely concealing the
fact that He is God the Father Sabellianism.
Personalis occurs here for the first time; persona
is found in iii. 23, v. 26.
40. Lest they, whose faith conforms to the Gospel, should regard this mystery as something vague and obscure, the Lord has expounded it in this order;—Dost thou not believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself, but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth His works. In what other words than these could, or can, the possession of the Divine nature by Father and Son be declared, consistently with prominence for the Son’s birth? When He says, The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself, He neither suppresses His personality, nor denies His Sonship, nor conceals the presence in Himself of His Father’s Divine nature. While speaking of Himself—and that He does so speak is proved by the pronoun I—He speaks as abiding in the Divine substance; while speaking not of Himself, He bears witness to the birth which took place in Him of God from God His Father. And He is inseparable and indistinguishable in unity of nature from the Father; for He speaks, though He speaks not of Himself. He Who speaks, though He speak not of Himself, necessarily exists, inasmuch as He speaks; and, inasmuch as He speaks not of Himself, He makes it manifest that His words are not His own. For He has added, But the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth His works. That the Father dwells in the Son proves that the Father is not isolated and alone; that the Father works through the Son proves that the Son is not an alien or a stranger. There cannot be one Person only, for He speaks not of Himself; and, conversely, They cannot be separate and divided when the One speaks through the voice of the Other. These words are the revelation of the mystery of Their unity. And again, They Two are not different One from the Other, seeing that by Their inherent nature Each is in the Other; and They are One, seeing that He, Who speaks, speaks not of Himself, and He, Who speaks not of Himself, yet does speak. And then, having taught that the Father both spoke and wrought in Him, the Son establishes this perfect unity as the rule of our faith;—But the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth His works. Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; or else believe for the very works’ sake. The Father works in the Son; but the Son also works the works of His Father.
41. And so, lest we should believe and say
that the Father works in the Son through His own omnipotent energy, and
not through the Son’s possession, as His birthright, of the
Divine nature, Christ says, Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and
the Father in Me. What means this, Believe Me?
Clearly it refers back to the previous, Shew us the
Father. Their faith—that faith which had demanded that
the Father should be shewn—is confirmed by this command to
believe. He was not satisfied with saying, He that hath seen
Me hath seen the Father also. He goes further, and expands
our knowledge, so that we can contemplate the Father in the Son,
remembering meanwhile that the Son is in the Father. Thus He
would save us from the error of imagining a reciprocal emanation of the
One into the Other, by teaching Their unity in the One nature through
birth given and received. The Lord would have us take Him at His
word, lest our hold upon the faith be shaken by His condescension in
assuming Humanity. If His flesh, His body, His passion seem to
make His Godhead doubtful, let us at least believe, on the evidence of
the works, that God is in God and God is from God, and that They are
One. For by the power of Their nature Each is in the Other.
The Father loses nothing that is His because it is in the Son, and the
Son receives His whole Sonship from the Father. Bodily natures
are not created after such a fashion that they mutually contain each
other, or possess the perfect unity of one abiding nature. In
their case it would be impossible that an Only-
1. The Blessed
Apostle Paul in laying down the form for appointing a bishop and
creating by his instructions an entirely new type of member of the
Church, has taught us in the following words the sum total of all the
virtues perfected in him:—Holding fast the word according to
the doctrine of faith that he may be able to exhort to sound doctrine
and to convict gainsayers. For there are many unruly men, vain
talkers and deceivers I.e. bishop.
2. The reason why I have just mentioned this
utterance of the Apostle is this; men of crooked minds and false
professions, void of hope and venomous of speech, lay upon me the
necessity of inveighing against them, because under the guise of
religion they instil deadly doctrines, infectious thoughts and corrupt
desires into the simple minds of their hearers. And this they do
with an utter disregard of the true sense of the apostolic teaching, so
that the Father is not a Father, nor the Son, Son, nor the Faith, the
Faith. In resisting their wild falsehoods, we have extended the
course of our reply so far, that after proving from the Law that God
and God were distinct and that very God was in very God, we then shewed
from the teaching of evangelists and
3. But as it is the nature and endeavour of the good and wise to prepare themselves wholly for securing either the reality or the opportunity of some precious hope lest their preparedness should in some respects fall short of that which they look for,—so in like manner those who are filled with the madness of heretical frenzy make it their chiefest anxiety to labour with all the ingenuity of their impiety against the truth of pious faith, in order that against those who are religious they may establish their own irreligion; that they may surpass the hope of our life in the hopelessness of their own, and that they may spend more thought over false than we spend over true teaching. For against the pious assertions of our faith they have carefully devised such objections of their impious misbelief, as first to ask whether we believe in one God, next, whether Christ also be God, lastly, whether the Father is greater than the Son, in order that when they hear us confess that God is one they may use our reply to shew that Christ cannot be God. For they do not enquire concerning the Son whether He be God; all they wish for in asking questions about Christ is to prove that He is not a Son, that by entrapping men of simple faith they may through the belief in one God divert them from the belief in Christ as God, on the ground that God is no longer one if Christ also must be acknowledged as God. Again with what subtlety of worldly wisdom do they contend when they say, If God is one, whosoever that other shall be shewn to be, he will not be God. For if there be another God He can no longer be one, since nature does not permit that where there is another there should be one only, or that where there is only one there should be another. Afterwards, when by the crafty cunning of this insidious argument they have misled those who are ready to believe and listen, they then apply this proposition (as if they could now establish it by an easier method), that Christ is God rather in name than in nature, because this generic name in Him can destroy in none that only true belief in one God: and they contend that through this the Father is greater than the Son, because, the natures being different, as there is but one God, the Father is greater from the essential character of His nature; and that the Other is only called Son while He is really a creature subsisting by the will of the Father, because He is less than the Father; and also that He is not God, because God being one does not admit of another God, since he who is less must necessarily be of a nature alien from that of the person who is greater. Again, how foolish they are in their attempts to lay down a law for God when they maintain that no birth can take place from one single being, because throughout the universe birth arises from the union of two; moreover, that the unchangeable God cannot accord from Himself birth to one who is born, because that which is changeless is incapable of addition, nor can the nature of a solitary and single being contain within itself the property of generation.
4. We, on the contrary, having by spiritual
teaching arrived at the faith of the evangelists and apostles, and
following after the hope of eternal blessedness by our confession of
the Father and the Son, and having proved out of the Law the mystery of
God and God, without overstepping the limits of our faith in one God,
or failing to proclaim that Christ is God, have adopted this method of
reply from the Gospels, that we declare the true nativity of
Only-begotten God from God the Father, because that through this He was
both very God and not alien from the nature of the One very God, and
thus neither could His Godhead be denied nor Himself be described as
another God, because while the birth made Him God, the nature within
him of one God of God did not separate Him off as another God.
And although our human reason led us to this conclusion, that the names
of distinct natures could not meet together in the same nature, and not
be one, where the essence of each did not differ in kind; nevertheless,
it seemed good that we should prove this from the ex St.
5. Now seeing that heretics cannot deny
these things because they are so clearly stated and understood, they
nevertheless pervert them by the most foolish and wicked lies so as
afterwards to deny them. For the words of Christ, I and the
Father are one St.
6. He clearly knows not wisdom who knows not
God. And since Christ is Wisdom he must needs be beyond the pale
of wisdom who knows not Christ or hates Him Reading
odit.
7. For as to those whose soul and heart were
one, I ask whether they were one through faith in God? Yes,
assuredly, through faith, for through this the soul and heart of all
were one. Again I ask, is the faith one or is there a second
faith? One undoubtedly, and that on the authority of the Apostle
himself, who proclaims one faith even as one Lord, and one baptism, and
one hope, and one God
8. These are not our own conjectures which we
offer, nor do we falsely put together any of these things in order to
deceive the ears of our hearers by perverting the meaning of words; but
holding fast the form of sound teaching we know and preach the things
which are true. For the Apostle shews that this unity of the
faithful arises from the nature of the sacraments when he writes to the
Ga
9. Or, again, since he who plants and he who waters are one, are they not one because, being themselves born again in one baptism they form a ministry of one regenerating baptism? Do not they do the same thing? Are they not one in One? So they who are one through the same thing are one also by nature, not only by will, inasmuch as they themselves have been made the same thing and are ministers of the same thing and the same power.
10. Now the contradiction of fools always
serves to prove their folly, because with regard to the faults which
they contrive by the devices of an unwise or crooked understanding
against the truth, while the latter remains unshaken and immovable the
things which are opposed to it must needs be regarded as false and
foolish. For heretics in their attempt to deceive others by the
words, I and the Father are one St.
11. But although the wickedness of man can pervert his intellectual powers, nevertheless the words retain their meaning. Our Lord prays to His Father that those who shall believe in Him may be one, and as He is in the Father and the Father in Him, so all may be one in Them. Why dost thou bring in here an identity of mind, why a unity of soul and heart through agreement of will? For there would have been no lack of suitable words for our Lord, if it were will that made them one, to have prayed in this fashion,—Father, as We are one in will, so may they also be one in will, that we may all be one through agreement. Or could it be that He Who is the Word was unacquainted with the meaning of words? and that He Who is Truth knew not how to speak the truth? and He Who is Wisdom went astray in foolish talk? and He Who is Power was compassed about with such weakness that He could not speak what He wished to be understood? He has clearly spoken the true and sincere mysteries of the faith of the Gospel. And He has not only spoken that we may comprehend, He has also taught that we may believe, saying, That they all may be one, as Thou Father art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us. For those first of all is the prayer of whom it is said, That they all may be one. Then the promotion of unity is set forth by a pattern of unity, when He says, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us, so that as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so through the pattern of this unity all might be one in the Father and the Son.
12. But because it is proper to the Father
alone and the Son that They should be one by nature because God is from
God, and the Only-begotten from the Unbegotten can subsist in no other
nature than that of His origin; so that He Who was begotten should
exist in the substance of His birth, and the birth should possess no
other and different truth of deity than that from which it issued; for
our Lord has left us in no doubt as to our belief by asserting
throughout the whole of the discourse which follows the nature of this
complete unity. For the next words are these, That the world
may believe that Thou didst send Me St. St.
13. Now our Lord has not left the minds of
His faithful followers in doubt, but has explained the manner in which
His nature operates, saying, That they may be one, as We are
one: I in them and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in
one If in the Sacrament we
hold real communion with the Father and the Son, the union of Father
and Son on which it is based must be also real, and not a mere concord
of will.
14. The words in which we speak of the
things of God must be used in no mere human and worldly sense, nor must
the perverseness of an alien and impious interpretation be extorted
from the soundness of heavenly words by any violent and headstrong
preaching. Let us read what is written, let us understand what we
read, and then fulfil the demands of a perfect faith. For as to
what we say concerning the reality of Christ’s nature within us,
unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and
impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My
blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My
blood abideth in Me, and I in him St.
15. Now how it is that we are in Him through
the sacrament of the flesh and blood bestowed upon us, He Himself
testifies, saying, And the world will no longer see Me, but ye shall
see Me; because I live ye shall live also; because I am in My Father,
and ye in Me, and I in you
16. Again, how natural this unity is in us
He has Himself testified on this wise,—He who eateth My flesh
and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him St.
17. I have dwelt upon these facts because the heretics falsely maintain that the union between Father and Son is one of will only, and make use of the example of our own union with God, as though we were united to the Son and through the Son to the Father by mere obedience and a devout will, and none of the natural verity of communion were vouchsafed us through the sacrament of the Body and Blood; although the glory of the Son bestowed upon us through the Son abiding in us after the flesh, while we are united in Him corporeally and inseparably, bids us preach the mystery of the true and natural unity.
18. So we have made our reply to the folly
of our violent opponents, merely to prove the emptiness of their
falsehoods and so prevent them from misleading the unwary by the error
of their vain and foolish statements. But the faith of the Gospel
did not of necessity require our answer. The Lord prayed on our
behalf for our union with God, but God keeps His own unity and abides
in it. It is not through any mysterious appointment of God that
they are one, but through a birth of nature, for God loses nothing in
begetting Him from Himself. They are one, for the things which
are not plucked out of His hand are not plucked out of the hand of the
Father St.
19. Thus we do not deny a unanimity between
the Father and the Son,—for heretics are accustomed to utter this
falsehood, that since we do not accept concord by itself as the bond of
unity we declare Them to be at variance. But let them listen how
it is that we do not deny such a unanimity. The Father and the
Son are one in nature, honour, power, and the same nature cannot will
things that are contrary. Moreover, let them listen to the
testimony of the Son as touching the unity of nature between Himself
and the Father, for He says, When that advocate is come, Whom I
shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth Who proceedeth
from the Father, He shall testify of Me
20. For the present I forbear to expose
their licence of speculation, some of them holding that the Paraclete
Spirit comes from the Father or from the Son. For our Lord has
not left this in uncertainty, for after these same words He spoke
thus,—I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot
bear them now. When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall
guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak from Himself:
but what things soever He shall hear, these shall He speak; and He
shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall
glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it
unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine:
therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto
you St.
21. Let us listen to that chosen vessel and
teacher of the Gentiles, when he had already commended the faith of the
people of Rome because of their understanding of the truth. For
wishing to teach the unity of nature in the case of the Father and the
Son, he speaks thus, But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit,
if indeed the Spirit of God is in you. But if any have not the
Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. But if Christ is in you, the
body indeed is dead through sin, but the Spirit is life through
righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him Who raised up Christ from
the dead dwelleth in you; He Who raised up Christ from the dead shall
also quicken your mortal bodies, because of His Spirit Who dwelleth in
you
22. And now I ask whether thou thinkest that in the Spirit of God is signified a nature or a property belonging to a nature. For a nature is not identical with a thing belonging to it, just as neither is a man identical with what belongs to a man, nor fire with what belongs to fire itself, and in like manner God is not the same as that which belongs to God.
23. For I am aware that the Son of God is
revealed under the title Spirit of God in order that we may
understand the presence of the Father in Him, and that the term
Spirit of God may be employed to indicate Either, and that this
is shewn not only on the authority of prophets but of evangelists also,
when it is said, The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me; therefore He
hath anointed Me St. St.
24. For I think that the expression ‘Spirit of God’ was used with respect to Each, lest we should believe that the Son was present in the Father or the Father in the Son in a merely corporeal manner, that is, lest God might be thought to abide in one position and exist nowhere else apart from Himself. For a man or any other thing like him, when he is in one place, cannot be in another, because what is in one place is confined to the place where it is: his nature cannot allow him to be everywhere when he exists in some one position. But God is a living Force, of infinite power, present everywhere and nowhere absent, and manifests His whole self through His own, and signifies that His own are naught else than Himself, so that where they are He may be understood to be Himself. Yet we must not think that, after a corporeal fashion, when He is in one place He ceases to be everywhere, for through His own things He is still present in all places, while the things which are His are none other than His own self. Now these things have been said to make us understand what is meant by ‘nature.’
25. Now I think that it ought to be clearly
understood that God the Father is denoted by the Spirit of God, because
our Lord Jesus Christ declared that the Spirit of the Lord was upon Him
since He anoints Him and sends Him to preach the Gospel. For in
Him is made manifest the excellence of the Father’s nature,
disclosing that the Son partakes of His nature even when born in the
flesh through the mystery of this spiritual unction, since after the
birth ratified in His baptism this intimation of His inherent Sonship
was heard as a voice bore witness from Heaven:—Thou art My
Son; this day have I begotten Thee
26. Now we have of necessity set these things
forth with this object, that in whatever direction the deception of
heretics betakes itself, it might yet be kept in check by the
boundaries and limits of the gospel truth. For Christ dwells in
us, and where Christ dwells God dwells. And when the Spirit of
Christ dwells in us, this indwelling means not that any other Spirit
dwells in us than the Spirit of God. But if it is understood that
Christ dwells in us through the Holy
27. But you, heretic, as you wildly rave and
are driven about by the Spirit of your deadly doctrine the Apostle
seizes and constrains, establishing Christ for us as the foundation of
our faith, being well aware also of that saying of our Lord, If a
man love Me, he will also keep My word; and My Father will love him,
and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him St.
28. Now the Apostle asserts that those words
in the Gospel, I and the Father are one St.
29. For the Apostle goes on to say, Now
there are diversities of gifts, but there is the same Spirit; and there
are diversities of ministrations but one and the same Lord; and there
are diversities of workings but the same God, Who worketh all things in
all. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for
that which profiteth
30. And indeed that which we called the fourth
statement, that is the manifestation of the Spirit in the bestowal of
what is profitable, I.e. in
31. Now the blessed Apostle Paul in
revealing the secret of these heavenly mysteries, most difficult to
human comprehension, has preserved a clear enunciation and a carefully
worded caution in order to shew that these diverse gifts are given
through the Spirit and in the Spirit (for to be given through the
Spirit and in the Spirit is not the same thing), because the granting
of a gift which is exercised in the Spirit is yet bestowed through the
Spirit. But he sums up these diversities of gifts thus:
Now all these things worketh one and the same Spirit, dividing to
each one as He will Hilary’s
interpretation of this passage is not strictly Trinitarian. His
view is that there are two Divine Persons at work, the Father and the
Son, and that Both are embraced under the common name of
‘Spirit.’ Compare ii. 30, and the exegesis of St.
32. But if this one Spirit of one Divinity,
one in both God and Lord through the mystery of the birth, does not
please thee, then point out to me what Spirit both works and
distributes these diverse gifts to us, and in what Spirit He does
this. But, thou must shew me nothing but what accords with our
faith, because the Apostle shews us Who is to be understood, saying,
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members
of the body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ
33. Unless perchance we think that the
Apostle did not keep to the principle of unity in that he said, And
there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord, and there
are diversities of workings, but the same God
34. But if impiety has assumed to itself
that because he says, The same Lord and the same God St.
35. First of all, then, O heretic that hast no
part in the Spirit which spoke by the Apostle, learn thy folly.
If thou wrongly employest the confession of one God to deny the Godhead
of
36. Now the Apostle, maintaining the true
sense of the Lord’s saying, I and the Father are
one St. See § 31,
supr., and note.
37. Unless perchance the frenzy of utter
desperation will venture to rush to such lengths that, inasmuch as the
Apostle has called Christ Lord, no one ought to acknowledge Him as
aught else save Lord, and that because He has the property of Lord He
has not the true Godhead. But Paul knows full well that Christ is
God, for he says, Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ, Who
is God over all
38. Now that He Who is God over all is also
Spirit inseparable from the Father, learn also from that very utterance
of the Apostle, of which we are now speaking. For when he
confessed one God the Father from Whom are all things, and one Lord
Jesus Christ through Whom are all things; what difference, I ask, did
he intend by saying that all things are from God and that all things
are through Christ? Can He possibly be regarded as of a nature
and spirit separable from Himself, He from Whom and through Whom are
all things? For all things have come into being through the Son
out of nothing, and the Apostle has referred them to God the Father,
From Whom are all things, but also to the Son, through Whom
are all things. And I find here no difference, since by Each
is exercised the same power. For if with regard to the
subsistence of the universe it was an exact sufficient statement that
things created are from God, what need was there to state that the
things which are from God are through Christ, unless it be one and the
same thing to be through Christ and from God? But as it has been
ascribed to Each of Them that They are Lord and God in such wise that
each title belongs to Both, so too from Whom and through
Whom is here referred to Both; and this to shew the unity of Both,
not to make known God’s singleness. The language of the
Apostle affords no opening for wicked error, nor is his faith too
exalted for careful statement. For he has guarded himself by
those specially appropriate words from being understood to mean two
Gods or a solitary God: for while he rejects oneness of person he
yet does not divide the unity of Godhead. For this from Whom
are all things and through Whom are all things, although it did not
posit a solitary Deity in the sole possession of majesty, must yet set
forth One not different in efficiency, since from Whom are all
things and through Whom are all things must signify an
Author of the same nature engaged in the same work. He affirms,
moreover, that Each is properly of the same nature. For after
announcing the depth of the riches and wisdom and
39. For whereas he has specially ascribed to God that all things are from Him, and he has assigned as a peculiar property to Christ, that all things are through Him, and it is now the glory of God that from Him and through Him and in Him are all things; and whereas the Spirit of God is the same as the Spirit of Christ, or whereas in the ministration of the Lord and in the working of God, one Spirit both works and divides, They cannot but be one Whose properties are those of one; since in the same Lord the Son, and in the same God the Father, one and the same Spirit distributing in the same Holy Spirit accomplishes all things. How worthy is this saint of the knowledge of exalted and heavenly mysteries, adopted and chosen to share in the secret things of God, preserving a due silence over things which may not be uttered, true apostle of Christ! How by the announcement of his clear teaching has he restrained the imaginations of human wilfulness, confessing, as he does, one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, so that meanwhile no one can either preach two Gods or one solitary God; although He Who is not one person cannot multiply into two Gods, nor on the other hand can They Who are not two Gods be understood to be one single person; while meantime the revelation of God as Father demonstrates the true nativity of Christ.
40. Thrust out now your quivering and hissing tongues, ye vipers of heresy, whether it be thou Sabellius or thou Photinus, or ye who now preach that the Only-begotten God is a creature. Whosoever denies the Son shall hear of one God the Father, because inasmuch as a father becomes a father only by having a son, this name Father necessarily connotes the existence of the Son. And again, let him who takes away from the Son the unity of an identical nature, acknowledge one Lord Jesus Christ. For unless through unity of the Spirit He is one Lord room will not be left for God the Father to be Lord. Again, let him who holds the Son to have become Son in time and by His Incarnation, learn that through Him are all things and we through Him, and that His timeless Infinity was creating all things before time was. And meanwhile let him read again that there is one hope of our calling, and one baptism, and one faith; if, after that, he oppose himself to the preaching of the Apostle, he, being accursed because he framed strange doctrines of his own device, is neither called nor baptized nor believing; because in one God the Father and in one Lord Jesus Christ there lies the one faith of one hope and baptism. And no alien doctrine can boast that it has a place among the truths which belong to one God and Lord and hope and baptism and faith.
41. So then the one faith is, to confess the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father through the unity of an indivisible nature, not confused but inseparable, not intermingled but identical, not conjoined but coexisting, not incomplete but perfect. For there is birth not separation, there is a Son not an adoption; and He is God, not a creature. Neither is He a God of a different kind, but the Father and Son are one: for the nature was not altered by birth so as to be alien from the property of its original. So the Apostle holds the faith of the Son abiding in the Father and the Father in the Son when he proclaims that for him there is one God the Father and one Lord Christ, since in Christ the Lord there was also God, and in God the Father there was also Lord, and They Two are that unity which is God, and They Two are also that unity which is the Lord, for reason indicates that there must be something imperfect in God unless He be Lord, and in the Lord unless He were God. And so since Both are one, and Both are implied under either name, and neither exists apart from the unity, the Apostle has not gone beyond the preaching of the Gospel in his teaching, nor does Christ when He speaks in Paul differ from the words which He spoke while abiding in the world in bodily form.
42. For the Lord had said in the gospels,
Work not for the meat which perisheth, but for the meat which
abideth unto life eternal, which the Son of Man shall give unto
you: for Him the Father, even God, hath sealed. They said
therefore unto Him, What must we do that we may work the works of
God? And He said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye
believe on Him Whom He hath sent St.
43. Now we ought to recognise first of all that God has spoken not for Himself but for us, and that He has so far tempered the language of His utterance as to enable the weakness of our nature to grasp and understand it. For after being rebuked by the Jews for having made Himself the equal of God by professing to be the Son of God, He had answered that He Himself did all things that the Father did, and that He had received all judgment from the Father; moreover that He must be honoured even as the Father. And in all these things having before declared Himself Son, He had made Himself equal to the Father in honour, power and nature. Afterwards He had said that as the Father had life in Himself, so He had given the Son to have life in Himself, wherein He signified that by virtue of the mystery of the birth He possessed the unity of the same nature. For when He says that He has what the Father has, He means that He has the Father’s self. For that God is not after human fashion of a composite being, so that in Him there is a difference of kind between Possessor and Possessed; but all that He is is life, a nature, that is, complete, absolute and infinite, not composed of dissimilar elements but with one life permeating the whole. And since this life was in such wise given as it was possessed, although the fact that it was given manifestly reveals the birth of the Recipient, it yet does not involve a difference of kind since the life given was such as was possessed.
44. Therefore after this manifold and
precise revelation of the presence of the Father’s nature in
Himself, He goes on to say, For Him hath the Father sealed, even
God St.
45. But in us the preacher of the Gospel by
the Spirit of Christ Who spoke through him, instils the knowledge of
this His proper nature when he says, Who, being in the form of God,
thought it not a thing to grasp at that He was equal with God, but
emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant
46. At this point I ask whether He Who abides as God in the form of God is a God of another kind, as we perceive in the case of seals in respect of the likenesses which stamp and those which are stamped, since a steel die impressed upon lead or a gem upon wax shapes the figure cut in it or imprints that which stands in relief upon it. But if there be any one so foolish and senseless as to think that that, pertaining to Himself, which God fashions to be God, is aught but God, and that He Who is in the form of God is in any respect anything else save God after the mystery of His Incarnation and of His humility, made perfect through obedience even unto the death of the cross, he shall hear, by the confession of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth and of every tongue, that Jesus is in the glory of God the Father. If then, when His form had become that of a slave He abides in such glory, how, I ask, did He abide when in the form of God? Must not Christ the Spirit have been in the nature of Gods—for this is what is meant by ‘in the glory of God’—when Christ as Jesus, that is, born as man, exists in the glory of God the Father?
47. In all things the blessed Apostle preserves the unchangeable teaching of the Gospel faith. The Lord Jesus Christ is proclaimed as God in such wise that neither does the Apostle’s faith, by calling Him a God of a different order, fall away to the confession of two Gods, nor by making God the Son inseparable from the Father does it leave an opening for the unholy doctrine of a single and solitary God. For when he says, in the form of God and in the glory of the Father the Apostle neither teaches that They differ one from another, nor allows us to think of Him as not existing. For He Who is in the form of God neither ends by becoming another God nor Himself loses His Godhead: for He cannot be severed from the form of God since He exists in it, nor is He, Who is in the form of God, not God Just as He Who is in the glory of God cannot be aught else than God, and, since He is God in the glory of God, cannot be proclaimed as another god and one different from the true God, seeing that by reason of the fact that He is in the glory of God He possesses naturally from Him in Whose glory He is, the property of divinity.
48. But there is no danger that the one
faith will cease to be such through diversity in its preaching.
The Evangelist had taught that our Lord said, He that hath seen Me,
hath seen the Father also St.
49. But, as it is, neither did the Lord
leave us in doubt: He who hath seen Me, hath seen the Father
also; nor was the Apostle silent as to His nature, Who is the
image of the invisible God. For the Lord had said, If I do
not the works of My Father, believe Me not St.
50. He is accordingly the first-born of every creature because in Him all things were created. And lest any one should dare to refer to any other than Him the creation of all things in Himself, he says, All things have been created through Him and in Him, and He is before all, and for Him all things consist. All things then consist for Him Who is before all things, and in Whom are all things. Now this indeed describes the origin of created things. But concerning the dispensation by which He assumed our body, he adds, And He is the head of the body, the Church: Who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead: that in all things He might have the pre-eminence. For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in Him should all the fulness dwell, and that through Him all things should be reconciled to Him. The Apostle has assigned to the spiritual mysteries their material effects. For He Who is the image of the invisible God is Himself the head of His body, the Church, and He Who is the first-born of every creature is at the same time the beginning, the first born from the dead: that in all things He might have the pre-eminence, being for us the Body, while He is also the image of God, since He, Who is the first-born of created things, is at the same time the first-born for eternity; so that as to Him things spiritual, being created in the First-born, owe it that they abide, even so all things human also owe it to Him that in the First-born from the dead they are born again into eternity. For He is Himself the beginning, Who as Son is therefore the image, and because the image, is of God. Further He is the first-born of every created thing, possessing in Himself the origin of the universe: and again He is the head of His body, the Church, and the first-born from the dead, so that in all things He has the pre-eminence. And because all things consist for Him, in Him the fulness of the Godhead is pleased to dwell, for in Him all things are reconciled through Him to Him, through Whom all things were created in Himself.
51. Do you now perceive what it is to be the
image of God? It means that all things are created in Him through
Him. Whereas all things are created in Him, understand that He,
Whose image He is, also creates all things in Him. And since all
things which are created in Him are also created through Him, recognize
that in Him Who is the image there is present the nature of Him, Whose
image He is. For through Himself He creates the things which are
created in Him, just as through Himself all things are reconciled in
Him. Inasmuch as they are reconciled in Him, recognise in Him the
nature of the Father’s unity, reconciling all things to Himself
in Him. Inasmuch as all things are reconciled through Him,
perceive Him reconciling to the Father in Himself all things which He
reconciled through Himself. For the same Apostle says, But all
things are from God, Who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and
gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation: to wit, that God was
in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself
52. Thus God out of regard for human
weakness has not set forth the faith in bare and uncertain
statements. For although the authority of our Lord’s mere
words of itself compelled their acceptance, He nevertheless has
informed our reason by a revelation which explains their meaning, that
we might learn to know His words, I and the Father are
one St.
53. Now that you may understand the saying
of the Lord, when He said, All things whatsoever the Father hath are
Mine St.
54. Now I ask, whose Godhead is it whereof the fulness dwells in Him? If it be not that of the Father, what other God do you, misleading preacher of one God, thrust upon me as Him Whose Godhead dwells fully in Christ? But if it be that of the Father, inform me how this fulness dwells in Him in bodily fashion. If you hold that the Father abides in the Son in bodily fashion, the Father, while dwelling in the Son, will not exist in Himself. If on the other hand, and this is more true, the Godhead abiding in Him in bodily shape displays within Him the verity of the nature of God from God, inasmuch as God is in Him, abiding neither through condescension nor through will but by birth, true and wholly in bodily fulness according as He is; and inasmuch as, in the whole compass of His being, He was born by His divine birth to be God, and within the Godhead there is no difference or dissimilarity, except that in Christ He dwells in bodily form, and yet whatever dwells in Him bodily is according to the fulness of Godhead; why follow after the doctrines of men? Why cleave to the teaching of empty falsehoods? Why talk of ‘agreement’ or ‘harmony of will’ or ‘a creature?’ The fulness of Godhead dwells in Christ bodily.
55. The Apostle has herein held fast to the canon of his faith, by teaching that the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ bodily; and this, in order that the teaching of the faith might not degenerate into an unholy profession of a oneness of Persons or sinful frenzy break forth into the belief of two different natures. For the fulness of Godhead which dwells in Christ in bodily fashion is neither solitary nor separable; for the fulness in bodily form does not admit any partition from the other bodily fulness, and the indwelling Godhead cannot be regarded as also the dwelling-place of the Godhead. And Christ is so constituted that the fulness of Godhead dwells in Him in bodily fashion, and that this fulness must be held one in nature with Christ. Lay hands on every chance that offers for your quibbles, sharpen the points of your blasphemous wit. Name, at least, the imaginary being whose fulness of Godhead it is which dwells in Christ in bodily fashion. For He is Christ, and there is dwelling in Him in bodily fashion the fulness of Godhead.
56. And if you would know what it is to
‘dwell in bodily fashion,’ understand what it is to speak
in one that speaks, to be seen in one who is seen, to work in one who
works, to be God in God, whole of whole, one of one; and thus learn
what is meant by the
1. In the last book
we treated of the indistinguishable nature of God the Father and God
the Son, and demonstrated that the words, I and the Father are
One St. Subsistentis
Christi = subsistentia distincti Christi (see footnote
in the Benedictine Edition). God the Father dwelt in
Christ. But the Dweller must be personally distinct from Christ,
in Whom He dwelt: and as the only distinction between the Father
and Christ is that of Begetter and Begotten, therefore the words
‘God dwelt in Christ’ prove the generation of
Christ. St.
2. All this is indeed as it is: He,
Who is by nature God of God, must possess the nature of His origin,
which God possesses, and the indistinguishable unity of a living nature
cannot be divided by the birth of a living nature. Yet
nevertheless the heretics, under cover of the saving confession of the
Gospel faith, are stealing on to the subversion of the truth: for
by forcing their own interpretations on words uttered with other
meanings and intentions, they are robbing the Son of His natural
unity. Thus to deny the Son of God, they quote the authority of
His own words, Why callest thou Me good? None is good, save
one, God St. St. St. St.
3. We will offer later an explanation of
these texts in the words of the Gospels and Epistles themselves.
But first we hold it right to remind the members of our common faith,
that the knowledge of the Eternal is presented in the same confession
which gives eternal life Alluding to St.
St.
4. It is contrary to our experience of nature, that He should be born man and still remain God; but it accords with the tenor of our expectation, that being born man, He still remained God, for when the higher nature is born into the lower, it is credible that the lower should also be born into the higher. And, indeed, according to the laws and habits of nature, the working of our expectation even anticipates the divine mystery. For in every thing that is born, nature has the capacity for increase, but has no power of decrease. Look at the trees, the crops, the cattle. Regard man himself, the possessor of reason. He always expands by growth, he does not contract by decrease; nor does he ever lose the self into which he has grown. He wastes indeed with age, or is cut off by death; he undergoes change by lapse of time, or reaches the end allotted to the constitution of life, yet it is not in his power to cease to be what he is; I mean that he cannot make a new self by decrease from his old self, that is, become a child again from an old man. So the necessity of perpetual increase, which is imposed on our nature by natural law, leads us on good grounds to expect its promotion into a higher nature, since its increase is according to, and its decrease contrary to, nature. It was God alone Who could become something other than before, and yet not cease to be what He had ever been; Who could shrink within the limits of womb, cradle, and infancy, yet not depart from the power of God. This is a mystery, not for Himself, but for us. The assumption of our nature was no advancement for God, but His willingness to lower Himself is our promotion, for He did not resign His divinity but conferred divinity on man.
5. The Only-begotten God, therefore, when He was
born man of the Virgin, and in the fulness of time was about in His own
person to raise humanity to divinity, always maintained this form of
the Gospel teaching. He taught, namely, to believe Him the Son of
God, and exhorted to preach Him the Son of Man; man saying and doing
all that belongs to God; God saying and doing all that belongs to
man. Yet never did He speak without signifying by the twofold
aspect of these very utterances both His manhood and His
divinity. Though He proclaimed one God the Father, He declared
Himself to be in the
6. We do not deny that all the sayings which
are preserved of His, refer to His nature. But, if Jesus Christ
be man and God, neither God for the first time, when He became man, nor
then ceasing to be God, nor after He became Man in God less than
perfect man and perfect God, then the mystery of His words must be one
and the same with that of His nature. When according to the time
indicated, we disconnect His divinity from humanity, then let us also
disconnect His language as God from the language of man; when we
confess Him God and man at the same time, let us distinguish at the
same time His words as God and His words as man; when after His manhood
and Godhead, we recognise again the time when His whole manhood is
wholly God, let us refer to that time all that is revealed concerning
it The three periods
referred to in these three sentences are 1) before the
Incarnation: we can assign only to His Godhead the words Christ
uses in reference to this period, because He was not yet man. 2)
The Incarnation: we must distinguish whether He is speaking of
Himself as man or as God. 3) After the Resurrection, when His
manhood remains, but is perfected in the Godhead.
7. For our sake, therefore, Jesus Christ, retaining all these attributes, and being born man in our body, spoke after the fashion of our nature without concealing that divinity belonged to His own nature. In His birth, His passion, and His death, He passed through all the circumstances of our nature, but He bore them all by the power of His own. He was Himself the cause of His birth, He willed to suffer what He could not suffer, He died though He lives for ever. Yet God did all this not merely through man, for He was born of Himself, He suffered of His own free will, and died of Himself. He did it also as man, for He was really born, suffered and died. These were the mysteries of the secret counsels of heaven, determined before the world was made. The Only-begotten God was to become man of His own will, and man was to abide eternally in God. God was to suffer of His own will, that the malice of the devil, working in the weakness of human infirmity, might not confirm the law of sin in us, since God had assumed our weakness. God was to die of His own will, that no power, after that the immortal God had constrained Himself within the law of death, might raise up its head against Him, or put forth the natural strength which He had created in it. Thus God was born to take us into Himself, suffered to justify us, and died to avenge us; for our manhood abides for ever in Him, the weakness of our infirmity is united with His strength, and the spiritual powers of iniquity and wickedness are subdued in the triumph of our flesh, since God died through the flesh.
8. The Apostle, who knew this mystery, and
had received the knowledge of the faith through the Lord Himself, was
not unmindful, that neither the world, nor mankind, nor philosophy
could contain Him, for he writes, Take heed, lest there shall be any
one that leadeth you astray through philosophy and vain deceit, after
the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after
Jesus Christ, for in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily, and in Him ye are made full, Who is the head of all
principalities and powers
9. But after the announcement of the mystery
of Christ’s nature, and our assumption, that is, the fulness of
Godhead abiding in Christ, and ourselves made full in Him by His birth
as man, the Apostle continues the dispensation of human salvation in
the words, In whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not
made with hands, in the stripping off of the body of the flesh, but
with the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in
baptism, wherein ye were also raised with Him through faith in the
working of God, who raised Him from the dead
10. Then is completed the entire mystery of
the assumed manhood, And you being dead through your trespasses and
the uncircumcision of your flesh, you I say, did He quicken together
with Him, having forgiven you all your trespasses, blotting out the
bond written in ordinances, that was against us, which was contrary to
us; and He hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross, and
having put off from Himself His flesh, He hath made a shew of powers,
triumphing over them in Himself See I. 13.
11. Do you understand already the Mysteries of the
Apostle’s Faith? Do you think to know Christ already?
Tell me, then, Who is it Who strips from Himself His flesh, and what is
that flesh stripped off? I see two thoughts expressed by the
Apostle, the flesh stripped off, and Him Who strips it off: and
then I hear of Christ raised from the dead by the working of God.
If it is Christ Who is raised from the dead, and God Who raises Him;
Who, pray, strips from Himself the flesh? Who raises Christ from
the dead, and quickens us with Him? If the dead Christ be not the
same as the flesh stripped off, tell me the name of the flesh stripped
off, and expound me the nature of Him Who strips it off. I find
that Christ the God, Who was raised from the dead, is the
12. I remember that the Apostle often refers
to God the Father as raising Christ from the dead; but he is not
inconsistent with himself or at variance with the Gospel faith, for the
Lord Himself says:—Therefore doth the Father love Me, because
I lay down My life, that I may take it again. No one shall take
it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it
down, and I have power to take it again. This command have I
received from the Father St.
13. It is this preaching of the double
aspect of Christ’s Person which the blessed Apostle
emphasises. He points out in Christ His human infirmity, and His
divine power and nature. Thus to the Corinthians he writes,
For though He was crucified through weakness, yet He liveth through
the power of God
14. I have been compelled to dwell briefly on
this, lest we should forget our Lord Jesus Christ is being treated of
as a Person of two natures, since He, Who was abiding in the form of
God, took the form of a servant, in which He was obedient even unto
death. The obedience of death has nothing to do with the form of
God, just as the form of God is not inherent in the form of a
servant. Yet through the Mystery of the Gospel Dispensation the
same Person is in the form of a servant and in the form of God, though
it is not the same thing to take the form of a servant and to be
abiding in the form of God; nor could He Who was abiding in the form of
God, take the form of a servant without emptying Himself, since the
combination of the two forms would be incongruous. Yet it was not
another and a different Person Who emptied Himself and Who took the
form of a servant. To take anything cannot be predicated of some
one who is not, for he only can take who exists. The emptying of
the form does not then imply the abolition of the nature: He
emptied Himself, but did not lose His self: He took a new form,
but remained what He was. Again, whether emptying or taking, He
was the same Person: there is, therefore, a mystery, in that He
emptied Himself, and took the form of a servant, but He does not come
to an end, so as to cease to exist in emptying Himself, and to be
non-existent when He took. The emptying availed to bring about
the taking of the servant’s form, but not to prevent Christ, Who
was in the form of God, from continuing to be Christ, for it was in
very deed Christ Who took the form of a servant. When He emptied
Himself to become Christ the man, while continuing to be Christ the
Spirit, the
15. We have now expounded the Dispensation
of the Mysteries, through which the heretics deceive certain of the
unlearned into ascribing to infirmity in the divinity, what Christ said
and did through His assumed human nature, and attributing to the form
of God what is appropriate only to the form of the servant. Let
us pass on, then, to answer their statements in detail. We can
always safely distinguish the two kinds of utterances, since the only
true faith lies in the confession of Jesus Christ as Word and flesh,
that is, God and Man. The heretics consider it necessary to deny
that our Lord Jesus Christ by virtue of His nature was divine, because
He said, Why callest thou Me good? None is good save one,
God St. St.
16. Let us see, then, how the questioner
styled Him, beside calling Him good. He said, Good Master,
what good thing shall I do St. Cf.
17. Then, as a proof that He resents the name “good master,” on the ground of the unbelief, which addresses Him as a man, He replies to the vain-glorious youth, and his boast that he had fulfilled the law, One thing thou lackest; go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me. There is no shrinking from the title of “good” in the promise of heavenly treasures, no reluctance to be regarded as “master” in the offer to lead the way to perfect blessedness. But there is reproof of the unbelief which draws an earthly opinion of Him from the teaching, that goodness belongs to God alone. To signify that He is both good and God, He exercises the functions of goodness, opening the heavenly treasures, and offering Himself as guide to them. All the homage offered to Him as man He repudiates, but he does not disown that which He paid to God; for at the moment when He confesses that the one God is good, His words and actions are those of the power and the goodness and the nature of the one God.
18. That He did not shrink from the title of
good, or decline the office of master, but resented the unbelief which
perceived no more in Him than body and flesh, may be proved from the
difference of His language, when the apostles confessed Him their
Master, Ye call Me Master, and Lord, and ye say well, for so I
am St. St.
19. The Lord always maintained this
definition of the faith of the Church, which consists in teaching that
there is one God the Father, but without separating Himself from the
mystery of the one God, for He declared Himself, by the nature which is
His by birth, neither a second God, nor the sole God. Since the
nature of the One God is in Him, He cannot be God of a different kind
from Him; His birth requires that, being Son, it should be with a
perfect Sonship i.e. including
personal distinction from the Father, cf. c. 1, and note. St. i.e. such as
Sabellius had taught by extending the unity of nature into a unity of
person. There is a unity of nature in the Godhead, but a union of
Persons.
20. In many, nay almost all His discourses,
He offers the explanation of this mystery, never separating Himself
from the divine unity, when He confesses God the Father, and never
characterising God as single and solitary, when He places Himself in
unity with Him. But nowhere does He more plainly teach the
mystery of His unity and His birth than when He says, But the
witness which I have is greater than that of John, for the works which
the Father hath given Me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear
witness of Me, that the Father hath sent Me, and the Father which sent
Me, He hath borne witness of Me. Ye have neither heard His voice
at any time nor seen His form. And ye have not His word abiding
in you, for Whom He sent, Him ye believe not. St. St.
21. They are not, therefore, acquitted of blame for not recognising the testimony; for the works of Christ are the Father’s testimony concerning Him. Nor can they plead ignorance of the testimony on the ground that they had not heard the voice of the Testifier, nor seen His form, nor had His word abiding in them. For immediately after the words, Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form, and ye have not His word abiding in you, He points out why the voice was not heard, nor the form seen, and the word did not abide in them, though the Father had testified concerning Him: For Whom He sent, Him ye believe not; that is, if they had believed Him, they would have heard the voice of God, and seen the form of God, and His word would have been in them, since through the unity of Their nature the Father is heard and manifested and possessed in the Son. Is He not also the expression of the Father, since He was sent from Him? Does He distinguish Himself by any difference of nature from the Father, when He says that the Father, testifying of Him, was neither heard, nor seen, nor understood, because they did not believe in Him, Whom the Father sent? The Only-begotten God does not, therefore, separate Himself from God when He confesses God the Father; but, proclaiming by the word “Father” His relationship to God, He includes Himself in the honour due to God.
22. For, in this very same discourse in
which He pronounces that His works testify of Him that He was sent of
the Father, and asserts that the Father testifies of Him, that He was
sent from Him, He says, The honour of Him, Who alone is God, ye seek
not St. At the close of
this chapter, Hilary speaks as if these words were, “if another
shall come in His (i.e. the Father’s) name,” though the
Latin “si alius venerit in nomine suo,” is ambiguous and
the Greek, “ἔαν ἄλλος
ἔλθῃ ἐν τῷ
ὀνόματι τῷ
ἰδί& 251·,” quite excludes this
translation. St. St.
23. They have not the love of God in them,
He says, because they rejected Him coming in the name of the Father,
but accepted another, who came in the same name, and received glory of
one another, but neglected the glory of Him, Who is the only true
God. Is it possible to think that He separates Himself from the
glory of the only God, when He gives as the reason why they seek not
the glory of the only God, that they receive Antichrist, and Himself
they will not receive? To reject Him is to neglect the glory of
the only God; is not, then, His glory the glory of the only God, if to
receive Him steadfastly was to seek the glory of the only God?
This very discourse is our witness: for at its beginning we read,
That all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.
He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which sent
Him Following the
punctuation of the older Editions, and placing the full stop after,
instead of before, the sentence “cum Filius ita honorandus ut
Pater sit.” St.
24. By the mystery of the divine nature we
are forbidden to separate the birth of the living Son from His living
Father. The Son of God suffers no such change of kind, that the
truth of His Father’s nature does not abide in Him. For
even where, by the confession of one God only, He seems to disclaim for
Himself the nature of God by the term “only,” nevertheless,
without destroying the belief in one God, He places Himself in the
unity of the Father’s nature. Thus, when the Scribe asked
Him, which is the chief commandment of the law, He answered, Hear, O
Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord: thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
spirit, and with all thy strength. This is the first
commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater
than these St. St.
25. And when Jesus saw that he answered
discreetly, He said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of
God
26. We may perceive also, from the words of
our Lord Himself, why He said, Thou art not far from the Kingdom of
Heaven, rather than, Thou shalt be in the Kingdom of
Heaven. Then follows: And no man after that durst
ask Him any question. And Jesus answered and said, as He taught
in the Temple, How say the Scribes that the Christ is the Son of
David? David himself saith in the Holy Spirit, The Lord said unto
my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, till I make Thine enemies the
footstool of Thy feet ( St.
27. What room is any longer left for doubt? The Lord Himself proclaiming that the chief commandment of the law is to confess and love the one Lord, proves Himself to be Lord not by words of His own, but by the Prophet’s testimony, always signifying, however, that He is Lord, because He is the Son of God. By virtue of His birth He abides in the mystery of the one God, for the birth transmitting with it, as it did, the nature of God is not the issuing forth of another God with a different nature; and, because the generation is real, neither is the Father degraded from being Lord, nor is the Son born less than Lord. The Father retains His authority, the Son obtains His nature. God the Father is one Lord, but the Only-begotten God the Lord is not separated from the One, since He derives His nature as Lord from the one Lord. Thus by the law Christ teaches that there is one Lord; by the witness of the prophets He proves Himself Lord also.
28. May the faith of the Gospel ever profit
thus by the rash contentions of the ungodly to defend itself with the
weapons of their attack, and conquering with the arms prepared for its
destruction, prove that the words of the one Spirit are the doctrine of
the one faith! For Christ is none other than He is preached,
namely the true God, and abiding in the glory of the one true
God. Just as He proclaims Himself Lord out of the law, even when
He seems to deny the fact, so in the Gospels He proves Himself the true
God, even when He appears to confess the opposite. To escape the
acknowledgment that He is the true God, the heretics plead that He
said, And this is life eternal, that they should know Thee, the only
true God. and Him Whom Thou didst send, even Jesus Christ St.
29. But by these very words He proclaims Himself
plainly to be true God in the nature of the only true God. To
understand this, let our answer proceed from statements which He made
previously, though the connection is unbroken right down to these
words. We can then establish the faith step by step, and let the
confidence of our freedom rest at last on the summit of our argument,
the true Godhead of Christ. There comes first the mystery
St.
30. The Lord praised their understanding,
and answered not that He was sent from, but that He was come out from,
God, signifying by the words “come out from” the great fact
of His birth from the incorporeal God. He had already proclaimed
the birth in the same language, when He said, Ye love Me, and
believe that I came out from the Father, and came from the Father into
this world St.
31. Then, finally, to express in words the
whole Mystery, He raised His eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the
hour is come: glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son may glorify
Thee. Even as Thou gavest Him authority over all flesh, that,
whatsoever Thou hast given Him, to them He should give eternal
life See iii. 12. St. i.e. He does not
mean whatsoever the Father hath the created world; nor is the
giving and receiving to be understood in a material sense, cf. c.
72. St.
32. These are the steps by which He advances
the knowledge of Himself. He teaches that He is come out from the
Father, proclaims that the Father is with Him, and testifies that He
has conquered the world. He is to be glorified of the Father, and
will glorify Him: He will use the power He has received, to give
to all flesh eternal life. Then hear the crowning point, which
concludes the whole series, And this is life eternal, that they
should know Thee, the only true God, and Him Whom Thou didst send, even
Jesus Christ
33. I know that laboured solutions of
difficult questions do not find favour with the reader, but it will
perhaps be to the advantage of the faith if I permit myself to postpone
for a time the exposition of the full truth, and wrestle against the
heretics with these words of the Gospel. You hear the statement
of the Lord, This is life eternal, that they should know Thee, the
only true God, and Him Whom Thou didst send, even Jesus
Christ. What is it, pray, which suggests to you that Christ
is not the true God? No further indication is given to shew you
what you should think of Christ. There is nothing but Jesus
Christ: not Son of Man, as He generally called
Himself: not Son of God, as He often declared
Himself: not the living bread which cometh down from
Heaven St.
34. But perhaps by saying, Thee the
only, Christ severs Himself from communion and unity with
God. Yes, but after the words, Thee the only true God,
does He not immediately continue, and Him Whom Thou didst send, even
Jesus Christ? I appeal to the sense of the reader: what
must we believe Christ to be, when we are commanded to believe in Him
also, as well as the Father the only true God? Or, perhaps, if
the Father is the only true God, there is no room for Christ to be
God. It might be so, if, because there is one God the Father,
Christ were not the one Lord
35. Come, heretic, what will your fatuous doctrine
instruct us to believe of Christ; Christ, Who dispenses eternal life,
Who is glorified of, and glorifies, the Father, Who overcame the world,
Who, deserted, is not alone, but has the Father with Him, Who came out
from God, and came from the Father? He is born with such divine
powers; what of the nature and reality of God will you allow Him?
It is in vain that we believe in the only true God the Father, unless
we believe also in Him, Whom He sent, even Jesus Christ. Why do
you hesitate? Tell us, what is Christ to be confessed? You
deny what has been written: what is left, but to believe what has
not been written? O unhappy wilfulness! O falsehood
striving against the truth! Christ is united in belief and
con
36. But the faith of the Church, while confessing the only true God the Father, confesses Christ also. It does not confess Christ true God without the Father the only true God; nor the Father the only true God without Christ. It confesses Christ true God, because it confesses the Father the only true God. Thus the fact that God the Father is the only true God constitutes Christ also true God. The Only-begotten God suffered no change of nature by His natural birth: and He Who, according to the nature of His divine origin was born God from the living God, is, by the truth of that nature, inalienable from the only true God. Thus there follows from the true divine nature its necessary result, that the outcome of true divinity must be a true birth, and that the one God could not produce from Himself a God of a second kind. The mystery of God consists neither in simplicity, nor in multiplicity: for neither is there another God, Who springs from God with qualities of His own nature, nor does God remain as a single Person, for the true birth of the Son teaches us to confess Him as Father. The begotten God did not, therefore, lose the qualities of His nature: He possesses the natural power of Him, Whose nature He retains in Himself by a natural birth. The divinity in Him is not changed, or degenerate, for if His birth had brought with it any defect, it would more justly cast upon the Nature, through which He came into being, the reflection of having failed to implant in its offspring the properties of itself. The change would not degrade the Son, Who had passed into a new substance by birth, but the Father, Who had been unable to maintain the constancy of His nature in the birth of the Son, and had brought forth something external and foreign to Himself.
37. But, as we have often said, the inadequacy of human ideas has no corresponding inadequacy in the unity of God the Father and God the Son: as though there were extension, or series, or flux, like a spring pouring forth its stream from the source, or a tree supporting its branch on the stem, or fire giving out its heat into space. In these cases we have expansion without any separation: the parts are bound together and do not exist of themselves, but the heat is in the fire, the branch in the tree, the stream in the spring. So the thing itself alone has an independent existence; the one does not pass into the other, for the tree and the branch are one and the same, as also the fire and the heat, the spring and the stream. But the Only-begotten God is God, subsisting by virtue of a perfect and ineffable birth, true Scion of the Unbegotten God, incorporeal offspring of an incorporeal nature, living and true God of living and true God, God of a nature inseparable from God. The fact of birth does not make Him God with a different nature, nor did the generation, which produced His substance, change its nature in kind.
38. Put in the dispensation of the flesh which He assumed, and through the obedience whereby He emptied Himself of the form of God, Christ, born man, took to Himself a new nature, not by loss of virtue or nature but by change of fashion. He emptied Himself of the form of God and took the form of a servant, when He was born. But the Father’s nature, with which He was in natural unity, was not affected by this assumption of flesh; while Christ, though abiding in the virtue of His nature, yet in respect of the humanity assumed in this temporal change, lost together with the form of God the unity with the divine nature also. But the Incarnation is summed up in this, that the whole Son, that is, His manhood as well as His divinity, was permitted by the Father’s gracious favour to continue in the unity of the Father’s nature, and retained not only the powers of the divine nature, but also that nature’s self. For the object to be gained was that man might become God. But the assumed manhood could not in any wise abide in the unity of God, unless, through unity with God, it attained to unity with the nature of God. Then, since God the Word was in the nature of God, the Word made flesh would in its turn also be in the nature of God. Thus, if the flesh were united to the glory of the Word, the man Jesus Christ could abide in the glory of God the Father, and the Word made flesh could be restored to the unity of the Father’s nature, even as regards His manhood, since the assumed flesh had obtained the glory of the Word. Therefore the Father must reinstate the Word in His unity, that the offspring of His nature might again return to be glorified in Himself: for the unity had been infringed by the new dispensation, and could only be restored perfect as before if the Father glorified with Himself the flesh assumed by the Son.
St.
40. But these words of the Lord are not new,
or attested now for the first time in the teaching of the Gospels, for
He testified to this very mystery of God the Father glorifying the Son
with Himself by the noble joy at the fulfilment of His hope, with which
He rejoiced at the very moment when Judas went forth to betray
Him. Filled with joy that His purpose was now to be fully
accomplished, He said, Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is
glorified in Him. If God is glorified in Him, He hath glorified
Him in Himself, and straightway hath He glorified Him St.
41. So God is glorified in the Son of Man,
Who is also Son of God. Let us see, then, what is this third
clause which is added, If God is glorified in Him, God hath also
glorified Him in Himself. What, pray, is this secret
mystery? God, in the glorified Son of Man, glorifies a glorified
God in Himself! The glory of God is in the Son of Man, and the
glory of God is in the glory of the Son
42. The words of the Apostle’s faith
are a barrier against your reckless and frenzied profanity, which
forbids you to turn the freedom of speculation into licence, and wander
into error. Every tongue, he says, shall confess that Jesus is
Lord in the glory of God the Father St.
43. But perhaps the godless unbeliever meets
the pious believer with the assertion that we cannot understand of the
true God a confession of powerlessness, such as, Verily, verily, I
say unto you, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He hath seen
the Father doing St. Book vii. 15 ff.
44. Hear how the necessity for the reply
arose:—And for this cause did the Jews persecute Jesus, and
sought to kill Him, because He did these things on the
Sabbath St. That both Father and
Son work implies that They are two distinct Persons and forbids us to
suppose a union of Father and Son, which merges them into one
Person. St.
45. Unless we regard these words as an
integral part of His statement, we do them violence by forcing upon
them an arbitrary and unbelieving interpretation. But if His
answer refers to the grounds of their anger, our faith expresses
rightly what He meant to teach, and the perversity of the ungodly is
left without support for its profane delusion. Let us see then
whether this reply is suitable to an accusation of working on the
Sabbath. The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He hath
seen the Father doing. He has said just above, My Father
worketh even until now, and I work. If by virtue of the
authority of the Father’s nature within Him, all that He works,
He works with the Father in Him, and the Father works even until now on
the Sabbath, then the Son, Who pleads the authority of the
Father’s working, is acquitted of blame.
St.
46. Why do you misrepresent the occasion of the reply in order to detract from His divinity? To the working on the Sabbath He answers that He can do nothing of Himself, but what He hath seen the Father doing: to demonstrate His equality, He professes to do what things soever the Father doeth. Enforce your charge of weakness, by His answer concerning the Sabbath, if you can disprove that what things soever the Father doeth, the Son doeth in like manner. But if what things soever includes all things without exception; in what is He found weak, when there is nothing that the Father doeth, which He cannot also do? Where is His claim to equality refuted by any episode of weakness, when one and the same honour is demanded for Him and for the Father? If Both have the same power in operation, and both claim the same reverence in worship, I cannot understand what dishonour of inferiority can exist, since Father and Son possess the same power of operation, and equality of honour.
47. Although we have treated this passage as
the facts themselves explain it, yet to prove that the Lord’s
words, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He hath seen the
Father doing, so far from supporting this unholy degradation of His
nature, testify to His conscious possession of the nature of the
Father, by Whose authority He worked on the Sabbath, let us shew them
that we can produce another saying of the Lord, which bears upon the
question, I do nothing of Myself, but as the Father taught Me, I
speak these things. And He that sent Me is with Me: He hath
not left Me alone, for I do always the things that are pleasing to
Him St.
48. But, my opponent, the unity of Their nature is
such, that the several action of
49. Connect with this that saying, which you
lay hold of to support the imputation of infirmity, All that the
Father giveth Me shall come unto Me, and him that cometh to Me I will
in no wise cast out; for I am come down from heaven not to do Mine own
will, but the will of the Father that sent Me St.
50. But He proves abundantly that His will
is free by the words, As the Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth
them, even so the Son also quickeneth whom He will St. St.
51. He who has not grasped the manifest
truths of the faith, obviously cannot have an understanding of its
mysteries; because he has not the doctrine of the Gospel he is an alien
to the hope of the Gospel. We must confess the Father to be in
the Son and the Son in the Father, by unity of nature, by might of
power, as equal in honour as Begetter and Begotten. But, perhaps
you say, the witness of our Lord Himself is contrary to this
declaration, for He says, The Father is greater than I St. The unity of the
Father and the Son does not mean that the Son’s body was derived
from the Father, as in human conception the father is in the son; but
the Son Who derived His incorporeal nature from the Father at the
generation, afterwards assumed a human body for the Incarnation.
Thus Hilary clears himself of any Patripassian or Marcellian
construction which might be put on his words.
52. Therefore, in the discourse we have
expounded above, He had borne witness to the unity of His nature with
the Father’s: He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father
also St.
53. So the Only-begotten God, just before He
finished His work in the flesh, and completed the mystery of taking the
servant’s form, in order to establish our faith, thus speaks,
Ye heard how I said unto you, I go away, and I came unto you.
If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice, because I go unto the Father; for the
Father is greater than I
54. But if His equality is doubted because
the Name is given Him after He put off the form of God, we dishonour
Him by ignoring the mystery of the humility which He assumed. The
birth of His humanity brought to Him a new nature, and His form was
changed in His humility, by the assumption of a servant’s form,
but now the giving of the Name restores to Him equality of form.
Ask yourself what it is, which is given. If the gift be something
pertaining to God, the grant to the receiving nature does not impair
the divinity of the giving nature. Again, the words, And gave
Him the Name, involve a mystery in the giving, but the giving of
the Name does not make it another name. To Jesus is given, that
to Him, Every knee shall bow of things in heaven, and things on
earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus
is Lord in the glory of God the Father
55. After the explanation that love is the
source of this joy, because love rejoices that Jesus is to be confessed
in the glory of God the Father, He next expresses His claim to receive
back that glory, in the words, For the prince of this world cometh,
and he hath nothing in Me St. St. St.
56. Why do you distort the Incarnation into a blasphemy? Why pervert the mystery of salvation into a weapon of destruction? The Father, Who glorifies the Son, is greater: The Son, Who is glorified in the Father, is not less. How can He be less, when He is in the glory of God the Father? And how can the Father not be greater? The Father therefore is greater, because He is Father: but the Son, because He is Son, is not less. By the birth of the Son the Father is constituted greater: the nature that is His by birth, does not suffer the Son to be less. The Father is greater, for the Son prays Him to render glory to manhood He has assumed. The Son is not less, for He receives back His glory with the Father. Thus are consummated at once the mystery of the Birth, and the dispensation of the Incarnation. The Father, as Father, and as glorifying Him Who now is Son of Man, is greater: Father and Son are one, in that the Son, born of the Father, after assuming an earthly body is taken back to the glory of the Father.
57. The birth, therefore, does not constitute His nature inferior, for He is in the form of God, as being born of God. And though by their very signification, ‘Unbegotten’ and ‘Begotten’ seem to be opposed, yet the Begotten cannot be excluded from the nature of the Unbegotten, for there is none other from whom He could derive His substance. He does not indeed share in the supreme majesty of being unbegotten: but He has received from the Unbegotten God the nature of divinity. Thus faith confesses the eternity of the Only-begotten God, though it can give no meaning to begetting or beginning in His case. His nature forbids us to say that He ever began to be, for His birth lies beyond the beginnings of time. But while we confess Him existent before all ages, we do not hesitate to pronounce Him born in timeless eternity, for we believe His birth, though we know it never had a beginning.
58. Seeking to disparage His nature, the
heretics lay hold of such sayings as, The Father is greater than
I, or, But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the
angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only St.
59. But, before we investigate the meaning and
occasion of these words, let us first appeal to the judgment of common
sense. Is it credible, that He, Who stands to all things as the
Author of their present and future, should not know all things?
If all things are through and in Christ, and in such a way through
Christ that they are also in Him, must not that, which is both in Him
and through Him, be also in His knowledge, when that knowledge, by
virtue of a nature which cannot be Christ was conscious,
e.g., of the sinfulness of man. St.
60. But, again, how can we believe that the Lord of glory, because He was able not to know the day of His own coming, was of a discordant and imperfect nature, subject to the necessity of coming, but ignorant of the day of His coming? This would make God weaker than the power of ignorance, which took from Him the prerogative of knowledge. Then, too, how we redouble occasions of blasphemy, if we impute not only infirmity to Christ, but also defect to God the Father, saying that He defrauded of foreknowledge of this day the Only-begotten God, the Son of His love, and in malice denied Him certainty concerning the future consummation: suffered Him to know the day and hour of His passion, but withheld from Him the day of His power, and the hour of His glory among His Saints: took from Him the knowledge of His blessedness, while He granted Him prescience of His death? The trembling conscience of man dare not presume to think thus of God, or ascribe to Him such taint of human fickleness, that the Father should deny anything to the Son, or the Son, Who was born as God, should possess an imperfect knowledge.
61. But God can never be anything but love, or
anything but the Father: and He, Who loves, does not envy; He Who
is Father, is wholly and entirely Father. This name admits of no
compromise: no one can be partly father, and partly not. A
father is father in respect of his whole personality; all that he is is
present in the child, for paternity by piecemeal is impossible:
not that paternity extends to self-generation, but that a father is
altogether father in all his qualities, to the offsprings born of
him. According to the constitution of human bodies, which are
made of dissimilar elements, and composed of various parts, the father
must be father of the whole, since a perfect birth hands on to the
child all the different elements and parts, which are in the
father. The father is, therefore, father of all that is his; the
birth proceeds from the whole of himself, and constitutes the whole of
the child. God, however, has no body, but simple essence:
no parts, but an all-embracing whole: nothing quickened, but
everything living. God is therefore all life, and all one, not
compounded of parts, but perfect in His simplicity, and, as the Father,
must be Father to His begotten in all that He Himself is, for the
perfect birth of the Son makes Him perfect Father in all that He
has. So, if He is proper Father to the Son, the Son must possess
all the
62. Moreover Paul, the teacher of the
Gentiles, forestalls the impious falsehood, that the Only-begotten God
was partially nescient. Listen to his words, Being instructed
in love, unto all riches of the fulness of understanding, unto
knowledge of the mystery of God, even Christ, in Whom are all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden
63. Whenever God says that He does not know,
He professes ignorance indeed, but is not under the defect of
ignorance. It is not because of the infirmity of ignorance that
He does not know, but because it is not yet the time to speak, or the
divine Plan to act. Thus He says to Abraham, The cry of Sodom
and Gomorrah is full, and their sin is very grievous. Therefore I
will go down now, and see if they have done altogether according to the
cry of it: and if not, I will know
64. We cannot, then, doubt that the
knowledge of God depends on the occasion and not on any change on His
part: by the occasion being meant the occasion, not of obtaining
but of declaring knowledge, as we learn from His words to Abraham,
Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him,
for now I know that thou fearest thy God, and hast not withheld thy
beloved son, for My sake
By way of example, we have chosen for our consideration this passage out of many in the Old Testament, which treat of the knowledge of God, in order to shew that when God does not know, the cause lies, not in His ignorance, but in the occasion.
65. We find our Lord in the Gospels knowing,
yet not knowing, many things. Thus He does not know the workers
of iniquity, who glory in their mighty works and in His name, for He
says to them, Then will swear, I never knew you; depart from Me, all
ye that work iniquity St. St.
66. The Lord Jesus Christ, then, Who
searcheth the heart and the reins St. St.
67. We can now understand why He said that
He knew not the day. If we believe Him to have been really
ignorant, we contradict the Apostle, who says, In Whom are all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden St.
68. Manifestly, therefore, the ignorance of God is not ignorance but a mystery: in the economy of His actions and words and manifestations, He does not know and at the same time He knows, or knows and at the same time does not know. But we must ask, whether it may not be through the Son’s infirmity that He knows not what the Father knows. He could perhaps read the thoughts of the human heart, because His stronger nature can unite itself with a weaker in all its movements, and by the force of its power, as it were, pass through and through the feeble nature. But a weaker nature is powerless to penetrate a stronger: light things may be penetrated by heavy, rare by dense, liquid by solid, but the heavy are impenetrable to the light, the dense to the rare, and the solid to the liquid: the strong are not exposed to the weak, but the weak are penetrated by the strong. Therefore, the heretics say, the Son knew not the thoughts of the Father, because, being Himself weak, He could not approach the more powerful and enter into Him, or pass through Him.
69. Should any one presume, not merely to
speak thus of the Only-begotten God in the rashness of his tongue, but
even to think so in the wickedness of his heart, let him hear what the
Apostle thought of the Holy Ghost, from the words he wrote to the
Corinthians, But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit:
for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God.
For who among men knoweth the things of a man, which are in him, save
the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the things which
are in God, none knoweth, save the Spirit of God St. St.
70. The heretics cannot deny that the Lord used these words to signify the mystery His birth, but they attempt to escape from them by referring them to a harmony of will. They make the unity of God the Father and God the Son not one of divinity, but merely of will: as if the divine teaching were poor in expression and the Lord could not have said, I and the Father are one in will; or as if those words could have the same meaning as I and the Father are one; or as if He meant, He that hath seen My will, hath seen the will of My Father also, but, being unskilled statement, tried to express that idea in the words, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father also: or as if the divine vocabulary did not contain the terms, The will of My Father is in Me, and My will is in the Father, but this thought could be expressed by I in the Father and the Father in Me. All this is nauseous and irreverent nonsense; common sense condemns the judgment of such silly fancies, as that the Lord could not say what He wanted, or did not say what He said. True, we find Him speaking in parables and allegories, but it is a different thing to strengthen one’s words with illustrations, or satisfy the dignity of the subject with the help of suggestive proverbs, or adapt one’s language to the needs of the moment. But this passage concerning the unity, of which we are speaking, does not allow us to look for the meaning outside the plain sound of the words. If Father and Son are one, in the sense that They are one in will, and if separable natures cannot be one in will, because their diversity of kind and nature must draw them into diversities of will and judgment, how can They be one in will, not being one in knowledge? There can be no unity of will between ignorance and knowledge. Omniscience and nescience are opposites, and opposites cannot be of the same will.
71. But perhaps it may be held to confirm the Son
in His confession of ignorance that He says the Father alone
knows. But unless He had plainly said that the Father alone
knows, it would have been a matter of the greatest danger for our
under
72. Far be it from us to imagine
vicissitudes of bodily change in the Father and Son, as though the
Father sometimes spoke to the Son, and sometimes was silent. We
remember, indeed, that a voice was sometimes uttered from heaven for
us, that the power of the Father’s words might confirm for us the
mystery of the Son, as the Lord says, This voice hath not come from
Heaven for My sake but for your sakes St. St. St.
73. We have established this point to
exclude the idea that after silence God spoke to the Son, or after
ignorance the Son began to know. To reach our intelligence terms
must be used applicable to our own nature: thus we do not
understand communication except by word of mouth, or comprehend the
opposite of nescience except as knowledge. Thus the Son does not
know the day for the reason that He does not reveal it: the
Father, He says, alone knows it for the reason that He reveals it to
the Son alone. But, as we have said, Christ is conscious of no
such natural impediments as an ignorance which must be removed before
He can come to know, or a knowledge which is not His before the Father
begins to speak. He declares the unity of His nature, as the
only-begotten, with the Father, by the unmistakable words, All
things whatsoever the Father hath, are Mine
St. St.
75. The Son is ignorant, then, of nothing
which the Father knows, nor does it follow because the Father alone
knows, that the Son does not know. Father and Son abide in unity
of nature, and the ignorance of the Son belongs to the divine Plan of
silence, seeing that in Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge. This the Lord Himself testified, when He answered the
question of the Apostles concerning the times, It is not yours to
know times or moments, which the Father hath set within His own
authority
This last
paragraph is omitted from many mss., though
contained in several of high authority. It offers a different
explanation from that which Hilary has adopted in the rest of the book
(see especially c. 59), where he maintains that Christ avoided
revealing what He really knew, by saying that He did not know.
The line adopted here is the same as that in the passage found by
Erasmus and inserted by him in Book x. c. 8. This is one of
several interpolations made in later, though still early, times to
correct or supplement Hilary’s teaching; cf. x. 8, with the
note.
1. It is manifest that there is nothing which men have ever said which is not liable to opposition. Where the will dissents the mind also dissents: under the bias of opposing judgment it joins battle, and denies the assertions to which it objects. Though every word we say be incontrovertible if gauged by the standard of truth, yet so long as men think or feel differently, the truth is always exposed to the cavils of opponents, because they attack, under the delusion of error or prejudice, the truth they misunderstand or dislike. For decisions once formed cling with excessive obstinacy: and the passion of controversy cannot be driven from the course it has taken, when the will is not subject to the reason. Enquiry after truth gives way to the search for proofs of what we wish to believe; desire is paramount over truth. Then the theories we concoct build themselves on names rather than things: the logic of truth gives place to the logic of prejudice: a logic which the will adjusts to defend its fancies, not one which stimulates the will through the understanding of truth by the reason. From these defects of partisan spirit arise all controversies between opposing theories. Then follows an obstinate battle between truth asserting itself, and prejudice defending itself: truth maintains its ground and prejudice resists. But if desire had not forestalled reason: if the understanding of the truth had moved us to desire what was true: instead of trying to set up our desires as doctrines, we should let our doctrines dictate our desires; there would be no contradiction of the truth, for every one would begin by desiring what was true, not by defending the truth of that which he desired.
2. Not unmindful of this sin of wilfulness,
the Apostle, writing to Timothy, after many injunctions to bear witness
to the faith and to preach the word, adds, For the time will come
when they will not endure sound doctrine, but having itching ears will
heap up teachers to themselves after their own lusts, and will turn
away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables
3. We have clearly fallen on the evil times
prophesied by the Apostle; for nowadays teachers are sought after who
preach not God but a creature i.e. the
Arians, who maintained that Jesus was created (creatura) and not
God.
4. But though many may heap up teachers
according to their desires, and banish sound doctrine, yet from the
company of the Saints the preaching of truth can never be exiled.
From our exile we shall speak by these our writings, and the Word of
God which cannot be bound will run unhindered, warning us of this time
which the Apostle prophesied. For when men shew themselves
impatient of the true message, and heap up teachers according to their
own human desires, we can no longer doubt about the times, but know
that while the preachers of sound doctrine are banished Reading
“exsulantibus” with the Benedictine Edition (Paris, 1693);
Migne (Paris, 1844), “exultantibus.”
5. In the earlier books, then, while
maintaining the profession of a faith, I trust, sincere, and a truth
uncorrupted, we arranged the method of our answer throughout, so that
(though such are our limitations, that human language can never be safe
from exception) no one could contradict us without an open profession
of godlessness. For so completely have we demonstrated the true
meaning of those texts which they cunningly filch from the Gospels and
appropriate for their own teaching, that if any one denies it, he
cannot escape on the plea of ignorance, but is condemned out of his own
mouth of godlessness. Further, we have, according to the gift of
the Holy Ghost, so cautiously proceeded throughout in our proof of the
faith, that no charge could possibly be trumped up against us.
For it is their way to fill the ears of the unwary with declarations
that we deny the birth of Christ i.e. The generation
of the second Person from the first Person of the Trinity. St. Supply,
‘referat.’ The Arians accused the
Catholics of a Sabellian denial of the Trinity and a Patripassian view
of the Incarnation, i.e. that the unborn God became man.
6. But we have always maintained the birth existing out of time: we have taught that God the Son is God of the same nature with God the Father, not co-equal with the Unbegotten, for He was not Himself Unbegotten, but, as the Only-begotten, not unequal because begotten; that the Two are One, not by the giving of a double name to one Person, but by a true begetting and being begotten; that neither are there two Gods, different in kind, in our faith, nor is God solitary because He is one, in the sense in which we confess the mystery of the Only-begotten God: but that the Son is both indicated in the name of, and exists in, the Father, Whose name and Whose nature are in Him, while the Father by His name implies, and abides in, the Son, since a son cannot be spoken of, or exist, except as born of a father. Further, we say that He is the living copy of the living nature, the impression of the divine seal upon the divine nature, so undistinguished from God in power and kind, that neither His works nor His words nor His form are other than the Father’s: but that, since the image by nature possesses the nature of its author, the Author also has worked and spoken and appeared through His natural image.
7. But by the side of this timeless and ineffable
generation of the Only-begotten, which transcends the perception of
human understanding, we taught as well the mystery of God born to be
man from the womb of the Virgin, shewing how according to the plan of
the Incarnation, when He emptied Himself of the form of God and took
the form of a servant, the weakness of the assumed humanity did not
weaken the divine nature, but that Divine power was imparted to
humanity without the virtue of divinity being lost in the human
form. For when God was born to be man the purpose was not that
the Godhead should be lost, but that, the Godhead remaining, man should
be born to St. St.
8. As we are answering all, even their most
insensate statements, we come now to the discussion of the unknown
hour “Of that day and
that hour knoweth no one, not even the Angels of Heaven, neither the
Son, but the Father only.” St. Hilary is
granting for the moment that the Son really was ignorant of the day and
hour; this, he says, could be not argument for the inequality of the
Son: it would serve, however, to disprove the Sabellian
identification of the Son and the Father by shewing that this knowledge
was the possession of the Father only. Erasmus inserted here a
passage which he found in a ms.;—“and this shews us that the saying of the
Word referred to the mystery of human perfection: that He, Who
bore our infirmities, should take upon Himself also the infirmity of
human ignorance, and that He should say He knew not the day, just as He
knew not where they had laid Lazarus, or who it was when the woman
touched the hem of His garment: being infirm in knowledge as He
was infirm in weeping, in the endurance of weariness, hunger, and
thirst, He did not disdain even the error of ignorance:
especially when we consider how, when He rose from the dead, and was
about to ascend up to, and above, the heavens, the Apostles approached
Him as no longer ignorant, but knowing, and determining this His day,
and put exactly the same question to Him of which He was silent during
the dispensation of His humanity: that it might be made plain by
their repeated question, that they understood His statement, ‘I
know not,’ of an ignorance which He took upon Himself, not
essential to His nature.” The passage is utterly
inconsistent with Hilary’s teaching both here and in ix. 58 f.,
and is an obvious and clumsy interpolation.
9. Thus the greater number of them will not
allow Him to have the impossible nature of God because He feared His
Passion and shewed Himself weak by submitting to suffering Throughout the
whole of this discussion of Christ’s sufferings, Hilary
distinguishes the feeling of pain (dolere, dolor) from the
physical cause of pain, i.e. the cutting and piercing of the body
(pati, passio). Christ’s body suffered (pati)
but He could not feel pain (dolere): see c. 23. St. St.
10. Now first of all, before we shew from
these very texts, that He was subject to no infirmity of fear or sorrow
on His own account, let us ask, “What can we find for Him to
fear, that the dread of an unendurable pain should have seized
Him?” The objects of His fear, which they allege, are, I
suppose, suffering and death. Now I ask those who are of this
opinion, “Can we reasonably suppose that He feared death, Who
drove away the terrors of death from His Apostles, exhorting them to
the glory of martyrdom with the words, He that doth not take his
cross and follow after Me is not worth of Me; and, He that
findeth his life shall lose it, and he that hath lost his life for My
sake shall find it St. St.
11. Further, what terror had the pain of
death for Him, to Whom death was an act of His own free will? In
the human race death is brought on either by an attack upon the body of
an external enemy, such as fever wound, accident or fall: or our
bodily nature is overcome by age, and yields to death. But the
Only-begotten God, Who had the power of laying down His life, and of
taking it up again St.
12. But perchance with the fearfulness of
human ignorance, He feared the very power of death, which He possessed;
so, though He died of His own accord, He feared because He was to
die. If any think so, let them ask “To which was death
terrible, to His Spirit or to His body?” If to His body,
are they ignorant that the Holy One should not see corruption St.
13. But was it perhaps the physical pain of hanging on the cross, or the rough cords with which He was bound, or the cruel wounds, where the nails were driven in, that dismayed Him? Let us see of what body the Man Jesus was, that pain should dwell in His crucified, bound, and pierced body.
14. The nature of our bodies is such, that when endued with life and feeling by conjunction with a sentient soul, they become something more than inert, insensate matter. They feel when touched, suffer when pricked, shiver with cold, feel pleasure in warmth, waste with hunger, and grow fat with food. By a certain transfusion of the soul, which supports and penetrates them, they feel pleasure or pain according to the surrounding circumstances. When the body is pricked or pierced, it is the soul which pervades it that is conscious, and suffers pain. For instance a flesh-wound is felt even to the bone, while the fingers feel nothing when we cut the nails which protrude from the flesh. And if through some disease a limb becomes withered, it loses the feeling of living flesh: it can be cut or burnt, it feels no pain whatever, because the soul is no longer mingled with it. Also when through some grave necessity part of the body must be cut away, the soul can be lulled to sleep by drugs, which overcome the pain, and produce in the mind a death-like forgetfulness of its power of sense. Then limbs can be cut off without pain: the flesh is dead to all feeling, and does not heed the deep thrust of the knife, because the soul within it is asleep. It is, therefore, because the body lives by admixture with a weak soul, that it is subject to the weakness of pain.
15. If the Man Jesus Christ began His bodily life
with the same beginning as our body and soul, if He were not, as God,
the immediate Author of His own body and soul alike, when He was
fashioned in the likeness and form of man, and born as man, then we may
suppose that He felt the pain of our body; since by His beginning, a
conception like ours, He had a body animated with a soul like our
own. But if through His own act He took to Himself flesh from the
Virgin, and likewise by His own act joined a soul to the body thus
conceived, then the nature of His suffering must have corresponded with
the nature of His body and soul. For when He emptied Himself of
the form of God and received the form of a servant when the Son of God
was born also Son of Man, without losing His own self and power, God
the Word formed the perfect living Man. For how was the Son of
God born Son of Man, how did He receive the form of a servant, still
remaining in the form of God, unless (God the Word being Omitting
‘suo:” or retaining it ‘His (i.e. the
Word’s) Holy Spirit.’
16. This deep and beautiful mystery of His
assumption of manhood the Lord Himself reveals in the words, No man
hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven, even the
Son of Man which is in heaven St.
17. The blessed Apostle also perfectly
describes this mystery of the ineffable birth of Christ’s body in
the words, The first man was from the soil of the ground, the second
man from heaven
18. Again the Lord Himself revealing this
mystery of His birth, speaks thus: I am the living bread Who
have descended from Heaven: if any one shall eat of My bread he
shall live for ever St.
19. Being, then, Man with this body, Jesus Christ is both the Son of God and Son of Man, Who emptied Himself of the form of God, and received the form of a servant. There is not one Son of Man and another Son of God; nor one in the form of God, and another born perfect man in the form of a servant: so that, as by the nature determined for us by God, the Author of our being, man is born with body and soul, so likewise Jesus Christ, by His own power, is God and Man with flesh and soul, possessing in Himself whole and perfect manhood, and whole and perfect Godhead.
20. Yet many, with the art by which they
seek to prove their heresy, are wont to delude the ears of the
unlearned with the error, that as the body and soul of Adam both
sinned, so the Lord must have taken the soul and body of Adam from the
Virgin, and that it was not the whole Man that she conceived from the
Holy Ghost Apollinaris argued
that if Christ were perfect God and perfect man, there would be two
Christs, the Son of God by nature and the Son of God by adoption.
Hence He taught that Christ was partly God and partly man; that He
received from the Virgin His body and the lower, irrational soul which
is the condition of bodily life; while His rational Spirit was
Divine. On this theory the ‘whole man,’ as Hilary
says, was not born of the Virgin. Hilary denies the threefold
division. The soul in every case, Christ’s included, is, he
says, the immediate work of God.
21. With a view to deprive of substantive divinity the Only-begotten God, Who was God the Word with God in the beginning, they make Him merely the utterance of the voice of God. The Son is related to God His Father, they say, as the words to the speaker. They are trying to creep into the position, that it was not God the eternal Word, abiding in the form of God, Who was born as Christ the Man, Whose life therefore springs from a human origin, not from the mystery of a spiritual conception; that He was not God the Word, making Himself man by birth from the Virgin, but the Word of God dwelling in Jesus as the spirit of prophecy dwelt in the prophets. They accuse us of saying that Christ was born man with body and soul different from ours. But we preach the Word made flesh, Christ emptying Himself of the form of God and taking the form of a servant, perfect according to the fashion of human form, born a man after the likeness of ourselves: that being true Son of God, He is indeed true Son of Man, neither the less Man because born of God, nor the less God because Man born of God.
22. But as He by His own act assumed a body
from the Virgin, so He assumed from Himself a soul; though even in
ordinary human birth the soul is never derived from the parents.
If, then, the Virgin received from God alone the flesh which she
conceived, far more certain is it that the soul of that body can have
come from God alone. If, too, the same Christ be the Son of Man,
Who is also the Son of God (for the whole Son of Man is the whole Son
of God), how ridiculous is it to preach besides the Son of God, the
Word made flesh, another I know not whom, inspired, like a prophet, by
God the Word; whereas our Lord Jesus Christ is both Son of Man and Son
of God. Yet because His soul was sorrowful unto death, and
because He had the power to lay down His soul and the power to take it
up again, they want to derive it from some alien source, and not from
the Holy Ghost, the Author of His body’s conception: for
God the Word became man without departing from the mystery of His own
nature. He was born also not to be at one time two separate
beings, but that it might be made plain, that He Who was God before He
was Man, now that He has taken humanity, is God and Man. How
could Jesus Christ, the Son of God, have been born of Mary, except by
the Word becoming flesh: that is by the Son of God, though in the
form of God, taking the form of a slave? When He Who was in the
form of God took the form of a slave, two contraries were brought
together i.e. the infinite
nature of God, and the finite nature of man. Form since
the time of Aristotle meant the qualities which constituted the
distinctive essence of a thing.
23. So the Man Jesus Christ, Only-begotten God, as
flesh and as Word at the same time Son of Man and Son of God, without
ceasing to be Himself, that is, God, took true humanity after the
likeness of our humanity. But when, in this humanity, He was
struck with blows, or smitten with wounds, or bound with ropes, or
lifted on high, He felt the force of suffering, but without its
pain. Thus a dart passing through water, or piercing a flame, or
wounding the air, inflicts all that it is its nature to do: it
Erasmus
mentions an insertion in one ms. here, which
explains what Hilary implies throughout the chapter: ‘weak
as ours from sin,’ i.e. weakness is the proper penalty for
sin: pain is only a secondary and adventitious effect of the
weakness of human nature brought on by sin. Christ then atoned
completely for sin, by suffering, without feeling pain.
24. It may perhaps be said, ‘We find
Him giving way to weeping, to hunger and thirst: must we not
suppose Him liable to all the other affections of human
nature?’ But if we do not understand the mystery of His
tears, hunger, and thirst, let us remember that He Who wept also raised
the dead to life: that He did not weep for the death of Lazarus,
but rejoiced St. St. St.
25. For Christ had indeed a body, but
unique, as befitted His origin. He did not come into existence
through the passions incident to human conception: He came into
the form of our body by an act of His own power. He bore our
collective humanity in the form of a servant, but He was free from the
sins and imperfections of the human body: that we might be in
Him, because He was born of the Virgin, and yet our faults might not be
in Him, because He is the source of His own humanity, born as man but
not born under the defects of human conception. It is this
mystery of His birth which the Apostle upholds and demonstrates, when
he says, He humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant, being
made in the likeness of a man and being formed in fashion as a
man
26. The Apostles’ belief prepares us for the understanding of this mystery; when it testifies that Jesus Christ was found in fashion as a man and was sent in the likeness of the flesh of sin. For being fashioned as a man, He is in the form of a servant, but not in the imperfections of a servant’s nature; and being in the likeness of the flesh of sin, the Word is indeed flesh, but is in the likeness of the flesh of sin and not the flesh of sin itself. In like manner Jesus Christ being man is indeed human, but even thus cannot be aught else but Christ, born as man by the birth of His body, but not human in defects, as He was not human in origin. The Word made flesh could not but be the flesh that He was made; yet He remained always the Word, though He was made flesh. As the Word made flesh could not vacate the nature of His Source, so by virtue of the origin of His nature He could not but remain the Word: but at the same time we must believe that the Word is that flesh which He was made; always, however, with the reserve, that when He dwelt among us, the flesh was not the Word, but was the flesh of the Word dwelling in the flesh.
Though we have proved this, still we will see whether in the whole range of suffering, which He endured, we can anywhere detect in our Lord the weakness of bodily pain. We will put off for a time the discussion of the passages on the strength of which heresy has attributed fear to our Lord; now let us turn to the facts themselves: for His words cannot signify fear if His actions display confidence.
27. Do you suppose, heretic, that the Lord
of glory feared to suffer? Why, when Peter made this error
through ignorance, did He not call him ‘Satan’ and a
‘stumbling-block St.
What phantom hope are you chasing when you deny that Christ is God, and attribute to Him fear of suffering? He afraid, Who went forth to meet the armed bands of His captors? Weakness in His body, at Whose approach the pursuers reeled and broke their ranks and fell prone, unable to endure His Majesty as He offered Himself to their chains? What weakness could enthral His body, Whose nature had such power?
28. But perhaps He feared the pain of wounds. Say then, What terror had the thrust of the nail for Him Who merely by His touch restored the ear that was cut off? You who assert the weakness of the Lord, explain this work of power at the moment when His flesh was weak and suffering. Peter drew his sword and smote: the High Priest’s servant stood there, lopped of his ear. How was the flesh of the ear restored from the bare wound by the touch of Christ? Amidst the flowing blood, and the wound left by the cleaving sword, when the body was so maimed, whence sprang forth an ear which was not there? Whence came that which did not exist before? Whence was restored that which was wanting? Did the hand, which created an ear, feel the pain of the nails? He prevented another from feeling the pain of a wound: did He feel it Himself? His touch could restore the flesh that was cut off; was He sorrowful because He feared the piercing of His own flesh? And if the body of Christ had this virtue, dare we allege infirmity in that nature, whose natural force could counteract all the natural infirmities of man?
29. But, perhaps, in their misguided and
impious perversity, they infer His weakness from the fact that His soul
was sorrowful unto death St. St.
30. But perhaps He may be thought to have
feared to the extent that He prayed that the cup might be removed from
Him: Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee:
remove this cup from Me St. St.
31. Yet, I suppose, you will arm yourself
also for your godless contention with these words of the Lord, My
God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me St. St.
32. Where, pray, can you see fear in His Passion? Where weakness? Or pain? Or dishonour? Do the godless say He feared? But He proclaimed with His own lips His willingness to suffer. Do they maintain that He was weak? He revealed His power, when His pursuers were stricken with panic and dared not face Him. Do they contend that He felt the pain of the wounds in His flesh? But He shewed, when He restored the wounded flesh of the ear, that, though He was flesh, He did not feel the pain of fleshly wounds. The hand which touched the wounded ear belonged to His body: yet that hand created an ear out of a wound: how then can that be the hand of a body which was subject to weakness?
33. But, they say, the cross was a dishonour to Him; yet it is because of the cross that we can now see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, that He Who was born man of the womb of the Virgin has returned in His Majesty with the clouds of heaven. Your irreverence blinds you to the natural relations of cause and event: not only does the spirit of godlessness and error, with which you are filled, hide from your understanding the mystery of faith, but the obtuseness of heresy drags you below the level of ordinary human intelligence. For it stands to reason that whatever we fear, we avoid: that a weak nature is a prey to terror by its very feebleness: that whatever feels pain possesses a nature always liable to pain: that whatever dishonours is always a degradation. On what reasonable principle, then, do you hold that our Lord Jesus Christ feared that towards which He pressed: or awed the brave, yet trembled Himself with weakness: or stopped the pain of wounds, yet felt the pain of His own: or was dishonoured by the degradation of the cross, yet through the cross sat down by God on high, and returned to His Kingdom?
34. But perhaps you think your impiety has
still an opportunity left to see in the words, Father, into Thy
hands I commend My Spirit St. i.e. the thief on
the cross. In Biblical
and Patristic Latin chaos had acquired the sense of
χάσμα; cf.
Rönsch, Itala u. Vulgata, p. 250.
35. We have now seen the power that lay in
the acts and words of Christ. We have incontestably proved that
His body did not share the infirmity of a natural body, because its
power could expel the infirmities of the body that when He suffered,
suffering laid hold of His body, but did not inflict upon it the nature
of pain: and this because, though the form of our body was in the
Lord, yet He by virtue of His origin was not in the body of our
weakness and imperfection. He was conceived of the Holy Ghost and
born of the Virgin, who performed the office of her sex, but did not
receive the seed of His conception from man Reading
‘susceptis elementis.’
36. But even now that we have proved what
was the faith of the Apostle, the heretics think to meet it by the
text, My soul is sorrowful even unto death St. Usque ad
mortem: up to, as far as death. The Latin gives more
colour to this interpretation of Hilary than the English translation
‘even unto death.’
37. That we may understand what was the
cause of His sadness, let us see what precedes and follows this
confession of sadness: for in the Passover supper our Lord
completely signified the whole mystery of His Passion and our
faith. After He had said that they should all be offended in
Him St. St. St. St. i.e. the possibility
that the disciples may not endure the temptation of the cup: that
it might abide with them instead of passing away. See the
explanation in the next chapter. St.
38. And the reason He prayed that the cup
might be removed from Him, if that were possible, was that, though with
God nothing is impossible, as Christ Himself says, Father, all
things are possible to Thee St. St.
39. The Lord was sorrowful then unto death
because in presence of the death, the earthquake, the darkened day, the
rent veil, the opened graves, and the resurrection of the dead, the
faith of the disciples would need to be established which had been so
shaken by the terror of the night arrest, the scourging, the striking,
the spitting upon, the crown of thorns, the bearing of the cross, and
all the insults of the Passion, but most of all by the condemnation to
the accursed cross. Knowing that all this would be at an end
after His Passion, He was sad unto death. He knew, too, that the
cup could not pass away unless He drank it, for He said, My Father,
this cup cannot pass from Me unless I drink it: Thy will be
done St. Reading ‘non
nisi finito.’
40. Although by His words, Thy will be
done, He surrendered the Apostles to the decision of His
Father’s will, in regard to the offence of the cup, that is, of
His Passion, still He repeated His prayer a second and a third
time. After that He said, Sleep on now, and take your
rest St. This is a
mistranslation of St. St.
41. We must not indeed pass over the fact that in
many manuscripts, both Latin and Greek, nothing is said of the
angel’s coming or the Bloody Sweat. But while we suspend
judgment, whether this is an omission, where it is wanting, or an
interpolation, where it is found (for the discordance of the copies
leaves the question uncertain), let not the heretics encourage
themselves that herein lies a confirmation of His weakness, that He
needed the help and comfort of an angel. Let them remember the
Creator of the angels needs not the support of His creatures.
Moreover His comforting must be explained The Greek is
ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ
ἵδρως αὐτοῦ
ὥσει θρόμβοι
αἵματος.
‘His sweat became as it were great drops of blood’
(R.V.): see supra. i.e. all sects with
Docetic tenets, who would not allow Christ to have had a real human
body, but only to have appeared in bodily shape, like a ghost.
42. Again the Gospels fill up what is
lacking in one another: we learn some things from one, some from
another, and so on, because all are the proclamation of the same
spirit. Thus John, who especially brings out the working of
spiritual causes in the Gospel, preserves this prayer of the Lord for
the Apostles, which all the others passed over: how He prayed,
namely, Holy Father, keep them in Thy Name.…while I was them I
kept them in Thy Name: those whom Thou gavest Me I have
kept St. St. St. St.
43. Combine the Lord’s prayer in John,
the request of the devil in Luke, the sorrowfulness unto death, and the
protest against sleep, followed by the command, Sleep on, in
Matthew and Mark, and all difficulty disappears. The prayer in
John, in which He commends the Apostles to His Father, explains the
cause of His sorrowfulness, and the prayer that the cup may pass
away. It is not from Himself that the Lord prays the suffering
may be taken away. He beseeches the Father to preserve the
disciples during His coming passion. In the same way, the prayer
against Satan i.e. St.
44. There was, then, no place for human anxiety
and trepidation in that nature, which was more than human. It was
superior to the ills of earthly flesh; a body not sprung from earthly
elements, although His origin as Son of Man was due to the mystery of
the conception by the Holy Ghost. The power of the Most High
imparted its power to the body which the Virgin bare from the
conception of the Holy Ghost. The animated body derives its
conscious existence from association with a soul, which is diffused
throughout it, and quickens it to perceive pains inflicted from
without. Thus the soul, warned by the happy Reading
efficit.
45. Did the Jewish children fear the flames
blazing up with the fuel cast upon them in the fiery furnace at
Babylon? Did the terror of that terrible fire prevail over their
nature, conceived though it was like ours
46. Daniel, whose meat was the scanty
portion of a prophet
47. The Only-begotten God, then, suffered in
His person the attacks of all the infirmities to which we are subject;
but He suffered them in the power of His own nature, just as He was
born in the power of His own nature, for at His birth He did not lose
His omnipotent nature by being born. Though born under human
conditions, He was not so conceived: His birth was surrounded by
human circumstances, but His origin went beyond them. He suffered
then in His body after the manner of our infirm body, yet bore the
sufferings of our body in the power of His own body. To this
article of our faith the prophet bears witness when he says, He
beareth our sins and grieveth for us: and we esteemed Him
stricken, smitten, and afflicted: He was wounded for our
transgressions and made weak for our sins
For the reasons mentioned, He was esteemed
‘stricken, smitten and afflicted.’ He took the form
of a servant: and ‘man born of a Virgin’ conveys to
us the idea of One Whose nature felt pain when He suffered. But
though He was wounded it was ‘for our
transgressions.’ The wound was not the wound of His own
transgressions: the suffering not a suffering for Himself.
He was not born man for His own sake, nor did He transgress in His own
action. The Apostle explains the principle of the Divine Plan
when he says, We beseech you through Christ to be reconciled to
God. Him, Who knew no sin, He made to be sin on our
behalf
i.e. flesh in the
bad sense, “the flesh of sin.”
48. Again, the Apostle knows nothing in
Christ about fear of pain. When He wishes to speak of the
dispensation of the Passion, He includes it in the mystery of
Christ’s Divinity. Forgiving us all our trespasses,
blotting out the bond written in ordinances, that was against us, which
was contrary to us: taking it away, and nailing it to the cross;
stripping off from Himself His flesh, He made a shew of principalities
and powers openly triumphing over them in Himself Allusion to St.
49. There is still, the heretics say,
another serious and far reaching confession of weakness, all the more
so because it is in the mouth of the Lord Himself, My God, My God,
why hast Thou forsaken Me St.
50. Further their heretical ingenuity
presses on in the path prepared by their own godlessness, even to the
entire absorption of God the Word into the human soul, and consequent
denial that Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, was the same as the Son of
God. So either God the Word ceased to be Himself while He
performed the function of a soul in giving life to a body Apollinaris’
heresy that in Christ the place of the ordinary human soul was supplied
by the Logos, the second Person in the Trinity. This
doctrine was held by Marcellus of Ancyra (Sozomen, H.E. II. 33),
and Photinus: cp. also what Sozomen (VII. 7) says of
Hebion. This
doctrine was held by Marcellus of Ancyra (Sozomen, H.E. II. 33),
and Photinus: cp. also what Sozomen (VII. 7) says of
Hebion.
Hence follows also the error that God the Word, as
it were some part of the Divine power extending itself in unbroken
continuation, dwelt within that man who received from Mary the
beginning of his being, and endowed him with the power of Divine
working: though that man lived and moved by the nature of his own
soul The
preaching of Sabellius, cf. I. 16, protensio sit potius quam
descensio, ‘an extension rather than a
descent.’
51. Through this subtle and mischievous doctrine they are drawn into the error that God the Word became soul to the body, His nature by self-humiliation working the change upon itself, and thus the Word ceased to be God; or else, that the Man Jesus, in the poverty and remoteness from God of His nature, was animated only by the life and motion of His own human soul, wherein the Word of God, that is, as it were, the might of His uttered voice, resided. Thus the way is opened for all manner of irreverent theorising: the sum of which is, either that God the Word was merged in the soul and ceased to be God: or that Christ had no existence before His birth from Mary, since Jesus Christ, a mere man of ordinary body and soul, began to exist only at His human birth and was raised to the level of the Power, which worked within Him, by the extraneous force of the Divine Word extending itself into Him. Then when God the Word, after this extension, was withdrawn, He cried, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? or at least when the divine nature of the Word once more gave place within Him to a human soul, He Who had hitherto relied on His Father’s help, now separated from it, and abandoned to death, bemoaned His solitude and chid His deserter. Thus in every way arises a deadly danger of error in belief, whether it be thought that the cry of complaint denotes a weakness of nature in God the Word, or that God the Word was not pre-existent because the birth of Jesus Christ from Mary was the beginning of His being.
52. Amid these irreverent and ill-grounded
theories the faith of the Church, inspired by the teaching of the
Apostles, has recognised a birth of Christ, but no beginning. It
knows of the dispensation, but of no division i.e. it realizes
the plan by which the second Person of the Trinity chose to take a
human form, but refuses to separate the Divine from the human in
Jesus. Reading
partitur for Mss.
patitur.
Apollinarianism.
53. I am not ignorant how much the grandeur
of the divine mystery baffles our weak understanding, so that language
can scarcely express it, or reason define it, or thought even embrace
it. The Apostle, knowing that the most difficult task for an
earthly nature is to apprehend, unaided, God’s mode of action
(for then our judgment were keener to discern than God is mighty to
effect), writes to his true son according to the faith, who had
received the Holy Scripture from his childhood, As I exhorted thee
to tarry at Ephesus, when I was going into Macedonia, that thou
mightest charge certain men not to teach a different doctrine, neither
to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, the which minister
questionings, rather than the edification of God which is in
faith
54. The mystery of that other timeless birth
I will not yet touch upon: its treatment demands an ampler space
than this. For the present I will speak of the Incarnation
only. Tell me, I pray, ye who pry into secrets of Heaven, the
mystery of Christ born of a Virgin and His nature; whence will you
explain that He was conceived and born of a Virgin? What was the
physical cause of His origin according to your disputations? How
was He formed within His mother’s womb? Whence His body and
His humanity? And lastly, what does it mean that the Son of
Man descended from heaven Who remained in heaven St.
55. Again, how great a mystery of word and
act it is that Christ wept, that His eyes filled with tears from the
anguish of His mind St. St. The human soul in
Jesus alone could feel grief and weep: yet it was the divine
Spirit which sent forth the prophets: for the human soul began to
exist only in conjunction with His human body.
56. No less real were the tears He shed for
Lazarus St. St.
57. If there are many points which we treat
scantily it is not because we have nothing to say, or do not know what
has already been said; our purpose is, by abstaining from too laborious
a process of argument, to render the results as attractive as possible
to the reader. We know the deeds and words of our Lord, yet we
know them not: we are not ignorant of them, yet they cannot be
understood. The facts are real, but the power behind them is a
mystery. We will prove this from His own words, For this
reason doth the Father love Me, because I lay down My life that I may
take it up again. No one taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of
Myself. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it
up again. This commandment received I from the
Father St.
58. But, further, no one who is endued with
reason can impute to God a soul; though it is written in many places
that the soul of God hates sabbaths and new moons: and also that
it delights in certain things E.g. St.
59. How does He then lay down His soul, or
take it up again? What is the meaning of this command He
received? God could not lay it down, that is, die, or take it up
again, that is, come to life. But neither did the body receive
the command to take it up again; it could not do so of itself, for He
said of the Temple of His body, Destroy this temple and after three
days I will raise it up St. St.
60. To grasp this divine mystery we must see the
God in Him without ignoring the Man; and the Man without ignoring the
God. We must not divide Jesus Christ, for the Word was made
flesh: yet we must not call Him Hilary is playing on
the mystery of the two natures in one Person. We cannot say the
God-nature was buried: nor that the human nature brought itself
back to life: yet Jesus Christ died, was buried, and rose
again. St.
61. Ye who trisect Christ into the Word, the
soul and the body, or degrade the whole Christ, even God the Word, into
a single member of our race, unfold to us this mystery of great
godliness which was manifested in the flesh
62. It is one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, Who expresses Himself in all these utterances, Who is man when He says He is abandoned to death: yet while man still rules in Paradise as God, and though reigning in Paradise, as Son of God commends His Spirit to His Father, as Son of Man gives up to death the Spirit He commended to the Father. Why do we then view as a disgrace that which is a mystery? We see Him complaining that He is left to die, because He is Man: we see Him, as He dies, declaring that He reigned in Paradise, because He is God. Why should we harp, to support our irreverence, on what He said to make us understand His death, and keep back what He proclaimed to demonstrate His immortality? The words and the voice are equally His, when He complains of desertion, and when He declares His rule: by what method of heretical logic do we split up our belief and deny that He Who died was at the same time He Who rules? Did He not testify both equally of Himself, when He commended His Spirit, and when He gave it up? But if He is the same, Who commended His Spirit, and gave it up, if He dies when ruling and rules when dead: then the mystery of the Son of God and Son of Man means that He is One, Who dying reigns, and reigning dies.
63. Stand aside then, all godless unbelievers, for whom the divine mystery is too great, who do not know that Christ wept not for Himself but for us, to prove the reality of His assumed manhood by yielding to the emotion common to humanity: who do not perceive that Christ died not for Himself, but for our life, to renew human life by the death of the deathless God: who cannot reconcile the complaint of the deserted with the confidence of the Ruler: who would teach us that because He reigns as God and complains that He is dying, we have here a dead man and the reigning God. For He Who dies is none other than He Who reigns, He Who commends His spirit than He Who gives it up: He Who was buried, rose again: ascending or descending He is altogether one.
64. Listen to the teaching of the Apostle
and see in it a faith instructed not by the understanding of the flesh
but by the gift of the Spirit. The Greeks seek after wisdom,
he says, and the Jews ask for a sign; but we preach Christ crucified,
to the Jews a stumbling block, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto
them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ Jesus, the power of
God, God
65. The Apostle knew nothing else, and he
determined to know nothing else: we men of feebler wit, and
feebler faith, split up, divide and double Jesus Christ, constituting
ourselves judges of the unknown, and blaspheming the hidden
mystery. For us Christ crucified is one, Christ the wisdom of God
another: Christ Who was buried different from Christ Who
descended from Heaven: the Son of Man not at the same time also
Son of God. We teach that which we do not understand: we
seek to refute that which we cannot grasp. We men improve upon
the revelation of God: we are not content to say with the
Apostle, Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s
elect? It is God that justifieth, who is he that
condemneth? It is Christ Jesus, that died, yea, rather, that was
raised from the dead, Who is at the right hand of God, Who also maketh
intercession for us
66. So the Apostle moulding our ignorant and
haphazard ideas into conformity with truth says of this mystery of the
faith, For He was crucified through weakness but He liveth through
the power of God
67. The Only-begotten God suffered indeed
all that men can suffer: but let us express ourselves in the
words and faith of the Apostle. He says, For I delivered unto
you first of all how that Christ died for our sins, according to the
Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third
day according to the Scriptures
68. The Apostle is careful to leave no room
for doubt: we cannot say, “Christ was born, suffered, was
dead and buried, and rose again: but how, by what power, by what
division of parts of Himself? Who wept? Who rejoiced?
Who complained? Who descended? and Who ascended?” He
rests the merits of faith entirely on the confession of unquestioning
reverence. The righteousness, he says, which is of
faith saith thus, Say not in thy heart, Who hath ascended into heaven,
that is, to bring Christ down: or Who hath descended into the
abyss: that is, to bring Christ up from the dead? But what
saith the Scripture? Thy word is nigh, in thy mouth, and in thy
heart; that is, the word of faith which we preach: because if
thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in
thy heart, that God hath raised Him up from the dead, thou shalt be
saved
69. The Apostle then looking in us for the
righteousness which is of Faith, cuts at the root of incredulous doubt
and godless unbelief. He forbids us to admit into our hearts the
cares of anxious thought, and points to the authority of the
Prophet’s words, Say not in thy heart, Who hath ascended into
heaven
Nor does the Apostle give room for unbelief in the
other direction. He quotes at once the words of the Prophet,
Or Who hath descended into the abyss
70. But there is demanded from us an
unwavering certainty. The Apostle expounding the whole secret of
the Scripture passes on, Thy word is nigh, in thy mouth and in thy
heart
71. If then He said, My God, My God, why
hast Thou forsaken Me St. St. St.
1. The Apostle in
his letter to the Ephesians, reviewing in its manifold aspects the full
and perfect mystery of the Gospel, mingles with other instructions in
the knowledge of God the following: As ye also were called in
one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and
Father of all, and through all, and in us all
2. But how can it be any longer one faith,
if it does not steadfastly and sincerely confess one Lord and one God
the Father: and how can the faith which is not one faith confess
one Lord and one God the Father? Further, how can the faith be
one, when its preachers are so at variance? One comes teaching
that the Lord Jesus Christ, being in the weakness of our nature,
groaned with anguish when the nails pierced His hands, that He lost the
virtue of His own power and nature, and shrank shuddering from the
death which threatened Him. Another even denies the cardinal
doctrine of the Generation and pronounces Him a creature. Another
will call Him, but not think Him, God on the ground that religion
allows us to speak of more Gods than One, but He, Whom we recognise as
God, must be conscious of sharing the divine nature The text is very
corrupt here, but the meaning seems to be that, while we have the
authority of the Bible to speak of God, if we do not attach its full
meaning to the word (e.g.
And yet, who will deny that whatever is not the
one faith, is not faith at all? For in the one faith there is one
Lord Christ, and God the Father is one. But the one Lord Jesus
Christ is not one in the truth of the confession, as well as in name,
unless He is Son, unless He is God Reading ‘unus
est, si filius sit, si Deus sit.’
3. Yet it cannot be denied that Christ was
Christ. It cannot be that He was incognisable to mankind.
The books of the prophets have set their seal upon Him: the
ful
4. But these teachers of a new Christ, who deny to Him all that is His, preach another Lord Christ as well as another God the Father. The One is not the Begetter but the Creator, the Other not begotten, but created. Christ is therefore not very God, because He is not God by birth, and faith cannot recognise a Father in God, because there is no generation to constitute Him Father. They glorify God the Father indeed, as is His right and due, when they predicate of Him a nature unapproachable, invisible, inviolable, ineffable, and infinite, endued with omniscience and omnipotence, instinct with love, moving in all and permeating all, immanent and transcendent, sentient in all sentient existence. But when they proceed to ascribe to Him the unique glory of being alone good, alone omnipotent, alone immortal, who does not feel that this pious praise aims to exclude the Lord Jesus Christ from the blessedness, which by the reservation ‘alone’ is restricted to the glory of God? Does it not leave Christ in sinfulness and weakness and death, while the Father reigns in solitary perfection? Does it not deny in Christ a natural origin from God the Father, in the fear lest He should be thought to inherit by a birth, which bestows upon the Begotten the same virtue of nature as the Begetter, a blessedness natural to God the Father alone?
5. Unlearned in the teaching of the Gospels
and Apostles, they extol the glory of God the Father, not, however,
with the sincerity of a devout believer, but with the cunning of
impiety, to wrest from it an argument for their wicked heresy.
Nothing, they say, can be compared with His nature: therefore the
Only-begotten God is excluded from the comparison, because He possesses
a lower and weaker nature. And this they say of God, the living
image of the living God, the perfect form of His blessed nature, the
only-begotten offspring of His unbegotten substance; Who is not truly
the image of God unless He possesses the perfect glory of the
Father’s blessedness: and reproduces in its exactitude the
likeness of His whole nature. But if the Only-begotten God is the
image of the Unbegotten God, the verity of that perfect and supreme
nature resides in Him and makes Him the image of the very God. Is
the Father omnipotent? The weak Son is not the image of
omnipotence. Is He good? The Son, Whose divinity is of a
lower stamp, does not reflect in His sinful nature the image of
goodness. Is He incorporeal? The Son, Whose very spirit is
confined to the limits of a body, is not in the form of the
Incorporeal. Is He ineffable? The Son, Whom language can
define, Whose nature the tongue can describe, is not the image of the
Ineffable. Is He the true God? The Son possesses only a
fictitious divinity, and the false cannot be the image of the
True. The Apostle, however, does not ascribe to Christ a portion
of the image, or a part of the form, but pronounces Him unreservedly
the image of the invisible God and the form of God Cf.
6. But, as we pointed out in the former
books, they seize the Dispensation of the assumed manhood as a pretext
to dishonour His divinity, and distort the Mystery of our salvation
into an occasion of blasphemy. Had they held fast the faith of
the Apostle, they would neither have forgotten that He, Who was in the
form of God, took the form of a servant, nor made use of the
servant’s form to dishonour the form of God (for the form of God
includes the fulness of divinity), but they would have noted,
reasonably and reverently, the distinction of occasions i.e. the
occasions when Christ was speaking of His humanity and those when He
was referring to His divine nature.
8. Among their other sins the heretics often
employ as an argument the words of the Lord, I ascend unto My Father
and your Father, and My God and your God St.
9. Falsehood is always infamous, for the
liar throwing off the bridle of shame dares to gainsay the truth, or
else at times he hides behind some veil of pretext, that he may appear
to defend with modesty what is shameless in intention. But in
this case, when they sacrilegiously use the Scriptures to degrade the
dignity of our Lord, there is no room for the blush or the false
excuse; for there are occasions when even pardon accorded to ignorance
is refused, and wilful misconstruction is exposed in its naked
profanity. Let us postpone for a moment the exposition of this
passage in the Gospel, and ask them first whether they have forgotten
the preaching of the Apostle, who said, Without controversy great is
the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, justified
in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on
in the world, received up in glory I.e. the
Incarnation is the Mystery of godliness, not the infirmity of
necessity.
10. You credit with the weight of
irresistible authority, heretic, that saying of the Lord, I ascend
to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God St.
11. We do not know Christ the God unless we know God the Begotten. But to be born God is to belong to the nature of God, for the name Begotten signifies indeed the manner of His origin, but does not make Him different in kind from the Begetter. And if so, the Begotten owes indeed to His Author the source of His being, but is not dispossessed of the nature of that Author, for the birth of God can arise but from one origin, and have but one nature. If its origin is not from God, it is not a birth; if it is anything but a birth, Christ is not God. But He is God of God, and therefore God the Father stands to God the Son as God of His birth and Father of His nature, for the birth of God is from God, and in the specific nature of God.
12. See in all that He said, how carefully
the Lord tempers the pious acknowledgment of His debt, so that neither
the confession of the birth could be held to reflect upon His divinity,
nor His reverent obedience to infringe upon His sovereign nature.
He does not withhold the homage due from Him as the Begotten, Who owed
to His Author His very existence, but He manifests by His confident
bearing the consciousness of participation in that nature, which
belongs to Him by virtue of the origin whereby He was born as
God. Take, for instance, the words, He that hath seen Me, hath
seen the Father also St.
13. So the Dispensation of the great and godly mystery makes Him, Who was already Father of the divine Son, also His Lord in the created form which He assumed, for He, Who was in the form of God, was found also in the form of a servant. Yet He was not a servant, for according to the Spirit He was God the Son of God. Every one will agree also that there is no servant where there is no lord. God is indeed Father in the Generation of the Only-begotten God, but only in the case that the Other is a servant can we call Him Lord as well as Father. The Son was not at the first a servant by nature, but afterwards began to be by nature something which He was not before. Thus the Father is Lord on the same grounds as the Son is servant. By the Dispensation of His nature the Son had a Lord, when He made Himself a servant by the assumption of manhood.
14. Being, then, in the form of a servant, Jesus Christ, Who before was in the form of God, said as a man, I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God. He was speaking as a servant to servants: how can we then dissociate the words from Christ the servant, and transfer them to that nature, which had nothing of the servant in it? For He Who abode in the form of God took upon Him the form of a servant, this form being the indispensable condition of His fellowship as a servant with servants. It is in this sense that God is His Father and the Father of men, His God and the God of servants. Jesus Christ was speaking as a man in the form of a servant to men and servants; what difficulty is there then in the idea, that in His human aspect the Father is His Father as ours, in His servant’s nature God is His God as all men’s?
15. These, then, are the words with which He
prefaces the message, Go unto My brethren, and say to them, I ascend
unto My Father and your Father, and My God and your God. I
ask, Are they to be understood as His brethren with reference to the
form of God or to the form of a servant? And has our flesh
kinship with Him in regard to the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in
Him, that we should be reckoned His brothers in respect of His
divinity? No, for the Spirit of prophecy recognises clearly in
what respect we are the brethren of the Only-begotten God. It is
as a worm and no man St.
16. By assuming flesh, however, He acquired our
nature in our totality, and became all that we are, but did not lose
that which He was before. Both before by His heavenly origin, and
now by His earthly constitution, God is His Father. By His
earthly constitution God is His Father, since all things are from God
the Father, and God is Father to all things, since from Him and in Him
are all things. But to the Only-begotten God, God is Father, not
only because the Word became flesh; His Fatherhood extends also to Him
Who was, as God the Word, with God in the beginning. Thus, when
the Word became flesh, God was His Father both by the birth of God the
Word, and by the constitution of His flesh: for God is the Father
of all flesh, though not in the same way that He is Father to God the
Word. But God the Word, though He did not cease to be God, really
did become flesh: and while He thus dwelt He was still truly the
Word, just as when the Word became flesh He was still truly God as well
as man. For to ‘dwell’ can only be said of one who
abides in something: and to become flesh of one who is
born. He dwelt among us; that is, He assumed our flesh. The
Word became flesh and dwelt among us; that is, He was God in the
reality of our body. If Christ Jesus, the man according to the
flesh, robbed God the Word of the divine nature, or was
17. The Apostle here speaks in carefully
guarded words, which by their definiteness can give no occasion to the
ungodly. We have seen that the Evangelist makes the Lord use the
word ‘Brethren’ in the preface to the message, thus
signifying that the whole message, being addressed to His brethren,
refers to His fellowship in that nature which makes Him their
brother. Thus he makes manifest that the mystery of godliness,
which is here proclaimed, is no degradation of His divinity. The
community with Him, by which God is our Father and His, our God and
His, exists in regard to the Dispensation of the flesh: we are
counted His brethren, because He was born into the body. No one
disputes that God the Father is also the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,
but this reverent confession offers no occasion for irreverence.
God is His God but not as possessing a different order of divinity from
His. He was begotten God of the Father, and born a servant by the
Dispensation: and so God is His Father because He is God of God,
and God is His God, because He is flesh of the Virgin. All this
the Apostle confirms in one short and decisive sentence, Making
mention of you in my prayers that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Father of glory, may give unto you a spirit of wisdom and
revelation St. I.e. divine.
18. Time and the lapse of ages make no
difference to a Spirit By
‘Spirit’ Hilary means God considered as a spiritual (as
opposed to a material) Being: cf. in the previous chapter,
“to the prophets Christ the Lord is
‘Spirit.’”
Reading
‘quam’ instead of quâ.
20. Let no one then defile with his godless interpretations the mystery of great godliness which was manifested in the flesh, or reckon himself equal to the Only-begotten in respect of His divine substance. Let Him be our brother and our fellow, inasmuch as the Word made flesh dwelt among us, inasmuch as the man Jesus Christ is Mediator between God and man. Let Him, after the manner of servants, have a common Father and a common God with us, and as anointed above His fellows, let Him be of the same nature as His anointed fellows, though His be an unction of special privilege. In the mystery of the Mediatorship let Him be at once very man and very God, Himself God of God, but having a common Father and God with us in that community by which He is our brother.
21. But perhaps that subjection, that delivering of the kingdom, and lastly that end betoken the dissolution of His nature, or the loss of His power, or the enfeebling of His divinity. Many argue thus: Christ is included in the common subjection of all to God, and by the condition of subjection loses His divinity: He surrenders His Kingdom, therefore He is no longer King: the end which overtakes Him entails as its consequence the loss of His power.
22. It will not be out of place here if we
review the full meaning of the Apostle’s teaching upon this
subject. Let us take, then, each single sentence and expound it,
that we may grasp the entire Mystery by comprehending it in its
fulness. The words of the Apostle are, For since by man came
death, by man came
23. The Apostle who was chosen not of men
nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, to be the teacher of the
Gentiles Cf. Cf. Cf.
24. And if, by an error incident to human
nature, we be clinging to some preconception of our own, let us not
reject the advance in knowledge through the gift of revelation.
If we have hitherto used only our own judgment, let that not make us
ashamed to change its decisions for the better. Guiding this
advance wisely and carefully, the same blessed Apostle writes to the
Philippians, Let us therefore as many as be perfect, be thus
minded: and if in anything ye are otherwise minded, this also
shall God reveal unto you. Only, wherein we have hastened, in
that same let us walk
25. Three assertions are here disputed, which, in
the order in which the Apostle makes them, are first the end, then the
delivering, and lastly the subjection. The object is to prove
that Christ ceases to exist at the
26. At the outset take note that this is not the order of the Apostle’s teaching, for in that order the surrender of the Kingdom is first, then the subjection, and lastly the end. But every cause is itself the result of its particular cause, so that, in every chain of causation, each cause, itself producing a result, has inevitably its underlying antecedent. Thus the end will come, but when He has delivered the Kingdom to God. He will deliver the Kingdom, but when He has abolished all authority and power. He will abolish all authority and power, because He must reign. He will reign until He has put all enemies under His feet. He will put all enemies under His feet, because God has subjected everything under His feet. God has so subjected them as to make death the last enemy to be conquered by Him. Then, when all things are subjected unto God, except Him Who subjected all things unto Him, He too will be subjected unto Him, Who subjects all to Himself. But the cause of the subjection is none other than that God may be all in all; and therefore the end is that God is all in all.
27. Before going any further we must now enquire whether the end is a dissolution, or the delivering a forfeiture, or the subjection an enfeebling of Christ. And if we find that these are contraries, which cannot be connected as causes and effects, we shall be able to understand the words in the true sense in which they were spoken.
28. Christ is the end of the
law St. St.
29. We can therefore no longer doubt that by
the end is meant an ultimate and final condition and not a
dissolution. We shall have something more to say upon this
subject, when we come to the explanation of this passage, but for the
present this is enough to make our meaning clear. Let us,
therefore, turn now to the delivering of the Kingdom, and see whether
it means a surrender of rule, whether the Son by delivering ceases to
possess that which He delivers to the Father. If this is what the
wicked contend in their unreasoning infatuation, they must allow that
the Father, by delivering, lost all, when He delivered all to the Son,
if delivery implies the surrender of that which is delivered. For
the Lord said, All things have been delivered unto Me of My
Father St. St.
30. As to the subjection, there are other
facts which come to the help of our faith, and prevent us from putting
an indignity on Christ upon this score, but above all this passage
contains its own defence. First, however, I appeal to common
reason: is the subjection still to be understood as the
subordination of servitude to lordship, weakness to power, meanness to
honour, qualities the opposite of one another? Is the Son in this
manner subjected to the Father by the distinction of a different
nature? If, indeed, we would think so, we shall find in the
Apostle’s words a preventive for such errors of the
imagination. When all things are subjected to Him, says He, then
must He be subjected to Him, Who subjects all things to Himself; and by
this ‘then’ he means to denote the temporal
Dispensation. For if we put any other construction on the
subjection, Christ, though then to be subjected, is not subjected now,
and thus we make Him an insolent and impious rebel, whom the necessity
of time, breaking as it were and subduing His profane and overweening
pride, will reduce to a tardy obedience. But what does He Himself
say? I am not come to do Mine own will, but the will of Him
that sent Me St. Cf. Cf.
31. What that is must be understood in view
of this same hope of our faith. We cannot be ignorant that the
Lord Jesus Christ rose again from the dead, and sits at the right hand
of God, for we have also the witness of the Apostle, According to
the working of the strength of His might, which He wrought in Christ,
when He raised Him from the dead, and made Him to sit at His right hand
in the heavenly places above all rule and authority and power and
dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world but also
in that which is to came, and put all things in subjection under His
feet
32. The meaning of the abolishing of every
power which is against Him is not obscure. The prince of the air,
the power of spiritual wickedness, shall be delivered to eternal
destruction, as Christ says, Depart from Me, ye cursed, into the
eternal fire which My Father hath prepared for the devil and his
angels St. St.
33. So when their authority is abolished,
His enemies shall be subjected: and so subjected, that He shall
subject them to Himself. Moreover He shall so subject them to
Himself, that God shall subject them to Him. Was the Apostle
ignorant, think you, of the force of these words in the Gospel, No
one cometh to Me, except the Father draw Him to Me
34. When authorities and powers are
abolished, His enemies shall be subjected under His feet. The
same Apostle tells who are these enemies, As touching the Gospel
they are enemies for your sakes, but as touching the election they are
beloved for the fathers’ sake
35. But we must not forget what follows the
subjection, namely, Last of all is death conquered by
Him Cf.
36. Hence the Apostle, to make his
explanation of this Mystery complete, after saying that death is the
last enemy to be conquered, adds: But when He saith, All
things are put in subjection except Him, Who did subject all things to
Him, then must He be subjected to Him, that did subject all things to
Him, that God may be all in all
37. Nor are the Gospels silent concerning
the glory of His present reigning body. It is written that the
Lord said, Verily, I say unto you, there be some of them that stand
here, which St.
38. He promised also to the Apostles the
participation in this His glory. So shall it be in the end of
the world. The Son of Man shall send forth His angels, and they
shall gather together out of His Kingdom all things that cause
stumbling, and them that do iniquity, and He shall send them into the
furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and gnashing of
teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the
Kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears to hear, let him
hear
39. He shall deliver the Kingdom to God the
Father, not in the sense that He resigns His power by the delivering,
but that we, being conformed to the glory of His body, shall form the
Kingdom of God. It is not said, He shall deliver up His
Kingdom, but, He shall deliver up the Kingdom St. St. St.
40. In His body, the same body though now
made glorious, He reigns until the authorities are abolished, death
conquered, and His enemies subdued. This distinction is carefully
preserved by the Apostle: the authorities and powers are
abolished, the enemies are subjected The humanity is
eternal, although He is no longer man.
41. We have a sufficient and sacred guarantee for this belief in the authority of the Apostle. Through the Dispensation, and within time, the Lord Jesus Christ, the firstfruits of them that sleep, is to be subjected, that God may be all in all, and this subjection is not the debasement of His divinity, but the promotion of His assumed nature, for He Who is God and Man is now altogether God. But some may think that, when we say He was both glorified in the body whilst reigning in the body, and is hereafter to be subjected that God may be all in all, our belief finds no support for itself in the Gospels nor yet in the Epistles. We will, therefore, produce testimony of our faith, not only from the words of the Apostle, but also from our Lord’s mouth. We will shew that Christ said first with His own lips what He afterwards said by the mouth of Paul.
42. Does He not reveal to His Apostles the
Dispensation of this glory by the express signification of the words,
Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him.
If God hath been glorified in Him, God hath glorified Him in Himself,
and straightway hath He glorified Him St.
43. But what absurd folly is it of the
heretics to regard as unattainable for God that goal to which man hopes
to attain, to imply that He is powerless to effect in Himself that
which He is mighty to effect in us. It is not the language of
reason or common sense to say that God is bound by some necessity of
His nature to consult our happiness, but cannot bestow the like
blessings upon Himself. God does not, indeed, need any further
blessedness, for His nature and power stand fast in their eternal
perfection. But although in the Dispensation, that mystery of
great godliness, He Who is God became man, He is not powerless to make
Himself again entirely God, for without doubt He will transform us also
into that which as yet we are not. The final sequel of
man’s life and death is the resurrection: the assured
reward of our warfare is immortality and incorruption, not the
ceaseless persistence of everlasting punishment, but the unbroken
enjoyment and happiness of eternal glory. These bodies of earthly
origin shall be exalted to the fashion of a higher nature, and
conformed to the glory of the Lord’s body. But what then of
God found in the form of a servant? Though already, while still
in the form of a servant, glorified in the body, shall He not be also
conformed to God? Shall He bestow upon us the form of His
glorified body, and yet be able to do for His own body nothing more
than He does for Himself in common with us? For the most part the
heretics interpret the words, Then shall He be subjected to Him that
did subject all things to Himself, that God may be all in all, as
if they meant that the Son is to be subjected to God the Father, in
order that by the subjection of the Son, God the Father may be all in
all. But is there still lacking in God some perfection which He
is to obtain by the subjection of the Son? Can they believe that
God does not already possess that final accession
44. To me, who hold that God cannot be known except by devotion, even to answer such objections seems no less unholy than to support them. What presumption to suppose that words can adequately describe His nature, when thought is often too deep for words, and His nature transcends even the conceptions of thought! What blasphemy even to discuss whether anything is lacking in God, whether He is Himself full, or it remains for Him to be fuller than His fulness! If God, Who is Himself the source of His own eternal divinity, were capable of progress, that He should be greater to-day than yesterday, He could never reach the time when nothing would be wanting to Him, for the nature to which advance is still possible must always in its progress leave some ground ahead still untrodden: if it be subject to the law of progress, though always progressing it must always be susceptible of further progress. But to Him, Who abides in perfect fulness, Who for ever is, there is no fulness left by which He can be made more full, for perfect fulness cannot receive an accession of further fulness. And this is the attitude of thought in which reverence contemplates God, namely, that nothing is wanting to Him, that He is full.
45. But the Apostle does not neglect to say
with what manner of confession we should bear witness of God.
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and of the
knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His
ways past tracing out! For who hath known the mind of the
Lord? Or who hath been His counsellor? Or who hath first
given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him? For of Him,
and through Him, and in Him are all things. To Him be the glory
for ever and ever St.
46. It is a recognised axiom of natural philosophy, that nothing falls within the scope of the senses unless it is subjected to their observation, as for instance an object placed before the eyes, or an event posterior to the birth of human sense and intelligence. The former we can see and handle, and therefore the mind is qualified to pass a verdict upon it, since it can be examined by the senses of touch and sight. The latter, which is an event in time, produced or constituted since the origin of man, falls within the limits in which the discerning sense may claim to pass judgment, since it is not prior in time to our perception and reason. For our sight cannot perceive the invisible, since it only distinguishes the seen; our reason cannot project itself into the time when it was not, because it can only judge of that, to which it is prior in time. And even within these limits, the infirmity which is bound up with its nature robs it of absolutely certain knowledge of the sequence of cause and effect. How much less then can it go back behind the time when it had its origin, and comprehend with its perception things which existed before it in the realms of eternity?
47. The Apostle then recognised that nothing
can fall within our knowledge, except it be posterior in time to the
faculty of sense. Accordingly when he had asserted the depth of
the wisdom of God, the infinity of His inscrutable judgments, the
secret of His unsearchable ways, the mystery of His unfathomable mind,
the incomprehensibility of His uncommunicated counsel, he continued,
For who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto
him again? For of Him, and through Him, and in Him are all
things. The eternal God is neither subject to limitation, nor
did human reason and intelligence exercise their functions before He
had His being. His whole being is therefore a depth, which we can
neither examine nor penetrate. We say His whole being, not
to define it as limited, but to understand it in its unlimited
boundlessness: because of no one has He received His being, no
antecedent giver can claim service from Him in return for a gift
bestowed: for
48. But neither is it necessary for the Only-begotten God that He should change. He is God, and that is the name of full and perfect divinity. For, as we said before, the meaning of the repeated glorifying, and the cause of the subjection is that God may be all in all: but it is a Mystery, not a necessity, that God is to be all in all. Christ abode in the form of God when He assumed the form of a servant, not being subjected to change, but emptying Himself; hiding within Himself, and remaining master of Himself though He was emptied. He constrained Himself even to the form and fashion of a man, lest the weakness of the assumed humility should not be able to endure the immeasurable power of His nature. His unbounded might contracted itself, until it could fulfil the duty of obedience even to the endurance of the body to which it was yoked. But since He was self-contained even when He emptied Himself, His authority suffered no diminution, for in the humiliation of the emptying He exercised within Himself the power of that authority which was emptied.
49. It is therefore for the promotion of us,
the assumed humanity, that God shall be all in all. He Who was
found in the form of a servant, though He was in the form of God, is
now again to be confessed in the glory of God the Father: that
is, without doubt He dwells in the form of God, in Whose glory He is to
be confessed. All is therefore a dispensation only, and not a
change of His nature; for He abides still in Him, in Whom He ever
was. But there intervenes a new nature, which began in Him with
His human birth, and so all that He obtains is on behalf of that nature
which before was not God, since after the Mystery of the Dispensation
God is all in all. It is, therefore, we who are the gainers, we
who are promoted, for we shall be conformed to the glory of the body of
God. Further the Only-begotten God, despite His human birth, is
nothing less than God, Who is all in all. That subjection of the
body, by which all that is fleshly in Him, is swallowed up into the
spiritual nature, will make Him to be God and all in all, since He is
Man also as well as God; and His humanity which advances towards this
goal is ours also. We shall be promoted to a glory conformable to
that of Him Who became Man for us, being renewed unto the knowledge of
God, and created again in the image of the Creator, as the Apostle
says, Having put off the old man with his doings, and put on the new
man, which is being renewed unto the knowledge of God, after the image
of Him that created him
1. At length, with
the Holy Ghost speeding our way, we are approaching the safe, calm
harbour of a firm faith. We are in the position of men, long
tossed about by sea and wind, to whom it very often happens, that while
great heaped-up waves delay them for a time around the coasts near the
ports, at last that very surge of the vast and dreadful billows drives
them on into a trusty, well-known anchorage. And this, I hope,
will befall us, as we struggle in this twelfth book against the storm
of heresy; so that while we venture out trusty bark therein upon the
wave of this grievous impiety, this very wave may bring us to the haven
of rest for which we long. For while all are driven about by the
uncertain wind of doctrine, there is panic here and danger there, and
then again there often is even shipwreck, because it is maintained on
prophetic authority that God Only-begotten is a creature—so that
to Him there belongs not birth but creation, because it has been said
in the character of Wisdom, The Lord created Me as the beginning of
His ways
2. Yet we do not rest, like sailors, on uncertain or on idle hopes: whom, as they shape their course to their wish, and not by assured knowledge, at times the shifting, fickle winds forsake or drive from their course. But we have by our side the unfailing Spirit of faith, abiding with us by the gift of the Only-begotten God, and leading us to smooth waters in an unwavering course. For we recognise the Lord Christ as no creature, for indeed He is none such; nor as something that has been made, since He is Himself the Lord of all things that are made; but we know Him to be God, God the true generation of God the Father. All we indeed, as His goodness has thought fit, have been named and adopted as sons of God: but He is to God the Father the one, true Son, and the true and perfect birth, which abides only in the knowledge of the Father and the Son. But this only, and this alone, is our religion, to confess Him as the Son not adopted but born, not chosen but begotten. For we do not speak of Him either as made, or as not born; since we neither compare the Creator to His creatures, nor falsely speak of birth without begetting. He does not exist of Himself, Who exists through birth; nor is He not born, Who is the Son; nor can He, Who is the Son, come to exist otherwise than by being born, because He is the Son.
3. Moreover no one doubts that the
assertions of impiety always contradict and resist the assertions of
religious faith; and that that cannot be piously held now which is
already condemned as impiously conceived; as, for instance, the
discrepancy and variance which these new correctors of the apostolic
faith maintain between the Spirit of the Evangelists and that of
Prophets; or their assertion that the Prophets prophesied one thing and
the Evangelists preached another, since Solomon calls upon us to adore
a creature, while Paul convicts those who serve a creature. And
certainly these two texts do not seem to agree together, according to
the blasphemous theory, whereby the Apostle, who was trained by the
law, and separated by divine appointment, and spoke through Christ
speaking in him, either was ignorant of the prophecy, or was not
ignorant but contradicted it; and thus did not know Christ to be a
creature when he named Him the Creator; and forbade the worship of a
creature, warning us that the Creator alone is to be served, and
saying, Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and served the
creature, passing by the Creator Who is blessed for ever and
ever
4. Does Christ, Who is God, speaking in
Paul, fail to refute this impiety of falsehood? Does He fail to
condemn this lying perversion of truth? For through the Lord
Christ all things were created; and therefore it is His proper name
that He should be the Creator. Does not both the reality and the
title of His creative power belong to Him? Melchisedec is our
witness, thus declaring God to be Creator of heaven and earth:
Blessed be Abraham of God most high, Who created heaven and
earth
5. Since by the faith of the Apostles and
Evangelists these statements are referred in their meaning to the Son,
through Whom all things were made, how shall He be made equal to the
very works of His hands and be in the same category of nature as all
other things? In the first place our human intelligence
repudiates this statement that the Creator is a creature; since
creation comes to exist by means of the Creator. But if He is a
creature, He is both subject to corruption and exposed to the suspense
of waiting, and is subjected to bondage. For the same blessed
Apostle Paul says: For the long expectation of the creature
waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creature
was subject to vanity, not of its own will, but on account of Him Who
has made it subject in hope. Because also the creature itself
shall be freed from the slavery of corruption into the liberty of the
glory of the children of God
6. But our impiety, by the licence of this forbidden language, waxes apace with yet deeper faithlessness; asserting that since the Son is a creature it is bound to maintain that the Father also does not differ from a creature. For Christ, remaining in the form of God, took the form of a servant; and if He is a creature Who is in the form of God, God can never be separate from the creature, because there is a creature in the form of God. But to be in the form of God can only be understood to mean, remaining in the nature of God; whence also God is a creature, because there is a creature with His nature. But He Who was in the form of God, did not grasp at being equal with God, because from equality with God, that is, from the form of God, He descended into the form of a servant. But He could not descend from God into man, except by emptying Himself, as God, of the form of God. But when He emptied Himself, He was not effaced, so as not to be; since then He would have become other in kind than He had been. For neither did He, Who emptied Himself within Himself, cease to be Himself; since the power of His might remains even in the power of emptying Himself; and the transition into the form of a servant does not mean the loss of the nature of God, since to have put off the form of God is nothing less than a mighty act of divine power.
7. But to be in this way in the form of God
is nothing else than to be equal with God: so that equality of
honour is owed to the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is in the form of God, as
He Himself says, That all men may honour the Son, even as they
honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not
the Father Who sent Him St.
8. This again is a notable utterance of the
Father concerning Him: From the womb, before the morning star
I begat Thee
9. For often by means of these members of
our bodies, God illustrates for us the method of His own operations,
enlightening our intelligence by using terms commonly understood:
as when He says, Whose hands created all the host of
heaven
10. Therefore since heart is put for desire, and eyes for sight, and hands for work achieved,—and yet, without in any way being made up of parts, God desires and foresees and acts, these same operations being expressed by the words heart, and eyes, and hand,—is not the meaning of the phrase that He begat from the womb an assertion of the reality of the birth? Not that He begat the Son from His womb, just as neither does He act by means of a hand, nor see by means of eyes, nor desire by means of a heart. But since by the employment of these terms it is made clear that He really acts and sees and wills everything, so from the word ‘womb’ it is clear that He really begot from Himself Him Whom He begat; not that he made use of a womb, but that He purposed to express reality. Just in the same way He does not will or see or act through bodily faculties, but uses the names of these members in order that through the services performed by corporeal forces we may understand the power of forces which are not corporeal.
11. Now the constitution of human society
does not allow, nor indeed do the words of our Lord’s teaching
permit, that the disciple should be above his master, or the slave rule
over his lord; because, in these contrasted positions, subordination to
knowledge is the fitting state of ignorance, and unconditional
submission the appointed lot of servitude. And since it is the
common judgment of all that this is so, whose rashness now shall induce
us to say or think that God is a creature, or that the Son has been
made? For nowhere do we find that our Master and Lord spoke thus
of Himself to His servants and disciples, or that He taught that His
birth was a creation or a making. Moreover, the Father never bore
witness to Him as being aught else but a Son, nor did the Son profess
that God was aught else than His own true Father, assuredly affirming
that He was born, not made nor created, as He says, Every one that
loveth the Father, loveth also the Son Who is born of Him
St.
13. And we indeed are sons of God, but sons
because the Son has made us such. For we were once sons of wrath,
but have been made sons of God through the Spirit of adoption, and have
earned that title by favour, not by right of birth. And since
everything that is made, before it was made, was not, so we, although
we were not sons, have been made what we are. For formerly we
were not sons: but after we have earned the name we are
such. Moreover, we have not been born, but made; not begotten,
but purchased. For God purchased a people for Himself, and by
this act begot them. But we never learn that God begot sons in
the strict sense of the term. For He does not say, “I have
begotten and brought up My sons,” but only, I have
begotten and brought up sons
14. Yet perchance inasmuch as He says, My
firstborn Son Israel St.
15. Therefore the people of Israel is born, in such wise that it is made; nor do we take the assertion that it is born as contradictory to the fact that it is made. For it is a son by adoption, not by generation; nor is this its true character, but its title. For although the words, My firstborn are written of it; there is yet a great and wide difference between My beloved Son, and My firstborn son. For where there is birth, there we see, My beloved Son; but where there is a choice from among the nations, and adoption through an act of will, there is My firstborn son. Here the people is God’s, in regard to its character as firstborn; in the former case the fact that He is God’s, relates to His character as a Son. Again, in a case of birth the father’s ownership comes first, and then his love; in a case of adoption the primary fact is that the son is made a firstborn, and then comes the ownership. Thus to Israel, adopted for a son out of all the peoples of the earth, properly belonged the character of a firstborn; but to Him alone, Who is born God, properly belongs the character of a Son. Accordingly there is no true and complete birth where sonship is imputed rather than real: since it is not doubtful that that people, which is born into a state of sonship, is also made. But since it would not have been what it is now become, and inasmuch as its birth is but a name for its being made, it has no true birth, since it was something else before it was born. And for this reason it was not before it was born, that is, before it was made, because that which is a son from among the nations was a nation before it was a son: and accordingly it is not truly a son, because it was not always a son. But God Only-begotten was neither at any time not a Son, nor was He anything before He was a Son, nor is He Himself anything except a Son. And so He Who is always a Son, has rendered it impossible for us to think of Him that there was a time when He was not.
16. For indeed human births involve a previous
non-existence, because, as a first reason, all are born from those, all
of whom formerly were not. For although each one who is born has
his origin from one who has been, nevertheless that very parent, from
whom he is born, was not before he was born. Again, as a second
reason, he who is born, is born after that he was not, for time existed
before he was born. For if he is born to-day, in the time which
was yesterday, he was not; and he has come into a state of being from a
state of not being; and our reason enforces that that which is born
to-day did not exist yesterday. And so it remains that his birth,
by virtue of which he is, took place after a state of non-existence;
since necessarily today implies the previous existence of yesterday, so
that it is true of it that there was a time when it was not. And
these facts hold good of the origin of everything relating to
man: all receive a beginning, previously to which they
17. But for God Only-begotten, Who is preceded by no antecedent time, the possibility is excluded that at some time He was not, since that “some time” thus becomes prior to Him; and again, the assertion that He was not involves the notion of time: whence time will not begin to be after Him, but He Himself will begin to be after time, and, inasmuch as He was not before He was born, the very period when He was not will take precedence of Him. Further, He Who is born from Him Who really is, cannot be understood to have been born from that which was not: since He Who really is, is the cause of His existing, and His birth cannot have its origin in that which is not. And therefore since in His case it is not true either in regard of time that He ever was not, or in regard of the Father, that is, the Author of His being, that He has come into existence out of nothing, He has left no possibility with regard to Himself either of His having been born out of nothing, or of His not having existed before He was born.
18. Now I am not ignorant that most of those, whose mind being dulled by impiety does not accept the mystery of God, or who through the strong influence of a hostile spirit are ready to manifest, under the cover of reverence, a mad passion for disparaging God, are wont to make strange assertions in the ears of simple-minded men. They assert that since we say that the Son always has been, and that He never has been anything which He has not always been, we are therefore declaring that He is without birth, inasmuch as He always has been; since, according to the workings of human reason, that which always has existed cannot possibly have been born: since (so they urge) the cause of a thing being born, is that something, which was not, may come into existence, while the coming into existence of something which was not, means nothing else, according to the judgment of common sense, than its being born. They may add those arguments, subtle enough and pleasant to hear;—“If He was born, He began to be; at the time when He began to be, He was not: and when He was not, it cannot be that He was.” By such proofs let them maintain that it is the language of reasonable piety to say, “He was not before He was born: because in order that He might come to be, One Who was not, not One Who was, was born. Nor did He Who was, require a birth, although He Who was not was born, to the end that He might come to be.”
19. Now, first of all, men professing a devout knowledge of divine things, in matters where the truth preached by Evangelists and Apostles shewed the way, ought to have laid aside the intricate questions of a crafty philosophy, and rather to have followed after the faith which rests in God: because the sophistry of a syllogistical question easily disarms a weak understanding of the protection of its faith, since treacherous assertion lures on the guileless defender, who tries to support his case by enquiry into facts, till at last it robs him, by means of his own enquiry, of his certainty; so that the answerer no longer retains in his consciousness a truth which by his admission he has surrendered. For what answer accommodates itself so well to the questioner’s purpose, as the admission on our part, when we are asked, “Does anything exist before it is born?” that that which is born, did not previously exist? For it is contrary both to nature and to necessary reason that a thing which already exists should be born: since a thing must needs be born in order that it may come to be, and not because it already existed. But when we have made this concession, because it is rightly made, we lose the certainty of our faith, and being ensnared we fall in with their impious and unchristian designs.
20. But the blessed Apostle Paul, taking
precaution against this, as we have often shewn, warned us to be on our
guard, saying: Take heed lest any man spoil you through
philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men,
according to the elements of the world, and
21. Accordingly let misbelief abandon its
efforts; let it not think, because it does not understand, that we deny
a truth which, in fact, we alone rightly understand and believe.
For while we declare in so many words that He was born, nevertheless we
do not assert that He was ever not born i.e. not yet
born.
22. But some one, who cannot receive this divine mystery, will say, “Everything which has been born, once was not; since it was born in order that it might come into existence.”
23. But does any one doubt that all human beings
that have been born, at one time were not? It is, however, one
thing to be born of some one who once was not, and another to be born
of One Who always is. For every state of infancy, since
previously it had no existence, began from some point of time.
And this again, growing up into childhood, still later urges on youth
to fatherhood. Yet the man was not always a father, for he
advanced to youth through boyhood, and to boyhood through original
infancy. Therefore he who was not always a father, also did not
always beget: but where the Father is eternal, the Son also is
eternal. And so if you hold, whether by argument or by instinct,
that God, in the mystery of our knowledge of Whom one property is that
He is Father, was not always the Father of
24. And so God Only-begotten, containing in
Himself the form and image of the invisible God, in all things which
are properties of God the Father is equal to Him by virtue of the
fulness of true Godhead in Himself. For, as we have shewn in the
former books, in respect of power and veneration He is as mighty and as
worthy of honour as the Father: so also, inasmuch as the Father
is always Father, He too, inasmuch as He is the Son, possesses the like
property of being always the Son. For according to the words
spoken to Moses, He Who is, hath sent Me unto you St.
25. Therefore He was, and He is, since He is from Him Who always is what He is. But to be from Him, that is to say, to be from the Father, is birth. Moreover, to be always from Him, Who always is, is eternity; but this eternity is derived not from Himself, but from the Eternal. And from the Eternal nothing can spring but what is eternal: for if the Offspring is not eternal, then neither is the Father, Who is the source of generation, eternal. Now since it is the special characteristic of His being that His Father always exists, and that He is always His Son, and since eternity is expressed in the name He that is, therefore, since He possesses absolute being, He possesses also eternal being. Moreover, no one doubts that generation implies birth, and that birth points to one existing from that time forth, and not to one who does not continue. Furthermore, there can be no doubt that no one who already was in existence could be born. For no cause of birth can accrue to Him, Who of Himself continues eternal. But God Only-begotten, Who is the Wisdom of God, and the Power and the Word of God, since He was born, bears witness to the Father as the source of His being. Since He was born of One, Who eternally exists, He was not born of nothing. Since He was born before times eternal, His birth must necessarily be prior to all thought. There is no room for the verbal quibble, “He was not, before He was born.” For if He is within the range of our thought, in the sense that He was not before He was born, then both our thought and time are prior to His birth; since everything which once was not, is within the compass of thought and time, by the very meaning of the assertion that it once was not, which separates off, within time, a period when it did not exist. But He is from the Eternal, and yet has always been; He is not ingenerate, yet never was non-existent; since to have always been transcends time, and to have been born is birth.
26. And so we confess that God Only-begotten was
born, but born before times eternal: since we must make our
confession within such limits as the express preaching of Apostles and
Prophets assigns to us; though at the same time human thought cannot
grasp any intelligible idea of birth out of time, since it is
inconsistent with the nature of earthly beings that any of them should
be born before all times. But when we make this assertion,
27. For we can embrace all time in
imagination or knowledge, since we know that what is now to-day, did
not exist yesterday, because what was yesterday is not now; and on the
other hand what is now, is only now and was not also yesterday.
And by imagination we can so span the past that we have no doubt that
before some city was founded, there existed a time in which that city
had not been founded. Since, therefore, all time is the sphere of
knowledge or imagination, we judge of it by the perceptions of human
reason; hence we are considered to have reasonably asserted about
anything, “It was not, before it was born,” since
antecedent time is prior to the origin of every single thing. But
on the other hand, since in things of God, that is to say, in regard to
the birth of God, there is nothing that is not before time
eternal: it is illogical to use of Him the phrase “before
He was born,” or to suppose that He Who possesses before times
eternal the eternal promise, is merely (in the language of the blessed
Apostle
28. We may grant that for anything to be
born before times eternal is not the way of human nature, nor a matter
which we can understand; and yet in this we believe God’s
declarations about Himself. How then does the infidelity of our
own day assert, according to the conceptions of human intelligence,
that that had no existence before it was born, which the Apostolic
faith tells us was, in some manner inconceivable to the human Reading
humanæ.
29. But our opponent cunningly anticipates us with this carping objection. “If,” he urges, “it is inconceivable that He did not exist before He was born, it must be conceivable that One Who already existed was born.”
30. I will ask this objector in reply, whether he remembers my calling Him anything else than born, and whether I did not say that existence before times eternal and birth have the same meaning in the case of Him that was. For the birth of One already existing is not really birth, but a self-wrought change through birth, and the eternal existence of One Who is born means that in His birth He is prior to any conception of time, and that there is no room for the mind to suppose that at any time He was unborn. And so an eternal birth before times eternal is not the same as existence before being born. But to have been born always before times eternal excludes the possibility of having had no existence before birth.
31. Again, this same fact excludes the possibility
of saying that He existed before He was born; because He Who transcends
perception transcends it in every respect. For if the notion of
being born, though always existing, transcends thought, it is equally
impossible that the notion that He did not exist before He was born
should be a subject of thought. And so, since we must confess
32. Therefore the conclusion reached by faith and argument and thought is that the Lord Jesus both was born and always existed: since if the mind survey the past in search of knowledge concerning the Son, this one fact and nothing else, will be constantly present to the enquirer’s perception, that He was born and always existed. As therefore it is a property of God the Father to exist without birth, so also it must belong to the Son to exist always through birth. But birth can declare nothing except that there is a Father and the title Father nothing else except that there is a birth. For neither those names nor the nature of the case, will allow of any intermediate position. For either He was not always a Father, unless there was always also a Son; or if He was always a Father, there was always also a Son; since whatever period of time is denied to the Son, to make His sonship non-eternal, just so much the Father lacks of having been always a Father: so that although He was always God, nevertheless He cannot have been also a Father for the same infinity during which He is God.
33. Now the declarations of impiety even go
so far as not only Reading
non solum. Reading
generationis.
34. But, heretic, do you consider it pious
and devout to confess that God indeed always existed, yet was not
always Father? For if it is pious for you to think so, you must
then condemn Paul of impiety, when he says that the Son existed before
times eternal
35. But we are accused of lying, and together with
us the doctrine preached by the Apostle is attacked, because while it
confesses the birth, it asserts the eternity of that birth: the
result being that, while the birth bears witness to an Author of being,
the assertion of eternity in the mystery of the divine birth
transgresses the limits of human thought. For
36. And, O wretched heretic! you turn the weapons granted to the Church against the Synagogue, against belief in the Church’s preaching, and distort against the common salvation of all the sure meaning of a saving doctrine. For you maintain by these words that Christ is a creature, instead of silencing the Jew, who denies that Christ was God before eternal ages, and that His power is active in all the working and teaching of God, by these words of the living Wisdom! For Wisdom has in this passage asserted that it had been created for the beginning of the ways of God and for His works from the commencement of the ages, lest perchance it might be supposed that it did not subsist before Mary; yet has not employed this word ‘created’ in order to signify that its birth was a creation, since it was created for the beginning of God’s ways and for His works. Nay rather lest any one should suppose that this beginning of the ways, which is indeed the starting-point for the human knowledge of things divine, was meant to subordinate an infinite birth to conditions of time, Wisdom declared itself established before the ages. For, since it is one thing to be created for the beginning of the ways and for the works of God, and another to be established before the ages, the establishing was intended to be understood as prior to the creation; and the very fact of its being established for God’s works before the ages was intended to point to the mystery of the creation; since the establishing is before the ages, but the creation for the beginning of the ways and for the works of God is after the commencement of the ages.
37. But now, lest the terms
‘creation’ and ‘establishing’ should be an
obstacle to belief in the divine birth, these words follow, Before
He made the earth, before He made firm the mountains, before all the
hills He begat Me
38. But this divine discourse has not left
our understandings unenlightened, since it explains the reason of the
phrase in what follows:—God made the regions, both the
uninhabitable parts and the heights which are inhabited under the
heaven. When He was preparing the heaven, I was with Him; and
when He was setting apart His own seat. When above the winds He
made the clouds huge in the upper air, and when He placed securely the
springs under the heaven, and when He made firm the foundations of the
earth, I was by Him, joining all things together
39. But the voice of God, our instruction in true
wisdom, speaks what is perfect, and expresses the absolute truth, when
it teaches
40. For the preparation for creation is perpetual and eternal: nor was the frame of this universe actually made by isolated acts of thought, in the sense that first the heaven was thought of, and afterwards there came into God’s mind a thought and plan concerning the earth; that He thought of each part singly, so that first the earth was spread out as a plain, and then through better counsels was made to rise up in mountains, and yet again was diversified with hills, and in the fourth place was also made habitable even in the heights; that so the heaven was prepared and the abode of God set apart, and huge clouds in the upper air held the exhalations caught up by the winds; then afterwards sure springs began to run under the heaven, and, last of all, the earth was made firm with strong foundations. For Wisdom declares that it is prior to all these things. But since all things under the heaven were made through God, and Christ was present at the fashioning of the heaven, and preceded even the eternity of the heaven which was prepared, this fact does not allow us to think in respect to God of disconnected thoughts on details, since the whole preparation of these things is co-eternal with God. For although, as Moses teaches, each act of creation had its proper order;—the making the firmament solid, the laying bare of the dry land, the gathering together of the sea, the ordering of the stars, the generation by the waters and the earth when they brought forth living creatures out of themselves; yet the creation of the heaven and earth and other elements is not separated by the slightest interval in God’s working, since their preparation had been completed in like infinity of eternity in the counsel of God.
41. Thus, though Christ was present in God with these infinite and eternal decrees, He has granted to us nothing more than a knowledge of the fact of His birth; in order that, just as an apprehension of the birth is the means which leads to faith in God, so also the knowledge of the eternity of His birth might avail to sustain piety; since neither reason nor experience allow us to speak of any but an eternal Son as proceeding from a Father Who is eternal.
43. Or perhaps you wish the assertion that
He was created for the works to be understood in the sense that He was
created on account of the works; in other words that Christ was created
for the sake of performing the works. In that case He exists as a
servant and a builder of the universe, and was not born the Lord of
Glory; He was created for the service of forming the ages, and was not
always the beloved Son and the King of the ages. But, although
the general understanding of Christians contradicts this impious
thought of yours, recognising that it is one thing to be created for
the beginning of the ways of God and for His works, and another to be
born before the ages, yet this very same passage thwarts your purpose
of falsely asserting that the Lord Christ was created, on account of
the formation of the universe, since it shews that God the Father is
the Maker and Former of the universe, and shews it convincingly, since
Christ Himself was present fashioning by the side of Him Who was
forming all things. But, while all Scripture was designed to
speak of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Creator of the universe, Wisdom,
to destroy all occasion for impiety, has here declared that though God
the Father was the Constructor of the universe, yet itself was not
absent from Him while constructing it, since it was present with Him
even when He was preparing it beforehand, and that when the Father
formed the universe, Wisdom also was fashioning it by the side of Him
Who formed it, and was present with Him even when He prepared it.
Whence Wisdom would have us understand that it was not created on
account of God’s works Reading
per id ipsum ea neque propter opera.
44. Learn at last, heretic, from the
revelation of Catholic teaching, what is the meaning of the saying that
Christ was created for the beginning of the ways of God and for His
works; and be taught by the words of Wisdom itself the folly of your
impious dulness. For thus it begins: If I shall declare
unto you the things which are done every day, I will remember to
recount those things which are from of old
45. We must also enquire what is the meaning
of the saying that God, born before the ages, was again created for the
beginning of the ways of God and for His works. This surely is
said because where there is a birth before the commencement of the
ages, there is the eternity of an endless generation: but where
the same birth is represented as a creation from the commencement of
the ages, for the ways of God and for His works, it is applied as the
creative cause to the works and to the ways. And first, since
Christ is Wisdom, we must see whether He is Himself the beginning of
the way of the works of God. Of this, I think, there is no doubt;
for He says, I am the way, and, No man cometh to the Father
except through Me St.
46. And so let us see for what ways of God, and for what works of God, Wisdom was created from the commencement of the ages, though born of God before all ages. Adam heard the voice of One walking in Paradise. Do you think that His approach could have been heard, had He not assumed the guise of a created being? Is not the fact, that He was heard as He walked, proof that He was present in a created form? I do not ask in what guise He spoke to Cain and Abel and Noah, and in what guise He was near to Enoch also, blessing him. An Angel speaks to Hagar, and certainly He is also God. Has He the same form, when He appears like an Angel, as He has in that nature, by virtue of which He is God? Certainly the form of an Angel is revealed, where afterwards mention is made of the nature of God. But why should I speak of an Angel? He comes as a man to Abraham. Under the guise of a man, in the shape of that created being, is not Christ present in that nature, which He possesses as being also God? A man speaks, and is present in the body, and is nourished by food; and yet God is adored. Surely He Who was an Angel is now also man, in order to save us from the assumption that any of these diverse aspects of one state, that of the creature, is His natural form as God. Again, He comes to Jacob in human shape, and even grasps him for wrestling; and He takes hold with His hands, and struggles with His limbs, and bends His flanks, and adopts every movement and gesture of ours. But again He is revealed, this time to Moses, and as a fire; in order that you might learn to believe that this created nature was to provide Him with an outward guise, not to embody the reality of His nature. He possessed, at that moment, the power of burning, but He did not assume the destructive property which is inherent in the nature of fire, for the fire evidently burned and yet the bush was not injured.
47. Glance over the whole course of time,
and realise in what guise He appeared to Joshua the son of Nun, a
prophet bearing His name, or to Isaiah, who relates that he saw Him, as
the Gospel also bears witness St.
48. But that blessed and true birth of the
flesh conceived within the Virgin the Apostle has named both a creating
and a making, for then there was born both the nature and form of our
created being. And without doubt in his view this name belongs to
Christ’s true birth as a man, since he says, But when the
fulness of the time came, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under
the law, in order that He might redeem those who are under the law,
that we might obtain the adoption of sons
49. If, then, Wisdom, in saying that it was mindful of the things which have been performed since the beginning of the ages, said that it was created for the works of God and for the ways of God; and yet, while saying that it was created, taught that it was established before the ages, lest we should suppose that the mystery of that created form, so variously and frequently assumed, involved some change in its nature;—for although the firmness with which it was established would not allow of any disturbance that could overthrow it, yet, lest the establishment might seem to mean something less than birth, Wisdom declared itself to be begotten before all things:—if this is so, why is the term ‘creation’ now applied to the birth of that which was both begotten before all things, and also established before the ages? Because that which was established before the ages was created anew from the commencement of the ages for the beginning of the ways of God and for His works. In this sense must we understand the difference between creation from the commencement of the ages and that birth which precedes the ages and all things. Impiety at least has not this excuse, that it can plead error as the cause of its profanity.
50. For although the weakness of the
understanding might hinder the perceptions of a man devoutly disposed,
so that, even after this explanation, he might fail to grasp the
meaning of “creation,” nevertheless, even the letter of the
Apostle’s saying, when he applies Deputantis,
conj. edd. Benedict.
51. But none of these phrases does a firm
52. For my part, so long as I shall have the power by means of this Spirit Whom Thou hast granted me, Holy Father, Almighty God, I will confess Thee to be not only eternally God, but also eternally Father. Nor will I ever break out into such folly and impiety, as to make myself the judge of Thy omnipotence and Thy mysteries, nor shall this weak understanding arrogantly seek for more than that devout belief in Thy infinitude and faith in Thy eternity, which have been taught me. I will not assert that Thou wast ever without Thy Wisdom, and Thy Power, and Thy Word, without God Only-begotten, my Lord Jesus Christ. The weak and imperfect language, to which our nature is limited, does not dominate my thoughts concerning Thee, so that my poverty of utterance should choke faith into silence. For although we have a word and wisdom and power of our own, the product of our free inward activity, yet Thine is the absolute generation of perfect God, Who is Thy Word and Wisdom and Power; so that He can never be separated from Thee, Who in these names of Thy eternal properties is shewn to be born of Thee. Yet His birth is only so far shewn as to make manifest the fact that Thou art the Source of His being; yet sufficiently to confirm our belief in His infinity, inasmuch as it is related that He was born before times eternal.
53. For in human affairs Thou hast set before us many things of such a sort, that though we do not know their cause, yet the effect is not unknown; and reverence inculcates faith, where ignorance is inherent in our nature. Thus when I raised to Thy heaven these feeble eyes of mine, my certainty regarding it was limited to the fact that it is Thine. For seeing therein these orbits where the stars are fixed, and their annual revolutions, and the Pleiades and the Great Bear and the Morning Star, each having their varied duties in the service which is appointed them, I recognise Thy presence, O God, in these things whereof I cannot gain any clear understanding. And when I view the marvellous swellings of Thy sea, I know that I have failed to comprehend not merely the origin of the waters but even the movements of this changeful expanse; yet I grasp at faith in some reasonable cause, although it is one that I cannot see, and fail not to recognise Thee in these things also, which I do not know. Furthermore, when in thought I turn to the earth, which by the power of hidden agencies causes to decay all the seeds which it receives, quickens them when decayed, multiplies them when quickened, and makes them strong when multiplied; in all these changes I find nothing which my mind can understand, yet my ignorance helps towards recognising Thee, for though I know nothing of the nature that waits on me, I recognise Thee by actual experience of the advantages I possess. Moreover, though I do not know myself, yet I perceive so much that I marvel at Thee the more because I am ignorant of myself. For without understanding it, I perceive a certain motion or order or life in my mind when it exercises its powers; and this very perception I owe to Thee, for though Thou deniest the power of understanding my natural first beginning, yet Thou givest that of perceiving nature with its charms. And since in what concerns myself I recognise Thee, ignorant as I am, so recognising Thee I will not in what concerns Thee cherish a feebler faith in Thy omnipotence, because I do not understand. My thoughts shall not attempt to grasp and master the origin of Thy Only-begotten Son, nor shall my faculties strain to reach beyond the truth that He is my Creator and my God.
54. His birth is before times eternal. If
anything exist which precedes eternity, it will be something which,
when eternity is comprehended, still eludes comprehension. And
this something is Thine, and is Thy Only-begotten;
55. But, for my part, I cannot be content by the service of my faith and voice, to deny that my Lord and my God, Thy Only-begotten, Jesus Christ, is a creature; I must also deny that this name of ‘creature’ belongs to Thy Holy Spirit, seeing that He proceeds from Thee and is sent through Him, so great is my reverence for everything that is Thine. Nor, because I know that Thou alone art unborn and that the Only-begotten is born of Thee, will I refuse to say that the Holy Spirit was begotten, or assert that He was ever created. I fear the blasphemies which would be insinuated against Thee by such use of this title ‘creature,’ which I share with the other beings brought into being by Thee. Thy Holy Spirit, as the Apostle says, searches and knows Thy deep things, and as Intercessor for me speaks to Thee words I could not utter; and shall I express or rather dishonour, by the title ‘creature,’ the power of His nature, which subsists eternally, derived from Thee through Thine Only-begotten? Nothing, except what belongs to Thee, penetrates into Thee; nor can the agency of a power foreign and strange to Thee measure the depth of Thy boundless majesty. To Thee belongs whatever enters into Thee; nor is anything strange to Thee, which dwells in Thee through its searching power.
56. But I cannot describe Him, Whose pleas
for me I cannot describe. As in the revelation that Thy
Only-begotten was born of Thee before times eternal, when we cease to
struggle with ambiguities of language and difficulties of thought, the
one certainty of His birth remains; so I hold fast in my consciousness
the truth that Thy Holy Spirit is from Thee and through Him, although I
cannot by my intellect comprehend it. For in Thy spiritual things
I am dull, as Thy Only-begotten says, Marvel not that I said unto
thee, ye must be born anew. The Spirit breathes where it will,
and thou hearest the voice of it; but dost not know whence it comes or
whither it goes. So is every one who is born of water and of the
Holy Spirit St.
57. Keep, I pray Thee, this my pious faith
undefiled, and even till my spirit departs, grant that this may be the
utterance of my convictions: so that I may ever hold fast that
which I professed in the creed of my regeneration, when I was baptized
in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Let me, in
short, adore Thee our Father, and Thy Son together with Thee; let me
win the favour of Thy Holy Spirit, Who is from Thee, through Thy
Only-begotten. For I have a convincing Witness to my faith, Who
says, Father, all Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine St.
Introduction to the Homilies on Psalms I., LIII., CXXX.
————————————
Some account of St.
Hilary’s Homilies on the Psalms has already been given in
the Introduction to this volume, pp. xl.–xlv. A few words
remain to be said concerning his principle of exposition. This
may be gathered from his own statement in the fifth sections of the
Instructio Psalmorum, the discourse preliminary to the
Homilies:—‘There is no doubt that the language of the
Psalms must be interpreted by the light of the teaching of the
Gospel. Thus, whoever he be by whose mouth the Spirit of prophecy
has spoken, the whole purpose of his words is our instruction
concerning the glory and power of the coming, the Incarnation, the
Passion, the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our
resurrection. Moreover, all the prophecies are shut and sealed to
worldly sense and pagan wisdom, as Isaiah says, And all these words
shall be unto you as the sayings of this book which is
sealed
————————————
Psalm I.
The primary condition of
knowledge for reading the Psalms is the ability to see as whose
mouthpiece we are to regard the Psalmist as speaking, and who it is
that he addresses. For they are not all of the same uniform
character, but of different authorship and different types. For
we constantly find that the Person of God the Father is being set
before us, as in that passage of the eighty-eighth Psalm: I
have exalted one chosen out of My people, I have found David My
servant, with My holy oil have I anointed him. He shall call Me,
Thou art my Father and the upholder of my salvation. And I will
make him My first-born, higher than the kings of the earth
2. And as he says this we must enquire concerning what man we are to understand him to be speaking. He says: Happy is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly nor stood in the way of sinners, and hath not sat in the seat of pestilence. But his will hath been in the Law of the Lord, and in His Law will he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rills of water, that will yield its fruit in its own season. His leaf also shall not wither, and all things, whatsoever he shall do, shall prosper. I have discovered, either from personal conversation or from their letters and writings, that the opinion of many men about this Psalm is, that we ought to understand it to be a description of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that it is His happiness which is extolled in the verses following. But this interpretation is wrong both in method and reasoning, though doubtless it is inspired by a pious tendency of thought, since the whole of the Psalter is to be referred to Him: the time and place in His life to which this passage refers must be ascertained by the sound method of knowledge guided by reason.
3. Now the words which stand at the
beginning of the Psalm are quite unsuited to the Person and Dignity of
the Son, while the whole contents are in themselves a condemnation of
the careless haste that would use them to extol Him. For when it
is said, and his will hath been in the Law of the Lord, how
(seeing that the Law was given by the Son of God) can a happiness which
depends on his will being in the Law of the Lord be attributed to Him
Who is Himself Lord of the Law? That the Law is His He Himself
declares in the seventy-seventh Psalm, where He says: Hear My
Law, O My people: incline your ears unto the words of My
mouth. I will open My mouth in a parable St.
4. And so, since these words are understood to be inapplicable to the divinity of the Only-begotten Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, we must suppose him, who is here extolled as happy by the Prophet, to be the man who strives to conform himself to that body which the Lord assumed and in which He was born as man, by zeal for justice and perfect fulfilment of all righteousness. That this is the necessary interpretation will be shewn as the exposition of the Psalm proceeds.
5. The Holy Spirit made choice of this
magnificent and noble introduction to the Psalter, in order to stir up
weak man to a pure zeal for piety by the hope of happiness, to teach
him the mystery of the Incarnate God, to promise him participation in
heavenly glory, to declare the penalty of the Judgment, to proclaim the
two-fold resurrection, to shew forth the counsel of God as seen in His
award. It is indeed after a faultless and mature design that He
has laid the foundation of this great prophecy i.e. the
Psalter.
But let us now deal with the subject matter and the words which express it.
6. Happy is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly nor stood in the way of sinners, and hath not sat in the seat of pestilence. But his will hath been in the Law of the Lord, and in His Law will he meditate day and night.
The Prophet recites five kinds of caution as
continually present in the mind of the happy man: the first, not
to walk in the counsel of the ungodly, the second, not to stand in the
way of sinners, the third, not to sit in the seat of pestilence, next,
to set his will in the Law of the Lord, and lastly, to meditate therein
by day and by night. There must, therefore, be a distinction
between the ungodly and the sinner, between the sinner and the
pestilent; chiefly because here the ungodly has a counsel, the sinner a
way, the pestilent a seat, and again, because the question is of
walking, not standing, in the counsel of the ungodly; of standing, not
walking, in the way of the sinner. Now if we would understand the
reason of these facts, we must note the precise difference between the
sinner and the undutiful
Impius, which is elsewhere in the Homily translated
ungodly, is here rendered undutiful, in order to preserve
to some extent the sense of undutiful towards parents in which
Hilary, with true Roman appreciation of the patria potestas,
uses it in this passage.
Not every man that is a sinner is also undutiful: but the undutiful man cannot fail to be a sinner. Let us take an instance from general experience. Sons, though they be drunken and profligate and spendthrift, can yet love their fathers; and with all these vices, and, therefore, not free from guilt, may yet be free from undutifulness. But the undutiful, though they may be models of continence and frugality, are, by the mere fact of despising the parent, worse transgressors than if they were guilty of every sin that lies outside the category of undutifulness.
Thus, all the counsel of these men is wavering, unsteady, and vague, and wanders about in the same familiar paths and over the same familiar ground, never finding a resting-place, for it fails to reach any definite decision. They have never in their system risen to the doctrine of a Creator of the world, for instead of answering our questions as to the cause, beginning, and duration of the world, whether the world is for man, or man for the world, the reason of death, its extent and nature, they press in ceaseless motion round the circle of this godless argument and find no rest in these imaginings.
8. There are, besides, other counsels of the ungodly, i.e., of those who have fallen into heresy, unrestrained by the laws of either the New Testament or the Old. Their reasoning ever takes the course of a vicious circle; without grasp or foothold to stay them they tread their interminable round of endless indecision. Their ungodliness consists in measuring God, not by His own revelation, but by a standard of their choosing; they forget that it is as godless to make a God as to deny Him; if you ask them what effect these opinions have on their faith and hope, they are perplexed and confused, they wander from the point and wilfully avoid the real issue of the debate. Happy is the man then who hath not walked in this kind of counsel of the ungodly, nay, who has not even entertained the wish to walk therein, for it is a sin even to think for a moment of things that are ungodly.
9. The next condition is, that the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly shall not stand in the way of sinners. For there are many whose confession concerning God, while it acquits them of ungodliness, yet does not set them free from sin; those, for example, who abide in the Church but do not observe her laws; such are the greedy, the drunken, the brawlers, the wanton, the proud, hypocrites, liars, plunderers. No doubt we are urged towards these sins by the promptings of our natural instincts; but it is good for us to withdraw from the path into which we are being hurried and not to stand therein, seeing that we are offered so easy a way of escape. It is for this reason that the man who has not stood in the way of sinners is happy, for while nature carries him into that way, religious belief draws him back.
10. Now the third condition for gaining
happiness is not to sit in the seat of pestilence. The Pharisees
sat as teachers in Moses’ seat, and Pilate sat in the seat of
judgment: of what seat then are we to consider the occupation
pestilential? Not surely of that of Moses, for it is the
occupants of the seat and not the occupation of it that the Lord
condemns when He says: The Scribes and Pharisees sit on
Moses’ seat; whatsoever they bid you do, that do; but do not ye
after their work St.
But although they bring to the discharge of their duties a religious intention, as is shewn by their merciful and upright demeanour, still they cannot escape a certain contagious infection arising from the business in which their life is spent. For the conduct of civil cases does not suffer them to be true to the holy principles of the Church’s law, even though they wish it. And without abandoning their pious purpose they are compelled, against their will, by the necessary conditions of the seat they have won, to use, at one time invective, at another, insult, at another, punishment; and their very position makes them authors as well as victims of the necessity which constrains them, their system being as it were impregnated with the infection. Hence this title, the seat of pestilence, by which the Prophet describes their seat, because by its infection it poisons the very will of the religiously minded.
11. But the fact that he has not walked in the
counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the
seat of pestilence, does not constitute the perfection of the
man’s happiness. For the belief that one God is the Creator
of the world, the avoidance of sin by the pursuit of unassuming
goodness, the preference of the tranquil leisure of private life to the
grandeur of public position—all this may be found even in a
pagan. But here
12. But then sometimes the will needs
supplementing; and the mere desire for perfect happiness does not win
it, unless performance wait upon intention. The Psalm, you
remember, goes on: And in His Law will he meditate day and
night. The man achieves the perfection of happiness by
unbroken and unwearied meditation in the Law. Now it may be
objected that this is impossible owing to the conditions of human
infirmity, which require time for repose, for sleep, for food: so
that our bodily circumstances preclude us from the hope of attaining
happiness, inasmuch as we are distracted by the interruption of our
bodily needs from our meditation by day and night. Parallel to
this passage are the words of the Apostle, Pray without
ceasing
13. But now that the man has found perfect happiness by keeping aloof from the counsel of the ungodly and the way of sinners and the seat of pestilence, and by gladly meditating in the Law of God by day and by night, we are next to be shewn the rich fruit that this happiness he has won will yield him. Now the anticipation of happiness contains the germ of future happiness. For the next verse runs: And he shall be like a tree planted beside the rills of water, which shall yield its fruit in its own season, whose leaf also shall not fall off. This may perhaps be deemed an absurd and inappropriate comparison, in which are extolled a planted tree, rills of water, the yielding of fruit, its own time, and the leaf that falls not. All this may appear trivial enough to the judgment of the world. But let us examine the teaching of the Prophet and see the beauty that lies in the objects and words used to illustrate happiness.
14. In the book of Genesis St. St. St.
15. That happy man, then, will become like
unto this tree when he shall be transplanted, as the thief was, into
the garden and set to grow beside the rills of water: and his
planting will be that happy new planting which cannot be uprooted, to
which the Lord refers in the Gospels when He curses the other kind of
planting and says: Every planting that My Father hath not
planted shall be rooted up St.
This man then will be happy like that tree, when at length he stands surrounded by the glory of God, being made like unto the Lord.
16. But the leaf of this tree shall not
fall off. There is no ground for wonder that its leaves do
not fall off, seeing that its fruits will not drop to the ground,
either because they are forced off by ripeness, or shaken off by
external violence, but it will yield them, distributing them by an act
of reasoned service. Now the spiritual significance of the leaves
is made clear by a comparison based upon material objects. We see
that leaves are made to sprout round the fruits about which they
cluster, for the express purpose of protecting them, and of forming a
kind of fence to the young and tender shoots. What the leaves
signify, then, is the teaching of God’s words in which the
promised fruits are clothed. For it is these words that kindly
shade our hopes, that shield and protect them from the rough winds of
this world. These leaves, then, that is the words of God, shall
not fall: for the Lord Himself has said: Heaven and
earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away St.
17. Now that the leaves of the tree we speak
of are not valueless but are a source of health to the nations is
testified by St. John in the Apocalypse, where he says: And He
shewed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal, proceeding out
of the throne of God and of the Lamb; in the midst of the street of it
and on either side of the river the tree of life, bearing twelve manner
of fruits, yielding its fruit every month: and the leaves of the
tree are for the healing the nations
Bodily manifestations so reveal the mysteries of heaven that, although matter by itself cannot convey the full spiritual meaning, yet to regard them only in their material aspect is to mutilate them. We should have expected to hear that there were trees, not one tree, standing on either side of the river shewn to the saint. But because the tree of Life in the sacrament of Baptism is in every case one, supplying to those that come to it on every side the fruits of the apostolic message, so there stands on either side of the river one tree of Life. There is one Lamb seen amid the throne of God, and one river, and one tree of Life: three figures wherein are comprised the mysteries of the Incarnation, Baptism and Passion, whose leaves, that is to say, the words of the Gospel, bring healing to the nations through the teaching of a message that cannot fall to the ground.
18. And all things whatsoever he doeth
shall prosper. Never again shall His gift and His statutes be
set at naught, as they were in the case of Adam, who by his sin in
breaking the
19. The next point after the prophet had set
forth the man’s perfect happiness was for him to declare what
punishment remained for the ungodly. Thus there ensues:
The ungodly are not so, but are like the dust which the wind driveth
away from the face of the earth. The ungodly have no possible
hope of having the image of the happy tree applied to them; the only
lot that awaits them is one of wandering and winnowing, crushing,
dispersion and unrest; shaken out of the solid framework of their
bodily condition, they must be swept away to punishment in dust, a
plaything of the wind. They shall not be dissolved into nothing,
for punishment must find in them some stuff to work on, but ground into
particles, imponderable, unsubstantial, dry, they shall be tossed to
and fro, and make sport for the punishment that gives them never
rest. Their punishment is recorded by the same Prophet in another
place where he says: I will beat them small as the dust before
the wind, like the mire of the streets I will destroy them
Thus as there is an appointed type for happiness, so is there one for punishment. For as it is no hard task for the wind to scatter the dust, and as men who walk through the mud of the streets are hardly aware that they have been treading on it, so it is easy for the punishment of hell to destroy and disperse the ungodly, the logical result of whose sins is to melt them into mud and crush them into dust, reft of all solid substance, for dust and mud they are, and being merely mud and dust are good for nothing else than punishment.
20. And the Prophet, seeing that the change
of their solid substance into dust will deprive them of all share in
the boon of fruit to be bestowed upon the happy man in season by the
tree, has accordingly added: Therefore the ungodly shall not
rise again in the Judgment. The fact that they shall not rise
again does not convey sentence of annihilation upon these men, for
indeed they will exist as dust; it is the resurrection to Judgment that
is denied them. Non-existence will not enable them to miss the
pain of punishment; for while that which will be non-existent would
escape punishment, they, on the other hand, will exist to be punished,
for they will be dust. Now to become dust, whether by being dried
to dust or ground to dust, involves not loss of the state of existence,
but a change of state. But the fact that they will not rise again
to Judgment makes it clear that they have lost, not the power to rise,
but the privilege of rising to Judgment. Now what we are to
understand by the privilege of rising again and being judged is
declared by the Lord in the Gospels where He says: He that
believeth on Me is not judged: he that believeth not hath been
judged already. And this is the judgment, that the light is come
into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the
light St.
21. The terms of this utterance of the Lord are disturbing to inattentive hearers and careless, hasty readers. For by saying: He that believeth on Me shall not be judged, He exempts believers, and by adding: But he that believeth not hath been judged already, He excludes unbelievers, from judgment. If, then, He has thus exempted believers and debarred unbelievers, allowing the chance of judgment neither to one class nor the other, how can He be considered consistent when he adds thirdly: And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light? For there can apparently be no place left for judgment, since neither believers nor unbelievers are to be judged. Such no doubt will be the conclusion drawn by inattentive hearers and hasty readers. The utterance, however, has an appropriate meaning and a rational interpretation of its own.
22. He that believes, says Christ, is not
judged. And is there any need to judge a believer? Judgment
arises out of ambiguity, and where ambiguity ceases, there is no call
for trial and judgment. Hence not even unbelievers need be
judged, because there is no doubt about their being unbelievers; but
after exempting believers and unbelievers alike from judgment, the Lord
added a case for judgment and human agents upon whom it must be
These, then, are they whom the judgment awaits which unbelievers have already had passed upon them and believers do not need: because they have loved darkness more than light; not that they did not love the light too, but because their love of darkness is the more active. For when two loves are matched in rivalry, one always wins the preference; and their judgment arises from the fact that, though they loved Christ, they yet loved darkness more. These then will be judged; they are neither exempted from judgment like the godly, nor have they already been judged like the ungodly; but judgment awaits them for the love which they have deliberately preferred.
23. It is precisely the scheme and system
thus laid down in the Gospel that the Prophet has followed, when he
says: Therefore the ungodly shall not rise again in the
Judgement, nor sinners in the counsel of the righteous. He
leaves no judgment for the ungodly, because they have been judged
already; on the other hand, he has refused to sinners, who as we shewed
in our former discourse This proves that
the Homily in its original form consisted of two parts.
24. The source of this distinction lies in
the following words: For the Lord knoweth the way of the
righteous, but the way of the ungodly shall perish. Sinners
do not come near the counsel of the righteous for this reason, that the
Lord knows the way of the righteous. Now He knows, not by an
advance from ignorance to knowledge, but because He condescends to
know. For there is no play of human emotions in God that He
should know or not know anything. The blessed Apostle Paul
declared how we were known of God when he said: If any man
among you is a prophet or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the
things which I write unto you, that they are of the Lord: but if
any man does not know, he is not known
Thus he shews that those are known of God who know the things of God: they are to come to be known when they know, that is, when they attain to the honour of being known through the merit of their known godliness, in order that the knowledge may be seen to be a growth on the part of him who is known, and not a growth on the part of one who knows not.
Now God shews clearly in the cases of Adam and
Abraham that He does not know sinners, but does know believers.
For it was said to Adam when he had sinned: Adam, where art
thou
God certainly was not ignorant of the faith of Abraham,
which He had already reckoned to him for righteousness when he believed
about the birth of Isaac: but now because he had given a signal
instance of his fear in offering his son, he is at last known,
approved, rendered worthy of being not unknown. It is
————————————
Psalm LIII. (LIV.).
For the end among the hymns, of the meaning of David when the Ziphims came and said to Saul: behold, is not David hid with us?
Save me, O God, by Thy name, and judge me by Thy power. Hear my prayer, O God; give ear unto the words of my mouth, and so on.
1. The doctrines of the Gospel were well
known to holy and blessed David in his capacity of Prophet, and
although it was under the Law that he lived his bodily life, he yet
filled, as far as in him lay, the requirements of the Apostolic behest
and justified the witness borne to him by God in the words: I
have found a man after My own heart, David, the son of
Jesse St.
2. Now to this Psalm is prefixed a title arising out of an historical event; but before the event is described we are instructed as to the scope, time and application of the incidents underlying it. First we have: For the end of the meaning of that David. Then there follows: When the Ziphims came and said to Saul: behold, is not David hid with us? Thus David’s betrayal by the Ziphims awaits for its interpretation the end. This shews that what was actually being done to David contained a type of something yet to come; an innocent man is harassed by railing, a prophet is mocked by reviling words, one approved by God is demanded for execution, a king is betrayed to his foe. So the Lord was betrayed to Herod and Pilate by those very men in whose hands He ought to have been safe. The Psalm then awaits the end for its interpretation, and finds its meaning in the true David, in Whom is the end of the Law, that David who holds the keys and opens with them the gate of knowledge, in fulfilling the things foretold of Him by David.
3. The meaning of the proper name, according
to the exact sense of the Hebrew, affords us no small assistance in
interpreting the passage. Ziphims mean what we call
sprinklings of the face; these were called in Hebrew
Ziphims. Now, by the Law, sprinkling was a cleansing from
sins; it purified the people through faith by the sprinkling of blood,
of which this same blessed David thus speaks: Thou shalt
sprinkle me with hyssop and I shall be cleansed
4. Save me, O God, by Thy Name, and judge me by Thy power. Hear my prayer, O God; give ear unto the words of my mouth.
5. And because the whole of this passage is
the utterance of One in the form of a servant—of a servant
obedient unto the death of the Cross—which He took upon Him and
for which He supplicates the saving help of the Name that belongs to
God, and being sure of salvation by that Name, He immediately
adds: and judge Me by Thy power. For now as the
reward for His humility in emptying Himself and assuming the form of a
servant, in the same humility in which He had assumed it, He was asking
to resume the form which He shared with God, having saved to bear the
Name of God that humanity in which as God He had obediently
condescended to be born. And in order to teach us that the
dignity of this Name whereby He prayed to be saved is something more
than an empty title, He prays to be judged by the power of God.
For a right award is the essential result of judgment, as the Scripture
says: Becoming obedient unto death
6. Next there follows: Hear my
prayer, O God, give ear unto the words of my mouth. The
obvious thing for the Prophet to say was, O God, hear me.
But because he is speaking as the mouthpiece of Him, Who alone knew how
to pray, we are given a constantly reiterated demand that prayer shall
be heard. The words of St. Paul teach us that no man knows how he
ought to pray: For we know not how to pray as we
ought
7. He has next added the reason why He prays
for His words to be heard: For strangers are risen up against
Me and violent men have sought after My soul; they have not set God
before their eyes. The Only-begotten Son of God, the Word of
God and God the Word—although assuredly He could Himself do all
things that the Father could, as He says: What things soever
the Father doeth, the Son also doeth in like manner St.
8. Now they were strangers that rose up against Him. For these are no sons of Abraham, nor sons of God, but a brood of vipers, servants of sin, a Canaanitish seed, their father an Amorite and their mother a daughter of Heth, inheriting diabolical desires from the devil their parent. Further it is the violent that seek after His soul; such as was Herod when he asked the chief priests where Christ should be born, such as was the whole synagogue when it bore false witness against Him. But in deeming this soul to be of human nature and weakness they set not God before their eyes; for God had stooped from that estate wherein He abode as God, even to the beginnings of human birth; that is, He became Son of Man Who before was the Son of God. For the Son of God is none other than He Who is Son of Man, and Son of Man not in partial measure but born so, the Form of God divesting Itself of that which It was and becoming that which It was not, that so It might be born into a soul and body of Its own. Hence He is both Son of God and Son of Man, hence both God and Man: in other words the Son of God was born with the attributes derived from human birth, the Nature of God condescending to assume the nature of one born as man who is wholly moulded of soul and flesh. Wherefore strangers, when they rise up against Him, and the mighty, when they seek after that soul of His, which in the Gospels is often sad and cast down, set not God before their eyes, because God it was, and the Son of God existing from out the ages, that was born with the attributes of human nature, was born as man, that is, with our body and our soul, by a virgin birth; the mighty and glorious works He wrought never opened their eyes to the fact that the Son of Man Whose soul they were seeking had come to be man with a beginning of life after an eternal existence as Son of God.
9. The introduction of a pause
Diapsalmus, see Suicer, s.v. and Dict. of Bible,
Selah.
10. Let pure religion, therefore, have this confidence, and doubt not that amid the persecutions at the hand of man and the dangers to the soul, it still has God for its helper, knowing that, if at length it comes to a violent and unjust death, the soul on leaving the tabernacle of the body finds rest with God its upholder; let it have, moreover, perfect assurance of requital in the thought that all evil deeds return upon the heads of those that work them. God cannot be charged with injustice, and perfect goodness is unstained by the impulses and motions of an evil will. He does not awaken mischief out of malice, but requites it in vengeance; He does not inflict it because He wishes us ill, but He aims it against our sins. For these evils are universally appointed as instruments of retribution without destruction of life, such being the sternly just ordinance of that righteous judgment. But these evils are warded off from the righteous by the law of righteousness, and are turned back upon the unrighteous by the righteousness of that judgment. Each proceeding is equally just; for the righteous, because they are righteous, the warning exhibition of evil without actual infliction; for the wicked, because they so deserve, the punitive infliction of evil; the righteous will not suffer it, though it is displayed to them; the wicked will never cease to suffer it, because it is displayed to them.
11. After this there is a return to the
Person of God, to Whom the petition was at the first addressed:
Destroy them by Thy truth. Truth confounds falsehood, and
lying is destroyed by truth. We have shewn that the whole of the
foregoing prayer is the utterance of that human nature in which the Son
of God was born; so here it is the voice of human nature calling upon
God the Father to destroy His enemies in His truth. What this
truth is, stands beyond doubt; it is of course He Who said: I
am the Life, the Way, the Truth St.
12. Now in view of our repeated, nay our unbroken assertion both that it was the Only-begotten Son of God Who was uplifted on the cross, and that He was condemned to death Who is eternal by virtue of the origin which is His by the nature which He derives from the eternal Father, it must be clearly understood that He was subjected to suffering of no natural necessity, but to accomplish the mystery of man’s salvation; that He submitted to suffering of His own Will, and not under compulsion. And although this suffering did not belong to His nature as eternal Son, the immutability of God being proof against the assault of any derogatory disturbance, yet it was freely undertaken, and was intended to fulfil a penal function without, however, inflicting the pain of penalty upon the sufferer: not that the suffering in question was not of a kind to cause pain, but because the divine Nature feels no pain. God suffered, then, by voluntarily submitting to suffering; but although He underwent the sufferings in all the fulness of their force, which necessarily causes pain to the sufferers, yet He never so abandoned the powers of His Nature as to feel pain.
13. For next there follows: I will
sacrifice unto Thee freely. The sacrifices of the Law, which
consisted of whole burnt-offerings and oblations of goats and of bulls,
did not involve an expression of free will, because the sentence of a
curse was pronounced on all who broke the Law. Whoever failed to
sacrifice laid himself open to the curse. And it was always
necessary to go through the whole sacrificial action because the
addition of a curse to the commandment forbad any trifling with the
obligation of offering. It was from this curse that our Lord
Jesus Christ redeemed us, when, as the Apostle says: Christ
redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made curse for us, for it
is written: cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree
14. Then He gives thanks to God the Father
for the accomplishment of all these acts: I will give thanks
unto Thy name, O Lord, for it is good, for Thou hast delivered Me out
of all affliction. He has assigned to each clause its strict
fulfilment. Thus at the beginning He had said: Save Me,
O God, by Thy name; after the prayers had been heard it was right
that there should follow a corresponding ascription of thanks, in order
that confession might be made to His name by Whose name He had prayed
to be saved, and that inasmuch as He had asked for help against the
strangers that rose up against Him, He might set on record that He had
received it in the burst of joy expressed in the words: Thou
hast delivered Me out of all affliction. Then in respect of
the fact that the violent in seeking after His soul did not set God
before their eyes, He has declared His eternal possession of
unchangeable divinity in the words: And Mine eye hath looked
down upon Mine enemies. For the Only-begotten Son of God was
not cut off by death. It is true that in order to take the whole
of our nature upon Him He submitted to death, that is to the apparent
severance of soul and body, and made His way even to the realms below,
the debt which man must manifestly pay: but He rose again and
abides for ever and looks down with an eye that death cannot dim upon
His enemies, being exalted unto the glory of God and born once more Son
of God after becoming Son of Man, as He had been Son of God when He
first became Son of Man, by the glory of His resurrection. He
looks down upon His enemies to whom He once said: Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will build it up St.
————————————
Psalm CXXX. (CXXXI.).
O Lord, my heart is not exalted, neither have mine eyes been lifted up.
1. This Psalm, a short one, which demands an analytical rather than a homiletical treatment, teaches us the lesson of humility and meekness. Now, as we have in a great number of other places spoken about humility, there is no need to repeat the same things here. Of course we are bound to bear in mind in how great need our faith stands of humility when we hear the Prophet thus speaking of it as equivalent to the performance of the highest works: O Lord, my heart is not exalted. For a troubled heart is the noblest sacrifice in the eyes of God. The heart, therefore, must not be lifted up by prosperity, but humbly kept within the bounds of meekness through the fear of God.
2. Neither have Mine eyes been lifted
up. The strict sense of the Greek here conveys a different
meaning; οὐδὲ
ἐμετεωρίσθησαν
οἱ ὀφθαλμοί
μου, that is, have not been lifted up from
one object to look on another. Yet the eyes must be lifted up in
obedience to the Prophet’s words: Lift up your eyes and
see who hath displayed all these things St.
3. Then follows: Neither have I
walked amid great things, nor amid wonderful things that are above
me. It is most dangerous to walk amid mean things, and not to
linger amid wonderful things. God’s utterances are great;
He Himself is wonderful in the highest: how then can the psalmist
pride himself as on a good work for not walking amid great and
wonderful things? It is the addition of the words, which are
above me, that shews that the walking is not amid those things
which men commonly regard as great and wonderful.
4. Let us see what comes next: If I
was not humble-minded but have lifted up my soul. What
inconsistency on the Prophet’s part! He does not lift up
his heart: he does lift up his soul. He does not walk amid
things great and wonderful that are above him; yet his thoughts are not
mean. He is exalted in mind and cast down in heart. He is
humble in his own affairs: but he is not humble in his
thought. For his thought reaches to heaven, his soul is lifted up
on high. But his heart, out of which proceed, according to
the Gospel, evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications,
thefts, false witness, railings St.
5. Then he goes on: Like a weaned child upon his mother’s breast, so wilt thou reward my soul. We are told that when Isaac was weaned Abraham made a feast because now that he was weaned he was on the verge of boyhood and was passing beyond milk food. The Apostle feeds all that are imperfect in the faith and still babes in the things of God with the milk of knowledge. Thus to cease to need milk marks the greatest possible advance. Abraham proclaimed by a joyful feast that his son had come to stronger meat, and the Apostle refuses bread to the carnal-minded and those that are babes in Christ. And so the Prophet prays that God, because he has not lifted up his heart, nor walked amid things great and wonderful that are above him, because he has not been humble-minded but did lift up his soul, may reward his soul, lying like a weaned child upon his mother: that is to say that he may be deemed worthy of the reward of the perfect, heavenly and living bread, on the ground that by reason of his works already recorded he has now passed beyond the stage of milk.
6. But he does not demand this living bread from heaven for himself alone, he encourages all mankind to hope for it by saying: Let Israel hope in the Lord from henceforth and for evermore. He sets no temporal limit to our hope, he bids our faithful expectation stretch out into infinity. We are to hope for ever and ever, winning the hope of future life through the hope of our present life which we have in Christ Jesus our Lord, Who is blessed for ever and ever. Amen.
John of Damascus.
Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.
Translated
by
The Rev. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D., F.E.I.S.,
Principal of the Free Church College, Aberdeen.
————————————
In the difficult task of translating the De Fide Orthodoxa—a task made the more difficult at times by the condition of the text,—I am indebted for much to my son, James L. Salmond, M.A., M.B., formerly of Balliol College, Oxford. There still remain passages of doubtful interpretation. It was intended to furnish a larger body of Notes and also an account of John and his writings. It has been found advisable, however, to complete the volume without these.
S. D. F. Salmond.
Aberdeen, 1 Sept. 1898.
Prologue.
From the Latin of the Edition of Michael Lequien, as Given in Migne’s Patrology.
————————————
After the rules of Christian dialectic and the review of the errors of ancient heresies comes at last the book “Concerning the Orthodox Faith.” In this book, John of Damascus retains the same order as was adopted by Theodoret in his “Epitome of Divine Dogmas,” but takes a different method. For the former, by the sheer weight of his own genius, framed various kinds of arguments against heretics, adducing the testimony of the sacred page, and thus he composed a concise treatise of Theology. Our author, however, did not confine himself to Scripture, but gathered together also the opinions of the holy Fathers, and produced a work marked with equal perspicuity and brevity, and forming an unexhausted storehouse of tradition in which nothing is to be found that has not been either sanctioned by the œcumenical synods or accepted by the approved leaders of the Church.
He followed, indeed, chiefly Gregory of Nazianzus, who, from the great accuracy of his erudition in divine matters, earned the title “The Theologian,” and who has left scarcely any chapter of Christian learning untouched in his surviving works, and is free from any taint or suspicion of the slightest error. John had read his books with such assiduity that he seemed to hold them all in the embrace of his faithful memory. Wherefore throughout this work you may hear not so much John of Damascus as Gregory the Theologian expounding the mysteries of the orthodox faith. John further made use of Basil the great, of Gregory of Nyssa, and especially of Nemesius, bishop of Emesa in Syria, the most beloved of all; likewise of Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great, Leontius of Byzantium, the martyr Maximus: also of Athanasius, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, and, not to mention others, that writer who took the name of Dionysius the Areopagite. Out of all these he culled on every hand the flower of their opinions, and concocted most sweet honey of soundest doctrine. For his aim was, not to strike out views of his own or anything novel, but rather to collect into one single theological work the opinions of the ancients which were scattered through various volumes. And, indeed, in order that the reader may more readily perceive the method of this most careful teacher, we shall carefully note in the margin the names of the authors and of the books from which he copied each separate opinion.
To John of Damascus, therefore, belongs the merit of
being the first to compose a volume packed with the sentences of
catholic teachers. Accordingly his authority among theologians
was always weighty, not only in the East but even in the West and with
the Latins: all the more so after the translation into Latin of
his book “Concerning the Orthodox Faith,” by Burgundio, a
citizen of Pisa, during the Pontificate of Eugenius the Third.
Further it was this translation that was used by that master of
sentences, St. Thomas, and other later theologians, down till the time
when at the beginning of the 16th century Jacobus Faber Stapulensis
attempted to produce a more perfect translation than was the old one
with its uncouth and barbarous diction. But as this one, too, had
many faults, Jacobus Billius, in the course of the same century,
completed a version of greater elegance but yet lacking in carefulness
and brevity. For, as Combefis remarked, “in translating the
Damascene Billius shewed the rawness of a recruit.”
Combefis himself, however, considered the translation of Billy of no
little worth; for when he was toiling at a new edition of the works of
John of Damascus, he did not think it necessary to make a new
translation once more, but was quite content to emend the earlier
one. For he was rightly aware that all the most learned
interpreters of lengthy tomes slip into many errors, and that it is
much easier to improve on the errors of others than to detect
one’s own. Thus our translation will represent that of
Billius purged of its blemishes and restored to a more concise style.
but in order that our edition should go forth in a more accurate shape
than the rest, besides using the older translations and various copies
to the number of twenty or more codices, collated by my own hand, I
have moreover revised the Greek phraseology and diction in those places
of the Greek Fathers which the Damascene has massed together.
Nay, further, omitting both the shorter commentaries of
The customary division among the Latins of the work “Concerning the Orthodox Faith” into four books is found in no Greek codex, nor in the Greek edition of Verona. And, further, that division is not met with in the old manuscripts of the original Latin translation, except as a chance note written in ink by a second and later hand on the margins of some of them. Hence Marcus Hopperus appears to be mistaken in ascribing in the dedicatory epistle of the Græco-Latin edition of Basil the division into four books to the Latin translator: that is, unless I am mistaken, to Faber, whose edition he published. Traces of this, however, exist in the books of St. Thomas Aquinas. I therefore hold that this mode of division was devised and introduced by the Latins in imitation of the four books of “Sentences” of Peter Lombard. Codex Regius n. 3445, and that is a very late one, alone seems to divide the “De Fide Orthodoxa” into two parts, the first, or περὶ τῆς Θεολογίας, dealing indeed with the one triune God, the Creator and Provider, and the second, περὶ τῆς οἰκονομίας, with God Incarnate, the Redeemer and Rewarder. But an objection to this division is the clear connection between chapter 43, in which the Incarnation, or “Œconomia Divina,” is discussed, and the words which immediately precede it in the end of chapter 42, which is entitled “On Prædestination,” making either chapter part of one continuous discussion. This fault cannot be taken to the other division into four parts. But in order not to startle the reader accustomed to the former division with too much novelty, I have, following Hopperus, assigned indeed to the Greek chapters the same numbers as were marked in the Greek codices, but I have not hesitated to divide the Latin translation into four books.
I have come across no edition of the old Latin translation; but the version of Jacobius Faber was issued in Paris by Judocus Clictoveus from the press of Henry Stephen in the year 1512, along with commentaries. Next, in the year 1535, Henry Pet, the printer of Basle, published the existing works of St. John of Damascus, and amongst them the four books “Concerning the Orthodox Faith, as translated by Jacobus Faber of Stapula,” but without any commentary. After some years the same Henry in a second edition added the shorter commentaries of Clictoveus, and again in the edition published in the year 1537. In the preface to these editions there occurs among others the following sentence, “Now for the first time are added the annotations explaining all the difficulties and the hard and lofty passages.” For a truth I know no older edition in which those explanations, such as they are, are given. Further, the author of these is asserted by Henricus Gravius, of the order of Preachers, in his own Latin edition of the works of holy John of Damascus, which he brought out at Cologne from the press of Peter Quentel, in the year 1546, to have been Jacobus Faber, and of a surety indeed in certain places, and in especial where the most holy mystery of the Eucharist is under discussion, the annotations are somewhat frigid in character and do not express with sufficient fulness the catholic faith. And this cannot be said without pain, for the sake of a man whom otherwise I should look up to as worthy of veneration, as almost one of my own house, had he not proved himself a traitor to his ancestral religion or at least somewhat too partial to innovators. As to the edition of our Gravius, learned as he was in both Latin and Greek, he revised the translation, Jacobus Faber’s translation, and compared it with the Greek text and illustrated it with very short scholia, “for the sake of heretics,” as he said in the dedicatory letter to Oswald, especially where they themselves try in vain to shake the doctrine of the Church as stated by the Damascene.
The book “Concerning the Orthodox Faith” Donatus Veronensis caused to be printed at Verona first in Greek only, and presented it to Clement the Seventh in the year 1531. Not till the year 1548 did he produce a version containing both the Greek and Latin, and again in the year 1575. Next, in the year 1577, Jacobus Billy published at Paris his own translation without the Greek text: and it was printed again in that same city in the years 1603 and 1617.
Here it will not be superfluous to call to mind that the great part of the first book, as they say, of the work “Concerning the Orthodox Faith” exists as the sixth volume of the works of Cyril of Alexandria, inscribed in that teacher’s name, a result to be doubtless attributed to the carelessness of some copyist who found these writings of the Damascus along with others of Cyril.
An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.
————————————
Book I.
Chapter I.—That the Deity is incomprehensible, and that we ought not to pry into and meddle with the things which have not been delivered to us by the holy Prophets, and Apostles, and Evangelists.
No one hath seen God at any time; the Only-begotten
Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared
Him St. St.
God, however, did not leave us in absolute
ignorance. For the knowledge of God’s existence has been
implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its
maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine
nature Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 34. Dionys., De div.
nom., c. 1. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 34. Reading ὃπερ δε οὐκ
ἐδυνάμεθα for
ὃπερ δὲ οὖν
ἐδυνάμεθα.
Cod. Reg. 3379 gives καὶ ὃ οὐ
δυνάμεθα.
Chapter II.—Concerning things utterable and things unutterable, and things knowable and thing unknowable.
It is necessary, therefore, that one who wishes to
speak or to hear of God should understand clearly that alike in the
doctrine of Deity and in that of the Incarnation τά τε τῆς
θεολογίας, τά
τε τῆς
οἰκονομίας.
Dionys., De div. nom. c. 1; Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 34 and 37.
We, therefore, both know and confess that God is without
beginning, without end, eternal and everlasting, uncreate,
unchangeable, invariable, simple, uncompound, incorporeal, invisible,
impalpable, uncircumscribed, infinite, incognisable, indefinable,
incomprehensible, good, just, maker of all things created, almighty,
all-ruling, all-surveying, of all overseer, sovereign, judge; and that
God is One, that οὐσία, substance,
being. ὑποστάσεσι,
hypostases, persons. μιᾷ δὲ
συνθέτῳ
ὑποστάσει.
But neither do we know, nor can we tell, what the
essence οὐσία, substance,
being.
Dionys., De div. nom., c. 2. Ibid. c.
1.
Chapter III.—Proof that there is a God.
That there is a God, then, is no matter of doubt
to those who receive the Holy Scriptures, the Old Testament, I mean,
and the New; nor indeed to most of the Greeks. For, as we
said
Supr.c. 1; cf. Greg. Naz., Orat. 34. The readings vary
between ἀγνωσίας and
ἀγνοίας. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 34.
All things, that exist, are either created or
uncreated. If, then, things are created, it follows that they are
also wholly mutable. For things, whose existence originated in
change, must also be subject to change, whether it be that they perish
or that they become other than they are by act of will Reading
προαίρεσιν;
a variant is τροπήν.
Athan., Cont.
Gent.
What is it that gave order to things of heaven and
things of earth, and all those things that move in the air and in the
water, or rather to what was in existence before these, viz., to heaven
and earth and air and the elements of fire and water?
What Various
reading, Who. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 34. The Greek is
τῳ
αὐτομάτῳ, to
the automatic; perhaps = to the accidental, or, to
chance. Or, Whose
was the disposing of them in order? Or,
Whose are the preserving of them, and the keeping of them in
accordance with the principles under which they were first
placed? παρα τὸ
αὐτόματον;
or, quite other than the spontaneous, or,than
chance. Athan., De
Incarn. Verbi, near the beginning. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 34.
Chapter IV.—Concerning the nature of Deity: that it is incomprehensible.
It is plain, then, that there is a God. But
what He is in His essence and nature is absolutely incomprehensible and
unknowable. For it is evident that He is incorporeal Various
reading, It is evident that the divine (τὸ Θεῖον)
is incorporeal. Text ἄτρεπτον.
Most mss. read σεπτόν. So,
too, Greg. Naz., Orat. 34, from which these words are
taken. An old interpretation is ‘venerabile
est.’ But in the opinion of Combefis, Gregory’s text
is corrupt, and ἄτρεπτονshould be
read, which reading is also supported by various authorities, including
three Cod. Reg.: cf. also De Trinit. in
Cyril. σύνθεσις. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 32, 34.
Again, how will it also be maintained Text, σωθήσεται:
various reading, συνθήσεται. Greg. Naz. ut
supr.
But if some say that the body is immaterial, in
the same way as the fifth body The
reference is to the Pythagorean and Aristotelian ideas of the heavens
as being like the body of Deity, something uncorrupt, different from
the four elements, and therefore called a fifth body, or
element (στοιχεῖον). In his Meteor. i. 3, De Cœlo i. 3, &c.,
Aristotle speaks of the Ether as extending from the heaven of the fixed
stars down to the moon, as of a nature specially adapted for circular
motion, as the first element in rank, but as the fifth,
“if we enumerate beginning with the elements directly known by
the senses.…the subsequently so-called πέμπτον
στοιχεῖον,
quinta essentia.” The other elements, he taught, had
the upward motion, or the downward: the earth having the
attribute of heaviness, and its natural place in the world being the
lowest; fire being the light element, and “its place the sphere
next adjoining the sphere of the ether.” See
Ueberweg’s History of Philosophy, Vol. I. p. 167,
Morris’s translation, and the chapter on the De Cœlo in
Grote’s Aristotle, Vol. II. pp. 389, &c. Greg. Naz. ut
supr.
But even this gives no true idea of His essence,
to say that He is unbegotten, and without beginning, changeless and
imperishable, and possessed of such other qualities as we are wont to
ascribe to God and His environment Or, such as
are said to exist in the case of God, or in relation to God. The
Greek is, ὅσα
περὶ Θεοῦ, ἢ
περὶ Θεὸν
εἶναι
λέγεται. Greg. Naz. ut
supr. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 32, 34. The Greek is, οἰκειότερον
δὲ μᾶλλον ἐκ
τῆς ἁπάντων
ἀφαιρέσεως
ποιεῖσθαι
τὸν λόγον.
It may be given thus:—It is more in accordance with the nature
of the case rather to discourse of Him in the way of abstracting from
him all that belongs to us. Dionys., De
Myst. Theolog. Or, above
being; ὑπὲρ
οὐσίαν. Or, above
being; ὑπὲρ
οὐσίαν.
God then is infinite and incomprehensible and all
that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and
incomprehensibility. But all that we can affirm concerning God
does not shew forth God’s nature, but only the qualities of His
nature Or, but only
the things which relate to His nature. The Greek is,
ὅσα δὲ
λέγομεν ἐπὶ
Θεοῦ
καταφαντικῶς,
οὐ τὴν φύσιν,
ἀλλὰ τὰ περὶ
τὴν φύσιν
δηλοῖ. Or, the
things that relate to his nature.
Chapter V.—Proof that God is one and not many.
We have, then, adequately demonstrated that there
is a God, and that His essence is incomprehensible. But that God
is one Various
reading, but that He is one. St.
The Deity is perfect See
Thomas Aquin. I. quæst. 11, Art. 4; also cf. Book
iv., c. 21 beneath. The question of the unity of the Deity is
similarly dealt with by those of the Fathers who wrote against the
Marcionites and the Manichæans, and by Athenagoras. Or,
infinite; ἀπερίγραπτον. Infr. lib. iv.
c. 21.
Again, if there are many Gods, how can one
maintain that God is uncircumscribed? For where the one would be,
the other could not be Greg. Nyss.,
Prol. Catech.
Further, how could the world be governed by many
and saved from dissolution and destruction, while strife is seen to
rage between the rulers? For difference introduces
strife Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 35.
Moreover, it is a natural necessity that duality
should originate in unity Cf.
Dionys., De div. nom., c. 5, 13.
Chapter VI.—Concerning the Word and the Son of God: a reasoned proof.
So then this one and only God is not
Wordless ἄλογον; without Word,
or, without Reason. Greg. Nyss.,
Catech., c. 1. In R. 2427 is
added, ‘Who is the Son.’ διῄρηται,
i.e. distinguished from the Father. Objection is taken to the use
of such a verb as suggestive of division. It is often employed,
however, by Greg. Naz. (e.g. Orat. 34) to express the
distinction of persons. In many passages of Gregory and other
Fathers the noun διαίρεσις is
used to express the distinction of persons. In many passages of
Gregory and other Fathers the noun διαίρεσις is
used to express the distinction of one thing from another: and in
this sense it is opposed both to the Sabellian confusion and the Arian
division. Reading
ὑπόστασιν.
Various reading, ὕπαρξιν,
existence.
Chapter VII.—Concerning the Holy Spirit, a reasoned proof.
Moreover the Word must also possess
Spirit The Greek
theologians, founding on the primary sense of the Greek term
Πνεῦμα, and on certain
passages of Scripture in which the word seemed to retain that sense
more or less (especially Or,
substance; οὐσία. Text, φανεροῦσα:
various reading, φέρουσα (cf.
Cyril, De Trinitate). Greg. Nyss.,
Catech., c. 2. Text, ἀκούσαντες:
variant, ἀκούοντες
(so in Cyril). So Cyril
speaks frequently of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the
Father and being (ειναι) and abiding
(μένειν) in the
Son; as also of the Spirit as being of the Son and having His
nature in Him (ἐξ
αὐτοῦ καὶ
ἐμπεφυκὼς
αὐτῷ). The idea seems to have
been that as the Son is in the bosom of the Father so the Spirit is in
the bosom of the Son. The Spirit was compared again to the
energy, the natural, living energy, of the Son
(ἐνέργεια
φυσικὴ καὶ
ζωσα, τὸ
ἐνεργὲς τοῦ
υἱοῦ), Cyril, Dial 7 ad
Hermiam. Such terms as προβολεὺς
ἐκφαντορικοῦ
πνεύματος,
the Producer, or, Emitter of the revealing Spirit, and
the ἔκφανσις or
ἔλλαμψις, the
revealing, the forth-shewing, were also used to express
the procession of the one eternal Person from the Other as like the
emission or forth-shewing of light from light. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 37, 44. Text, πρὸς
πᾶσαν
πρόθεσιν: variant
θέλησιν in almost all
the codices.
Thus because of the unity in nature, the error of
the Greeks in holding that God is many, is utterly destroyed: and
again by our acceptance of the Word and the Spirit, the dogma of the
Jews is overthrown: and there remains of each party αἵρεσις. Greg.
Orat. 38, and elsewhere. Greg. Nyss.,
Catech., c. 3.
Text, διαμένει:
variant, μένει. Basil, De
Spir. Sancto, ad Amphil. c. 18.
Chapter VIII.—Concerning the Holy Trinity.
We believe, then, in One God, one
beginning Or,
principle, ἀρχήν. Cf.
Or,
penetrating, ἐπιβατεύουσαν. ἀχράντως. ὑπερούσιον. ὑπέρθεον,
ὑπεράγαθον,
ὑπερπλήρη. Greg.
Naz., Orat. 13, n. 32. An argument
much used against the Arians, the Macedonians, and the
Sabellians. See e.g. Athan., ad Serap. Epist. 1 and 2;
Basil, Contra Eunom., bk. iii., and De Spiritu Sancto,
ch. 10, 12; Greg. Naz., Orat. 34. St.
(We believe) in one Father, the beginning Or,
principle, ἀρχήν. προβολέα.
The term προβολή,
rendered prolatio by Tertullian and Hilary, was rejected as
unsuitable to the idea of the Divine procession, e.g. by Athanasius,
who in his Expos. Fidei denies that the Word is
ἀπό&
207·ῥοια, efflux,
or τμῆσις,
segmen, or προβολή,
emissio or prolatio; and by Jerome, Adv. Ruf.,
Apol. 2, his reason being that the word had been used by
Gnostics in speaking of the emanations of Æons, Greg. Naz.,
however, Orat. 13, 35, speaks of the Father as
γεννήτωρ and
προβολεύς,
and of the Spirit as πρόβλημα. Greg.
Naz., Orat. 36. Ibid. The Word
enhypostatic, ὁ
Λόγος
ἐνυπόστατος. The Arians
admitted that the Son is in the Father, in the sense in which
all created things are in God. Basil (De Spiritu
Sancto, ch. 25, Orat. in Princip. evang. Joan.) takes
the preposition σύν, in, to express the idea
of the σύναφεια,
or conjunction of the two. The Scholiast on the present
passages calls attention to the two prepositions with and
in as denoting the Son’s eternal existence and His union
with the Father, as the shining is with the light, and
comes from it without separation. Basil, De Spir. Sancto,
ch. 26, holds it better to say that the Spirit is one with
(συνεῖναι)
the Father and the Son than that He is in (ἐνεῖναι) the Father and the
Son. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 35. Cyril, Thesaurus,
assert. 4 and 5. Ibid.,
assert. 6.
In treating, then, of the generation of the Son,
it is an act of impiety Ibid.,
assert. 4. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 29. Text, ἀνόμοιον
παντελῶς, variant,
ἀνόμοιον
παντελῶς
κατ᾽
οὐσίαν, cf. also
Cyrill.
Wherefore in God, Who alone is passionless and
unalterable, and immutable, and ever so continueth, both begetting and
creating are passionless Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 29 and 35. On this
distinction between generation and creation, compare
Athan., Contra Arianos, Or. 2, 3 ; Basil, Contra
Eunom., bk. iv; Cyril, Thes., assert. 3. &c. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 29. Cyril, Thes.,
assert. 7 and 18. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 29. Cyril, Thes.,
assert. 5, 6, and 16; Greg., Orat. 35. ἀρρεύστως
γεννᾷ καὶ
ἐκτὸς
συνδυασμοῦ. This argument is repeatedly made in refutation both of Gnostic
ideas of emanation and Arian misrepresentation of the orthodox
doctrine. Cf. Athan., De Synodis; Epiph.,
Hæres. 69; Hilary, De Trin. iii. iv.;
Greg. Naz., Orat. 35. Infra, Book ii. c.
3.
Accordingly the everlasting God generates His own
Word which is perfect, without beginning and without end, that God,
Whose nature and existence are above time, may not engender in
time. But with man clearly it is otherwise, for generation is
with him a matter of sex, and destruction and flux and increase and
body clothe him round about Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 45.
The holy catholic and apostolic Church, Text, μηδ᾽
ὅλως. Variant in many codices is
μηδαμῶς, as in the
previous sentence. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. bk. i., Cont. Eun., p. 66; Cyril, Thes.,
assert. 5.
The terms, ‘Word’ and
‘effulgence,’ then, are used because He is begotten of the
Father without the union of two, or passion, or time, or flux, or
separation Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 36. ἐνυπόστατον; enhypostatic. See Suicer, Thesaurus, sub
voce. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 23, 37, and 39. Cf.
ibid. 23, 36. Athan., Contra
Arian., Orat. 2; Basil, Contra Eunom. iv.; Greg.
Naz., Orat. 35. ἀξιώματι. Basil, bk.
ii. and iv. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 36 and 37.
For one must recognise that the word ἀγένητον with only one ‘ν’ signifies “uncreate” or “not having been made,” while ἀγέννητον written with double ‘ν’ means “unbegotten.” According to the first significance essence differs from essence: for one essence is uncreate, or ἀγένητον with one ‘ν,’ and another is create or γενητή. But in the second significance there is no difference between essence and essence. For the first subsistence of all kinds of living creatures is ἀγέννητος but not ἀγένητος. For they were created by the Creator, being brought into being by His Word, but they were not begotten, for there was no pre-existing form like themselves from which they might have been born.
So then in the first sense of the word the three
absolutely divine subsistences of the Holy Godhead agree Man. Dialog.
contr. Arian. Cyril, Thes.,
assert. 1, p. 12. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 35. St.
And this also it behoves Cf.
Basil, Contra Eunom., v.; Athan., Contra Arian., ii.;
Cyril, Thes., assert. 32; Epiphan., Hæres. 73,
&c. In the first
Book of his Contra Arianos Athanasius refers to Christ’s
word in St. St. τοὺς αἰ&
242·νας; Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 37; Athan., Contr. Arian., bk. i. φαίνειν,
shines. See Cyril, Ad
Herm., dial. 2; Irenæus. iv. 14, v. 6, and John of
Damascus, himself in his Dial. Contr. Manich. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 13, 31 and 37. St. τέλεια
ὑπόστασις;
a perfect hypostasis.
Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the
Lord and Giver of Life: Who proceedeth from the Father and
resteth in the Son: the object of equal adoration and
glorification with the Father and Son, since He is co-essential and
co-eternal Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 37. ἡγεμονικόν. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 49. θεοῦν οὐ
θεούμενον. Text οὐ γὰρ ἔκ
τινος· ἐξ
ἑαυτοῦ γὰρ
τὸ εἶναι
ἔχει, οὐδέ τι
τῶν ὅσαπερ
ἔχει ἐξ
ἑτέρου
ἔχει· Another reading is,
οὐ γὰρ
ἔκ τινος τὸ
ειναι ἔχει,
οὐδέ τι τῶν
οσα ἔχει, i.e. or
He does not derive His being nor any one of His qualities from any
one. See Greg.
Naz., Orat. 29, 35; Thomas Aquin., I. Quæst. 35,
art. 1.
All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from
the Father, even their very being Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 25. See Athan.,
Contra Arian., Orat. 3; Greg. Naz., Orat. 35. So
Augustine (Contr. Max. iii. 14, De Trin. xv.).
Epiphanius (Anchor.), and Gregory of Nyssa (Epist. ad
Ablab.) teach that the Spirit proceeds, and is not
begotten, because He is both of the Father and the Son, while
the Son is only of the Father. Reading, διὰ τὸ
εἶναι τὸν
Πατέρα: a variant is,
διὰ τὸ
εἶναι αὐτὸν
Πατέρα, as also in
Cyrilli, De Trinitate. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 23. Ibid., Orat.,
25. ὑπόστασεις; hypostases.
Further we say that each of See Athan., Contra
Arian., Orat. 5. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 13 and 29: Athan., Orat. Contr.
Arian. The Greek is
ὅθεν οὐδὲ
λέγομεν τὸ
εἶδος ἐξ
ὑποστάσεων,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν
ὑποστάσεσιν. See Basil., Orat. Contr. Sabell., Ar. et
Eunom.
The subsistences then we say are perfect, that we
may not conceive of the divine nature as compound. For
compoundness is the beginning of separation. And again we speak
of the three subsistences as being in each other See Greg.
Naz., Orat. 1 and 37. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 29, 34 and 40.
Marg. ms. Concerning the distinction of the three subsistences: and concerning the thing itself and our reason and thought in relation to it.
One ought, moreover, to recognise that it is one
thing to look at a matter as it is, and another thing to look at it in
the light of reason and thought. In the case of all created
things, the distinction of the subsistences is observed in actual
fact. For in actual fact Peter is seen to be separate from
Paul. But the community and connection and unity are apprehended
by reason and thought. For it is by the mind that we perceive
that Peter and Paul are of the same nature and have one common
nature Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 37. Ibid. 32.
And this may be perceived throughout the whole of
creation, but in the case of the holy and superessential and
incomprehensible Trinity, far removed from everything, it is quite the
reverse. For there the community and unity are observed in fact,
through the co-eternity of the subsistences, and through their having
the same essence and energy and will and concord of mind τὴν τῆς
γνώμης
σύμπνοιαν;
co-operation of judgment, or, disposition. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 40. The Greek is singular and difficult:
τὸ ἕν
ἔξαλμα τῆς
κινήσεως; the
one forthleaping of the motion, or movement. Origen
speaks of ἡ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ
κίνησις (I. 436 A.).
In Athanasius (I. 253 C.) κίνησις has the
metaphorical sense of indignation. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 37; Greg. Nyss., Epist. ad Ablab. et Orat.
32. Basil.,
Epist. 43. St. εἰς ἓν
αἴτιον. So elsewhere it is
put, ὥσπερ μία
ἀρχή, κατὰ
τοῦτο εἷς
Θεός. The three Persons or
Subsistences are yet One God, because of the one Principle of Being
whence Son and spirit derive. So the Father is said to be the
ἕνωσις ἐξ οὗ
καὶ πρὸς ὃν
ἄναγεται τὰ
ἑξῆς. The Greek runs
thus:—καὶ
τὴν ἐν
ἀλλήλαις
περιχώρησιν
ἔχουσι δίχα
πάσης
συναλοιφῆς
καὶ
συμφύρσεως.
The term περιχώρησις, circumincessio, immanentia, was meant to express the
peculiarity of the relations of the Three Divine Persons or
Subsistences—their Indwelling in each other, the fact that, while
they are distinct they yet are in one another, the Coinherence which
implies their equal and identical Godhead. “In the
Trinity,” says Bishop Bull (Defence of the Nicene Creed,
bk. iv. ch. iv., secs. 13, 14), “the circumincession is most
proper and perfect, forasmuch as the Persons mutually contain Each
Other, and all the three have an immeasureable whereabouts (immensum
ubi, as the Schoolmen express it), so that wherever one Person is
there the other two exist; in other words They are all
everywhere.…This outcome of the circumincession of the Persons in
the Trinity is so far from introducing Sabellianism, that it is of
great use, as Petavius has also observed, for (establishing) the
diversity of the Persons, and for confuting that heresy. For, in
order to that mutual existence (in each other) which is discerned in
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it is absolutely necessary
that there should be some distinction between these who are thus joined
together—that is, that those that exist mutually in each other
should be different in reality, and not in mode of conception only; for
that which is simply one is not said to exist in itself, or to
interpenetrate itself.…Lastly, this is to be especially
considered—that this circumincession of the Divine Persons is
indeed a very great mystery, which we ought rather religiously to adore
than curiously to pry into. No similitude can be devised which
shall be in every respect apt to illustrate it; no language avails
worthily to set it forth, seeing that it is an union which far
transcends all other unions.” Greg., Orat.
29; Dionys., De div. nom., c. 2. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 37. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 19 and 29.
Further, it should be understood that we do not
speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the
Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as
Cause Text, αἴτιον:
variant, ἀναίτιον,
causeless. Maxim. Epist. ad
Marin. ἐκ
τοῦ Υἱοῦ δὲ
τὸ Πνεῦμα οὐ
λέγομεν. See also ch.
xii., καὶ
Υἱοῦ Πνεῦμα
οὐχ ὡς ἐξ
αὐτοῦ, and at the close of the
Epist. ad Jordan, Πνεῦμα Υἱοῦ
μὴ ἐξ Υἱοῦ. St. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 37.
The Deity is simple and uncompound. But that
which is composed of many and different elements is compound. If,
then, we should speak of the qualities of being uncreate and without
beginning and incorporeal and immortal and everlasting and good and
creative and so forth as essential differences in the case of God, that
which is composed of so many qualities will not be simple but must be
compound. But this is impious in the extreme. Each then of
the affirmations about God should be thought of as signifying not what
He is in essence, but either something that it is impossible to make
plain, or some relation to some of those things which are contrasts or
some of those things that follow the nature, or an energy The Greek
runs:—ἢ σχέσιν
τινὰ πρὸς τὶ
των
ἀντιδιαστελλομένων,
ἢ τὶ τῶν
παρεπομένων
τῃ φύσει, ἢ
ἐνέργειαν.
It appears then Rendered in the
Septuagint Version, ᾽Εγώ εἰμι ὁ
ὤν. Some of the Fathers made much of the fact
that it is not the neuter form τὸ ὄν. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 36. Dionys., De
div. nom. c. 2, 3 and 4. This sentence and the next are
absent in some mss., and are rather more
obscurely stated than is usual with John of Damascus.
The second name of God is ὁ Θεός, derived from θέειν In his
Cratylus Plato gives this etymology, and Eusebius quotes it in
his Prep. Evangel. i. Clement of Alexandria refers to it
more than once in his Strom., bk. iv., and in his
Protrept., where he says—Sidera θέους ἐκ τοῦ
θέειν, deos a currendo
nominarunt. κατὰ τὴν
θελητικὴν
αὐτοῦ
ἄχρονον
ἔννοιαν. See
Thomas Aquin., I., II. Quæst. 17, Art. 1,
where he says, est actus rationis, præsupposito tamen
actu voluntatis. This
sentence is absent in some mss., being added
at the end of the chapter with the mark σχόλ.
The first name then conveys the notion of His
existence and of the nature of His existence: while the second
contains the idea of energy. Further, the terms ‘without
beginning,’ ‘incorruptible,’
‘unbegotten,’ as also ‘uncreate,’
‘incorporeal,’ ‘unseen,’ and so forth, explain
what He is not: that is to say, they tell us that His being had
no beginning, that He is not corruptible, nor created, nor corporeal,
nor visible Dionys., De
div. nom., c. 5. παρέπονται
τῇ φύσει; follow
the nature, are consequents of the nature, or accompany
it.
Chapter X.—Concerning divine union and separation.
Therefore all these names must be understood as
common to deity as a whole, and as containing the notions of sameness
and simplicity and indivisibility and union: while the names
Father, Son and Spirit, and causeless and caused, and unbegotten and
begotten, and procession contain the idea of separation: for
these terms do not explain His essence, but the mutual
relationship Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 45; cf. also Epist. ad. Evagr., and Greg.
Nyss., Epist. ad Ablab.; Dionys., De div. nom., c. 2;
Basil, Epist. 43 ad Greg. fratr. Dionys., De div.
nom., c. 2; Greg. Naz., Orat. 37 and 45; Nyss.
Epist. ad. Ablab.
When, then, we have perceived these things and are
conducted from these to the divine essence, we do not apprehend the
essence itself but only the attributes of the essence: just as we
have not apprehended the essence of the soul even when we have learnt
that it is incorporeal and without magnitude and form: nor again,
the essence of the body when we know that it is white or black, but
only the attributes of the essence. Further, the true
doctrine ὁ δὲ
ἀληθὴς
λόγος.
But quite distinct is all that pertains to the divine
and benignant incarnation of the divine Word. For in that neither
the Father nor the Spirit have any part at all, unless so far as
regards approval and the working of inexplicable miracles which the
God-Word, Text, ἄνθρωπος, which is
absent in some codices and in Dionys., De div. nom., from which
these words are taken. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 24: Dionys., De div. nom., c.
2.
Chapter XI.—Concerning what is affirmed about God as though He had body.
Since we find many terms used symbolically in the
Scriptures concerning God which are more applicable to that which has
body, we should recognise that it is quite impossible for us men
clothed about with this dense covering of flesh to understand or speak
of the divine and lofty and immaterial energies of the Godhead, except
by the use of images and types and symbols derived from our own
life Dionys., De div.
nom., c. 1; De Cæl. Hier., c. 15. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 37. Text, πάντα τὸν
ἄνθρωπον:
variant, ἅπαντα.
Chapter XII.—Concerning the Same.
The following, then, are the mysteries which we
have learned from the holy oracles, as the divine Dionysius the
Areopagite said Dionys., De div.
nom., c. 1. Athan.,
Orat. 2, Cont. Arian.; Cyril, Thes., assert.
13. Text reads,
ὡς ὑπάρχιος:
surely a misprint for ὡς
ὑπεράρχιος.
Further and more accurately concerning divine
names This chapter is
not found in the oldest copies, but only in a few of the latest
date. In Cod. Reg. 3109 it comes in after bk. iv. c. 9,
and in Cod. Reg. 3451, after bk. ii. c. 2.
The Deity being incomprehensible is also assuredly
nameless. Therefore since we know not His essence, let us not
seek for a name for His essence. For names are explanations of
actual things Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 36. Dioyns., De div.
nom., c. 1. Text, εἰ δὲ καὶ
τῶν ὄντων αἱ
γνωσεις, τὸ
ὑπερούσιον
πῶς
γνωθήσεται; a
variant, εἰ δὲ
αἱ φύσεις
ἄγνωστοι,
αὐτὸ
ὑπερούσιον
πῶς
γνωθήσεται. If the natures are unknown how can the superessential itself
be known?
Wherefore, of the divine names, some have a
negative signification, and indicate that He is
super-essential Or,
super-substantial, ὑπερούσιος. ἀνούσιος,
non-substantial, without substance.
God then is called Mind and Reason and Spirit and
Wisdom and Power, as the cause of these, and as immaterial, and maker
of all, and omnipotent Dionys., De div.
nom., c. 5. Text, ἀπαραλείπτως:
variant, ἀπαραλλάκτως, unchangeably, an adverb used by the Greeks in connection with
the equality of the divine persons. προβολεύς, Lat. productor, Emitter. Or,
Word; λόγος. θέλησις,
cf. Cyril, Th., assert. 7; Athan., Contr. Arian. 4;
Greg. Nyss., Contr. Eunom., p. 345. ἡ μονὴ
δύναμις του
Πατρὸς, ἠ
προκαταρτικὴ
τῆς τῶν
πάντων
ποιήσεως. The
ἡ προκαταρτική
is understood by some to mean the primordial or
immediate Cause, by others to be better rendered as the
primordial Power or Energy. Basil in his De Spiritu
Sancto speaks of the Father as the primordial Cause
(προκαταρτικὴ
αἰτία) in the creation of the
world.
Chapter XIII.—Concerning the place of God: and that the Deity alone is uncircumscribed.
Bodily place is the limit of that which contains,
by which that which is contained is contained Arist.,
Physic, bk. iv. 4. Text, οἷον ὁ ἀ&
209·ρ περιέχει,
τὸ δὲ σῶμα
περιέχεται·
οὐχ ὅλος δε ὁ
περιέχων ἀ&
208·ρ, &c. Variant, οἷον ὁ ἀ& 209·ρ
περιέχει
τόδε σῶμα,
οὐχ ὅλος, &c.
But there is also mental place where mind is
active, and mental and incorporeal nature exists: where mind
dwells and energises and is contained not in a bodily but in a mental
fashion. For it is without form, and so cannot be contained as a
body is. God, then, being immaterial ἄϋλος
ὤν. Greg. Naz., Orat. 34, Greg.
Nyss., De anim. et resurr., &c. speak of God as nowhere
and as everywhere. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 34.
But it must be understood that the Deity is indivisible, being everywhere wholly in His entirety and not divided up part by part like that which has body, but wholly in everything and wholly above everything.
Marg. ms. Concerning the place of angel and spirit, and concerning the uncircumscribed.
The angel, although not contained in place with figured
form as is body, yet is spoken of as being in place because he has a
mental presence and energises in accordance with his nature, and is not
elsewhere but has his mental limitations there where he
energises. For it is impossible to energise at the same time in
different places. For to God alone belongs the power of
energising everywhere
Further the soul is bound up with the body. whole with whole and not part with part: and it is not contained by the body but contains it as fire does iron, and being in it energises with its own proper energies.
That which is comprehended in place or time or
apprehension is circumscribed: while that which is contained by
none of these is uncircumscribed. Wherefore the Deity alone is
uncircumscribed, being without beginning and without end, and
containing all things, and in no wise apprehended Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 44.
Marg. ms. From various sources concerning God and the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And concerning the Word and the Spirit.
The Deity, then, is quite unchangeable and
invariable. For all things which are not in our hands He hath
predetermined by His foreknowledge, each in its own proper and peculiar
time and place. And accordingly the Father judgeth no one, but
hath given all judgment to the Son St.
All things are far apart from God, not in place but in nature. In our case, thoughtfulness, and wisdom, and counsel come to pass and go away as states of being. Not so in the case of God: for with Him there is no happening or ceasing to be: for He is invariable and unchangeable: and it would not be right to speak of contingency in connection with Him. For goodness is concomitant with essence. He who longs alway after God, he seeth Him: for God is in all things. Existing things are dependent on that which is, and nothing can be unless it is in that which is. God then is mingled with everything, maintaining their nature: and in His holy flesh the God-Word is made one in subsistence and is mixed with our nature, yet without confusion.
No one seeth the Father, save the Son and the
Spirit St.
The Son is the counsel and wisdom and power of the Father. For one may not speak of quality in connection with God, from fear of implying that He was a compound of essence and quality.
The Son is from the Father, and derives from Him
all His properties: hence He cannot do ought of
Himself Greg., Orat.
36.
That God Who is invisible by nature is made
visible by His energies, we perceive from the organisation and
government of the world
The Son is the Father’s image, and the
Spirit the Son’s, through which Christ dwelling in man makes him
after his own image Basil, Cont.
Eun., bk. v.
The Holy Spirit is God, being between the
unbegotten and the begotten, and united to the Father through the
Son μέσον τοῦ
ἀγεννήτου
καὶ τοῦ
γεννητοῦ, καὶ
δι᾽ Υἱοῦ τῷ
Πατρὶ
συναπτόμενον. αὐτοκύριος.
God is everlasting and unchangeable essence, creator of all that is, adored with pious consideration.
God is also Father, being ever unbegotten, for He was born of no one, but hath begotten His co-eternal Son: God is likewise Son, being always with the Father, born of the Father timelessly, everlastingly, without flux or passion, or separation from Him. God is also Holy Spirit, being sanctifying power, subsistential, proceeding from the Father without separation, and resting in the Son, identical in essence with Father and Son.
Word is that which is ever essentially present with the
Father. Again, word is also the natural movement of the mind,
according to which it is moved and thinks and considers, προφορικός
is absent in mss. but added by a second
hand in one codex. οὐσιώδης
τέ ἐστι καὶ
ἐνυπόστατος.
Against the Sabellian doctrine, the views of Paul of Samosata,
&c. πηγαζόμενον.
The Spirit has various meanings. There is the Holy Spirit: but the powers of the Holy Spirit are also spoken of as spirits: the good messenger is also spirit: the demon also is spirit: the soul too is spirit: and sometimes mind also is spoken of as spirit. Finally the wind is spirit and the air is spirit.
Chapter XIV.—The properties of the divine nature.
Uncreate, without beginning, immortal, infinite,
eternal, immaterial Text, τὸ ἄ&
203·λον: in one codex there is added
as emendation or explanation, τὸ
ἁπλοῦν, τὸ
ἀσύνθετον.
The subsistences dwell and are established firmly
in one another. For they are inseparable and cannot part from one
another, but keep to their separate courses within one another, without
coalescing or mingling, but cleaving to each other. For the Son
is in the Father and the Spirit: and the Spirit in the Father and
the Son: and the Father in the Son and the Spirit, but there is
no coalescence or commingling or confusion Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 1, 13 and 40.
Further the divine effulgence and energy, being
one and simple and indivisible, assuming many varied forms in its
goodness among what is divisible and allotting to each the component
parts of its own nature, still remains simple and is multiplied without
division among the divided, and gathers and converts the divided into
its own simplicity Dionys., De
div. nom., c. 5. Text, καθὼς
ἔχει
φύσεως: in the margin of
the manuscript is ὡς ἔχουσι.
Further the divine nature has the property of
penetrating all things without mixing with them and of being itself
impenetrable by anything else. Moreover, there is the property of
knowing all things with a simple knowledge and of seeing all things,
simply with His divine, all-surveying, immaterial eye, both the things
of the present, and the things of the past, and the things of the
future, before they come into being Greg.,
Orat. 40.
Chapter I.—Concerning æon or age.
He created the ages Who
Himself was before the ages, Whom the divine David thus addresses,
From age to age Thou art
It must then be understood that the word age has
various meanings, for it denotes many things. The life of each
man is called an age. Again, a period of a thousand years is
called an age Arist., De
Cœlo, bk. 1. text 100. Greg Naz.,
Orat. 35, 38, 42.
Seven ages Basil, De
Struct., hom. 2; Greg. Naz., Orat. 44.
Before the world was formed, when there was as yet
no sun dividing day from night, there was not an age such as could be
measured Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 44. αἰ&
240·νιος, ‘eternal,’ but
also ‘secular,’ ‘aeonian,’
‘age-long.’
But we speak also of ages of ages, inasmuch as the seven
ages of the present world include many ages in the sense of lives of
men, and the one age embraces all the ages, and the present and the
future are spoken of as age of age. Further, everlasting (i.e.
αἰ&
240·νιος) life and everlasting
punishment prove that the age or æon to come is unending Variant,
καὶ
ἀπέραντον
δηλοῖ. In Regg. αἰ& 242·νος is
absent. See his
Contr. Cels., iv. Cf. Justin Martyr. Apol. 1;
Basil, Hex., hom. 3; Greg. Nyss., Orat. Catech. 26,
&c.
Chapter II.—Concerning the creation.
Since, then, God, Who is good and more than good,
did not find satisfaction in self-contemplation, but in His exceeding
goodness wished certain things to come into existence which would enjoy
His benefits and share in His goodness, He brought all things out of
nothing into being and created them, both what is invisible and what is
visible. Yea, even man, who is a compound of the visible and the
invisible. And it is by thought that He creates, and thought is
the basis of the work, the Word filling it and the Spirit perfecting
it Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 38, 42; Dionys., De Eccl. Hier., ch.
4.
Chapter III.—Concerning angels.
He is Himself the Maker and Creator of the
angels: for He brought them out of nothing into being and created
them after His own image, an incorporeal race, a sort of spirit or
immaterial fire: in the words of the divine David, He maketh
His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 38.
An angel, then, is an intelligent essence, in perpetual motion, with free-will, incorporeal, ministering to God, having obtained by grace an immortal nature: and the Creator alone knows the form and limitation of its essence. But all that we can understand is, that it is incorporeal and immaterial. For all that is compared with God Who alone is incomparable, we find to be dense and material. For in reality only the Deity is immaterial and incorporeal.
The angel’s nature then is rational, and intelligent, and endowed with free-will, changeable in will, or fickle. For all that is created is changeable, and only that which is un-created is unchangeable. Also all that is rational is endowed with free-will. As it is, then, rational and intelligent, it is endowed with free-will: and as it is created, it is changeable, having power either to abide or progress in goodness, or to turn towards evil.
It is not susceptible of repentance because it is incorporeal. For it is owing to the weakness of his body that man comes to have repentance.
It is immortal, not by nature Nemes., ch.
1. Text, χάριτι. R.
2930, κατὰ
χάριν.
They are secondary intelligent lights derived from
that first light which is without beginning, for they have the power of
illumination; they have no need of tongue or hearing, but without
uttering words ἄνευ λόγου
προφορικου: without word of utterance. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 38.
Through the Word, therefore, all the angels were
created, and through the sanctification by the Holy Spirit were they
brought to perfection, sharing each in proportion to his worth and rank
in brightness and grace Ibid.
34.
They are circumscribed: for when they are in
the Heaven they are not on the earth: and when they are sent by
God down to the earth they do not remain in the Heaven. They are
not hemmed in by walls and doors, and bars and seals, for they are
quite unlimited. Unlimited, I repeat, for it is not as they
really are that they reveal themselves to the worthy men Text, ἀξίοις. R. 2930,
ἁγίοις.
Further, apart from their essence they receive the
sanctification from the Spirit: through the divine grace they
prophesy Theodoret, Epist.
de div. decr., ch. 8.
Seeing that they are minds they are in mental
places ἐν
νοητοῖς καὶ
τόποις. Cf. bk. i. 17.
Whether they are equals in essence or differ from
one another we know not. God, their Creator, Who knoweth all
things, alone knoweth. But they differ See Greg.
Naz., Orat. 34. And cf. Cyril, Thesaur. 31, p. 266;
Epiph., Hæres. 64. Dionys., De
Cœl. Hier., ch. 3; Greg. Naz., Orat.
34.
They are mighty and prompt to fulfil the will of
the Deity, and their nature is endowed with such celerity that wherever
the Divine glance bids them there they are straightway found.
They are the guardians of the divisions of the earth: they are
set over nations and regions, allotted to them by their Creator:
they govern all our affairs and bring us succour. And the reason
surely is because they are set over us by the divine will and command
and are ever in the vicinity of God Dionys., De
Cœl. Hier., ch. 9; Greg., Orat. 34.
With difficulty they are moved to evil, yet they
are not absolutely immoveable: but now they are altogether
immoveable, not by nature but by grace and by their nearness to the
Only Good Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 38.
They behold God according to their capacity, and
this is their food Text, τροφήν.
Variant, τρυφήν, cf.
Dionys., De Cœl. Hier., ch. 7.
They are above us for they are incorporeal, and are free of all bodily passion, yet are not passionless: for the Deity alone is passionless.
They have Heaven for their dwelling-place, and have one duty, to sing God’s praise and carry out His divine will.
Moreover, as that most holy, and sacred, and
gifted theologian, Dionysius the Areopagite Dionys., De
Cœl. Hier., ch. 6. But cf.
August., Enchir., ch. 8; Greg. Naz., Orat. 34; Greg.
Nyss., Contra Eunom., Orat. 1; Chrysost., De incomprehens., hom.
3, &c.
Some, indeed See
Epiph., Hæres. 6, n. 4 and 5; Basil, Hex. 1;
Chrysost., 2 Hom. in Gen.; Theodor., Quæst.
3in Gen. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 2.
But those who say that the angels are creators of any kind of essence whatever are the mouth of their father, the devil. For since they are created things they are not creators. But He Who creates and provides for and maintains all things is God, Who alone is uncreate and is praised and glorified in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Chapter IV.—Concerning the devil and demons.
He who from among these angelic powers was set
over πρωτοστάτης. Cf. Chrysost., Epist. ad Ephes., hom. 4,
&c. Text, ἐδωρήσατο.
R. 1986, ἐχαρίσατο. See
Iren., bk. iv. c. 48, &c. Greg. Nyss.,
Orat. Catech., cp. 6. See Greg.
Naz., Orat. 19, 38; Chrysost., In S. Babyl. Or. 2; Basil,
in Jesaiam, ch. 1, &c. Quæst. ad
Antioch. 10.
Hence they have no power or strength against any
one except what God in His dispensation hath conceded to them, as for
instance, against Job St.
Of the future both the angels of God and the demons are alike ignorant: yet they make predictions. God reveals the future to the angels and commands them to prophesy, and so what they say comes to pass. But the demons also make predictions, sometimes because they see what is happening at a distance, and sometimes merely making guesses: hence much that they say is false and they should not be believed, even although they do often, in the way we have said, tell what is true. Besides they know the Scriptures.
All wickedness, then, and all impure passions are
the work of their mind. But while the liberty to attack man has
been granted to them, they have not the strength to over-master any
one: for we have it in our power to receive or not to receive the
attack
VideIambl., De Myst., ch. 11, sect. 4. St.
Note, further, that what in the case of man is
death is a fall in the case of angels. For after the fall there
is no possibility of repentance for them, just as after death there is
for men no repentance Nemes., De Nat.
Hom., ch. 1.
Chapter V.—Concerning the visible creation.
Our God Himself, Whom we glorify as Three in One,
created the heaven and the earth and all that they
contain
Chapter VI.—Concerning the Heaven.
The heaven is the circumference of things created, both visible and invisible. For within its boundary are included and marked off both the mental faculties of the angels and all the world of sense. But the Deity alone is uncircumscribed, filling all things, and surrounding all things, and bounding all things, for He is above all things, and has created all things.
Since Cf.
Chrysost., In Genes., hom. 4; Basil, Hex. hom. 3,
&c. Basil,
Hom. 1 in Hexaëmeron. The
Peripatetics. See Nemes., ch. 5.
Further, some have thought that the heaven encircles the universe and has the form of a sphere, and that everywhere it is the highest point, and that the centre of the space enclosed by it is the lowest part: and, further, that those bodies that are light and airy are allotted by the Creator the upper region: while those that are heavy and tend to descend occupy the lower region, which is the middle. The element, then, that is lightest and most inclined to soar upwards is fire, and hence they hold that its position is immediately after the heaven, and they call it ether, and after it comes the lower air. But earth and water, which are heavier and have more of a downward tendency, are suspended in the centre. Therefore, taking them in the reverse order, we have in the lowest situation earth and water: but water is lighter than earth, and hence is more easily set in motion: above these on all hands, like a covering, is the circle of air, and all round the air is the circle of ether, and outside air is the circle of the heaven.
Further, they say that the heaven moves in a circle and so compresses all that is within it, that they remain firm and not liable to fall asunder.
They say also that there are seven zones of the
heaven Basil, Hom.
3, in Hexaëmeron.
All, therefore, who hold that the heaven is in the form
of a sphere, say that it is equally removed and distant from the earth
at all points, whether above, or sideways, or below. And by
‘below’ and ‘sideways’ I mean all that comes
within the range of our senses. For it follows from what has been
said, that the heaven occupies the whole of the upper region and the
earth the whole of the lower. They say, besides, that the heaven
encircles the earth in the manner of a sphere, and bears along with it
in its most rapid revolutions sun, moon and stars, and that when the
sun is over the earth it becomes day there, and when it is under the
earth it is
Others have pictured the heaven as a
hemisphere. This idea is suggested by these words of David, the
singer of God, Who stretchest out the heavens like a
curtain Chrysost.,
Hom. 14 and 17, ad Hebr.
The heaven of heaven, then, is the first heaven
which is above the firmament Greg. Nyss. de
opif. Hom.
All things, then, which are brought into existence
are subject to corruption according to the law of their nature Plato,
Tim. Basil,
Hom. 1 and 3, in Hexaëmeron. Just.,
quæst. 93.
For the great part the heaven is greater than the earth, but we need not investigate the essence of the heaven, for it is quite beyond our knowledge.
It must not be supposed that the heavens or the
luminaries are endowed with life Cf.
August., Retract. ii. 2. Basil, Hom.
13, in Hexaëmeron. Text, ὡς τό. N. καὶ τὸ
ἀνάπαλιν. Basil,
Hom. 1 and 3, in Hexaëmeron.
Chapter VII.—Concerning light, fire, the luminaries, sun, moon and stars.
Fire is one of the four elements, light and with a
greater tendency to ascend than the others. It has the power of
burning and also of giving light, and it was made by the Creator on the
first day. For the divine Scripture says, And God said, Let
there be light, and there was light Text, ὑπερ. Variant, ὑπο,
but this does not agree with the view of the author or the
ancients. Basil, Hom.
2, in Hexaëmeron.
When, therefore, in the first three days the light
was poured forth and reduced at the divine command, both day and night
came to pass Basil, Hom.
2, in Hexaëmeron. Text, ἐξουσίαν:
variant. ἐξουσίας. Variant here also,
ἐξουσίας.
On these luminaries the Creator bestowed the
first-created light: not because He was in need of other light,
but that that light might not remain idle. For a luminary is not
merely light, but a vessel for containing light Basil, Hom.
6, in Hexaëmeron.
There are, we are told, seven planets amongst these luminaries, and these move in a direction opposite to that of the heaven: hence the name planets. For, while they say that the heaven moves from east to west, the planets move from west to east; but the heaven bears the seven planets along with it by its swifter motion. Now these are the names of the seven planets: Luna, Mercury, Venus, Sol, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and in each zone of heaven is, we are told, one of these seven planets:
In the first and highest Saturn
In the second Jupiter
In the third Mars
In the fourth Sol
In the fifth Venus
In the sixth Mercury
In the seventh and lowest Luna.
The course which the Creator Text, ὁ Δημιουργός.
Variant, ὁ δημιουργήσας. Basil,
Hom. 6, in Hexaëmeron.
So, then, it is the sun that makes the seasons, and through them the year: it likewise makes the days and nights, the days when it rises and is above the earth, and the nights when it sets below the earth: and it bestows on the other luminaries, both moon and stars, their power of giving forth light.
Further, they say that there are in the heaven twelve signs made by the stars, and that these move in an opposite direction to the sun and moon, and the other five planets, and that the seven planets pass across these twelve signs. Further, the sun makes a complete month in each sign and traverses the twelve signs in the same number of months. These, then, are the names of the twelve signs and their respective months:—
The Ram, which receives the sun on the 21st of March.
The Bull, on the 23rd of April.
The Twins, on the 24th of May.
The Crab, on the 24th of June.
The Virgin, on the 25th of July.
The Scales, on the 25th of September.
The Scorpion, on the 25th of October.
The Archer, on the 25th of November.
Capricorn, on the 25th of December.
Aquarius, on the 25th of January.
The Fish, on the 24th of February.
But the moon traverses the twelve signs each month, since it occupies a lower position and travels through the signs at a quicker rate. For if you draw one circle within another, the inner one will be found to be the lesser: and so it is that owing to the moon occupying a lower position its course is shorter and is sooner completed.
Now the Greeks declare that all our affairs are
controlled by the rising and setting and collision Text, συγκρούσεως.
Variants, συγκράσεως
and συγκρίσεως. Basil, Hom.
6, in Hexaëmeron. Nemes., de Nat.
Hom., ch. 34.
And, therefore, we hold that the stars are not the
causes of the things that occur, nor of the origin of things that come
to pass, nor of the destruction of those things that perish. They
are rather signs of showers and changes of air. But, perhaps,
some one may say that though they are not the causes of wars, yet they
are signs of them. And, in truth, the quality of the air which is
produced Text, ποιουμένη.
Variant, ποιούμενον. Basil,
Hom. 6, in Hexaëmeron.
It often happens, also, that comets arise.
These are signs of the death of kings Text, θάνατον
δηλοῦντα
βασίλεων.
Variant, θανάτων
βασίλεων: also
θάνατον, ἢ
ἀνάδειξιν
σημαίνουσι
βασίλεων. Basil, Christi
Nativit.
It must be understood, then, that the moon derives its
light from the sun; not that God was unable to grant it light of its
own, but in order that rhythm and order may be unimpressed upon nature,
one part ruling, the other being ruled, and that we might thus be
taught to live in community and to share
The sun and the moon, moreover, suffer eclipse,
and this demonstrates the folly of those who worship the creature in
place of the Creator
Now the cause of the eclipse of the sun is that
the body of the moon is interposed like a partition-wall and casts a
shadow, and prevents the light from being shed down on us Text, διαναδοθῆναι:
variants, διαδοθῆναι
and δοθῆναι.
The eclipse of the moon, on the other hand, is due to the shadow the earth casts on it when it is a fifteen days’ moon and the sun and moon happen to be at the opposite poles of the highest circle, the sun being under the earth and the moon above the earth. For the earth casts a shadow and the sun’s light is prevented from illuminating the moon, and therefore it is then eclipsed.
It should be understood that the moon was made
full by the Creator, that is, a fifteen days’ moon: for it
was fitting that it should be made complete Sever.
Gabal., De opif. mundi, III. Ibid. De
opif. mundi, III.
It is evident that both sun and moon and stars are
compound and liable to corruption according to the laws of their
various natures. But of their nature we are ignorant. Some,
indeed, say that fire when deprived of matter is invisible, and thus,
that when it is quenched it vanishes altogether. Others, again,
say that when it is quenched it is transformed into air Nemes., ch.
5.
The circle of the zodiac has an oblique motion and is divided into twelve sections called zodia, or signs: each sign has three divisions of ten each, i.e. thirty divisions, and each division has sixty very minute subdivisions. The heaven, therefore, has three hundred and sixty-five degrees: the hemisphere above the earth and that below the earth each having one hundred and eighty degrees.
The abodes of the planets.
The Ram and the Scorpion are the abode of
Mars: the Bull and the Scales, of Venus
VidePorph., de antro Nymph.
Their altitudes.
The Ram has the altitude of the Sun: the Bull, of the Moon: the Crab, of Jupiter: the Virgin, of Mars: the Scales, of Saturn: Capricorn, of Mercury: the Fish, of Venus.
The phases of the moon.
It is in conjunction whenever it is in the same
degree as the sun: it is born when it is fifteen degrees distant
from the sun: it rises when it is crescent-shaped, and this
occurs twice Text,
δίς. R. 4 has
δεύτερον.
Chapter VIII.—Concerning air and winds.
Air is the most subtle element, and is moist and warm: heavier, indeed, than fire: but lighter than earth and water: it is the cause of respiration and voice: it is colourless, that is, it has no colour by nature: it is clear and transparent, for it is capable of receiving light: it ministers to three of our senses, for it is by its aid that we see, hear and smell: it has the power likewise of receiving heat and cold, dryness and moisture, and its movements in space are up, down, within, without, to the right and to the left, and the cyclical movement.
It does not derive its light from itself, but is
illuminated by sun, and moon, and stars, and fire. And this is
just what the Scripture means when it says, And darkness was upon
the deep
And wind is a movement of air: or wind is a
rush of air which changes its name as it changes the place whence it
rushes Sever. Gabal.,
Hom. 1 in Hexaëm.
Its place is in the air. For place is the
circumference of a body. But what is it that surrounds bodies but
air? There are, moreover, different places in which the movement
of air originates, and from these the winds get their names.
There are in all twelve winds. It is said that air is just fire
after it has been extinguished, or the vapour of heated water. At
all events, in its own special nature the air is warm, but it becomes
cold owing to the proximity of water and earth, so that the lower parts
of it are cold, and the higher warm Nemes., De Nat.
Hom. i., ch. 5.
These then are the winds These are absent in
edit. Veron.
[These This paragraph is
absent in almost all the copies.
Chapter IX.—Concerning the waters.
Water also is one of the four elements, the most
beautiful of God’s creations. It is both wet and cold,
heavy, and with a tendency to descend, and flows with great
readiness. It is this the Holy Scripture has in view when it
says, And darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the
Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters See
Basil, Hexaëm., Hom. 3. Text, ὑφήπλωται.
Variant, ἐφήπλωται. Basil, Hom.
2 in Hexaëm.; Sever. Gabal., Orat. de opific.
mundi.
Next, God bade the waters be gathered together
into one mass Text, συνήχθησαν.
R. 2927 has διέστησαν:
Edit. Veron. Reg. 3362 has ὅθεν
συνέστησαν:
Colb. 1 has ὀθεν
συνέστη.
The ocean, then, is like a river encircling the
whole earth, and I think it is concerning it that the divine Scripture
says, A river went out of Paradise For ποταμὸς δὲ
ὁ γλυκὺ ὕδωρ
ἔχων ἐστί, reading
πότιμον
καὶ γλυκὺ
ὕδωρ ἔχων.
This is parted into four first divisions, that is
to say, into four rivers. The name of the first is Pheison, which
is the Indian Ganges; the name of the second is Geon, which is the Nile
flowing from Ethiopia down to Egypt: the name of the third is
Tigris, and the name of the fourth is Euphrates. There are also
very many other mighty rivers of which some empty themselves into the
sea and others are used up in the earth. Thus the whole earth is
bored through and mined, and has, so to speak, certain veins through
which it sends up in springs the water it has received from the
sea. The water of the spring thus depends for its character on
the quality of the earth. For the sea water is filtered and
strained through the earth and thus becomes sweet. But if the
place from which the spring arises is bitter or briny, so also is the
water that is sent up Basil, Hom.
4 in Hexaëm.
By the divine decree hollow places are made in the
earth, and so into these the waters are gathered. And this is how
mountains are formed. God, then, bade the first water produce
living breath, since it was to be by water and the Holy Spirit that
moved upon the waters in the beginning Sever. Gabal.,
Orat. 4, De opific. mundi: Basil, Hom.
8.
Concerning the seas This chapter
is wanting in certain copies, Reg. 7, Colb. 1, R.
2930. In Cod. Hil. it is given after the chapter On
Creation.
The Ægean Sea is received by the Hellespont, which
ends at Abydos and Sestus: next, the Propontis, which ends at
Chalcedon and Byzantium: here are the straits where the Pontus
arises. Next, the lake of Mæotis. Again, from the
beginning of Europe and Libya it is the Iberian Sea, which extends from
the pillars of Hercules to the Pyrenees mountain. Then the
Ligurian Sea as far as the borders of Etruria. Next, the
Sardinian Sea, which is above Sardinia and inclines downwards to
Libya. Then the Etrurian Sea, which begins at the extreme limits
of Liguria and ends at Sicily. Then the Libyan Sea. Then
the Cretan, and Sicilian, and Ionian, and Adriatic Seas, the last of
which is poured out of the Sicilian Sea, which is called the Corinthian
Gulf, or the Alcyonian Sea. The Saronic Sea is surrounded by the
Sunian and Scyllæan Seas. Next is the Myrtoan Sea and the
Icarian Sea, in which are also the Cyclades. Then the Carpathian,
and Pamphylian, and Egyptian Seas: and, thereafter, above the
Icarian Sea, the Ægean Sea pours itself out. There is also
the coast of Europe from the mouth of the Tanais River to the Pillars
of Hercules, 609,709 stadia: and that of Libya from the Tigris,
as far as the mouth of the Canobus, 209,252 Vide Strab.
bk. ii.
Chapter X.—Concerning earth and its products.
The earth is one of the four elements, dry, cold,
heavy, motionless, brought into being by God, out of nothing on the
first day. For in the beginning, he said, God created
the heaven and the earth
In the beginning, then, as the Holy Scripture
says
Indeed, before the transgression all things were
under his power. For God set him as ruler over all things on the
earth and in the waters. Even the serpent In this
John does not follow Basil in his De Paradiso. Basil, Hom. de
Parad.
But even now wild beasts are not without their
uses, for, by the terror they cause, they bring man to the knowledge of
his Creator and lead him to call upon His name. And, further, at
the transgression the thorn sprung out of the earth in accordance with
the Lord’s express declaration and was conjoined with the
pleasures of the rose, that it might lead us to remember the
transgression on account of which the earth was condemned to bring
forth for us thorns and prickles Basil, Hom. de
Parad.
That this is the case is made worthy of belief
from the fact that their endurance is secured by the word of the Lord,
saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the
earth
Further, some hold that the earth is in the form of a
sphere, others that it is in that of a cone. At all events it is
much smaller St.
For the earth that is to be the possession of the
holy is immortal. Who, then, can fitly marvel at the boundless
and incomprehensible wisdom of the Creator? Or who can render
sufficient thanks to the Giver of so many blessings
Method, Cont. Orig. apud Epiph. Hæres.
64.
[There are also provinces, or prefectures, of the
earth which we recognise: Europe embraces thirty four, and the
huge continent of Asia has forty-eight of these provinces, and twelve
canons as they are called Only Cod.
Reg. 3451 has this paragraph.
Chapter XI.—Concerning Paradise.
Now when God was about to fashion man out of the
visible and invisible creation in His own image and likeness to reign
as king and ruler over all the earth and all that it contains, He first
made for him, so to speak, a kingdom in which he should live a life of
happiness and prosperity Greg. Nyss.,
De opif. Hom., ch. 2. See the
treatise of Anastas. II. Antiochen., on the
Hexaëmeron, bk. vii. ᾽Εδεμ, Edem, in the
text. Basil, Hom. de Parad. See
In its midst See
Chrysost., In Gen. Hom. 16, Theodor., Quæst.
27, &c. Text,
τὴν
ἔφεσιν
λιχνοτέροις.
Variant τὴν
αἴσθησιν, &c. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 38 and 42: Method., ap Epiph.
Hæres. 64. St. St.
The tree of life, on the other hand, was a tree
having the energy that is the cause of life, or to be eaten only by
those who deserve to live and are not subject to death. Some,
indeed, have pictured Paradise as a realm of sense Nemes., de
Nat. Hom., ch. 1. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 38 and 42.
Thus, to my thinking, the divine Paradise is
twofold, and the God-inspired Fathers handed down a true message,
whether they taught this doctrine or that. Indeed, it is possible
to understand by every tree the knowledge of the divine power derived
from created things. In the words of the divine Apostle, For
the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made εθαυμαστώθη
ἡ γνῶσίς σου
ἐξ εμοῦ,
τουτέστιν, ἐκ
τῆς ἐμῆς
κατασκευῆς.
Basil, Gregory Naz., Anastasius II., Antiochenus and others render it
so, following the LXX. version, and not the Hebrew text. Maxim., in
Script. p. 10.
The tree of life too may be understood as that
more divine thought that has its origin in the world of sense, and the
ascent through that to the originating and constructive cause of
all. And this was the name He gave to every tree, implying
fulness and indivisibility, and conveying only participation in what is
good. But by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we are
to understand that sensible and pleasurable food which, sweet though it
seems, in reality brings him who partakes of it into communion with
evil. For God says, Of every tree in Paradise thou mayest
freely eat
Chapter XII.—Concerning Man.
In this way, then, God
brought into existence mental essence τὴν νοητὴν
οὐσίαν;
rational being. την
αἰσθητήν;
material being, being perceptible by sense. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 38 and 42.
Now this being the case, He creates with His own hands
man of a visible nature and an invisible, after His own image and
likeness: on the one hand man’s body He formed of earth,
and on the other his reasoning and Ψυχὴν
λογικήν. Cf.
Chrysostom, Hom. in Gen. 9; Anastasius, Hom. in Hex. 7;
Clem. Alex., Strom. II.; Basil, Hom. de hom. Struct. 1;
Greg. Nyss., De opif. hom., ch. 16; Iren., Hær. v.
8, &c.
Further, body and soul were formed at one and the
same time Cf. Greg.
Naz., Orat. 31; Jerome, Epist. 82; August., De
Genesi, x. 28, &c.
God then made man without evil, upright, virtuous,
free from pain and care, glorified with every virtue, adorned with all
that is good, like a sort of second microcosm within the great
world ἐν
μικρῷ
μέγαν, is read in Nazianz.
Hom. 38 and 42: so also in Nicetas, who says that ‘the
world is small in comparison with man, for whose sake all was
made.’ But Combefis emended it. The text read,
τῷ
μεγέθει
φιλοτιμούμενος·
τὸ δὲ ἵνα
πάσχων
ὑπομιμνήσκηται,
καὶ
παιδεύηται
ζῶον. On the basis of various
manuscripts and the works of Gregory of Nazianzum, it is corrected
so—ἵνα πάσχῃ,
καὶ πάσχων,
ὑπομιμνήσκηται,
καὶ
παιδεύηται
τῷ μεγέθει
φιλοτιμούμενον. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 38 and 42.
But God made him by nature sinless, and endowed
him with free will. By sinless, I mean not that sin could find no
place in him (for that is the case with Deity alone), but that sin is
the result of the free volition he enjoys rather than an integral part
of his nature Reading,
οὐχ ὡς
ἐν τῆ φύσει, for
ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν
τῃ φύσει. Athan. lib. de
inob. contr. Apoll.
The soul, accordingly The Fathers
objected to Aristotle’s definition of the soul as the ἐντελέχεια
πρώτη
σώματος
φυσικοῦ
ὀργανικοῦ
taking it to imply that the soul had no independent existence but
was dissolved with the body. Cicero explains it otherwise,
Tusc. Quæst., bk. 1. Maxim., opus de
Anima.
Marg. The different applications of “incorporeal.” We understand two kinds of what is incorporeal and invisible and formless: the one is such in essence, the other by free gift: and likewise the one is such in nature, and the other only in comparison with the denseness of matter. God then is incorporeal by nature, but the angels and demons and souls are said to be so by free gift, and in comparison with the denseness of matter.
Further, body is that which has three dimensions, that is to say, it has length and breadth and depth, or thickness. And every body is composed of the four elements; the bodies of living creatures, moreover, are composed of the four humours.
Now there are, it should be known, four
elements: earth which is dry and cold: water which is cold
and wet: air which is wet and warm: fire which is warm and
dry. In like manner there are also four humours, analogous to the
four elements: black bile, which bears an analogy to earth, for
it is dry and cold: phlegm, analogous to water, for it is cold
and wet: blood, analogous to air Supplying the
words, τῷ
ὕδατι, ψυχρὸν
γὰρ καὶ
ὑγρόν· αἷμα,
ἀναλογοῦν.
Marg. That man has community alike with
inanimate things and animate creatures, whe
Man, it is to be noted, has community with things inanimate, and participates in the life of unreasoning creatures, and shares in the mental processes of those endowed with reason. For the bond of union between man and inanimate things is the body and its composition out of the four elements: and the bond between man and plants consists, in addition to these things, of their powers of nourishment and growth and seeding, that is, generation: and finally, over and above these links man is connected with unreasoning animals by appetite, that is anger and desire, and sense and impulsive movement.
There are then five senses, sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch. Further, impulsive movement consists in change from place to place, and in the movements of the body as a whole and in the emission of voice and the drawing of breath. For we have it in our power to perform or refrain from performing these actions.
Lastly, man’s reason unites him to incorporeal and intelligent natures, for he applies his reason and mind and judgment to everything, and pursues after virtues, and eagerly follows after piety, which is the crown of the virtues. And so man is a microcosm.
Moreover, it should be known that division and
flux and change τομὴ, καὶ
ρεῦσις, καὶ
μεταβολή. Nemes., de Nat.
Hom., ch. 1. Or,
breath, πνεῦμα. Nemes., de Nat.
Hom., ch. 1.
But piety and thought are the peculiar properties of the soul. And the virtues are common to soul and body, although they are referred to the soul as if the soul were making use of the body.
The reasoning part, it should be understood,
naturally bears rule over that which is void of reason. For the
faculties of the soul are divided into that which has reason, and that
which is without reason. Again, of that which is without reason
there are two divisions: that which does not listen to reason,
that is to say, is disobedient to reason, and that which listens and
obeys reason. That which does not listen or obey reason is the
vital or pulsating faculty, and the spermatic or generative faculty,
and the vegetative or nutritive faculty: to this belong also the
faculties of growth and bodily formation. For these are not under
the dominion of reason but under that of nature. That which
listens to and obeys reason, on the other hand is divided into anger
and desire. And the unreasoning part of the soul is called in
common the pathetic and the appetitive παθητικὸν
καὶ
ὀρεκτικόν. ἡ καθ᾽ ὁρμὴν
κίνησις.
The part The following three
paragraphs, as found in manuscripts and the old translation, are placed
at the end of ch. 32, “Concerning Anger,” but do not suit
the context there. Supplying the word
φυτικόν from
Nemesius.
Of the faculty of nutrition, then, there are four forces: an attractive force which attracts nourishment: a retentive force by which nourishment is retained and not suffered to be immediately excreted: an alternative force by which the food is resolved into the humours: and an excretive force, by which the excess of food is excreted into the draught and cast forth.
The forces again Nemes.,
ch. 23.
Lastly, we must observe that of actual things, some are good, and some are bad. A good thing in anticipation constitutes desire: while a good thing in realisation constitutes pleasure. Similarly an evil thing in anticipation begets fear, and in realisation it begets pain. And when we speak of good in this connection we are to be understood to mean both real and apparent good: and, similarly, we mean real and apparent evil.
There are pleasures of the soul and pleasures of
the body. The pleasures of the soul are those which are the
exclusive possession of the soul, such as the pleasures of learning and
contemplation. The pleasures of the body, however, are those
which are enjoyed by soul and body in fellowship, and hence are called
bodily pleasures: and such are the pleasures of food and
intercourse and the like. But one could not find any class of
pleasures Reading,
οὐκ ἂν
εὕροι τις
ἰδίας
ἡδονάς. Nemes.,
ch. 18: Chrys., Hom. in Joan., 74.
Again, some pleasures are true, others
false. And the exclusively intellectual pleasures consist in
knowledge and contemplation, while the pleasures of the body depend
upon sensation. Further, of bodily pleasures See
Chrysostom, Hom. in Joannem, 74; Cicero, De fin. bon. et
mal., 1.
Those then are to be considered moral καλάς,
honourable, good. Text, χωρούσας.
Variant, παραχωρούσας.
Chapter XIV.—Concerning Pain.
There are four varieties of pain, viz.,
anguish ἄχος. ἄχθος.
Chapter XV.—Concerning Fear.
Fear is divided into six varieties: viz.,
shrinking ὄκνος, dread. ἀγωνία. Nemesius and
certain manuscripts give these species of fear in a different order,
viz., dread, consternation, panic, anxiety, shame, disgrace.
Chapter XVI.—Concerning Anger.
Anger is the ebullition ζέσις, boiling. τοῦ περὶ
καρδίαν
αἵματος, the blood
about the heart. Nemes., ch.
21.
There are three forms of anger: rage, which the Greeks also call χολή or χόλος, μῆνις and κότος. When anger arises and begins to be roused, it is called rage or χολή or χόλος. Wrath again implies that the bile endures, that is to say, that the memory of the wrong abides: and indeed the Greek word for it, μῆνις is derived from μένειν, and means what abides and is transferred to memory. Rancour, on the other hand, implies watching for a suitable moment for revenge, and the Greek word for it is κότος from κεῖσθαι.
Anger further is the satellite of reason, the vindicator
of desire. For when we long after anything and are opposed in our
desire by some one, we are angered at that person, as though we had
been wronged: and reason evidently deems that there are just
grounds for displeasure in what has happened, in the
Chapter XVII.—Concerning Imagination.
Imagination φανταστικόν. Or,
presented. See
Aristotle, De anima, III. c. 7.
Chapter XVIII.—Concerning Sensation.
Sensation is that faculty of the soul whereby material objects can be apprehended or discriminated. And the sensoria are the organs or members through which sensations are conveyed. And the objects of sense are the things that come within the province of sensation. And lastly, the subject of sense is the living animal which possesses the faculty of sensation. Now there are five senses, and likewise five organs of sense.
The first sense is sight: and the sensoria
or organs of sight are the nerves of the brain and the eyes. Now
sight is primarily perception of colour, but along with the colour it
discriminates the body that has colour, and its size and form, and
locality, and the intervening space and the number Nemes.,
ch. 71.
The second sense is hearing, whereby voices and sounds are perceived. And it distinguishes these as sharp or deep, or smooth or loud. Its organs are the soft nerves of the brain, and the structure of the ears. Further, man and the ape are the only animals that do not move their ears.
The third sense is smell, which is caused by the nostrils transmitting the vapours to the brain: and it is bounded by the extreme limits of the anterior ventricle of the brain. It is the faculty by which vapours are perceived and apprehended. Now, the most generic distinction between vapours is whether they have a good or an evil odour, or form an intermediate class with neither a good nor an evil odour. A good odour is produced by the thorough digestion in the body of the humours. When they are only moderately digested the intermediate class is formed, and when the digestion is very imperfect or utterly wanting, an evil odour results.
The fourth sense is taste: it is the faculty
whereby the humours are apprehended or perceived, and its organs of
sense are the tongue, and more especially the lips, and the palate
(which the Greeks call οὐρανίσκος
), and in these are nerves that come from the brain and are spread out,
and convey to the dominant part of the soul the perception or sensation
they have encountered Nemes.,
ch. 9.
The fifth sense is touch, which is common to all
living things Ibid.,
ch. 8. ξηρόν is added in
some mss. but wrongly: for it is what is
perceived by touch alone that is here spoken of, whereas, below, we are
told that dryness is recognised also by sight; so also in
Nemesius.
The Creator, it is to be noted, fashioned
Further, it is to be observed that sight is possible only in straight lines, whereas smell and hearing are not limited to straight lines only, but act in all directions. Touch, again, and taste act neither in straight lines, nor in every direction, but only when each comes near to the sensible objects that are proper to it.
Chapter XIX.—Concerning Thought.
The faculty of thought deals with judgments and
assents, and impulse to action and disinclinations, and escapes from
action: and more especially with thoughts connected with what is
thinkable, and the virtues and the different branches of learning, and
the theories of the arts and matters of counsel and choice Nemes.,
ch. 11. Greg. Nyss.,
De opif. Hom., ch. 13.
Chapter XX.—Concerning Memory.
The faculty of memory is the cause Text, αἴτιον. R.
2930, ἀγγεῖον. φαντασία. καὶ
νοήσεως is wanting in
some mss., nor is it found in Nemesius, who
borrowed his description from Origen. Text,
σωτηρία.
Variant, σωρεία, a heaping up,
“coacervatio.” Faber has “confirmatio,”
which is nearer σωτηρία,
conservatio, which is found in Nemesius, &c. Nemes.,
ch. 13.
Further, it is worthy of remark that the apprehension of matters of thought depends on learning, or natural process of thought, and not on sensation. For though objects of sense are retained in the memory by themselves, only such objects of thought are remembered as we have learned, and we have no memory of their essence.
Recollection is the name given to the recovery of
some memory lost by forgetfulness. For forgetfulness is just loss
of memory. The faculty of imagination τὸ
φανταστικόν, the faculty of fantasy.
Chapter XXI.—Concerning Conception and Articulation.
Again the reasoning part of the soul is divided into conception and articulation. Conception is an activity of the soul originating in the reason without resulting in utterance. Accordingly, often, even when we are silent we run through a whole speech in our minds, and hold discussions in our dreams. And it is this faculty chiefly which constitutes us all reasoning beings. For those who are dumb by birth or have lost their voice through some disease or injury, are just as much reasoning beings. But articulation by voice or in the different dialects requires energy: that is to say, the word is articulated by the tongue and mouth, and this is why it is named articulation. It is, indeed, the messenger of thought, and it is because of it that we are called speaking beings.
Chapter XXII.—Concerning Passion and Energy.
Passion is a word with various meanings. It is
used in regard to the body, and refers to diseases and wounds, and
again, it is used in reference to the soul, and means desire and
anger. But to speak broadly and generally, passion is an animal
affection which is succeeded by pleasure and pain. For pain
succeeds passion, but is not the same thing as passion. For
passion is an affection of things without sense, but not so pain.
Pain then is not passion, but the sensation of passion: and it
must be considerable, that is to say,
Again, the definition of passions of the soul is this: Passion is a sensible activity of the appetitive faculty, depending on the presentation to the mind of something good or bad. Or in other words, passion is an irrational activity of the soul, resulting from the notion of something good or bad. For the notion of something good results in desire, and the notion of something bad results in anger. But passion considered as a class, that is, passion in general, is defined as a movement in one thing caused by another. Energy, on the other hand, is a drastic movement, and by “drastic” is meant that which is moved of itself. Thus, anger is the energy manifested by the part of the soul where anger resides, whereas passion involves the two divisions of the soul, and in addition the whole body when it is forcibly impelled to action by anger. For there has been caused movement in one thing caused by another, and this is called passion.
But in another sense energy is spoken of as passion. For energy is a movement in harmony with nature, whereas passion is a movement at variance with nature. According, then, to this view, energy may be spoken of as passion when it does not act in accord with nature, whether its movement is due to itself or to some other thing. Thus, in connection with the heart, its natural pulsation is energy, whereas its palpitation, which is an excessive and unnatural movement, is passion and not energy.
But it is not every activity of the passionate part of the soul that is called passion, but only the more violent ones, and such as are capable of causing sensation: for the minor and unperceived movements are certainly not passions. For to constitute passion there is necessary a considerable degree of force, and thus it is on this account that we add to the definition of passion that it is a sensible activity. For the lesser activities escape the notice of the senses, and do not cause passion.
Observe also that our soul possesses twofold faculties, those of knowledge, and those of life. The faculties of knowledge are mind, thought, notion, presentation, sensation: and the vital or appetitive faculties are will and choice. Now, to make what has been said clearer, let us consider these things more closely, and first let us take the faculties of knowledge.
Presentation and sensation then have already been
sufficiently discussed above. It is sensation that causes a
passion, which is called presentation, to arise in the soul, and from
presentation comes notion. Thereafter thought, weighing the truth
or falseness of the notion, determines what is true: and this
explains the Greek word for thought, διάνοια, which is
derived from διανοεῖν,
meaning to think and discriminate. That, however, which is
judged Cf.
Or to put it otherwise: The primary activity of the mind, observe, is intelligence, but intelligence applied to any object is called a thought, and when this persists and makes on the mind an impression of the object of thought, it is named reflection, and when reflection dwells on the same object and puts itself to the test, and closely examines the relation of the thought to the soul, it gets the name prudence. Further, prudence, when it extends its area forms the power of reasoning, and is called conception, and this is defined as the fullest activity of the soul, arising in that part where reason resides, and being devoid of outward expression: and from it proceeds the uttered word spoken by the tongue. And now that we have discussed the faculties of knowledge, let us turn to the vital or appetitive faculties.
It should be understood that there is implanted in the
soul by nature a faculty of desiring that which is in harmony with its
nature, and of maintaining in close union all that belongs essentially
to its nature: and this power is called will or θέλησις.
For the essence both of existence and of living yearns after activity
both as regards mind and sense, and in this it merely longs to realise
its own natural and perfect being. And so this definition also is
given of this natural will: will is an appetite, both rational
and vital, depending only on what is natural. So that
will Max. ad
Marin. et ad Incert. p. 98.
Again βούλησις or wish is a sort of natural will, that is to say, a natural and rational appetite for some definite thing. For there is seated in the soul of man a faculty of rational desire. When, then, this rational desire directs itself naturally to some definite object it is called wish. For wish is rational desire and longing for some definite thing.
Wish, however, is used both in connection with what is
within our power, and in connection with what is outside our power,
that is, both with regard to the possible and the impossible. For
we wish often to indulge lust or to be temperate, or to sleep and the
The wish τὸ
βουλητόν. Max. Dial. cum
Pyrrh. et Epist. 1 ad Marin.
In the case, however, of creatures without reason, as soon as appetite is roused for anything, straightway arises impulse to action. For the appetite of creatures without reason is irrational, and they are ruled by their natural appetite. Hence, neither the names of will or wish are applicable to the appetite of creatures without reason. For will is rational, free and natural desire, and in the case of man, endowed with reason as he is, the natural appetite is ruled rather than rules. For his actions are free, and depend upon reason, since the faculties of knowledge and life are bound up together in man. He is free in desire, free in wish, free in examination and investigation, free in deliberation, free in judgment, free in inclination, free in choice, free in impulse, and free in action where that is in accordance with nature.
But in the case of God Thomas Aquinas
(1—2, Quæst. 4, a. 1 and 2) lays down the
position in accordance with John of Damascus, that there is no
“counsel” in God quatenus est appetitus
inquisitivus, but that there is quantum ad certitudinem
judicii. Basil (Hexaëm. Hom. 1), arguing
against the ancient philosophers who taught that the world was
made ἀπροαιρέτως,
affirms “counsel” in God in the latter sense. Max., Epist.
1 ad Marin. Text, ὁ δὲ Θεὸς
πάντα εἰδὼς
ἁπλῶς, οὐ
βουλεύεται.
Various reading is, ὁ
δὲ Θεὸς
πάντα αἰδὼς
ἁπλῶς
βούλεται.
Nor in the case of the soul of the Lord do we
speak of counsel or choice, seeing that He had no part in
ignorance. For, although He was of a nature that is not cognisant
of the future, yet because of His oneness in subsistence with God the
Word, He had knowledge of all things, and that not by grace, but, as we
have said, because He was one in subsistence Max., Dial.
cum Pyrrh. διὸ οὐδὲ
γνωμικὸν
εἶχε
θέλημα. γνωμήν. v. infr.,
lib. iii. ch. 14. Or,
personalities. Text,
θελητόν, as given by
Faber. Variant, θελητικόν. τὸ
γνωμικὸν
θέλημα, the will of
individual opinion, or, the dispositional will.
Further note, that will (θέλησις) and wish (βούλησις) are two different things: also the object of will (τὸ θελητόν) and the capacity for will (θελητικόν), and the subject that exercises will (ὁ θέλων), are all different. For will is just the simple faculty of willing, whereas wish is will directed to some definite object. Again, the object of will is the matter underlying the will, that is to say, the thing that we will: for instance, when appetite is roused for food. The appetite pure and simple, however, is a rational will. The capacity for will, moreover, means that which possesses the volitional faculty, for example, man. Further, the subject that exercises will is the actual person who makes use of will.
The word τὸ
θελήμα, it is well to note,
sometimes denotes the will, that is, the volitional faculty, and in
this sense we speak of natural will: and sometimes it denotes the
object of will, and we speak of will (θέλημα
γνωμικόν)
depending on inclination Or, acting
by opinion, or disposition.
Chapter XXIII.—Concerning Energy.
All the faculties Anast. Sin.
in ῞Οδηγ., from Greg. Nyss.,
p. 44; Clem. Alex. ap. Max., p. 151. The Greek
ἐνεργεία being a
term with a large connotation is explained as meaning in different
cases operation (operatio), action
(actio), and act
(actus). Nemesius defines actio as
operatio rationalis, actus as perfectio
potentiæ
Natural energy again is the force in each essence
by which its nature is made manifest. And again: natural
energy is the primal, eternally-moving force of the intelligent
soul: that is, the eternally-moving word of the soul, which ever
springs naturally from it. And yet again: natural
energy Cf.
Anast. Sin. in ῾Οδηγός, p. 43;
John of Dam., Dialect. c. 30; Greg. Nyss., in
Maximus, II., p. 155.
But actions πράξεις.
So πρᾶξις is defined as
ἐνέργεια
λογική in the following
chapter. τὰ πάθη.
Cf. Instit. Elem., c. 9; Greg. Nyss., Cont. Eunom., v. p.
170. Max., Dial.
cum Pyrrh.
Things are spoken of in a twofold way as being potential and actual. For we say that the child at the breast is a potential scholar, for he is so equipped that, if taught, he will become a scholar. Further, we speak of a potential and an actual scholar, meaning that the latter is versed in letters, while the former has the power of interpreting letters, but does not put it into actual use: again, when we speak of an actual scholar, we mean that he puts his power into actual use, that is to say, that he really interprets writings.
It is, therefore, to be observed that in the second sense potentiality and actuality go together; for the scholar is in the one case potential, and in the other actual.
The primal and only true energy of nature is the
voluntary or rational and independent life which constitutes our
humanity. I know not how those who rob the Lord of this can say
that He became man Greg. Nyss.
ap. Max., p. 155.
Energy is drastic activity of nature: and by drastic is meant that which is moved of itself.
Chapter XXIV.—Concerning what is Voluntary and what is Involuntary.
The voluntary Cf.
Greg. Nyss., in Maxim.; Nemes., ch. 29.
Further, what is involuntary, depends in part on
force and in part on ignorance. It depends on force when the
creative beginning in cause is from without, that is to say, when one
is forced by another without being at all persuaded, or when one does
not contribute to the act on one’s own impulse, or does not
co-operate at all, or do on one’s own account that which is
exacted by force Nemes.,
ch. 30. Ibid., ch.
31.
As, then, that which is involuntary is in two
parts, one depending on force, the other on ignorance, that which is
voluntary is the opposite of both. For that which is voluntary is
the result neither of force nor of ignorance Ibid., ch.
32.
Notice that there are certain things that occupy a
place intermediate between what is voluntary and what is
involuntary. Although they are unpleasant and painful we welcome
them as the escape from a still greater trouble; for instance, to
escape shipwreck we cast the cargo overboard Ibid.,
ch. 30.
Notice also that children and irrational creatures
perform voluntary actions, but these do not involve the exercise of
choice: further, all our actions that are done in anger and
without previous deliberation are voluntary actions, but do not in the
least involve free choice Nemes.,
ch. 33.
Chapter
XXV.—Concerning what is in our own power, that
is, concerning Free-will τοῦ
αὐτεξουσίου.
See also III. 34.
The first enquiry involved in the consideration of
free-will, that is, of what is in our own power, is whether anything is
in our power Nemes.,
ch. 39.
Of all the things that happen, the cause is said
to be either God, or necessity, or fate, or nature, or chance, or
accident. But God’s function has to do with essence and
providence: necessity deals with the movement of things that ever
keep to the same course: fate with the necessary accomplishment
of the things it brings to pass (for fate itself implies
necessity): nature with birth, growth, destruction, plants and
animals; chance with what is rare and unexpected. For chance is
defined as the meeting and concurrence of two causes, originating in
choice but bringing to pass something other than what is natural:
for example, if a man finds a treasure while digging a ditch Text,
ταφρον. Variant,
τάφον. Text,
πράξεως.
mss. πράξεων, as in
Nemesius.
Further, if man is the author of no action, the faculty of deliberation is quite superfluous: for to what purpose could deliberation be put if man is the master of none of his actions? for all deliberation is for the sake of action. But to prove that the fairest and most precious of man’s endowments is quite superfluous would be the height of absurdity. If then man deliberates, he deliberates with a view to action. For all deliberation is with a view to and on account of action.
Chapter
XXVI.—Concerning Events περὶ τῶν
γινομένων.
Of events Nemes.,
ch. 40. τὰ ψυχικὰ
πάντα.
Note, however, that while the choice of what is to
be done is ever in our power, the action itself often is prevented by
some dispensation of the divine Providence Nemes.,
ch. 37.
Chapter XXVII.—Concerning the reason of our endowment with Free-will.
We hold, therefore, that free-will This is
supplied by Combefis from Nemesius. Nemes.,
ch. 41. This
sentence is omitted in Basil and some mss.
Note also that the angels, being rational, are endowed
with free-will, and, inasmuch as they are created, are liable to
change. This Nemesius speaks
of this at greater length.
Chapter XXVIII.—Concerning what is not in our hands.
Of things that are not in our hands some have
their beginning or cause in those that are in our power, that is to
say, the recompenses of our actions both in the present and in the age
to come, but all the rest are dependent on the divine will. For
the origin of all things is from God, but their destruction has been
introduced by our wickedness for our punishment or benefit. For
God did not create death, neither does He take delight in the
destruction of living things
Chapter XXIX.—Concerning Providence.
Providence, then, is the care that God takes over
existing things. And again: Providence is the will of God
through which all existing things receive their fitting issue Nemes.,
ch. 43. Ibid.,
ch. 42.
That He provides, and that He provides
excellently Nemes., ch.
44.
When, therefore, we give heed to these things we
ought to be filled with wonder at all the works of Providence, and
praise them all The words
πάντα
ἐπαινεῖν are
wanting in Cod. R. 2 and in Nemes., ch. 44.
Now the works of Providence are partly according
to the good-will κατ᾽
εὐδοκίαν. κατὰ
συγχώρησιν. There is a
hiatus here in Edit. Veron. and in Cod. R. 2927. Various
readings are found in other mss., some with no
sense and others evidently supplied by librarians. It is best
supplied from Nemesius, ch. 44, τῆς δὲ
συγχωρήσεως
πολλὰ εἴδη,
“but there are many forms of concession.” Nemes, ch.
44.
One man is forsaken for a season with a view to
another’s restoration, in order that others when they see his
state may be taught a lesson Nemes.,
ch. 44. St. St.
Moreover, it is to be observed Nemes., ch.
37. Cf.
Nemes., c. 27; also Cicero’s statement on Providence in
the Academ. Quest. See the reference in
Migne.
Now there are two forms of desertion: for
there is desertion in the matters of guidance and training, and there
is complete and hopeless desertion. The former has in view the
restoration and safety and glory of the sufferer, or the rousing of
feelings of emulation and imitation in others, or the glory of
God: but the latter is when man, after God has done all that was
possible to save him, remains of his own set purpose blind and uncured,
or rather incurable, and then he is handed over to utter destruction,
as was Judas St.
Observe further that the ways of God’s providence are many, and they cannot be explained in words nor conceived by the mind.
And remember that all the assaults of dark and evil fortune contribute to the salvation of those who receive them with thankfulness, and are assuredly ambassadors of help.
Also one must bear in mind See
Chrysostom, Hom. 1, in Epist. ad. Ephes., and Hom.
18, in Epist. ad Hebræos.
The first then is called God’s antecedent
will and pleasure, and springs from Himself, while the second is called
God’s consequent will and permission, and has its origin in
us. And the latter is two-fold; one part dealing with matters of
guidance and training, and having in view our salvation, and the other
being hopeless and leading to our utter punishment, as we said
above. And this is the case with actions that are not left in our
hands These words
are wanting in two mss.
But of actions that are in our hands the good ones
depend on His antecedent goodwill and pleasure, while the wicked ones
depend neither on His antecedent nor on His consequent will, but are a
concession to free-will. For that which is the result of
compulsion has neither reason nor virtue in it. God This last sentence is
absent in one Codex. St.
Chapter XXX.—Concerning Prescience and Predestination.
We ought to understand Chrys., Hom.
12 in Epist. ad. Ephes. Cf.
Maximus, Vita, n. 8; Just. Martyr, Apol. 1; Tatian,
Or. ad Græcos; Origen, Ep. ad Rom. 1; Jerome, on
Ezek. c. xxiv., &c. Act. S.
Max.
Bear in mind, too Cf. Clem.
Alex., Strom., bk. vi.; Jerome, on Ep. ad Gal., ch.
1; Greg. Naz, Carmen de virt. hum. Cf. Clem.
Alex., Quis dives salvetur; Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 31; Chrysost., Hom. 45in Joann., Hom. in Ep.
ad Hebr. xii. 2, Hom. 15 in Ep. ad Rom.; Cyril, De
ador. in Spir. et ver., p. 25; Petavius, Dogm., vol. i., bk.
ix. c. 4, &c. Cf.
infra, bk. iii. ch. 14.
Repentance is the returning from the unnatural into the natural state, from the devil to God, through discipline and effort.
Man then the Creator made male, giving him to share in His own divine grace, and bringing him thus into communion with Himself: and thus it was that he gave in the manner of a prophet the names to living things, with authority as though they were given to be his slaves. For having been endowed with reason and mind, and free-will after the image of God, he was fitly entrusted with dominion over earthly things by the common Creator and Master of all.
But since God in His prescience ὁ προγνώστης
Θεός. See Athanas., in
Psalm 1; Chrysost. in Hom. 18 in Gen.; Greg.
Nyss., De opif. hom.; Athanas., Minor, Quest. 50 ad
Antioch.; Thomas Aquinas I., Quæst. 98,
Art. 2.
This man He Greg. Nyss., De
opif., ch. 20. Text, εὐφραινόμενος.
Variant, σεμνυνόμενος.
When therefore He had furnished his nature with
free-will, He imposed a law on him, not to taste of the tree of
knowledge. Concerning this tree, we have said as much as is
necessary in the chapter about Paradise, at least as much as it was in
our power to say. And with this command He gave the promise that,
if he should preserve the dignity of the soul by giving the victory to
reason, and acknowledging his Creator and observing His command, he
should share eternal blessedness and live to all eternity, proving
mightier than death: but if forsooth he should subject the soul
to the body, and prefer the delights of the body, comparing himself in
ignorance of his true dignity to the senseless beasts
It was necessary, therefore, that man should first
be put to the test (for man untried and unproved ἀδοκιμος; in
Cod. R. 2 ἀδοκίμαστον. This parenthesis is
absent in almost all codices and in the translations of Faber,
&c. Cf. Greg.
Naz., Orat. 38 and 42; Cyril Alex., Cont. Anthrop., I. 8;
Anast. II. Antioch., Hexaëm. vi; Chrysost., Hom. 10
in Ep. ad Rom., Hom. 5 in Ep. ad Epes.,
&c.
Book III.
Chapter I.—Concerning the Divine Œconomy and God’s care over us, and concerning our salvation.
Man, then, was thus
snared by the assault of the arch-fiend, and broke his Creator’s
command, and was stripped of grace and put off his confidence with God,
and covered himself with the asperities of a toilsome life (for this is
the meaning of the fig-leaves Text, παρεῖδεν.
Variant, περιεῖδεν. ἐπιστασία,
care, or dominion. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 12 and 38. Text, πάλην. Variant,
πλάσιν, cf.
“plasmationem” (Faber). Text, παρείδε.
Variant, περιεῖδεν. Greg. Nyss.,
Orat. Cathec., ch. 20 et seqq. St.
“Condescends to His servants” is absent in some
mss. Greg. Nyss.,
Cat. ch. 16. Athan., De salut.
adv. Christi.
Chapter II.
—Concerning the manner in which the
Word
Text, τοῦ
Λόλου. Variant, τοῦ Θεοῦ
Λόγου: so Dei Verbi
(Faber).
The angel of the Lord was sent to the holy Virgin,
who was descended from David’s line St. St. St. St. “Of
thee” is wanting in some mss. St.
So then, after the assent of the holy Virgin, the
Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the word of the Lord which
the angel spoke, purifying her Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 38 and 42. Cf. Athan.,
Ep. ad Serap., De Spiritu Sancto; Greg. Nyss., Contr. Apoll.
6, 25; Rufinus, Exp. Symb.; Tertullian, De Carne Christi
and Contr. Prax.; Hilary, De Trin. II. 26. Basil, Christi
Nativ. Cyril,
Apolog. 5 and 8 anathem. Cf. Greg.
Naz., 1 Ep. ad Cledon; Cyril, 1 Ep. ad
Nestor.; Theodor., Ep. ad Joan. Antioch., &c. Cyril., Epist. ad
Monach. Procl.,
Epist. 2 ad Arm. τῆν
οἰκονομίαν, the œconomy, the Incarnation. Cod.
R. 2428 adds here some statements taken from the
Dissertation against the Nestorians.
Chapter III.—Concerning Christ’s two
natures, in opposition to those who hold that He has only
one κατὰ
Μονοφυσιτῶν
: these words are absent in mss.
For the two natures were united with each other
without change or alteration, neither the divine nature departing from
its native simplicity, nor yet the human being either changed into the
nature of God or reduced to non-existence, nor one compound nature
being produced out of the two. For the compound nature Cf. Eulogius
and also Polemon in the Collect. Contr. Severianos. Max. Epist. ad
Joan. cubic. p. 279.
We, however, do not give it as our view that
Christ’s nature is compound, nor yet that He is one thing made of
other things and differing from them as man is made of soul and body,
or as the body is made of the four elements, but hold Ibid. p.
286. ἐξ
ἑτέρων τὰ
αὐτά. Cod. R. 3
reads ταῦτα. See also
Cyril, Ep. 2 ad Success. Cf.
Niceph. Call., Hist. xviii. 46. Eulog. apud
Max., t. ii. p. 145.
How, indeed, could one and the same nature come to embrace opposing and essential differences? For how is it possible that the same nature should be at once created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, circumscribed and uncircumscribed?
But if those who declare that Christ has only one nature should say also that that nature is a simple one, they must admit either that He is God pure and simple, and thus reduce the incarnation to a mere pretence, or that He is only man, according to Nestorius. And how then about His being “perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity”? And when can Christ be said to be of two natures, if they hold that He is of one composite nature after the union? For it is surely clear to every one that before the union Christ’s nature was one.
But this is what leads the heretics Cf. Sever.,
Ep. 2 ad Joannem. Anast.
Sinaita, in ῾Οδηγῷ, ch. 9; Leontius,
contr. Nest. et Eutych. Greg. Naz., Ep.
ad Cled., 1. τὸν αὐτὸν
ἐπιδέχονται
λόγον τῆς
φύσεως;
perhaps—all admit the same account of the nature,—all
can be dealt with in the same way in respect of nature.
But Leontius,
Contr. Sev. et Eutych. Max. loc. cit., p. 277. Reading ὥσπερ ἐπὶ
ἀτόμου, &c.
These words are omitted in Cod. S. Hil. Reg. 10, Colb. 3, and
N. ἤ σύγκρασιν, ἢ
ἀνάκρασιν.
The mss. omit the latter. The word
Εὐτυχής, however, is
omitted by the best copies. Procl.,
Epist. 2 ad Arm. Greg. Naz.,
Hom. 5. See also John’s Dialect.,
65. Leo papa,
Epist. 10, ch. 4.
Moreover, the Word appropriates to Himself the
attributes of humanity: for all that pertains to His holy flesh
is His: and He imparts to the flesh His own attributes by way of
communication κατὰ τὸν
ἀντιδόσεως
τρόπον, in the way of a
communication of properties. διὰ τὴν εἰς
ἄλληλα τῶν
μερῶν
περιχώρησιν. See Leont., De Sect., 7, Contr. Nest. et Eutych.,
I. Leo papa,
epist. 10, ch. 4. St.
Chapter
IV.—Concerning the manner of the Mutual
Communication Cf.
Athan., De Salut. adv. Christi; Greg. Naz., Orat. 38;
Greg. Nyss., Contr. Apoll.; Leont., Contr. Nestor. et
Eutych., bk. 1; Thomas Aquinas, III., quæst. 16,
art. 4, 5.
Now we have often said already that essence is one
thing and subsistence another, and that essence signifies the common
and general form εἶδος, form,
class, species.
Therefore, in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ,
seeing that we recognise that He has two natures but only one
subsistence compounded of both, when we contemplate His natures we
speak of His divinity and His humanity, but when we contemplate the
subsistence compounded of the natures we sometimes use terms that have
reference to His double nature, as “Christ,” and “at
once God and man,” and “God Incarnate;” and sometimes
those that imply only one of His natures, as “God” alone,
or “Son of God,” and “man” alone, or “Son
of Man;” sometimes using names that imply His loftiness and
sometimes those that imply His lowliness. For He Who is alike God
and man is one, being the former from the Father ever without ἀεὶ
ἀναιτίως ἐκ
Πατρός. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 35.
Chapter V.—Concerning the number of the Natures.
In the case, therefore, of the Godhead Leont., Resp. ad
argum. Sever. For καὶ τῇ
αἰτιατῇ καὶ
ὑ& 187·κῇ, καὶ τῇ
αἰτιατῇ καὶ
ἐκπορευτῇ we get
καὶ τῇ
αἰτιατικῇ,
καὶ ὑ& 187·κῃ,
καὶ πορευτῇ
in Cod. Colb. 1, Cod. Reg. 3, and so Faber
also. οἰκονομίας, incarnation. Leont., Resp.
ad argum. Sever. See
Leont., Act. 7. De Sect., with reference to one of the
arguments of the Nestorians; also Greg. Naz., Orat. 36; Max.,
Ep. 1 ad Joan. Cubic. Infr.
ch. vii.: Basil, Epist. 40 and Bk. De Spir.
Sanct. ch. 17.
Chapter VI.—That in one of its subsistences the divine nature is united in its entirety to the human nature, in its entirety and not only part to part.
What is common and general is predicated of the
included particulars. Essence, then, is common as being a
form εἶδος, form, class,
species. These words are
found only in Cod. Reg. 2927. The words οὐσία
παθητή and πέπονθε are omitted in
some editions.
Thus, therefore, we confess that the nature of the
Godhead is wholly and perfectly in each of its subsistences, wholly in
the Father, wholly in the Son, and wholly in the Holy Spirit.
Wherefore also the Father is perfect God, the Son is perfect God, and
the Holy Spirit is perfect God. In like manner, too, in the
Incarnation of the Trinity of the One God the Word of the Holy Trinity,
we hold that in one of its subsistences the nature of the Godhead is
wholly and perfectly united with the whole nature of humanity, and not
part united to part Against Arius,
Apollinaris, and the Severians. Dion., De div.
nom., ch. 2. Athan., De salut.
adv. Christ: Greg. Naz., Epist. 1 ad Cled. et
Orat. 1: Cyril, in John viii.
The Word of God Cf. Greg.
Naz., Orat. 1, &c. Greg., Orat.
1, 38–51. περιχωρεῖται
ὑπὸ του
κρείττονος. Infr., ch.
xviii.
Further the mind has become the seat of the
divinity united with it in subsistence, just as is evidently the case
with the body too, not as an inmate ου
σύνοικος. It is
proposed to read αὐτοῦ
σύνοικος, or
ὡς σύνοικος. Greg., Epist.
1 ad Cled.
We hold, moreover, that our nature has been raised
from the dead and has ascended to the heavens and taken its seat at the
right hand of the Father: not that all the persons of men have
risen from the dead and taken their seat at the right hand of the
Father, but that this has happened to the whole of our nature in the
subsistence of Christ Athan., De salut.
adv. Christ.
And this further we hold, that the union took
place through common essences. For every essence is common to the
subsistences contained in it, and there cannot be found a partial and
particular nature, that is to say, essence: for otherwise we
would have to hold that the same subsistences are at once the same and
different in essence, and that the Holy Trinity in respect of the
divinity is at once the same and different in essence. So then
the same nature is to be observed in each of the subsistences, and when
we said that the nature of the word became flesh, as did the blessed
Athanasius and Cyrillus, we mean that the divinity was joined to the
flesh. Hence we cannot say “The nature of the Word
suffered;” for the divinity in it did not suffer, but we say that
the human nature, not by any means, however, meaning Text, ὑπεμφαίνοντες.
Variant, ἐμφαίνομεν.
Chapter VII.—Concerning the one compound subsistence of God the Word.
We hold then that the divine subsistence of God the Word existed before all else and is without time and eternal, simple and uncompound, uncreated, incorporeal, invisible, intangible, uncircumscribed, possessing all the Father possesses, since He is of the same essence with Him, differing from the Father’s subsistence in the manner of His generation and the relation of the Father’s subsistence, being perfect also and at no time separated from the Father’s subsistence: and in these last days, without leaving the Father’s bosom, took up His abode in an uncircumscribed manner in the womb of the holy Virgin, without the instrumentality of seed, and in an incomprehensible manner known only to Himself, and causing the flesh derived from the holy Virgin to subsist in the very subsistence that was before all the ages.
So then He was both in all things and above all
things and also dwelt in the womb of the holy Mother of God, but in it
by the energy of the incarnation. He therefore became flesh and
He took upon Himself thereby the first-fruits of our compound
nature ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ
ἡμετέρου
φυράματος. σύνθετον
γενέσθαι τὴν
πρότερον
ἁπλῆν οὖσαν
τοῦ Λόγου
ὑπόστασιν,
σύνθετον δὲ
ἐκ δύο
τελείων
φύσεων.
Wherefore we confess Him, even after the
incarnation, the one Son of God, and likewise Son of Man, one Christ,
one Lord, the only-begotten Son and Word of God, one Lord Jesus.
We reverence His two generations, one from the Father before time and
beyond cause and reason and time and nature, and one in the end for our
sake, and like to us and above us; for our sake because it was for our
salvation, like to us in that He was man born of woman Text, καὶ χρόνῳ
κυήσεως. Various
readings, καὶ
τρόπῳ
κυήσεως: καὶ
χρόνῳ καὶ
κυήσει: καὶ
νόμῳ
κυήσεως. Cf. Ruf.,
Expos. Symb.; Epiph., in the epilogue to his De Hær.;
Joan. Scyth., Epist. Dionys. 4. Μαρίας is absent in
most mss.
And we confess also that there is one incarnate
nature of God the Word, expressing by the word
“incarnate Expositio fidei a
Patribus Nicænis contra Paul. Samos.III. p. conc.
Ephes. Commonit. ad
Eulog. et Epist. 2 ad Success.; cf. supr. ch.
vi. et infr. ch. xi.
He is then wholly perfect God, but yet is not
simply ὅλος μὲν οὖν
ἐστι Θεὸς
τέλειος, οὐχ
ὅλον δὲ
Οεός. ὅλος ὅλον ὅλον ὅλος Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 51. The following is
added in R. 2927: ἐν
πᾶσι μὲν ἦν,
καὶ ὑπὲρ τὰ
πάντα, καὶ ἐν
τῇ γάστρι τῆς
Θεομήτορος,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν
ταύτῃ τε,
ἐνεργεί& 139·
τῆς
σαρκώσεως.
This is assuredly an interpolation.
But observe v. supr. ch.
iii. Leontius de
sectis, Act. 3.
Chapter
VIII.—In reply to those who ask whether Directed
against the Severians. See Leont., De Sect., Act. 7;
Greg. Naz., Orat. 37. ὑπὸ
τὸ συνεχὲς
πόσον
ἀνάγονται αἱ
τοῦ Κυρίου
φύσεις, ἢ ὑπο
τὸ
διωρισμένον.
If any one asks concerning the natures of the Lord
if they are brought under a continuous or discontinuous
quantity Text, ἀνάγονται.
Variants, ἀναφέροιντο
and διαφέροιντο. μία
ἐπιφάνεια.
Further note that number deals with things that differ, and it is quite impossible to enumerate things that differ from one another in no respect: and just so far as they differ are they enumerated: for instance, Peter and Paul are not counted separately in so far as they are one. For since they are one in respect of their essence they cannot be spoken of as two natures, but as they differ in respect of subsistence they are spoken of as two subsistences. So that number deals with differences, and just as the differing objects differ from one another so far they are enumerated.
The natures of the Lord, then, are united without confusion so far as regards subsistence, and they are divided without separation according to the method and manner of difference. And it is not according to the manner in which they are united that they are enumerated, for it is not in respect of subsistence that we hold that there are two natures of Christ: but according to the manner in which they are divided without separation they are enumerated, for it is in respect of the method and manner of difference that there are two natures of Christ. For being united in subsistence and permeating one another, they are united without confusion, each preserving throughout its own peculiar and natural difference. Hence, since they are enumerated according to the manner of difference, and that alone, they must be brought under a discontinuous quantity.
Christ, therefore Cyril, De
Anath. 8 cont. Theod. The Apollinarians
attacked the orthodox as ἀνθρωπολάτραι, man-worshippers, and as making the Trinity a Quaternity by
their doctrine of two perfect natures in Christ. See Greg.
Naz., Ep. 1 ad Cled.; Athanas., Ep. ad Epictet.;
Anastas. Antioch., De Operationibus; Cyril, Contr.
Nestor. 1.
In reply See Migne on the
position of this section.
The natures of the Lord are neither one body nor one superficies, nor one line, nor place, nor time, so as to be brought under a continuous quantity: for these are the things that are reckoned continuously. But the natures of the Lord are united without confusion in respect of subsistence, and are divided without separation according to the method and manner of difference. And according to the manner in which they are united they are not enumerated. For we do not say that the natures of Christ are two subsistences or two in respect of subsistence. But according to the manner in which they are divided without division, are they enumerated. For there are two natures according to the method and manner of difference. For being united in subsistence and permeating one another they are united without confusion, neither having been changed into the other, but each preserving its own natural difference even after the union. For that which is created remained created, and that which is uncreated, uncreated. By the manner of difference, then, and in that alone, they are enumerated, and thus are brought under discontinuous quantity. For things which differ from each other in no respect cannot be enumerated, but just so far as they differ are they enumerated; for instance, Peter and Paul are not enumerated in those respects in which they are one: for being one in respect of their essence they are not two natures nor are they so spoken of. But inasmuch as they differ in subsistence they are spoken of as two subsistences. So that difference is the cause of number.
Chapter IX.—In reply to the question whether there is Nature that has no Subsistence.
For although Another
allegation of the Severian party is in view here. See Leont.,
De Sect., Act. 7, Contr. Nestor. et Eutych. 1.; John of
Dam., Dialect. 29. Leont., De sect.,
Act 7.
Chapter X.—Concerning the Trisagium (“the Thrice Holy”).
This being so Dam., Epist. ad
Jord. Archim. Text, βλάσφημον.
Variant, βλασφημίαν. Text, βλάσφημον.
Variant, βλασφημίαν. These words
which refer to the Holy Spirit are absent in R. 2930 and in Orat. 39.
For that the “Trisagium” refers not to
the Son alone Vid. Epist. ad
Jordan. Orat. 42. at
the beginning.
Ecclesiastical historians Epist. ad Petrum
Fullonem; Theoph., Ad Arn. 5930. See Niceph.
Call., Hist. xviii. 51. Conc. Chal.,
Act. 1, at the end. In Cod. S.
Hil. is written above the line ἢ θεηλάτου
ὀργῆς
παύσει, which explains the
author’s meaning.
Chapter XI.—Concerning the Nature as viewed in Species and in Individual, and concerning the difference between Union and Incarnation: and how this is to be understood, “The one Nature of God the Word Incarnate.”
Nature Niceph. Call.,
Hist. xviii. 51, speaks of this Hymn and also the φῶς
ἱλαρόν as coming from the
Apostles themselves. The writer of the Life of Basil supposed to
be Amphilochius of Iconium, declares that the Trisagium was
recited by Basil at Nicæa. ἢ ψιλῇ θεωρί&
139·
κατανοεῖται. This division is
absent in some copies and is not restored in the old translation, but
is not superfluous. St.
Union, then, is one thing, and incarnation is
something quite different. For union signifies only the
conjunction, but not at all that with which union is effected.
But incarnation (which is just the same as if one said “the
putting on of man’s nature”) signifies that the conjunction
is with flesh, that is to say, with man, just as the heating of
iron τοῦ
σιδήρου is absent in some
codices and also in the old translation. τὴν
οἰκονομίαν, the incarnation. ἡ καθ᾽ ἡμάς
οὐσία. Supr. ch. 6
and 7. Leont., De sect.
Act. 8. Cyril, Defens.
II., Anath. cont. Theod.
It has been said, then, that the nature of the
Word became flesh, that is, was united to flesh: but that the
nature of the Word suffered in the flesh we have never heard up till
now, though we have been taught that Christ suffered in the
flesh. So that “the nature of the Word” does not mean
“the subsistence.” It remains, therefore, to say that
to become flesh is to be united with the flesh, while the Word having
become flesh means that the very subsistence of the Word became without
change the subsistence of the flesh. It has also been said that
God became man, and man God. For the Word which is God became
without alteration man. But that the Godhead became man, or
became flesh, or put on the nature of man, this we have never
heard. This, indeed, we have learned, that the Godhead was united
to humanity in one of its subsistences, and it has been stated that God
took on a different form or essence ὁ Θεὸς
μορφοῦται,
ἤτοι
οὐσιουται τὸ
ἀλλότριον.
Gregory of Nazianzum in his Carmen used the term
οὐσιοῦσθαι
of the word after the assumption of our nature. See also
Dionys., De div. nom., ch. 2; Ep. ad Carmen, 4;
&c.
Besides all this, notice Dion., De div.
nom., ch. 8.
Chapter XII.—That the holy Virgin is the Mother of God: an argument directed against the Nestorians.
Moreover we proclaim the holy Virgin to be See especially
Greg. Naz., Ep. 1 ad Cled.; Theod., Hær.
fab., v. 18. Greg. Naz.,
Epist. I. ad Cledon. Ibid. Infr. ch.
18.
Although Greg. Naz.,
ibid.
And again the Apostle says: God sent
forth His only-begotten Son, made of a woman
But He was born after the bodily fashion inasmuch as He became man, and did not take up His abode in a man formed beforehand, as in a prophet, but became Himself in essence and truth man, that is He caused flesh animated with the intelligent and reasonable to subsist in His own subsistence, and Himself became subsistence for it. For this is the meaning of “made of a woman.” For how could the very Word of God itself have been made under the law, if He did not become man of like essence with ourselves?
Hence it is with justice and truth that we call the holy Mary the Mother of God. For this name embraces the whole mystery of the dispensation. For if she who bore Him is the Mother of God, assuredly He Who was born of her is God and likewise also man. For how could God, Who was before the ages, have been born of a woman unless He had become man? For the son of man must clearly be man himself. But if He Who was born of a woman is Himself God, manifestly He Who was born of God the Father in accordance with the laws of an essence that is divine and knows no beginning, and He Who was in the last days born of the Virgin in accordance with the laws of an essence that has beginning and is subject to time, that is, an essence which is human, must be one and the same. The name in truth signifies the one subsistence and the two natures and the two generations of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But we never say that the holy Virgin is the
Mother of Christ χριστοτόκος,
as opposed to θεοτόκος. Cyril, ad
Monachos, Epist. 1. ὡς
ἐπηρεαζομένην
is absent in Vegelinus. i.e.
Anointed One. θεοφόρος,
Deigerus. See Greg. Naz., Ep. 2, ad Cled.
Basil, De Spir. Sanc., ch. 5, &c. Cyril, cont.
Nest., bk. 1. ἀεί is absent in Vegelinus. οἰκονομίας
λόγῳ, by reason of the
incarnation. Reading
γινόμενα,
for which Cod. R. 2930 gives ὑπῆρχον.
Chapter XIII.—Concerning the properties of the two Natures.
Confessing, then, the same Jesus Christ, our Lord, to be perfect God and perfect man, we hold that the same has all the attributes of the Father save that of being ingenerate, and all the attributes of the first Adam, save only his sin, these attributes being body and the intelligent and rational soul; and further that He has, corresponding to the two natures, the two sets of natural qualities belonging to the two natures: two natural volitions, one divine and one human, two natural energies, one divine and one human, two natural free-wills, one divine and one human, and two kinds of wisdom and knowledge, one divine and one human. For being of like essence with God and the Father, He wills and energises freely as God, and being also of like essence with us He likewise wills and energises freely as man. For His are the miracles and His also are the passive states.
Chapter XIV.—Concerning the volitions and free-will of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Since, then, Christ has two natures, we hold that
He has also two natural wills and two natural energies. But since
His two natures have one subsistence, we hold that it is one and the
same person who wills and energises naturally in both natures, of
which, and in which, and also which is Christ our Lord: and
moreover that He wills and energises without separation but as a united
whole. For He wills and energises in either form in close
communion with the other Leo,
Epist. 10, ad Flavian. Max., Disp. cum
Pyrrho.
Wherefore Supr., bk.
ii. ch. 22. οἰκονομίας,
incarnation.
For it is to be noted Max., Dial.
cum Pyrrho; Anast. in ῾Οδηγός, ch. 6, p. 40.
Simple willing then is spoken of as volition or
the faculty of will τὸ μὲν
ἁπλῶς θέλειν,
θέλησις, ἤτοι
ἡ θελητικὴ
δύναμις. ὄρεξις. θέλητον,
willed, the thing willed. θέλημα
γνωμικόν,
dispositional volition, will of judgment. θελητικον, volitive. Volitivum, volitive, is the Scholastic
translation θελητικόν.
Since, then Max., Dial. cum
Pyrrh. Max.,
ibid.
But that volition is implanted in man by
nature Max.,
ibid.
Further, that which is natural is not the result of training: for no one learns how to think, or live, or hunger, or thirst, or sleep. Nor do we learn how to will: so that willing is natural.
And again: if in the case of creatures devoid of reason nature rules, while nature is ruled in man who is moved of his own free-will and volition, it follows, then, that man is by nature endowed with volition.
And again: if man has been made after the
image of the blessed and super-essential Godhead, and if the divine
nature is by nature endowed with free-will and volition, it follows
that man, as its image, is free by nature and volitive θελητικός, endowed with volition. θέλησις,
will.
And further: if to will is a part of the
nature of every man and not present in some and absent in others, and
if that which is seen to be common to all is a characteristic feature
of the nature that belongs to the individuals of the class, surely,
then, man is by nature endowed with volition θελητικός.
And once more: if the nature receives
neither more nor less, but all are equally endowed with volition and
not some more than others, then by nature man is endowed with
volition θελητικός. καὶ κατὰ
τοῦτο οἱ
Πατέρες τὸ
ἡμέτερον ἐν
ἑαυτῷ
τυπῶσαι
αὐτὸν ἔφησαν
θέλημα: and
according to this the Fathers said that He typified, moulded, had the
form of our will in Himself.
If the will is not natural, it must be either hypostatic
or unnatural. But if it is hypostatic, the Son must thus,
forsooth, have a different will from what the Father has: for
that which is hypostatic is characteristic of subsistence only.
And if it is unnatural, will must be a defection from nature: for
The God and Father of all things wills either as Father or as God. Now if as Father, His will will be different from that of the Son, for the Son is not the Father. But if as God, the Son is God and likewise the Holy Spirit is God, and so volition is part of His nature, that is, it is natural.
Besides Greg. Nyss., Cont.
Apollin and others, Act. 10, sext.
syn.
And again: if according to the view of the Fathers the distinction between the natures is not seen in the single will, we must either, when we speak of the one will, cease to speak of the different natures in Christ or, when we speak of the different natures of Christ, cease to speak of the one will.
And further Max., Agatho pap.
Epist. Syn. in VI Syn., Act. 4. St.
And once again Max.,
ibid. ἐμπαθής, passible,
sensible, possessed of sensibility. πάθος,
sensibility. In N. is
added: καὶ
εἰ ἐν τῇ
ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ
πάθους
λέγει· Πάτερ,
εἰ δυνατὸν,
παρελθέτω τὸ
ποτήριον
τοῦτο ἀπ᾽
ἐμοῦ. Πλὴν
οὐχ ὡς ἐγὼ
θέλω, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς
σύ. ᾽Ιδοὺ
δύο θελήσεις,
θεϊκὴ ἅμα καὶ
ἀνθρωπίνη.
Moreover, the blessed Paul the Apostle says, He
became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross Max., ut
supr. τῶν ὑπὸ
χεῖρα γὰρ
ταῦτα. Orat. 36,
some distance from the beginning.
While, however, we assert that will is natural, we hold not that it is dominated by necessity, but that it is free. For if it is rational, it must be absolutely free. For it is not only the divine and uncreated nature that is free from the bonds of necessity, but also the intellectual and created nature. And this is manifest: for God, being by nature good and being by nature the Creator and by nature God, is not all this of necessity. For who is there to introduce this necessity?
It is to be observed further Max., Disp. cum
Pyrrh. ὡς
συντρεχούσης
τῇ ἕξει τῆς
προχειρίσεως, the choice, or decision, being synchronous with the moral
disposition.
If, then, Adam Max., Disp. cum
Pyrrh.
Moreover, if the faculty of free-will which is in nature is His work and yet He did not assume it, He either condemned His own workmanship as not good, or grudged us the comfort it brought, and so deprived us of the full benefit, and shewed that He was Himself subject to passion since He was not willing or not able to work out our perfect salvation.
Moreover, one cannot speak of one com πρῶτον μὲν,
ὅτι αἱ
συνθέσεις
τῶν ἐν
ὑποστάσει
ὄντων, καὶ οὐ
τῶν ἑτέρῳ
λόγῳ, καὶ οὐκ
ἰδί& 251·
θεωρουμένων
εἰσί.
And we cannot Max., Dial. cum
Pyrrh. Max., Epist. ad
Marin. προαίρεσις. Basil, on Φυσικαὶ
μεν γάρ εἰσιν
αἱ ἀρεταὶ; cf.
Cicero, De leg. 1. Supr., bk.
ii., ch. 30. Max., Dial. cum
Pyrrh.
Observe further that the word judgment (γνώμη) is used in
many ways and in many senses. Sometimes it signifies
exhortation: as when the divine apostle says, Now concerning
virgins I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my
judgment Text, κατὰ
εἴκοσι
ὀκτὼ: Variants, κατὰ
κοινοῦ,
κατὰ
πολύ, secundum multa (old trans.), and
secundum plurima (Faber). Maximus gave 28 meanings of γνώμη.
Chapter XV.—Concerning the energies in our Lord Jesus Christ.
We hold, further, that there are two
energies Cf.
Anast., De operationibus, I.; Joan.
Scyth, Con. Sever. VIII., &c. Supr.
bk. ii.: Max., Dial. cum Pyrrh.
But observe that energy and capacity for energy, and the product of energy, and the agent of energy, are all different. Energy is the efficient (δραστική) and essential activity of nature: the capacity for energy is the nature from which proceeds energy: the product of energy is that which is effected by energy: and the agent of energy is the person or subsistence which uses the energy. Further, sometimes energy is used in the sense of the product of energy, and the product of energy in that of energy, just as the terms creation and creature are sometimes transposed. For we say “all creation,” meaning creatures.
Orat. 37,
near the beginning.
Life itself, it should be observed, is energy, yea, the primal energy of the living creature and so is the whole economy of the living creature, its functions of nutrition and growth, that is, the vegetative side of its nature, and the movement stirred by impulse, that is, the sentient side, and its activity of intellect and free-will. Energy, moreover, is the perfect realisation of power. If, then, we contemplate all these in Christ, surely we must also hold that He possesses human energy.
The first thought Anast.
Antioch., De operationibus. καὶ αὐτὸ
τὸ
ἀποτελούμενον; cf. Max., ad Marin. II. Max. tom.
ii., Dogmat. ad Marin., p. 124. St. St.
We must, then, maintain that Christ has two
energies in virtue of His double nature. For things that have
diverse natures, have also different energies, and things that have
diverse energies, have also different natures. And so conversely,
things that have the same nature have also the same energy, and things
that have one and the same energy have also one and the same
essence See
Act. 10 sextæ synodi. Text, θεηγόρους.
Variant, θεοφόρους. Orat. de natura et
hyp. Also in Basil. 43.
If they should say Max.,
Dial. cum Pyrrh. Max.,
Dial. cum Pyrrh. St.
And again: if the providence that embraces all creation is not only of the Father and the Holy Spirit, but also of the Son even after the incarnation, assuredly since that is energy, He must have even after the incarnation the same energy as the Father.
But if we have learnt from the miracles that Christ has the same essence as the Father, and since the miracles happen to be the energy of God, assuredly He must have even after the incarnation the same energy as the Father.
But, if there is one energy belonging to both His divinity and His humanity, it will be compound, and will be either a different energy from that of the Father, or the Father, too, will have a compound energy. But if the Father has a compound energy, manifestly He must also have a compound nature.
But if they should say that together with energy
is also introduced personality Max.,
ibid.
But further, if personality is introduced along with energy, those who divine that neither one nor two energies of Christ are to be spoken of, do not maintain that either one or two persons of Christ are to be spoken of.
Take the case of the flaming sword; just as in it
the natures of the fire and the steel are preserved distinct Maxim., lib. De
duab. vol. et Dial. cum Pyrrh. St.
And again: if we should hold that Christ has
but one energy, this must be either divine or human, or neither.
But if we hold that it is divine Max.,
ibid.
If Christ our Master Max.,
ibid. Text, ἡ δὲ κατὰ
φύσιν
ἐνέργεια.
Variant, εἰ
δέ.
If Christ has one energy, it must be one and the same energy that performs both divine and human actions. But there is no existing thing which abiding in its natural state can act in opposite ways: for fire does not freeze and boil, nor does water dry up and make wet. How then could He Who is by nature God, and Who became by nature man, have both performed miracles, and endured passions with one and the same energy?
If, then, Christ assumed the human mind, that is to say, the intelligent and reasonable soul, undoubtedly He has thought, and will think for ever. But thought is the energy of the mind: and so Christ, as man, is endowed with energy, and will be so for ever.
Indeed, the most wise and great and holy John
Chrysostom says in his interpretation of the Acts, in the second
discourse Hom. 1.
If all energy is defined as essential movement of
some nature, as those who are versed in these matters say, where does
one perceive any nature that has no movement, and is completely devoid
of energy, or where does one find energy that is not movement of
natural power? But, as the blessed Cyril says Thes.,
xxxii., ch. 2; Act. 10, sextæ Synodi. The
Monotheletes made much of the case of the raising of the daughter of
Jairus. See Cyril, In Joan., p. 351; Max.,
Dial. cum Pyrrh., Epist. ad Nicand., Epist. ad
Mon. Sicil.; Scholiast in Collect. cont.
Severum, ch. 20.
And thus His divinity communicates its own glories
to the body while it remains itself without part in the sufferings of
the flesh. For His flesh did not suffer through His divinity in
the same way that His divinity energised through the flesh. For
the flesh acted as the instrument of His divinity. Although,
therefore, from the first conception there was no division at all
between the two forms οἰκονομῶ,
in incarnate form.
Christ, then, energises according to both His
natures Leo, Epist.
cit. οὐ γὰρ ἀφ᾽
ἑαυτοῦ πρὸς
τὰ φυσικὰ
πάθη τὴν
ὁρμὴν
ἐποιεῖτο,
οὐδ᾽ αὐτὴν
ἐκ τῶν
λυπη?ῶν
ἁφορμὴν καὶ
παραίτησιν. The term is
μορφή, as
in
Moreover, just as Dion., ch. 2,
De div. nom. et Epist. 4.
But if any one Max.,
Dial. cum Pyrrh. See the reply of
Maximus in the Dialogue cum Pyrrh.
We, therefore, maintain Max.,
Opusc. Polem., pp. 31, 32. Leo, Epist.
10. St. Nyss., adv.
Apoll. Chrysost., Hom.
in S. Thom. δι᾽
ἀντωνυμίας. Cyril, in
Joan., bk. viii.
Chapter
XVI.—In reply to those who say This is
directed to another argument of the Severians. Cf.
Leont., De Sect., 7, Contr. Nest. et
Eutych., I.
Each individual man, since he is composed of two
natures, soul and body, and since these natures are unchangeable in
him, could appropriately be spoken of as two natures: for he
preserves even after their union the natural properties of
either. For the body is not immortal, but corruptible; neither is
the soul mortal, but immortal: and the body is not invisible nor
the soul visible to bodily eyes: but the soul is rational and
intellectual, and incorporeal, while the body is dense and visible, and
irrational. But things that are opposed to one another in essence
have not
And again: if man is a rational and mortal animal, and every definition is explanatory of the underlying natures, and the rational is not the same as the mortal according to the plan of nature, man then certainly cannot have one nature, according to the rule of his own definition.
But if man should at any time be said to have one
nature, the word “nature” is here used instead of
“species,” as when we say that man does not differ from man
in any difference of nature. But since all men are fashioned in
the same way, and are composed of soul and body, and each has two
distinct natures, they are all brought under one definition. And
this is not unreasonable, for the holy Athanasius spake of all created
things as having one nature forasmuch as they were all produced,
expressing himself thus in his Oration against those who blasphemed the
Holy Spirit: “That the Holy Spirit is above all creation,
and different from the nature of things produced and peculiar to
divinity, we may again perceive. For whatever is seen to be
common to many things, and not more in one and less in another, is
called essence
Epist. 2 ad Serap., towards the end;
Collect., as above, c. 19.
And again: man’s unity in species is not the same thing as the unity of soul and body in essence. For man’s unity in species makes clear the absolute similarity between all men, while the unity of soul and body in essence is an insult to their very existence, and reduces them to nothingness: for either the one must change into the essence of the other, or from different things something different must be produced, and so both would be changed, or if they keep to their own proper limits there must be two natures. For, as regards the nature of essence the corporeal is not the same as the incorporeal. Therefore, although holding that man has one nature, not because the essential quality of his soul and that of his body are the same, but because the individuals included under the species are exactly the same, it is not necessary for us to maintain that Christ also has one nature, for in this case there is no species embracing many subsistences.
Moreover, every compound Anast.,
Collect., ch. 19.
And further, if by saying that man has two natures
we are obliged to hold that Christ has three, you, too, by saying that
man is composed of two natures must hold that Christ is composed of
three natures: and it is just the same with the energies.
For energy must correspond with nature: and Gregory the
Theologian bears witness that man is said to have and has two natures,
saying, “God and man are two natures, since, indeed, soul and
body also are two natures Epist.
1, ad Cledon. Orat. 4,
not far from the beginning.
Chapter XVII.—Concerning the deification of the nature of our Lord’s flesh and of His will.
It is worthy of note Cf.
Greg. Naz., Orat. 38, 39, 42, 51; Niceph., C.P. adv. Ep.
Euseb., c. 50; Euthym., Panopl., II. 7. Greg.,
Orat. 42. Id.,
Orat. 39; Max. bk. De duabus
voluntatibus. Max.,
Epist. ad Nicandr.
Wherefore the same flesh was mortal by reason of
its own nature and life-giving through its union with the Word in
subsistence. And we hold that it is just the same with the
deification of the will Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 36. Ibid. 35,
p. 595. St. St.
Observe further, that the deification of the
nature and the will points most expressly and most directly both to two
natures and two wills. For just as the burning does not change
into fire the nature of the thing that is burnt, but makes distinct
both what is burnt, and what burned it, and is indicative not of one
but of two natures, so also the deification does not bring about one
compound nature but two, and their union in subsistence. Gregory
the Theologian, indeed, says, “Whereof the one deified, the other
was deified Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 42.
Chapter XVIII.—Further concerning volitions and free-wills: minds, too, and knowledges and wisdoms.
When we say that Christ is perfect God Against the
Apollinarians and the Monotheletes. Cf. Max., ut
supra, II. p. 151.
But that man is a rational and intelligent animal, no one will deny. How, then, could He have become man if He took on Himself flesh without soul, or soul without mind? For that is not man. Again, what benefit would His becoming man have been to us if He Who suffered first was not saved, nor renewed and strengthened by the union with divinity? For that which is not assumed is not remedied. He, therefore, assumed the whole man, even the fairest part of him, which had become diseased, in order that He might bestow salvation on the whole. And, indeed, there could never exist a mind that had not wisdom and was destitute of knowledge. For if it has not energy or motion, it is utterly reduced to nothingness.
Therefore, God the Word Greg.
Naz., Carm. sen. adv. Apollin., Epist. ad
Cled., and elsewhere. See also ch. 6
above, and Gregory’s lines against the Apollinarians.
But if the Evangelist said that the Word was
made flesh St. St.
So, then, He had by nature, both as God and as
man, the power of will. But His human will was obedient and
subordinate to His divine will, not being guided by its own
inclination, but willing those things which the divine will
willed. For it was with the permission of the divine will that He
suffered by nature what was proper to Him Sophron.,
Epist. Synod. See Cyril,
In Joann., ch. x.
Of His own free-will, moreover, He exercised His divine and human will. For free-will is assuredly implanted in every rational nature. For to what end would it possess reason, if it could not reason at its own free-will? For the Creator hath implanted even in the unreasoning brutes natural appetite to compel them to sustain their own nature. For devoid of reason, as they are, they cannot guide their natural appetite but are guided by it. And so, as soon as the appetite for anything has sprung up, straightway arises also the impulse for action. And thus they do not win praise or happiness for pursuing virtue, nor punishment for doing evil. But the rational nature, although it does possess a natural appetite, can guide and train it by reason wherever the laws of nature are observed. For the advantage of reason consists in this, the free-will, by which we mean natural activity in a rational subject. Wherefore in pursuing virtue it wins praise and happiness, and in pursuing vice it wins punishment.
So that the soul Max.,
Dial. cum Pyrrh.; Greg. Naz., Ep. 1, ad
Cledon.
Chapter XIX.—Concerning the theandric energy.
When the blessed Dionysius Dionys.,
Epist. 4, ad Caium. See
Severus, Ep. 3, ad Joann. Hegum.; Anastas.,
Sinait. Hodegus, p. 240. Max., Dial.
cum Pyrrh. Leo, Epist. 1
ad Flav.
Note, therefore, that in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, we speak sometimes of His two natures and sometimes of His one person: and the one or the other is referred to one conception. For the two natures are one Christ, and the one Christ is two natures. Wherefore it is all the same whether we say “Christ energises according to either of His natures,” or “either nature energises in Christ in communion with the other.” The divine nature, then, has communion with the flesh in its energising, because it is by the good pleasure of the divine will that the flesh is permitted to suffer and do the things proper to itself, and because the energy of the flesh is altogether saving, and this is an attribute not of human but of divine energy. On the other hand the flesh has communion with the divinity of the Word in its energising, because the divine energies are performed, so to speak, through the organ of the body, and because He Who energises at once as God and man is one and the same.
Further observe Perhaps from
Joann. Scythop., bk. viii.; cf. Niceph., C.P. Antirrh.,
III. 59.
This, then, the theandric energy makes plain that
when God became man, that is when He became incarnate, both His human
energy was divine, that is deified, and not without part in His divine
energy, and His divine energy was not without part in His human energy,
but either was observed in conjunction with the other. Now this
manner of speaking is called a periphrasis, viz., when one embraces two
things in one statement Max., Dogm. ad
Marin., p. 43.
Chapter
XX.—Concerning the natural and innocent
passions Or,
sensibilities.
We confess Cf. Greg.
Nyss., Contr. Apoll.; Leont., De Sect., Act. 10; Anastas.,
Hodegus, 13. &c.
All, then, He assumed that He might sanctify all. He was tried and overcame in order that He might prepare victory for us and give to nature power to overcome its antagonist, in order that nature which was overcome of old might overcome its former conqueror by the very weapons wherewith it had itself been overcome.
The wicked one Cf.
Athanas., De Salut.Adventu Christi.
Chapter XXI.—Concerning ignorance and servitude.
He assumed, it is to be noted Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 36. Photius,
Cod. 230; Eulog., bk. x., Ep. 35;
Sophron., Ep. ad Serg.; Leont., De
Sect., Act. 10.
Observe further Cf.
Sophron., Ep. ad. Serg., who refers to the Duliani
(᾽Δουλιανοί); the opinions of Felix and Elipandas, condemned at the Synod of
Frankfort; and Thomas Aquinas, III., Quæst.
20, Art. 1.
It is just as we said, then, in connection with
ignorance, that if you separate with subtle thoughts, that is, with
fine imaginings, the created from the uncreated, the flesh is a
servant, unless it has been united with God the Word Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 24.
Chapter XXII.—Concerning His growth.
He is, moreover, said to grow in wisdom and age
and grace St. Athanas., Contr.
Arian., bk. iv.; Greg. Naz., Ep. I. ad Cled.,
and Orat. 20; Cyril, Contr. Nest., bk. iii.; Greg.
Nyss., Contr. Apoll., II. 28, &c. Text has πείθομαι:
surely it should be πειθόμενοι.
Chapter XXIII.—Concerning His Fear.
The word fear has a double meaning. For fear
is natural when the soul is unwilling to be separated from the body, on
account of the natural sympathy and close relationship planted in it in
the beginning by the Creator, which makes it fear and struggle against
death and pray for an escape from it. It may be defined
thus: natural fear is the force whereby we cling to being with
shrinking Max.,
Dial. cum Pyrrh.
Again, there is a fear which arises from treachery of reasoning and want of faith, and ignorance of the hour of death, as when we are at night affected by fear at some chance noise. This is unnatural fear, and may be thus defined: unnatural fear is an unexpected shrinking. This our Lord did not assume. Hence He never felt fear except in the hour of His passion, although He often experienced a feeling of shrinking in accordance with the dispensation. For He was not ignorant of the appointed time.
But the holy Athanasius in his discourse against
Apollinarius says that He did actually feel fear.
“Wherefore the Lord said: Now is My soul
troubled St. S. Athanas.,
De salutari adventu Christi, contra Apollinarem towards the
end.
Chapter XXIV.—Concerning our Lord’s Praying.
Prayer is an uprising of the mind to God or a
petitioning of God for what is fitting. How then did it happen
that our Lord offered up prayer in the case of Lazarus, and at the hour
of His passion? For His holy mind was in no need either of any
uprising towards God, since it had been once and for all united in
subsistence with the God Word, or of any petitioning of God. For
Christ is one. But it was because He appropriated to Himself our
personality and took our impress on Himself, and became an ensample for
us, and taught us to ask of God and strain towards Him, and guided us
through His own holy mind in the way that leads up to God. For
just as He St. Matt.,
Greg. Naz., Orat. 36. St. St. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 42; Chyrs., Hom. 63 in Joan.
Again, when he said, Father, if it be possible,
let this cup pass from Me: yet, not as I will
St. Chyrs. in Cat.
in St. Matt. xxvi. Greg.,
Orat. 36.
Further, these words, My God, My God, why hast
Thou forsaken Me St. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 36; Cyril, De recta fide; Athanas.,
Contr. Arian., bk. iv. Greg. Nyss.,
Orat. 38.
Chapter XXV.—Concerning the Appropriation.
It is to be observed Max. ad Marin.
in solut. 1 dubit. Theod. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 36; Athanas., De Salut. adv.
Christi.
Chapter XXVI.—Concerning the Passion of our Lord’s body, and the Impassibility of His divinity.
The Word of God then itself endured all in the flesh, while His divine nature which alone was passionless remained void of passion. For since the one Christ, Who is a compound of divinity and humanity, and exists in divinity and humanity, truly suffered, that part which is capable of passion suffered as it was natural it should, but that part which was void of passion did not share in the suffering. For the soul, indeed, since it is capable of passion shares in the pain and suffering of a bodily cut, though it is not cut itself but only the body: but the divine part which is void of passion does not share in the suffering of the body.
Observe, further Photius,
Cod. 46. Athan., De
salut. adv. Christi.
Chapter XXVII.—Concerning the fact that the
divinity of the Word remained inseparable from the soul
Since our Lord Jesus Christ was without sin
(for He committed no sin, He Who took away the sin of the world, nor
was there any deceit found in His mouth Greg.,
Orat. 42.
Wherefore, although Cf.
Epiph., Hæres. 69; Greg. Nyss., Contr. Eunom., II.
p. 55. ὑπόστασις,
hypostasis.
Chapter XXVIII.—Concerning Corruption and Destruction.
The word corruption Leont. De sect.,
Act. 10, and Dial. cont. Aphthartodoc. Anast. Sinait.,
Hodegus, p. 295.
Wherefore to say, with that foolish Julianus and
Gaïanus, that our Lord’s body was incorruptible, in the
first sense of the word, before His resurrection is impious. For
if it were incorruptible it was not really, but only apparently, of the
same essence as ours, and what the Gospel tells us happened, viz. the
hunger, the thirst, the nails, the wound in His side, the death, did
not actually occur. But if they only apparently happened, then
the mystery of the dispensation is an imposture and a sham, and He
became man only in appearance, and not in actual fact, and we are saved
only in appearance, and not in actual fact. But God forbid, and
may those who so say have no part in the salvation Anast.
Sinait., Hodegus, p. 293.
Chapter XXIX.—Concerning the Descent to Hades.
The soul Cf. Ruf.,
Expos. Symbol. Apost.; Cassian, Contr. Nestor., bk. vi.;
Cyril, Catech. 14. Iren.,
iv. 45; Greg. Naz., Orat. 42.
Chapter I.—Concerning what followed the Resurrection.
After Christ was risen from the dead He laid aside
all His passions, I mean His corruption or hunger or thirst or sleep or
weariness or such like. For, although He did taste food after the
resurrection St. Theodor.,
Dial. 2; Greg. Naz., Orat. 49, Ep. 1 ad
Cled.
Chapter II.—Concerning the sitting at the right hand of the Father.
We hold, moreover, that Christ sits in the body at
the right hand of God the Father, but we do not hold that the right
hand of the Father is actual place. For how could He that is
uncircumscribed have a right hand limited by place? Right hands
and left hands belong to what is circumscribed. But we understand
the right hand of the Father to be the glory and honour of the Godhead
in which the Son of God, who existed as God before the ages, and is of
like essence to the Father, and in the end became flesh, has a seat in
the body, His flesh sharing in the glory. For He along with His
flesh is adored with one adoration by all creation Athan. Jun.,
p. 45, ad Ant.; Basil, De Spiritu Sancto,
ch. 6.
Chapter
III.—In reply to those who say Against the
Apollinarians, &c. Cf. Greg. Naz., Ep. Ad Cled.,
11.
Along with the Father and the Holy Spirit we
worship the Son of God, Who was incorporeal before He took on humanity,
and now in His own person is incarnate and has become man though still
being also God. His flesh, then, in its own nature
Athan., bk. i., Cont. Apoll. Epist. ad Adelph. Epiphan.
Ancor. § 51. A simile much
used by the Fathers: cf. supr., bk. iii., ch.
8.
Chapter IV.—Why it was the Son of God, and not the Father or the Spirit, that became man: and what having became man He achieved.
The Father is Father Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 37; Fulg., De fid. ad Petrum; Thomas Aquinas, III.,
quæst. 3, Art. 6. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 39. ἡ ἰδιότης, Latin,
proprietas, the propriety, that which is distinctive of
each. Text, καὶ οὐκ
ἐκστὰς τῆς ὑ&
187·κῆς
ἰδιότητος.
R. 1 has, καὶ
οὐκ ἐξέστη
τῆς οἰκείας
ἰδιότητος, and
the old trans. is “et non secessit a propria
proprietate.”
Further, the Son of God became man, in order that
He might again bestow on man that favour for the sake of which He
created him. For He created him after His own image, endowed with
intellect and free-will, and after His own likeness, that is to say,
perfect in all virtue so far as it is possible for man’s nature
to attain perfection. For the following properties are, so to
speak, marks of the divine nature: viz. absence of care and
distraction and guile, goodness, wisdom, justice, freedom from all
vice. So then, after He had placed man in communion with Himself
(for having made him for incorruption Athan., De
Incarn.; Cyril, In Joan., bk. i.
The worship of demons then has ceased:
creation has been sanctified by the divine blood: altars and
temples of idols have been overthrown, the knowledge of God has been
implanted in men’s minds, the co-essential Trinity, the uncreate
divinity, one true God, Creator and Lord of all receives men’s
service: virtues are cultivated, the hope of resurrection has
been granted through the resurrection of Christ, the demons shudder at
those men who of old were under their subjection. And the marvel,
indeed, is that all this has been successfully brought about through
His cross and passion and death. Throughout all the earth the
Gospel of the knowledge of God has been preached; no wars or weapons or
armies being used to rout the enemy, but only a few, naked, poor,
illiterate, persecuted and tormented men, who with their lives in their
hands, preached Him Who was crucified in the flesh and died, and who
became victors over the wise and powerful. For the omnipotent
power of the Cross accompanied them. Death itself, which once was
man’s chiefest terror, has been overthrown, and now that which
was once the object of hate and loathing is preferred to life.
These are the achievements of Christ’s presence: these are
the tokens of His power. For it was not one people that He saved,
as when through Moses He divided the sea and delivered Israel out of
Egypt and the bondage of Pharaoh
Hail! O Christ, the Word and Wisdom and Power of
God, and God omnipotent! What can we helpless ones give Thee in
return for
Chapter V.—In reply to those who ask if Christ’s subsistence is create or uncreate.
The subsistence ὑπόστασις,
hypostasis.
Chapter VI.—Concerning the question, when Christ was called.
The mind was not united with God the Word, as some
falsely assert See
Sophr., Ep. ad Serg.; Origen, Περὶ
ἀρχῶν, II. 6; Ruf., Expos.
Symb., &c. Origen,
Περὶ
ἀρχῶν, bk.
ii., ch. 6. Orat. 36,
near the end. Edit.
Paris, p. 25. καθ᾽
ἕνωσιν
οἰκονομικήν, in the union of the Incarnation. Edit.
Paris, p. 54.
And although the holy Scripture Some copies omit
the last five words.
Chapter VII.—In answer to those who enquire whether the holy Mother of God bore two natures, and whether two natures hung upon the Cross.
ἀγένητον and
γενητόν, written with
one ‘ν’ Supr., bk.
i. ch. 9. Euthym.,
p. 2, tit. 8.
But if our interrogators should hint that He Who is begotten of the holy Mother of God is two natures, we reply, “Yea! He is two natures: for He is in His own person God and man. And the same is to be said concerning the crucifixion and resurrection and ascension. For these refer not to nature but to subsistence. Christ then, since He is in two natures, suffered and was crucified in the nature that was subject to passion. For it was in the flesh and not in His divinity that He hung upon the Cross. Otherwise, let them answer us, when we ask if two natures died. No, we shall say. And so two natures were not crucified but Christ was begotten, that is to say, the divine Word having become man was begotten in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, suffered in the flesh, while His divinity continued to be impassible.”
Chapter VIII.—How the Only-begotten Son of God is called first-born.
He who is first begotten is called
first-born See the
Scholiast on Gregory Nyssenus in Cod. Reg. 3451. Vid. apud
Greg. Nyss., bk. iii., contr. Eunom. Athan., Expos.
Fidei. St.
Chapter IX.—Concerning Faith and Baptism.
We confess one baptism for the remission of sins
and for life eternal. For baptism declares the Lord’s
death. We are indeed “buried with the Lord through
baptism St. See Clem.
Alex., Strom., bk. i; Basil, Ep. Ad Amphiloch. 2;
Irenæus, i. 8; Theodor., Hær. fab. c. 12;
Euseb., Hist. Eccles., vii. 9; Trullan Canon 95;
Tertull., De Bapt., c. 1, &c. See
Basil, De Spir. Sanct., c. 28, and Ep. 39; Jerome,
Contr. Lucif.; Theodor., Hær. III. 4; Socrates,
Hist. c. 23; Sozomen, Hist. VI. 26. Auct.,
Quæst. ad. Antioch. Basil., De
Bapt., bk. i. ch. 12. St. St. Text, ἐπ᾽
ἀφθαρσίαν.
Variant, ἐπ᾽
ἀφθαρσί& 139·; old
interpretation, ‘in incorruption.’ Method., De
Resurr. St. Greg., Orat.
48.
For from the beginning the Spirit of God moved
upon the face of the waters Text, καθαίρεται.
Variant in many Codices is ἐκάθαίρετο.
On one margin is, ἠ
ἐκεκάθαρτο. III. Reg. xviii.
32. πίστις γὰρ
υἱοθετεῖν
οἶδε.
The remission of sins, therefore, is granted alike
to all through baptism: but the grace of the Spirit is
proportional to the faith and previous purification. Now, indeed,
we receive the firstfruits of the Holy Spirit through baptism, and the
second birth is for us the beginning and seal and security and
illumination Text, φωτισμός,
illumination. In R. 2626 is added, καὶ
ἁγιασμός, which Faber
translates, “et illuminatio et sanctificatio.” In R.
2924, ἁγιασμός is read
instead of φωτισμός.
It behoves us, then, with all our strength to
steadfastly keep ourselves pure from filthy works, that we may not,
like the dog returning to his vomit
Now we are baptized Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 40; Athan. ad Serap. De Spir. Sancto.
The first baptism Greg. Theol.,
Orat. 39. Greg.,
Orat. 40; Basil, Hom. de Bapt.; Chrys. in Matt.
Hom. 10, and others. Cf.
Basil, De Bapt., I. 2. St.
Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 40. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 40. Id.
ibid. St. Text,
ὡςλίαν...ὅσον.
Variants, ὅσων and ὃ
καί. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 40. See
Basil, De Spir. Sanct., c. 13. οὐ σωτήριον,
ἀλλὰ τῆς μὲν
κακίας
ἀναιρετικόν
οὐκ ἔτι γὰρ
κακία καὶ
ἁμαρτία
πολιτεύεται·
κόλαζον δὲ
ἀτελεύτητα.
Further, the Holy Spirit Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 39. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 44:
Olive oil Cf.,
Allab., De Cousens, bk. iii., c. 16; Cyril of Jerus.,
Catech. Myst. 2. Reading,
χρίσιν.
Variant, χάριν.
John was baptized, putting his hand upon the divine head of his Master, and with his own blood.
It does not behove Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 40.
Chapter X.—Concerning Faith.
Moreover, faith is twofold. For faith
cometh by hearing.
But again, faith is the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen
Further, observe that by baptism we cut περιτεμνόμεθα, circumcise.
Chapter XI.—Concerning the Cross and here further concerning Faith.
The word ‘Cross’ is
foolishness to those that perish, but to us who are saved it is the
power of God. Basil. in
Basil, cit.
loc.
Every action, therefore, and performance of
miracles by Christ are most great and divine and marvellous: but
the most marvellous of all is His precious Cross. For no other
thing has subdued death, expiated the sin of the first parent Text, προπάτορος
ἁμαρτία. Variant,
προπατ.
᾽Αδὰμ
ἁμαρτ. Text, ἠνοίχθησαν.
Variant, ἠνοίγησαν. Cyril, Hier.
catech. i. 14. Text, διὰ
σταυροῦ. Variant,
δί
αὐτοῦ. Basil. in
Is. xi.
This was given to us as a sign on our forehead,
just as the circumcision was given to Israel: for by it we
believers are separated and distinguished from unbelievers. This
is the shield and weapon against, and trophy over, the devil.
This is the seal that the destroyer may not touch you
So, then, this same truly precious and august
tree Cf.
Cyril, Contr. Jul., bk. vi. Text, ὁ Γοργοθᾶς, ὁ
σωτήριος.
Variant, ὁ σταυρός. ὁ θεοπάτωρ
Δαβίδ. Cf.
Dionysiaster, Ep. 8. Text,
Σωτῆρος.
Variant, σταυρός.
Moreover we worship even the image of the precious
and life-giving Cross, although made of another tree, not honouring the
tree (God forbid) but the image as a symbol of Christ. For He
said to His disciples, admonishing them, Then shall appear the sign
of the Son of Man in Heaven St. St. Text,
Χριστοῦ.
Variant, σταυροῦ.
The tree of life which was planted by God in Paradise
pre-figured this precious Cross. Auct.,
Quæst. ad Antioch., 9, 63. Text,
οὐκ
εἰδυί& 139·. Variant,
εἰδώς. Iren., bk.
v., c 18. Text,
τοῦτο. Variants,
τοῦτον and τούτῳ.
Chapter XII.—Concerning Worship towards the East.
It is not without reason or by chance that we worship towards the East. But seeing that we are composed of a visible and an invisible nature, that is to say, of a nature partly of spirit and partly of sense, we render also a twofold worship to the Creator; just as we sing both with our spirit and our bodily lips, and are baptized with both water and Spirit, and are united with the Lord in a twofold manner, being sharers in the mysteries and in the grace of the Spirit.
Since, therefore, God Basil, De
Spir. Sanct., c. 27; Alcuin, De Trin. ii. 5; Wal.
Strabo, De reb. eccles, c. 4; Hon. August., Gemma
Animæ. c. 950. Text,
ὃν παραβάντα
ἐξώρισεν,
ἀπέναντί τε
τοῦ
Παραδείσου
τῆς τρυφης
κατῴκισεν
. Variants, ὃν
παραβάντα,
τῆς τρυφῆς
ἐξώρισεν, and ὃν
παραβάντα,
τοῦ
παραδείσου
τῆς τρυφῆς
ἐξώρισεν,
ἀπέναντί τε
τοῦ
παραδείσου
κατῴκισεν. Text,
φαίνεται.
Variant, φθάνει. The old
translation gives occupat. St.
So, then, in expectation of His coming we worship
towards the East. But this tradition of the apostles is
unwritten. For much that has been handed down to us by tradition
is unwritten Basil, De
Spiritu Sancto, ch. 27.
Chapter XIII.—Concerning the holy and immaculate Mysteries of the Lord.
God Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 42; Dion. De div. nom., ch. 3.
Man, however, being endowed with reason and free
will, received the power of continuous union with God through his own
choice, if indeed he should abide in goodness, that is in obedience to
his Maker. Since, however, he transgressed the command of his
Creator and became liable to death and corruption, the Creator and
Maker of our race, because of His bowels of compassion, took on our
likeness, becoming man in all things but without sin, and was united to
our nature
For it was fitting that not only the first-fruits
of our nature should partake in the higher good but every man who
wished it, and that a second birth should take place and that the
nourishment should be new and suitable to the birth and thus the
measure of perfection be attained. Through His birth, that is,
His incarnation, and baptism and passion and resurrection, He delivered
our nature from the sin of our first parent and death and corruption,
and became the first-fruits of the resurrection, and made Himself the
way and image and pattern, in order that we, too, following in His
footsteps, may become by adoption what He is Himself by nature Variant,
φύσει
καὶ
κληρονόμοι
τῆς αὐτοῦ
γενώμεθα
χάριτος, και
αὐτου υἰοι,
καὶ
συγκληρονόμοι. Text,
κληρονομήσωμεν.
Variant, κληρονομήσαντες.
Now seeing that this Adam is spiritual, it was
meet that both the birth and likewise the food should be spiritual too,
but since we are of a double and compound nature, it is meet that both
the birth should be double and likewise the food compound. We
were therefore given a birth by water and Spirit: I mean, by the
holy baptism Chrys. in
Matt., Hom. 83; St. St. St.
If then the Word of God is quick and
energising Text, καὶ τὰ
τῆς...καθαρὰ
καὶ ἀμώμητα
αἵματα
ἑαυτῷ. Variant, καὶ ἐκ τῶν
τῆς...καθαρῶν
καὶ ἀμωμήτων
αἱμάτων
ἑαυτῳ.
Iren.,bk. iv., ch. 35; Fulg., Ad Monim., bk. ii.,
ch. 6; Chrys., De prod. Judæ; Greg. Nyss., Catech.,
&c. St.
Further, bread and wine Nyss., Orat.,
Catech., ch. 37. Clem.,
Constit., bk. viii.; Justin Martyr., Apol. i.;
Iren., v. 2.
The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in
truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received
up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine
are changed into God’s body and blood Greg. Nyss.,
Orat. Catech., c. 37. Simile Nyss.
loc. cit. οὐ is absent in some mss. The Greek is
ὁ τῆς
προθέσεως
οἶνος, the bread of the
prothesis. It is rendered panis propositionis in the
old translations. These phrases designate the Shewbread in
the LXX. and the Vulgate. The πρόθεσις is
explained as a smaller table placed on the right side of the altar, on
which the priests make ready the bread and the cup for
consecration. See the note in Migne. See
Niceph., C.P., Antirr. ii. 3.
Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, it is for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who do not believe and to the murderers of the Lord it is for everlasting chastisement and punishment.
The bread and the wine are not merely figures of
the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the
Lord itself: for the Lord has said, “This is My
body,” not, this is a figure of My body: and “My
blood,” not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous
occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son
of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh
is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He
that eateth Me, shall live St. ζωὴν αἰ&
240·νιον is added in many
mss.
Wherefore with all fear and a pure conscience and
certain faith let us draw near and it will assuredly be to us as we
believe, doubting nothing. Let us pay homage to it in all purity
both of soul and body: for it is twofold. Let us draw near
to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the
cross Cyril Hierosol.,
Cat. Mystag. 5; Chrys. Hom. 3 in Epist. ad Ephes.;
Trull. can. 101. See Cyril
Alex. on Vide Basil,
ibid.
With bread and wine Melchisedek, the priest of the
most high God, received Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the
Gentiles Text, εἰκόνιζον.
Variant, εἰκονίζουσι.
The body and blood of Christ are making for the
support of our soul and body, without being consumed or suffering
corruption, not making for the draught (God forbid!) but for our being
and preservation, a protection against all kinds of injury, a purging
from all uncleanness: should one receive base gold, they purify
it by the critical burning lest in the future we be condemned with this
world. They purify from diseases and all kinds of calamities;
according to the words of the divine Apostle
This bread is the first-fruits Cyril, loc.
cit. St.
But if some persons called the bread and the wine
antitypes Anastas.,
Hodegus, ch. 23.
Participation is spoken of; for through it we partake of the divinity of Jesus. Communion, too, is spoken of, and it is an actual communion, because through it we have communion with Christ and share in His flesh and His divinity: yea, we have communion and are united with one another through it. For since we partake of one bread, we all become one body of Christ and one blood, and members one of another, being of one body with Christ.
With all our strength, therefore, let us beware
lest we receive communion from or grant it to heretics; Give not
that which is holy unto the dogs, saith the Lord, neither cast ye your
pearls before swine St.
Further, antitypes of future things are spoken of,
not as though they were not in reality Christ’s body and blood,
but that now through them we partake of Christ’s divinity, while
then we shall partake mentally Text, νοητῶς
διὰ μόνῆς
τῆς Θέας:
νοητῶς is wanting in some
Reg. 2928 having διὰ
μόνης τῆς
Θείας
ἑνώσεως.
Chapter
XIV.—Concerning our Lord’s genealogy and
concerning the holy Mother of God In
Reg. 2428 is added καὶ ᾽Ιωσὴφ
τοῦ
μνήστορος.
Concerning the holy and much-lauded ever-virgin
one, Mary, the Mother of God, we have said something in the preceding
chapters, bringing forward what was most opportune, viz., that strictly
and truly she is and is called the Mother of God. Now let us fill
up the blanks. For she being pre-ordained by the eternal
prescient counsel of God and imaged forth and proclaimed in diverse
images and discourses of the prophets through the Holy Spirit, sprang
at the pre-determined time from the root of David, according to the
promises that were made to him. For the Lord hath sworn, He
saith in truth to David, He will not turn from it: of the fruit
of Thy body will I set upon Thy throne
But that Joseph is descended from the tribe of David is expressly demonstrated by Matthew and Luke, the most holy evangelists. But Matthew derives Joseph from David through Solomon, while Luke does so through Nathan; while over the holy Virgin’s origin both pass in silence.
One ought to remember that it was not the custom of the
Hebrews nor of the divine Scripture to give genealogies of women; and
σκήπτρου.
One ought also to observe Cf.
Julius Afric., Ep. ad Aristidem, cited in Eusebius, Hist.
Eccles. i. 7.
Born then of the line of Nathan, the son of David,
Levi begat Melchi See the note in
Migne. Text, τὴν ἅγιαν
Θεοτόκον.
Variant, τὴν
ἅγιαν
῎Ανναν. St. R. 2926 adds
“Ethan,” the name being taken from Julius Africanus.
Joachim then Epiph.,
Hæres. 79. Greg. Nyss.,
Orat. in nativ. Dom.: Eustath. in
Hexaëm. Epiph.,
Hæres. 79. τῆς
προβατικῆς, the Sheep-gate.
Moreover, since the enemy of our salvation was
keeping a watchful eye on virgins, according to the prophecy of Isaiah,
who said, Behold a virgin shall conceive and bare a Son and shall
call His name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, ‘God with
us St.
For He who was of the Father, yet without mother, was
born of woman without a father’s co-operation. And so far
as He was born of woman, His birth was in accordance with the laws of
parturition, while so far as He had no father, His birth was above the
nature of generation: and in that it was at the usual time (for
He was born on the completion of the ninth month when the tenth was
just beginning), His birth was in accordance with the laws of
parturition, while in that it was painless it was above the laws of
generation. For, as pleasure did not precede θεοφόρος.
The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the
birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted
with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till
she had brought forth her first-born Son St.
For could it be possible that she, who had borne God and from experience of the subsequent events had come to know the miracle, should receive the embrace of a man. God forbid! It is not the part of a chaste mind to think such thoughts, far less to commit such acts.
But this blessed woman, who was deemed worthy of
gifts that are supernatural, suffered those pains, which she escaped at
the birth, in the hour of the passion, enduring from motherly sympathy
the rending of the bowels, and when she beheld Him, Whom she knew to be
God by the manner of His generation, killed as a malefactor, her
thoughts pierced her as a sword, and this is the meaning of this
verse: Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul
also St. In R. 2926 is
added, ὅπερ αὐτῇ
προείρηκεν ὁ
Θεοδόχος
Συμεὼν, τὸν
Κύριον
ἐναγκαλισάμενος.
Chapter XV.—Concerning the honour due to the Saints and their remains.
To the saints honour must be paid as friends of
Christ, as sons and heirs of God: in the words of John the
theologian and evangelist, As many as received Him, to them gave He
power to became sons of God St. St. Basil, Orat.
in 40 Martyr.
These are made treasuries and pure habitations of
God: For I will dwell in them,
Further, that God dwelt even in their bodies in
spiritual wise διὰ τοῦ
νοῦ.
The Master Christ made the remains of the saints
to be fountains of salvation to us, pouring forth manifold blessings
and abounding in oil of sweet fragrance: and let no one
disbelieve this Aster.,
Hom. in SS. Mart.
In the law every one who toucheth a dead body was
considered impure Text,
πιστοί. Variant,
πίστει in Reg. 1. Almost all read
τὸν
πρόδρομον
᾽Ιωάννην, ὡς
προφήτην, &c. St.
Some
mss. have the title “Concerning the
adoration of the august and holy images,” or “Concerning
the holy and sacred images,” or “Concerning holy
images.”
But since some Cf.
Petavius, Theol. Dogm. xv., ch. 12. Basil, De Spir.
Sancto, ch. 18.
Moreover the divine Scripture blames those who
worship graven images, but also those who sacrifice to demons.
The Greeks sacrificed and the Jews also sacrificed: but the
Greeks to demons and the Jews to God. And the sacrifice of the
Greeks was rejected and condemned, but the sacrifice of the just was
very acceptable to God. For Noah sacrificed, and God smelled a
sweet savour
But besides this who can make an imitation of the
invisible, incorporeal, uncircumscribed, formless God? Therefore
to give form to the Deity is the height of folly and impiety. And
hence it is that in the Old Testament the use of images was not
common. But after God Basil, in
40 Mart: also De Spir. Sancto, ch.
27. Cf. August.,
Contr. Donatist., bk. iv.
A certain tale Evagr., Hist.
iv., ch. 27. Procop., De
Bellis, ii. ch. 12. i.e.
Abgarus.
Moreover that the Apostles handed down much that
was unwritten, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these
words: Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions
which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or by
epistle
This chapter is
wanting in Cod. R. 3547.
It is one and the same God Whom both the Old and
the New Testament proclaim, Who is praised and glorified in the
Trinity: I am come, saith the Lord, not to destroy the
law but to fulfil it St. St.
All Scripture, then, is given by inspiration of
God and is also assuredly profitable St. St. St.
Observe, further Cyril Hieros.,
Cat. 4; Epiphan., De pond. et mens. Many copies read
Phi. Writings. Joshua the Son
of Nun.
Chronicles. R. 2428 reads
καὶ ἡ
᾽Ιουδὶθ, καὶ
ἡ ᾽Εσθήρ: so
also in Cod. S. Hil., but Epiphanius does not mention the book
of Judith, nor does the text require it.
The New Testament contains four gospels, that
according to Matthew, that according to Mark, that according to Luke,
that according to John: the Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke the
Evangelist: seven catholic epistles, viz. one of James, two of
Peter, three of John, one of Jude: fourteen letters of the
Apostle Paul: the Revelation of John the Evangelist: the
Canons R. 2428 reads
καὶ
ἐπιστολαὶ
δύο διὰ
Κλήμεντος,
probably an interpolation. Trull.,
Can. 2; Euseb., Hist. Eccles. vi., ch. 23,
&c.
Chapter XVIII.—Regarding the things said concerning Christ.
The things said concerning Christ fall into four
generic modes. For some fit Him even before the incarnation,
others in the union, others after the union, and others after the
resurrection. Also of those that refer to the period before the
incarnation there are six modes: for some of them declare the
union of nature and the identity in essence with the Father, as this,
I and My Father are one St.
Again, others declare the indwelling περιχώρησις. St. τὴν
ἀνεκφοίτητον
ἵδρυσιν. Cyril,
Thes., bk. xxxiv., p. 341.
And others make known the fact of His origin from
the Father as cause, for instance My Father is greater than
I St. Greg.
Naz., Orat. 36, and other Greeks. St. Text, μετά. Various reading,
κατά.
Moreover, other things are said as though the
Father’s good-will was fulfilled Text, πληρούμενα.
Variant, πληρουμένης. κίνησιν,
motion. St. St.
Some, again, have a prophetic sense, and of these
some are in the future tense: for instance, He shall come
openly
The things said, then, that refer to the period before
the union will be applicable to Him even after the union: but
those that refer to the period after the union will not be applicable
at all before the union, unless indeed in a prophetic sense, as we
said. Those that refer to the time of the union have three
modes. For when our discourse deals with the higher aspect, we
speak of the deification of the flesh, and His assumption of the Word
and exceeding exaltation, and so forth, making manifest the riches that
are added to the flesh from the union and natural conjunction with the
most high God the Word. And when our discourse deals with the
lower aspect, we speak of the incarnation of God the Word, His becoming
man, His emptying of Himself, His poverty, His humility. For
these and such like are imposed upon the Word and Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 39. Supr. bk.
iii., ch. 2. Or,
inhabitation, mutual indwelling. περιχωροῦσα.
Note, too, that in the case of the first and second modes of those that belong to the period of the union, reciprocation is observed. For when we speak about the flesh, we use the terms deification and assumption of the Word and exceeding exaltation and anointing. For these are derived from divinity, but are observed in connection with the flesh. And when we speak about the Word, we use the terms emptying, incarnation, becoming man, humility and the like: and these, as we said, are imposed on the Word and God through the flesh. For He endured these things in person of His own free-will.
Of the things that refer to the period after the
union there are three modes. The first declares His divine
nature, as, I am in the Father and the Father in Me St.
The second declares His human nature, as, Now
ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth
Further, of the statements made and written about
Christ the Saviour after the manner of men, whether they deal with
sayings or actions, there are six modes. For some of them were
done or said naturally in accordance with the incarnation; for
instance, His birth from a virgin, His growth and progress with age,
His hunger, thirst, weariness, fear, sleep, piercing with nails, death
and all such like natural and innocent passions Vide
supr., bk. iii., ch. 21, 22, 23.
Others are of the nature of ascription προσποίησις, feigning. St. St. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 36. Supr. bk.
iii. 24. Text, μετὰ τοῦ
εἶναι Θεός.
Variant, μεῖναι.
Others again are said in the manner of association
and relation οἰκείωσις
καὶ
ἀναφορά. St. Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 36. Ibid.
Others are said by reason of distinction in
thought. For if you divide in thought things that are inseparable
in actual truth, to cut the flesh from the Word, the terms Supr., bk.
iii. ch. 21.
Others again are for the purpose of revealing Him
to us and strengthening our faith, as, And now, O Father, glorify
Thou Me with the glory which I had with Thee, before the world
was St. Chrysost.,
Hom. 1 in Epist. ad Rom., and others. St. Text, χάριτι. Reg 1,
συνέθει.
Others again have reference to His appropriation
of the personal life of the Jews, in numbering Himself among the Jews,
as He saith to the Samaritan woman, Ye worship ye know not
what: we know what we worship, far salvation is of the
Jews St.
The third mode is one which declares the one
subsistence and brings out the dual nature: for instance, And
I live by the Father: so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by
Me St.
Again of the affirmations that refer to the period
after the resurrection some are suitable to God, as, Baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost St.
Further, of those referring to the period after
the Resurrection that are suitable to man there are different
modes. For some did actually take place, yet not according to
nature κατὰ
θύσιν κατὰ
προσποίησιν St. St. St.
Those then that are sublime must be assigned to
the divine nature, which is superior to passion and body: and
those that are humble must be ascribed to the human nature; and those
that are common must be attributed to the compound, that is, the one
Christ, Who is God and man. And it should be understood that both
belong to one and the same Jesus Christ, our Lord. For if we know
what is proper to each, and perceive that both are performed by one and
the same, we shall have the true faith and shall not go astray.
And from all these the difference between the united natures is
recognised, and the fact Epist.
apologetica ad Acacium Melitinæ Episcopum.
Chapter XIX.—That God Against
Platonists, Gnostics, and Manicheans.
It is to be observed Damasc. Dial.
cont. Manich.
Basil, Homil.
Quod Deus non sit auct. malorum.
His permission, therefore, is usually spoken of in
the Holy Scripture as His energy and work. Nay, even when He says
that God creates evil things, and that there is no evil in a
city that the Lord hath not done, he does not mean by these
words Text, δισέμφατον.
Variant, δυσέμφατον.
It is, moreover, to be observed that of these,
too, we are the cause: for involuntary evils are the offspring of
voluntary ones Text, τῶν γὰρ
ἑκουσίων
κακῶν τὰ
ἀκούσια, &c. R.
2930 has τῶν
ἀκουσίων τὰ
ἑκούσια
This also should be recognised, that it is usual
in the Scriptures for some things that ought to be considered as
effects to be stated in a causal sense Basil, loc.
cit. νικητής is
sometimes absent.
Chapter XX.—That there are not two Kingdoms.
That there are not two kingdoms Athan., Cont.
Gentes. Athan., Cont.
omnes hæret.
Next I ask Damasc., Dial.
Cont. Manich. Text, ἀποτεμνόμενος.
Variants, ἀποτεμόμενος
and ἀπονεμόμενος.
One of two things indeed is necessary, either that they come in contact with and destroy one another, or that there exists some intermediate place where neither goodness nor evil exists, separating both from one another, like a partition. And so there will be no longer two but three kingdoms.
Again, one of these alternatives is necessary, either
that they are at peace, which is quite incompatible with evil (for that
which is at peace is not evil), or they are at strife, which
Text, κακοῦσθαι.
Variant, κακουχεῖσθαι.
But if this is so, they say, whence comes
evil Basil, Hom.
Deum non esse caus. mal. Text, παραδρομή.
Variant, παρα.
ροπή, cf. infra.
By nature, therefore, all things are servants of the Creator and obey Him. Whenever, then, any of His creatures voluntarily rebels and becomes disobedient to his Maker, he introduces evil into himself. For evil is not any essence nor a property of essence, but an accident, that is, a voluntary deviation from what is natural into what is unnatural, which is sin.
Whence, then, comes sin Basil, Hom.
Deum non esse caus. mal.
Chapter
XXI.—The purpose Jer., Contr.
Pelag., bk. iii.
God in His goodness Damasc., Dialog
contra Manich. St.
Chapter XXII.—Concerning the law of God and the law of sin.
The Deity is good and more than good, and so is
His will. For that which God wishes is good. Moreover the
precept, which teaches this, is law, that we, holding by it, may walk
in light
And so the law of God, settling in our mind, draws it towards itself and pricks our conscience. And our conscience, too, is called a law of our mind. Further, the assault of the wicked one, that is the law of sin, settling in the members of our flesh, makes its assault upon us through it. For by once voluntarily transgressing the law of God and receiving the assault of the wicked one, we gave entrance to it, being sold by ourselves to sin. Wherefore our body is readily impelled to it. And so the savour and perception of sin that is stored up in our body, that is to say, lust and pleasure of the body, is law in the members of our flesh.
Therefore the law of my mind, that is, the
conscience, sympathises with the law of God, that is, the precept, and
makes that its will. But the law of sin Text,
κατὰ
ἀνάκρασιν.
Variants, ἀνάκρισιν,
ἀνάκλισιν.
The old translation is ‘secundum anacrasin,’ i.e.
‘contractionem, refusionem per laevitatem
voluptatis:’ Faber has ‘secundum contradictionem per
suadelam voluptatis.’ The author’s meaning is that
owing to the conjunction of mind with body, the law of sin is mixed
with all the members.
Chapter XXIII.—Against the Jews on the question of the Sabbath.
The seventh day is called the Sabbath and
signifies rest. For in it God rested from all His works Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 44.
So far, indeed, as I in my ignorance know, to
begin with inferior and more dense things, God, knowing the denseness
of the Israelites and their carnal love and propensity towards matter
in everything, made this law: first, in order that the servant
and the cattle should rest Epiph., Exp.
Fid., n. 22. St. Epiph.,
Hæres. 30, n. 32, et Hær. n. 82
seqq: Athan., Hom. circum. et Sabb.
As I said Ath. loc.
cit. St.
These are the things which the spiritual law of
Christ enjoins on us and those who observe that become superior to the
law of Moses. For when that which is perfect is come, then
that which is in part shall be done away Athan., loc.
cit.
What belongs to us Ibid.
Further, observe Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 42.
Chapter XXIV.—Concerning Virginity.
Carnal men abuse virginity Vide bk. ii. ch.
30. Deut. Greg. Nyss.,
De opif., hom. 16.
But they will perhaps ask, what then is the
meaning of “male and female Text, ἀπαραχάρακτον.
Variant, ἀπαρεγχάρακτον,
old trans. “in intransmutationem.” Vid.
supr., bk. ii. ch. 30. Text
αυξήυατα =
increases. We have read αὐχήματα.
Noah when he was commanded to enter the ark and
was entrusted with the preservation of the seed of the world received
this command, Go in, saith the Lord, thou and thy sons, and
thy wife, and thy sons’ wives Cf.
Chrys., Hom. 28 on Genesis.
The precept of the law, therefore, is to be taken in a more spiritual sense. For there is spiritual seed which is conceived through the love and fear of God in the spiritual womb, travailing and bringing forth the spirit of salvation. And in this sense must be understood this verse: Blessed is he who hath seed in Zion and posterity in Jerusalem. For does it mean that, although he be a whoremonger and a drunkard and an idolater, he is still blessed if only he hath seed in Sion and posterity in Jerusalem? No one in his senses will say this.
Virginity is the rule of life among the angels,
the property of all incorporeal nature. This we say without
speaking ill of marriage: God forbid! (for we know that the
Lord blessed marriage by His presence St. St.
Good indeed is the procreation of children
enjoined by the law, and good is marriage Simeon Thess.,
De initiat., ch. 33.
Chapter XXV.—Concerning the Circumcision.
The Circumcision Just. Martyr.,
Dial. cum Tryph., p. 241. Chrys.,
Hom. 39 in Gen. Text,
᾽Ιησοῦς. Text, Βατταριτίδι
as in mss.; but in Bib. Sixt.
μαδβαρείτιδι
is to be read. The desert in which the Israelites dwelt is called
“per antonomasiam” Madbara, from the Hebrew מדבר, desert.
It was, moreover, a figure of baptism Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 40. Athan., De Sab. et circ. St.
Chapter XXVI.—Concerning the
Antichrist See the note in
Migne.
It should be known that the Antichrist is bound to
come. Every one, therefore, who confesses not that the Son of God
came in the flesh and is perfect God and became perfect man, after
being God, is Antichrist Iren.,
bk. v. ch. 25; Greg. Naz., Orat. 47. St. St. Chrys.,
Hom. 4 in Epist. 2 Thess. Cyril of
Jerusalem, Cat. 15. Iren., Cyril
Hieros., Catech. 15; Greg. Naz. loc. cit.
First, therefore, it is necessary that the Gospel
should be preached among all nations St. Text has
πέρασι
ψεύδους, instead of the
received text, τέρασι
ψεύδους, cf.
infr. Jerome on
Daniel, ch. vii. Chrys.,
Hom. 3 in 2 Thess.
He is, therefore, as we said, the offspring of
fornication and is nurtured in secret, and on a sudden he rises up and
rebels and assumes rule. And in the beginning of his rule, or
rather tyranny, he assumes the role of sanctity Text, ἁγιοσύνην
. Variants, ἀγαθωσύνην,
δικαιοσύνην
. Old trans. “justitiam,” but Faber has
“bonitatem.” St.
But Enoch and Elias the Thesbite shall be sent and
shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children
Chapter XXVII.—Concerning the Resurrection.
We believe also in the resurrection of the
dead. For there will be in truth, there will be, a resurrection
of the dead, and by resurrection we mean resurrection of
bodies Epist. in
Ancor. n. 89; Method., Contr. Orig.
For if there is no resurrection, let us eat and
drink
Nay, the divine Scripture bears witness that there
will be a resurrection of the body. God in truth says to Moses
after the flood, Even as the green herb have I given you all
things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood
thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives
will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at
the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of
man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, for his blood his own
shall be shed, for in the image of God made I man
And again to Moses, I am the God of
Abra
Further Isaiah says: The dead shall rise
again, and they that are in the graves shall awake
And again, the blessed Ezekiel says: And
it was as I prophesied, and behold a shaking and the bones came
together, bone to his bone, each to its own joint: and when I
beheld, lo, the sinews came up upon them and the flesh grew and rose up
on them and the skin covered them above
And divine Daniel also says: And at that
time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the
children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble,
such trouble as never was since there was a nation on the earth even to
that same time. And at that time thy people shall be delivered,
every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake: some to
everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And
they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and
out of the multitude of the just shall shine like stars into the ages
and beyond
Moreover, even the Lord in the holy Gospels
clearly allows that there is a resurrection of the bodies. For
they that are in the graves, He says, shall hear His voice and shall
come forth: they that have done good unto the resurrection of
life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of
damnation St.
But it was not only by word, but also by deed,
that the Lord revealed the resurrection of the bodies. First He
raised up Lazarus, even after he had been dead four days, and was
stinking St. St. St. St.
Again the divine apostle says, For this
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality St. Nyss., loc.
citat.; Epiph., Hæres. vi. 4.
But some one will say, How are the dead raised
up? Oh, what disbelief! Oh, what folly! Will He,
Who at His solitary will changed earth into body, Who commanded the
little drop of seed to grow in the mother’s womb and become in
the end this varied and manifold organ of the body, not the rather
raise up again at His solitary will that which was and is
dissolved? And with what body do they come Epiph., Ancor.,
n. 93.
We shall therefore rise again, our souls being
once more united with our bodies, now made incorruptible and having put
off corruption, and we shall stand beside the awful judgment-seat of
Christ: and the devil and his demons and the man that is his,
that is the Antichrist and the impious and the sinful, will be given
over to everlasting fire: not material fire See
Migne’s Preface to John’s Dial., Contr.
Manichæos. In R. 2924 is
read: ἐν τῷ Κυρί&
251· ἡμῶν, ᾧ
πρέπει πάσα
δόξα, τιμὴ,
καὶ
προσκύνησις,
νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ,
καὶ εἰς τοὺς
αἰ& 242·νας τῶν
αἰ& 240·νων.
᾽Αμήν. In 2928: ὅτι
αὐτῷ πρέπει
δόξα, τιμὴ
καὶ
προσκύνησις,
νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ,
&c.
Genesis
1:1 1:1 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:3 1:3 1:5 1:5 1:6 1:6-7 1:8 1:8 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:14 1:22 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:27 1:27 1:28 1:31 1:31 1:31 2 2:2 2:8 2:9 2:9 2:10 2:16 2:16 2:17 2:23 2:25 3 3:1 3:7 3:9 4:1 4:7 4:19 5:3 6:13 6:17 6:18 7:1 7:17 8:11 8:16 8:21 9:3-5 9:6 9:6 11:7 14:18 14:19 15:6 15:16 16:9-10 16:13 17:10 17:12 17:19-20 18:1 18:1 18:10 18:13-14 18:17 18:20 18:20-21 18:25 18:25 18:25-26 19:1 19:1-2 19:24 19:24 19:24 21:1-2 21:17-18 22:12 22:12 22:12 32:26 35:1 35:1 46:27
Exodus
3:2 3:4-6 3:6 3:6 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:14 4 4 4:22 7:1 7:1 12:23 13:6 14:16 17:6 19:15 20:2-3 24:18 25:18 25:40 33:10 34:28
Leviticus
14 14:8 15:10 16:2 16:14 16:31 26:12
Numbers
Deuteronomy
4:24 4:24 5:14 6:4 6:4 6:4 6:4 6:4 25:5 30:12 30:13 30:14 32:7 32:21 32:39 32:39 32:43 32:43 33:16
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
Job
Psalms
1 1 1 1:3 2 2:7 2:8 2:8 7:12 8:3 9 9 13 14 14 14:1 15:10 16 16:10 18 18:25-26 18:42 18:45 19:1 21:32 22:6 22:6 22:19 22:22 24:2 24:7 32:6 33:6 33:6 33:6 34:15 40:7 40:9-10 44 44 44:8 45:7 45:7 45:7 45:7 45:7 45:7 45:7 49:12 49:12 50:3 51 51 51 51:4 51:9 52 53 53 55:22 59 61 61 63 63 64 64 65 67 68 68:13 68:32-33 71:5 71:17 72:9-10 74:13 75:3 78:1 82:6 82:6 82:6 83:3 89:20 89:20 89:35-37 90:2 96:11 102:25 102:26 103:4 104:2 104:4 104:29 104:30 104:30 107:20 107:30 109:1 109:3 110:1 110:1 110:3 110:4 114:3 114:5 115 115:16 116:15 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 119 119:89 126 132 132:7 132:8 132:11 133 134 135 135:6 135:6 135:6 136:6 137 137:1 138 138:7-10 138:8 139:6 139:7-10 142 143 146:6 148:4 148:4 148:5-6 168:5
Proverbs
3:18 8:4-5 8:15-16 8:20-21 8:21 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:24-25 8:26-30 8:28-31 12:10 22:28
Ecclesiastes
Isaiah
1:2 1:2 1:14 5:2 6 6:1 6:6 7 7:14 7:16 9:2 9:6 9:6 9:6 11:1 11:10 22:13 26:18 29:10 29:11 29:11 29:13 29:14 37:12 40:5 40:12 40:22 40:26 43:10 43:10 44:6 44:6 45:11 45:11-16 45:12 45:14 48:12 53:4-5 53:8 53:8 53:8 53:9 61:1 61:1 64:4 65:1-2 65:2 65:13-16 65:16 65:16 66:1 66:1-2 66:1-2 66:7
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Daniel
1:8-16 2:15 2:22 3:20 3:23 6:16 10:2 11:37 12:1-3
Hosea
Amos
Micah
Zechariah
Malachi
1:11 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6 4:2 4:2 4:6
Matthew
1:21 1:21 1:23 1:23 1:25 2:20 3:11 3:15 3:17 3:17 3:17 3:17 3:17 3:17 3:17 3:17 4:2 4:4 5:3 5:5 5:8 5:17 5:17 5:17 6:25 6:26 6:33 7:6 7:18 7:23 8:3 8:3 8:30 9:2 9:4 10:6 10:15 10:16 10:22 10:28 10:29-30 10:32-33 10:38-39 10:40 11:11 11:25 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:28 11:30 12:5 12:18 12:18 12:28 12:32 12:33 13:15 13:35 13:40-43 14:33 15:13 15:13 15:19 15:24 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:17 16:22-23 16:22-23 16:27 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:5 18:19 19:11 19:16 19:17 19:17 21:19 21:37 22:32 22:36-40 23:2 23:10 23:37 24:14 24:24 24:27 24:30 24:35 24:36 24:36 24:36 24:44 24:46 25:12 25:13 25:14 25:34 25:34 25:41 25:41 26:12 26:16 26:24 26:26 26:27-28 26:31 26:32 26:33 26:38 26:38 26:38 26:38 26:38 26:39 26:39 26:39 26:39 26:39 26:39 26:39 26:39 26:40-41 26:42 26:42 26:45 26:53 26:64 26:64 26:64 27:33-34 27:40 27:46 27:46 27:46 27:46 27:46 27:46 27:46 27:52 27:54 27:54 28:9 28:10 28:18 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19-20 28:20 28:20
Mark
1:11 1:11 5:13 7:24 7:24 10:18 10:18 10:18 11:3 12:25 12:29 12:29 12:29-31 12:33 12:34 12:34-37 12:52 13:13 13:31 13:32 13:32 13:32 13:32 13:32 13:32 13:32 13:32 14:21 14:22-24 14:27 14:28 14:28 14:34 14:36 14:36 14:36 14:36 14:36 14:37-38 14:58 14:61 15:34 15:34 16:6 16:7 27:46
Luke
1:27 1:27-28 1:28 1:30-31 1:31 1:34 1:34-35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:38 2:35 2:40 2:52 3:6 3:22 3:22 3:22 3:24 4:18 4:19 6:20 7:34 8:28 8:54 10:22 10:41-42 11:9 11:10 12:50 13:34 16:19 17:21 18:19 18:19 18:19 18:19 19:41 22:19-20 22:22 22:22 22:31-32 22:32 22:32 22:42 22:42 22:43-44 22:43-44 22:45-46 23:31 23:34 23:43 23:43 23:43 23:43 23:46 23:46 23:46 23:46 23:46 23:46 23:46 24:28 24:28 24:37 24:39 24:39 24:39 24:43 26:31-32
John
1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1-3 1:1-4 1:1-14 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:4 1:9 1:10 1:12 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:29 2:1 2:6 2:16 2:19 2:19 2:19 2:19 2:19 2:22 2:23 3:3 3:5 3:6 3:7-8 3:8 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:14 3:16 3:17 3:18-19 4:13 4:14 4:19-20 4:21-24 4:22 4:23 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:16 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:18 5:18 5:18 5:18 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19-22 5:21 5:21 5:22 5:22 5:22-23 5:23 5:23 5:23 5:25 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:28-29 5:30 5:32 5:36 5:36-37 5:36-38 5:37 5:39 5:40-44 5:43 5:44 5:44 5:46 6:11 6:13 6:27 6:27-29 6:28 6:37-38 6:38 6:38 6:38 6:40 6:40 6:44 6:45-47 6:46 6:48 6:51 6:51 6:51-55 6:54 6:55-56 6:56 6:57 6:57 6:57 6:57 6:62 6:63 6:64 7:19 7:27 7:28 7:28-29 7:28-29 7:38 8:28-29 8:29 8:40 8:40 8:42 8:42 8:56 9:1 9:1 9:3 9:35 9:35 9:36 9:37 9:38 9:40 10:17-18 10:17-18 10:18 10:27-30 10:28-29 10:29 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:31-33 10:34-38 10:36 10:37 10:37 10:38 10:38 10:38 10:38 10:38 10:38 10:38 10:38 10:38 10:38 10:38 11:4 11:4 11:15 11:27 11:34 11:35 11:39-44 11:41 11:41 11:41-42 11:42 11:42 12:23 12:23 12:27 12:30 12:30 12:41 12:41 13:13 13:31 13:31-32 13:31-32 13:32 14 14:1 14:1 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:6-11 14:7 14:7 14:9 14:9 14:9 14:9 14:9 14:9 14:9 14:9 14:9 14:9 14:9 14:9 14:9 14:9-11 14:10 14:10 14:10 14:10 14:10 14:10-11 14:11 14:11 14:11 14:11 14:11 14:11 14:11 14:11 14:11 14:11 14:11 14:12 14:12 14:13-14 14:16 14:16-17 14:19-20 14:23 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:30 14:31 15 15:1-2 15:14 15:15 15:23 15:26 15:26 16:7 16:10 16:10 16:11 16:12 16:12-15 16:14 16:14 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:26-28 16:27-28 16:28 16:28 16:28 16:29-30 16:30 16:30 16:31-32 16:32 16:33 17:1 17:1 17:1-2 17:1-6 17:2 17:3 17:3 17:3 17:3 17:3 17:3 17:3 17:3 17:3 17:3 17:3-4 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:10 17:10 17:10 17:10 17:11-12 17:20-21 17:20-21 17:21 17:21 17:22 17:22 17:22-23 17:24 17:24 18:9 18:11 18:11 18:36 19:7 19:28-29 19:30 19:34 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:25 20:26 20:27 20:29 20:31
Acts
1:4-5 1:5 1:7 1:8 1:11 1:11 1:11 2:3 2:16-17 4:27 4:32 4:32 7:14 10:37-38 10:38 13:22 13:22 17:28
Romans
1:2-4 1:4 1:16 1:20 1:20 1:23 1:25 2:29 4:3 5:10 5:12 6:3 6:3 6:10-11 7:17 7:23 7:23 7:25 8:3 8:3 8:3 8:3-4 8:9 8:9 8:9-11 8:11 8:14-15 8:14-15 8:17 8:19-21 8:26 8:26 8:26 8:29 8:29 8:29 8:31-32 8:33-34 9:5 9:5 9:5 9:19 9:21 9:21 10:4 10:4 10:6-9 10:13-21 10:17 11:8 11:25-27 11:28 11:32 11:33-36 11:36 11:36 11:36 12:3 12:13 15:10 15:12 16:25-27
1 Corinthians
1:9 1:10 1:17-25 1:20 1:20-25 1:23 1:23 1:23-24 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:27 1:27 2:2 2:7-8 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:10-11 2:11 2:12 2:12 2:14-15 3:8 3:8 3:16 3:17 3:19 7:2 7:25 7:31 8 8:5 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:7 10:1 10:17 10:31 11:2 11:24-26 11:29 11:31-32 12:3 12:3 12:3 12:3 12:4-7 12:4-11 12:5-6 12:5-6 12:8 12:8 12:8-10 12:11 12:12 12:24 13:10 14:32 14:37 15:3-4 15:16-17 15:20 15:20 15:20-21 15:21 15:21-28 15:24 15:24-25 15:24-28 15:26 15:27-28 15:27-28 15:27-28 15:28 15:28 15:32 15:35 15:35 15:35 15:35-44 15:36-38 15:42 15:44 15:47 15:47 15:53 15:53-55
2 Corinthians
2:7 3:17 3:17 3:17 4:8 5:17 5:18-19 5:19 5:20-21 5:21 6:14 6:16 10:4-5 11:25 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:4 13:3 13:4 13:4 13:4
Galatians
1:1 3:11 3:13 3:13 3:15 3:27 3:27-28 4:3 4:4 4:4-5 4:4-5 4:6 4:7 4:7 4:7 5:3
Ephesians
1:4 1:9 1:16-17 1:19-22 2:6 3:14-15 4:4-5 4:4-6 4:5-6 4:7 4:9-10 4:10-12 4:11 4:21-24 4:24 4:30 5:19
Philippians
2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6-7 2:6-7 2:6-7 2:7 2:7 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:8-9 2:9 2:10 2:10-11 2:10-11 2:11 3:15-16 3:19-20 3:20-21 3:21 3:21 3:21
Colossians
1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15-20 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16-17 1:17 1:18 1:18 1:19 1:20 2:2-3 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:8-9 2:8-9 2:8-9 2:8-10 2:8-15 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:10 2:11-12 2:12 2:13-15 2:13-15 2:14 3:4 3:9-10
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
2:3-4 2:8 2:8-10 2:9 2:10-12 2:15
1 Timothy
1:1 1:2 1:3-4 1:9 2:4 2:5 2:5 3:16 3:16 4:1-2 5:11 6:15 6:16
2 Timothy
1:5 1:9 2:7 2:8 2:17 2:20-21 3:15 3:16 4:3-4 4:6 4:8
Titus
Hebrews
1:1-2 1:2 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:4 2:17 3:1 4:12 5:12 6:4 7:14 7:27 8:5 11:1 11:6 11:21 11:37-38 13:4 13:4 13:7
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
1:5 1:7 2:22 5:1 5:1 5:20 5:20 8:3
Revelation
2:23 11:3 14:1 19:16 21:1 22:1
Wisdom of Solomon
1:13 2:23 2:24 3:1 3:1 12:5 13:5 13:5
Baruch
3:35-37 3:35-37 3:38 3:38 3:38 3:38 3:38
2 Maccabees
I III iii V VI VII i ii iii iv v vi vii viii 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 lxvii lxviii lxix lxx lxxi lxxii lxxiii lxxiv lxxv lxxvi lxxvii lxxviii lxxix lxxx lxxxi lxxxii lxxxiii lxxxiv lxxxv lxxxvi lxxxvii lxxxviii lxxxix xc xci xcii xciii xciv xcv xcvi 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 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 ib iib viib viiib 1b 2b 3b 4b 5b 6b 7b 8b 9b 10b 11b 12b 13b 14b 15b 16b 17b 18b 19b 20b 21b 22b 23b 24b 25b 26b 27b 28b 29b 30b 31b 32b 33b 34b 35b 36b 37b 38b 39b 40b 41b 42b 43b 44b 45b 46b 47b 48b 49b 50b 51b 52b 53b 54b 55b 56b 57b 58b 59b 60b 61b 62b 63b 64b 65b 66b 67b 68b 69b 70b 71b 72b 73b 74b 75b 76b 77b 78b 79b 80b 81b 82b 83b 84b 85b 86b 87b 88b 89b 90b 91b 92b 93b 94b 95b 96b 97b 98b 99b 100b 101b