On the Holy Spirit.
I. Such then is the account of the Son, and in this manner
He has escaped those who would stone Him, passing through the midst of
them.1 For the Word is not stoned, but cats stones when He pleases; and
uses a sling against wild beasts-that is, words-approaching the Mount2
in an unholy way. But, they go on, what have you to say about the Holy
Ghost? From whence are you bringing in upon us this strange God, of Whom
Scripture is silent? And even they who keep within bounds as to the Son
speak thus. And just as we find in the case of roads and rivers, that they
split off from one another and join again, so it happens also in this case,
through the superabundance of impiety, that people who differ in all other
respects have here some points of agreement, so that you never can tell
for certain either where they are of one mind, or where they are in conflict.
II. Now the subject of the Holy Spirit presents a special difficulty,
not only because when these men have become weary in their disputations
concerning the Son, they struggle with greater heat against the Spirit
(for it seems to be absolutely necessary for them to have some object on
which to give expression to their impiety, or life would appear to them
no longer worth living), but further because we ourselves also, being worn
out by the multitude of their questions, are in something of the same condition
with men who have lost their appetite; who having taken a dislike to some
particular kind of food, shrink from all food; so we in like manner have
an aversion from all discussions. Yet may the Spirit grant it to us, and
then the discourse will proceed, and God will be glorified. Well then,
we will leave to others3 who have worked upon this subject for us as well
as for themselves, as we have worked upon it for them, the task of examining
carefully and distinguishing in how many senses the word Spirit or the
word Holy is used and understood in Holy Scripture, with the evidence suitable
to such an enquiry; and of shewing how besides these the combination of
the two words-I mean, Holy Spirit-is used in a peculiar sense; but we will
apply ourselves to the remainder of the subject.
III. They then who are angry with us on the ground that we are bringing
in a strange or interpolated God, viz.:-the Holy Ghost, and who fight so
very hard for the letter, should know that they are afraid where no fear
is;4 and I would have them clearly understand that their love for the letter
is but a cloak for their impiety, as shall be shewn later on, when we refute
their objections to the utmost of our power. But we have so much confidence
in the Deity of the Spirit Whom we adore,5 that we will begin our teaching
concerning His Godhead by fitting to Him the Names which belong to the
Trinity, even though some persons may think us too bold. The Father was
the True Light which lighteneth every man coming into the world. The Son
was the True Light which lighteneth every man coming into the world. The
Other Comforter was the True Light which lighteneth every man coming into
the world.6 Was and Was and Was, but Was One Thing. Light thrice repeated;
but One Light and One God. This was what David represented to himself long
before when he said. In Thy Light shall we see Light.7 And now we have
both seen and proclaim concisely and simply the doctrine8 of God the Trinity,
comprehending out of Light (the Father), Light (the Son), in Light (the
Holy Ghost). He that rejects it, let him reject it;9 and he that doeth
iniquity, let him do iniquity; we proclaim that which we have understood.
We will get us up into a high mountain,10 and will shout, if we be not
heard, below; we will exalt the Spirit; we will not be afraid; or if we
are afraid, it shall be of keeping silence, not of proclaiming.
IV. If ever there was a time when the Father was not, then there was
a time when the Son was not. If ever there was a time when the Son was
not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not. If the One was from
the beginning, then the Three were so too. If you throw down the One, I
am bold to assert that you do not set up the other Two. For what profit
is there in an imperfect Godhead? Or rather, what Godhead can there be
if It is not perfect? And how can that be perfect which lacks something
of perfection? And surely there is something lacking if it hath not the
Holy, and how would it have this if it were without the Spirit? For either
holiness is something different from Him, and if so let some one tell me
what it is conceived to be; or if it is the same, how is it not from the
beginning, as if it were better for God to be at one time imperfect and
apart from the Spirit? If He is not from the beginning, He is in the same
rank with myself, even though a little before me; for we are both parted
from Godhead by time. If He is in the same rank with myself, how can He
make me God, or join me with Godhead?
V. Or rather, let me reason with you about Him from a somewhat earlier
point, for we have already discussed the Trinity. The Sadducees altogether
denied the existence of the Holy Spirit, just as they did that of Angels
and the Resurrection; rejecting, I know not upon what ground, the important
testimonies concerning Him in the Old Testament. And of the Greeks those
who are more inclined to speak of God, and who approach nearest to us,
have formed some conception of Him, as it seems to me, though they have
differed as to His Name, and have addressed Him as the Mind of the World,
or the External Mind, and the like. But of the wise men amongst ourselves,
some have conceived of him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as
God; and some have been uncertain which to call Him, out of reverence for
Scripture, they say, as though it did not make the matter clear either
way. And therefore they neither worship Him nor treat Him with dishonour,
but take up a neutral position, or rather a very miserable one, with respect
to Him. And of those who consider Him to be God, some are orthodox in mind
only, while others venture to be so with the lips also. And I have heard
of some who are even more clever, and measure Deity; and these agree with
us that there are Three Conceptions; but they have separated these from
one another so completely as to make one of them infinite both in essence
and power, and the second in power but not in essence, and the third circumscribed
in both; thus imitating in another way those who call them the Creator,
the Co-operator, and the Minister, and consider that the same order and
dignity which belongs to these names is also a sequence in the facts.
VI. But we cannot enter into any discussion with those who do not even
believe in His existence, nor with the Greek babblers (for we would not
be enriched in our argument with the oil of sinners).11 With the others,
however, we will argue thus. The Holy Ghost must certainly be conceived
of either as in the category of the Self-existent, or as in that of the
things which are contemplated in another; of which classes those who are
skilled in such matters call the one Substance and the other Accident.
Now if He were an Accident, He would be an Activity of God, for what else,
or of whom else, could He be, for surely this is what most avoids composition?
And if He is an Activity, He will be effected, but will not effect and
will cease to exist as soon as He has been effected, for this is the nature
of an Activity. How is it then that He acts and says such and such things,
and defines, and is grieved, and is angered, and has all the qualities
which belong clearly to one that moves, and not to movement? But if He
is a Substance and not an attribute of Substance, He will be conceived
of either as a Creature of God, or as God. For anything between these two,
whether having nothing in common with either, or a compound of both, not
even they who invented the goat-stag could imagine. Now, if He is a creature,
how do we believe in Him, how are we made perfect in Him? For it is not
the same thing to believe IN a thing and to believe About it. The one belongs
to Deity, the other to-any thing. But if He is God, then He is neither
a creature, nor a thing made, nor a fellow servant, nor any of these lowly
VII. There-the word is with you. Let the slings be let go; let the syllogism
be woven. Either He is altogether Unbegotten, or else He is Begotten. If
He is Unbegotten, there are two Unoriginates. If he is Begotten, you must
make a further subdivision. He is so either by the Father or by the Son.
And if by the Father, there are two Sons, and they are Brothers. And you
may make them twins if you like, or the one older and the other younger,
since you are so very fond of the bodily conceptions. But if by the Son,
then such a one will say, we get a glimpse of a Grandson God, than which
nothing could be more absurd. For my part however, if I saw the necessity
of the distinction, I should have acknowledged the facts without fear of
the names. For it does not follow that because the Son is the Son in some
higher relation (inasmuch as we could not in any other way than this point
out that He is of God and Consubstantial), it would also be necessary to
think that all the names of this lower world and of our kindred should
be transferred to the Godhead. Or may be you would consider our God to
be a male, according to the same arguments, because he is called God and
Father, and that Deity is feminine, from the gender of the word, and Spirit
neuter, because It has nothing to do with generation; But if you would
be silly enough to say, with the old myths and fables, that God begat the
Son by a marriage with His own Will, we should be introduced12 to the Hermaphrodite
god of Marcion and Valentinus13 who imagined these newfangled Aeons.
VIII. But since we do not admit your first division, which declares
that there is no mean between Begotten and Unbegotten, at once, along with
your magnificent division, away go your Brothers and your Grandsons, as
when the first link of an intricate chain is broken they are broken with
it, and disappear from your system of divinity. For, tell me, what position
will you assign to that which Proceeds, which has started up between the
two terms of your division, and is introduced by a better Theologian than
you, our Saviour Himself? Or perhaps you have taken that word out of your
Gospels for the sake of your Third Testament, The Holy Ghost, which proceedeth
from the Father;14 Who, inasmuch as He proceedeth from That Source, is
no Creature; and inasmuch as He is not Begotten is no Son; and inasmuch
as He is between the Unbegotten and the Begotten is God. And thus escaping
the toils of your syllogisms, He has manifested himself as God, stronger
than your divisions. What then is Procession? Do you tell me what is the
Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology
of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and we shall
both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God.15 And
who are we to do these things, we who cannot even see what lies at our
feet, or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days
of Eternity, much less enter into the Depths of God, and supply an account
of that Nature which is so unspeakable and transcending all words?
IX. What then, say they, is there lacking to the Spirit which prevents
His being a Son, for if there were not something lacking He would be a
Son? We assert that there is nothing lacking-for God has no deficiency.
But the difference of manifestation, if I may so express myself, or rather
of their mutual relations one to another, has caused the difference of
their Names. For indeed it is not some deficiency in the Son which prevents
His being Father (for Sonship is not a deficiency), and yet He is not Father.
According to this line of argument there must be some deficiency in the
Father, in respect of His not being Son. For the Father is not Son, and
yet this is not due to either deficiency or subjection of Essence; but
the very fact of being Unbegotten or Begotten, or Proceeding has given
the name of Father to the First, of the Son to the Second, and of the Third,
Him of Whom we are speaking, of the Holy Ghost that the distinction of
the Three Persons may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the
Godhead. For neither is the Son Father, for the Father is One, but He is
what the Father is; nor is the Spirit Son because He is of God, for the
Only-begotten is One, but He is what the Son is. The Three are One in Godhead,
and the One Three in properties; so that neither is the Unity a Sabellian
one,16 nor does the Trinity countenance the present evil distinction.
X. What then? Is the Spirit God? Most certainly. Well then, is He Consubstantial?
Yes, if He is God. Grant me, says my opponent, that there spring from the
same Source One who is a Son, and One who is not a Son, and these of One
Substance with the Source, and I admit a God and a God. Nay, if you will
grant me that there is another God and another nature of God I will give
you the same Trinity with the same name and facts. But since God is One
and the Supreme Nature is One, how can I present to you the Likeness? Or
will you seek it again in lower regions and in your own surroundings? It
is very shameful, and not only shameful, but very foolish, to take from
things below a guess at things above, and from a fluctuating nature at
the things that are unchanging, and as Isaiah says, to seek the Living
among the dead.17 But yet I will try, for your sake, to give you some assistance
for your argument, even from that source. I think I will pass over other
points, though I might bring forward many from animal history, some generally
known, others only known to a few, of what nature has contrived with wonderful
art in connection with the generation of animals. For not only are likes
said to beget likes, and things diverse to beget things diverse, but also
likes to be begotten by things diverse, and things diverse by likes. And
if we may believe the story, there is yet another mode of generation, when
an animal is self-consumed and self-begotten.18 There are also creatures
which depart in some sort from their true natures, and undergo change and
transformation from one creature into another, by a magnificence of nature.
And indeed sometimes in the same species part may be generated and part
not; and yet all of one substance; which is more like our present subject.
I will just mention one fact of our own nature which every one knows, and
then I will pass on to another part of the subject.
XI. What was Adam? A creature of God. What then was Eve? A fragment
of the creature. And what was Seth? The begotten of both. Does it then
seem to you that Creature and Fragment and Begotten are the same thing?
Of course it does not. But were not these persons consubstantial? Of course
they were. Well then, here it is an acknowledged fact that different persons
may have the same substance. I say this, not that I would attribute creation
or fraction or any property of body to the Godhead (let none of your contenders
for a word be down upon me again), but that I may contemplate in these,
as on a stage, things which are objects of thought alone. For it is not
possible to trace out any image exactly to the whole extent of the truth.
But, they say, what is the meaning of all this? For is not the one an offspring,
and the other a something else of the One? Did not both Eve and Seth come
from the one Adam? And were they both begotten by him? No; but the one
was a fragment of him, and the other was begotten by him. And yet the two
were one and the same thing; both were human beings; no one will deny that.
Will you then give up your contention against the Spirit, that He must
be either altogether begotten, or else cannot be consubstantial, or be
God; and admit from human examples the possibility of our position? I think
it will be well for you, unless you are determined to be very quarrelsome,
and to fight against what is proved to demonstration.
XII. But, he says, who in ancient or modern times ever worshipped the
Spirit? Who ever prayed to Him? Where is it written that we ought to worship
Him, or to pray to Him, and whence have you derived this tenet of yours?
We will give the more perfect reason hereafter, when we discuss the question
of the unwritten; for the present it will suffice to say that it is the
Spirit in Whom we worship, and in Whom we pray. For Scripture says, God
is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in
truth.19 And again,-We know not what we should pray for as we ought; but
the Spirit Itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot
be uttered;20 and I will pray with the Spirit and I will pray with the
understanding also;21 -that is, in the mind and in the Spirit. Therefore
to adore or to pray to the Spirit seems to me to be simply Himself offering
prayer or adoration to Himself. And what godly or learned man would disapprove
of this, because in fact the adoration of One is the adoration of the Three,
because of the equality of honour and Deity. between the Three? So I will
not be frightened by the argument that all things are said to have been
made by the Son;22 as if the Holy Spirit also were one of these things.
For it says all things that were made, and not simply all things. For the
Father was not, nor were any of the things that were not made. Prove that
He was made, and then give Him to the Son, and number Him among the creatures;
but until you can prove this you will gain nothing for your impiety from
this comprehensive phrase. For if He was made, it was certainly through
Christ; I myself would not deny that. But if He was not made, how can He
be either one of the All, or through Christ? Cease then to dishonour the
Father in your opposition to the Only-begotten (for it is no real honour,
by presenting to Him a creature to rob Him of what is more valuable, a
Son), and to dishonour the Son in your opposition to the Spirit. For He
is not the Maker of a Fellow servant, but He is glorified with One of co-equal
honour. Rank no part of the Trinity with thyself, lest thou fall away from
the Trinity; cut not off from Either the One and equally august Nature;
because if thou overthrow any of the Three thou wilt have overthrown the
whole. Better to take a meagre view of the Unity than to venture on a complete
XIII. Our argument has now come to its principal point; and I am grieved
that a problem that was long dead, and that had given way to faith, is
now stirred up afresh; yet it is necessary to stand against these praters,
and not to let judgment go by default, when we have the Word on our side,
and are pleading the cause of the Spirit. If, say they, there is God and
God and God, how is it that there are not Three Gods, or how is it that
what is glorified is not a plurality of Principles? Who is it who say this?
Those who have reached a more complete ungodliness, or even those who have
taken the secondary part; I mean who are moderate in a sense in respect
of the Son. For my argument is partly against both in common, partly against
these latter in particular. What I have to say in answer to these is as
follows:-What right have you who worship the Son, even though you have
revolted from the Spirit, to call us Tritheists? Are not you Ditheists?
For if you deny also the worship of the Only Begotten, you have clearly
ranged yourself among our adversaries. And why should we deal kindly with
you as not quite dead? But if you do worship Him, and are so far in the
way of salvation, we will ask you what reasons you have to give for your
ditheism, if you are charged with it? If there is in you a word of wisdom
answer, and open to us also a way to an answer. For the very same reason
with which you will repel a charge of Ditheism will prove sufficient for
us against one of Tritheism. And thus we shall win the day by making use
of you our accusers as our Advocates, than which nothing can be more generous.
XIV. What is our quarrel and dispute with both? To us there is One God,
for the Godhead is One, and all that proceedeth from Him is referred to
One, though we believe in Three Persons. For one is not more and another
less God; nor is One before and another after; nor are They divided in
will or parted in power; nor can you find here any of the qualities of
divisible things; but the Godhead is, to speak concisely, undivided in
separate Persons; and there is one mingling of Light, as it were of three
suns joined to each other. When then we look at the Godhead, or the First
Cause, or the Monarchia, that which we conceive is One; but when we look
at the Persons in Whom the Godhead dwells, and at Those Who timelessly
and with equal glory have their Being from the First Cause-there are Three
Whom we worship.
XV. What of that, they will say perhaps; do not the Greeks also believe
in one Godhead, as their more advanced philosophers declare? And with us
Humanity is one, namely the entire race; but yet they have many gods, not
One, just as there are many men. But in this case the common nature has
a unity which is only conceivable in thought; and the individuals are parted
from one another very far indeed, both by time and by dispositions and
by power. For we are not only compound beings, but also contrasted beings,
both with one another and with ourselves; nor do we remain entirely the
same for a single day, to say nothing of a whole lifetime, but both in
body and in soul are in a perpetual state of flow and change. And perhaps
the same may be said of the Angels23 and the whole of that superior nature
which is second to the Trinity alone; although they are simple in some
measure and more fixed in good, owing to their nearness to the highest
XVI. Nor do those whom the Greeks worship as gods, and (to use their
own expression) daemons, need us in any respect for their accusers, but
are convicted upon the testimony of their own theologians, some as subject
to passion, some as given to faction, and full of innumerable evils and
changes, and in a state of opposition, not only to one another, but even
to their first causes, whom they call Oceani and Tethyes and Phanetes,
and by several other names; and last of all a certain god who hated his
children through his lust of rule, and swallowed up all the rest through
his greediness that he might become the father of all men and gods whom
he miserably devoured, and then vomited forth again. And if these are but
myths and fables, as they say in order to escape the shamefulness of the
story, what will they say in reference to the dictum that all things are
divided into three parts,24 and that each god presides over a different
part of the Universe, having a distinct province as well as a distinct
rank? But our faith is not like this, nor is this the portion of Jacob,
says my Theologian.25 But each of these Persons possesses Unity, not less
with that which is United to it than with itself, by reason of the identity
of Essence and Power.26 And this is the account of the Unity, so far as
we have apprehended it. If then this account is the true one, let us thank
God for the glimpse He has granted us; if it is not let us seek for a better.
XVII. As for the arguments with which you would overthrow the Union
which we support, I know not whether we should say you are jesting or in
earnest. For what is this argument? "Things of one essence, you say, are
counted together," and by this "counted together," you mean that they are
collected into one number.27 But things which are not of one essence are
not thus counted ...so that you cannot avoid speaking of three gods, according
to this account, while we do not run any risk at all of it, inasmuch as
we assert that they are not consubstantial. And so by a single word you
have freed yourselves from trouble, and have gained a pernicious victory,
for in fact you have done something like what men do when they hang themselves
for fear of death. For to save yourselves trouble in your championship
of the Monarchia you have denied the Godhead, and abandoned the question
to your opponents. But for my part, even if labor should be necessary,
I will not abandon the Object of my adoration. And yet on this point I
cannot see where the difficulty is.
XVIII. You say, Things of one essence are counted together, but those
which are not con-substantial are reckoned one by one. Where did you get
this from? From what teachers of dogma or mythology? Do you not know that
every number expresses the quantity of what is included under it, and not
the nature of the things? But I am so old fashioned, or perhaps I should
say so unlearned, as to use the word Three of that number of things, even
if they are of a different nature, and to use One and One and One in a
different way of so many units, even if they are united in essence, looking
not so much at the things themselves as at the quantity of the things in
respect of which the enumeration is made. But since you hold so very close
to the letter (although you are contending against the letter), pray take
your demonstrations from this source. There are in the Book of Proverbs
three things which go well, a lion, a goat, and a cock; and to these is
added a fourth;-a King making a speech before the people,28 to pass over
the other sets of four which are there counted up, although things of various
natures. And I find in Moses two Cherubim29 counted singly. But now, in
your technology, could either the former things be called three, when they
differ so greatly in their nature, or the latter be treated as units when
they are so closely connected and of one nature? For if I were to speak
of God and Mammon, as two masters, reckoned under one head, when they are
so very different from each other, I should probably be still more laughed
at for such a connumeration.
XIX. But to my mind, he says, those things are said to be connumerated
and of the same essence of which the names also correspond, as Three Men,
or Three gods, but not Three this and that. What does this concession amount
to? It is suitable to one laying down the law as to names, not to one who
is asserting the truth. For I also will assert that Peter and James and
John are not three or consubstantial, so long as I cannot say Three Peters,
or Three Jameses, or Three Johns; for what you have reserved for common
names we demand also for proper names, in accordance with your arrangement;
or else you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you assume for
yourself. What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that
there are Three that bear witness,30 the Spirit and the Water and the Blood?
Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to
reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you
say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial.
For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he
has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for
after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are
neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians
have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine
Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after
a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but
in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity? What have
you to say about the Crab, which may mean either an animal, or an instrument,
or a constellation? And what about the Dog, now terrestrial, now aquatic,
now celestial? Do you not see that three crabs or dogs are spoken of? Why
of course it is so. Well then, are they therefore of one substance? None
but a fool would say that. So you see how completely your argument from
con-numeration has broken down, and is refuted by all these instances.
For if things that are of one substance are not always counted under one
numeral, and things not of one substance are thus counted, and the pronunciation
of the name31 once for all is used in both cases, what advantage do you
gain towards your doctrine?
XX. I will look also at this further point, which is not without its
bearing on the subject. One and One added together make Two; and Two resolved
again becomes One and One, as is perfectly evident. If, however, elements
which are added together must, as your theory requires, be consubstantial,
and those which are separate be heterogeneous, then it will follow that
the same things must be both consubstantial and heterogeneous. No: I laugh
at your Counting Before and your Counting After, of which you are so proud,
as if the facts themselves depended upon the order of their names. If this
were so, according to the same law, since the same things are in consequence
of the equality of their nature counted in Holy Scripture, sometimes in
an earlier, sometimes in a later place, what prevents them from being at
once more honourable and less honourable than themselves? I say the same
of the names God and Lord, and of the prepositions Of Whom, and By Whom,
and In Whom, by which you describe the Deity according to the rules of
art for us, attributing the first to the Father, the second to the Son,
and the third to the Holy Ghost. For what would you have done, if each
of these expressions were constantly allotted to Each Person, when, the
fact being that they are used of all the Persons, as is evident to those
who have studied the question, you even so make them the ground of such
inequality both of nature and dignity. This is sufficient for all who are
not altogether wanting in sense. But since it is a matter of difficulty
for you after you have once made an assault upon the Spirit, to check your
rush, and not rather like a furious boar to push your quarrel to the bitter
end, and to thrust yourself upon the knife until you have received the
whole wound in your own breast; let us go on to see what further argument
remains to you.
XXI. Over and over again you turn upon us the silence of Scripture.
But that it is not a strange doctrine, nor an afterthought, but acknowledged
and plainly set forth both by the ancients and many of our own day, is
already demonstrated by many persons who have treated of this subject,
and who have handled the Holy Scriptures, not with indifference or as a
mere pastime, but have gone beneath the letter and looked into the inner
meaning, and have been deemed worthy to see the hidden beauty, and have
been irradiated by the light of knowledge. We, however in our turn will
briefly prove it as far as may be, in order not to seem to be over-curious
or improperly ambitious, building on another's foundation. But since the
fact, that Scripture does not very clearly or very often write Him God
in express words (as it does first the Father and afterwards the Son),
becomes to you an occasion of blasphemy and of this excessive wordiness
and impiety, we will release you from this inconvenience by a short discussion
of things and names, and especially of their use in Holy Scripture.
XXII. Some things have no existence, but are spoken of; others which
do exist are not spoken of; some neither exist nor are spoken of, and some
both exist and are spoken of. Do you ask me for proof of this? I am ready
to give it. According to Scripture God sleeps and is awake, is angry, walks,
has the Cherubim for His Throne. And yet when did He become liable to passion,
and have you ever heard that God has a body? This then is, though not really
fact, a figure of speech. For we have given names according to our own
comprehension from our own attributes to those of God. His remaining silent
apart from us, and as it were not caring for us, for reasons known to Himself,
is what we call His sleeping; for our own sleep is such a state of inactivity.
And again, His sudden turning to do us good is the waking up; for waking
is the dissolution of sleep, as visitation is of turning away. And when
He punishes, we say He is angry; for so it is with us, punishment is the
result of anger. And His working, now here now there, we call walking;
for walking is change from one place to another. His resting among the
Holy Hosts, and as it were loving to dwell among them, is His sitting and
being enthroned; this, too, from ourselves, for God resteth nowhere as
He doth upon the Saints. His swiftness of moving is called flying, and
His watchful care is called His Face, and his giving and bestowing32 is
His hand; and, in a word, every other of the powers or activities of God
has depicted for us some other corporeal one.
XXIII. Again, where do you get your Un-begotten and Unoriginate, those
two citadels of your position, or we our Immortal? Show me these in so
many words, or we shall either set them aside, or erase them as not contained
in Scripture; and you are slain by your own principle, the names you rely
on being overthrown, and therewith the wall of refuge in which you trusted.
Is it not evident that they are due to passages which imply them, though
the words do not actually occur? What are these passages?-I am the first,
and I am the last,33 and before Me there was no God, neither shall there
be after Me.34 For all that depends on that Am makes for my side, for it
has neither beginning nor ending. When you accept this, that nothing is
before Him, and that He has not an older Cause, you have implicitly given
Him the titles Unbegotten and Unoriginate. And to say that He has no end
of Being is to call Him Immortal and Indestructible. The first pairs, then,
that I referred to are accounted for thus. But what are the things which
neither exist in fact nor are said? That God is evil; that a sphere is
square; that the past is present; that man is not a compound being. Have
you ever known a man of such stupidity as to venture either to think or
to assert any such thing? It remains to shew what are the things which
exist, both in fact and in language. God, Man, Angel, Judgment, Vanity
(viz., such arguments as yours), and the subversion of faith and emptying
of the mystery.
XXIV. Since, then, there is so much difference in terms and things,
why are you such a slave to the letter, and a partisan of the Jewish wisdom,
and a follower of syllables at the expense of facts? But if, when you said
twice five or twice seven, I concluded from your words that you meant Ten
or Fourteen; or if, when you spoke of a rational and mortal animal, that
you meant Man, should you think me to be talking nonsense? Surely not,
because I should be merely repeating your own meaning; for words do not
belong more to the speaker of them than to him who called them forth. As,
then, in this case, I should have been looking, not so much at the terms
used, as at the thoughts they were meant to convey; so neither, if I found
something else either not at all or not clearly expressed in the Words
of Scripture to be included in the meaning, should I avoid giving it utterance,
out of fear of your sophistical trick about terms. In this way, then, we
shall hold our own against the semi-orthodox -among whom I may not count
you. For since you deny the Titles of the Son, which are so many and so
clear, it is quite evident that even if you learnt a great many more and
clearer ones you would not be moved to reverence. But now I will take up
the argument again a little way further back, and shew you, though you
are so clever, the reason for this entire system of secresy.
XXV. There have been in the whole period of the duration of the world
two conspicuous changes of men's lives, which are also called two Testaments,35
or, on account of the wide fame of the matter, two Earthquakes; the one
from idols to the Law, the other from the Law to the Gospel. And we are
taught in the Gospel of a third earthquake, namely, from this Earth to
that which cannot be shaken or moved.36 Now the two Testaments are alike
in this respect, that the change was not made on a sudden, nor at the first
movement of the endeavour. Why not (for this is a point on which we must
have information)? That no violence might be done to us, but that we might
be moved by persuasion. For nothing that is involuntary is durable; like
streams or trees which are kept back by force. But that which is voluntary
is more durable and safe. The former is due to one who uses force, the
latter is ours; the one is due to the gentleness of God, the other to a
tyrannical authority. Wherefore God did not think it behoved Him to benefit
the unwilling, but to do good to the willing. And therefore like a Tutor
or Physician He partly removes and partly condones ancestral habits, conceding
some little of what tended to pleasure, just as medical men do with their
patients, that their medicine may be taken, being artfully blended with
what is nice. For it is no very easy matter to change from those habits
which custom and use have made honourable. For instance, the first cut
off the idol, but left the sacrifices; the second, while it destroyed the
sacrifices did not forbid circumcision.37 Then, when once men had submitted
to the curtailment, they also yielded that which had been conceded to them;38
in the first instance the sacrifices, in the second circumcision; and became
instead of Gentiles, Jews, and instead of Jews, Christians, being beguiled
into the Gospel by gradual changes. Paul is a proof of this; for having
at one time administered circumcision, and submitted to legal purification,
he advanced till he could say, and I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision,
why do I yet suffer persecution?39 His former conduct belonged to the temporary
dispensation, his latter to maturity.
XXVI. To this I may compare the case of Theology40 except that it proceeds
the reverse way. For in the case by which I have illustrated it the change
is made by successive subtractions; whereas here perfection is reached
by additions. For the matter stands thus. The Old Testament proclaimed
the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son,
and suggested the Deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit Himself dwells among
us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself. For it was
not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly
to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden
us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest
perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength,
and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun's light, risk
the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that
by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress
from glory to glory,41 the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more
illuminated. For this reason it was, I think, that He gradually came to
dwell in the Disciples, measuring Himself out to them according to their
capacity to receive Him, at the beginning of the Gospel, after the Passion,
after the Ascension, making perfect their powers, being breathed upon them,
and appearing in fiery tongues. And indeed it is by little and little that
He is declared by Jesus, as you will learn for yourself if you will read
more carefully. I will ask the Father, He says, and He will send you another
Comforter, even the spirit of Truth.42 This He said that He might not seem
to be a rival God, or to make His discourses to them by another authority.
Again, He shall send Him, but it is in My Name. He leaves out the I will
ask, but He keeps the Shall send,43 then again, I will send,-His own dignity.
Then shall come,44 the authority of the Spirit.
XXVII. You see lights breaking upon us, gradually; and the order of
Theology, which it is better for us to keep, neither proclaiming things
too suddenly, nor yet keeping them hidden to the end. For the former course
would be unscientific, the latter atheistical; and the former would be
calculated to startle outsiders, the latter to alienate our own people.
I will add another point to what I have said; one which may readily have
come into the mind of some others, but which I think a fruit of my own
thought. Our Saviour had some things which, He said, could not be borne
at that time by His disciples45 (though they were filled with many teachings),
perhaps for the reasons I have mentioned; and therefore they were hidden.
And again He said that all things should be taught us by the Spirit when
He should come to dwell amongst us.46 Of these things one, I take it, was
the Deity of the Spirit Himself, made clear later on when such knowledge
should be seasonable and capable of being received after our Saviour's
restoration, when it would no longer be received with incredulity because
of its marvellous character. For what greater thing than this did either
He promise, or the Spirit teach. If indeed anything is to be considered
great and worthy of the Majesty of God, which was either promised or taught.
XXVIII. This, then, is my position with regard to these things, and
I hope it may be always my position, and that of whosoever is dear to me;
to worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, Three Persons,
One Godhead, undivided in honour and glory and substance and kingdom, as
one of our own inspired philosophers47 not long departed shewed. Let him
not see the rising of the Morning Star, as Scripture saith,48 nor the glory
of its brightness, who is otherwise minded, or who follows the temper of
the times, at one time being of one mind and of another at another time,
and thinking unsoundly in the highest matters. For if He is not to be worshipped,
how can He deify me by Baptism? but if He is to be worshipped, surely He
is an Object of adoration, and if an Object of adoration He must be God;
the one is linked to the other, a truly golden and saving chain. And indeed
from the Spirit comes our New Birth, and from the New Birth our new creation,
and from the new creation our deeper knowledge of the dignity of Him from
Whom it is derived.
XXIX. This, then, is what may be said by one who admits the silence
of Scripture. But now the swarm of testimonies shall burst upon you from
which the Deity of the Holy Ghost49 shall be shewn to all who are not excessively
stupid, or else altogether enemies to the Spirit, to be most clearly recognized
in Scripture. Look at these facts:-Christ is born; the Spirit is His Forerunner.
He is baptized; the Spirit bears witness. He is tempted; the Spirit leads
Him up.50 He works miracles; the Spirit accompanies them. He ascends; the
Spirit takes His place. What great things are there in the idea of God
which are not in His power?51 What titles which belong to God are not applied
to Him, except only Unbegotten and Begotten? For it was needful that the
distinctive properties of the Father and the Son should remain peculiar
to Them, lest there should be confusion in the Godhead Which brings all
things, even disorder52 itself, into due arrangement and good order. Indeed
I tremble when I think of the abundance of the titles, and how many Names
they outrage who fall foul of the Spirit. He is called the Spirit of God,
the Spirit of Christ, the Mind of Christ, the Spirit of The Lord, and Himself
The Lord, the Spirit of Adoption, of Truth, of Liberty; the Spirit of Wisdom,
of Understanding, of Counsel, of Might, of Knowledge, of Godliness, of
the Fear of God. For He is the Maker of all these, filling all with His
Essence, containing all things, filling the world in His Essence, yet incapable
of being comprehended in His power by the world; good, upright, princely,
by nature not by adoption; sanctifying, not sanctified; measuring, not
measured; shared, not sharing; filling, not filled; containing, not contained;
inherited, glorified, reckoned with the Father and the Son; held out as
a threat;53 the Finger of God; fire like God; to manifest, as I take it,
His consubstantiality); the Creator-Spirit, Who by Baptism and by Resurrection
creates anew; the Spirit That knoweth all things, That teacheth, That bloweth
where and to what extent He listeth; That guideth, talketh, sendeth forth,
separateth, is angry or tempted; That revealeth, illumineth, quickeneth,
or rather is the very Light and Life; That maketh Temples; That deifieth;
That perfecteth so as even to anticipate Baptism,54 yet after Baptism to
be sought as a separate gift;55 That doeth all things that God doeth; divided
into fiery tongues; dividing gifts; making Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists,
Pastors, and Teachers; understanding manifold, clear, piercing, undefiled,
unhindered, which is the same thing as Most wise and varied in His actions;
and making all things clear and plain; and of independent power, unchangeable,
Almighty, all-seeing, penetrating all spirits that are intelligent, pure,
most subtle (the Angel Hosts I think); and also all prophetic spirits and
apostolic in the same manner and not in the same places; for they lived
in different places; thus showing that He is uncircumscript.
XXX. They who say and teach these things, and moreover call Him another
Paraclete in the sense of another God, who know that blasphemy against
Him alone cannot be forgiven,56 and who branded with such fearful infamy
Ananias and Sapphira for having lied to the Holy Ghost, what do you think
of these men?57 Do they proclaim the Spirit God, or something else? Now
really, you must be extraordinarily dull and far from the Spirit if you
have any doubt about this and need some one to teach you. So important
then, and so vivid are His Names. Why is it necessary to lay before you
the testimony contained in the very words? And whatever in this case also58
is said in more lowly fashion, as that He is Given, Sent, Divided; that
He is the Gift, the Bounty, the Inspiration, the Promise, the Intercession
for us, and, not to go into any further detail, any other expressions of
the sort, is to be referred to the First Cause, that it may be shewn from
Whom He is, and that men may not in heathen fashion admit Three Principles.
For it is equally impious to confuse the Persons with the Sabellians, or
to divide the Natures with the Arians.
XXXI. I have very carefully considered this matter in my own mind, and
have looked at it in every point of view, in order to find some illustration
of this most important subject, but I have been unable to discover any
thing on earth with which to compare the nature of the Godhead. For even
if I did happen upon some tiny likeness it escaped me for the most part,
and left me down below with my example. I picture to myself an eye,59 a
fountain, a river, as others have done before, to see if the first might
be analogous to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the
Holy Ghost. For in these there is no distinction in time, nor are they
torn away from their connexion with each other, though they seem to be
parted by three personalities. But I was afraid in the first place that
I should present a flow in the Godhead, incapable of standing still; and
secondly that by this figure a numerical unity would be introduced. For
the eye and the spring and the river are numerically one, though in different
XXXII. Again I thought of the sun and a ray and light. But here again
there was a fear lest people should get an idea of composition in the Uncompounded
Nature, such as there is in the Sun and the things that are in the Sun.
And in the second place lest we should give Essence to the Father but deny
Personality to the Others, and make Them only Powers of God, existing in
Him and not Personal. For neither the ray nor the light is another sun,
but they are only effulgences from the Sun, and qualities of His essence.
And lest we should thus, as far as the illustration goes, attribute both
Being and Not-being to God, which is even more monstrous. I have also heard
that some one has suggested an illustration of the following kind. A ray
of the Sun flashing upon a wall and trembling with the movement of the
moisture which the beam has taken up in mid air, and then, being checked
by the hard body, has set up a strange quivering. For it quivers with many
rapid movements, and is not one rather than it is many, nor yet many rather
than one; because by the swiftness of its union and separating it escapes
before the eye can see it.
XXXIII. But it is not possible for me to make use of even this; because
it is very evident what gives the ray its motion; but there is nothing
prior to God which could set Him in motion; for He is Himself the Cause
of all things, and He has no prior Cause. And secondly because in this
case also there is a suggestion of such things as composition, diffusion,
and an unsettled and unstable nature ... none of which we can suppose in
the Godhead. In a word, there is nothing which presents a standing point
to my mind in these illustrations from which to consider the Object which
I am trying to represent to myself, unless one may indulgently accept one
point of the image while rejecting the rest. Finally, then, it seems best
to me to let the images and the shadows go, as being deceitful and very
far short of the truth; and clinging myself to the more reverent conception,
and resting upon few words, using the guidance of the Holy Ghost, keeping
to the end as my genuine comrade and companion the enlightenment which
I have received from Him, and passing through this world to persuade all
others also to the best of my power to worship Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
the One Godhead and Power. To Him belongs all glory and honour and might
for ever and ever. Amen.
1 Luke iv. 20, 30.
2 Exod. xix. 13.
3 E.g. S. Basil and S. Gregory of Nyssa.
4 Ps. liii. 5.
5 presbeu/ein is not commonly used in this sense, but
there are classical instances of it (e.g. Aesch. Choeph., 488; Soph., Trach.,
1065, and it occurs also in Plato), and this is the sense in which it is
here rendered by Billius; but a V. L. of some Mss. gives the meaning, whose
cause we are pleading, which is more frequent use of the word.
6 John i. 9.
7 Ps. xxxvi. 9.
8 Al. The Confession.
9 Isa. xxi. 2.
10 Ib. xi. 9.
11 Ps. cxli. 5.
12 Irenaeus. I.. 6.
13 It would seem that S. Gregory commonly confused Marcion
with Marcus, one of the leaders of the Gnostic School of Valentinus. In
another place he speaks of the Aeons of Marcion and Valentinus, evidently
meaning Marcus; for the system of Marcion is characterized by an entire
absence of any theory of Emanations (Aeons). Similarly there is no trace
in Marcion of this notion of a hermaphrodite Deity, but there is something
very like it in the account of Marcus given by S. Irenaeus.
14 John xv. 26. "It did not fall within this Father's
(Greg. Naz.) province to develop the doctrine of the Procession. He is
content to shew that the Spirit was not Generated, seeing that according
to Christ's own teaching He Proceeds from the Father. The question of His
relation to the Son is alien to S. Gregory Nazianzen's purpose; nor does
it seem to have once been raised in the great battle between Arianism and
Catholicity which was fought out at Constantinople during Gregory's Episcopate"
(Swete on the Procession, p. 107)).
15 Ecclus i. 2.
16 Sabellius, who taught at Rome during the Pontificate
of Callistus, was by far the most important heresiarch of his period, and
his opinions by far the most dangerous. While strongly emphasizing the
fundamental doctrine of the Divine Unity, ye also admitted in terms a Trinity,
but his Trinity was not that of the Catnolic dogma, for he represented
it as only a threefold manifestation of the one Divine Essence. The Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost are in his view only temporary phaenomena, which fulfil
their mission, and then return into the abstract Monad. Dr. Schaff (Hist.
of the Church, Ante-Nicene Period, p. 582) gives the following concise
account of his teaching:
"The unity of God, without distinction in itself, unfolds
or extends itself in the course of the word's development in three different
forms and periods of revelation, and after the completion of redemption
returns into Unity. The Father reveals Himself in the giving of the Law
or the Old Testament Economy (not in the creation also, which in his view
precedes the Trinitarian revelation): the Son in the Incarnation; the Holy
Ghost in inspiration; the revelation of the Son ends with the Ascension:
that of the Spirit goes on in generation and sanctification. He illustrates
the Trinitarian revelation by comparing the Father to the disc of the sun,
the Son to its enlightening power, the Spirit to its warming influence.
He is also said to have likened the Father to the body, the Son to the
soul, the Holy Ghost to the spirit of man: but this is unworthy of his
evident speculative discrimination. His view of the Logos too is peculiar.
The Logos is not identical with the Son, but is the Monad itself in its
transition to Triad; that is, God conceived as vital motion and creating
principle; the Speaking God, as distinguished from the Silent God. Each
Person (or Aspect- the word is ambiguous) is another Uttering; and the
Three Persons together are only successive evolutions of the Logos, or
world-ward aspect of the Divine Nature. As the Logos proceeded from God,
so He at last returns into Him, and the process of Trinitarian development
17 Isa. viii. 19.
18 i.e. the Phoenix. Hdt., ii. 37.
19 John iv. 24.
20 Rom. viii. 26.
21 1 Cor. xiv. 15.
22 John i. 2.
23 "Similarly it is clear concerning the Angels, that
they have a being incapable of change, so far as pertains to their nature,
with a capacity of change as to choice, and of intelligence and affections
and places, in their own manner" (S. Thomas Aq., Summa, I., x., 5).
24 Homer, Il., xiv., 189.
25 Jer. x. 16.
26 Petavius praises this dictum, De Trin., IV., xiii.,
27 sunariqmei!tai, as when you say Three Gods, or Three
Men, and the like, as you do when you reckon up things of the same sort.
On the other hand, you must use the plural number in reckoning up things
which differ in kind.
28 Prov. xxx. 29, 30. 31.
29 Exod. xxxvii. 7.
30 This is the famous passage of the Witnesses in 1 John
v. 8. In some few later codices of the Vulgate are found the words which
form verse 7 of our A.V. But neither verse 7 nor these words are to be
found in any Greek Ms. earlier than the Fifteenth Century: nor are they
quoted by any Greek Father, and by very few and late Latin ones. They have
been thought to be cited by S. Cyprian in his work on the Unity of the
Church; and this citation, if a fact, would be a most important one, as
it would throw back their reception to an early date. But Tischendorf (Gk.
Test.. Ed. viii., ad. loc.) gives reasons for believing that the quotation
is only apparent, and is really of the last clause of verse 8.
31 i.e. Though the things referred to many differ essentially,
yet if the name by which they are known is the same, one utterance of it
with one numeral is enough to express a collection of them all.
32 var. lect., receiving.
33 Isa. xli. 4.
34 Ib. xliii. 10.
35 Heb. xii. 26.
36 Referring to the earthquake at the giving of the Law
on Mt. Sinai (Heb. xiii.), and to the prophesy of Haggai (ii. 6), with
reference to the Incarnation. The third great earthquake is that of the
end of the world (Heb. xii. 26).
37 Acts xvi. 3.
38 Ib. xxi. 26.
39 Galat. vii. 7-17.
40 Theology is here used in a restricted sense, as denoting
simply the doctrine of the Deity of the Son or Logos. It is very frequently
used in this limited sense; examples of which may readily be found in Gregory
of Nyssa. Basil. Chrysostom, and others. A similar uses occurs in Orat.
XXXVIII.. c. 8,, in which passage qeologi/a is contrasted with oi'konomi/a,
the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity with that of the Incarnation.
41 Ps. lxxxiv. 7, and 2 Cor. iii. 18.
42 John xiv. 16, 17.
43 John xvi. 7.
44 Ib. xvi. 8.
45 Ib. xvi. 12.
46 Ib. xiv. 26.
47 Perhaps S. Gregory Thaumaturgus is meant. He was born
about A.D. 210. The date of his death is uncertain, but was probably not
before 270. He was Bishop of Neocaesarea in Pontus. Amongst his works was
an Exposition of the Faith, which he is said to have receive by direct
revelation, and in it the words in the text were contained. S. Gregory
in another Oration refers to the closing sentences as the substance of
the Formula itself:
"There is nothing created or servile in the Trinity,
nor anything superinduced, as though previously non-existing and introduced
afterwards. Never therefore, was the Son wanting to the Father, nor the
Spirit to the Son: but there is ever the same Trinity, unchangeable and
unalterable"(Reynolds, in Dict. Biog.).
48 Job iii. 9.
49 Luke i. 35; iii. 22: iv. 1.
50 Luke iv. 1, 18.
51 Acts ii. 4.
52 v. l. Yea, even disorder.
53 Viz.: - where we are told that Blasphemy against Him
hat never forgiveness.
54 As in the case of the Centurion Cornelius, Acts x.
55 i.e. in Confirmation.
56 Matt. xii. 31.
57 Acts v. 3. etc.
58 As before in the case of the Son. See above. Theol.,
59 Elias Cretensis says that the Eye in this passage
is not to be understood of the member of the body so called, but as the
Eye or the centre of a spring, the point from which the water flows.