THE SEVEN BOOKS
OF
JOHN CASSIAN
ON THE INCARNATION OF THE LORD, AGAINST
NESTORIUS.
Translation and Notes by Edgar C.S. Gibson
From: A Select Library of Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series,
Volume 11
New York, 1894
Complete Contents.
Other version available: text [383K].
Preface and Books 1-4, text. [159K].
Books 5-7, text. [210K].
PREFACE
WHEN I had now finished the books of Spiritual Conferences, the merit
of which consists in the thoughts expressed rather than in the
language used (since my rude utterances were unequal to the deep
thoughts of the saints), I had contemplated and almost determined on
taking refuge in silence (as I was ashamed of having exposed my
ignorance) that I might as far as possible make up for my audacity in
speaking by modestly holding my tongue for the future. But you have
overcome my determination and purpose by your commendable earnestness
and most urgent affection, my dear Leo, my esteemed and highly
regarded friend, ornament that you are of the Roman Church and sacred
ministry,[1] as you drag me forth from
the obscurity of the silence on which I had determined, into a public
court which I may well dread, and oblige me to undertake new labours
while I am still blushing for my past ones. And though I was unequal
to lesser tasks, you compel me to match myself with greater ones. For
even in those trifling works, in which of our small ability we offered
some small offering to the Lord, I would never have attempted to do or
apply myself to anything unless I had been led to it by Episcopal
command. And so through you there has been an increase of importance
both of our subject and of our language. For whereas before we spoke,
when bidden, of the business of the Lord, you now require us to speak
of the actual Incarnation and glory of the Lord Himself. And so we
who were formerly brought as it were into the holy place of the temple
by priestly hands, now penetrate under your guidance and protection,
so to speak, into the holy of holies. Great is the honour but most
perilous the undertaking,[2] because the
prize of the holy sanctuary and the divine reward can only be secured
by a victory over our foe. And so your require and charge us to raise
our feeble hands against a fresh heresy and a new enemy of the
faith,[3] and that we should take our
stand, so to speak, against the awful open-mouthed gapings of the
deadly serpent, that at my summons the power of prophecy and the
divine force of the gospel word may destroy the dragon now rising up
with sinuous course against the Churches of God. I obey your
entreaty: I yield to your command: for I had rather trust in my own
matters to you than to myself, especially as the love of Jesus Christ
my Lord commands me this as well as you, for He Himself gives me this
charge in your person. For in this matter you are more concerned than
I am, as your judgment stands in peril rather than my duty. For in my
case, whether I prove equal to what you have commanded me or no, the
very fact of my obedience and humility will be in some degree an
excuse for me; if indeed I might not urge that there is more value in
my obedience, if there is less that I can do. For we easily comply
with any one's orders, out of our abundance: but his is a great and
wonderful work, whose desires exceed his powers. Yours then is this
work and business, and yours it is to be ashamed of it. Pray and
intreat that your choice may not be discredited by my clumsiness; and
that, supposing we do not answer the expectations which you have
formed of us, you may not seem to have been wrong in commanding out of
an ill-considered determination, while I was right in yielding, owing
to the claims of obedience.
BOOK I.
CHAPTER I.
The heresy compared to the hydra of the poets.[4]
THE tales of poets tell us that of old the hydra when its heads were
cut off gained by its injuries, and sprang up more abundantly: so that
owing to a miracle of a strange and unheard-of kind, its loss proved a
kind of gain to the monster which was thus increased by death, while
that extraordinary fecundity doubled everything which the knife of the
executioner cut off, until the man who was eagerly seeking its
destruction, toiling and sweating, and finding his efforts so often
baffled by useless labours, added to the courage of battle the arts of
craft, and by the application of fire, as they tell us, cut off with a
fiery sword the manifold offspring of that monstrous body; and so when
the inward parts were thus burnt, by cauterizing the rebellious
throbbings of that ghastly fecundity, at length those prodigious
births were brought to an end. Thus also heresies in the churches
bear some likeness to that hydra which the poets' imagination
invented; for they too hiss against us with deadly tongues;
and they too cast forth their deadly poison, and spring up
again when their heads are cut off. But because the medicine should
not be wanting when the disease revives, and because the remedy should
be the more speedy as the sickness is the more dangerous, our Lord God
is able to bring to pass that that may be a truth in the church's
warfare, which Gentile fictions imagined of the death of the hydra,
and that the fiery sword of the Holy Spirit may cauterize the inward
parts of that most dangerous birth, in the new heresy to be put down,
so that at last its monstrous fecundity may cease to answer to its
dying throbs.
CHAPTER II.
Description of the different heretical monsters
which spring from one another.
FOR these shoots of an unnatural seed are no new thing in the
churches. The harvest of the Lord's field has always had to put up
with burrs and briars, and in it the shoots of choking tares have
constantly sprung up. For hence have arisen the Ebionites,
Sabellians, Arians, as well as Eunomians and Macedonians, and
Photinians and Apollinarians, and all the other tares of the churches,
and thistles which destroy the fruits of good faith. And of these the
earliest was Ebion,[5] who while
over-anxious about asserting our Lord's humanity[6] robbed it of its union with Divinity.
But after him the schism of Sabellius burst forth out of reaction
against the above mentioned heresy, and as he declared that there was
no distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, he impiously
confounded, as far as was possible, the Persons, and failed to
distinguish the holy and ineffable Trinity. Next after him whom we
have mentioned there followed the blasphemy of Arian perversity,
which, in order to avoid the appearance of confounding the Sacred
Persons, declared that there were different and dissimilar substances
in the Trinity. But after him in time though like him in wickedness
came Eunomius, who, though allowing that the Persons of the Holy
Trinity were divine and like[7] each
other, yet insisted that they were separate from each other; and so
while admitting their likeness denied their equality. Macedonius also
blaspheming against the Holy Ghost with unpardonable wickedness, while
allowing that the Father and the Son were of one substance, termed the
Holy Ghost a creature, and so sinned against the entire Divinity,
because no injury can be offered to anything in the Trinity without
affecting the entire Trinity. But Photinus, though allowing that
Jesus who was born of the Virgin was God, yet erred in his notion that
His Godhead began with the beginning of His manhood;[8] while Apollinaris through inaccurately
conceiving the union of God and man wrongly believed that He was
without a human soul. For it is as bad an error to add to our Lord
Jesus Christ what does not belong to Him as to rob Him of that which
is His. For where He is spoken of otherwise than as He is--even though
it seems to add to His glory--yet it is an offence. And so one after
another out of reaction against heresies they give rise to heresies,
and all teach things different from each other, but equally opposed to
the faith. And just lately also, i.e., in our own days, we saw a most
poisonous heresy spring up from the greatest city of the
Belgæ,[9] and though there was no
doubt about its error, yet there was a doubt about its name, because
it arose with a fresh head from the old stock of the Ebionites, and so
it is still a question whether it ought to be called old or new. For
it was new as far as its upholders were concerned; but old in the
character of its errors. Indeed it blasphemously taught that our Lord
Jesus Christ was born as a mere man, and maintained that the fact that
He afterwards obtained the glory and power of the Godhead resulted
from His human worth and not from His Divine nature; and by this it
taught that He hd not always His Divinity by the right of His very own
Divine nature which belonged to Him, but that He obtained it
afterwards as a reward for His labours and sufferings. Whereas then
it blasphemously taught that our Lord and Saviour was not God at His
birth, but was subsequently taken into the Godhead, it was indeed
bordering on this heresy which has now sprung up, and is as it were
its first cousin and akin to it, and, harmonizing both with Ebionism
and these new ones, came in point of time between them, and was linked
with them both in point of wickedness. And although there are some
others like those which we have mentioned yet it would take too long
to describe them all. Nor have we now undertaken to enumerate those
that are dead and gone, but to refute those which are novel.
CHAPTER III.
He describes the pestilent error of the
Pelagian.
AT any rate we think that this fact ought not to be omitted, which was
special and peculiar to that heresy mentioned above which sprang from
the error of Pelagius; viz., that in saying that Jesus Christ had
lived as a mere man without any stain of sin, they actually went so
far as to declare that men could also be without sin if they liked.
For they imagined that it followed that if Jesus Christ being a mere
man was without sin, all men also could without the help of God be
whatever He as a mere man without participating in the Godhead, could
be. And so they made out that there was no difference between any man
and our Lord Jesus Christ, as any man could by effort and striving
obtain just the same as Christ had obtained by His earnestness and
efforts. Whence it resulted that they broke out into a more grievous
and unnatural madness, and said that our Lord Jesus Christ had come
into this world not to bring redemption to mankind but to give an
example of good works, to wit, that men, by following His teaching,
and by walking along the same path of virtue, might arrive at the same
reward of virtue: thus destroying, as far as they could, all the good
of His sacred advent and all the grace of Divine redemption, as they
declared that men could by their own lives obtain just that which God
had wrought by dying for man's salvation. They added as well that our
Lord and Saviour became the Christ after His Baptism, and God after
His Resurrection, tracing the former to the mystery of His anointing,
the latter to the merits of His Passion. Whence this new author[10] of a heresy that is not new, who
declares that our Lord and Saviour was born a mere man, observes that
he says exactly the same thing which the Pelagians said before him,
and allows that it follows from his error that as he asserts that our
Lord Jesus Christ lived as a mere man entirely without sin, so he must
maintain in his blasphemy that all men can of themselves be without
sin, nor would he admit that our Lord's redemption was a thing needful
for His example, since men can (as they say) reach the heavenly
kingdom by their own exertions. Nor is there any doubt about this, as
the thing itself shows us. For hence it comes that he encourages the
complaints of the Pelagians by his intervention, and introduces their
case into his writings, because he cleverly or (to speak more truly)
cunningly patronizes them and by his wicked liking for them recommends
their mischievous teaching which is akin to his own, for he is well
aware that he is of the same opinion and of the same spirit, and
therefore is distressed that a heresy akin to his own has been cast
out of the church, as he knows that it is entirely allied to his own
in wickedness.
CHAPTER IV.
Leporius together with some others recants his
Pelagianism.
BUT still as those who were the outcome of this stock of pestilent
thorns have already by the Divine help and goodness been healed, we
should also now pray to our Lord God that as in some points that older
heresy and this new one are akin to each other, He would grant a like
happy ending to those which had a like bad beginning. For Leporius,
then a monk, now a presbyter, who followed the teaching or rather the
evil deeds of Pelagius, as we said above, and was among the earliest
and greatest champions of the aforesaid heresy in Gaul, was admonished
by us and corrected by God, and so nobly condemned his former
erroneous persuasion that his amendment was almost as much a matter
for congratulation as is the unimpaired faith of many. For it is the
best thing never to fall into error: the second best thing to make a
good repudiation of it. He then coming to himself confessed his
mistake with grief but without shame not only in Africa, where he was
then and is now,[11] but also gave to
all the cities of Gaul penitent letters containing his confession and
grief; in order that his return to the faith might be made known where
his deviation from it had been first published, and that those who had
formerly been witnesses of his error might also afterwards be
witnesses of his amendment.
CHAPTER V.
By the case of Leporius he establishes the fact
that an open sin ought to be expiated by an open confession; and also
teaches from his words what is the right view to be held on the
Incarnation.
AND from his confession or rather lamentation we have thought it well
to quote some part, for two reasons: that their recantation might be a
testimony to us, and an example to those who are weak, and that they
might not be ashamed to follow in their amendment, the men whom they
were not ashamed to follow in their error; and that they might be
cured by a like remedy as they suffered from a like disease. He then
acknowledging the perverseness of his views, and seeing the light of
faith, wrote to the Gallican Bishops, and thus began:[12] "I scarcely know, O my most
venerable lords and blessed priests, what first to accuse myself of,
and what first to excuse myself for. Clumsiness and pride and foolish
ignorance together with wrong notions, zeal combined with
indiscretion, and (to speak truly) a weak faith which was gradually
failing, all these were admitted by me and flourished to such an
extent that I am ashamed of having yielded to such and so many sins,
while at the same time I am profoundly thankful for having been able
to cast them out of my soul." And after a little he adds:
"If then, not understanding this power of God, and wise in our
conceits and opinions, from fear lest God should seem to act a part
that was beneath Him, we suppose that a man was born in conjunction
with God, in such a way that we ascribe to God alone what belongs to
God separately, and attribute to man alone what belongs to man
separately, we clearly add a fourth Person to the Trinity and out of
the one God the Son begin to make not one but two Christs; from which
may our Lord and God Jesus Christ Himself preserve us. Therefore we
confess that our Lord and God Jesus Christ the only Son of God, who
for His own sake[13] was begotten of
the Father before all worlds, when in time He was for our sakes: made
man of the Holy Ghost and the ever-virgin Mary, was God at His birth;
and while we confess the two substances of the flesh and the Word,[14] we always acknowledge with pious
belief and faith one and the same Person to be indivisibly God and
man; and we say that from the time when He took upon Him flesh all
that belonged to God was given to man, as all that belonged to man was
joined to God.[15] And in this sense
`the Word was made flesh:'[16] not that
He began by any conversion or change to be what He was not, but that
by the Divine `economy' the Word of the Father never left the
Father,[17] and yet vouchsafed to
become truly man, and the Only Begotten was incarnate through that
hidden mystery which He alone understands (for it is ours to
believe: His to understand). And thus God `the
Word' Himself receiving everything that belongs to man, is made man,
and the manhood[18] which is assumed,
receiving everything that belongs to God cannot but be God; but
whereas He is said to be incarnate and unmixed, we must not hold that
there is any diminution of His substance: for God knows how to
communicate Himself without suffering any corruption, and yet truly to
communicate Himself. He knows how to receive into Himself without
Himself being increased thereby, just as He knows how to impart
Himself in such a way as Himself to suffer no loss. We should not
then in our feeble minds make guesses, in accordance with visible
proofs and experiments, from the case of creatures which are equal,
and which mutually enter into each other, nor think that God and man
are mixed together, and that out of such a fusion of flesh and the
Word (i.e., the Godhead and manhood) some sort of body is produced.
God forbid that we should imagine that the two natures being in a way
moulded together should become one substance. For a mixture of this
sort is destructive of both parts. For God, who contains and is not
Himself contained, who enters into things and is not Himself entered
into, who fills things and is not Himself filled, who is everywhere at
once in His completeness and is diffused everywhere, communicates
Himself graciously to human nature by the infusion of His power."
And after a little: "Therefore the God-man, Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, is truly born for us of the Holy Ghost and the ever-virgin
Mary. And so in the two natures the Word and Flesh become one, so
that while each substance continues naturally perfect in itself, what
is Divine imparteth without suffering any loss, to the humanity, and
what is human participates in the Divine; nor is there one person God,
and another person man, but the same person is God who is also man:
and again the man who is also God is called and indeed is Jesus Christ
the only Son of God; and so we must always take care and believe so as
not to deny that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Very God (whom
we confess as existing ever with the Father and equal to the Father
before all worlds) became from the moment when He took flesh the
God-man. Nor may we imagine that gradually as time went on He became
God, and that He was in one condition before the resurrection and in
another after it, but that He was always of the same fulness and
power." And again a little later on: "But because the Word
of God[19] vouchsafed to come down upon
manhood by assuming manhood, and manhood was taken up into the Word by
being assumed by God, God the Word in His completeness became complete
man. For it was not God the Father who was made man, nor the Holy
Ghost, but the Only Begotten of the Father; and so we must hold that
there is one Person of the Flesh and the Word: so as faithfully and
without any doubt to believe that one and the same Son of God, who can
never be divided, existing in two natures[20] (who was also spoken of as a
"giant"[21]) in the days of
His Flesh truly took upon Him all that belongs to man, and ever truly
had as His own what belongs to God: since even though[22] He was crucified in weakness, yet He
liveth by the power of God."
CHAPTER VI.
The united doctrine of the Catholics is to be
received as the orthodox faith.
THIS confession of his therefore, which was the faith of all Catholics
was approved of by all the Bishops of Africa,[23] whence he wrote, and by all those of
Gaul, to whom he wrote. Nor has there ever been anyone who quarrelled
with this faith, without being guilty of unbelief: for to deny what is
right and proved is to confess what is wrong. The agreement of all
ought then to be in itself already sufficient to confute heresy: for
the authority of all shows undoubted truth, and a perfect reason
results where no one disputes it: so that if a man endeavours to hold
opinions contrary to these, we should in the first instance rather
condemn his perverseness than listen to his assertions, for one who
impugns the judgment of all announces beforehand his own condemnation,
and a man who disturbs what has been determined by all, is not even
given a hearing. For when the truth has once for all been established
by all men, whatever arises contrary to it is by this very fact to be
recognized at once as falsehood, because it differs from the truth.
And thus it is agreed that this alone is sufficient to condemn a man;
viz., that he differs from the judgment of truth. But still as an
explanation of a system does no harm to the system, and truth always
shines brighter when thoroughly ventilated, and as it is better that
those who are wrong should be set right by discussion rather than
condemned by severe censures, we should cure, as far as we can with
the Divine assistance, this old heresy appearing in the persons of new
heretics, that when through God's mercy they have recovered their
health, their cure may bear testimony to our holy faith instead of
their condemnation proving an instance of just severity. Only may the
Truth indeed be present at our discussion and discourse concerning it,
and assist our human weakness with that goodness with which God
vouchsafed to come to men, as for this purpose above all He willed to
be born on earth and among men; viz., that there might be no more room
for falsehood.
BOOK II.
CHAPTER I.
How the errors of later heretics have been
condemned and refuted in the persons of their authors and
originators.
AS we began by setting down in the first book some things by which we
showed that our new heretic is but an offshoot from ancient stocks of
heresy, the due condemnation of the earlier heretics ought to be
enough to secure a sentence of due condemnation for him. For as he
has the same roots and grows up out of the same fallow[24] he has already been amply condemned in
the persons of his predecessors, especially as those who went wrong
immediately before these men very properly condemned the very thing
which these men are now asserting,[25]
so that the examples of their own party ought to be amply sufficient
for them in both directions; viz., that of those who were restored and
that of those who were condemned. For if they are capable of
amendment they have their remedy set forth in the correction of their
own party. If they are incapable of it they receive their sentence in
the condemnation of their own folk. But that we may not be thought to
have prejudged the case against them instead of fairly judging it, we
will produce their actual pestilent assertions, or rather I should say
their blasphemous folly: taking "above all the shield of faith,
and the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God,"[26] that when the head of the old serpent
rises once more, the same sword of the Divine Word which formerly
severed it in the case of those ancient dragons may even now cut it
off in the persons of these new serpents. For since the error of these
is the same as that of those former ones, the decapitation of those
ought to be counted as the decapitation of these; and as the serpents
revive and emit pestilent blasts against the Lord's church, and cause
some to fail through their hissing, we must on account of these new
diseases add a fresh remedy to those older cures, so that even if what
has already been done prove insufficient to heal[27] the malady, what we are now doing may
be adequate to restore those who are suffering from it.
CHAPTER II.
Proof that the Virgin Mother of God was not only
Christotocos but also Theotocos, and that Christ is truly God.
AND so you say, O heretic, whoever you may be, who deny that God was
born of the Virgin, that Mary the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ
ought not to be called Theotocos, i.e., Mother of God, but
Christotocos, i.e., only the Mother of Christ, not of God.[28] For no one, you say, brings forth
what is anterior in time. And of this utterly foolish argument
whereby you think that the birth of God can be understood by carnal
minds, and fancy that the mystery of His Majesty can be accounted for
by human reasoning, we will, if God permits, say something later
on.[29] In the meanwhile we will now
prove by Divine testimonies that Christ is God, and that Mary is the
Mother of God. Hear then how the angel of God speaks to the shepherds
of the birth of God. "There is born," he says, "to you
this day in the city of David a Saviour who is Christ the
Lord."[30] In order that you may
not take Christ for a mere man, he adds the name of Lord and Saviour,
on purpose that you may have no doubt that He whom you acknowledge as
Saviour is God, and that (as the office of saving belongs only to
Divine power) you may not question that He is of Divine power, in whom
you have learnt that the power to save resides. But perhaps this is
not enough to convince your unbelief, as the angel of the Lord termed
Him Lord and Saviour rather than God or the Son of God, as you
certainly most wickedly deny Him to be God, whom you acknowledge to be
Saviour. Hear then what the archangel Gabriel announces to the Virgin
Mary. "The Holy Ghost," he says, "shall come upon
thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: therefore
also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the
Son of God."[31] Do you see how,
when he is going to point out the nativity of God, he first speaks of
a work of Divinity. For "the Holy Ghost," he says,
"shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall
overshadow thee." Admirably did the angel speak, and explain the
majesty of the Divine work by the Divine character of his words. For
the Holy Ghost sanctified the Virgin's womb, and breathed into it by
the power of His Divinity, and thus imparted and communicated Himself
to human nature; and made His own what was before foreign to Him,
taking it to Himself by His own power and majesty.[32] And lest the weakness of human nature
should not be able to bear the entrance of Divinity the power of the
Most High strengthened the ever to be honoured Virgin, so that it
supported her bodily weakness by embracing it with overshadowing
protection, and human weakness was not insufficient for the
consummation of the ineffable mystery of the holy conception, since it
was supported by the Divine overshadowing. "Therefore," he
says, "the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Most High shall overshadow thee." If only a mere man was to be
born of a pure virgin why should there be such careful mention of the
Divine Advent? Why such intervention of Divinity itself? Certainly
if only a man was to be born from man, and flesh from flesh, a command
alone might have done it, or the Divine will. For if the will of God
alone, and His command sufficed to fashion the heavens, form the
earth, create the sea, thrones, and seats, and angels, and archangels,
and principalities, and powers, and in a word to create all the armies
of heaven, and those countless thousands of thousands of the Divine
hosts ("For He spake and they were made, He commanded and they
were created"[33]), why was it
that that was insufficient for the creation of (according to
you) a single man, which was sufficient for the production of all
things divine, and that the power and majesty of God did not entrust
that with the birth of a single infant, which had availed to fashion
all things earthly and heavenly? But certainly the reason why all
those works were performed by the command of God, but the nativity was
only accomplished by His coming was because God could not be conceived
by man unless He allowed it, nor be born unless He Himself entered in;
and therefore the archangel pointed out that the sacred majesty would
come upon the Virgin, I mean that as so great an event could not be
brought about by human appointment, he announced that there would be
present at the conception the glory of Him who was to be born.[34] And so the Word, the Son, descended:
the majesty of the Holy Ghost was present: the power of the Father was
overshadowing; that in the mystery of the holy conception the whole
Trinity might cooperate. "Therefore," he says, "also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of
God." Admirably does he add "Therefore," in order to
show that this would therefore follow because that
had gone before; and that because God had come upon her at the
conception therefore God would be present at the birth. And
when the maiden understood not, he gave a reason for this great thing,
saying: "Because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and
because the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee, therefore
also that holy thing which shall be born shall be called the Son of
God;" that is to say: That thou mayest not be ignorant of the
provision for so great a work, and the mystery of this great secret,
the majesty of God shall therefore come upon thee completely; because
the Son of God shall be born of thee. What further doubt can there be
about this? or what is there further to be said? He said that God
would come upon her; that the Son of God would be born. Ask now, if
you like, how the Son of God can help being God, or how she who
brought forth God can fail to be Theotocos, i.e., the Mother of God?
This alone ought to be enough for you; aye this ought to be amply
sufficient for you.
CHAPTER III.
Follows up the same argument with passages from the
Old Testament.
BUT as there is an abundant supply of witnesses to the holy nativity;
viz., all that has been on this account written, to hear witness to
it, let us examine in some slight degree an announcement about God
even in the Old Testament, that you may know that the fact that the
birth of God was to be from a virgin was not only then announced when
it actually came to pass, but had been foretold from the very
beginning of the world, that, as the event to be brought about was
ineffable, incredulity of the fact when actually present might be
removed by its having been previously announced while still future.
And so the prophet Isaiah says: "Behold a virgin shall conceive
and bear a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is
interpreted God with us."[35]
What room is there here for doubt, you incredulous person?[36] The prophet said that a virgin should
conceive: a virgin has conceived: that a Son should be born:
a Son has been born: that He Should be called God: He
is called God. For He is called by that name as being of
that nature. Therefore when the Spirit of God said that He should be
called God, He proved that He is without the Spirit of God who makes
himself a stranger to all fellowship with the Divine title.
"Behold then," he says, "a virgin shall conceive and
bear a Son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is
interpreted God with us." But here is a point on which it is
possible that your shuffling incredulity may fasten; viz., by saying
that this which the prophet declared He should be called referred not
to the glory of His Divinity, but to the name by which He should be
addressed. But what are we to do because Christ is never spoken of by
this name in the gospels, though the Spirit of God cannot be said to
have spoken falsely through the prophet? How is it then? Surely that
we should understand that that prophecy then foretold the name of His
Divine nature and not of His humanity. For since in His manhood
united to the Godhead[37] He received
another name in the gospel, it is certainly clear that this
name belonged to His humanity, that to His Divinity. But let
us proceed further and summon other true witnesses to establish the
truth: For where we are speaking about the Godhead, the Divinity
cannot be better established than by His own witnesses. So then the
same prophet says elsewhere: "For unto us a Son is born: unto us
a child is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and
His name shall be called the angel of great counsel, God the mighty,
the Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace."[38] Just as above the prophet had
expressly said that He should be called Emmanuel, so here he says that
He should be called "the angel of great counsel, and God the
mighty, and the Father of the world to come and the prince of
peace" (although we certainly never read that He was called by
these names in the gospel): of course that we may understand that
these are not terms belonging to His human, but to His Divine nature;
and that the name used in the gospel belonged to the manhood which He
took upon Him,[39] and this one to His
innate power. And because God was to be born in human form, these
names were so distributed in the sacred economy, that to the manhood a
human name was given and to the Divinity a Divine one. Therefore he
says: "He shall be called the angel of great counsel, God the
mighty, the Father of the world to come, the prince of peace."
Not, O heretic, whoever you may be, not that here the prophet, full as
he was of the Holy Spirit, followed your example and compared Him who
was born to a molten image and a figure fashioned without sense.[40] For "a Son," he says,
"is born to us, a Child is given to us; and the government shall
be upon his shoulder; and His name shall be called the angel of great
counsel, God the mighty." And that you may not imagine Him whom
He announced as God[41] to be other
than Him who was born in the flesh, he adds a term referring to His
birth, saying: "A child is born to us: a son is given to
us." Do you see how many titles the prophet used to make clear
the reality of His birth in the body? for he called Him both Son and
child on purpose that the manner of the child which was born might be
more clearly shown by a name referring to His infancy; and the Holy
Spirit foreseeing without doubt this perversity of blasphemous
heretics, showed to the whole world that it was God who was born, by
the very terms and words used; that even if a heretic was determined
to utter blasphemy, he might not find any loophole for his blasphemy.
Therefore he says: "A Son is born to us; a child is given to us;
and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and His name shall be
called the angel of great counsel, God the mighty, the Father of the
world to come, the prince of peace." He teaches that this child
which was born is both prince of peace and Father of the world to come
and God the mighty. What room is there then for shuffling? This
child which is born cannot be severed from God who is born in Him, for
he called Him, whom he spoke of as born, Father of the world to come;
Him whom he called a child, he foretold as God the mighty. What is
it, O heretic? Whither will you betake yourself? Every place is
hedged and shut in: there is no possibility of getting out of it.
There is nothing for it but that you should at length be obliged to
confess the mistake which you would not understand. But not
content with these passages which are indeed enough let us inquire
what the Holy Ghost said through another prophet. "Shall a
man," says he, "pierce his God, for you are piercing
me?"[42] In order that the
subject of the prophecy might be still clearer the prophet foretells
what he proclaimed of the Lord's passion as if from the mouth of Him
of whom he was speaking. "Shall a man pierce his God, for you
are piercing me?" Does not our Lord God, I ask, seem to have
said this when He was led to the Cross? Why indeed do you not
acknowledge Me as your Redeemer? Why are ye ignorant of God clothed
in flesh for you? Are you preparing death for your Saviour? Are yon
leading forth to death the Author of life? I am your God whom ye are
lifting up: your God whom ye are crucifying. What mistake, I ask, is
here or what madness is it? "Shall a man pierce his God, for you
are piercing me?" Do you see how exactly the words describe what
was actually done? Could you ask for anything more express or
clearer? Do you see how sacred testimonies follow our Incarnate Lord
Jesus Christ from the very cradle to the Cross which He bore, as here
you can see that He whom elsewhere you read of as God when born in the
flesh was God when pierced on the cross? And so there, where His
birth was treated of, He is spoken of by the prophet as God: and here
where His crucifixion is concerned, He is most clearly named God; that
the taking upon Him of manhood might not in any point prejudice
dignity of His Divinity, nor the humiliation of His body and the shame
of the passion affect the glory of His majesty; for His condescension
to so lowly a birth and His generous goodness in enduring his passion
ought to increase our love and devotion to Him; since it is certainly
a great and monstrous sin if, the more He lavishes love upon us, the
less He is honoured by us.
CHAPTER IV.
He produces testimonies to the same doctrine from
the Apostle Paul.
BUT passing over these things which cannot possibly be unfolded
because there would be no limit to the telling of them, as the
blessings which he gives are without stint, it is time for us to
consult the Apostle Paul, the stoutest and clearest witness to Him,
for he can tell us everything about God in the most trustworthy way
because God always spoke from his breast. He then, the chosen teacher
of the nations, who was sent to destroy the errors of Gentile
superstition, bears his witness in the following way to the grace and
coming of our Lord God: "The grace," he says, "of God
and our Saviour appeared unto all men, instructing us that denying
ungodliness and worldly desires we should live soberly and justly and
godly in this world, looking for the blessed hope and coming of the
glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."[43] He says that "there appeared the
grace of God our Saviour." Admirably does he use a word suited to
show the arrival of a new grace and birth; for by saying "there
appeared," he indicated the approach of a new grace and birth,
for thenceforward the gift of a new grace began to appear, from the
moment when God appeared as born in the world. Thus by using the
right word, and one exactly suitable, he shows the light of this new
grace almost as if he pointed to it with his finger. For that is most
properly said to appear, which is shown by sudden light
manifesting it. Just as we read in the gospel that the star
appeared to the wise men in the East:[44] and in Exodus: "There
appeared," he says, "to Moses an angel in a flame
of fire in the bush:"[45] for in
all these and in the case of other visions in the Holy Scripture,
Scripture determined that this word in particular should be used, that
it might speak of that as "appearing," which shone forth
with unwonted light. So then the Apostle also, well knowing the
coming of the heavenly grace, which appeared at the approach of the
holy nativity, indicated it by using a term applied to a bright
appearance; expressly in order to say that it appeared, as it
shone with the splendour of a new light. "There appeared"
then "the grace of God our Saviour." Surely you cannot
raise any quibble about the ambiguity of the names in this place, so
as to say that "Christ" is one and "God" another,
or to divide "the Saviour" from the glory of His name, and
separate "the Lord" from the Divinity? Lo, here the
vessel[46] of God speaks from God, and
testifies by the clearest statement that the grace of God appeared
from Mary. And in order that you may not deny that God appeared from
Mary, he at once adds the name of Saviour, on purpose that you may
believe that He who is born of Mary is God, whom you cannot deny to
have been born a Saviour, in accordance with this passage: "For
to you is born to-day a Saviour."[47] O excellent teacher of the Gentiles
truly given by God to them, for he knew that this wild heretical folly
would arise, which would turn to controversial uses the names of God,
and would not hesitate to slander God from His own titles; and so just
in order that the heretic might not separate the title of Saviour from
the Divinity he put first the name of God, that the name of God
standing first might claim as His all the names which followed, and
that no one might imagine that in what followed Christ was spoken of
as a mere man, as by the very first word used he had taught that He
was God. "Looking," says the same Apostle, "for the
blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour
Jesus Christ." Certainly that teacher of divine wisdom saw that
plain and simple teaching would not in itself be sufficient to meet
the crafty wiles of the devil's cunning, unless he fortified the holy
preaching of the faith with a protection of extreme care. And so
although he had used the name of God the Saviour up above, he here
adds "Jesus Christ," in case you might think that the mere
name of Saviour was not enough to indicate to you our Lord Jesus
Christ, and might fail to understand that the God, whom you
acknowledge as God the Saviour, is the same Jesus Christ. What then
does he say? He says: "Looking for the blessed hope and coming
of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
Nothing is here wanting as regards the titles of our Lord and you see
here God, and the Saviour, and Jesus, and Christ. But when you see
all these, you see that they all belong to God. For you have heard of
Him as God, but as Saviour as well. You have heard of Him as God, but
as Jesus as well. You have heard of Him as God, but as Christ as
well. That which the Divinity has joined and united together cannot
be separated by this diversity of titles; for whichever you may seek
for of them all, you will find it there. The Saviour is God, Jesus is
God, Christ is God. In all of this which you hear, though the titles
used are many, yet they belong to one Person in power. For whereas
the Saviour is God, and Jesus is God, and Christ is God, it is easy to
see that all these, though different appellations, are united as
regards the Majesty. And when you hear quite plainly that one and the
same Person is called God in each case, you can surely clearly see
that in all these cases there is but one God spoken of. And so you
cannot any longer seek to make out a distinction of power from the
different names given to the Lord, or to make a difference of Person
owing to variety of titles. You cannot say: Christ was born of Mary,
but God was not; for an Apostle declares that God was. You cannot say
that Jesus was born of Mary, but God was not; for an Apostle testifies
that God was. You cannot say: the Saviour was born, but God was not;
for an Apostle supports the fact that God was. There is no way of
escape for you. Whichever of the titles of the Lord you may take, He
is God, of whom you speak. You have nothing to say: nothing to
assert: nothing to invent in your wicked falsehood. You can in
impious unbelief refuse to believe: you have nothing to deny in the
matter of your blasphemy.
CHAPTER V.
From the gifts of Divine grace which we receive
through Christ he infers that He is truly God.
ALTHOUGH we began to speak some time back on this Divine grace of our
Lord and Saviour, I want to say somewhat more on the same subject from
the Holy Scriptures. We read in the Acts of the Apostles that the
Apostle James[48] thus refuted those
who thought that when they received the gospel they ought still to
bear the yoke of the old Law: "Why," said he, "do ye
tempt God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which neither
our fathers nor we have been able to bear. But by the grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ we believe to be saved in like manner as they
also."[49] The Apostle certainly
speaks of the gift of this grace as given by Jesus Christ. Answer me
now, if you please: do you think that this grace which is given for
the salvation of all men, is given by man or by God? If you say, By
man, Paul, God's own vessel, will cry out against you, saying:
"There appeared the grace of God our Saviour."[50] He teaches that this grace is the
result of a Divine gift, and not of human weakness. And even if the
sacred testimony was not sufficient, the truth of the matter itself
would bear its witness, because fragile earthly things cannot possibly
furnish a thing of lasting and immortal value; nor can anyone give to
another that in which he himself is lacking, nor supply a sufficiency
of that, from the want of which he admits that he himself is
suffering. You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from
God. It is God then who has given it. But it has been given by our
Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if He
be, as He certainly is, God: then she who bore God is Theotocos, i.e.,
the mother of God. Unless perhaps you want to take refuge in so
utterly absurd and blasphemous a contradiction as to deny that she
from whom God was born is the mother of God, while you cannot deny
that He who was born is God. But, however, let us see what the gospel
of God thinks about this same grace of our Lord: "Grace and
truth," it says, "came by Jesus Christ."[51] If Christ is a mere man, how did
these come by Christ? Whence was there in Him Divine power if, as you
say, there was in Him only the nature of man? Whence comes heavenly
largesse, if His is earthly poverty? For no one can give what he has
not already. As then Christ gave Divine grace, He already had that
which He gave. Nor can anyone endure a diversity of things that are
so utterly different from each other, as at one and the same time to
suffer the wants of a poor man, and also to show the munificence of a
bounteous one. And so the Apostle Paul, knowing that all the
treasures of heavenly riches are found in Christ, rightly writes to
the Churches: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with
you."[52] For though he had
already often enough taught that God is the same as Christ, and that
all the glory of Deity resides in Him, and that all the fulness of the
Godhead dwelleth in Him bodily, yet here he is certainly right in
praying for the grace of Christ alone, without adding the word God:
for while he had often taught that the grace of God is the same as the
grace of Christ, he now most perfectly prays only for the grace of
Christ, for he knows that in the grace of Christ is contained the
whole grace of God. Therefore he says: "The grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ be with you." If Jesus Christ was a mere man, then
in his wish that the grace of Christ might be given to the Churches he
was wishing that the grace of a man might be given; and by saying:
"The grace of Christ be with you" he meant: the grace of a
man be with you, the grace of flesh be with you, the grace of bodily
weakness, the grace of human frailty! Or why did he ever even mention
the word grace, if his wish was for the grace of a man? For there was
no reason for wishing, if that was not in existence which was wished
for; nor ought he to have prayed that there might be bestowed on them
the grace of one who, according to you, did not possess the reality of
that grace for which he was wishing. And so you see that it is
utterly absurd and ridiculous--or rather not a thing to laugh at but
to cry over, for what is a matter for laughter to some frivolous
persons becomes a matter for crying to pious and faithful souls, for
they shed tears of charity for the folly of your unbelief, and weep
pious tears at the folly of another's impiety. Let us then recover
ourselves for a while and take our breath, for this idea is not only
without wisdom but also without the Spirit, as it is certainly wanting
in spiritual wisdom and has nothing to do with the Spirit of
salvation.
CHAPTER VI.
That the power of bestowing Divine grace did not
come to Christ in the course of time, but was innate in Him from His
very birth.
BUT perhaps you will say that this grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, of
which the Apostle writes, was not born with Him, but was afterwards
infused into Him by the descent of Divinity upon Him, since you say
that the man Jesus Christ our Lord (whom you call a mere man) was not
born with God, but afterwards was assumed by God:[53] and that through this grace was given
to the man at the same time that Divinity was given to Him. Nor do we
say anything else than that Divine grace descended with the Divinity,
for the Divine grace of God is in a way a bestowal of actual Divinity
and a gift of a liberal supply of graces. Perhaps then it may be
thought that the difference between us is one of time rather than of
what is essential, since the Divinity which we say was born with Jesus
Christ you say was afterwards infused into Him. But the fact is that
if you deny that Divinity was born with the Lord you cannot afterwards
make a confession according to the faith; for it is an impossibility
for one and the same thing to be partly impious and also to turn out
partly pious, and for the same thing partly to belong to faith and
partly to misbelief. To begin with then I ask you this: Do you say
that our Lord Jesus Christ, who was born of the Virgin Mary is only
the Son of man, or that He is the Son of God as well? For we, I mean
all who hold the Catholic faith, all of us, I say, believe and are
sure and know and confess that He is both, i.e., that He is Son of man
because born of a woman and Son of God because conceived of Divinity.
Do you then admit that He is both, i.e., Son of God and Son of man, or
do you say that He is Son of man only? If Son of man only then there
cry out against you apostles and prophets, aye and the Holy Ghost
Himself, by whom the conception was brought about. That most
shameless mouth of yours is stopped by all the witnesses of the Divine
decrees: it is stopped by sacred writings and holy witnesses: aye and
it is stopped by the very gospel of God as if by a Divine hand. And
that mighty Gabriel who in the case of Zacharias restrained the voice
of unbelief by the power of his word, much more strongly condemned in
your case the voice of blasphemy and sin, by his own lips, saying to
the Virgin Mary, the mother of God: "The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be
called the Son of God."[54] Do
you see how Jesus Christ is first proclaimed to be the Son of God that
according to the flesh He might become the Son of man? For when the
Virgin Mary was to bring forth the Lord she conceived owing to the
descent of the Holy Spirit upon her and the cooperation of the power
of the Most High. And from this you can see that the origin of our
Lord and Saviour must come from thence, whence His conception came;
and since He was born owing to the descent of the fulness of Divinity
in Its completeness upon the Virgin, He could not be the Son of man
unless He had first been the Son of God; and so the angel when sent to
announce His nativity and sacred birth, when he had already spoken of
the mystery of His conception added a word expressive of His birth,
saying: "Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of
thee shall be called the Son of God [i.e., He shall be called the Son
of Him from whom He was begotten].[55]
Jesus Christ is therefore the Son of God, because He was begotten of
God and conceived of God. But if He is the Son of God, then most
certainly He is God: but if He is God, then He is not lacking in the
grace of God. Nor indeed was He ever lacking in that of which He is
Himself the maker. For grace and truth were made by Jesus Christ.
CHAPTER VII.
How in Christ the Divinity, Majesty, Might and
Power have existed in perfection from eternity, and will
continue.
THEREFORE all grace, power, might, Divinity, aye, and the fulness of
actual Divinity and glory have ever existed together with Him and in
Him, whether in heaven or in earth or in the womb or at His birth.
Nothing that is proper to God was ever wanting to God. For the
Godhead was ever present with God, no where and at no time severed
from Him. For everywhere God is present in His completeness and in
His perfection. He suffers no division or change or diminution; for
nothing can be either added to God or taken away from Him, for He is
subject to no diminution of Divinity, as to no increase of It. He was
the same Person then on earth who was also in heaven: the same Person
in His low estate who was also in the highest: the same Person in the
littleness of manhood as in the glory of the Godhead. And so the
Apostle was right in speaking of the grace of Christ when He meant the
grace of God. For Christ was everything that God is. At the very
time of His conception as man there came all the power of God, all the
fulness of the Godhead; for thence came all the perfection of the
Godhead, whence was His origin. Nor was that Human nature of His[56] ever without the Deity as it received
from Deity the very fact of its existence. And so, to begin with,
whether you like it or no, you cannot deny this; viz., that the Lord
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, especially as the archangel declares
in the gospels: "That holy thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God." But when this is established
then remember that whatever you read of Christ you read of the Son of
God: whatever you read of the Lord or Jesus belongs to the Son of God.
And so when you recognize a title of Divinity in all these terms which
you hear uttered, as you see that in each case you ought to understand
that the Son of God is meant, prove to me, if you like, how you can
separate the Godhead from the Son of God.
BOOK III.
CHAPTER I.
That Christ, who is God and man in the unity of
Person, sprang from Israel and the Virgin Mary according to the
flesh.
THAT divine teacher of the Churches when in writing to the Romans he
was reproving or rather lamenting the unbelief of the Jews, i.e., of
his own brethren, made use of these words: "I wished
myself," said he, "to be accursed from Christ, for my
brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are
Israelites, to whom belongeth the adoption as of children, and the
glory, and the testaments, and the giving of the law, and the service
of God, and the promises: whose are the fathers, of whom is Christ
according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for
ever."[57] O, the love of that
most faithful Apostle, and most kindly kinsman! who in his infinite
charity wished to die--as a kinsman for his relations, and as a master
for his disciples. And what then was the reason why he wished to die?
Only one; viz., that they might live. But in what did their life
consist? Simply in this, as he himself says, that they might
recognize a Divine Christ born according to the flesh, of their own
flesh. And therefore the Apostle grieved the more, because those who
ought to have loved Him the more as sprung from their own stock,
failed to understand that He was born of Israel. "Of whom,"
said he, "is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all
things, God blessed for ever." Clearly he lays down that from
them according to the flesh, was born that Christ who is over all, God
blessed for ever. You certainly cannot deny that Christ was born from
them according to the flesh. But the same Person, who was born from
them, is God. How can you get round this? How can you shuffle out of
it? The Apostle says that Christ who was born of Israel according to
the flesh, is God. Teach us, if you can, at what time He did not
exist. "Of whom," he says, "is Christ according to the
flesh, who is over all, God." You see that because the Apostle
has united and joined together these, "God" cannot possibly
be separated from "Christ." For just as the Apostle
declares that Christ is of them, so he asserts that God is in Christ.
You must either deny both of these statements, or you must accept
both. Christ is said to be born of them according to the flesh: but
the same Person is declared by the Apostle to be "God in
Christ." Whence also he says elsewhere: "For God was in
Christ, reconciling the world to Himself."[58] It is absolutely impossible to
separate one from the other. Either deny that Christ sprang from
them, or admit that there was born of the virgin God in Christ,
"who is," as he says, "over all, God blessed for
ever."
CHAPTER II.
The title of God is given in one sense to Christ,
and in another to men.
THE name of God would for the faithful be amply sufficient to denote
the glory of His Divinity, but by adding "over all, God
blessed," he excludes a blasphemous and perverse interpretation
of it, for fear that some evil-disposed person to depreciate His
absolute Divinity might quote the fact that the word God is sometimes
applied by grace in the Divine economy temporarily to men, and thus
apply it to God by unworthy comparisons, as where God says to Moses:
"I have given thee as a God to Pharaoh,"[59] or in this passage: "I said ye
are Gods,"[60] where it clearly
has the force of a title given by condescension. For as it says
"I said," it is not a name showing power, so much as a title
given by the speaker. But that passage also, where it says: "I
have given thee as a God to Pharaoh," shows the power of the
giver rather than the Divinity of him who receives the title. For
when it says: "I have given," it thereby certainly indicates
the power of God, who gave, and not the Divine nature, in the person
of the recipient. But when it is said of our God and Lord Jesus
Christ, "who is over all, God blessed for ever," the fact is
at once proved by the words, and the meaning of the words shown by the
name given: because in the case of the Son of God the name of God does
not denote an adoption by favour, but what is truly and really His
nature.
CHAPTER III.
He explains the apostle's saying: "If from
henceforth we know no man according to the flesh," etc.
AND so the same Apostle says: "From henceforth we know no man
according to the flesh, and if we have known Christ according to the
flesh, yet now we know Him so no longer."[61] Admirably consistent are all the
writings of the sacred word with each other, and in every portion of
them: even where they do not correspond in the form of the
words, yet they agree in the drift and substance. As where he says:
"And if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we
know Him so no longer." For the witness of the passage before us
confirms that quoted above, in which he said: "Of whom is Christ
according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever."
For there he writes: "Of whom is Christ according to the
flesh;" and here: "if we have known Christ according to the
flesh." There: "who is over all, God blessed for
ever;" and here: "yet now we no longer know Christ according
to the flesh." The look of the words is different, but their
force and drift is the same. For it is the same Person whom he there
declares to be God over all born according to the flesh, whom he here
asserts that he no longer knows according to the flesh. And plainly
for this reason; viz., because Him whom he had known as born in the
flesh, he acknowledges as God for ever; and therefore says that he
knows him not after the flesh, because He is over all, God blessed for
ever; and the phrase there: "who is over all God," answers
to this: "we no longer know Christ according to the flesh;"
and this phrase: "we no longer know Christ according to the
flesh" implies this: "who is God blessed for ever."[62] The declaration of Apostolic teaching
then somehow rises, as it were to greater heights, and though it is
self-consistent throughout, yet it supports the mystery of the perfect
faith, with a still more express statement, and says: "And though
we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him so no
longer," i.e., as formerly we knew Him as man as well as God, yet
now only as God. For when the frailty of flesh comes to an end, we no
longer know anything in Him except the power of Divinity, for all that
is in Him is the power of Divine Majesty, where the weakness of human
infirmity has ceased to exist. In this passage then he has thoroughly
expounded the whole mystery of the Incarnation, and of His perfect
Divinity. For where he says: "And if we have known Christ
according to the flesh," he speaks of the mystery of God born in
flesh. But by adding "yet now we know Him so no longer," he
manifests His power when weakness is laid aside. And thus that
knowledge of the flesh has to do with His humanity, and that
ignorance, with the glory of His Divinity. For to say "we have
known Christ according to the flesh:" means "as long as that
which was known, existed. Now we no longer know it, after it has
ceased to exist. For the nature of flesh has been transformed into a
spiritual substance: and that which formerly belonged to the manhood,
has all become God's. And therefore we no longer know Christ
according to the flesh, because when bodily infirmity has been
absorbed by Divine Majesty,[63] nothing
remains in that Sacred Body, from which weakness of the flesh can be
known in it. And thus whatever had formerly belonged to a twofold
substance, has become attached to a single Power. Since there is no
sort of doubt that Christ, who was crucified through human weakness
lives entirely through the glory of His Divinity.
CHAPTER IV.
From the Epistle to the Galatians he brings forward
a passage to show that the weakness of the flesh in Christ was
absorbed by His Divinity.
THE Apostle indeed declares this in the whole body of his writings,
and admirably says in writing to the Galatians: "Paul an Apostle
not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the
Father."[64] You see how
thoroughly consistent he is with himself in the former and the present
passage. For there he says: "Now we no longer know Christ
according to the flesh." Here he says: "Not of men, neither
by man, but by Jesus Christ." It is clear that his doctrine is
the same here as in the former passage. For where he says that he is
not sent by man, he implies: "We have not known Christ according
to the flesh:" and so I am "not sent by man" but
"by Christ;"[65] for if I am
sent by Christ, I am not sent by man but by God. For there is no
longer room for the name of man, in Him whom Divinity claims entirely
for itself. And so when he had said that he was sent "not of
men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ," he rightly added:
"And God the Father," thus showing that he was sent by God
the Father and God the Son; in whom owing to the mystery of the sacred
and ineffable generation there are two Persons (He who begets, and He
who is begotten), but there is but one single Power of God who is the
sender. And so in saying that he was sent by God the Father and God
the Son, he shows that the Persons are two in number, but he also
teaches that their Power is One in sending.
CHAPTER V.
As it is blasphemy to pare away the Divinity of
Christ, so also is it blasphemous to deny that He is true man.
BUT he says "by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him
from the dead." That renowned and admirable teacher, knowing
that our Lord Jesus Christ must be preached as true man, as well as
true God, always declares the glory of the Divine in Him, in such a
way as not to lose hold of the confession of the Incarnation: plainly
excluding the phantasm of Marcion, by a real Incarnation, and the
poverty of the Ebionite, by Divinity: lest through one or other of
these wicked blasphemies it might be believed that our Lord Jesus
Christ was either altogether man without God, or God without man.
Excellently then did the Apostle, when declaring that He was sent by
God the Son as well as by God the Father, add at once a confession of
the Lord's Incarnation, by saying: "Who raised Him from the
dead:" clearly teaching that it was a real body of the Incarnate
God, which was raised from the dead: in accordance with this:
"And though we have known Christ according to the flesh,"
excellently adding: "Yet now we know Him so no longer." For
he says that he knows this in Him according to the flesh; viz., that
He was raised from the dead; but that he knows Him no longer according
to the flesh inasmuch as when the weakness of the flesh is at an end,
he knows that He exists in the Power of God only. Surely he is a
faithful and satisfactory witness of our Lord's Divinity which had to
be proclaimed, who at his first call was smitten from heaven itself,
and did not merely believe in his heart the glory of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who was raised from the dead, but actually established its
truth by the evidence of his bodily eyes.
CHAPTER VI.
He shows from the appearance of Christ vouchsafed
to the Apostle when persecuting the Church, the existence of both
natures in Him.
WHEREFORE also, when arguing before King Agrippa and others of the
world's judges, he speaks as follows: "When I was going to
Damascus with authority and permission of the chief priests, at
midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven above the
brightness of the sun, shining round about me and all those that were
with me. And when we were all fallen down to the ground, I heard a
voice saying unto me in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest
thou Me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad. And I said,
Who art Thou, Lord? And the Lord said to me: I am Jesus of Nazareth,
whom thou persecutest."[66] You
see how truly the Apostle said that he no longer knew according to the
flesh one whom he had seen in such splendour and majesty. For when as
he lay prostrate he saw the splendour of that divine light which he
was unable to endure, there followed this voice: "Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou Me?" And when he asked who it might be, the
Lord answers and clearly points out His Personality: "I am Jesus
of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest." Now then, you heretic, I
ask you, I summon you. Do you believe what the Apostle says of
himself, or do you not believe it? Or if you think that unimportant,
do you believe what the Lord says of Himself or do you not believe it?
If you do believe it, there is an end of the matter: for you cannot
help believing what we believe. For we, like the Apostle, even if we
have known Christ according to the flesh, yet know Him so no longer.
We do not heap insults on Christ. We do not
separate the flesh from the Divinity; and all that is in Christ
we believe is in God. If then you believe the same that we
believe you must acknowledge the same mysteries of the faith. But if
you differ from us, if you refuse to believe the Churches, the
Apostle, aye and God's own testimony about Himself, show us in this
vision which the Apostle saw, how much is flesh, and how much God.
For I cannot here separate one from the other. I see the ineffable
light, I see the inexpressible splendour, I see the radiance that
human weakness cannot endure, and beyond what mortal eyes can bear,
the glory of God shining with inconceivable light.[67] What room is there here for division
and separation? In the voice we hear Jesus, in the majesty we see
God. How can we help believing that in one and the same (Personal)
substance God and Jesus exist. But I should like to have a few more
words with you on this subject. Tell me, I pray you, if there
appeared to you in your present persecution of the Catholic faith that
same vision which then appeared to the Apostle in his ignorance, if
when you were not expecting it and were off your guard, that radiance
shone round about you, and the glory of that boundless light smote you
in your terror and confusion, and you lay prostrate in darkness of
body and soul; which the unlimited and indescribable terror of your
heart increased,[68]--tell me, I
intreat you; When the dread of immediate death was pressing on you,
and the terror of the glory that threatened you from above, weighed
you down, and you heard as well in your bewilderment of mind those
words which your sin so well deserves: "Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou Me?" and to your inquiry who it was the answer
was given from heaven: "I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou
persecutest," what would you say? "I do not know, I do not
yet fully believe. I want to think over it with myself a little
longer, who I think that Thou art, who speakest from heaven, who
overwhelmest me with the brightness of Thy Divinity: whose voice I
hear and whose splendour I cannot bear. I must consider of this
matter, whether I ought to believe Thee or not: whether Thou art
Christ or God. If Thou art God alone whether it is in Christ. If
Thou art Christ alone, whether it is in God. I want this distinction
to be carefully observed, and thoroughly considered what we should
believe that Thou art, and what we should judge Thee to be. For I
don't want any of my offices to be wasted. As if I were to regard
Thee as a man, and yet pay to Thee some Divine honours." If then
you were lying on the ground, as the Apostle Paul was then lying, and
overwhelmed with the brightness of the Divine light, were at your last
gasp, perhaps you would say this, and prate with all this silly
chattering. But what shall we make of the fact that another course
commended itself to the Apostle; and when he had fallen down,
trembling and half dead, he did not think that he ought any longer to
conceal his belief, or to deliberate it was enough for him that he was
taught by inexpressible arguments to know that He whom he had
ignorantly fancied to be a man, was God. He did not conceal his
belief, he made no delay. He did not any longer protract his
erroneous ideas by deliberating and disbelieving, but as soon as he
heard from heaven the name of Jesus his Lord, he replied in a voice,
subdued like that of a servant, tremulous like that of one scourged,
and full of fervour like that of one converted, "What shall I do,
Lord?" And so at once for his ready and earnest faith, it was
granted to him that He should never be without His presence whom he
had faithfully believed: and that He, to whom he had passed in heart,
should Himself pass into his heart: as the Apostle himself says of
himself: "Do you seek a proof of Christ that speaketh in
me?"[69]
CHAPTER VII.
He shows once more by other passages of the Apostle
that Christ is God.
I WANT you to tell me, you heretic, whether in this passage He who, as
the Apostle tells us, speaks in him, is man or God. If He is man, how
can another's body speak in his heart? If God, then Christ is not a
man but God; for since Christ spoke in the Apostle, and only God could
speak in him, therefore a Divine Christ spoke in him. And so you see
that there is nothing to be said here, that no division or separation
can be made between Christ and God: because complete Divinity was in
Christ, and Christ was completely in God. No division or severing of
the two can here be admitted. There is only one simple, pious, and
sound confession to be made; viz., to adore, love, and worship Christ
as God. But do you want to understand more fully and thoroughly that
there is no separation to be made between God and Christ, and that we
must hold that God is altogether one with Christ? Hear what the
Apostle says to the Corinthians: "For we must all be manifested
before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the
proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be
good or evil."[70] But in another
passage, in writing to the Romans he says: "We shall all stand
before the judgment seat of God: for it is written: As I live, saith
the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess
to God."[71] You see then that
the judgment seat of God is the same as that of Christ; understand
then without any doubt that Christ is God; and when you see that the
substance of God and Christ is altogether inseparable, admit also that
the Person cannot be severed. Unless forsooth because the Apostle in
one Epistle said that we should be manifested before the judgment seat
of Christ, and in another before that of God, you invent two judgment
seats, and fancy that some will be judged by Christ and others by God.
But this is foolish and wild, and madder than a madman's utterances.
Acknowledge then the Lord of all, the God of the universe, acknowledge
the judgment seat of God in the judgment seat of Christ. Love life,
love your salvation, love Him by whom you were created. Fear Him by
whom you are to be judged. For whether you will or no, you have to be
manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, and laying aside wicked
blasphemy and the childish talk of unbelieving words, though you think
that the judgment seat of God is different from that of Christ, you
will come before the judgment seat of Christ, and will find by
evidence that there is no gainsaying, that the judgment seat of God is
indeed the same as that of Christ, and that in Christ the Son of God,
there is all the glory of God the Son, and the power of God the
Father. "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all
judgment to the Son, that all men may honour the Son as they honour
the Father."[72] For whoever
denies the Father denies the Son also. "Whosoever denieth the
Son, the same hath not the Father: he that confesseth the Son, hath
the Father also."[73] And so you
should learn that the glory of the Father and the Son is inseparable,
and their majesty is inseparable also and that the Son cannot be
honoured without the Father, nor the Father without the Son. But no
man can honour God and the Son of God except in Christ the
only-begotten Son of God. For it is impossible for a man to have the
Spirit of God who is to be honoured except in the Spirit of Christ, as
the Apostle says: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the
Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. But if any man
have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His."[74] And again: "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 who died, yea rather
who rose again."[75] You see then
now, even against your will, that there is absolutely no difference
between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ, or between the
judgment of God and the judgment of Christ. Choose then which you
will--for one of the two must happen--either acknowledge in faith that
Christ is God, or admit that God is in Christ at your condemnation.
CHAPTER VIII.
When confessing the Divinity of Christ we ought not
to pass over in silence the confession of the cross.
BUT let us see what else follows. In writing to the church of
Corinth, he whom we spoke of above, the instructor of all the churches
viz. Paul, speaks thus: "The Jews," says he, "seek
signs, and the Greeks ask for wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified,
to the Jews a stumbling-block, to the Gentiles foolishness: but to
them that are saved, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and
the wisdom of God."[76] O most
powerful teacher of the faith, who even in this passage, when teaching
the Church thought it not enough to speak of Christ as God without
adding that He was crucified on purpose that for the sake of the open
and solid teaching of the faith he might proclaim Him, whom he called
the crucified, to be the wisdom of God. He then employed no subtilty
or circumlocution, nor did he when he preached the gospel of the Lord
blush at the mention of the cross of Christ. And though it was a
stumbling-block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles to hear
of God as born, God in bodily form, God suffering, God crucified, yet
he did not weaken the force of his pious utterance because of the
wickedness of the offence of the Jews: nor did he lessen the vigour of
his faith because of the unbelief and the foolishness of others: but
openly, persistently, and boldly proclaimed that He, whom a mother[77] had borne, whom men had slain, the
spear had pierced, the cross had stretched--was "the power and
wisdom of God, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Gentiles
foolishness." But still that which was to some a stumbling-block
and foolishness, was to others the power and wisdom of God. For as
the persons differed, so was there a difference of their thoughts: and
what a man who was void of sound understanding, and incapable of true
good, foolishly denied in unbelief, that a wise faith could feel in
its inmost soul to be holy and life giving.
CHAPTER IX.
How the Apostle's preaching was rejected by Jews
and Gentiles because it confessed that the crucified Christ was
God.
TELL me then, you heretic, you enemy of all men, but of yourself above
all--to whom the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ is an offence as with
the Jews, and foolishness as with the Gentiles, you who reject the
mysteries of true salvation, with the stumbling of the former, and are
foolish with the stubbornness of the others, why was the preaching of
the Apostle Paul foolishness to the pagans, and a stumbling-block to
the Jews? Surely it would never have offended men, if he had taught
that Christ was, as you maintain He is, a mere man? For who would
think that His birth, passion, cross, and death were incredible or a
difficulty? Or what would there have been novel or strange about the
preaching of Paul, if he had said that a merely human Christ suffered
that which human nature daily endures among men everywhere? But it
was surely this that the foolishness of the Gentiles could not
receive, and the unbelief of the Jews rejected; viz., that the Apostle
declared that Christ whom they, like you, fancied to be a mere man,
was God. This it certainly was which the thoughts of these wicked men
rejected, which the ears of the faithless could not endure; viz., that
the birth of God should be proclaimed in the man Jesus Christ, that
the passion of God should be asserted, and the cross of God
proclaimed. This it was which was a difficulty: this was what was
incredible; for that was incredible to the hearing of men, which had
never been heard of as happening to the Divine nature. And so you are
quite secure, with such an announcement and teaching as yours, that
your preaching will never be either foolishness to the Gentiles or a
stumbling-block to the Jews. You will never be crucified with Peter by
Jews and Gentiles, nor stoned with James, nor beheaded with Paul. For
there is nothing in your preaching to offend them. You maintain that
a mere man was born, a mere man suffered. You need not be afraid of
their troubling you with persecution, for you are helping them by your
preaching.
CHAPTER X.
How the apostle maintains that Christ is the power
of God and the wisdom of God.
BUT let us see something more on the subject. Christ then, according
to the Apostle, is the power of God and the wisdom of God. What have
you to say to this? How can you get out of it? There is no place for
you to escape and fly to. Christ is the wisdom of God and the power
of God. He, I say, whom the Jews attacked, the Gentiles mocked, whom
you yourself together with them are persecuting,--He, I say, who is
foolishness to the heathen, and a stumbling-block to the Jews, and
both to you, He, I say, is the power of God and the wisdom of God.
What is there that you can do? Shut your ears, forsooth, so as not to
hear? This the Jews did also when the Apostle was preaching. Do what
you will, Christ is in heaven, and in God, and with Him, and in Him in
the heavens above in whom also He was here below: you can no longer
persecute Him with the Jews. But you do the one thing that you can.
You persecute Him in the faith, you persecute Him in the church, you
persecute Him with the arms of a wicked belief, you persecute Him with
the sword of false doctrine. Perhaps you do rather more than the Jews
of old did. You now persecute Christ, after ever those who did
persecute Him, have believed. But perhaps you think that the sin is
less because you can no longer lay hands on Him. No less grievous, I
tell you, no less grievous to Him is that persecution, in which sinful
men persecute Him in the persons of His followers. But the mention of
the Lord's cross offends you. It always offended the Jews as well.
You shudder at hearing that God suffered: the Gentiles in their error
mocked at this also. I ask you then, in what point do you differ from
them, since you both agree in this frowardness? But for my part I not
only do not water down this preaching of the holy cross, this
preaching of the Lord's passion, but as far as my wishes and powers go
I emphasise it. For I will declare that He who was crucified is not
only the power and wisdom of God, than which there is nothing greater,
but actually Lord of absolute Divinity and glory. And this the
rather, because this assertion of mine is the doctrine of God, as the
Apostle says: "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect: but
the wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world who are
brought to nought: but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery,
which God ordained before the world, unto our glory: which none of the
princes of this world knew: for if they had known it, they would never
have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written: that eye hath
not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of
man, what God hath prepared for them that love Him."[78] You see what great matters the
Apostle's discourse comprises in how small a compass. He says that he
speaks wisdom, but a wisdom which only those that are perfect can
know, and which the prudent of this world cannot know. For he says
that this is the wisdom of God, which is hidden in a Divine mystery,
and predestined before all worlds for the glory of the saints: and
that therefore it is only known to those who savour of God; while the
princes of this world are utterly ignorant of it. But he adds the
reason, to establish both points that he had mentioned, saying:
"For if they had known it, they would never have crucified the
Lord of glory. But it is written, that eye hath not seen, nor ear
hath heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what God
hath prepared for them that love Him." You see then how the
wisdom of God, hidden in a mystery, and predestined before all worlds,
was unknown to those who crucified the Lord of glory, and known by
those who received it. And well does he say that the wisdom of God
was hidden in a mystery, for never yet could the eye of any man see,
or the ear hear, or the heart imagine this; viz., that the Lord of
glory should be born of a virgin and come in the flesh, and suffer all
kinds of punishment, and shameful passion. But with regard to these
gifts of God, as there is no one who--since they were hidden in a
mystery--could ever of himself understand them, so blessed is he who
has grasped them when they are revealed. Thus all who have failed to
grasp them must be reckoned among the princes of this world, and those
who have grasped them among God's wise ones. He then does not grasp
it who denies God born in the flesh; therefore you also do not grasp
it, as you deny this. But do what you will, deny as impiously as you
like, we the rather believe the Apostle. But why should I say the
Apostle? the rather do we believe God. For through the Apostle we
believe Him, whom we know to have spoken by the Apostle. The Divine
word says that the Lord of glory was crucified by the princes of the
world. You deny it. They also who crucified Him denied that it was
God whom they were crucifying. They then who confess Him have their
portion with the Apostle who confessed Him. You are sure to have your
lot with His persecutors. What is there then that can be replied to
this? The Apostle says that the Lord of glory was crucified. Alter
this if you can. Separate now, if you please, Jesus from God. At
least you cannot deny that Christ was crucified by the Jews. But it
was the Lord of glory who was crucified. Therefore you must either
deny that Christ was nailed to the cross, or you must admit that God
was nailed to it.
CHAPTER XI.
He supports the same doctrine by proofs from the
gospel.
BUT perhaps it is a difficulty to you that all this time I am chiefly
using the witness of the Apostle Paul alone. He is good enough for
me, whom God chose, nor do I blush to call as the witness to my faith,
the man whom God willed to be the teacher of the whole world. But to
yield to your wishes, as perhaps you fancy that I have no other proofs
to use, hear the perfect mystery of man's salvation and eternal bliss,
which Martha proclaims in the gospel. For what does she say? "Of
a truth, Lord, I have believed that Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the living God, who art come into this world."[79] Learn the true faith from a woman.
Learn the confession of eternal hope. Yet you have a splendid
consolation: you need not blush to be taught the mystery of salvation
by her, whose testimony God did not refuse to accept.
CHAPTER XII.
He proves from the renowned confession of the
blessed Peter that Christ is God.
BUT if you prefer the authority of a greater person (although you
ought not to slight the authority of any one of either sex, on whom
the confession of the mystery confers weight--for whatever may be a
person's condition, or however humble his position, yet the value of
his faith is not thereby diminished) let us interrogate no beginner or
untaught schoolboy, nor a woman whose faith might perhaps appear to be
but rudimentary; but that greatest of disciples among disciples, and
of teachers among teachers, who presided and ruled over the Roman
Church, and held the chief place[80] in
the priesthood as he did in the faith. Tell us then, tell us, we
pray, O Peter, thou chief of Apostles, tell us how the Churches ought
to believe in God. For it is right that you should teach us, as you
were taught by the Lord, and that you should open to us the gate, of
which you received the key. Shut out all those who try to overthrow
the heavenly house: and those who are endeavouring to enter by secret
holes and unlawful approaches: as it is clear that none can enter the
gate of the kingdom save one to whom the key bestowed on the Churches
is revealed by you. Tell us then how we ought to believe in Jesus
Christ and to confess our common Lord. You will surely reply without
hesitation: "Why do you consult me as to the way in which the
Lord should be confessed, when you have before you my own confession
of Him? Read the gospel, and you will not want me myself, when you
have got my confession. Nay, you have got me myself when you have my
confession; for though I have no weight apart from my
confession, yet the actual confession adds weight to my person."
Tell us then, O Evangelist, tell us the confession: tell us the faith
of the chief Apostle: did he confess that Jesus was only a man, or
God? did he say that there was nothing but flesh in Him, or did he
proclaim Him the Son of God? When then the Lord Jesus Christ asked
whom the disciples believed and confessed Him to be, Peter, the first
of the Apostles, replied--one in the name of all--for the answer of
one was to the same effect as the faith of them all. But it was
fitting that he should first give the answer, that the order of the
answer might correspond to the degree of honour: and that he might
outstrip them in confession, as he outstripped them in age. What then
does he say? "Thou art," he says, "the Christ the Son
of the living God."[81] I am
obliged, you heretic, to make use of a plain and simple question to
confute you. Tell me, I pray, who was He, to whom Peter gave that
answer? You cannot deny that it was the Christ. I ask then, what do
you call Christ? man or God? Man certainly without any doubt: for
hence springs the whole of your heresy, because you deny that Christ
is the Son of God. And so too you say that Mary is Christotocos, but
not Theotocos, because she was the mother of Christ, not of God.
Therefore you maintain, that Christ is only a man, and not God, and so
that He is the Son of man not of God. What then does Peter reply to
this? "Thou art," he says, "the Christ, the Son of the
living God." That Christ whom you declare to be only the Son of
man, he testifies to be the Son of God. Whom would you like us to
believe? you or Peter? I imagine that you are not so shameless as to
venture to prefer your own opinion to that of the first of the
Apostles. And yet what is there that you would not venture on? or how
can you help scorning the Apostle, if you can deny God? "Thou
art then," he says, "the Christ, the Son of the living
God." Is there anything puzzling or obscure in this? It is
nothing but a plain and open confession: he proclaims Christ to be the
Son of God. Perhaps you will deny that the words were spoken: but the
Evangelist testifies that they were. Or do you say that the Apostle
told a lie? But it is an awful lie to accuse an Apostle of lying. Or
perhaps you will maintain that the words were spoken of some other
Christ? But this is a novel kind of monstrous fabrication. What then
is left for you? One thing indeed; viz., that since what is written is
read, and what is read is true, you should finally be driven by force
and compulsion (as you cannot assert its falsehood) to desist from
impugning its truth.
CHAPTER XIII.
The confession of the blessed Peter receives a
testimony to its truth from Christ Himself.
BUT still, as I have made use of the testimony of the chief Apostle,
in which he openly confessed the Lord Jesus Christ as God, let us see
how He whom he confessed approved of his confession; for of far more
value than the Apostle's words is the fact that God Himself commended
his utterance. When then the Apostle said: "Thou art the Christ
the Son of the living God," what was the answer of our Lord and
Saviour? "Blessed art thou," said He, "Simon Barjonah,
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but the Spirit of
My Father which is in heaven." If you do not like to use the
testimony of the Apostle use that of God. For by commending what was
said God added His own authority to the Apostle's utterance, so that
although the utterance came from the lips of the Apostle, yet God who
approved of it made it His own. "Blessed art thou," said
He, "Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it
unto thee, but the Spirit of My Father which is in heaven." Thus
in the words of the Apostle you have the testimony of the Holy Spirit
and of the Son who was present and of God the Father. What more can
you want, or what comes up to this? The Son commended: the Father was
present: the Holy Ghost revealed. The utterance of the Apostle thus
gives the testimony of the entire Godhead: for this utterance must
necessarily have the authority of Him from whose prompting it
proceeds. "Blessed then art thou," said He, "Simon
Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but the
Spirit of My Father which is in heaven." If then flesh and blood
did not reveal this to Peter or inspire him, you must at last see who
inspires you. If the Spirit of God taught him who confessed that
Christ was God, you see how you are taught by the spirit of the devil
if you can deny it.
CHAPTER XIV.
How the confession of the blessed Peter is the
faith of the whole Church.
BUT what are the other words which follow that saying of the Lord's,
with which He commends Peter? "And I," said He, "say
unto thee, that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My
Church." Do you see how the saying of Peter is the faith of the
Church? He then must of course be outside the Church, who does not
hold the faith of the Church. "And to thee," saith the
Lord, "I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven." This
faith deserved heaven: this faith received the keys of the heavenly
kingdom. See what awaits you. You cannot enter the gate to which
this key belongs, if you have denied the faith of this key. "And
the gate," He adds, "of hell shall not prevail against
thee." The gates of hell are the belief or rather the misbelief
of heretics. For widely as hell is separated from heaven, so widely
is he who denies from him who confessed that Christ is God.
"Whatsoever," He proceeds, "thou shalt bind on earth,
shalt be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,
shalt be loosed also in heaven." The perfect faith of the
Apostle somehow is given the power of Deity, that what it should bind
or loose on earth, might be bound or loosed in heaven. For you then,
who come against the Apostle's faith, as you see that already you are
bound on earth, it only remains that you should know that you are
bound also in heaven. But it would take too long to go into details
which are so numerous as to make a long and wearisome story, even if
they are related with brevity and conciseness.
CHAPTER XV.
St. Thomas also confessed the same faith as Peter
after the Lord's resurrection.
BUT I want still to add one more testimony from an Apostle for you:
that you may see how what followed after the passion corresponded with
what went before it. When then the Lord appeared in the midst of His
disciples when the doors were shut, and wished to make clear to the
Apostles the reality of His body, when the Apostle Thomas felt His
flesh and handled His side and examined His wounds--what was it that
he declared, when he was convinced of the reality of the body shown to
him? "My Lord," he said, "and my God."[82] Did he say what you say, that it was
a man and not God? Christ and not Divinity? He surely touched the
body of his Lord and answered that He was God. Did he make any
separation between man and God? or did he call that flesh Theotocos,
to use your expression, i.e., that which received Divinity? or did he,
after the fashion of your blasphemy, declare that He whom he touched
was to be honoured not for His own sake, but for the sake of Him whom
He had received into Himself? But perhaps God's Apostle knew nothing
of that subtle separation of yours, and had no experience of the fine
distinctions of your judgment, as he was a rude countryman, ignorant
of the dialectic art, and of the method of philosophic disputation;
for whom the Lord's teaching was amply sufficient, and as he was one
who knew nothing whatever except what he learnt from the instruction
of the Lord! And so his words contain heavenly doctrine; his faith is
a Divine lesson. He had never learnt to separate, as you do, the Lord
from His body: and had no idea how to rend God asunder from Himself.
He was holy, straightforward, upright: filled with practical
innocence, unalloyed faith, and pure knowledge: having a simple
understanding joined with prudence, a wisdom entirely free from all
evil, together with perfect simplicity: ignorant of any corruption,
and free from all heretical perversity, and as one who had experienced
in himself the force of the Divine lesson, he held fast everything
which he had learnt. And so he--countryman and ignorant fellow as you
fancy him--shuts you up with a brief answer, and destroys your
position with a few words of his. What then did the Apostle Thomas
touch when he drew near to handle his God? Certainly it was Christ
without any doubt. But what did he exclaim? "My Lord," he
said, "and my God." Now, if you can, separate Christ from
God, and change this saying, if you are able to. Make use of all
dialectic art--all the prudence of this world, and that foolish wisdom
which consists in wordy subtlety. Turn yourself about in every
direction, and draw in your horns. Do whatever you can with ingenuity
and art. Say what you like, and do what you like; you cannot possibly
get out of this without confessing that what the Apostle touched was
God. And indeed, if the thing can possibly be done, perhaps you will
want to alter the statement of the gospel story, so that we may not
read that the Apostle Thomas touched the body of the Lord, or that he
called Christ Lord and God. But it is absolutely impossible to alter
what is written in the gospel of God. For "heaven and earth
shall pass away, but the words" of God "shall not pass
away."[83] For lo, even now he
who then bore his witness, the Apostle Thomas, proclaims to you:
"Jesus whom I touched is God. It is God whose limbs I handled.
I did not feel what was incorporeal, not handle what was intangible: I
touched not a Spirit with my hand, so that it might be believed that I
said of it alone `It is God.' For `a spirit,' as my Lord Himself
said, `hath not flesh and bones.'[84]
I touched the body of my Lord. I handled flesh and bones. I put my
fingers into the prints of the wounds: and I declared of Christ my
Lord, whom I had handled: `My Lord and my God.' For I know not how to
make a separation between Christ and God, and I cannot insert
blasphemous distinctions between Jesus and God, or rend my Lord
asunder from Himself. Away from me, whoever is of a different
opinion, and whoever says anything different. I know not that Christ
is other than God. This faith I held together with my fellow
apostles: this I delivered to the Churches: this I preached to the
Gentiles: this I proclaim to thee also, Christ is God, Christ is God.
A sound mind imagines nothing else: a sound faith says nothing else.
The Deity cannot be parted from Itself. And since whatever is Christ
is God, there can be found in God none other but God."
CHAPTER XVI.
He brings forward the witness of God the Father to
the Divinity of the Son.
WHAT do you say now, you heretic? Are these evidences of the faith,
aye and of all your unbelief, enough for you: or would you like some
more to be added to them? but what can be added after Prophets and
Apostles? unless perhaps--as the Jews once demanded--you too might ask
for a sign to be given you from heaven? But if you ask this; we must
give you the same answer which was formerly given to them: "An
evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign. And no sign
shall be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah."[85] And indeed this sign would be enough
for you as for the Jews who crucified Him, that you might be taught to
believe in the Lord God by this alone, through which even those who
had persecuted Him, came to believe. But as we have mentioned a sign
from heaven, I will show you a sign from heaven: and one of such a
character that even the devils have never gainsaid it: while,
constrained by the demands of truth, though they saw Jesus in bodily
form, they yet cried out that He was God, as indeed He was. What then
does the Evangelist say of the Lord Jesus Christ? "When He was
baptized," he says, "straightway He went up out of the
water. And lo, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit
descending like a dove, and coming upon Him. And behold, a voice from
heaven, saying: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased."[86] What do you say to
this, you heretic? Do you dislike the words spoken, or the Person of
the Speaker? The meaning of the utterance at any rate needs no
explanation: nor does the worth of the Speaker need the commendation
of words. It is God the Father who spoke. What He said is clear
enough. Surely you cannot make so shameless and blasphemous an
assertion as to say that God the Father is not to be believed
concerning the only begotten Son of God? "This," He then
says, "is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." But
perhaps you will try to maintain that this is madness, and that this
was said of the Word and not of Christ. Tell me then who was it who
was baptized? The Word or Christ? Flesh or Spirit? You cannot
possibly deny that it was Christ. That man then, born of man and of
God, conceived by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Virgin, and
by the overshadowing of the Power of the Most High, and thus the Son
of man and of God, He it was, as you cannot deny, who was baptized.
If then it was He who was baptized, it was He also who was named, for
certainly the Person who was baptized was the one named.
"This," said He, "is My beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased." Could anything be said with greater significance or
clearness? Christ was baptized. Christ went up out of the water.
When Christ was baptized the heavens were opened. For Christ's sake
the dove descended upon Christ, the Holy Spirit was present in a
bodily form. The Father addressed Christ. If you venture to deny
that this was spoken of Christ, the only thing is for you to maintain
that Christ was not baptized, that the Spirit did not descend, and
that the Father did not speak. But the truth itself is urgent and
weighs you down so that even if you will not confess it, yet you
cannot deny it. For what says the Evangelist? "When He was
baptized, straightway He went up out of the water." Who was
baptized? Most certainly Christ. "And behold," he says,
"the heavens were opened to Him." To where, forsooth, save
to Him who was baptized? Most certainly to Christ. "And He saw
the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon Him."
Who saw? Christ indeed. Upon whom did It descend? Most certainly
upon Christ. "And a voice came from heaven, saying"--of
whom? Of Christ indeed: for what follows? "This is My beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased." In order that it might be made
clear on whose account all this happened, there followed the voice,
saying: "This is My beloved Son," as if to say: This is He
on whose account all this took place. For this is My Son: on His
account the heavens were opened: on His account My Spirit came: on His
account My voice was heard. For this is My Son. In saying then
"This is My Son" whom did He so designate? Certainly Him
whom the dove touched. And whom did the dove touch? Christ indeed.
Therefore Christ is the Son of God. My promise is fulfilled, I fancy.
Do you see then now, O heretic, a sign given you from heaven; and not
one only, but many and special ones? For there is one in the opening
of heaven, another in the descent of the Spirit, a third in the voice
of the Father. All of which most clearly show that Christ is God, for
the laying open of the heavens indicates that He is God, and the
descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him supports His Divinity, and the
address of the Father confirms it. For heaven would not have been
opened except in honour of its Lord: nor would the Holy Ghost have
descended in a bodily form except upon the Son of God: nor would the
Father have declared Him to be the Son, had he not been truly such;
especially with such tokens of a Divine birth, as not merely to
confirm the truth of the right faith, but also to exclude the
wickedness of guilty and erroneous belief. For when the Father had
expressly and pointedly said with the inexpressible majesty of a
Divine utterance, "This is My Son," He added also what
follows--I mean, "My beloved, in whom I am well pleased."
As He had already declared Him by the prophet to be God the Mighty and
God the Great, so when He says here, "My beloved Son in whom I am
well pleased," He adds further to the name of His own Son the
title also of His beloved Son, in whom He is well pleased: that the
addition of the titles might denote the special properties of the
Divine nature; and that that might specially redound to the glory of
the Son of God, which had never happened to any man. And so just as
in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ these special and unique things
happened; viz., that the heavens were opened, that in the sight of all
God the Father touched Him in a sort of way, through the coming and
presence of the dove, and pointed almost with His finger to Him
saying, "This is My Son;" so this too is special and unique
in His case; viz., that He is specially beloved, and is specially
named as well-pleasing to the Father, in order that these special
accompaniments might mark the special import of His nature, and that
the special character of His names might support the special position
of the only begotten Son, which the honour of the signs previously
given had already confirmed. But here comes the end of this book.
For this saying of God the Father can neither be added to, nor
equalled by any words of men. For us God the Father Himself is a
sufficiently satisfactory witness concerning our Lord Jesus Christ,
when He says "This is My Son." If you think that it is
possible for these utterances of God the Father to be gainsaid, then
you are forced to contradict Him, who by the clearest possible
announcement caused Him to be acknowledged as His Son by the whole
world.
BOOK IV.
CHAPTER I.
That Christ was before the Incarnation God from
everlasting.
AS we have finished three books with the most certain and the most
valuable witnesses, whose truth is substantiated not only by human but
also by Divine evidences, they would abundantly suffice to prove our
case by Divine authority, especially as the Divine authority of the
case itself would be enough for this. But still as the whole mass of
the sacred Scriptures is full of these evidences, and where there are
so many witnesses, there are so many opinions to be urged--nay where
Holy Scripture itself gives its witness so to speak with one Divine
mouth--we have thought it well to add some others still, not from any
need of confirmation, but because of the supply of material at our
disposal; so that anything which might be unnecessary for purposes of
defence, might be useful by way of ornamentation. Therefore since in
the earlier books we proved the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ
while He was in the flesh by the evidence not only of prophets and
apostles, but of evangelists and angels as well, let us now show that
He who was born in the flesh was God even before His Incarnation; that
you may understand by the harmony and concord of the evidences from
the sacred Scriptures, that you ought to believe that at His birth in
the body He was both God and man, who before His birth was only God,
and that He who after He had been brought forth by the Virgin in the
body was God, was before His birth from the Virgin, God the Word.
Learn then first of all from the Apostle the teacher of the whole
world, that He who is without beginning, God, the Son of God, became
the Son of man at the end of the world, i.e., in the fulness of the
times. For he says: "But when the fulness of the times was come,
God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law."[87] Tell me then, before the Lord Jesus
Christ was born of His mother Mary, had God a Son or had He not? You
cannot deny that He had, for never yet was there either a son without
a father, or a father without a son: because as a son is so called
with reference to a father, so is a father so named with reference to
a son.
CHAPTER II.
He infers from what he has said that the Virgin
Mary gave birth to a Son who had pre-existed and was greater than she
herself was.
YOU see then that when the Apostle says that God sent His Son, it was
His own Son, to use the actual words of the Apostle, "His own
Son" that God sent. For, since He sent His own Son, it was not
some one else's Son that He sent, nor could He send Him at all if He
who was sent had no existence. He sent then, he says, "His own
Son, made of a woman." Therefore because He sent Him, He sent
one who existed: and because He sent His own, it certainly was not
another's but His own whom He sent. What then becomes of that
argument of yours drawn from this world's subtleties? No one ever yet
gave birth to one who had already existed before. For had not the
Lord a pre-existence before Mary? Was not the Son of God existent
before the daughter of man? In a word did not God Himself exist
before man--since certainly there is no man who is not from God. You
see then that I do not merely say that Mary gave birth to one who had
existed before her, not only, I say, one who had existed before her,
but one who was the author of her being, and that in giving birth to
her Creator, she became the mother of Him who gave her being: because
it was as simple for God to bring about birth for Himself as for man
and as easy for Him to arrange that He Himself should be born of
mankind, as that a man should be born. For the power of God is not
limited in regard to His own Person, as if what was allowable to Him
in the case of all others, was not allowable in His own case, and as
if He who in the Divine nature could do all things as God, was yet
unable in His own Person to become God in man. Setting aside then and
rejecting your foolish and feeble and dull arguments from earthly
things, we ought merely to put credence in straightforward evidence
and the naked truth, and to adapt our faith to those witnesses of God
alone, whom God sent, and in whose person He Himself, so to speak,
preached. For it is right to believe Him in a matter concerning
knowledge of Himself, as everything that we know of Him comes from Him
Himself, for God could not possibly be known of men, unless He Himself
gave us the knowledge of Himself. And so it is right that we should
believe everything of Him that we know, from whom comes everything
that we know, for if we do not believe Him from whom our knowledge
comes, the result will be that we shall know nothing at all, since we
refuse to believe Him, through whom our knowledge comes.
CHAPTER III.
He proves from the Epistle to the Romans the
eternal Divinity of Christ.
AND so as it is clear from the above testimony that God sent His own
Son, and that He who was ever the Son of God became the Son of man,
let us see whether the same Apostle gives any other testimony of the
same sort elsewhere, that the truth which is already clear enough in
itself, may be rendered still more clear by the light of a twofold
testimony. So then the same Apostle says: "God sent His own Son
in the likeness of sinful flesh."[88] You see that the Apostle certainly
did not use these words by chance or at random, as he repeated what he
had already said once--for indeed there could not be found in him
chance or want of consideration as the fulness of Divine counsel and
speech had taken up its abode in him. What then does he say?
"God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." He
says the same thing again and repeats it, saying, "God sent His
own Son." Oh renowned and excellent teacher! for knowing that in
this is contained the whole mystery[89]
of the Catholic faith, in order that it might be believed that the
Lord was born in the flesh and that the Son of God was sent into this
world, again and again he makes the same proclamation saying,
"God sent His own Son." Nor need we wonder that he who was
specially sent to preach the coming of God, made this announcement,
since even before the law, the giver of the law himself proclaimed it,
saying: "I beseech Thee, O Lord, provide another whom Thou mayest
send," or as it stands still more clearly in the Hebrew text:
"I beseech Thee, O Lord, send whom Thou wilt send."[90] It is clear that the holy prophet,
feeling in himself a yearning for the whole human race, prayed as it
were with the voices of all mankind to God the Father that He would
send as speedily as possible Him who was to be sent by the Father for
the redemption and salvation of all men, when he said, "I beseech
Thee, O Lord, send whom Thou wilt send." "God," he
therefore says, "sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh." Full well, when he says that He was sent in the flesh,
does he exclude for Him sin of the flesh: for he says "God sent
His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin," in order that
we may know that though the flesh was truly taken, yet there was no
true sin, and that, as far as the body is concerned, we should
understand that there was reality; as far as sin is concerned, only
the likeness of sin. For though all flesh is sinful, yet He had flesh
without sin, and had in Himself the likeness of sinful flesh, while He
was in the flesh but He was free from what was truly sin, because He
was without sin: and therefore he says: "God sent His own Son in
the likeness of sinful flesh."
CHAPTER IV.
He brings forward other testimonies to the same
view.
IF you would know how admirably the Apostle preached this, hear how
this utterance was put into his mouth; as if from the mouth of God
Himself, as the Lord says: "For God sent not His Son into the
world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through
Him."[91] For lo, as you see, the
Lord Himself affirms that He was sent by God the Father to save
mankind. But if you think that it ought to be shown still more
clearly, what Son God sent to save men,--though God's own and only
begotten can only be one, and when God is said to have sent His Son,
He is certainly shown to have sent His only begotten Son,--yet hear
the prophet David pointing out with the utmost clearness Him who was
sent for the salvation of Men. "He sent," said he,
"His Word and healed them."[92] Can you twist this so as to refer it
to the flesh as if you could say that a mere man was sent by God to
heal mankind? You certainly cannot, for the prophet David and all the
holy Scriptures would cry out against you, saying, "He sent His
Word and healed them." You see then, that the Word was sent to
heal men, for though healing was given through Christ, yet the Word of
God was in Christ, and healed all things through Christ: and so since
Christ and the Word were united in the mystery of the Incarnation,
Christ and the Word of God became one Son of God in either substance.
And when the Apostle John was anxious to state this clearly, he said
"God sent His Son to be the Saviour of the world."[93] Do you see how he joined together God
and man in an union that cannot be severed? For Christ who was born
of Mary is without the slightest doubt called Saviour, as it is said,
"For to you is born this day a Saviour, which is Christ the
Lord."[94] But here he calls the
very Word of God, which was sent, a Saviour, saying: "God sent
his Son to be the Saviour of the world."
CHAPTER V.
How in virtue of the hypostatic union of the two
natures in Christ the Word is rightly termed the Saviour, or incarnate
man, and the Son of God.
AND so it is clear that through the mystery of the Word of God joined
to man, the Word, which was sent to save men, can be termed Saviour,
and the Saviour, who was born in the flesh, can through union with the
Word be called the Son of God; and so through the indifferent use of
either title, since God is joined to man, whatever is God and man, can
be termed altogether God.[95] And so
the same Apostle well adds the words: "Whoever believeth that
Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and the love of God is
perfected in him."[96] He tells
us that he believes, and declares that he is filled
with divine love, who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. But he
testifies that the Word of God is the Son of God, and thus means us
fully to understand that the only begotten Word of God, and Jesus
Christ the Son of God are one and the same Person. But do you want to
be told more fully that,--though Christ according to the flesh was
truly born as man of man,--yet in virtue of the ineffable unity of the
mystery, by which man was joined to God, there is no separation
between Christ and the Word? Hear the gospel of the Lord, or rather
hear the Lord Himself saying of Himself:[97] "This," says He, "is
life eternal, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus
Christ whom Thou hast sent."[98]
You heard above that the Word of God was sent to heal mankind: here
you are told that He who was sent is Jesus Christ. Separate this, if
you can,--though you see that so great is the unity of Christ and the
Word, that it was not merely that Christ was united with the Word, but
that in virtue of the actual unity [of Person] Christ may even be said
to be the Word.
CHAPTER VI.
That there is in Christ but one Hypostasis (i.e.,
Personal self).
BUT perhaps you think it a trifle to make this clear: not because it
fails in clearness, but because the obscurity of unbelief always
causes obscurity even in what is clear. Hear then how the Apostle
sums up in a few words this whole mystery of the Lord's unity [of
Person]. "Our one Lord Jesus Christ," he says, "by
whom are all things."[99] O good
Jesus, what weight there is in Thy words! For Thine they are, when
spoken of Thee by Thine own. See how much is embraced in the few
words of this saying of the Apostle's. "One Lord," says he,
"Jesus Christ, by whom are all things." Did he make use of
any circumlocution in order to proclaim the truth of this great
mystery?[100] or did he make a long
story of that which he wanted us to grasp? "Our one Lord,"
he says, "Jesus Christ, by whom are all things." In a plain
and short phrase he taught the secret of this great mystery, through
this confidence by which he realized that in what refers to God his
statements had no need of lengthened arguments, and that the Divinity
added faith to his utterances. For the demonstration of facts is
enough to confirm what is said, whenever the proof rests on the
authority of the speaker. There is then, he says, "one Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom are all things." Notice how you read the
same thing of the Word of the Father, which you read of Christ. For
the gospel tells us that "All things were made by Him, and
without Him was not anything made."[101] The Apostle says, "By Christ
are all things:" the gospel says, "By the Word are all
things." Do these sacred utterances contradict each other? Most
certainly not. But by Christ, by whom the Apostle said that all
things were created, and by the Word, by whom the Evangelist relates
that all things were made, we are meant to understand one and the same
Person. Hear, I tell you, what the Word of God, Himself God, has said
of Himself. "No man," he saith, "hath ascended into
heaven, save He who came down from heaven, even the Son of man, who is
in heaven."[102] And again He
says: "If ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was
before."[103] He said that the
Son of man was in heaven: He asserted that the Son of man had come
down from heaven. What does it mean? Why are you muttering? Deny
it, if you can. But do you ask the reason of what is said? However I
do not give it you. God has said this. God has spoken this to me:
His Word is the best reason. I get rid of arguments and discussions.
The Person of the Speaker alone is enough to make me believe. I may
not debate about the trustworthiness of what is said, nor discuss it.
Why should I question whether what God has said is true, since I ought
not to doubt that what God says is true. "No man," He says,
"hath ascended into heaven, save He who came down from heaven,
even the Son of man, who is in heaven." Certainly the Word of
the Father was ever in heaven: and how did He assert that the Son of
man was ever in heaven? You are then to understand that He showed
that He who was ever the Son of God was also the Son of man: when He
asserted that He, who had but recently appeared as the Son of man, was
ever in heaven. To this points still more that other passage in which
He testifies that the same Son of man; viz., the Word of God who, as
He said, came down from heaven, even at the time when He was speaking
on earth, was in heaven. For "no man," He said, "hath
ascended into heaven, save He who came down from heaven, even the Son
of man who is in heaven." Who, I pray you, is this who is
speaking? Assuredly it is Christ. But where was He at the moment
when He spoke? Assuredly on earth. And how can He assert that He
came down from heaven when He was born, and that He was in heaven when
He was speaking, or say that He is the same Son of man, when certainly
no one but God can come down from heaven, and when He speaks on earth,
and certainly cannot be in heaven except through the Infinite nature
of God? Consider then this at last, and note that the Son of man is
the same Person as the Word of God: for He is the Son of man since He
is truly born of man, and the Word of God, since He who speaks on
earth abideth ever in heaven. And so when He truly terms Himself the
Son of man, it refers to His human birth, while the fact that He never
departs from heaven, refers to the Infinite character of His Divine
nature. And so the Apostle's teaching is admirably in accordance with
those sacred words: ("for He that descended," says He,
"is the same that ascended also above all heavens, that He might
fill all things,"[104]) when He
says that He that descended is the same that ascended. But none can
descend from heaven except the Word of God: who certainly "being
in the form of God, emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant,
being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a
man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the
death of the Cross."[105] Thus
the Word of God descended from heaven: but the Son of man ascended.
But He says that the same Person ascended and descended. Thus you see
that the Son of man is the same Person as the Word of God.
CHAPTER VII.
He returns to the former subject, in order to show
against the Nestorians that those things are said of the man, which
belong to the Divine nature as it were of a Person of Divine nature,
and conversely that those things are said of God, which belong to the
human nature as it were of a Person of human nature, because there is
in Christ but one and a single Personal self.
AND so following the guidance of the sacred word we may now say
fearlessly and unhesitatingly that the Son of man came down from
heaven, and that the Lord of Glory was crucified: because in virtue of
the mystery of the Incarnation, the Son of God became Son of man, and
the Lord of Glory was crucified in (the nature of) the Son of man.[106] What more is there need of? It
would take too long to go into details: for time would fail me, were I
to try to examine and explain everything which could be brought to
bear on this subject. For one who wished to do this would have to
study and read the whole Bible. For what is there which does not bear
on this, when all Scripture was written with reference to this? We
must then say--as far as can be said--some things briefly and
cursorily, and enumerate rather than explain them, and sacrifice some
to save the rest, as for this reason it would certainly be well
hurriedly to run through some points, lest one should be obliged[107] to pass over almost everything in
silence. The Saviour then in the gospel says that "the Son of
man is come to save what was lost."[108] And the Apostle says: "This is
a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation; that Christ Jesus
came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief."[109] But the Evangelist John also says:
"He came unto his own, and His own received Him not."[110] You see then that Scripture says in
one place that the Son of man, in another Jesus Christ, in another the
Word of God came into the world. And so we must hold that the
difference is one of title not of fact, and that under the appearance
of different names there is but one Power [or Person]. For though at
one time we are told that the Son of man, and at another that the Son
of God came into the world, but one Person is meant under both
names.
CHAPTER VIII.
How this interchange of titles does not interfere
with His Divine power.
FOR certainly when the evangelist says that He came into the world by
whom the world itself was made, and that He was made the Son of man,
who is as God the creator of the world, it makes no difference what
particular title is used, as God in all cases is meant. For His
condescension and will do not interfere with His Divinity, since they
the rather prove His Divinity, because whatever He willed came to
pass. Therefore also because He willed it, He came into the world;
and because He willed it, He was born a man; and because He willed it,
He was termed the Son of man. For just as there are so many words, so
are they powers belonging to God. The variety of names in Him does
not take anything away from the efficacy of His power. Whatever may
be the names given Him, in all cases it is one and the same Person.
Though there may be some variety in the appearance of His titles, yet
there is but a single Divine Person (Majestas) meant by all the
names.
CHAPTER IX.
He corroborates this statement by the authority of
the old prophets.
BUT since up to this point we have made use more particularly of the
witness, comparatively new, of evangelists and apostles, now let us
bring forward the testimony of the old prophets, intermingling at
times new things with old, that everybody may see that the holy
Scriptures proclaim as it were with one mouth that Christ was to come
in the flesh, with a body of His own complete. And so that far-famed
and renowned prophet as richly endowed with God's gifts as with his
testimony, to whom alone it was given to be sanctified before His
birth,[111] Jeremiah, says, "This
is our Lord, and there shall no other be accounted of in comparison
with Him. He found out all the way of knowledge and gave it to Jacob
His servant and Israel His beloved. Afterwards He was seen upon earth
and conversed with men."[112]
"This is," then, he says, "our God." You see how
the prophet points to God as it were with his hand, and indicates Him
as it were with his finger. "This is," he says, "our
God." Tell me then, who was it that the prophet showed by these
signs and tokens to be God? Surely it was not the Father? For what
need was there that He should be pointed out, whom all believed that
they knew? For even then the Jews were not ignorant of God, for they
were living under God's law. But he was clearly aiming at this, that
they might come to know the Son of God as God. And so excellently did
the Prophet say that He who had found out all knowledge, i.e., had
given the law, was to be seen upon earth, i.e., was to come in the
flesh, in order that, as the Jews did not doubt that He who had given
the law was God, they might recognize that He who was to come in the
flesh was God, especially since they heard that He, in whom they
believed as God the giver of the law, was to be seen among men by
taking upon Him manhood, as He Himself promises His own advent by the
prophet: "For I myself that spoke, behold I am here."[113] "There shall then," says
the Scriptures, "be no other accounted of in comparison of
Him." Beautifully does the prophet here foresee false teaching,
and so exclude the interpretations of heretical perverseness.
"There shall no other be accounted of in comparison of Him."
For He is alone begotten to be God of God: at whose bidding the
completion of the universe followed: whose will is the beginning of
things: whose empire is the fabric of the world: who spake all things,
and they came to pass: commanded all things, and they were created.
He then alone it is who spake to the patriarchs, dwelt in the
prophets, was conceived by the Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,
appeared in the world, lived among men, fastened to the wood of the
cross the handwriting of our offences, triumphed in Himself,[114] slew by His death the powers that
were at enmity and hostile to us; and gave to all men belief in the
resurrection, and by the glory of His body put an end to the
corruption of man's flesh. You see then that all these belong to the
Lord Jesus Christ alone: and therefore no other shall be accounted of
in comparison with Him, for He alone is God begotten of God in this
glory and unique blessedness. This then is what the prophet's
teaching was aiming at; viz., that He might be known by all men to be
the only begotten Son of God the Father, and that when they heard that
no other was accounted of as God in comparison with the Son, they
might confess that there was but one God in the Persons of the Father
and the Son. "After this," he said, "He was seen upon
earth and conversed with men." You see how plainly this points
to the advent and nativity of the Lord. For surely the Father--of whom
we read that He can only be seen in the Son--was not seen upon earth,
nor born in the flesh, nor conversed with men? Most certainly not.
You see then that all this is spoken of the Son of God. For since the
prophet said that God should be seen upon earth, and no other but the
Son was seen upon earth, it is clear that the prophet said this only
of Him, of whom facts afterwards proved that it was spoken. For when
He said that God should be seen, He could not say this truly, except
of Him who was indeed afterwards seen. But enough of this. Now let
us turn to another point. "The labour of Egypt," says the
prophet Isaiah, "and the merchandise of Ethiopia and of the
Sabæans, men of stature, shall come over to thee and shall be
thy servants. They shall walk after thee, bound with manacles, and
they shall worship thee, and they shall make supplication to thee: for
in thee is God, and there is no God beside thee. For thou art our God
and we knew thee not, O God of Israel the Saviour."[115] How wonderfully consistent the Holy
Scriptures always are! For the first mentioned prophet said,
"This is our God," and this one says, "Thou art our
God." In the one there is the teaching of Divinity, in the other
the confession of men. The one exhibits the character of the Master
teaching, the other that of the people confessing. For consider now
the prophet Jeremiah daily teaching, as he does, in the church, and
saying of the Lord Jesus Christ, "This is our God," what
else could the whole Church reply, as it does, than what the other
prophet said to the Lord Jesus, "Thou art our God." So that
full well could the mention of their past ignorance be joined to their
present acknowledgment, in the words of the people: "Thou art our
God, and we knew thee not." For well can these who, in times
past being taken up with the superstitions of devils did not know God,
yet when now converted to the faith say, "Thou art our God, and
we knew thee not."
CHAPTER X.
He proves Christ's Divinity from the blasphemy of
Judaizing Jews as well as from the confession of converts to the faith
of Christ.
BUT if you would like to have this proved to you rather from
representatives of the Jews, consider the Jewish people when after
their unhappy ignorance and wicked persecution they were converted,
and acknowledged God here and there, and see whether they could not
rightly say, "Thou art our God, and we knew Thee not." But
I will add something else, to prove it to you not only from those Jews
who confess Him, but also from those who deny Him. For ask those Jews
who still continue in their state of unbelief whether they know or
believe in God. They will certainly confess that they both know and
believe in Him. But on the other band ask them whether they believe
in the Son of God. They will at once deny and begin to blaspheme
against Him. You see then that the Prophet said this of Him of whom
the Jews have always been ignorant, and whom now they know not; and
not of Him whom they imagine that they believe in and confess. And so
full well can those, who after having been in ignorance come out of
Judaism to the faith, say, "Thou art our God, and we knew Thee
not." For rightly do those, who after having been ignorant come
to believe, say that they knew not Him in whom up to this time they
have not believed, and whom they strive not to know. For it is clear
that those who after their previous ignorance come to confess Him, say
that formerly they knew Him not, whom up to this time they have
ignorantly denied.
CHAPTER XI.
He returns to the prophecy of Isaiah.
"THE labour," says he, "of Egypt, and the merchandize
of Ethiopia, and the Sabæans, men of stature shall come over to
thee." No one can doubt that in these names of different nations
is signified the coming of the nations who were to believe. But you
cannot deny that the nations have come over to Christ, for since the
name of Christianity has arisen, they have come over to the Lord Jesus
Christ not only in faith but actually in name. For since they are
called what they really are, that which was the work of faith becomes
the token by which they are named. "They shall," he says,
"come over to thee and shall be thine: they shall walk after thee
bound with manacles." As there are chains of coercion, so too
there are chains of love, as the Lord says: "I drew them with
chains of love."[116] For indeed
great are these chains, and chains of ineffable love, for those who
are bound with them rejoice in their fetters. Do you want to know
whether this is true? Hear how the Apostle Paul exults and rejoices
in his chains, when he says: "I therefore a prisoner in the Lord
beseech you."[117] And again:
"I beseech thee, whereas thou art such an one as Paul the aged,
and now a prisoner also of Jesus Christ."[118] You see how he rejoiced in the
dignity of his chains, by the example of which he actually stirred up
others. But there can be no doubt that where there is single-minded
love of the Lord, there is also single-minded delight in chains worn
for the Lord's sake: as it is written: "But the multitude of the
believers was of one heart and one soul."[119] "And they shall worship
thee," he says, "and shall make supplication to thee: for in
thee is God, and there is no God beside thee." The Apostle
clearly explains the prophet's words, when he says that "God was
in Christ reconciling the world to Himself."[120] "In Thee then," he says,
"is God and there is no God beside thee." When the prophet
says "In Thee is God," most admirably does he point not
merely to Him who was visible, but to Him who was in what was visible,
distinguishing the indweller from Him in whom He dwelt, by pointing
out the two natures, not by denying the unity (of Person).
CHAPTER XII.
How the title of Saviour is given to Christ in one
sense, and to men in another.
"THOU," he says, "art our God, and we knew Thee not, O
God of Israel the Saviour." Although holy Scripture has already
shown by many and clear tokens, who is here spoken of, yet it has most
plainly pointed to the name of Christ by using the name of Saviour:
for surely the Saviour is the same as Christ, as the angel says:
"For to you is born this day a Saviour who is Christ the
Lord."[121] For everybody knows
that in Hebrew "Jesus" means "Saviour," as the
angel announced to the holy Virgin Mary, saying: "And thou shall
call His name Jesus, for He it is that shall save His people from
their sins."[122] And that you
may not say that He is termed Saviour in the same sense as the title
is given to others ("And the Lord raised up to them a Saviour,
Othniel the Son of Kenaz,"[123]
and again, "the Lord raised up to them a Saviour, Ehud the son of
Gera"[124]), he added: "for
He it is that shall save His people from their sins." But it
does not lie in the power of a man to redeem his people from the
captivity of sin,--a thing which is only possible for Him of whom it
is said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of
the world."[125] For the others
saved a people not their own but God's, and not from their sins, but
from their enemies.
CHAPTER XIII.
He explains who are those in whose person the
Prophet Isaiah says: "Thou art our God, and we knew Thee
not."
"THOU art then," he says, "our God, and we knew Thee
not, O God of Israel the Saviour." Who do you imagine chiefly
say this; and in whose mouths are such words specially suitable, Jews
or Gentiles? If you say Jews: certainly the Jews did not know Christ,
as it is said, "But Israel hath not known Me, My people have not
considered;"[126] and, "The
world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His
own, and His own received Him not."[127] But if you say Gentiles, it is
clear that the Gentile world was given over to idols, and knew not
Christ, though it knew not the Father any more; but still if it has
now come to know Him, it is only through Christ. You see then that
whether the believing people belong to the Jews or the Gentiles, in
either case they can truly say for themselves: "Thou art our God;
and we knew Thee not, O God of Israel the Saviour." For the
Gentiles who formerly worshipped idols knew not God; and the Jews who
denied the Lord, knew not the Son of God. And thus both truly say of
Christ: "Thou art our God and we knew Thee not." For those
who did not believe in God were as ignorant of Him as those who denied
the Son of God. If therefore Christ is to be believed in, as the
truth declares, as the Deity asserts, as indeed Christ Himself
declares, who is both, why are you miserably trying in your madness to
interpose between God and Christ? Why do you seek to divide His body
from the Son of God, and try to separate God from Himself? You are
severing what is one, and dividing what is joined together. Believe
the Word of God concerning God: for you cannot possibly make a better
confession of God's Divinity than by confessing with your voice that
which God teaches about Himself. For you must know that, as the
Prophet says, "the Lord Himself is God, who found out all the way
of knowledge; who was seen upon earth and conversed with men."[128] He brought the light of faith into
the world. He showed the light of salvation. "For God is the
Lord, and hath given us light."[129] Then believe Him, and love Him, and
confess Him. For since, as it is written, "Every knee shall bow
to Him, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the
earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord in the
glory of God the Father,"[130]
whether you will or no, you cannot deny that Jesus Christ is Lord in
the glory of God the Father. For this is the crowning virtue of a
perfect confession, to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is ever Lord and
God in the glory of God the Father.
BOOK V.
CHAPTER I.
He vehemently inveighs against the error of the
Pelagians, who declared that Christ was a mere man.
WE said in the first book that that heresy which copies and follows
the lead of Pelagianism, strives and contends in every way to make it
believed that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, when born of the
Virgin was only a mere man; and that having afterwards taken the path
of virtue He merited by His holy and pious life to be counted worthy
for this holiness of His life that the Divine Majesty should unite
Itself to Him: and thus by cutting off altogether from Him the honour
of His sacred origin, it only left to Him the selection on account of
His merits.[131] And their aim and
endeavour was this; viz., that, by bringing Him down to the level of
common men, and making Him one of the common herd, they might assert
that all men could by their good life and deeds secure whatever He had
secured by His good life.[132] A most
dangerous and deadly assertion indeed, which takes away what truly
belongs to God, and holds out false promises to men; and which should
be condemned for abominable lies on both sides, since it attacks God
with wicked blasphemy, and gives to men the hope of a false assurance.
A most perverse and wicked assertion as it gives to men what does not
belong to them, and takes away from God what is His. And so of this
dangerous and deadly evil this new heresy which has recently sprung
up,[133] is in a way stirring and
reviving the embers, and raising a fresh flame from its ancient ashes
by asserting that our Lord Jesus Christ was born a mere man. And so
why is there any need for us to ask whether its consequences are
dangerous, as in its fountain head it is utterly wrong. It is
unnecessary to examine what it is like in its issues, as in its
commencement it leaves us no reason for examination. For what object
is there in inquiring whether like the earlier heresy, it holds out
the same promises to man, if (which is the most awful sin) it takes
away the same things from God? So that it would be almost wrong, when
we see what it begins like, to ask what there is to follow; as if some
possible way might appear in the sequel, in which a man who denies
God, could prove that he was not irreligious. The new heresy then, as
we have already many times declared, says that the Lord Jesus Christ
was born of the Virgin Mary, only a mere man: and so that Mary should
be called Christotocos not Theotocos, because she was the mother of
Christ, not of God. And further to this blasphemous statement it adds
arguments that are as wicked as they are foolish, saying, "No one
ever gave birth to one who was before her." As if the birth of
the only begotten of God, predicted by prophets, announced since the
beginning of the world, could be dealt with or measured by human
reasons. Or did the Virgin Mary, O you heretic, whoever you are, who
slander her for her childbearing--bring about and consummate that
which came to pass, by her own strength, so that in a matter and event
of so great importance, human weakness can be brought as an objection?
And so if there was anything in this great event which was the work of
man, look for human arguments. But if everything, which was done, was
due to the power of God, why should you consider what is impossible
with men, when you see that it is the work of Divine power? But of
this more anon. Now let us follow up the subject we began to treat of
some little way back; that everybody may know that you are trying to
fan the flame in the ashes of Pelagianism, and to revive the embers by
breathing out fresh blasphemy.
CHAPTER II.
That the doctrine of Nestorius is closely connected
with the error of the Pelagians.
YOU say then that Christ was born a mere man. But certainly this was
asserted by that wicked heresy of Pelagius, as we clearly showed in
the first book; viz., that Christ was born a mere man. You add
besides, that Jesus Christ the Lord of all should be termed a form
that received God (Qeodocos), i.e., not God,
but the receiver of God, so that your view is that He is to be
honoured not for His own sake because He is God, but because He
receives God into Himself. But clearly this also was asserted by that
heresy of which I spoke before; viz., that Christ was not to be
worshipped for His own sake because He was God, but because owing to
His good and pious actions He won this; viz., to have God dwelling in
Him. You see then that you are belching out the poison of
Pelagianism, and hissing with the very spirit of Pelagianism. Whence
it comes that you seem rather to have been already judged, than to
have now to undergo judgment, for since your error is one and the
same, you must be believed to fall under the same condemnation: not to
mention for the present that you compare the Lord to a statue of the
Emperor, and break out into such wicked and blasphemous impieties that
you seem in this madness of yours to surpass even Pelagius himself,
who surpassed almost every one else in impiety.
CHAPTER III.
How this participation in Divinity which the
Pelagians and Nestorians attribute to Christ, is common to all holy
men.
YOU say then that Christ should be termed a form which received God
(Qeodocos), i.e., that He should be revered
not for His own sake because He is God, but because He received God
within Him. And so in this way you make out that there is no
difference between Him and all other holy men: for all holy men have
certainly had God within them. For we know well that God was in the
patriarchs, and that He spoke in the prophets. In a word we believe
that, I do not say apostles and martyrs, but, all the saints and
servants of God have within them the Spirit of God, according to this:
"Ye are the temple of the living God: as God said, For I will
dwell in them."[134] And again:
"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God
dwelleth in you?"[135] And thus
we are all receivers of God (Qeodocoi); and in
this way you say that all the saints are only like Christ, and equal
to God. But away with such a wicked and abominable heresy as that the
Creator should be compared to His creatures, the Lord to His servants,
the God of things earthly and heavenly, to earthly frailty: and out of
His very kindnesses this wrong be done to Him; viz., that He who
honours man by dwelling in him should therefore be said to be only the
same as man.
CHAPTER IV.
What the difference is between Christ and the
saints.
MOREOVER there is between Him and all the saints the same difference
that there is between a dwelling and one who dwells in it, for
certainly it is the doing of the dweller not the dwelling, if it is
inhabited, for on him it depends both to build the house and to occupy
it. I mean, that he can choose, if he will, to make it a dwelling,
and when he has made it, to live in it. "Or do you seek a
proof," says the Apostle, "of Christ speaking in
me?"[136] And elsewhere,
"Know ye not that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be
reprobate?"[137] And again:
"in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts by
faith."[138] Do you not see what
a difference there is between the Apostle's doctrine and your
blasphemies? You say that God dwells in Christ as in a man. He
testifies that Christ Himself dwells in men: which certainly, as you
admit, flesh and blood cannot do; so that He is shown to be God, from
the very fact from which you deny Him to be God. For since you cannot
deny that He who dwells in man is God, it follows that we must believe
that He, whom we know to dwell in men, is most decidedly God. All,
then, whether patriarchs, or prophets, or apostles, or martyrs, or
saints, had every one of them God within him, and were all made sons
of God and were all receivers of God
(Qeodocoi), but in a very different and
distinct way. For all who believe in God are sons of God by adoption:
but the only begotten alone is Son by nature: who was begotten of His
Father, not of any material substance, for all things, and the
substance of all things exist through the only begotten Son of
God--and not out of nothing, because He is from the Father: not like a
birth, for there is nothing in God that is void or mutable, but in an
ineffable and incomprehensible manner God the Father, wherein He
Himself was regenerate, begat his only begotten Son; and so from the
Most High, Ingenerate, and Eternal Father proceeds the Most High, Only
Begotten, and Eternal Son. Who must be considered the same Person in
the flesh as He is in the Spirit: and must be held to be the same
Person in the body as He is in glory, for when He was about to be born
in the flesh,[139] He made no division
or separation within Himself, as if some portion of Him was born while
another portion was not born: or as if some portion of Divinity
afterwards came upon Him, which had not been in Him at His birth from
the Virgin. For according to the Apostle, "all the fulness of
the Godhead dwelleth in Christ bodily."[140] Not that It dwells in Him at times,
and at times dwells not; nor that It was there at a later date, and
not an earlier one: otherwise we are entangled in that impious heresy
of Pelagius, so as to say that from a fixed moment God dwelt in
Christ, and that He then came upon Him; when He had won by His life
and conversation this; viz., that the power of the Godhead should
dwell in Him. These things then belong to men, to men, I say, not to
God,--that as far as human weakness can, they should humble themselves
to God, be subject to God, make themselves dwellings for God, and by
their faith and piety win this, to have God as their guest and
indweller. For in proportion as anyone is fit for God's gift, so does
the Divine grace reward him: in proportion as a man seems worthy of
him: in proportion as a man seems worthy of God, so does he enjoy
God's presence, according to the Lord's promise: "if any man love
Me, he will keep My word; and I and My Father will come to him and
make Our abode with Him."[141]
But very different is the case as regards Christ; in whom all the
fulness of the Godhead dwelleth bodily: for He has within Him the
fulness of the Godhead so that He gives to all of His fulness, and
He--as the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Him--Himself dwells in
each of the saints in proportion as He deems them worthy of His
Presence, and gives of His fulness to all, yet in such a way that He
Himself continues in all that fulness,--who even when He was on earth
in the flesh, yet was present in the hearts of all the saints, and
filled the heaven, the earth, the sea, aye and the whole universe with
His infinite power and majesty; and yet was so complete in Himself
that the whole world could not contain Him. For however great and
inexpressible whatever is made may be, yet there are no things so
boundless and infinite as to be able to contain the Creator
Himself.
CHAPTER V.
That before His birth in time Christ was always
called God by the prophets.
HE it is then of whom the Prophet says: "For in Thee is God, and
there is no God beside Thee. For Thou art our God and we knew Thee
not, O God of Israel the Saviour."[142] Who "afterwards appeared on
earth and conversed with men."[143] Of whom and in whose Person the
Prophet David also speaks: "From my mother's womb Thou art my
God:"[144] showing clearly that
He who was Lord and man[145] was never
separate from God: in whom even in the Virgin's womb the fulness of
the Godhead dwelt. As elsewhere the same Prophet says: "Truth
has sprung from the earth and righteousness hath looked down from
heaven,"[146] that we may know
that when the Son of God looked down from heaven (i.e., came and
descended), righteousness was born of the flesh of the Virgin, no
phantasm of a body, but the Truth: for He is the Truth, according to
His own witness of Truth: "I am the Truth and the life."[147] And so as we have proved in the
earlier books that this Truth; viz., the Lord Jesus Christ, was God
when born of the Virgin, let us now do as we determined to do in the
book before this, and show that He who was to be born of the Virgin,
was always declared to be God beforehand. And so the prophet Isaiah
says, "Cease ye from the man whose breath is in his nostrils, for
it is He in whom he is reputed to be;" or as it is more exactly
and clearly in the Hebrew: "for he is reputed high."[148] But by saying "cease ye,"
a term which deprecates violence, he admirably denotes the disturbance
of persecution. "Cease ye," he says, "from the man
whose breath is in his nostrils, for he is reputed high." Does
he not in one and the same sentence speak of the taking upon Him of
the manhood, and the truth of His Godhead? "Cease ye," he
says, "from the man whose breath is in his nostrils, for he is
reputed high." Does he not, I ask you, seem plainly to address
the Lord's persecutors, and to say, "Cease ye from the man"
whom ye are persecuting, for this man is God: and though He appears in
the lowliness of human flesh, yet He still continues in the high
estate of Divine glory? But by saying "Cease ye from the man
whose breath is in his nostrils," he admirably showed His
manhood, by the clearest tokens of a human body, and this fearlessly
and confidently, as one who would as urgently assert the truth of His
humanity as that of His Godhead, for this is the true and Catholic
faith, to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ possessed the substance
of a true body just as He possessed a true and perfect Divinity.
Unless possibly you think that anything can be made out of the fact
that he uses the word "High" instead of "God";
whereas it is the habit of holy Scripture to put "High" for
"God," as where the prophet says: "the Most High
uttered His voice and the earth was moved,"[149] and "Thou alone art Most High
over all the earth."[150] Isaiah
too, who says this: "The High and lofty one who inhabiteth
eternity":[151] where we are
clearly to understand that as he there puts Most High without adding
the name of God, so here too he speaks of God by the name of Most
High. So then, since the Divine word spoken by the prophet clearly
announced beforehand that the Lord Jesus Christ would be both God and
man, let us now see whether the New Testament corresponds to and
harmonizes with the testimony of the Old.
CHAPTER VI.
He illustrates the same doctrine by passages from
the New Testament.
"THAT," says the Apostle John, "which was from the
beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of
the life: for the life was manifested: and we have seen, and do bear
witness, and declare unto you the life eternal which was with the
Father, and hath appeared unto us."[152] You see how the old testimonies are
confirmed by fresh ones, and the support of the new preaching is given
to the ancient prophecy. Isaiah said: "Cease ye from the man
whose breath is in his nostrils for he is reputed high." But
John says: "That which was from the beginning, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have
handled." The former said that as man He would be persecuted by
the Jews: the latter declared that as man He was handled by men's
hands. The one predicted that He whom he announced as man, would be
God Most High: the other asserts that He whom he showed to have been
handled by men, was ever God in the beginning. It is then as clear as
possible that they both showed the Lord Jesus Christ to be both God
and man; and that the same Person was afterwards man who had always
been God, and thus He was God and man, because God Himself became man.
That then, he says, "which was from the beginning, which we have
heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon,
and our hands have handled of the word of life; and the life was
manifested, and we have seen, and do bear witness, and declare unto
you the life eternal which was with the Father, and hath appeared unto
us." You see the number of proofs and ways, very different and
numerous, in which that Apostle so well beloved and so devoted to God,
indicates the mystery of the Divine Incarnation. In the first
instance he testifies that He, who ever was in the beginning, was seen
in the flesh. Lest in case it might not seem sufficient for
unbelievers that he had spoken of Him as seen and heard, he supports
it by saying that He was handled, i.e., touched and felt by his own
hands and by those of others. Admirably indeed by showing how He took
flesh, does he shut out the view of the Marcionites and the error of
the Manichees, so that no one may think that a phantom appeared to
men, since an apostle has declared that a true body was handled by
him. Then he adds "the word of life: and the life was
manifested;" and that he saw it, announced it, and proclaimed it:
thus at the same time carrying out the duties of the faith and
striking the unbelievers with terror, that while he declares that he
proclaims Him, he may bring home the danger in which he stands, to the
man who will not listen. "We declare to you," he says,
"the life eternal which was with the Father, and hath appeared to
us." He teaches that that which was ever with the Father
appeared to men: and that which was ever in the beginning, was seen of
men: and that which was the Word of life without beginning, was
handled by men's hands. You see the number and variety, the
particularity and the clearness of the ways in which he unfolds the
mystery of the flesh joined to God, in such a way that no one could
speak at all of either without acknowledging both. As the Apostle
himself clearly says elsewhere: "For Jesus Christ is the same
yesterday, and to-day, and for ever."[153] This is what he said in the passage
given above: "That which was from the beginning, our hands have
handled." Not that a spirit can in its own nature be handled:
but that the Word made flesh was in a sense handled in the manhood
with which it was joined. And so Jesus is "the same yesterday
and to-day": i.e., the same Person before the commencement of the
world, as in the flesh; the same in the past as in the present, the
same also for ever, for He is the same through all the ages, as before
all the ages. And all this is the Lord Jesus Christ.
CHAPTER VII.
He shows again from the union in Christ of two
natures in one Person that what belongs to the Divine nature may
rightly be ascribed to man, and what belongs to the human nature to
God.
AND how was it the same Person before the origin of the world, who was
but recently born? Because it was the same Person, who was recently
born in human nature, who was God before the rise of all things. And
so the name of Christ includes everything that the name of God does;
for so close is the union between Christ and God that no one, when he
uses the name of Christ can help speaking of God under the name of
Christ, nor, when he speaks of God, can he help speaking of Christ
under the name of God. And as through the glory of His holy nativity
the mystery of each substance is joined together in Him, whatever was
in existence--I mean both human and Divine--all is regarded as God.
And hence the Apostle Paul seeing with unveiled eyes of faith the
whole mystery of the ineffable glory in Christ, spoke as follows, in
inviting the peoples who were ignorant of God's goodness to give
thanksgiving to God: "Giving thanks to the Father, who hath made
us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, who hath
delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into
the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through
His blood, the remission of sins; who is the image of the invisible
God, the first-born of every creature: for in Him were all things
created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones
or dominations, or powers: all things were created by Him and in Him.
And He is before all, and by Him all things consist. 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 may hold the primacy. Because it
pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell; and through
Him to reconcile all things unto Himself, making peace through the
blood of His cross, both as to the things on earth, and the things
that are in heaven."[154] Surely
this does not need the aid of any further explanation, as it is so
fully and clearly expressed that in itself it contains not merely the
substance of the faith, but a clear exposition of it. For he bids us
give thanks to the Father: and adds a weighty reason for thus giving
thanks; viz., because He hath made us worthy to be partakers with the
saints, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, hath
translated us unto the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have
redemption and remission of sins: who is the image of the invisible
God, the first-born of every creature; for in Him and through Him were
all things created; of which He is both the Creator and the ruler: and
what follows after this? "He is" he says, "the head of
the body the Church: who is the beginning, the first-born from the
dead." Scripture speaks of the resurrection as a birth: because
as birth is the beginning of life, so resurrection gives birth unto
life. Whence also the resurrection is actually spoken of as
regeneration, according to the words of the Lord: "Verily I say
unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the
Son of man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit
upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."[155] Therefore he calls Him the
first-born from the dead, whom he had previously declared to be the
invisible Son and image of God. But who is the image of the invisible
God, except the only-begotten, the Word of God? And how can we say
that He rose from the dead, who is termed the image and word of the
invisible God? And what is it that follows afterwards? "That in
all things He may hold the primacy: for it pleased the Father that in
Him should all fulness dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to
Himself, making peace through the blood of His cross, both as to
things on earth and the things that are in heaven." Surely the
Creator of all things has no need of the primacy in all things? Nor
He who made them, of the primacy of those things which were made by
Him? And how can we say of the Word, that it pleased God that all
fulness should dwell in Him who was the first-born from the dead, when
He was Himself the only-begotten Son of God and the Word of God,
before the origin of all things, and had within Him the invisible
Father, and so first had within Him all fulness, that He might Himself
be the fulness of all things? And what next? "Bringing all
things to peace through the blood of His cross, both things on earth,
and the things which are in heaven." Certainly he has made it as
clear as possible of whom he was speaking, when he called Him the
first-born from the dead. For are all things reconciled and brought
into peace through the blood of the Word or Spirit? Most certainly
not. For no sort of passion can happen to nature that is impassible,
nor can the blood of any but a man be shed, nor any but a man die: and
yet the same Person who is spoken of in the following verses as dead,
was above called the image of the invisible God. How then can this
be? Because the apostles took every possible precaution that it might
not be thought that there was any division in Christ, or that the Son
of God being joined to a Son of man, might come by wild
interpretations to be made into two Persons, and thus He who is in
Himself but one might by wrongful and wicked notions of ours, be made
into a double Person in one nature. And so most excellently and
admirably does the apostle's preaching pass from the only begotten Son
of God to the Son of man united to the Son of God, that the exposition
of the doctrine might follow the actual course of the things that
happened. And so he continues with an unbroken connexion, and makes
as it were a sort of bridge, that without any gap or separation you
might find at the end of time Him whom we read of as in the beginning
of the world; and that you might not by admitting some division and
erroneous separation imagine that the Son of God was one person in the
flesh and another in the Spirit; when the teaching of the apostle had
so linked together God and man through the mystery of His birth in the
body, so as to show that it was the same Person reconciling to Himself
all things on the Cross, who had been proclaimed the image of the
invisible God before the foundation of the world.
CHAPTER VIII.
He confirms the judgment of the Apostle by the
authority of the Lord.
AND though this is the saying of an Apostle, yet it is the very
doctrine of the Lord. For the same Person says this to Christians by
His Apostle, who had Himself said something very like it to Jews in
the gospel, when He said: "But now ye seek to kill me, a man, who
have spoken the truth to you, which I heard of God: for I am not come
of Myself, but He sent me."[156]
He clearly shows that He is both God and man: man, in that He says
that He is a man: God, in that He affirms that He was sent. For He
must have been with Him from whom He came: and He came from Him, from
whom He said that He was sent. Whence it comes that when the Jews
said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old and hast Thou seen
Abraham?" He replied in words that exactly suit His eternity and
glory, saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham
came into being, I am." [157] I
ask then, whose saying do you think this is? Certainly it is Christ's
without any doubt. And how could He who had been but recently born,
say that He was before Abraham? Simply owing to the Word of God, with
which He was entirely united, so that all might understand the
closeness of the union of Christ and God: since whatever God said in
Christ, that in its fulness the unity of the Divinity claimed for
Himself. But conscious of His own eternity, He rightly then when in
the body, replied to the Jews, with the very words which He had
formerly spoken to Moses in the Spirit. For here He says,
"Before Abraham came into being, I am." But to Moses He
says, "I am that I am."[158]
He certainly announced the eternity of His Divine nature with
marvellous grandeur of language, for nothing can be spoken so worthily
of God, as that He should be said ever to be. For "to
be" admits of no beginning in the past or end in the future. And
so this is very clearly spoken of the nature of the eternal God, as it
exactly describes His eternity. And this the Lord Jesus Christ
Himself, when He was speaking of Abraham, showed by the difference of
terms used, saying, "Before Abraham came into being I am."
Of Abraham he said, "Before he came into being:" Of Himself,
"I am," for it belongs to things temporal to come into
being: to be belongs to eternity. And so "to come into
being" He assigns to human transitoriness: but "to be"
to His own nature. And all this was found in Christ who, by virtue of
the mystery of the manhood and Divinity joined together in Him who
ever "was," could say that He already "was."
CHAPTER IX.
Since those marvellous works which from the days of
Moses were shown to the children of Israel are attributed to Christ,
it follows that He must have existed long before His birth in
time.
AND when the Apostle wanted to make this clear and patent to everybody
he spoke as follows, saying that, "Jesus having saved the people
out of the land of Egypt afterward destroyed them that believed
not."[159] But elsewhere too we
read: "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them tempted, and
were destroyed by serpents."[160]
Peter also the chief of the apostles says: "And now why tempt ye
God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our
fathers nor we have been able to bear. But we believe that we shall
be saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ even as they
were."[161] We know most
certainly that the people of God were delivered from Egypt, and led
dryshod through mighty tracts of water, and preserved in the vast
desert wastes, by none but God alone; as it is written: "The Lord
alone did lead them, and there was no strange God among them."[162] And how can an Apostle declare in
so many and such clear passages that the people of the Jews were
delivered from Egypt by Jesus, and that Christ was
at that time tempted by the Jews in the wilderness, saying,
"Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them tempted, and were
destroyed of the serpents"? And further the blessed Apostle
Peter says of all the saints who lived under the law of the Old
Covenant that they were saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Get out then, and wriggle out of this if you can--whoever you are--you
who rage with vapid mouth and a spirit of blasphemy, and think that
there is no difference at all between Adam and Christ; and you who
deny that He was God before His birth of the Virgin, show clearly how
you can prove that He was not God before His body came into existence.
For lo, an Apostle says that the people were saved out of the land of
Egypt by Jesus: and that Christ was tempted by unbelievers in the
wilderness: and that our fathers, i.e., the patriarchs and prophets,
were saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Deny it if you can.
I shall not be surprised if you manage to deny what we all read, as
you have already denied what we all believe. Know then that even then
it was Christ in God who led the people out of Egypt, and it was
Christ in God who was tempted by the people who tempted, and it was
Christ in God who saved all the righteous men by His lavish grace: for
through the oneness of the mystery (of the Incarnation) the terms God
and Christ so pass into each other, that whatever God did, that we may
say that Christ did; and whatever afterwards Christ bore, we may say
that God bore. And so when the prophet said, "There shall no new
God be in thee, neither shalt thou worship any other God,"[163] he announced it with the same
meaning and in the same spirit as that with which the Apostle said
that Christ was the leader of the people of Israel out of Egypt; to
show that He who was born of the Virgin as man, was even through the
unity of the mystery still in God. Otherwise, unless we believe this,
we must either believe with the heretics that Christ is not God, or
against the teaching of the prophet hold that He is a new God. But
may it be far from the Catholic people of God, to seem either to
differ from the prophet or to agree with heretics: or perchance the
people who should be blessed may be involved in a curse, and be
charged with putting their hope in man. For whoever declares that the
Lord Jesus Christ was at His birth a mere man, is doubly liable to the
curse, whether he believes in Him or not. For if he believes,
"Cursed is he who puts his hope in man."[164] But if he does not believe, none
the less is he still cursed, because though not believing in man, he
still has altogether denied God.
CHAPTER X.
He explains what it means to confess, and what it
means to dissolve Jesus.
FOR this it is which John, the man so dear to God, foresaw from the
Lord's own revelation to him and so spoke of Him, who was speaking in
him. "Every spirit," he says, "which confesseth Jesus
come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is
not of God: and this is the spirit of Antichrist, of whom you have
heard already, and he is now already in the world."[165] O the marvellous and singular
goodness of God, who like a most careful and skilful physician,
foretold beforehand the diseases that should come upon His Church, and
when He showed the mischief beforehand, gave in showing it, a remedy
for it: that all men when they saw the evil approaching, might at once
flee as far as possible from that which they already knew to be
imminent. And so Saint John says, "Every spirit that dissolveth
Jesus is not of God; and this is the spirit of Antichrist." Do
you recognize him, O you heretic? Do you recognize that it is plainly
and markedly spoken of you? For no one thus dissolves Jesus but he
who does not confess that He is God. For since in this consists all
the faith and all the worship of the Church; viz., to confess that
Jesus is very God; who can more dissolve His glory and worship than
one who denies the existence in Him of all that we all worship? Take
then, I beseech you, take care lest any one may even term you
Antichrist. Do you think that I am reviling and cursing? What I am
saying is not my own idea: for lo, the Evangelist says, "Every
one that dissolveth Jesus is not of God; and this is Antichrist."
If you do not dissolve Jesus, and deny God, no one may call you
Antichrist. But if you deny it why do you accuse any one for calling
you Antichrist? While you are denying it, I declare you have said it
of yourself. Would you like to know whether this is true? Tell me,
when Jesus was born of a Virgin, what do you make Him to be--man or
God? If God only, you certainly dissolve Jesus, as you deny that in
Him manhood was joined to Divinity. But if you say He was man, none
the less do you dissolve Him, as you blasphemously say that a mere man
(as you will have it) was born. Unless perhaps you think that you do
not dissolve Jesus, you who deny Him to be God, you who would
certainly dissolve Him even if you did not deny[166] that man was born together with God.
But possibly you would like this to be made clearer by examples. You
shall have them in both directions. The Manichees are outside the
Church, who declare that Jesus was God alone: and the Ebionites, who
say that he was a mere man. For both of them deny and dissolve Jesus:
the one by saying that He is only man, the other by saying that He is
only God. For though their opinions were the opposite of each other,
yet the blasphemy of these diverse opinions is much the same, except
that if any distinction can be drawn between the magnitude of the
evils, your blasphemy which asserts that He is a mere man is worse
than that which says that He is only God: for though both are wrong,
yet it is more insulting to take away from the Lord what is Divine
than what is human. This then alone is the Catholic and the true
faith; viz., to believe that as the Lord Jesus Christ is God so also
is He man; and that as He is man so also is He God. "Every one
who dissolves Jesus is not of God." But to dissolve Him is to
try to rend asunder what is united in Jesus; and to sever what is but
one and indivisible. But what is it in Jesus that is united and but
one? Certainly the manhood and the Godhead. He then dissolves Jesus
who severs these and rends them asunder. Otherwise, if he does not
rend them asunder and sever them, he does not dissolve Jesus: But if
he rends them asunder he certainly dissolves Him.[167]
CHAPTER XI.
The mystery of the Lord's Incarnation clearly
implies the Divinity of Christ.
AND so to every man who breaks out into this mad blasphemy, the Lord
Jesus in the gospel Himself repeats what He said to the Pharisees, and
declares: "What God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder."[168] For although
where it was originally spoken by God it seems to be in answer to
another matter, yet the deep wisdom of God which was speaking not more
of carnal than of spiritual things, would have this to be taken of
that subject indeed, but even more of this: for when the Jews of that
day believed with you that Jesus was only a man without Divinity, and
the Lord was asked a question about the union in marriage, in His
teaching He not only referred to it, but to this also: though
consulted about matters of less importance His answer applied to
greater and deeper matters, when he said, "What God hath joined
together, let not man put asunder," i.e., Do not sever what God
hath joined together in My Person. Let not human wickedness sever
that which the Divine Glory hath united in Me. But if you want to be
told more fully that this is so, hear the Apostle talking about these
very subjects of which the Saviour was then teaching, for he, as a
teacher sent from God that his weak-minded hearers might be able to
take in his teaching, expounded those very subjects which God had
proclaimed in a mystery. For when he was discussing the subject of
carnal union, on which the Saviour had been asked a question in the
gospel, he repeated those very passages from the old Law on which He
had dwelt, on purpose that they might see that as he was using the
same authorities he was expounding the same subject: besides which,
that nothing may seem to be wanting to his case, he adds the mention
of carnal union, and puts in the names of husband and wife whom he
exhorts to love one another: "Husbands, love your wives even as
Christ also loved the Church." And again: "So also ought
men to love their wives even as their own bodies. He that loveth his
wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh, but
nourisheth and cherisheth it, as Christ also doth the Church, for we
are members of His body."[169]
You see how by adding to the mention of man and wife the mention of
Christ and the Church, he leads all from taking it carnally to
understand it in a spiritual sense. For when he had said all this, he
added those passages which the Lord had applied in the Gospel, saying:
"For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh."
And after this with special emphasis he adds: "This is a great
mystery." He certainly altogether cuts off and gets rid of any
carnal interpretation, by saying that it is a Divine mystery. And
what did he add after this? "But I am speaking of Christ and the
Church." That is to say: "But that is a great mystery. But
I am speaking of Christ and the Church," i.e., since perhaps at
the present time all cannot grasp that, they may at least grasp this,
which is not at variance with it, nor different from it, because both
refer to Christ. But because they cannot grasp those more profound
truths let them at least take in these easier ones that by making a
commencement by grasping what lies on the surface, they may come to
the deeper truths, and that the acquisition of a somewhat simple
matter may open the way in time to what is more profound.
CHAPTER XII.
He explains more fully what the mystery is which is
signified under the name of the man and wife.
WHAT then is that great mystery which is signified under the name of
the man and his wife? Let us ask the Apostle himself, who elsewhere
to teach the same thing uses words of the same force, saying:
"And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was
manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in
glory."[170] What then is that
great mystery which was manifested in the flesh? Clearly it was God
born of the flesh, God seen in bodily form: who was openly received up
in glory just as He was openly manifested in the flesh. This then is
the great mystery, of which he says: "For this cause shall a man
leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they
two shall be one flesh." Who then were the two in one flesh?
God and the soul, for in the one flesh of man which is joined to God
are present God and the soul, as the Lord Himself says: "No man
can take My life (anima) away from Me. But I lay it down of Myself.
I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it
again."[171] You see then in
this, three; viz., God, the flesh, and the soul. He is God who
speaks: the flesh in which He speaks: the soul of which He speaks. Is
He therefore that man of whom the prophet says: "A brother cannot
redeem, nor shall a man redeem"?[172] Who, as it was said, "ascended
up where He was before,"[173] and
of whom we read: "No man hath ascended into heaven, but He who
came down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven."[174] For this cause, I say, He has left
his father and mother, i.e., God from whom He was begotten and that
"Jerusalem which is the mother of us all,"[175] and has cleaved to human flesh, as
to his wife. And therefore he expressly says in the case of the
father "a man shall leave his father," but in the
case of the mother he does not say "his," but simply says
"mother:" because she was not so much his mother, as the
mother of all believers, i.e., of all of us. And He was joined to his
wife, for just as man and wife make but one body, so the glory of
Divinity and the flesh of man are united and the two, viz., God and
the soul, become one flesh. For just as that flesh had God as an
indweller in it, so also had it the soul within it dwelling with God.
This then is that great mystery, to search out which our admiration
for the Apostle summons us, and God's own exhortation bids us: and it
is one not foreign to Christ and His Church, as he says, "But I
am speaking of Christ and the Church." Because the flesh of the
Church is the flesh of Christ, and in the flesh of Christ there is
present God and the soul: and so the same person is present in Christ
as in the Church, because the mystery which we believe in the flesh of
Christ, is contained also by faith in the Church.
CHAPTER XIII.
Of the longing with which the old patriarchs
desired to see the revelation of that mystery.
THIS mystery then, which was manifested in the flesh and appeared in
the world, and was preached to the Gentiles, many of the saints of old
longed to see in the flesh, as they foresaw it in the spirit. For
"Verily," saith the Lord, "I say unto you that many
prophets and righteous men have desired to see the things which ye
see, and have not seen them; and to hear the things which ye hear and
have not heard them."[176] And
so the prophet Isaiah says: "O that Thou, Lord, would rend the
heavens and come down,"[177] and
David too: "O Lord, bow the heavens and come down."[178] Moses also says: "Show me
Thyself that I may see Thee plainly."[179] No one ever approached nearer to
God speaking out of the clouds, and to the very presence of His glory
than Moses who received the law. And if no one ever saw more closely
into God than he did, why did he ask for a still clearer vision,
saying, "Show me Thyself that I may see Thee plainly"?
Simply because he prayed that this might happen which the apostle
tells us in almost the same words actually did happen; viz., that the
Lord might be openly manifested in the flesh, might openly appear to
the world, openly be received up in glory; and that at last the saints
might with their very bodily eyes see all those things which with
spiritual sight they had foreseen.
CHAPTER XIV.
He refutes the wicked and blasphemous notion of the
heretics who said that God dwelt and spoke in Christ as in an
instrument or a statue.
OTHERWISE, as the heretics say, God would in be in the Lord Jesus
Christ as in a statue or in an instrument, i.e., He would dwell as it
were in a man and speak as it were through a man, and it would not be
He who dwelt and spoke as God of Himself and in His own body: and
certainly He had already thus dwelt in the saints and spoken in the
persons of the saints. In those men too, of whom I spoke above, who
had prayed for His advent, He had thus dwelt and spoken. And what
need was there for all these to ask for what they already possessed,
if they were seeking for what they had previously received? Or why
should they long to see with their eyes what they were keeping in
their hearts, especially as it is better for a man to have the same
thing within himself than to see it outside? Or if God was to dwell
in Christ in the same way as in all the saints, why should all the
saints long to see Christ rather than themselves? And if they were
only to see the same thing in Jesus Christ, which they themselves
possessed, why should they not much rather prefer to have this in
themselves than to see it in another? But you are wrong, you wretched
madman, "not understanding," as the Apostle says, "what
you say and whereof you affirm":[180] for all the prophets and all the
saints received from God some portion of the Divine Spirit as they
were able to bear it. But in Christ "all the fulness of the
Godhead" dwelt and "dwells bodily." And therefore they
all fall far short of His fulness, from whose fulness they receive
something: for the fact that they are filled is the gift of Christ:
because they would all certainly be empty, were He not the fulness of
all.
CHAPTER XV.
What the prayers of the saints for the coming of
Messiah contained; and what was the nature of that longing of
theirs.
THIS then all the saints wished for: for this they prayed. This they
longed to see with their eyes in proportion as they were wise in heart
and mind. And so the prophet Isaiah says: "O that Thou wouldst
rend the heavens and come down."[181] But Habakkuk too declaring the same
thing which the other was wishing for, says: "When the years draw
nigh, Thou wilt show Thyself: at the coming of the times Thou wilt be
manifested: God will come from Teman," or "God will come
from the south."[182] David
also: "God will clearly come:" and again: "Thou that
sittest above the Cherubim, show Thyself."[183] Some declared His advent which He
presented to the world: others prayed for it. Some in different forms
but all with equal longing: understanding up to a certain point how
great a thing they were praying for, that God dwelling in God, and
continuing in the form and bosom of God, might "empty
Himself,"[184] and take the form
of a servant and submit Himself to endure all the bitterness and
insults of the passion, and undergo punishment for His goodness, and
what is hardest, and the most disgraceful thing of all, meet with
death at the hands of those very persons for whom He would die. All
the saints then understanding this up to a certain point--up to a
certain point, I say, for how vast it is none can understand--with
concordant voice and (so to speak) by mutual consent all prayed for
the advent of God: for indeed they knew that the hope of all men lay
therein, and that the salvation of all was bound up in this, because
no one could loose the prisoners except one who was Himself free from
chains: no one could release sinners, save one Himself without sin:
for no one can in any case set free anyone, unless he is himself free
in that particular, in which another is freed by him. And so when
death had passed on all, all were wanting in life, that, dying in
Adam, they might live in Christ. For though there were many saints,
many elect and even friends of God, yet none could ever of themselves
be saved, had they not been saved by the advent of the Lord and His
redemption.
BOOK VI.
CHAPTER I.
From the miracle of the feeding of the multitude
from five barley loaves and two fishes he shows the majesty of Divine
Power.
WE read in the gospel that when five loaves were at the Lord's bidding
brought to Him an immense number of God's people were fed with them.
But how this was done it is impossible to explain, or to
understand or to imagine. So great and so incomprehensible is the
might of Divine Power, that though we are perfectly assured of the
fact, yet we are unable to understand the manner of
the fact. For first one would have to comprehend how so small a
number of loaves could be sufficient, I will not say for them to eat
and be filled, but even to be divided and set before them, when there
were many more thousands of men than there were loaves; and almost
more companies than there could be fragments of the whole number of
loaves. The plentiful supply then was the creation of the word of the
Lord. The work grew in the doing of it. And though what was visible
was but little; yet what was given to them became more than could be
reckoned. There is then no room for conjecture, for human
speculation, or imagination. The only thing in such a case is that
like faithful and wise men we should acknowledge that, however great
and incomprehensible are the things which are done by God, even if
they are altogether beyond our comprehension, we must recognize that
nothing is impossible with God. But of these unspeakable acts of
Divine Power, we will, as the subject demands it, speaks more fully
later on, because it exactly corresponds to the ineffable miracles of
His Holy Nativity.
CHAPTER II.
The author adapts the mystery of the number seven
(made up of the five loaves and two fishes) to his own work.
MEANWHILE as we have alluded to the five loaves, I think it will not
be out of place to make a comparison of the five books which we have
already composed. For as they are equal in number, so they are not
dissimilar in character. For as the loaves were of barley, so these
books may (as far as my ability is concerned) be fairly termed
"of barley," although they are enriched with passages from
Holy Scripture, and contain life-giving treasures in contemptible
surroundings. And even in this point they are not unlike those
loaves, for though they were poor things to look at, yet they proved
to be rich in blessing: and so these books, though, as far as my
powers are concerned, they are worthless, yet they are valuable from
the sacred matter which is mingled with them: and though they appear
outwardly worthless like barley owing to my words, yet within they
have the savour of the bread of life owing to the testimonies from the
Lord Himself. It remains that, after His example, they may, by the
gift of Divine grace, furnish life-giving food from countless seeds.
And as those loaves supplied bodily strength to those who ate them, so
may these give spiritual vigour to those who read them. But as then
the Lord, from whom this gift comes as did that, by means of that food
provided that they might be filled and so should not faint by the way,
so now is He able to bring it about that by means of this men may be
filled and not err (from the faith). But still because there, where a
countless host of God's people was fed with a mighty gift, though
there was very little for them to eat, we read that to those five
loaves there were added two fishes, it is fitting that we too, who are
anxious to give to all God's people who are following, the nourishment
of a spiritual repast, should add to those five books corresponding to
the five loaves, two more books corresponding to the two fishes:
praying and beseeching Thee, O Lord, that Thou wilt look on our
efforts and prayers, and grant a prosperous issue to our pious
undertaking. And since we, out of our love and obedience, desire to
make the number of our books correspond to the number of loaves and
fishes, do Thou grant the virtue of Thy Benediction upon them; and, as
Thou dost bless[185] this little work
of ours with a gospel number, so mayest Thou fill up the number with
the fruit of the gospel, and grant that this may be for holy and
saving food to all the people of Thy Church, of every age and sex.
And if there are some who are affected by the deadly breath of that
poisonous serpent, and in an unhealthy state of soul and spirit have
caught a pestilential disease in their feeble dispositions, give to
them all the vigour of health, and entire soundness of faith, that by
granting to them all, by means of these writings of ours, the saving
care of Thy gift--just as that food in the gospel was completely
sanctified by Thee, so that by eating it those hungry souls were
strengthened,--so mayest Thou bid languid souls to be healed by
these.
CHAPTER III.
He refutes his opponent by the testimony of the
Council of Antioch.
THEREFORE since we have, as I fancy, already in all the former books
with the weight of sacred testimonies, given a complete answer to the
heretic who denies God, now let us come to the faith of the Creed of
Antioch and its value. For as he[186]
was himself baptized and regenerated in this, he ought to be confuted
by his own profession, and (so to speak) to be crushed beneath the
weight of his own arms, for this is the method, that as he is already
convicted by the evidence of holy Scripture, so now he may be
convicted by evidence out of his own mouth. Nor will there be any
need to bring anything else to bear against him when he has clearly
and plainly convicted himself. The text then and the faith of the
Creed of Antioch is this.[187]
"I believe in one and the only true God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus
Christ, His only begotten Son, and the first-born of every creature,
begotten of Him before all worlds, and not made: Very God of Very God,
Being of one substance with the Father: By whom both the worlds were
framed, and all things were made. Who for us came, and was born of the
Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried:
and the third day He rose again according to the Scripture: and
ascended into heaven, and shall come again to judge the quick and the
dead," etc.[188] In the Creed
which gives the faith of all the Churches, I should like to know which
you would rather follow, the authority of men or of God? Though I
would not press hardly or unkindly upon you, but give the opportunity
of choosing whichever alternative you please, that accepting one, I
may deny the other: for I will grant you and yield to you either of
them. And what do I grant, I ask? I will force you to one or other
even against your will. For you ought, if you like, to understand of
your own free will that one or other of these is in the Creed: if you
don't like it, you must be forced against your will to see it. For,
as you know, a Creed (Symbolum) gets its name from being a
"collection."[189] For what
is called in Greek sumbolos is termed in Latin
"Collatio." But it is therefore a collection (collatio)
because when the faith of the whole Catholic law was collected
together by the apostles of the Lord, all those matters which are
spread over the whole body of the sacred writings with immense fulness
of detail, were collected together in sum in the matchless brevity of
the Creed, according to to the Apostle's words: "Completing His
word, and cutting it short in righteousness: because a short word
shall the Lord make upon the earth."[190] This then is the "short
word" which the Lord made, collecting together in few words the
faith of both of His Testaments, and including in a few brief clauses
the drift of all the Scriptures, building up His own out of His own,
and giving the force of the whole law in a most compendious and brief
formula. Providing in this, like a most tender father, for the
carelessness and ignorance of some of his children, that no mind
however simple and ignorant might have any trouble over what could so
easily be retained in the memory.
CHAPTER IV.
How the Creed has authority Divine as well as
human.
YOU see then that the Creed has the authority of God: for "a
short word will the Lord make upon the earth." But perhaps you
want the authority of men: nor is that wanting, for God made it by
means of men. For as He fashioned the whole body of the sacred
Scriptures by means of the patriarchs and more particularly his own
prophets, so He formed the Creed by means of His apostles and priests.
And whatever He enlarged on in these (in Scripture) with copious and
abundant material, He here embraced in a most complete and compendious
form by means of His own servants. There is nothing wanting then in
the Creed; because as it was formed from the Scriptures of God by the
apostles of God, it has in it all the authority it can possibly have,
whether of men or of God: Although too that which was made by men,
must be accounted God's work, for we should not look on it so much as
their work, by whose instrumentality it was made, but rather as His,
who was the actual maker. "I believe," then, says the
Creed, "in one true and only God, the Father Almighty, Maker of
all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, His
only begotten Son and the first-born of every creature; Begotten of
Him before all worlds, and not made; Very God of Very God, being of
one substance with the Father; by whom both the worlds were framed and
all things were made; who for us came, and was born of the Virgin
Mary; and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And the
third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into
heaven: and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead,"
etc.
CHAPTER V.
He proceeds against his opponent with the choicest
arguments, and shows that we ought to hold fast to the religion which
we have received from our fathers.
IF you were an assertor of the Arian or Sabellian heresy, and did not
use your own creed, I would still confute you by the authority of the
holy Scriptures; I would confute you by the words of the law itself; I
would refute you by the truth of the Creed which has been approved
throughout the whole world. I would say that, even if you were void
of sense and understanding, yet still you ought at least to follow
universal consent: and not to make more of the perverse view of a few
wicked men than of the faith of all the Churches: which as it was
established by Christ, and handed down by the apostles ought to be
regarded as nothing but the voice of the authority of God, which is
certainly in possession of the voice and mind of God. And what then
if I were to deal with you in this way? What would you say? What
would you answer? Would it not, I adjure you, be this: viz., that you
had not been trained up and taught in this way: that something
different had been delivered to you by your parents, and masters, and
teachers. That you did not hear this in the meeting place of your
father's teaching, nor in the Church of your Baptism: finally that the
text and words of the Creed delivered and taught to you contained
something different. That in it you were baptized and regenerated.
You would say that you would hold fast this which you had received,
and that you would live in that Creed in which you learnt that you
were regenerated. When you said this, would you not, I pray, fancy
that you were using a very strong shield even against the truth? And
indeed it would be no unreasonable defence, even in a bad business,
and one which would give no bad excuse for error, if it did not unite
obstinacy with error. For if you held this, which you had received
from your childhood, we should try to amend and correct your present
error, rather than be severe in punishing your past fault: Whereas
now, as you were born in a Catholic city, instructed in the Catholic
faith, and regenerated with Catholic Baptism, how can I deal with you
as with an Arian or Sabellian? Would that you were one! I should
grieve less had you been brought up in what was wrong, instead of
having fallen away from what was right: had you never received the
faith, instead of having lost it: had you been an old heretic instead
of a fresh apostate, for you would have brought less scandal and harm
on the whole Church; finally it would have been a less bitter sorrow,
and less injurious example had you been able to try the Church as a
layman rather than a priest. Therefore, as I said above, if you had
been a follower and assertor of Sabellianism or Arianism or any heresy
you please, you might shelter yourself under the example of your
parents, the teaching of your instructors, the company of those about
you, the faith of your creed. I ask, O you heretic, nothing unfair,
and nothing hard. As you have been brought up in the Catholic faith,
do that which you would do for a wrong belief. Hold fast to the
teaching of your parents. Hold fast the faith of the Church: hold
fast the truth of the Creed: hold fast the salvation of baptism. What
sort of a wonder--what sort of a monster are you? You will not do for
yourself what others have done for their errors. But we have launched
out far enough: and out of love for a city that is connected with
us,[191] have yielded to our grief as
to a strong wind, and while we were anxious to make way, have overshot
the mark of our proper course.
CHAPTER VI.
Once more he challenges him to the profession of
the Creed of Antioch.
THE Creed then, O you heretic, of which we gave the text above, though
it is that of all the churches (for the faith of all is but one) is
yet specially that of the city and Church of Antioch, i.e., of that
Church in which you were brought up, instructed, and regenerated. The
faith of this Creed brought you to the fountain of life, to saving
regeneration, to the grace of the Eucharist, to the Communion of the
Lord: And what more! Alas for the grievous and mournful complaint!
Even to the ministerial office, the height of the presbyterate, the
dignity of the priesthood. Do you, you wretched madman, think that
this is a light or trivial matter? Do you not see what you have done?
Into what a depth you have plunged yourself? In losing the faith of
the Creed, you have lost everything that you were. For the mysteries
of the priesthood and of your salvation rested on the truth of the
Creed. Can you possibly deny that? I say that you have denied your
very self. But perhaps you think that you cannot deny yourself. Let
us look at the text of the Creed; that if you say what you used to do,
you may not be refuted, but if you say things widely different and
contrary, you may not look to be confuted by me, as you have condemned
yourself already. For if you now maintain something else than what is
in the Creed and what you formerly maintained yourself, how can you
help ascribing your punishment to nobody but yourself, when you see
that the opinion of everybody else about you is the same as your own?
"I believe," the Creed says, "in one God, the Father
Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in the Lord
Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, the first-born of every creature;
Begotten of Him before all worlds, and not made." It is well
that you should first reply to this: Do you confess this of Jesus
Christ the Son of God, or do you deny it? If you confess it,
everything is right enough. But if not, how do you now deny what you
yourself formerly confessed? Choose then which you will: Of two
things one must follow; viz., that that same confession of yours, if
it still holds good, should alone set you free, or if you deny it, be
the first to condemn you. For you said in the Creed: "I believe
in one Lord Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, and the first-born of
every creature." If the Lord Jesus Christ is the only begotten,
and the first-born of every creature, then by our own confession He is
certainly God. For no other is the only begotten and first-born of
every creature but the only begotten Son of God: as He is the
first-born of the creatures, so He is also God the Creator of all.
And how can you say that He was a mere man at His birth from the
Virgin, whom you confessed to be God before the world. Next the Creed
says: "Begotten of the Father before all worlds, and not
made." This Creed was uttered by you. You said by your Creed,
that Jesus Christ was begotten before the worlds of God the Father,
and not made. Does the Creed say anything about those phantasms, of
which you now rave? Did you yourself say anything about them? Where
is the statue? Where that instrument of yours, I pray? For God
forbid that this should be another's and not yours. Where is it that
you assert that the Lord Jesus Christ is like a statue, and so you
think that He ought to be worshipped not because He is God, but
because He is the image of God; and out of the Lord of glory you make
an instrument, and blasphemously say that He ought to be adored not
for His own sake, but for the sake of Him who (as it were) breathes in
Him and sounds through Him? You said in the Creed that the Lord Jesus
Christ was begotten of the Father before all worlds, and not made: and
this certainly belongs to none but the only begotten Son of God: that
His birth should not be a creation, and that He could be said simply
to be begotten, not made: for it is contrary to the nature of things
and to His honour that the Creator of all should be believed to be a
creature: and that He, the author of all things that have a
commencement, should Himself have a beginning, as all things began
from Him. And so we say that He was begotten not made: for His
generation was unique and no ordinary creation. And since He is God,
begotten of God, the Godhead of Him who is begotten must have
everything complete which the majesty of Him who begat has.
CHAPTER VII.
He continues the same line of argument drawn from
the Creed of Antioch.
BUT there follows in the Creed: "Very God of Very God; Being of
one substance with the Father; by whom both the worlds were framed,
and all things were made." And when you said all this, remember
that you said it all of the Lord Jesus Christ. For you find stated in
the Creed: that you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the only
begotten Son of God, and the first-born of every creature: and after
this and other clauses: "Very God of Very God, Being of one
substance with the Father; by whom also the worlds were framed."
How then can the same Person be God and not God; God and a statue; God
and an instrument? These do not harmonize, you heretic, in any one
Person, nor do they fit together, so that you can, when you like, call
Him God; and when you like, consider the same Person a creation. You
said in the Creed, "Very God." Now you say: "a mere
man." How can these things fit together and harmonize so that
one and the same Person may be the greatest Power, and utter weakness:
the Highest glory, and mere mortality? These things do not meet
together in one and the same Lord. So that severing Him for worship
and for degradation, on one side, you may do Him honour as you like,
and on the other, you may injure Him as you like. You said in the
Creed when you received the Sacrament of true Salvation: "the
Lord Jesus Christ, Very God of Very God, Being of one substance with
the Father, Creator of the worlds, Maker of all things." Where
are you alas! Where is your former self? Where is that faith of
yours? Where that confession? How have you fallen back and become a
monstrosity and a prodigy? What folly, what madness was your ruin?
You turned the God of all power and might into inanimate material and
a lifeless creation: Your faith has certainly grown in time, in age,
and in the priesthood. You are worse as an old man than formerly as a
child: worse now as a veteran than as a tyro: worse as a Bishop than
you were as a novice: nor were you ever a learner after you had begun
to be a teacher.
CHAPTER VIII.
How it can be said that Christ came and was born of
a Virgin.
BUT let us look at the remainder which follows. As then the Creed
says: "The Lord Jesus Christ, Very God of Very God, Being of one
substance with the Father; By whom both the worlds were framed, and
all things were made," it immediately subjoins in closest
connexion the following, and says: "Who for us came and was born
of the Virgin Mary." He then, who is Very God, who is of one
substance with the Father, who is the Maker of all things, He, I
repeat, came into the world and was born of the Virgin Mary; as the
Apostle Paul says: "But when the fulness of the times was come,
God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law."[192] You see how the mysteries of the
Creed correspond with the Holy Scriptures. The Apostle declares that
the Son of God was "sent from the Father:" The Creed affirms
that He "came." For it certainly follows that our faith
should confess that He has "come," whom the Apostle had
taught us to be sent. Then the Apostle says: "Made of a
woman:" The Creed, "born of Mary." And so you see that
there speaks through the Creed the Scripture itself, from which the
Creed acknowledges that it is itself derived. But when the Apostle
says, "made of a woman," he rightly enough uses
"made" for "born," after the manner of Holy
Scripture in which "made" stands for "born:" as in
this passage: "Instead of thy fathers there are made to thee
sons:"[193] or this: "Before
Abraham was made, I am;"[194]
where we certainly see clearly that He meant "Before he was born,
I am:" alluding to the fact of his birth under the term "was
made," because whatever does not need to be made has the very
reality of creation. "Who," it then says, "for us came
and was born of the Virgin Mary." If a mere man was born of
Mary, how can it be said that He "came"? For no one
"comes" but He who has it in Him to be able to come. But in
the case of one who had not yet received His existence, how could He
have it in Him to come. You see then how by the word
"coming" it is shown that He who came was already in
existence: for He only had the power to come, to whom there could be
the opportunity of coming, from the fact that He was already existing.
But a mere man was certainly not in existence before he was conceived,
and so had not in himself the power to come. It is clear then that it
was God who came: to whom it belongs in each case both to be,
and to come. For certainly He came because He
was, and He ever was, because He could ever
come.
CHAPTER IX.
Again he convicts his opponent of deadly heresy by
his own confession.
BUT why are we arguing about words, when the facts are clear enough?
and seeking for a determination of the matter from the terms of the
Creed, when the Creed itself deals with the question. Let us repeat
the confession of the Creed, and of you yourself (for yours it is as
well as the Creed's, for you made it yours by confessing it), that you
may see that you have departed not only from the Creed but from
yourself. "I believe" then, says the Creed, "In one
only true God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and
invisible: And in the Lord Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, and
the first-born of every creature: Begotten of Him before all worlds
and not made; Very God of Very God; Being of one substance with the
Father; By whom both the worlds were framed, and all things were made.
Who for us came, and was born of the Virgin Mary." "For
us" then the Creed says, our Lord Jesus Christ "came and was
born of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate; and
was buried, and rose again according to the Scriptures." The
Churches are not ashamed to confess this: the Apostles were not
ashamed to preach it. You yourself, you, I say, whose every utterance
is now blasphemy, you who now deny everything, you did not deny all
these truths: that God was born; that God suffered, that God rose
again. And what next? Whither have you fallen? What have you
become? To what are you reduced? What do you say? What are you
vomiting forth? What, as one says, even mad Orestes himself would
swear to be the words of a madman.[195] For what is it that you say?
"Who then is the Son of God who was born of the Christotocos? As
for instance if we were to say I believe in God the Word, the only Son
of God, begotten of His Father, Being of one substance with the
Father, who came down and was buried, would not our ears be shocked at
the sound? God dead?" And again: "Can it possibly be, you
say, that He who was begotten before all worlds, should be born a
second time, and be God?" If all these things cannot possibly
be, how is it that the Creed of the Churches says that they did
happen? How is it that you yourself said that they did? For let us
compare what you now say with what you formerly said. Once you said:
"I believe in God the Father Almighty; and in Jesus Christ His
Son, Very God of Very God; Being of one substance with the Father; who
for us came and was born of the Virgin Mary; and was crucified under
Pontius Pilate; and was buried." But now what is it that you
say? "If we should say: I believe in God the Word, the only Son
of God, Begotten of His Father; Being of one substance with the
Father, who came down and was buried, would not our ears be shocked at
the sound?" The bitterness indeed and blasphemy of your words
might drive us to a furious and ferocious attack in answer; but we
must somewhat curb the reins of our pious sorrow.
CHAPTER X.
He inveighs against him because though he has
forsaken the Catholic religion, he nevertheless presumes to teach in
the Church, to sacrifice, and to give decisions.
I APPEAL then to you, to you yourself, I say. Tell me, I pray, if any
Jew or pagan denied the Creed of the Catholic faith, should you think
that we ought to listen to him? Most certainly not. What if a
heretic or an apostate does the same? Still less should we listen to
him, for it is worse for a man to forsake the truth which he has
known, than to deny it without ever having known it. We see then two
men in you: a Catholic and an apostate: first a Catholic, afterwards
an apostate. Determine for yourself which you think we ought to
follow: for you cannot press the claims of the one in yourself without
condemning the other. Do you say then that it is your former self
which is to be condemned: and that you condemn the Catholic Creed, and
the confession and faith of all men? And what then? O shameful deed!
O wretched grief! What are you doing in the Catholic Church, you
preventer of Catholics? Why is it that you, who have denied the faith
of the people, are still polluting the meetings of the people: And
above all venture to stand at the altar, to mount the pulpit, and show
your impudent and treacherous face to God's people--to occupy the
Bishop's throne, to exercise the priesthood, to set yourself up as a
teacher? To teach the Christians what? Not to believe in Christ: to
deny that He in whose Divine temple they are, is God.[196] And after all this, O folly! O
madness! you fancy that you are a teacher and a Bishop, while (O
wretched blindness) you are denying His Divinity, His Divinity (I
repeat it) whose priest you claim to be. But we are carried away by
our grief. What then says the Creed? or what did you yourself say in
the Creed? Surely "the Lord Jesus Christ, Very God of Very God;
Being of one substance with the Father; By whom the worlds were
created and all things made:" and that this same Person "for
us came and was born of the Virgin Mary." Since then you said
that God was born of Mary, how can you deny that Mary was the mother
of God? Since you said that God came, how can you deny that He is God
who has come? You said in the Creed: "I believe in Jesus Christ
the Son of God: I believe in Very God of Very God, of one substance
with the Father: who for us came and was born of the Virgin Mary; and
was crucified under Pontius Pilate; and was buried." But now you
say: "If we should say, I believe in God the Word, the only Son
of God, Begotten of the Father, of one substance with the Father; who
came and was buried, would not our ears be shocked at the sound?"
Do you see then how you are utterly destroying and stamping out the
whole faith of the Catholic Creed and the Catholic mystery? "O
Sin, O monstrosity, to be driven away," as one says,[197] "to the utmost parts of the
earth:" for this is more truly said of you, that you may forsooth
go into that solitude where you will not be able to find anyone to
ruin. You think then that the faith of our salvation, and the mystery
of the Church's hope is a shock to your ears and hearing. And how was
it that formerly when you were hastening to be baptized, you heard
these mysteries with unharmed ears? How was it that when the
teachers of the church were instructing you your ears were not
damaged? You certainly at that time did your duty without any double
shock to your mouth and ears; when you repeated what you heard from
others, and as the speaker yourself heard yourself speaking. Where
then were these injuries to your ears? Where these shocks to your
hearing? Why did you not contradict and cry out against it? But
indeed you are at your will and fancy, when you please, a disciple;
and when you please, the Church's enemy: when you please a Catholic,
and when you please an apostate. A worthy leader indeed, to draw
Churches after you, to whatever side you attach yourself; to make your
will the law of our life, and to change mankind as you yourself
change, that, as you will not be what all others are, they may be what
you want![198] A splendid authority
indeed, that because you are not now what you used to be, the world
must cease to be what it formerly was!
CHAPTER XI.
He removes the silent objection of heretics who
want to recant the profession of their faith made in childhood.
BUT perhaps you say that you were a baby when you were regenerated,
and so were not then able to think or to contradict. It is true: that
your infancy did prevent you from contradicting, when if you
had been a man you would have died for contradicting. For what if
when in that most faithful and devout Church of Christ the priest
delivered the Creed[199] to the
Catechumen and the attesting people, you had tried to hold your tongue
at any point, or to contradict? Perhaps you would have been heard,
and not sent forth at once like some new kind of monster or prodigy as
a plague to be expelled. Not because that most earnest and religious
people of God has any wish to be stained with the blood of even the
worst of men: but because especially in great cities the people
inflamed with the love of God cannot restrain the ardour of their
faith when they see anyone rise up against their God. But be it so.
As a baby, if it be so, you could not contradict and deny the Creed.
Why did you hold your tongue when you were older and stronger. At any
rate you grew up, and became a man, and were placed in the ministry of
the Church. Through all these years, through all the steps of office
and dignity, did you never understand the faith which you taught so
long before? At any rate you knew that you were His deacon and
priest. If the rule of salvation was a difficulty to you, why did you
undertake the honour of that, of which you disliked the faith? But
indeed you were a far sighted and simply devout man, who wished so to
balance yourself between the two, as to maintain both your wicked
blasphemy, and the honour of Catholicity!
CHAPTER XII.
Christ crucified is an offence and foolishness to
those who declare that He was a mere man.
THE shock then to your hearing and ears is that God was born, and God
suffered. And where is that saying of yours, O Apostle Paul:
"But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a stumbling
block, but to the Gentiles foolishness: but to them that are called,
both Jews and Greeks, Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of
God."[200] What is the Wisdom
and Power of God? Certainly it is God. But he preaches Christ who was
crucified, as the Power and Wisdom of God. If then Christ is without
any doubt the Wisdom of God, He is therefore without any doubt God.
"We," then, he says, "preach Christ crucified, to the
Jews indeed a stumbling block, but to the Gentiles foolishness."
And so the Lord's cross, which was foolishness to the Gentiles and a
stumbling block to the Jews is both together to you. Nor indeed is
there any greater foolishness than not to believe, or any greater
stumbling block than to refuse to listen. Their ears were wounded
then by the preaching and the passion of God, just as yours are
wounded now. They thought as you think that this shocked their ears.
And hence it was that when the Apostle was preaching Christ as God, at
the name of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, they stopped the ears in
their head, as you stop the ears of your understanding. The sin of
both of you in this matter might seem to be equal, were it not that
your fault is the greater, because they denied Him, in whom the
passion still showed the manhood,[201]
while you deny Him, whom the resurrection has already proved to be
God. And so they were persecuting Him on the earth, whom you are
persecuting even in heaven. And not only so, but this is more cruel
and wicked, because they denied Him in ignorance,
you deny Him after having received the faith: they
not knowing the Lord, you when you have confessed Him as God:
they under cover of zeal for the law, you under the
cloke of your Bishopric: they denied Him to whom they thought
that they were strangers, you deny Him whose priest you are.
O unworthy act, and one never heard of before! You persecute and
attack the very One, whose office you are still holding.
CHAPTER XIII.
He replies to the objection in which they say that
the child born[202] ought to be of one
substance with the mother.
BUT indeed in your deceit and blasphemy you use a grand argument for
denying and attacking the Lord God, when you say that "the child
born ought to be of one substance with the mother."[203] I do not entirely admit it, and
maintain that in the matter of the birth of God it would not be
observed; for the birth was not so much the work of her who bore Him
as of her Son, and He was born as He willed, whose doing it was that
He was born. Next, if you say that the child born ought to be of one
substance with the parent, I affirm that the Lord Jesus Christ was of
one substance with His Father, and also with His mother. For in
accordance with the difference of the Persons He showed a likeness to
each parent. For according to His Divinity He was of one substance
with the Father: but according to the flesh He was of one substance
with His mother. Not that it was one Person who was of one substance
with the Father, and another who was of one substance with His mother,
but because the same Lord Jesus Christ, both born as man, and also
being God, had in Him the properties of each parent, and in that He
was man He showed a likeness to His human mother, and in that He was
God He possessed the very nature of God the Father.
CHAPTER XIV.
He compares this erroneous view with the teaching
of the Pelagians.
OTHERWISE if Christ who was born of Mary is not the same Person as He
who is of God, you certainly make two Christs; after the manner of
that abominable error of Pelagius, which in asserting that a mere man
was born of the Virgin, said that He was the teacher rather than the
redeemer of mankind; for He did not bring to men redemption of life
but only an example of how to live, i.e., that by following Him men
should do the same sort of things and so come to a similar state.
Your blasphemy then has but one source, and the root of the errors is
one and the same. They maintain that a mere man was born of Mary: you
maintain the same. They sever the Son of man from the Son of God: you
do the same. They say that the Saviour was made the Christ by His
baptism: you say that in baptism He became the Temple of God. They do
not deny that He became God after His Passion: you deny Him even after
His ascension. In one point only therefore your perverseness goes
beyond theirs, for they seem to blaspheme the Lord on earth, and you
even in heaven. We do not deny that you have beaten and outstripped
those whom you are copying. They at last cease to deny God; you never
do. Although theirs must not altogether be deemed a true confession,
as they only allow the glory of Divinity to the Saviour after His
Passion, and while they deny that He was God before this, only confess
it afterwards: for, as it seems to me, one who denies some part in
regard to God, denies Him altogether: and one who does not confess
that He ever existed, denies Him forever. Just as you also, even if
you were to admit that now in the heavens the Lord Jesus Christ, who
was born of the Virgin Mary, is God, would not truly confess Him
unless you admitted that He was always God. But indeed you do not
want in any point to change or vary your opinion. For you assert that
He whom you speak of as born a mere man, is still at the present time
not God. O novel and marvellous blasphemy, though with the heretics
you assert Him to be man, you do not with the heretics confess Him to
be God!
CHAPTER XV.
He shows that those who patronize this false
teaching acknowledge two Christs.
BUT still, I had begun to say, that as you certainly make out two
Christs this very matter must be illustrated and made clear. Tell me,
I pray you, you who sever Christ from the Son of God, how can you
confess in the Creed that Christ was begotten of God? For you say:
"I believe in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His Son."
Here then you have Jesus Christ the Son of God: but you say that it
was not the same Son of God who was born of Mary. Therefore there is
one Christ of God, and another of Mary. In your view then there are
two Christs. For, though in the Creed you do not deny Christ, you say
that the Christ of Mary is another than the one whom you confess in
the Creed. But perhaps you say that Christ was not begotten of God:
how then do you say in the Creed: "I believe in Jesus Christ the
Son of God?" You must then either deny the Creed or confess that
Christ is the Son of God. But if you confess in the Creed that Christ
is the Son of God, you must also confess that the same Christ, the Son
of God, is of Mary. Or if you make out another Christ of Mary, you
certainly make the blasphemous assertion that there are two
Christs.
CHAPTER XVI.
He shows further that this teaching is destructive
of the confession of the Trinity.
BUT still even if your obstinacy and dishonesty are not restrained by
this faith of the Creed, are you not, I ask you, overwhelmed by an
appeal to reason and the light of truth? Tell me, I ask, whoever you
are, O you heretic--At least there is a Trinity, in which we believe,
and which we confess: Father and Son and Holy Ghost. Of the Glory of
the Father and the Spirit there is no question. You are slandering
the Son, because you say that it was not the same Person who was born
of Mary, as He who was begotten of God the Father. Tell me then: if
you do not deny that the only Son of God was begotten of God, whom do
you make out that He is who was born of Mary? You say "a mere
man," according to that which He Himself said: "That which
is born of the flesh, is flesh."[204] But He cannot be called a mere man
who was begotten not after the law of human creation alone. "For
that which is conceived in her," said the angel, "is of the
Holy Ghost."[205] And this even
you dare not deny, though you deny almost all the mysteries of
salvation. Since then He was born of the Holy Ghost, and cannot be
termed a mere man, as He was conceived by the inspiration of God, if
it is not He who, as the Apostle says, "emptied Himself by taking
the form of a servant," and "the word was made flesh,"
and "humbled Himself by becoming obedient unto death," and
"who for our sakes, though He was rich, became poor,"[206] tell me, then, who He is, who was
born of the Holy Ghost, and was conceived by the overshadowing of God?
You say that He is certainly a different Person. Then there are two
Persons; viz., the one, who was begotten of God the Father in heaven;
and the other who was conceived of Mary, by the inspiration of God.
And thus there is a fourth Person whom you introduce, and whom (though
in words you term Him a mere man) you assert actually not to have been
a mere man, since you allow (not however as you ought) that He is to
be honoured, worshipped, and adored. Since then the Son of God who
was begotten of the Father is certainly to be worshiped, and He who
was conceived of Mary by the Holy Ghost is to be worshipped, you make
two Persons to be honoured and venerated, whom you so far sever from
each other, as to venerate each with an honour special and peculiar to
Him. And thus you see that by denying and by severing from Himself
the Son of God, you destroy, as far as you can, the whole mystery of
the divinity. For while you are endeavouring to introduce a fourth
Person into the Trinity,[207] you see
that you have utterly denied the whole Trinity.
CHAPTER XVII.
Those who are under an error in one point of the
Catholic religion, lose the whole faith, and all the value of the
faith.
AND since this is so, in denying that Jesus Christ the Son of God is
one, you have denied everything. For the scheme of the mysteries of
the Church and the Catholic faith is such that one who denies one
portion of the Sacred Mystery cannot confess the other. For all parts
of it are so bound up and united together that one cannot stand
without the other and if a man denies one point out of the whole
number, it is of no use for him to believe all the others. And so if
you deny that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, the result is that in
denying the Son of God you deny the Father also. For as St. John
says: "He who hath not the Son hath not the Father; but he who
hath the Son hath the Father also."[208] By denying then Him who was
begotten you deny also Him who begat. By denying also that the Son of
God was born in the flesh, you are led also to deny that He was born
in the Spirit, for it is the same Person who was born in the flesh who
was first born in the Spirit. If you do not believe that He was born
in the flesh, the result is that you do not believe that He suffered.
If you do not believe in His Passion what remains for you but to deny
His resurrection? For faith in one raised springs out of faith in one
dead. Nor can the reference to the resurrection keep its place,
unless belief in His death has first preceded it. By denying then his
Passion and Death, you deny also his resurrection from hell.[209] It follows certainly that you deny
His ascension also, for there cannot be the ascension without the
resurrection. And if we do not believe that He rose again, we cannot
either believe that He ascended: as the Apostle says, "For He
that descended is the same also that ascended."[210] Thus, so far as you are concerned,
the Lord Jesus Christ did not rise from hell, nor ascend into heaven,
nor sit at the right hand of God the Father, nor will He come at that
day of judgment which we look for, nor will He judge the quick and
the dead.
CHAPTER XVIII.
He directs his discourse upon his antagonist with
whom he is disputing, and begs him to return to his senses. The
sacrament of reconciliation is necessary for the lapsed for their
salvation.
AND so, you wretched, insane, obstinate creature, you see that you
have utterly upset the whole faith of the Creed, and all that is
valuable in our hope and the mysteries. And yet you still dare to
remain in the Church: and imagine that you are a priest, though you
have denied everything by which you came to be a priest. Return then
to the right way, and recover your former mind, return to your senses
if you ever had any. Come to your self, if there ever was in you a
self to which you can come back. Acknowledge the sacraments of your
salvation, by which you were initiated and regenerated. They are of
no less use to you now than they were then; for they can now
regenerate you by penance, as they then gave you birth through the
Font. Hold fast the full scheme of the Creed. Hold the entire truth
of the faith. Believe in God the Father: believe in God the Son: in
one who begat and one who was begotten, the Lord of all, Jesus Christ;
Being of one substance with the Father; Begotten in His divinity; born
in the flesh: of twofold birth, yet of but one glory; who Himself
creator of all things, was begotten of the Father, and was afterwards
born of the Virgin.
CHAPTER XIX.
That the birth of Christ in time diminished nothing
of the glory and power of His Deity.
FOR the fact that He came of the flesh and in the flesh, has reference
to His birth, and involves no diminution in Him: and He was simply
born, not changed for the worse.[211]
For though, still remaining in the form of God, He took upon Him the
form of a servant, yet the weakness of His human constitution had no
effect on His nature as God: but while the power of His Deity remained
whole and unimpaired, all that took place in His human flesh was an
advancement of His manhood and no diminution of His glory. For when
God was born in human flesh, He was not born in human flesh in such a
way as not to remain Divine in Himself, but so that, while the Godhead
remained as before, God might become man. And so Martha while she saw
with her bodily eyes the man, confessed Him by spiritual sight to be
God, saying, "Yea, Lord, I have believed that Thou art the Christ
the Son of the living God, who art come into the world."[212] So Peter, owing to the Holy
Spirit's revelation, while externally he beheld the Son of man, yet
proclaimed Him to be the Son of God, saying, "Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God."[213] So Thomas when he touched the
flesh, believed that he had touched God saying, "My Lord and my
God."[214] For they all
confessed but one Christ, so as not to make Him two. Do you therefore
believe Him; and so believe that Jesus Christ the Lord of all, both
only Begotten and first-born, is both Creator of all things and
Preserver of men and that the same Person is first the framer of the
whole world, and afterwards redeemer of mankind? Who still remaining
with the Father and in the Father, Being of one substance with the
Father, did (as the Apostle says), "Take the form of a servant,
and humble Himself even unto death, the death of the Cross:"[215] and (as the Creed says) "was
born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was
buried. And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures;
and ascended into heaven; and shall come again to judge both the quick
and the dead." This is our faith; this is our salvation: to
believe that our God and Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same before
all things and after all things. For, as it is written, "Jesus
Christ is yesterday and today and the same for ever."[216] For "yesterday" signifies
all time past, wherein, before the beginning, He was begotten of the
Father. "Today" covers the time of this world, in which He
was again born of the Virgin, suffered, and rose again. But by the
expression the same "for ever" is denoted the whole
boundless eternity to come.
CHAPTER XX.
He shows from what has been said that we do not
mean that God was mortal or of flesh before the worlds, although
Christ, who is God from eternity and was made man in time, is but one
Person.
BUT perhaps you will say: If I admit that the same Person was in the
end of time born of a Virgin, who was begotten before all things of
God the Father, I shall imply that before the beginning of the world
God was in the flesh, as I say that He was afterwards man, who was
always God: and so I shall say that that man who was afterwards born,
had always existed. I do not want you to be confused by this blind
ignorance, and these obscure misconceptions, so as to fancy that I am
maintaining that the manhood[217]
which was born of Mary had existed before the beginning of things, or
asserting that God was always in a bodily form before the commencement
of the world. I do not say, I repeat it, I do not say that the
manhood was in God before it was born: but that God was afterwards
born in the manhood. For that flesh which was born of the flesh of
the Virgin had not always existed: but God who always was, came in the
flesh of man of the flesh of the Virgin. For "the Word was made
flesh," and did not manifest flesh together with Himself: but in
the glory of Divinity joined Himself to human flesh. For tell me when
or where the Word was made flesh, or where He emptied Himself by
taking the form of a servant: or where He became poor, though He was
rich? Where but in the holy womb of the Virgin, where at His
Incarnation, the Word of God is said to have been made flesh, at His
birth He truly took the form of a servant; and when He is in human
nature nailed to the Cross, He became poor, and was made poor in His
sufferings in the flesh, though He was rich in His Divine glory?
Otherwise if, as you say, at some later period the Deity entered into
Him as into one of the Prophets and saints, then "the Word was
made flesh" in those men also in whom He vouchsafed to dwell:
then in each one of them He emptied Himself and took upon Him the form
of a servant. And thus there is nothing new or unique in Christ.
Neither His conception, nor His birth nor His death had anything
special or miraculous about it.
CHAPTER XXI.
The authority of Holy Scripture teaches that Christ
existed from all eternity.
AND yet to return to what we said before, though all these things are
so, as we have stated: how do we read that Jesus Christ (whom you
assert to be a mere man) was ever existing even before His birth of a
Virgin, and how is He proclaimed by prophets and apostles as God even
before the worlds? As Paul says: "One Lord Jesus, through whom
are all things."[218] And
elsewhere he says: "For in Christ were created all things in
heaven and on earth, both visible and invisible."[219] The Creed too, which is framed both
by human and Divine authority, says: "I believe in God the
Father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ, His Son." And after other
clauses: "Very God of Very God; by whom both the worlds were
framed and all things were made." And further: "Who for us
came and was born of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified, and was
buried."
CHAPTER XXII.
The hypostatic union enables us to ascribe to God
what belongs to the flesh in Christ.
HOW then is Christ (whom you term a mere man) proclaimed in Holy
Scripture to be God without beginning, if by our own confession the
Lord's manhood[220] did not exist
before His birth and conception of a Virgin? And how can we read of
so close a union of man and God, as to make it appear that man was
ever co-eternal with God, and that afterwards God suffered with man:
whereas we cannot believe that man can be without beginning or that
God can suffer? It is this which we established in our previous
writings; viz., that God being joined to manhood,[221] i.e., to His own body, does not
allow any separation to be made in men's thoughts between man and God.
Nor will He permit anyone to hold that there is one Person of the Son
of man, and another Person of the Son of God. But in all the holy
Scriptures He joins together and as it were incorporates in the
Godhead, the Lord's manhood,[222] so
that no one can sever man from God in time, nor God from man at His
Passion. For if you regard Him in time, you will find that the Son of
man is ever with the Son of God. If you take note of His Passion, you
will find that the Son of God is ever with the Son of man, and that
Christ the Son of man and the Son of God is so one and indivisible,
that, in the language of holy Scripture, the man cannot be severed in
time from God, nor God from man at His Passion. Hence comes this:
"No man hath ascended into heaven, but He who came down from
heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven."[223] Where the Son of God while He was
speaking on earth testified that the Son of man was in heaven: and
testified that the same Son of man, who, He said, would ascend into
heaven, had previously come down from heaven. And this: "What
and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was
before,"[224] where He gives the
name of Him who was born of man, but affirms that He ever was up on
high. And the Apostle also, when considering what happened in time,
says that all things were made by Christ. For he says, "There is
one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things."[225] But when speaking of His Passion,
he shows that the Lord of glory was crucified. "For if," he
says, "they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord
of glory."[226] And so too the
Creed speaking of the only and first-begotten Lord Jesus Christ,
"Very God of Very God, Being of one substance with the Father,
and the Maker of all things," affirms that He was born of the
Virgin and crucified and afterwards buried. Thus joining in one body
(as it were) the Son of God and of man, and uniting God and man, so
that there can be no severance either in time or at the Passion, since
the Lord Jesus Christ is shown to be one and the same Person, both as
God through all eternity, and as man through the endurance of His
Passion; and though we cannot say that man is without beginning or
that God is passible, yet in the one Person of the Lord Jesus Christ
we can speak of man as eternal, and of God as dead. You see then that
Christ means the whole Person, and that the name represents both
natures, for both man and God are born, and so it takes in the whole
Person so that when this name is used we see that no part is left out.
There was not then before the birth of a Virgin the same eternity
belonging in the past to the manhood as to the Divinity, but because
Divinity was united to manhood in the womb of the Virgin, it follows
that when we use the name of Christ one cannot be spoken of without
the other.
CHAPTER XXIII.
That the figure Synecdoche, in which the part
stands for the whole, is very familiar to the Holy Scripture.
WHATEVER then you say of the Lord Jesus Christ, you say of the whole
person, and in mentioning the Son of God you mention the Son of man,
and in mentioning the Son of man you mention the Son of God: by the
grammatical trope synecdoche in which you understand the whole from
the parts, and a part is put for the whole: and the holy Scriptures
certainly show this, as in them the Lord often uses this trope, and
teaches in this way about others and would have us understand about
Himself in the same way. For sometimes days, and things, and men, and
times are denoted in holy Scripture in no other fashion. As in this
case where God declares that Israel shall serve the Egyptians for four
hundred years, and says to Abraham: "Know thou that thy seed
shall be a stranger in a land not theirs, and they shall bring them
under bondage and afflict them four hundred years."[227] Whereas if you take into account
the whole time after that God spoke, they are more than four hundred:
but if you only reckon the time in which they were in slavery, they
are less. And in giving this period indeed, unless you understand it
in this way, we must think that the Word of God lied (and away with
such a thought from Christian minds!). But since from the time of the
Divine utterance, the whole period of their lives amounted to more
than four hundred years, and their bondage endured for not nearly four
hundred, you must understand that the part is to be taken for the
whole, or the whole for the part. There is also a similar way of
representing days and nights, where, when in the case of either
division of time one day is meant, either period is shown by a portion
of a single period. And indeed in this way the difficulty about the
time of our Lord's Passion is cleared up: for whereas the Lord
prophesied that after the model of the prophet Jonah, the Son of man
would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth,[228] and whereas after the sixth day of
the week on which He was crucified, He was only in hell[229] for one day and two nights, how can
we show the truth of the Divine words? Surely by the trope of
Synecdoche, i.e., because to the day on which He was crucified the
previous night belongs, and to the night on which He rose again, the
coming day; and so when there is added the night which preceded the
day belonging to it, and the day which followed the night belonging to
it, we see that there is nothing lacking to the whole period of time,
which is made up of its portions. The holy Scriptures abound in such
instances of ways of speaking: but it would take too long to relate
them all. For so when the Psalm says, "What is a man that Thou
art mindful of Him,"[230] from
the part we understand the whole, as while only one man is mentioned
the whole human race is meant. So also where Ahab sinned we are told
that the people sinned. Where--though all are mentioned, a part is to
be understood from the whole. John also the Lord's forerunner says:
"After me cometh a man who is preferred before me for He was
before me."[231] How then does
He mean that He would come after Him, whom He shows to be before Him?
For if this is understood of a man who was afterwards born, how was he
before him? But if it is taken of the Word how is it, "a
man cometh after me?" Except that in the one Lord Jesus
Christ is shown both the posteriority of the manhood and the
precedence of the Godhead. And so the result is that one and the same
Lord was before him and came after him: for according to the flesh He
was posterior in time to John; and according to His Deity was before
all men. And so he, when he named that man, denoted both the manhood
and the Word, for as the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God was complete
in both manhood and Divinity[232] in
mentioning one of these natures in Him he denoted the whole person.
And what need is there of anything further? I think that the day
would fail me if I were to try to collect or to tell everything that
could be said on this subject. And what we have already said is
enough, at any rate on this part of the subject, both for the
exposition of the Creed, and for the requirements of our case, and for
the limits of our book.
BOOK VII.
CHAPTER I.
As he is going to reply to the slanders of his
opponents he implores the aid of Divine grace to teach a prayer to be
used by those who undertake to dispute with heretics.
AS it happens to those who having escaped the perils of the sea, are
in terror of the sands that stretch before the harbour, or the rocks
that line the shore, so it is in my case that,--as I have kept to the
last some of the slanders of the heretics,--although I have reached
the limit of the work which I set myself, yet I am beginning to dread
the close, which I had longed to reach. But, as the Prophet says,
"The Lord is my helper; I will not fear what man can do to
me,"[233] so we will not fear the
pitfalls which crafty heretics have dug in front of us, nor the paths
thickly strewn with horrid thorns. For as they make our road
difficult but do not close it, there is before us the trouble of
clearing them away, rather than the fear of not being able to do so.
For when, as we are walking feebly along the right road, they come in
our way, and frighten the walkers rather than hurt them, our work and
business has more to do in clearing them away, than to fear from the
difficulty of this: And so, laying our hands upon that monstrous head
of the deadly serpent, and longing to lay hold of all the limbs that
are entangled in the huge folds and coils of his body, again and again
do we pray to Thee, O Lord Jesus, to whom we have ever prayed, that
Thou wouldst give us words by opening our mouth "to the pulling
down of strongholds, destroying counsels, and every height that
exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into
captivity every understanding unto Thine obedience:"[234] for he is indeed free, who has begun
to be led captive by Thee. Do Thou then be present to this work of
thine, and to those of Thine who are striving for Thee above the
measure of their strength. Grant us to bruise the gaping mouths of
this new serpent, and its neck that swells with deadly poison, O Thou
who makest the feet of believers to tread unharmed on serpents and
scorpions, and to go upon the adder and basilisk, to tread under foot
the lion and the dragon.[235] And
grant that through the fearless boldness of steadfast innocence, the
sucking child may play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child
thrust his hand into the den of the basilisk.[236] Grant then to us also that we may
thrust our hands unharmed into the den of this monstrous and most
wicked basilisk; and if it has in any holes, i.e., in the human heart,
a lurking or resting place, or has laid its eggs there, or left a
trace of its slimy course, do Thou remove from them all the foul and
deadly pollution of this most noxious serpent. Take away the
uncleanness their blasphemy has brought on them, and purify with the
fan of Thy sacred cleansing[237] the
souls that are plunged in stinking mud, so that the "dens of
thieves" may become "houses of prayer:"[238] and that in those which are now, as
is written, the dwellings where hedgehogs and monsters,[239] and satyrs, and all kinds of strange
creatures dwell, there the gifts of Thy Holy Spirit, namely the beauty
of faith and holiness may shine forth. And as once Thou didst destroy
idolatry and cast out images, and make shrines of virtue out of the
temples of devils, and let into the dens of serpents and scorpions the
rays of shining light, and make out of the dens of error and shame the
homes of beauty and splendour, so do Thou pour upon all whose eyes the
darkness of heretical obstinacy has blinded, the light of Thy
compassion and truth, that they may at length with clear and unveiled
sight behold the great and life-giving mystery of Thine Incarnation,
and so come to know Thee to have been born as Very man of that sacred
womb of a pure Virgin, and yet to acknowledge that Thou wast always
Very God.
CHAPTER II.
He meets the objection taken from these words: No
one gave birth to one who had existed before her.
AND before I begin to speak of those things of which I have given no
foretaste in the earlier books, I think it right to try to carry out
what I have already promised, that when I have thoroughly redeemed my
pledge, I may begin to speak more freely of what has not been touched
upon, after having satisfied my promise. So then that new serpent, in
order to destroy the faith of the holy nativity, hisses out against
the Church of God and says: "No one ever gives birth to one older
than herself." To begin with then I think that you know neither
what you say nor where you get it from. For if you knew or understood
where you got it from, you would never regard the nativity of the only
begotten of God in the light of human fancies, nor would you try to
settle by merely human propositions, about Him who was born without
His conception originating from man: nor would you bring human
impossibilities as objections against Divine Omnipotence if you knew
that with God nothing was impossible. No one then, you say, gives
birth to one older than herself. Tell me then, I pray, of what cases
are you speaking, for the nature of what creatures do you think that
you can lay down rules? Do you suppose that you can fix laws for men
or beasts or birds or cattle? Those (and others of the same kind) are
the things of which such assertions can be made. For none of them is
able to produce one older than itself; for what has already been
produced cannot return to it again so as to be born again by a new
creation. And so no one can bear one older than herself, as no one can
beget one older than himself: for the opportunity of bearing only
results where there is the possibility of begetting. Do you then
imagine that in reference to the nativity of Almighty God regard must
be had to the same considerations as in the birth of earthly
creatures? And do you bring the nature of man's conditions as a
difficulty in the case of Him who is Himself the author of nature? You
see then that, as I said above, you know not whence or of whom you are
talking, as you are comparing creatures to the Creator; and in order
to calculate the power of God are drawing an instance from those
things which would never have existed at all, but that the very fact
of their existence comes from God. God then came as He would, when He
would, and of her whom He would. Neither time nor person, nor the
manner of men, nor the custom of creatures was any difficulty with
Him; for the law of the creatures could not stand in the way of Him
who is Himself the Creator of them all. And whatever He would have
possible was ready to His hand, for the power of willing it was His.
Do you want to know how far the omnipotence of God extends, and how
great it is? I believe that the Lord could do that even in the case
of His creatures which you do not believe that He could do in His own
case. For all living creatures which now bear things younger than
themselves could, if only God gave the word, bear things much older
than themselves. For even food and drink, if it were God's will,
could be turned into the foetus and offspring: and even water, which
has been flowing from the beginning of things, and which all living
creatures use, could, if God gave the word, be made a body in the
womb, and have birth given to it. For who can set a limit to divine
works, or circumscribe Divine Providence? or who (to use the words of
Scripture) can say to Him "What doest thou?"[240] If you deny that God can do all
things, then deny, that, when God was born, one older than Mary could
be born of her. But if there is nothing impossible with God, why do
you bring as an objection against His coming an impossibility, when
you know that for Him nothing is impossible in anything?
CHAPTER III.
He replies to the cavil that the one who is born
must be of one substance with the one who bears.
THE second blasphemous slander or slanderous blasphemy of your heresy
is when you say that the one who is born must be of one substance with
the one who bears. It is not very different from the previous one,
for it differs from it in terms rather than in fact and reality. For
when we are treating of the birth of God, you maintain that one of
greater power could not be born of Mary just as above you maintain
than one older could not be begotten. And so you may take it that the
same answer may be given to this as to what you said before: or you
may conceive that the answer given to this assertion, which you are
now making, applies to that also. You say then that the one who is
born must be of one substance with the one who bears. If this refers
to earthly creatures, it is most certainly the case. But if it refers
to the birth of God, why in the case of His birth do you regard
precedents from nature? for appointments are subject to Him who
appointed them, and not the appointer to His appointments. But would
you like to know more fully how these slanders of yours are not only
wicked but foolish, and the idle talk of one who does not in the least
see the omnipotence of God? Tell me, I pray, you who think that like
things can only be produced from like things, whence was the origin of
that unaccountable host of quails in the wilderness of old time to
feed the children of Israel, for nowhere do we read that they had been
previously born of mother birds, but that they were brought up and
came suddenly. Again whence came that heavenly food which for forty
years fell on the camp of the Hebrews? Did manna produce manna? But
these refer to ancient miracles. And what of more recent ones? With
a few loaves and small fishes the Lord Jesus Christ fed countless
hosts of the people that followed Him, and not once only. The reason
that they were satisfied lay not in the food: for a secret and unseen
cause satisfied the hungry folk, especially as there was much more
left when they were filled than there had been set before them when
they were hungry. And how was all this brought about that when those
who ate were satisfied, the food itself was multiplied by an
extraordinary increase? We read that in Galilee wine was produced
from water. Tell me how what was of one nature produced something of
an altogether different substance from its own quality? Especially
when (which exactly applies to the birth of the Lord) it was the
production of a nobler substance from what was inferior to it? Tell
me then how from mere water there could be produced rich and splendid
wine? How was it that one thing was drawn out, another poured in?
Was the cistern a well of such a nature as to change the water drawn
from it into the best wine? Or did the character of the vessels or
the diligence of the servants effect this? Most certainly neither of
these. And how is it that the manner of the fact is not
understood by the thoughts of the heart, though the truth of
the fact is firmly held by the conscience? In the gospel clay was
placed on the eyes of a blind man and when it was washed off[241] eyes were produced. Had water the
power of giving birth to eyes, or clay of creating light? Certainly
not, especially as water could be of no use to a blind man, and clay
would actually hinder the sight of those who could see. And how was
it that a thing that itself in its own nature was injurious, became
the means of restoring health; and that what was ordinarily hurtful to
sound people, was then made the instrument of healing? You say that
the power of God brought it about, and the remedy of God caused it,
and that all these things of which we have been speaking were simply
brought about by Divine Omnipotence; which is able to fashion new
things from unwonted material, and to make serviceable things out of
their opposites, and to change what belongs to the realm of things
impossible and impracticable into possibilities and actual
performances.
CHAPTER IV.
How God has shown His Omnipotence in His birth in
time as well as in everything else.
CONFESS then the same truth in respect of the actual nativity of the
Lord, as in respect of everything else. Believe that God was born
when He would, for you do not deny that He could do what He would;
unless possibly you think that that power which belonged to Him for
all other things was deficient as regards Himself, and that His
Omnipotence though proceeding from Him and penetrating all things, was
insufficient to bring about His own nativity. In the case of the
Lord's nativity you bring this as an objection against me: No one
gives birth to one who is anterior in time: and in regard of the birth
which Almighty God underwent you say that the one who is born ought to
be of one substance with the one who bears; as if you had to do with
human laws as in the case of any ordinary man, to whom you might bring
the impossibility as an objection, as you include him in the weakness
of earthly things. You say that for all men there are common
conditions of birth, and but one law of generation; and that a thing
could not possibly happen to one man only out of the whole of
humanity, which God has forbidden to happen to all. You do not
understand of whom you are speaking; nor do you see of whom you are
talking; for He is the Author of all conditions, and the very Law of
all natures, through whom exists whatever man can do, and whatever man
cannot do: for He certainly has laid down the limits of both; viz.,
how far his powers should extend, and the bounds beyond which his
weakness should not advance. How wildly then do you bring human
impossibilities as an objection in the case of Him, who possesses all
powers and possibilities. If you estimate the Person of the Lord by
earthly weaknesses, and measure God's Omnipotence by human rules, you
will most certainly fail to find anything which seems appropriate to
God as concerns the sufferings of His Body. For if it can seem to you
unreasonable that Mary could give birth to God who was anterior to
her, how will it seem reasonable that God was crucified by men? And
yet the same God who was crucified Himself predicted: "Shall a
man afflict God, for you afflict Me?"[242] If then we cannot think that the
Lord was born of a Virgin because He who was born was anterior to her
who bore Him, how can we believe that God had blood? And yet it was
said to the Ephesian elders: "Feed the Church of God which He has
purchased with His own Blood."[243] Finally how can we think that the
Author of life was Himself deprived of life: And yet Peter says:
"Ye have killed the Author of life."[244] No one who is set on earth can be
in heaven: and how does the Lord Himself say: "The Son of man who
is in heaven"?[245] If then you
think that God was not born of a Virgin because the one who is born
must be of one substance with the one who bears, how will you believe
that different things can be produced from different natures? Thus
according to you the wind did not suddenly bring the quails, nor did
the manna fall, nor was water turned into wine nor were many thousands
of men fed with a few loaves, nor did the blind man receive his sight
after the clay had been put on him. But if all these things seem
incredible and contrary to nature, unless we believe that they were
wrought by God, why should you deny in the matter of His nativity,
what you admit in the matter of His works? Or was He unable to
contribute to His own nativity and advent what He did not refuse for
the succour and profit of men?
CHAPTER V.
He shows by proofs drawn from nature itself, that
the law which his opponents lay down; viz., that the one born ought to
be of one substance with the one who bears, fails to hold good in many
cases.
IT would be tedious and almost childish to speak further on this
subject. But still in order to refute that folly and madness of yours,
in which you maintain that the one born ought to be of one substance
with the one who bears, i.e., that nothing can produce something of a
different nature to itself, I will bring forward some instances of
earthly things, to convince you that many creatures are produced from
things of a different nature. Not that it is possible or right to
make any comparison in such a case as this: but that you may not doubt
the possibility of that happening in the case of the holy Nativity,
which as you see takes place in these frail earthly things. Bees,
tiniest of creatures though they are, are yet so clever and cunning
that we read that they can be produced and spring from things of an
entirely different nature. For as they are creatures of marvellous
intelligence, and well endowed not merely with sense but with
foresight, they are produced from the gathered flowers of plants.
What greater instance do you think can be produced and quoted? Living
creatures are produced from inanimate: sensate from insensate.[246] What artificer, what architect was
there? Who formed their bodies? Who breathed in their souls? Who
gave them articulate sounds by which to converse with each other? Who
fashioned and arranged these harmonies of their feet, the cunning of
their mouths, the neatness of their wings? Their powers, wrath,
foresight, movements, calmness, harmony, differences, wars, peace,
arrangements, contrivances, business, government, all those things
indeed which they have in common with men--from whose teaching, or
whose gift did they receive them? from whose implanting or
instruction? Did they gain this through generation? or learn it in
their mother's womb or from her flesh? They never were in the womb,
and had no experience of generation. It was only that flowers which
they culled were brought into the hive and from this by a marvellous
contrivance bees issued forth.[247]
Then the womb of the mother imparted nothing to the offspring: nor are
bees produced from bees. They are but their artificers, not their
authors. From the blossoms of plants living creatures proceed. What
is there akin in plants and animals? I fancy then that you see who is
the contriver of those things. Go now and inquire whether the Lord
could bring about that in the case of His own nativity, which you see
that He procured in the case of these tiniest of creatures. Perhaps
it is needless after this to add anything further. But still let us
add in support of the argument what may not be necessary to prove the
point. We see how the air is suddenly darkened, and the earth filled
with locusts. Show me their seed--their birth--their mothers. For,
as you see, they proceed thence, whence they have their birth. Assert
in all these cases that the one who is born must be of one substance
with the one who bears. And in these assertions you will be shown to
be as silly, as you are wild in your denial of the Nativity of the
Lord. And what next? Do even you think that we must go on
any further? But still we will add something else. There is no doubt
that basilisks are produced from the eggs of the birds which in Egypt
they call the Ibis. What is there of kindred or relationship between
a bird and a serpent? Why is the thing born not of one substance with
that which bears it? And yet those who bear are not the authors of
all these things, nor do those who are born understand them: but they
result from secret causes, and from some inexplicable and manifold law
of nature which produces them. And you are bringing as objections to
His Nativity your petty assertions from earthly notions, while you
cannot explain the origin of those things, which are produced by His
bidding and command, whose will does everything, whose sway causes
everything: whom nothing can oppose or resist; and whose will is
sufficient for everything which can possibly be done.
CHAPTER VI.
He refutes another argument of Nestorius, in which
he tried to make out that Christ was like Adam in every point.
BUT since we cannot (as we should much prefer) ignore them, it is now
time to expose the rest of your more subtle and insidious blasphemies
that at least they may not deceive ignorant folk. In one of your
pestilent treatises you have maintained and said that "Since man
is the image of the Divine nature, and the devil dragged this down and
shattered it, God grieved over His image, as an Emperor over his
statue, and repairs the shattered image: and formed without generation
a nature from the Virgin, like that of Adam who was born without
generation; and raises up man's nature by means of man: for as by man
came death, so also by man came the resurrection of the dead."
They tell us that some poisoners have a custom of mixing honey with
the poison in the cups which they prepare; that the injurious
ingredient may be concealed by the sweet: and while a man is charmed
with the sweetness of the honey, he may be destroyed by the deadly
poison. So then, when you say that man is the image of the Divine
nature, and that the devil dragged this down and shattered it, and
that God grieved over His image as an Emperor over his statue, you
smear (so to speak) the lips of the cup with something sweet like
honey, that men may drain the cup offered to them, and not perceive
its deadliness, while they taste what is alluring. You put forward
God's name, in order to speak falsehoods in the name of religion. You
set holy things in the front, in order to persuade men of what is
untrue: and by means of your confession of God you contrive to deny
Him whom you are confessing. For who is there who does not see
whither you are going? What you are contriving? You say indeed that
God grieved over His image as an Emperor over his statue, and repaired
the shattered image, and formed without generation a nature from the
Virgin, like that of Adam who was born without generation, and raises
up man's nature by man, for as by man came death, so also by man came
the resurrection of the dead. So then with all your earnestness, with
all your professions, you crafty plotter, you have managed by your
smooth assertions, by naming God in the forefront, to come down to a
(mere) man in the conclusion: and in the end you degrade Him to the
condition of a mere man, from whom under colour of humility you have
already taken away the glory of God. You say then that the Divine
goodness has restored the image of God which the devil shattered and
destroyed, for you say that He restores the shattered image. Now with
what craft you say that He restores the shattered image in order to
persuade us that there was nothing more in Him, in whom the image is
restored, than there was in the actual image, of which the restoration
was brought about. And thus you make out that the Lord is only the
same as Adam was: that the restorer of the image is nothing more than
the actual destructible image. Finally in what follows you show what
you are aiming and driving at, when you say that He formed without
generation a nature from the Virgin like that of Adam, who was born
without generation, and raises up man's nature by man. You maintain
that the Lord Jesus Christ was in all respects like Adam: that the one
was without generation, and the other without generation: the one a
mere man, and the other a mere man. And thus you see that you have
carefully guarded and provided against our thinking of the Lord Jesus
Christ as in any way greater or better than Adam: since you have
compared them together by the same standard, so that you would think
that you detracted something from Adam's perfection, if you added
anything more to Christ.
CHAPTER VII.
Heretics usually cover their doctrines with a cloak
of holy Scripture.
"FOR as," you say, "by man came death, so by man came
also the resurrection of the dead." Do you actually try to prove
your wrong and impious notion by the witness of the Apostle? And do
you bring the "chosen vessel" into disgrace by mixing him up
with your wicked ideas? I mean, that, as you cannot understand the
author of your Salvation, therefore the Apostle must be made out to
have denied God. And yet, if you wanted to make use of Apostolic
witnesses, why did you rest contented with one, and pass over all the
others in silence? and why did you not at once add this: "Paul,
an Apostle not of men neither by man, but by Jesus Christ:"[248] or this: "We speak wisdom among
the perfect:" and presently: "Whom none," says he,
"of the princes of this world knew; for had they known, they
would not have crucified the Lord of glory."[249] Or this: "For in Him dwelleth
all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."[250] And: "One Lord Jesus Christ
through whom are all things."[251] Or do you partly agree, and partly
disagree with the Apostle, and only receive him so far as in
consequence of the Incarnation[252] he
names Christ man, and repudiate him where he speaks of Him as God?
For Paul does not deny that Jesus is man, but still he confesses that
man is God: and declares that to mankind the resurrection came by man
in such a way that he shows that in that man God arose. For see
whether he declares that He who rose was God, as he bears his witness
that He who was crucified was the Lord of glory.
CHAPTER VIII.
The heretics attribute to Christ only the shadow of
Divinity, and so assert that he is to be worshipped together with God
but not as God.
BUT still in order to avoid thinking of the Lord Jesus as one of the
whole mass of people, you have given to Him some glory, by attributing
to Him honour as a saint, but not Deity as true man and true God. For
what do you say? "God brought about the Lord's Incarnation. Let
us honour the form of the Theodochos[253] together with God, as one form of
Godhead, as a figure that cannot be severed from the Divine link, as
an image of the unseen God." Above you said that Adam was the
image of God, here you call Christ the image: the one you speak of as
a statue, and the other also as a statue. But I suppose we ought for
God's honour to be grateful to you, because you grant that the form of
the Theodochos should be worshipped together with God: in which you
wrong Him rather than honour Him. For in this you do not attribute to
the Lord Jesus Christ the glory of Deity, but you deny it. By a
subtle and wicked art you say that He is to be worshipped together
with God in order that you may not have to confess that He is God, and
by the very statement in which you seem deceitfully to join Him with
God, you really sever Him from God. For when you blasphemously say
that He is certainly not to be adored as God, but to be worshipped
together with God, you thus grant to Him an union of nearness to
Divinity, in order to get rid of the truth of His Divinity. Oh, you
most wicked and crafty enemy of God, you want to perpetrate the crime
of denying God under pretext of confessing Him. You say: Let us
worship Him as a figure that cannot be severed from the Divine will,
as an image of the unseen God. It is I suppose, then, owing to His
kind acts that our Lord Jesus Christ has obtained among us honour as
Creator and Redeemer. If then we were redeemed by Him from eternal
destruction, in calling our Redeemer a figure we are endeavouring
indeed to respond to His kindness and goodness, by a worthy service
and a worthy allegiance, if we try to get rid of that glory which He
did not refuse to bring low for our sakes.
CHAPTER IX.
How those are wrong who say that the birth of
Christ was a secret, since it was clearly shown even to the patriarch
Jacob.
BUT I suppose you excuse the degradation offered to the Lord by means
of a subordinate honour, by the words "as the image of the secret
God." By the fact that you term Him an image you compare Him to
man's estate. In speaking of Him as the image of the secret God, you
detract from the honour plainly due to Him. For "God," says
David, "shall plainly come; our God, and shall not keep
silence."[254] And He surely
came and did not keep silence, who before that He in His own person
uttered anything after His birth, made known His advent by both
earthly and heavenly witnesses alike, while the star points Him out,
the magi adore Him, and angels declare Him. What more do you want?
His voice was yet silent on earth, and His glory was already crying
aloud in heaven. Do you say then that God was and is secret in Him?
But this was not the announcement of the Prophets, of the Patriarchs,
aye and of the whole Law. For they did not say that He would be
secret, whose coming they all foretold. You err in your wretched
blindness, seeking grounds for blasphemy and not finding them. You
say that He was secret even after His advent. I maintain that He was
not secret even before His advent. For did the mystery of God to be
born of a Virgin escape the knowledge of that celebrated Patriarch on
whom the vision of God present with him conferred a title, whereby
from the name of Supplanter he rose to the name of Israel? Who, when
from the struggle with the man who wrestled with him he understood the
mystery of the Incarnation yet to come, said, "I have seen God
face to face, and my life is preserved."[255] What, I pray you, had he seen, for
him to believe that he had seen God? Did God manifest Himself to him
in the midst of thunder and lightning? or when the heavens were
opened, did the dazzling face of the Deity show itself to him? Most
certainly not: but rather on the contrary he saw a man and
acknowledged a God. O truly worthy of the name he received, as with
the eyes of the soul rather than of the body he earned the honour of a
title given by God! He saw a human form wrestling with him, and
declared that he saw God. He certainly knew that human form was
indeed God: for in that form in which God then appeared, in the
selfsame form He was in very truth afterwards to come. Although why
should we be surprised that so great a patriarch unhesitatingly
believed what God Himself so plainly showed in His own Person to him,
when he said, "I have seen God face to face and my life is
preserved." How did God show to him so much of the presence of
Deity, that he could say that the face of God was shown to him? For
it seems that only a man had appeared to him, whom he had actually
beaten in the struggle. But God was certainly bringing this about by
precursory signs, that there might not be any one to disbelieve that
God was born of man, when already long before the Patriarch had seen
God in human form.
CHAPTER X.
He collects more witnesses of the same fact.
BUT why am I lingering so long over one instance, as if many were
wanting? For even then how could the fact that God was to come in the
flesh escape the knowledge of men, when the Prophet said openly as if
to all mankind of Him: "Behold your God;" and elsewhere:
"Behold our God." And this: "God the mighty, the
Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace;" and: "of
His kingdom there shall be no end."[256] But also when He had already come,
could the fact of His having come escape the knowledge of those who
openly confessed that He had come? Was Peter ignorant of the coming
of God, when he said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God?"[257] Did not Martha know
what she was saying or whom she believed in, when she said, "Yea,
Lord, I have believed that Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God, who art come into this world?"[258] And all those men, who sought from
Him the cure of their sicknesses, or the restoration of their limbs,
or the life of their dead, did they ask these things from man's
weakness, or from God's omnipotence?
CHAPTER XI.
How the devil was forced by many reasons to the
view that Christ was God.
FINALLY as for the devil himself, when he was tempting Him with every
show of allurements, and overly art of his wickedness, what was it
that in his ignorance he suspected, or wanted to find out by tempting
Him? Or what so greatly moved him, that he sought God under the
humble form of man? Had he learned that by previous proofs? Or had
he known of anyone who came as God in man's body? Most certainly not.
But it was by the mighty evidence of signs, by mighty results of
actions, by the words of the Truth Himself that he was driven to
suspect and examine into this matter: inasmuch as he had already once
heard from John: "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh
away the sin of the world."[259]
And again from the same person: "I have need to be baptized of
Thee, and comest Thou to me?"[260] The dove also which came down from
heaven and stopped over the Lord's head had made itself a clear and
open proof of a God who declared Himself. The voice too which was
sent from God not in riddles or figures had moved him, when it said:
"Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased."[261] And though he saw a man outwardly
in Jesus, yet he was searching for the Son of God, when he said:
"If Thou art the Son of God, command that these stones be made
bread."[262] Did the
contemplation of the man drive away the devil's suspicions of His
Divinity, so that owing to the fact that he saw a man, he did not
believe that He could be God? Most certainly not. But what does he
say? "If Thou art the Son of God, command that these stones be
made bread." Certainly he had no doubt about the possibility of
that, the existence of which he was examining into. His anxiety was
about its truth. There was no security as to its impossibility.
CHAPTER XII.
He compares this notion and reasonable suspicion of
the devil with the obstinate and inflexible idea of his opponents, and
shows that this last is worse and more blasphemous than the
former.
BUT he certainly knew that the Lord Jesus Christ was born of Mary: he
knew that He was wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger:
that His childhood was that of a poor person at the commencement of
His human life; and His infancy without the proper accessories of
cradles: further he did not doubt that He had true flesh, and was born
a true man. And why did this seem to him not enough for him to be
secure in? Why did he believe that He could not be God, whom he knew
to be very man? Learn then, you wretched madman, learn, you lunatic,
you cruel sinner, learn, I pray, even from the devil, to lessen your
blasphemy. He said: "If Thou art the Son of God." You say:
"Thou art not the Son of God." You deny what he asked
about. No one was ever yet found but you, to outdo the devil in
blasphemy. That which he confessed to be possible in the case of the
Lord, you do not believe to have been possible.
CHAPTER XIII.
How the devil always retained this notion of
Christ's Divinity (because of His secret working which he experienced)
even up to His Cross and Death.
BUT perhaps he afterwards ceased and rested, and when his temptations
were vanquished laid aside his suspicion because he found no result?
Nay, it rather remained always in him, and even up to the very cross
of the Lord the suspicion lasted in him and was increased by peculiar
terrors. What need is there of anything further? Not even then did
he cease to think of Him as the Son of God, after that he knew that
such licence was granted to His persecutors against Him. But the
crafty foe saw even in the midst of His bodily sufferings the signs of
Divinity, and though he would have much preferred Him to be a (mere)
man, was yet forced to suspect that He was God: for though he would
have preferred to believe what he wanted, yet he was driven by surest
proofs to that which he feared. And no wonder: for although he beheld
Him spitted on, and scourged, and disgraced, and led to the Cross, yet
he saw Divine powers abounding even in the midst of the indignities
and wrongs; when the veil of the temple is rent, when the sun hides
itself, the day is darkened, and all things feel the effects of the
Passion: all things even, which know not God, acknowledge the work of
Deity. And therefore the devil seeing this, and trembling, tried in
every way to arrive at the knowledge of His Godhead, even at the very
death of the manhood, saying in the person of those who crucified Him:
"If He be the Son of God, let Him come down now from the Cross,
and we will believe Him."[263]
He certainly perceived that by His bodily Passion our Lord God was
working out the redemption of man's salvation, and also that by it he
was being destroyed and subdued, while we were being redeemed and
saved. And so the enemy of mankind wanted by every means and every
wile to defeat that which he knew was being done for the redemption of
all men. "If," he says, "He be the Son of God, let Him
come down now from the Cross and we will believe Him:" on purpose
that the Lord might be moved by the reproach of the words, and destroy
the mystery, while He avenged the wrong. You see then that the Lord
even when hanging on the Cross was termed the Son of God. You see
that they suspect the fact to which they refer. And so do you learn,
as I said above, even from His persecutors, even from the devil, to
believe on the Son of God. Who ever came up to the unbelief of the
devil? Who went beyond it? He suspected that He was the Son
of God even when He endured death. You deny it even when He
has risen. He suspected that He was God, from whom He hid
Himself. You, to whom He has proved it, deny it.
CHAPTER XIV.
He shows how heretics pervert holy Scripture, by
replying to the argument drawn from the Apostle's words, "Without
father, without mother," etc.: Heb. 7.
YOU then make use of the holy Scriptures against God, and try to bring
His own witnesses against Him. But how? Truly so as to become a
false accuser not only of God, but of the evidences themselves. Nor
indeed is it wonderful that, as you cannot do what you want, you only
do what you can: as you can not turn the sacred witnesses against
God, you do what you can, and pervert them. For you say: Then Paul
tells a lie, when he says of Christ: "Without mother, without
genealogy."[264] I ask you, of
whom do you think that Paul said this? Of the Son and Word of God, or
of the Christ, whom you separate from the Son of God, and
blasphemously assert to be a mere man? If of the Christ, whom you
maintain to be a mere man, how could a man be born without a mother
and without a genealogy on the mother's side? But if of the Word of
God and Son of God--what can we make of it, when the same Apostle,
your own witness, as you impiously imagine, testifies in the same
place and by the same witness, that He whom you assert to be without
mother, was also without father; saying, "Without father, without
mother, without genealogy"? It follows then that if you use the
Apostle's witness, since you assert that the Son of God was
"without mother," you must also be guilty of the blasphemy
that He was "without father." You see then in what a
downfall of impiety you have landed yourself, in your eagerness for
your perversity and wickedness, so that, while you say that the Son of
God had not a mother, you must also deny Him a Father--a thing which
no one yet since the world began, except perhaps a madman, ever did.
And this, whether with greater wickedness or folly, I hardly know; for
what is more foolish and silly than to give the name of Son and to try
to keep back the name of Father? But you say I don't keep it back, I
don't deny it. And what madness then drove you to quote that passage,
where, while you say that He had no mother, you must seem also to deny
to Him a Father? For as in the same passage He is said to be without
mother and also without father, it follows that if it can be
understood that there He is without mother, in the same way in which
we understand that He is without mother, we must also believe that He
is without father. But that hasty craze for denying God did not see
this; and when it quoted mutilated, what was written entire, it failed
to see that the shameless and palpable lie could be refuted by laying
open the contents of the sacred volume. O foolish blasphemy, and
madness! which, while it failed to see what it ought to follow, had
not the wit to see even what could be read: as if, because it could
get rid of its own intelligence, it could get rid of the power of
reading from everybody else, or as if everybody would lose their eyes
in their heads for reading, because it had lost the eyes of the mind.
Hear then, you heretic the passage you have garbled: hear in full and
completely, what you quoted mutilated and hacked about. The Apostle
wants to make clear to every one the twofold birth of God--and in
order to show how the Lord was born in the Godhead and in flesh, he
says, "Without father, without mother:" for the one belongs
to the birth of Divinity, the other to that of the flesh. For as He
was begotten in His Divine nature "without mother," so He is
in the body "without father:" and so though He is neither
without father nor without mother, we must believe in Him
"without father and without mother." For if you regard Him
as He is begotten of the Father, He is without mother: if, as born of
His mother, He is without father. And so in each of these births He
has one: in both together He is without each: for the birth of
Divinity had no need of mother, and for the birth of His body, He was
Himself sufficient, without a father. Therefore says the Apostle
"Without mother, without genealogy."
CHAPTER XV.
How Christ could be said by the Apostle to be
without genealogy.
HOW does he say that the Lord was "without genealogy," when
the Gospel of the Evangelist Matthew begins with the Saviour's
genealogy, saying: "The book of the generations of Jesus Christ,
the Son of David, the Son of Abraham"?[265] Therefore according to the
Evangelist He has a genealogy, and according to the Apostle, He has
not: for according to the Evangelist, He has it on the mother's side,
according to the Apostle He has not, as He springs from the Father.
And so the Apostle well says: "Without father, without mother,
without genealogy:" and where he lays down that He was begotten
without mother, there also he records that He was without genealogy.
And thus as regards both the nativities of the Lord, the writings of
the Evangelist and of the Apostle agree together. For according to
the Evangelist He has a genealogy "without father," when
born in the flesh: and according to the Apostle, the Lord has not,
when begotten in His Divine nature "without mother;" as
Isaiah says: "But who shall declare His generation?"[266]
CHAPTER XVI.
He shows that like the devil when tempting Christ,
the heretics garble and pervert holy Scripture.
WHY then, you heretic, did you not in this way quote the whole and
entire passage which you had read? So you see that the Apostle laid
down that the Lord was "without mother" in the same way in
which he laid down that He was born "without father:" that
we might know that He is "without mother" in the same way in
which we understand Him to be "without father." And as it
is impossible to believe Him to be altogether "without
father," so we cannot understand that He is altogether
"without mother." Why then, you heretic, did you not in
this way quote what you had read in the Apostle, entire and
unmutilated? But you insert part, and omit part; and garble the words
of truth in order that you may be able to build up your false notions
by your wicked act. I see who was your master. We must believe that
you had his instruction, whose example you are following.
For so the devil in the gospel when tempting the Lord said: "If
Thou art the Son of God, cast Thyself down. For it is written that He
shall give His angels charge concerning Thee to keep Thee in all Thy
ways."[267] And when he had said
this, he left out the context and what belongs to it; viz., "Thou
shalt walk upon the asp and the basilisk: and thou shalt trample under
foot the lion and the dragon."[268] Surely he cunningly quoted the
previous verse and left out the latter: for he quoted the one to
deceive Him: he held his tongue about the latter to avoid condemning
himself. For he knew that he himself was signified by the asp and
basilisk, the lion and dragon in the Prophet's words. So then you
also bring forward a part and omit a part; and quote the one to
deceive; and omit the other for fear lest if you were to quote the
whole, you might condemn your own deception. But it is now time to
pass on to further matters, for by dwelling too long on particular
points, as we are led to do by the desire of giving a full answer, we
exceed the limits even of a longish book.
CHAPTER XVII.
That the glory and honour of Christ is not to be
ascribed to the Holy Ghost in such a way as to deny that it proceeds
from Christ Himself, as if all that excellency, which was in Him, was
another's and proceeded from another source.
YOU say then in another discussion, nay rather in another blasphemy of
yours, "and He separated[269] the
Spirit from the Divine nature Who created His humanity. For Scripture
says that that which was born of Mary is of the Holy Ghost.[270] Who also filled with righteousness
(justitia) that which was created: for it says `He appeared in the
flesh, was justified in the Spirit.'[271] Again: Who made Him also to be
feared by the devils: `For I,' He says,`by the Spirit of God cast out
devils.'[272] Who also made His flesh
a temple. `For I saw His spirit descending like a dove and abiding
upon Him.'[273] Again: Who granted to
Him His ascension into Heaven. For it says, `Giving a commandment to
the apostles whom He had chosen, by the Holy Ghost He was taken
up.'[274] Finally that it was He who
granted such glory to Christ." The whole of your blasphemy then
consists in this: that Christ had nothing of Himself: nor did He, a
mere man, as you say, receive anything from the Word, i.e., the Son of
God; but everything in Him was the gift of the Spirit. If then we can
show that all that which you refer to the Spirit, is His own, what
remains but that we prove that He whom you therefore would have taken
to be a man, because as you say everything which He has is another's,
is therefore God, because everything which He has is His own? And
indeed we will prove this not only by discussion and argument, but by
the voice of Divinity Itself: for nothing testifies of God better than
things divine. And because nothing knows itself better than the very
glory of God, we believe nothing on the subject of God with greater
right than those writings in which God Himself is His own witness.
First then, as to this that you say that the Holy Spirit created His
humanity; we might take it simply, if we could acknowledge that you
had not brought it forward in the interests of unbelief. For neither
do we deny that the flesh of the Lord was conceived by the Holy Ghost:
but we assert that the body was conceived by the co-operation of the
Holy Ghost in such a way that we can say that His Humanity[275] was created for Himself by the Son
of God, as the Holy Spirit Itself says in holy Scripture, testifying
that "Wisdom hath builded for Itself a house."[276] You see then that that which was
conceived by the Holy Ghost was built and perfected by the Son of God:
not that the work of the Son of God is one thing, and the work of the
Holy Ghost another: but that through the unity of the Godhead and
glory the operation of the Spirit is the building of the Son of God;
and the building of the Son of God is the co-operation of the Holy
Ghost. And so we read not only that the Holy Ghost came upon the
Virgin, but also that the power of the Most High overshadowed the
Virgin; that since Wisdom Itself is the fulness of the Godhead, no one
might doubt that when Wisdom built Itself a house all the fulness of
the Godhead was present. But the wretched hardness of your blasphemy,
while it tries to sever Christ from the Son of God, fails to see that
it is entirely severing the nature of the Godhead from Itself. Unless
perhaps you believe that the house is therefore built for Him by the
Holy Ghost because He Himself was insufficient and incapable of
building for Himself an house. But it is as absurd as it is wild, to
believe that He, whom we believe to have created the whole universe of
things heavenly and earthly by His will, was unable to build for
Himself a body: especially as the power of the Holy Ghost is His
power, and the Divinity and Glory of the Trinity are so united and
inseparable, that we cannot think of anything at all in One Person of
the Trinity, which can be separated from the fulness of the Godhead.
Therefore when this is laid down and grasped; viz., that according to
the faith of holy Scripture, when the Holy Ghost came upon (the
Virgin) and the power of the Most High overshadowed her, Wisdom
builded Itself an house; the rest of the slanders of your blasphemy
come to nothing. For neither is it doubtful that He made all things
by Himself and in Himself, in whose name and faith, the faith even of
believers can do anything. For neither did He need the aid of
another, as neither have they needed it, who have trusted in His
power. And so as for your assertions that He was justified by the
Spirit, and that the Spirit made Him to be feared by the devils, and
that His flesh became the temple of the Holy Ghost, and that He was
taken up by the Spirit into heaven, they are all blasphemous and wild:
not because we are to believe that in all these things which He
Himself did, the unity and cooperation of the Spirit was
wanting--since the Godhead is never wanting to Itself, and the power
of the Trinity was ever present in the Saviour's works--but because
you will have it that the Holy Ghost gave assistance to the Lord Jesus
Christ as if He had been feeble and powerless; and that He granted
those things to Him, which He was unable to procure for Himself.
Learn then from sacred witnesses to believe God, and not to mingle
falsehood with truth: for the subject does not admit it, and common
sense abhors the idea of mingling the notions of the spirit of the
devil with the witnesses that are Divine.
CHAPTER XVIII.
How we are to understand the Apostle's words:
"He appeared in the flesh, was justified in the Spirit,"
etc.
FOR to begin with this assertion of yours that the Spirit filled with
righteousness (justitia) what was created, and your attempts to prove
this by the evidence of the Apostle, where he says that "He
appeared in the flesh, was justified in the Spirit," you make
each statement in an unsound sense and wild spirit. For you make this
assertion; viz., that you will have it that He was filled with
righteousness by the Spirit, in order to show how He was void of
righteousness, as you assert that the being filled with it was given
to Him. And as for your use of the evidence of the Apostle on this
matter, you garble the arrangement and meaning of the sacred passage.
For the Apostle's statement is not as you have quoted it, mutilated
and spoilt. For what says the Apostle? "And evidently great is
the mystery of Godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was
justified in the Spirit."[277]
You see then that the Apostle declared that the mystery or sacrament
of Godliness was justified. For he was not so forgetful of his own
words and teaching as to say that He was void of righteousness, whom
he had always proclaimed as righteousness, saying: "Who was made
unto us righteousness and sanctification and redemption."[278] Elsewhere also he says: "But
ye were washed, but ye were justified, but ye were sanctified in the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ."[279] How far then from Him was it to
need being filled with righteousness, as He Himself filled all things
with righteousness, and for His glory to be without righteousness,
whose very name justifies all things. You see then how foolish and
wild are your blasphemies, since you are trying to take away from our
Lord what is ever shed forth by Him upon all believers in such a way
that still in its continuous supply it is never diminished.
CHAPTER XIX.
That it was not only the Spirit, but Christ Himself
also who made Him to be feared.
YOU say too that the Spirit made Him to be feared by the devils. To
reject and refute which, even though the horrible character of the
utterance is enough, we will still add some instances. Tell me, I
pray, you who say that the fact that the devils feared Him was not His
own doing but another's, and who will have it that this was not His
own power but a gift, how was it that even His name had that power, of
which He Himself was, according to you, void? How was it that in His
name devils were cast out, sick persons were cured, dead men were
raised? For the Apostle Peter says to that lame man who was sitting
at the beautiful gate of the Temple: "In the name of Jesus Christ
arise and walk."[280] And again
in the city of Joppa to the man who had been lying on his bed
paralysed for eight years he says, "Æneas, may the Lord
Jesus Christ heal thee: arise and make thy bed for thyself."[281] Paul too says to the pythonical
spirit: "I charge thee in the name of Jesus Christ come out of
her," and the devil came out of her.[282] But understand from this how
utterly alien this weakness was from our Lord: for I do not call even
those weak, whom He by His name made strong, since we never heard of
any devil or infirmity able to resist any of the apostles since the
Lord's resurrection. How then did the Spirit make Him to be feared,
who made others to be feared? Or was He in Himself weak, whose faith
even through the instrumentality of others reigned over all things?
Finally those men who received power from God, never used that power
as if it were their own: but referred the power to Him from whom they
received it: for the power itself could never have any force except
through the name of Him who gave it. And so both the apostles and all
the servants of God never did any thing in their own name, but in the
name and invocation of Christ: for the power itself derived its force
from the same source as its origin, and could not be given through the
instrumentality of the ministers, unless it had come from the Author.
You then--who say that the Lord was the same as one of His servants
(for as the apostles had nothing but what they received from their
Lord, so you make out that the Lord Himself had nothing but what He
received from the Spirit; and thus you make out that everything that
He had, He had not as Lord, but had received it as a servant), do you
tell me then, how it was that He used this power as His own and not as
something which He had received? For what do we read of Him? He says
to the paralytic: "Arise, take up thy bed, and go to thine
house."[283] And again to a
father who pleads on behalf of his child, He says: "Go thy way:
thy son liveth."[284] And where
an only son of his mother was being carried forth for burial,
"Young man," He says, "I say unto thee, Arise."[285] Did He then like those who received
power from God, ask that power might be given to Him for performing
these things by the invocation of the Divine Name? Why did He not
Himself work by the name of the Spirit, just as the apostles wrought
by His Name? Finally, what does the gospel itself state about Him?
It says: "He was teaching them as one that had authority, and not
like the Scribes and Pharisees."[286] Or do you make out that He was so
proud and haughty as to put to the credit of His own might the power
which (according to you) He had received from God? But what do we
make of the fact that the power never submitted to His servants,
except through the name of its author, and could have no efficacy if
the actor claimed any of it as his own?
CHAPTER XX.
He tries by stronger and weightier arguments to
destroy that notion.
BUT why are we so long dealing with your wild blasphemy, with
arguments that are plain indeed but still slight? Let us hear God
Himself speaking to His disciples: "Heal the sick, raise the
dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils."[287] And again: "In My name,"
He says, "ye shall cast out devils."[288] Had He any need of Another's name
for the exercise of His power, who made His own name to be a power?
But what is still added? "Behold," He says, "I have
given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions and upon all the
power of the enemy."[289] He
Himself says that He was gentle, as indeed He was, and humble in
heart. And how was it that as regards the greatest possible power, He
commanded others to work in His own name, if He Himself worked in
Another's name? Or did He give to others, as if it were His own, what
He Himself, according to you, did not possess, unless He received it
from Another? But tell me, which of the saints receiving power from
God, so worked? Or would not Peter have been thought a lunatic, or
John a madman, or Paul out of his mind, if they had said to any sick
folk: "In our name arise;" or to the lame: "In our name
walk;" or to the dead: "In our name live;" or this to
some: "We give you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions and
upon all the power of the enemy"? You see then from this your
madness: for just as these words are mad if they spring from man's
assurance, so are you utterly mad if you do not see that they come
from Divine power. For you must admit one of two alternatives; either
that man could possess and give Divine power, or at any rate if no man
can do this, that He who could do it, was God. For no one can grant
of His liberality Divine power, except Him who possesses it by
nature.
CHAPTER XXI.
That it must be ascribed equally to Christ and the
Holy Ghost that His flesh and Humanity became the temple of God.
BUT there follows in your blasphemy that His flesh was made a temple
of the Holy Ghost, for this reason, that John has said: "For I
saw the Spirit descending from heaven and abiding upon Him."[290] For you try to support even this
wild statement of yours by Scriptural authority: wherefore let us see
whether this sacred authority has said that which you say. "For
I saw," it says, "the Spirit descending like a dove, and
abiding upon Him." Discern here, if you can, which is the more
powerful, which greater, which more to be honoured? He who descended,
or He to whom the descent was made? He who brought down the honour,
or He to whom the honour was brought? Where do you find in this
passage that the Spirit made His flesh a temple? or wherein does it
lessen the honour of God, if God Himself descended to show God to
mankind? For certainly we ought not to think that He is less whose
high estate was pointed out, than He who pointed out His high estate.
But away with the thought of believing or making any separation in the
Godhead: for one and the same Godhead and equal power shut out
altogether the wicked notion of inequality. And so in this matter,
where there is the Person of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost, and where it is the Son of God to whom the descent is made, the
Spirit who descends, the Father who gives His witness, no one had more
honour, and no one received any slight, but it all redounds equally to
the fulness of the Godhead, for each Person of the Trinity contains
within Himself the glory of the whole Trinity. And so nothing further
needs to be said, except only to show the rise and origin of your
blasphemy. For thorns and thistles springing up from the roots
produce shoots of their own nature, and from their character show
their origin. So then you also, a thorny offshoot of the Pelagian
heresy, show in germ just the same that your father is said to have
had in the root. For he[291] (as
Leporius his follower said) declared that our Lord was made the Christ
by His baptism: you say that at His baptism He was made the temple of
God by the Spirit. The words are not altogether identical: but the
wrong-headedness is altogether the same.
CHAPTER XXII.
That the raising up of Christ into heaven is not to
be ascribed to the Spirit alone.
BUT you add this also to those impieties of yours mentioned above;
viz., that the Spirit granted to the Lord His ascension into heaven:
showing by this blasphemous notion of yours that you believe that the
Lord Jesus Christ was so weak and powerless that had not the Spirit
raised Him up to heaven, you fancy that He would still at this day
have been on earth. But to prove this assertion you bring forward a
passage of Scripture: for you say "Giving commands to the
apostles whom He had chosen, by the Holy Ghost He was raised
up."[292] What am I to call you?
What am I to think of you who by corrupting the sacred writings
contrive that their evidences should not have the force of evidences?
A new kind of audacity, which strives by its impious arguments to
manage that truth may seem to confirm falsehood. For the Acts of the
Apostles does not say what you make out. For what says the Scripture?
"What Jesus began to do and to teach until the day in which
giving charge to the apostles whom He had chosen by the Holy Ghost, He
was taken up." Which is an instance of Hyperbaton, and must be
understood in this way: what Jesus began to do and to teach until the
day in which he was taken up, giving charge to the apostles whom He
had chosen by the Holy Ghost; so that we ought not perhaps to have to
give you any further answer m this matter than that of the passage
itself, for the entire passage ought to be sufficient for the full
truth, if the mutilation of it was available for your falsehood. But
still, you, who think that our Lord Jesus Christ could not have
ascended into heaven, unless He had been raised up by the Spirit; tell
me how is it that He Himself says "No one hath ascended into
heaven but He who came down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in
heaven"?[293] Confess then how
foolish and absurd your notion is that He could not ascend into
heaven, who is said, although He had descended into earth, never to
have been absent from heaven: and say whether to leave the regions
below and ascend into heaven was possible for Him to whom it was easy
when still on earth, ever to continue in heaven. But what is that
which He Himself says: "I ascend unto my Father."[294] Did He imply that in this ascension
there would be the intervention of Another's help, who by the very
fact that He said He would ascend, shows the efficacy of His own
power? David also says of the Ascension of the Lord: "God
ascended with a merry noise, the Lord with the sound of the
trumpet:"[295] He clearly
explained the glory of Him who ascends by the power of the
ascension.
CHAPTER XXIII.
He continues the same argument to show that Christ
had no need of another's glory as He had a glory of His own.
BUT to end let us see the addition with which you sum up your
preceding blasphemies. Your words are, "Who gave such[296] glory to Christ?" You name
glory in order to degrade Him. For by the assertion that the Lord was
endowed with glory, in saying that He received it you blasphemously
imply that He stood in need of it. For your perverse notion suggests
that the generosity of the giver shows the need of the receiver. O
miserable impiety of yours! and where is that which Divinity itself
once foretold of the Lord Jesus Christ ascending into heaven? Saying:
"Lift up your heads, and the King of glory shall come
in."[297] And when He (after the
fashion of Divine utterances) had made answer to Himself as if in the
character of an inquirer: "Who is the King of glory?" at
once He adds: "The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in
battle:" showing under the figure of a battle fought, the victory
of the Lord in His triumph. Then when, to complete the exposition of
it, He had repeated the words of the utterance quoted above, He showed
by the following conclusion the majesty of the Lord as He entered
heaven, saying "The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory."
On purpose that the fact of His taking a body might not interfere with
the glory of His mighty Divinity, He taught that the same Person was
Lord of hosts and King of heavenly glory, whom He had previously
proclaimed Victor in the battle below. Go now[298] and say that the glory was given to
the Lord, when both prophecy has said that He was the King of glory,
and He Himself also has testified of Himself as follows: "When
the Son of man shall come in His glory."[299] Refute it, if you can, and
contradict this; viz., that whereas He testifies that He has glory of
His own, you say that He has received Another's. Although we maintain
that He has His own glory, in such a way that we do not deny that His
very property of glory is common to Him with the Father and the Holy
Ghost. For whatever God possesses belongs to the Godhead: and the
kingdom of glory belongs to the Son of God in such a way that it is
not kept back from belonging to the entire Godhead.
CHAPTER XXIV.
He supports this doctrine by the authority of the
blessed Hilary.
BUT it is quite time to finish the book, aye and the whole work, if I
may however add the sayings of a few saintly men and illustrious
priests, to support by the faith of the present day what we have
already proved by the authority of holy Scripture. Hilary, a man
endowed with all virtues and graces, and famous for his life as well
as for his eloquence, who also, as a teacher of the churches and a
priest, advanced not only by his own merits but also by the progress
of others, and remained so steadfast during the storms of persecution
that through the fortitude of his unconquered faith he attained the
dignity of being a Confessor,[300]--he
testifies in the First book on the faith that the Lord Jesus Christ,
Very God of Very God, was both begotten before the world, and
afterwards born as man. Again in the Second book: "One only
Begotten God grew in the womb of the holy Virgin into the form of a
human body; He who contains all things, and in whose power all things
are, is brought forth according to the law of human birth."
Again in the same book: "An angel is witness that He who is born
is God with us." Again in the Tenth book: "We have taught
the mystery of God born as man by the birth from the Virgin."
Again in the same book: "For when God was born as man, He was not
born on purpose not to remain God."[301] Again in the same writer's preface
to his exposition of the gospel according to Matthew:[302] "For to begin with it was
needful for us that for our sakes the only Begotten God should be
known to be born as man." Again in what follows: "that
besides being God, He should be born as man, which He was not
yet." Again in the same place: "Then this third matter was
fitting: that as God was born as man in the world" etc.: Here are
a few passages out of any number. But still you see even from these
which we have quoted, how clearly and plainly he asserts that God was
born of Mary. And where then is this saying of yours: "The
creature could not bring forth the Creator: and that which is born of
the flesh, is flesh." It would take too long to quote passages
bearing on this point from each separate writer. I must try to
enumerate them rather than to explain them: for they will sufficiently
explain themselves.
CHAPTER XXV.
He shows that Ambrose agrees with S. Hilary.
AMBROSE, that illustrious priest of God, who never leaving the Lord's
hand, ever shone like a jewel upon the finger of God, thus speaks in
his book to the Virgins: "My brother is white and ruddy.[303] White because He is the glory of
the Father: ruddy because He was born of the Virgin. But remember
that in Him the tokens of Divinity are of longer standing than the
mysteries of the body. For He did not begin to exist from the Virgin,
but He who was already in existence, came into the Virgin."[304] Again on Christmas Day: "See
the miracle of the mother of the Lord: A Virgin conceived, a Virgin
brought forth. She was a Virgin when she conceived, a Virgin when
with child, a Virgin after the birth. As is said in Ezekiel:
"And the gate was shut and not opened, because the Lord passed
through it."[305] A splendid
Virginity, and wondrous fruitfulness! The Lord of the world is born:
and there are no cries from her who brought Him forth. The womb is
left empty, and a true child is born, and yet the Virginity is not
destroyed. It was right that when God was born the power of chastity
should become greater, and that her purity should not be violated by
the going forth of Him who had come to heal what was corrupt."[306] Again in his exposition of the
gospel according to Luke he says that "one was especially chosen,
to bring forth God, who was espoused to an husband."[307] He certainly declares that God was
born of the Virgin. He calls Mary the mother of God. And where is
that awful and execrable utterance of yours asking how can she be the
mother of one of a different nature from her own. But if she is
called mother by them, it is the human nature which was born not the
Godhead. So, that illustrious teacher of the faith says both that she
who bare Him was human, and that He who was born is God: and yet that
this is no reason for unbelief, but only a miracle of faith.
CHAPTER XXVI.
He adds to the foregoing the testimony of S.
Jerome.
JEROME, the Teacher of the Catholics, whose writings shine like divine
lamps throughout the whole world, says in his book to Eustochium:
"The Son of God for our salvation was made the Son of man. He
waits ten months in the womb to be born: and He, in whose hand the
world is held, is contained in a narrow manger."[308] Again in his commentary on Isaiah:
"For the Lord of hosts, who is the King of glory, Himself
descended into the Virgin's womb, and entered in and went forth from
the East Gate which is ever shut."[309] Of whom Gabriel says to the Virgin:
"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most
High shall overshadow thee. Wherefore that holy thing which shall be
born of thee shall be called the Son of God." And in Proverbs:
"Wisdom hath builded herself an house."[310] Compare this if you please with
your doctrine or rather your blasphemy, in which you assert that God
is the Creator of the months, and was not an offspring of months. For
lo, Jerome, a man of the greatest knowledge and also of the most pure
and approved doctrine testifies almost in the very words in which you
deny that the Son of God was an offspring of months, that He was an
offspring of months. For he says that He waits ten months in the womb
to be born. But perhaps the authority of this man seems a mere
nothing to you. You may take it that every one says the same and in
the same words, for whoever does not deny that the Son of God is the
offspring of the Virgin, admits that He is the offspring of months.
CHAPTER XXVII.
To the foregoing he adds Rufinus and the blessed
Augustine.
RUFINUS also, a Christian philosopher, with no mean place among
Ecclesiastical Doctors testifies as follows of the Lord's Nativity in
his Exposition of the Creed. "For the Son of God," he says,
"is born of a Virgin, not chiefly allied to the flesh alone, but
generated in the soul which is the medium between the flesh and
God."[311] Does he witness
obscurely that God was born of man? Augustine the priest[312] of Hippo Regiensis says: "That
men might be born of God, God was first born of them: for Christ is
God. And Christ when born of men only required a mother on earth,
because He always had a Father in heaven, being born of God through
whom we are made, and also born of a woman, through whom we might be
re-created."[313] Again, in this
place: "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Why then
need you wonder that men are born of God? Notice how God Himself was
born of men." Again in his Epistle to Volusianus: "But
Moses himself and the rest of the prophets most truly prophesied of
Christ the Lord, and gave Him great glory: they declared that He would
come not as one like themselves, nor merely greater in the same sort
of power of working miracles, but clearly as the Lord God of all, and
as made man for men. Who therefore Himself also willed to do such
things as they did to prevent the absurdity of His not doing Himself
those things which He did through them. But still it was right also
for Him to do something special; viz., to be born of a Virgin, to rise
from the dead, to ascend into heaven. And if anyone thinks that this
is too little for God, I know not what more he can look for.[314]
CHAPTER XXVIII.
As he is going to produce the testimony of Greek or
Eastern Bishops, he brings forward in the first place S. Gregory
Nazianzen.
BUT perhaps because those whom we have enumerated came from different
parts of the world, their authority may seem to you less valuable. An
absurd thing, indeed, because faith is not interfered with by place,
and we have to consider what a man is, not where:
especially since religion unites all together, and those who are in
the one faith may be also known to be in the one body. But still we
will bring forward for you some, whom you cannot despise, even from
the East. Gregory, that most grand light of knowledge and doctrine,
who though he has been for some time dead, yet still lives in
authority and faith, and though he has been for some time removed in
the body from the Churches, yet has not forsaken them in word and
authority. "When then," he says, "God had come forth
from the Virgin, in that human nature which He had taken, as He
existed in one out of two which are the opposite of each other; viz.,
flesh and spirit, the one is taken into God, the other exalts into the
grace of Deity.[315] O new and
unheard of intermingling! O marvellous and exquisite union! He who
was, came to be, and the Creator is created: and He who is infinite is
embraced by the soul which is the medium between God and the flesh:
and He who makes all rich, is made poor." Again he says of the
Epiphany: "But what happens? What is done concerning us and for
us? There is brought about some new and unheard of change of natures
and God is made man." Again in this passage:[316] "The Son of God began to be
also the Son of man, not being changed from what He was, for He is
unchangeable, but taking to Himself what He was not: for He is pitiful
so that He, who could not be embraced, can now be embraced." You
see how grandly and nobly he asserts the majesty of His Godhead so
that He may bring in the condescension of the Incarnation: for that
admirable teacher of the faith knew well that of all the blessings
which God granted to us at His coming into the world this was the
chief, without diminishing in any way His glory. For whatever God
gave to man, ought to increase the love of Him in us, and not to
lessen the honour which we give to Him.
CHAPTER XXIX.
In the next place he puts the authority of S.
Athanasius.
ATHANASIUS also, priest of the city of Alexandria, a splendid instance
of constancy and virtue, whom the storm of heretical persecution
tested without crushing him: whose life was always like a clear glass,
and who had almost obtained the reward of martyrdom before attaining
the dignity of confessorship: Let us see what was his view of the Lord
Jesus Christ and the mother of the Lord. "This then," he
says, "is the mind and stamp of Holy Scripture, as we have often
said; viz., that in one and the same Saviour two things have to be
understood: (1) that He was ever God, and is Son, Word, and Light, and
Wisdom of the Father, and (2) that afterwards for our sakes He took
flesh of the Virgin Mary the Theotocos, and was made man."[317] Again after some other matter:
"Many then were saints and clean from sin: Jeremiah also was
sanctified from the womb, and John, while still in the womb leapt for
joy at the voice of Mary the Theotocos."[318] He certainly says that God, the Son
of God, who (to declare the faith of all in his words) is "the
Word, and Light and Wisdom of the Father," took flesh for our
sakes; and therefore he calls the Virgin Mary Theotocos, because she
was the Mother of God.
CHAPTER XXX.
He adds also S. John Chrysostom.
AS for John the glory of the Episcopate of Constantinople, whose holy
life obtained the reward of martyrdom without any show of Gentile
persecution, hear what he thought and taught on the Incarnation of the
Son of God: "And Him," he says, "whom if He had come in
unveiled Deity neither the heaven nor the earth nor the sea nor any
other creature could have contained, the pure womb of a Virgin
bore."[319] This man's faith and
doctrine then, even if you ignore that of others, you ought to follow
and hold, as out of love and affection for him the pious people chose
you as their Bishop. For when it took you for its priest from the
Church of Antioch, from which it had formerly chosen him, it believed
that it would receive in you all that it had lost in him.[320] Did not, I ask you, all these
almost with prophetic spirit say all these things in order to confound
your blasphemies. For you declare that our Lord and Saviour Christ is
not God: they declare that Christ the Lord is Very God. You
blasphemously assert that Mary is Christotocos not Theotocos: they do
not deny that she is Christotocos, while they acknowledge her as
Theotocos. Not merely the substance but the words also are opposed to
your blasphemies: that we may clearly see that an impregnable bulwark
was formerly prepared by God against your blasphemies, to break on the
wall of truth ready prepared, the force of the heretical attack which
was at some time or other to come. And you, O you most wicked and
shameless contaminator of an illustrious city, you disastrous and
deadly plague of a Catholic and holy people, do you dare to stand and
teach in the Church of God, and with your wild and blasphemous words
slander the priests of an ever unbroken faith and Catholic confession,
and say that the people of the city of Constantinople are in error
through the fault of their earlier teachers? Are you then the
corrector of former Bishops, the accuser of ancient priests, are you
better than Gregory, more approved than Nectarius, greater than
John,[321] and all the other Bishops
of Eastern cities who, though not of the same renown as those whom I
have enumerated, were yet of the same faith? which, as far as the
matter in hand is concerned, is enough: for when it is a question of
the faith, all are as good as the best in so far as they agree with
the best.
CHAPTER XXXI.
He bemoans the unhappy lot of Constantinople, owing
to the misfortune which has overtaken it from that heretic; and at the
same time he urges the citizens to stand fast in the ancient Catholic
and ancestral faith.
WHEREFORE I also, humble and insignificant as I am in name as in
desert, and although I cannot claim a place as Teacher among those
illustrious Bishops of Constantinople, yet venture to claim the zeal
and enthusiasm of a disciple. For I was admitted into the sacred
ministry by the Bishop John, of blessed memory, and offered to God,
and even though I am absent in body yet I am still there in heart: and
though by actual presence I no longer mix with that most dear and
honourable people of God, yet I am still joined to them in spirit. And
hence it comes that condoling and sympathizing with them, I broke out
just now into the utterance of our common grief and sorrow, and in my
weakness cried out (which was all that I could do) by means of the
dolorous lamentation of my works, as if for my own limbs and members:
for if as the Apostle says, when the smaller part of the body is
grieved, the greater part grieves and sympathizes with it,[322] how much more should the smaller
part sympathize when the greater part is grieved? It is indeed
utterly inhuman for the smaller parts not to feel the sufferings of
the greater in one and the same body, if the greater feel those of the
smaller. Wherefore I pray and beseech you, you who live within the
circuit of Constantinople, and who are my fellow-citizens through the
love of my country, and my brothers through the unity of the faith;
separate yourselves from that ravening wolf who (as it is written)
devours the people of God, as if they were bread.[323] Touch not, taste not anything of
his, for all those things lead to death. Come out from the midst of
him and be ye separate and touch not the unclean thing. Remember your
ancient teachers, and your priests; Gregory whose fame was spread
through the world, Nectarius renowned for holiness, John a marvel of
faith and purity. John, I say; that John who like John the Evangelist
was indeed a disciple of Jesus and an Apostle; and so to speak ever
reclined on the breast and heart of the Lord. Remember him, I say.
Follow him. Think of his purity, his faith, his doctrine, and
holiness. Remember him ever as your teacher and nurse, in whose bosom
and embraces you as it were grew up. Who was the teacher in common
both of you and of me: whose disciples and pupils we are. Read his
writings. Hold fast his instruction. Embrace his faith and merits.
For though to attain this is a hard and magnificent thing: yet even to
follow is beautiful and sublime. For in the highest matters, not
merely the attainment, but even the attempt to copy is worthy of
praise. For scarcely anyone entirely misses all parts in that to
which he is trying to climb and reach. He then should ever be in your
minds and almost in your sight: he should live in your hearts and in
your thoughts. He would himself commend to you this that I have
written, for it was he who taught me what I have written: and so do
not think of this as mine, so much as his: for the stream comes from
the spring, and whatever you think belongs to the disciple, ought all
to be referred to the honour of the master. But, beyond and above all
I pray with all my heart and voice, to Thee, O God the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that Thou wouldest fill with the gift of Thy love
whatever we have written by Thy bounteous grace. And because, as the
Lord our God Thine Only Begotten Son Himself taught us, Thou hast so
loved this world as to send Thine Only Begotten Son to save the world,
grant to Thy people whom Thou hast redeemed that in the Incarnation of
Thine Only Begotten Son they may perceive both Thy gift and His love:
and that all may understand the truth that for us Thine Only Begotten,
our Lord God, was born and suffered and rose again, and may so love it
that the condescension of His glory may increase our love: and let not
His Humility lead to a diminution of His honour in the hearts of all
men, but let it ever produce an increase of love: and may we all
rightly and wisely comprehend the blessings of His Sacred Compassion,
so as to see that we owe the more to God, in proportion as for our
sakes God humbled Himself yet lower.
This document (last modified August 21, 1998) from the
Christian
Classics Ethereal Library server, at
@Wheaton College