Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| To the Cæsareans. A defence of his withdrawal, and concerning the faith.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Letter VIII.1779
| 1779 This
important letter was written a.d. 360, when
Basil, shocked at the discovery that Dianius, the bishop who had
baptized him, had subscribed the Arian creed of Ariminum, as revised
at Nike (Theod., Hist. Ecc. II. xvi.), left
Cæsarea, and withdrew to his friend Gregory at Nazianzus.
The Benedictine note considers the traditional title an error, and
concludes the letter to have been really addressed to the monks of
the Cœnobium over which Basil had presided. But it may
have been written to monks in or near Cæsarea, so that title
and sense will agree. |
To the Cæsareans. A defence
of his withdrawal, and concerning the faith.
1. I have often
been astonished at your feeling towards me as you do, and how it comes
about that an individual so small and insignificant, and having, may
be, very little that is lovable about him, should have so won your
allegiance. You remind me of the claims of friendship and of
fatherland,1780
| 1780 πατρίς seems
to be used of the city or neighbourhood of Cæsarea, and so far
to be in favour of Basil’s birth there. | and
press me urgently in your
attempt to make me come back to you, as though I were a runaway from a
father’s heart and home. That I am a runaway I
confess. I should be sorry to deny it; since you are already
regretting me, you shall be told the cause. I was astounded like
a man stunned by some sudden noise. I did not crush my thoughts,
but dwelt upon them as I fled, and now I have been absent from you a
considerable time. Then I began to yearn for the divine
doctrines, and the philosophy that is concerned with them. How,
said I, could I overcome the mischief dwelling with us? Who is to
be my Laban, setting me free from Esau, and leading me to the supreme
philosophy? By God’s help, I have, so far as in me lies,
attained my object; I have found a chosen vessel, a deep well; I mean
Gregory, Christ’s mouth. Give me, therefore, I beg you, a
little time. I am not embracing a city life.1781
| 1781 i.e.
the life of the city, presumably Nazianzus, from which he is
writing. | I am quite well aware how the evil one
by such means devises deceit for mankind, but I do hold the society of
the saints most useful. For in the more constant change of ideas
about the divine dogmas I am acquiring a lasting habit of
contemplation. Such is my present situation.
2. Friends godly and well beloved, do, I
implore you, beware of the shepherds of the Philistines; let them not
choke your wills unawares; let them not befoul the purity of your
knowledge of the faith. This is ever their object, not to teach
simple souls lessons drawn from Holy Scripture, but to mar the harmony
of the truth by heathen philosophy. Is not he an open Philistine
who is introducing the terms “unbegotten” and
“begotten” into our faith, and asserts that there
was once a time when the Everlasting was not;1782
| 1782 cf. the
Arian formula ἦν
ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ
ἦν. | that He who is by nature and eternally a
Father became a Father; that the Holy Ghost is not eternal? He
bewitches our Patriarch’s sheep that they may not drink
“of the well of water springing up into everlasting
life,”1783
but may rather
bring upon themselves the words of the prophet, “They have
forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out
cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water;”1784
when all the while they ought to confess
that the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost
God,1785
| 1785 cf. p.
16, note. This is one of the few instances of St.
Basil’s use of the word θεός of the Holy Ghost. | as they have
been taught by the divine words, and by those who have understood
them in their highest sense. Against those who cast it in our
teeth that we are Tritheists, let it be answered that we confess one
God not in number but in nature. For everything which is
called one in number is not one absolutely, nor yet simple in
nature; but God is universally confessed to be simple and not
composite. God therefore is not one in number. What I
mean is this. We say that the world is one in number, but not
one by nature nor yet simple; for we divide it into its constituent
elements, fire, water, air, and earth.1786
| 1786 For the four
elements of ancient philosophy modern chemistry now catalogues at
least sixty-seven. Of these, earth generally contains eight;
air is a mixture of two; water is a compound of two; and fire is the
visible evidence of a combination between elements which produces
light and heat. On the “elements” of the Greek
philosophers vide Arist., Met. i. 3.
Thales (†c. 550 b.c.) said
water; Anaximenes (†c. b.c.
480) air; and Heraclitus (†c. b.c. 500) fire. To these Empedocles (who
“ardentem frigidus Ætnam insiluit, c.
b.c. 440) added a fourth,
earth. | Again, man is called one in
number. We frequently speak of one man, but man who is
composed of body and soul is not simple. Similarly we say one
angel in number, but not one by nature nor yet simple, for we
conceive of the hypostasis of the angel as essence with
sanctification. If therefore everything which is one in number
is not one in nature, and that which is one and simple in nature is
not one in number; and if we call God one in nature how can number
be charged against us, when we utterly exclude it from that blessed
and spiritual nature? Number relates to quantity; and quantity
is conjoined with bodily nature, for number is of bodily
nature. We believe our Lord to be Creator of bodies.
Wherefore every number indicates those things which have received a
material and circumscribed nature. Monad and Unity on the
other hand signify the nature which is simple and
incomprehensible. Whoever therefore confesses either the Son
of God or the Holy Ghost to be number or creature introduces
unawares a material and circumscribed nature. And by
circumscribed I mean not only locally limited, but a nature which is
comprehended in foreknowledge by Him who is about to educe it from
the non-existent into the existent and which can be comprehended by
science. Every holy thing then of which the nature is
circumscribed and of which the holiness is acquired is not
insusceptible of evil. But the Son and the Holy Ghost are the
source of sanctification by which every reasonable creature is
hallowed in proportion to its virtue.
3. We in accordance with the true doctrine
speak of the Son as neither like,1787
| 1787 Asserted at
Seleucia and Ariminum. | nor
unlike1788
| 1788
cf. D. Sp. S. § 4 on Aetius’
responsibility for the Anomœan formula. | the
Father. Each of these terms is equally impossible, for like and unlike are
predicated in relation to quality, and the divine is free from
quality. We, on the contrary, confess identity of nature and
accepting the consubstantiality, and rejecting the composition of
the Father, God in substance, Who begat the Son, God in
substance. From this the consubstantiality1789
is proved. For God in essence or
substance is co-essential or con-substantial with God in essence
or substance. But when even man is called “god”
as in the words, “I have said ye are gods,”1790
and “dæmon” as in the
words, “The gods of the nations are
dæmons,”1791
in the former
case the name is given by favour, in the latter untruly. God
alone is substantially and essentially God. When I say
“alone” I set forth the holy and uncreated essence and
substance of God. For the word “alone” is used
in the case of any individual and generally of human nature.
In the case of an individual, as for instance of Paul, that he
alone was caught into the third heaven and “heard
unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to
utter,”1792
and of human
nature, as when David says, “as for man his days are as
grass,”1793
not meaning
any particular man, but human nature generally; for every man is
short-lived and mortal. So we understand these words to be
said of the nature, “who alone hath
immortality”1794
and “to
God only wise,”1795
and
“none is good save one, that is God,”1796
for here “one” means the
same as alone. So also, “which alone spreadest out the
heavens,”1797
and again
“Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou
serve.”1798
| 1798
Deut. vi. 13, LXX., where the text runs
κύριον
τὸν θεόν σου
φοβηθήσῃ.
St. Basil may quote the version in Matt. iv. 10 and Luke
iv. 8, προσκυνήσεις.
The Hebrew="fear". |
“There is no God beside me.”1799
In Scripture “one”
and “only” are not predicated of God to mark
distinction from the Son and the Holy Ghost, but to except the
unreal gods falsely so called. As for instance, “The
Lord alone did lead them and there was no strange god with
them,”1800
and
“then the children of Israel did put away Baalim and
Ashtaroth, and did serve the Lord only.”1801
And so St. Paul, “For as
there be gods many and lords many, but to us there is but one god,
the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ by
Whom are all things.”1802
Here we enquire why when he had said “one God” he was
not content, for we have said that “one” and
“only” when applied to God, indicate nature. Why
did he add the word Father and make mention of Christ? Paul,
a chosen vessel, did not, I imagine, think it sufficient only to
preach that the Son is God and the Holy Ghost God, which he had
expressed by the phrase “one God,” without, by the
further addition of “the Father,” expressing Him of
Whom are all things; and, by mentioning the Lord, signifying the
Word by Whom are all things; and yet further, by adding the words
Jesus Christ, announcing the incarnation, setting forth the
passion and publishing the resurrection. For the word Jesus
Christ suggests all these ideas to us. For this reason too
before His passion our Lord deprecates the designation of
“Jesus Christ,” and charges His disciples to
“tell no man that He was Jesus, the Christ.”1803
For His purpose was, after the
completion of the œconomy,1804
after His
resurrection from the dead, and His assumption into heaven, to
commit to them the preaching of Him as Jesus, the Christ.
Such is the force of the words “That they may know Thee the
only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,”1805
and again “Ye believe in God,
believe also in me.”1806
Everywhere the Holy Ghost secures our conception of Him to save us
from falling in one direction while we advance in the other,
heeding the theology but neglecting the œconomy,1807
and so by omission falling into
impiety.
4. Now let us examine, and to the best of
our ability explain, the meaning of the words of Holy Scripture, which
our opponents seize and wrest to their own sense, and urge against us
for the destruction of the glory of the Only-begotten. First of
all take the words “I live because of the
Father,”1808
| 1808
John vi. 57, R.V. The Greek is
ἐγὼ ζῶ διὰ
τὸν
πατέρα, i.e.
not through or by the Father, but “because of” or
“on account of” the Father. “The
preposition (Vulg. propter Patrem) describes the
ground or object, not the instrument or agent (by, through
διὰ
τοῦ π.). Complete
devotion to the Father is the essence of the life of the Son; and
so complete devotion to the Son is the life of the
believer. It seems better to give this full sense to the
word than to take it as equivalent to ‘by reason
of;’ that is, ‘I live because the Father
lives.’” Westcott, St. John ad
loc. | for this is one
of the shafts hurled heavenward by those who impiously use it.
These words I do not understand to refer to the eternal life; for
whatever lives because of something else cannot be self-existent,
just as that which is warmed by another cannot be warmth itself; but
He Who is our Christ and God says, “I am the
life.”1809
I
understand the life lived because of the Father to be this life in
the flesh, and in this time. Of His own will He came to live
the life of men. He did not say “I have lived
because of the
Father,” but “I live because of the Father,”
clearly indicating the present time, and the Christ, having the word
of God in Himself, is able to call the life which He leads, life,
and that this is His meaning we shall learn from what follows.
“He that eateth me,” He says, “he also shall live
because of me;”1810
for we eat His
flesh, and drink His blood, being made through His incarnation and
His visible life partakers of His Word and of His Wisdom. For
all His mystic sojourn among us He called flesh and blood, and set
forth the teaching consisting of practical science, of physics, and
of theology, whereby our soul is nourished and is meanwhile trained
for the contemplation of actual realities. This is perhaps the
intended meaning of what He says.1811
| 1811 With
this striking exposition of Basil’s view of the spiritual
meaning of eating the flesh and drinking the blood, cf. the
passage from Athanasius quoted by Bp. Harold Browne in his
Exposition of the XXXIX. Articles, p. 693. It is not
easy for Roman commentators to cite passages even apparently in
support of the less spiritual view of the manducation, e.g.
Fessler, Inst. Pat. i. 530, and the quotations under
the word “Eucharistia,” in the Index
of Basil ed Migne. Contrast Gregory of Nyssa, in chap. xxxvii.
of the Greater Catechism. |
5. And again, “My Father is greater
than I.”1812
This passage
is also employed by the ungrateful creatures, the brood of the evil
one. I believe that even from this passage the consubstantiality
of the Son with the Father is set forth. For I know that
comparisons may properly be made between things which are of the same
nature. We speak of angel as greater than angel, of man as juster
than man, of bird as fleeter than bird. If then comparisons are
made between things of the same species, and the Father by comparison
is said to be greater than the Son, then the Son is of the same
substance as the Father. But there is another sense underlying
the expression. In what is it extraordinary that He who “is
the Word and was made flesh”1813
confesses His
Father to be greater than Himself, when He was seen in glory inferior
to the angels, and in form to men? For “Thou hast made him
a little lower than the angels,”1814
and again “Who was made a little lower than the
angels,”1815
and “we saw
Him and He had neither form nor comeliness, his form was deficient
beyond all men.”1816
All this He
endured on account of His abundant loving kindness towards His work,
that He might save the lost sheep and bring it home when He had saved
it, and bring back safe and sound to his own land the man who went down
from Jerusalem to Jericho and so fell among thieves.1817
Will the heretic cast in His teeth the
manger out of which he in his unreasonableness was fed by the Word of
reason? Will he, because the carpenter’s son had no bed to
lie on, complain of His being poor? This is why the Son is less
than the Father; for your sakes He was made dead to free you from death
and make you sharer in heavenly life. It is just as though any
one were to find fault with the physician for stooping to sickness, and
breathing its foul breath, that he may heal the sick.
6. It is on thy account that He knows not
the hour and the day of judgment. Yet nothing is beyond the ken
of the real Wisdom, for “all things were made by
Him;”1818
and even among men
no one is ignorant of what he has made. But this is His
dispensation1819
because of thine
own infirmity, that sinners be not plunged into despair by the narrow
limits of the appointed period,1820
| 1820 τῷ στενῶ
τῆς
προθεσμίας.
ἡ
προθεσμία
sc. ἡμέρα was in Attic Law a day
fixed beforehand before which money must be paid, actions brought,
etc. cf. Plat. Legg, 954, D. It is
the “time appointed” of the Father in Gal. iv. 2. | no
opportunity for repentance being left them; and that, on the other
hand, those who are waging a long war with the forces of the enemy
may not desert their post on account of the protracted time.
For both of these classes He arranges1821
by means of His assumed ignorance; for the former cutting the time
short for their glorious struggle’s sake; for the latter
providing an opportunity for repentance because of their sins.
In the gospels He numbered Himself among the ignorant, on account,
as I have said, of the infirmity of the greater part of
mankind. In the Acts of the Apostles, speaking, as it were, to
the perfect apart, He says, “It is not for you to know the
times or the seasons which the Father hath put in His own
power.”1822
Here He
implicitly excepts Himself. So much for a rough statement by
way of preliminary attack. Now let us enquire into the meaning
of the text from a higher point of view. Let me knock at the
door of knowledge, if haply I may wake the Master of the house, Who
gives the spiritual bread to them who ask Him, since they whom we
are eager to entertain are friends and brothers.
7. Our Saviour’s holy disciples, after
getting beyond the limits of human thought, and then being purified by
the word,1823
are enquiring about
the end, and longing to know the ultimate blessedness which our Lord
declared to be unknown to His angels and to Himself. He calls all
the exact comprehension of the purposes of God, a day; and the
contemplation of the One-ness and Unity, knowledge of which He
attributes to the
Father alone, an hour. I apprehend, therefore, that God is said
to know of Himself what is; and not to know what is not; God, Who is,
of His own nature, very righteousness and wisdom, is said to know
righteousness and wisdom; but to be ignorant of unrighteousness and
wickedness; for God who created us is not unrighteousness and
wickedness. If, then, God is said to know about Himself that
which is, and not to know that which is not; and if our Lord, according
to the purpose of the Incarnation and the denser doctrine, is not the
ultimate object of desire; then our Saviour does not know the end and
the ultimate blessedness. But He says the angels do not
know;1824
that is to
say, not even the contemplation which is in them, nor the methods
of their ministries are the ultimate object of desire. For
even their knowledge, when compared with the knowledge which is
face to face, is dense.1825
| 1825 The Ben. note
is Tota hæc explicandi ratio non sua sponte deducta, sed vi
pertracta multis videbitur. Sed illud ad excusandum
difficilius, quod ait Basilius angelorum scientiam crassam esse, si
comparetur cum ea quæ est facie ad faciem. Videtur
subtilis explicatio, quam hic sequitur, necessitatem ei imposuisse
ita de angelis sentiendi. Nam cum diem et horam idem esse
statueret, ac extremam beatitudinem; illud Scriptura, sed
neque angeli sciunt, cogebat illis visionem illam, quæ fit
facie ad faciem, denegare; quia idem de illis non poterat dici ac de
Filio, eos de se ipsis scire id quod sunt, nescire quod non
sunt. Quod si hanc hausit opinionem ex origenis fontibus, qui
pluribus locis eam insinuat, certe cito deposuit. Ait enim
tom II. p. 320. Ανγελοσ ιν
δίινυμ
φαχιεμ
χοντινεντερ
ιντεντοσ
οχυλοσ
ηαβερε. Ιδεμ
δοχετ ιν
Χομ. Is. p. 515, n. 185, et De
Sp. S. cap. XVI. | Only the
Father, He says, knows, since He is Himself the end and the
ultimate blessedness, for when we no longer know God in mirrors
and not immediately,1826
| 1826 διὰ τῶν
ἀλλοτρίων.
cf. 1 Cor.
xiii. 12, where St.
Paul’s word is ἔσοπτρον. St.
Basil’s κάτοπτρον
may rather be suggested by 2 Cor. iii. 18, where the original is κατοπτριζόμενοι. | but approach
Him as one and alone, then we shall know even the ultimate
end. For all material knowledge is said to be the kingdom of
Christ; while immaterial knowledge, and so to say the knowledge of
actual Godhead, is that of God the Father. But our Lord is
also Himself the end and the ultimate blessedness according to the
purpose of the Word; for what does He say in the Gospel?
“I will raise him up at the last day.”1827
He calls the transition from
material knowledge to immaterial contemplation a resurrection,
speaking of that knowledge after which there is no other, as the
last day: for our intelligence is raised up and roused to a
height of blessedness at the time when it contemplates the
One-ness and Unity of the Word. But since our intelligence
is made dense and bound to earth, it is both commingled with clay
and incapable of gazing intently in pure contemplation, being led
through adornments1828
| 1828 κόσμων.
The Ben. note quotes Combefis as saying, “Dura mihi hic
vox: sit pro στοιχείων,
per cognata corpori elementa,” and then goes on, sed
hac in re minus vidit vir eruditus; non enim idem sonat illa vox
acmundi, quasi plures ejusmodi mundos admittat
Basilius; sed idem ac ornatus, sive ut ait Basilius in Epist.
vi. τὰ
περὶ γῆν
κάλλη, pulchritudines quæ
sunt circa terram. In Com. in Is. n. 58, p.
422. Ecclesia dicitur πρέπουσιν
ἑαυτῆ
κοσμίοις
κεκοσμημένη,
convenientibus sibi ornamentis instructa eadem voce utitur
Gregorius Nazianz. Ep. cvii. | cognate to its
own body. It considers the operations of the Creator, and
judges of them meanwhile by their effects, to the end that growing
little by little it may one day wax strong enough to approach even
the actual unveiled Godhead. This is the meaning, I think,
of the words “my Father is greater than I,”1829
and also of the statement, “It is
not mine to give save to those for whom it is prepared by my
Father.”1830
This too
is what is meant by Christ’s “delivering up the
kingdom to God even the Father;”1831
inasmuch as according to the denser
doctrine which, as I said, is regarded relatively to us and not to
the Son Himself, He is not the end but the first fruits. It
is in accordance with this view that when His disciples asked Him
again in the Acts of the Apostles, “When wilt thou restore
the kingdom of Israel?” He replied, “It is not for you
to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in His
own power.”1832
That is
to say, the knowledge of such a kingdom is not for them that are
bound in flesh and blood. This contemplation the Father hath
put away in His own power, meaning by “power” those
that are empowered, and by “His own” those who are not
held down by the ignorance of things below. Do not, I beg
you, have in mind times and seasons of sense but certain
distinctions of knowledge made by the sun apprehended by mental
perception. For our Lord’s prayer must be carried
out. It is Jesus Who prayed “Grant that they may be
one in us as I and Thou are one, Father.”1833
For when God, Who is one, is in
each, He makes all out; and number is lost in the in-dwelling of
Unity.
This is my second attempt to attack the
text. If any one has a better interpretation to give, and can
consistently with true religion amend what I say, let him speak and let
him amend, and the Lord will reward him for me. There is no
jealousy in my heart. I have not approached this investigation of
these passages for strife and vain glory. I have done so to help
my brothers, lest the earthen vessels which hold the treasure of God
should seem to be deceived by stony-hearted and uncircumcised men,
whose weapons are the wisdom of folly.1834
| 1834 Basil
also refers to this passage in the treatise, C.
Eunomium i. 20: “Since the Son’s origin
(ἀρχή) is from (ἀπό) the Father, in this respect the Father
is greater, as cause and origin (ὡς
αἴτιος
καὶ ἀρχή).
Whence also the Lord said thus my Father is greater than I,
clearly inasmuch as He is Father (καθὸ
πατήρ). Yea; what else does
the word Father signify unless the being cause and origin of that
which is begotten by Him?” And in iii. 1:
“The Son is second in order (τάξει) to the Father, because
He is from Him (ἀπό) and in dignity (ἀξιώματι)
because the Father is the origin and cause of His
being.” Quoted by Bp. Westcott in his St. John
in the additional notes on xiv. 16, 28, pp. 211
seqq., where also will be found quotations from other
Fathers on this passage. |
8.
Again, as is said through Solomon the Wise in the Proverbs, “He
was created;” and He is named “Beginning of
ways”1835
| 1835 The text of
Prov. viii.
22 in the LXX. is
κύριος
ἔκτισέ με
ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν
αὐτοῦ εἰς
ἔργα
αὐτοῦ. The rendering of
A.V. is “possessed,” with “formed” in the
margin.
The Hebrew verb occurs some eighty times in the Old
Testament, and in only four other passages is translated by possess,
viz., Bible:Zech.11.5">Gen. xiv. 19, 22, Ps. cxxxix.
13, Jer. xxxii. 15, and Zec. xi. 5. In the two former, though the
LXX. renders the word in the Psalms ἐκτήσω, it would have borne the
sense of “create.” In the passage under discussion
the Syriac agrees with the LXX., and among critics adopting the same
view Bishop Wordsworth cites Ewald, Hitzig, and Genesius. The
ordinary meaning of the Hebrew is “get” or
“acquire,” and hence it is easy to see how the idea of
getting or possessing passed in relation to the Creator into that of
creation. The Greek translators were not unanimous and Aquila
wrote ἐκτήσατο.
The passage inevitably became the Jezreel or Low Countries of the
Arian war, and many a battle was fought on it. The
depreciators of the Son found in it Scriptural authority for
calling Him κτίσμα,
e.g. Arius in the Thalia, is quoted by
Athanasius in Or. c. Ar. I. iii. § 9, and such
writings of his followers as the Letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia
to Paulinus of Tyre cited in Theod., Ecc. Hist. I. v., and
Eunomius as quoted by Greg. Nyss., c. Eunom. II. 10;
but as Dr. Liddon observes in his Bampton Lect. (p. 60,
ed. 1868), “They did not doubt that this created Wisdom was
a real being or person.”
ἔκτισεwas accepted by the
Catholic writers, but explained to refer to the manhood only,
cf. Eustathius of Antioch, quoted in Theod.,
Dial. I. The view of Athanasius will be found in his
dissertation on the subject in the Second Discourse against the
Arians, pp. 357–385 of Schaff & Wace’s
edition. cf. Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. II. vi.
8. | of good news, which
lead us to the kingdom of heaven. He is not in essence and
substance a creature, but is made a “way” according to the
œconomy. Being made and being created signify the same
thing. As He was made a way, so was He made a door, a shepherd,
an angel, a sheep, and again a High Priest and an Apostle,1836
the names being used in other senses.
What again would the heretics say about God unsubjected, and about His
being made sin for us?1837
For it is
written “But when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then
shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things
under Him.”1838
Are you not
afraid, sir, of God called unsubjected? For He makes thy
subjection His own; and because of thy struggling against goodness He
calls himself unsubjected. In this sense too He once spoke of
Himself as persecuted—“Saul, Saul,” He says,
“why persecutest thou me?”1839
on
the occasion when Saul was hurrying to Damascus with a desire to
imprison the disciples. Again He calls Himself naked, when any
one of his brethren is naked. “I was naked,” He says,
“and ye clothed me;”1840
and so when
another is in prison He speaks of Himself as imprisoned, for He Himself
took away our sins and bare our sicknesses.1841
| 1841 cf.
Isa. liii. 4 and Matt. viii. 17. | Now one of our infirmities is not
being subject, and He bare this. So all the things which happen
to us to our hurt He makes His own, taking upon Him our sufferings in
His fellowship with us.
9. But another passage is also seized by
those who are fighting against God to the perversion of their
hearers: I mean the words “The Son can do nothing of
Himself.”1842
To me this
saying too seems distinctly declaratory of the Son’s being of the
same nature as the Father. For if every rational creature is able
to do anything of himself, and the inclination which each has to the
worse and to the better is in his own power, but the Son can do nothing
of Himself, then the Son is not a creature. And if He is not a
creature, then He is of one essence and substance with the
Father. Again; no creature can do what he likes. But the
Son does what He wills in heaven and in earth. Therefore the Son
is not a creature. Again; all creatures are either constituted of
contraries or receptive of contraries. But the Son is very
righteousness, and immaterial. Therefore the Son is not a
creature, and if He is not a creature, He is of one essence and
substance with the Father.
10. This examination of the passages before
us is, so far as my ability goes, sufficient. Now let us turn the
discussion on those who attack the Holy Spirit, and cast down every
high thing of their intellect that exalts itself against the knowledge
of God.1843
You say that
the Holy Ghost is a creature. And every creature is a servant of
the Creator, for “all are thy servants.”1844
If then He is a servant, His holiness
is acquired; and everything of which the holiness is acquired is
receptive of evil; but the Holy Ghost being holy in essence is called
“fount of holiness.”1845
Therefore the Holy Ghost is not a creature. If He is not a
creature, He is of one essence and substance with the Father.
How, tell me, can you give the name of servant to Him Who through your
baptism frees you from your servitude? “The law,” it
is said, “of the Spirit of life hath made me free from the law of
sin.”1846
But you will
never venture to call His nature even variable, so long as you have
regard to the nature of the opposing power of the enemy,
which, like lightning, is
fallen from heaven and fell out of the true life because its holiness
was acquired, and its evil counsels were followed by its change.
So when it had fallen away from the Unity and had cast from it its
angelic dignity, it was named after its character
“Devil,”1847
| 1847 In
Letter cciv. The name of Διάβολος
is more immediately connected with Διαβάλλειν, to caluminate. It is curious that the occasional spelling
(e.g. in Burton) Divell, which is nearer to the original, and
keeps up the association with Diable, Diavolo, etc., should have given
place to the less correct and misleading
“Devil.” | its former and
blessed condition being extinct and this hostile power being
kindled.
Furthermore if he calls the Holy Ghost a creature
he describes His nature as limited. How then can the two
following passages stand? “The Spirit of the Lord filleth
the world;”1848
and “Whither
shall I go from thy Spirit?”1849
But he
does not, it would seem, confess Him to be simple in nature; for he
describes Him as one in number. And, as I have already said,
everything that is one in number is not simple. And if the Holy
Spirit is not simple, He consists of essence and sanctification, and is
therefore composite. But who is mad enough to describe the Holy
Spirit as composite, and not simple, and consubstantial with the Father
and the Son?
11. If we ought to advance our argument yet
further, and turn our inspection to higher themes, let us contemplate
the divine nature of the Holy Spirit specially from the following point
of view. In Scripture we find mention of three creations.
The first is the evolution from non-being into being.1850
| 1850 παραγωγὴ
ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ
ὄντος εἰς τὸ
εἶναι. For παραγωγή
it is not easy to give an equivalent; it is leading or bringing with
a notion of change, sometimes a change into error, as when it means
a quibble. It is not quite the Ben. Latin
“productio.” It is not used intransitively;
if there is a παραγωγὴ,
there must be ὁ
παράγων, and
similarly if there is evolution or development, there must be an
evolver or developer. | The second is change from the worse to
the better. The third is the resurrection of the dead. In
these you will find the Holy Ghost cooperating with the Father and the
Son. There is a bringing into existence of the heavens; and what
says David? “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made
and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.”1851
Again, man is created through baptism,
for “if any man be in Christ he is a new
creature.”1852
And why
does the Saviour say to the disciples, “Go ye therefore and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Ghost”? Here too you see the
Holy Ghost present with the Father and the Son. And what would
you say also as to the resurrection of the dead when we shall have
failed and returned to our dust? Dust we are and unto dust we
shall return.1853
And He
will send the Holy Ghost and create us and renew the face of the
earth.1854
For what
the holy Paul calls resurrection David describes as renewal.
Let us hear, once more, him who was caught into the third
heaven. What does he say? “You are the temple of
the Holy Ghost which is in you.”1855
Now every temple1856
| 1856 The Greek word
ναός
(ναίω)=dwelling-place. The Hebrew probably indicates
capacity.
Our “temple,” from the latin
Templum (τέμενος—vΤΑΜ) is derivatively a place
cut off. | is a temple of God, and if we are a
temple of the Holy Ghost, then the Holy Ghost is God. It is
also called Solomon’s temple, but this is in the sense of his
being its builder. And if we are a temple of the Holy Ghost in
this sense, then the Holy Ghost is God, for “He that built all
things is God.”1857
If we are
a temple of one who is worshipped, and who dwells in us, let us
confess Him to be God, for thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and
Him only shalt thou serve.1858
Supposing
them to object to the word “God,” let them learn what
this word means. God is called Θεὸς either because He
placed (τεθεικέναι)
all things or because He beholds (Θεᾶσθαι) all
things. If He is called Θεὸς because He
“placed” or “beholds” all things, and the
Spirit knoweth all the things of God, as the Spirit in us knoweth
our things, then the Holy Ghost is God.1859
| 1859 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11. On the derivation of
Θεός from
θέω
(τίθημι) or θεάομαι,
cf. Greg. Naz.
Skeat rejects the theory of connexion
with the Latin Deus, and thinks that the root of τίθημι may be
the origin. | Again, if the sword of the
spirit is the word of God,1860
then the
Holy Ghost is God, inasmuch as the sword belongs to Him of whom
it is also called the word. Is He named the right hand of
the Father? For “the right hand of the Lord bringeth
mighty things to pass;”1861
| 1861
Ps. cxviii.
16. P.B.
“doeth valiantly,” A.V. ἐποίησε
δύνα μιν,
LXX. | and
“thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the
enemy.”1862
But the
Holy Ghost is the finger of God, as it is said “if I by the
finger of God cast out devils,”1863
of which the version in another Gospel
is “if I by the Spirit of God cast out
devils.”1864
So the
Holy Ghost is of the same nature as the Father and the
Son.
12. So much must suffice for the present on the
subject of the adorable and holy Trinity. It is not now possible
to extend the enquiry about it further. Do ye take seeds from a
humble person like me, and cultivate the ripe ear for yourselves, for,
as you know, in such cases we
look for interest. But I trust in God that you, because of your
pure lives, will bring forth fruit thirty, sixty, and a hundred
fold. For, it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they
shall see God.1865
And, my
brethren, entertain no other conception of the kingdom of the heavens
than that it is the very contemplation of realities. This the
divine Scriptures call blessedness. For “the kingdom of
heaven is within you.”1866
| 1866 Luke xvii. 21, ἐντὸς
ὑμῶν. Many modern commentators
interpret “in your midst,” “among
you.” So Alford, who quotes Xen., Anab. I. x. 3
for the Greek, Bp. Walsham How, Bornemann, Meyer. The older
view coincided with that of Basil; so Theophylact, Chrysostom, and
with them Olshausen and Godet.
To the objection that the words
were said to the Pharisees, and that the kingdom was not in
their hearts, it may be answered that our Lord might use
“you” of humanity, even when addressing Pharisees. He
never, like a merely human preacher, says
“we.” |
The inner man consists of nothing but
contemplation. The kingdom of the heavens, then, must be
contemplation. Now we behold their shadows as in a glass;
hereafter, set free from this earthly body, clad in the incorruptible
and the immortal, we shall behold their archetypes, we shall see them,
that is, if we have steered our own life’s course aright, and if
we have heeded the right faith, for otherwise none shall see the
Lord. For, it is said, into a malicious soul Wisdom shall not
enter, nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin.1867
And let no one urge in objection that,
while I am ignoring what is before our eyes, I am philosophizing to
them about bodiless and immaterial being. It seems to me
perfectly absurd, while the senses are allowed free action in relation
to their proper matter, to exclude mind alone from its peculiar
operation. Precisely in the same manner in which sense touches
sensible objects, so mind apprehends the objects of mental
perception. This too must be said that God our Creator has not
included natural faculties among things which can be taught. No
one teaches sight to apprehend colour or form, nor hearing to apprehend
sound and speech, nor smell, pleasant and unpleasant scents, nor taste,
flavours and savours, nor touch, soft and hard, hot and cold. Nor
would any one teach the mind to reach objects of mental perception; and
just as the senses in the case of their being in any way diseased, or
injured, require only proper treatment and then readily fulfil their
own functions; just so the mind, imprisoned in flesh, and full of the
thoughts that arise thence, requires faith and right conversation which
make “its feet like hinds’ feet, and set it on its high
places.”1868
The same
advice is given us by Solomon the wise, who in one passage offers us
the example of the diligent worker the ant,1869
and recommends her active life; and in another the work of the wise bee
in forming its cells,1870
and thereby
suggests a natural contemplation wherein also the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity is contained, if at least the Creator is considered in
proportion to the beauty of the things created.
But with thanks to the Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost let me make an end to my letter, for, as the proverb has it,
πᾶν
μέτρον
ἄριστον.1871
| 1871 Attributed to
Cleobulus of Lindos. Thales is credited with the injunction
μέτρῳ
χρῶ. cf. my note on
Theodoret, Ep. cli. p. 329. | E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
