Skip to main content

Full text of "A Select library of Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of the Christian church. Second series"

See other formats 


»M»aMftlMBVW»(miWgWWN»W^^ 


n 


iCHtnuuT 


VI  ' 


lUrllralrn   \ 


..■-•-. 


Qfitl|?q& 


NV  0  5  3  G>  5 


A  SELECT  LIBRARY 


OF 


NICENE  AND  POST-NICENE  FATHERS 


OF 


THE  CHRISTIAN   CHURCH. 
Seconb  Series. 

TRANSLATED  INTO  ENGLISH  WITH  PROLEGOMENA  AND  EXPLANATORY  NOTES. 


VOLUMES    I.-VII. 
UNDER   THE    EDITORIAL   SUPERVISION    OF 


PHILIP   SCHAFF,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  AND  HENRY  WACE,  D.D., 

Professor  of  Church  History  in  the  Principal  of  King's  College, 

Union  Theological  Seminary \  New  York.  London. 

IN  CONNECTION  WITH  A  NUMBER  OF  PA  TRISTIC  SCHOLARS  OF  EUROPE 

AND  AMERICA. 


VOLUME   IX. 

ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS. 
JOHN   OF  DAMASCUS. 


NEW  YORK: 
CHARLES     SCRIBNER'S    SONS. 

1908 


5K 
bo 

Jl10 
1 


Rstcs- 


ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS. 


SELECT    WORKS. 


TRANSLATED   BY 

THE    REV.   E.   W.   WATSON,   M.A. 

WARDEN   OF  THE  SOCIETY  OF  ST.   ANDREW,   SALISBURY, 

THE    REV.    L.    PULLAN,    M.A., 

FELLOW     OF     ST.    JOHN'S     COLLEGE,     OXFORD, 

AND    OTHERS. 


EDITED    BY 


THE    REV.  W.    SAN  DAY,    D.D.,    LL.D., 

LADY  MARGARET  PROFESSOR  OF  DIVINITY,  AND  CANON  OF  CHRIST  CHURCH,  OXFORSt 


PREFACE. 


This  volume  of  the  series  of  Nicene  Fathers  has  been  unfortunately  delayed.  When 
I  consented  in  the  first  instance  to  edit  the  volume,  it  was  with  the  distinct  understanding 
that  I  could  not  myself  undertake  the  translation,  but  that  I  would  do  my  best  to  find 
translators  and  see  the  work  through  the  press.  It  has  been  several  times  placed  in  the 
hands  of  very  competent  scholars ;  but  the  fact  that  work  of  this  kind  can  only  be  done 
in  the  intervals  of  regular  duties,  and  the  almost  inevitable  drawback  that  the  best  men 
are  also  the  busiest,  has  repeatedly  stood  in  the  way  and  caused  the  work  to  be  returned 
to  me.  That  it  sees  the  light  now  is  due  mainly  to  the  zeal,  ability,  and  scholarship 
of  the  Rev.  E.  W.  Watson.  It  was  late  in  the  day  when  Mr.  Watson  first  undertook 
a  share  in  the  work  which  has  since  then  been  constantly  increased.  He  has  co-operated 
with  me  in  the  most  loyal  and  efficient  manner;  and  while  I  am  glad  to  think  that  the 
whole  of  the  Introduction  and  a  full  half  of  the  translation  are  from  his  hand,  there  is 
hardly  a  page  (except  in  the  translation  of  the  De  Synodis,  which  was  complete  before 
he  joined  the  work)  which  does  not  owe  to  him  many  and  marked  improvements.  My 
own  personal  debt  to  Mr.  Watson  is  very  great  indeed,  and  that  of  the  subscribers  to 
the  series  is,  I  believe,  hardly  less. 

For  the  translator  of  Hilary  has  before  him  a  very  difficult  task.  It  has  not  been 
with  this  as  with  other  volumes  of  the  series,  where  an  excellent  translation  already 
existed  and  careful  revision  was  all  that  was  needed.  A  small  beginning  had  been  made 
for  the  De  Trinitate  by  the  late  Dr.  Short,  Bishop  of  Adelaide,  whose  manuscript  was 
kindly  lent  to  one  of  the  contributors  to  this  volume.  But  with  this  exception  no  English 
translation  of  Hilary's  works  has  been  hitherto  attempted.  That  which  is  now  offered  is 
the  first  in  the  field.  And  it  must  be  confessed  that  Hilary  is  a  formidable  writer.  I  do 
not  think  that  I  know  any  Latin  writer  so  formidable,  unless  it  is  Victorinus  Afer,  or 
Tertullian.  And  the  terse,  vigorous,  incisive  sentences  of  Tertullian,  when  once  the 
obscurities  of  meaning  have  been  mastered,  run  more  easily  into  English  than  the 
involved  and  overloaded  periods  of  Hilary.  It  is  true  that  in  a  period  of  decline 
Hilary  preserves  more  than  most  of  his  contemporaries  of  the  tradition  of  Roman  culture ; 
but  it  is  the  culture  of  the  rhetorical  schools  at  almost  the  extreme  point  of  their  artifi- 
ciality and  mannerism.  Hilary  was  too  sincere  a  man  and  too  thoroughly  in  earnest  to 
be  essentially  mannered  or  artificial  j  but  his  training  had  taken  too  strong  a  hold  upon 
him  to  allow  him  to  express  his  thought  with  ease  and  simplicity.  And  his  very  merits 
all  tended  in  the  same  direction.  He  has  the  copia  verborum;  he  has  the  weight  and 
force  of  character  which  naturally  goes  with  a  certain  amplitude  of  style;  he  has  the 
seriousness  and  depth  of  conviction  which  keeps  him  at  a  high  level  of  dignity  and 
gravity  but  is  unrelieved  by  lighter  touches. 


VI 


PREFACE. 


We  must  take  our  author  as  we  find  him.  But  it  seems  to  me,  if  I  am  not  mistaken, 
that  Mr.  Watson  has  performed  a  real  feat  of  translation  in  not  only  reproducing  the  meaning 
of  the  original  but  giving  to  it  an  English  rendering  which  is  so  readable,  flowing,  and  even 
elegant.  I  think  it  will  be  allowed  that  only  a  natural  feeling  for  the  rhythm  and  cadence  of 
English  speech,  as  well  as  for  its  varied  harmonies  of  diction,  could  have  produced  the  result 
which  is  now  laid  before  the  reader.  And  I  cherish  the  hope,  that  although  different 
degrees  of  success  have  doubtless  been  attained  by  the  different  contributors  at  least  no 
jarring  discrepancy  of  style  will  be  felt  throughout  the  volume.  It  will  be  seen  that  the 
style  generally  leans  to  the  side  of  freedom ;  but  I  believe  that  it  will  be  found  to  be 
the  freedom  of  the  scholar  who  is  really  true  to  his  text  while  transfusing  it  into  another 
tongue,  and  not  the  clumsy  approximation  which  only  means  failure. 

Few  writers  deserve  their  place  in  the  library  of  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers 
more  thoroughly  than  Hilary.  He  might  be  said  to  be  the  one  Latin  theologian  before 
the  age  of  St.  Augustine  and  St.  Leo.  Tertullian  had  a  still  greater  influence  upon  the 
writers  who  followed  him.  He  came  at  a  still  more  formative  and  critical  time,  and  the 
vis  vivida  of  his  original  and  wayward  genius  has  rarely  been  equalled.  But  the  particular 
influence  which  Tertullian  exerted  in  coining  the  terms  and  marking  out  the  main  lines 
of  Latin  theology  came  to  him  almost  by  accident.  He  was  primarily  a  lawyer,  and 
his  special  gift  did  not  lie  in  the  region  of  speculation.  It  is  a  strange  fortune  which 
gave  to  the  language  on  which  he  set  his  stamp  so  great  a  control  of  the  future.  The 
influence  of  Hilary  on  the  other  hand  is  his  by  right.  His  intercourse  with  the  East 
had  a  marked  effect  upon  him.  It  quickened  a  natural  bent  for  speculation  unusual  in 
the  West.  The  reader  will  find  in  Mr.  Watson's  Introduction  a  description  and  estimate 
of  Hilary's  theology  which  is  in  my  opinion  at  once  accurate,  candid  and  judicious.  No 
attempt  is  made  to  gloss  over  the  defects,  especially  in  what  we  might  call  the  more 
superficial  exegesis  of  Hilary's  argument;  but  behind  and  beneath  this  we  feel  that  we 
are  in  contact  with  a  very  powerful  mind.  We  feel  that  we  are  in  contact  with  a  mind 
that  has  seized  and  holds  fast  the  central  truth  of  the  Christian  system,  which  at  that 
particular  crisis  of  the  Church's  history  was  gravely  imperilled.  The  nerve  of  all  Hilary's 
thinking  lies  in  his  belief,  a  belief  to  which  he  clung  more  tenaciously  than  to  life  itself, 
that  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God  not  in  name  and  metaphor  only,  but  in  fullest  and 
deepest  reality.  The  great  Athanasius  himself  has  not  given  to  this  belief  a  more  im- 
pressive or  more  weighty  expression.  And  when  like  assaults  come  round,  as  they  are 
constantly  doing,  in  what  is  in  many  respects  the  inferior  arena  of  our  own  day,  it  is 
both  morally  bracing  and  intellectually  helpful  to  go  back  to  these  protagonists  of  the 
elder  time. 

And  yet,  although  Hilary  is  thus  one  of  the  chief  builders  up  of  a  metaphysical  theology 
in  the  West — although,  in  other  words,  he  stands  upon  the  direct  line  of  the  origin  of  the 
Quicumque  vult,  it  is  well  to  remember  that  no  one  could  be  more  conscious  than  he  was 
of  the  inadequacy  of  human  thought  and  human  language  to  deal  with  these  high  matters. 
The  accusation  of  intruding  with  a  light  heart  into  mysteries  is  very  far  from  touching  him. 
"The  heretics  compel  us  to  speak  where  we  would  far  rather  be  silent.  If  anything  is  said, 
this  is  what  must  be  said,"  is  his  constant  burden.  In  this  respect  too  Hilary  affords  a  noble 
pattern  not  only  to  the  Christian  theologian  but  to  the  student  of  theology,  however  humble. 

It  has  been  an  unfortunate  necessity  that  use  has  had  to  be  made  almost  throughout 
of  an  untrustworthy  text.     The  critical  edition  which  is  being  produced  for  the  Corpus  Scrip- 


PREFACE.  vii 

torum  Ecclesiasticorum  Latinorum  of  the  Vienna  Academy  does  not  as  yet  extend  beyond 
the  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  (S.  Hilarii  Ep.  Pidaviensis  Tract,  super  Psahnos,  recens. 
A.  Zingerle,  Vindobonae,  mdcccxci).  This  is  the  more  to  be  regretted  as  the  MSS. 
of  Hilary  are  rather  exceptionally  early  and  good.  Most  of  these  were  used  in  the 
Benedictine  edition,  but  not  so  systematically  or  thoroughly  as  a  modern  standard  requires. 
It  is  impossible  to  speak  decidedly  about  the  text  of  Hilary  until  the  Vienna  edition 
is  completed. 

The  treatise  £>e  Synodis  was  translated  by  the  Rev.  L.  Pullan,  and  has  been  in  print 
for  some  time.  The  Introduction  and  the  translation  of  De  Trinitats  i. — vii.  are  the 
work  of  Mr.  Watson.  Books  viii.  and  xii.  were  undertaken  Mr.  E.  N.  Bennett,  Fellow 
of  Hertford,  and  Books  ix. — xi.  by  the  Rev.  S.  C.  Gayford,  late  Scholar  of  Exeter.  The 
specimens  of  the  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  were  translated  by  the  Rev.  H.  F.  Stewart, 
Vice-Principal  of  the  Theological  College,  Salisbury,  who  has  also  made  himself  responsible 
for  the  double  Index. 

A  word  of  special  thanks  is  due  to  the  printers,  Messrs.  Parker,  who  have  carried 
out  their  part  of  the  work  with  conspicuous  intelligence  and  with  the  most  conscientious  care. 


W.   SANDAY. 


Christ  Church, 
Oxford, 

July  12,  1898. 


CONTENTS. 


rAGH 
Introduction  t— 

Chapter    I.     The  Life  and  Writings  of  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers ....... ~  i 

Chapter  II.     The  Theology  of  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers     ..  Iviii 

Introduction  to  the  De  Synodis   .. ..  i 

On  the  Councils,  or  The  Faith  of  the  Easterns ..  4 

Introduction  to  the  De  Trinitate 31 

On  the  Trinity. 

Book  I ~ m MM.  40 

Book  II „ 52 

Book  III 62 

Book  IV _ 71 

Book  V. 85 

Book  VI „ 98 

Book  VII 118 

Book  VIII _ „ 137 

Book  IX 155 

Book  X „ 182 

Book  XI 203 

Book  XII » 218 

Introduction  to  the  Homilies  on  Psalms  I.,  LIII.,  CXXX „  235 

Homilies  on  the  Psalms. 

Psalm  I 236 

Psalm  LIII.  (LIV.)    « 243 

Psalm  CXXX.  (CXXXI.) 247 

Index. 

I.   Index  of  Subjects ►. 249 

IL  Index  of  Texts - 256 


INTRODUCTION. 


CHAPTER    I. 

The  Life  and  Writings  of  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers. 

St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers  is  one  of  the  greatest,  yet  least  studied,  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
Western  Church.  He  has  suffered  thus,  partly  from  a  certain  obscurity  in  his  style  of 
writing,  partly  from  the  difficulty  of  the  thoughts  which  he  attempted  to  convey.  But 
there  are  other  reasons  for  the  comparative  neglect  into  which  he  has  fallen.  He  learnt 
his  theology,  as  we  shall  see,  from  Eastern  authorities,  and  was  not  content  to  carry  on 
and  develope  the  traditional  teaching  of  the  West;  and  the  disciple  of  Origen,  who  found 
his  natural  allies  in  the  Cappadocian  school  of  Basil  and  the  Gregories  *,  his  juniors 
though  they  were,  was  speaking  to  somewhat  unsympathetic  ears.  Again,  his  Latin  tongue 
debarred  him  from  influence  in  the  East,  and  he  suffered,  like  all  Westerns,  from  that 
deep  suspicion  of  Sabellianism  which  was  rooted  in  the  Eastern  Churches.  Nor  are  these 
the  only  reasons  for  the  neglect  of  Hilary.  Of  his  two  chief  works,  the  Homilies2  on  the 
Psalms,  important  as  they  were  in  popularising  the  allegorical  method  of  interpretation, 
were  soon  outdone  in  favour  by  other  commentaries ;  while  his  great  controversial  work 
on  the  Trinity  suffered  from  its  very  perfection  for  the  purpose  with  which  it  was 
composed.  It  seems,  at  first  sight,  to  be  not  a  refutation  of  Arianism,  or  of  any  par- 
ticular phase  of  Arianism,  but  of  one  particular  document,  the  Epistle  of  Arius  to  Alexander, 
in  which  Arian  doctrines  are  expressed;  and  that  a  document  which,  in  the  constantly  shifting 
phases  of  the  controversy,  soon  fell  into  an  oblivion  which  the  work  of  Hilary  has  nearly 
shared.  It  is  only  incidentally  constructive ;  its  plan  follows,  in  the  central  portion,  that 
of  the  production  of  Arius  which  he  was  controverting,  and  this  negative  method  must 
have  lessened  its  popularity  for  purposes  of  practical  instruction,  and  in  competition 
with  such  a  masterpiece  as  the  De  Trinitate  of  St.  Augustine.  And  furthermore,  Hilary 
never  does  himself  justice.  He  was  a  great  original  thinker  in  the  field  of  Christology, 
but  he  has  never  stated  his  views  systematically  and  completely.  They  have  to  be 
laboriously  reconstructed  by  the  collection  of  passages  scattered  throughout  his  works; 
and  though  he  is  a  thinker  so  consistent  that  little  or  no  conjecture  is  needed  for  the 
piecing  together  of  his  system,  yet  we  cannot  be  surprised  that  full  justice  has  never 
been  done  to  him.  He  has  been  regarded  chiefly  as  one  of  the  sufferers  from  the 
violence  of  Constantius,  as  the  composer  of  a  useful  conspectus  of  arguments  against 
Arianism,  as  an  unsuccessful  negotiator  for  an  understanding  between  the  Eastern  and 
Western  Churches ;  but  his  sufferings  were  as  nothing  compared  to  those  of  Athanasius, 
while  his  influence  in  controversy  seems  to  have  been  as  small  as  the  results  of  his 
diplomacy.  It  is  not  his  practical  share,  in  word  or  deed,  in  the  conflicts  of  his  day 
that  is  his  chief  title  to  fame,  but  his  independence  and  depth  as  a  Christian  thinker. 
He  has,  indeed,  exerted  an  important  influence  upon  the  growth  of  doctrine,  but  it  has 


1  An  actual  dependence  on  Gregory  of  Nyssa  has  sometimes 
been  ascribed  to  Hilary.     But  Gregory  was  surely  too  young  for 
this.     He  may  himself  have  borrowed  from  Hilary ;  but  more 
VOL.  IX. 


probably  both  derived  their  common  element  from  Eastern  writers 
like  Basil  of  Ancyra. 

3  This  is  certainly   the  best  translation  of  Tractatut;   the 
word  is  discussed  on  a  later  page. 


11 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER   I. 


been  through  the  adoption  of  his  views  by  Augustine  and  Ambrose ;  and  many  who  have 
profited  by  his  thoughts  have  never  known  who  was  their  author. 

Hilary  of  Poitiers,  the  most  impersonal  of  writers,  is  so  silent  about  himself,  he  is 
so  rarely  mentioned  by  contemporary  writers — in  all  the  voluminous  works  of  Athanasius 
he  is  never  once  named, — and  the  ancient  historians  of  the  Church  knew  so  little  con- 
cerning him  beyond  what  we,  as  well  as  they,  can  learn  from  his  writings,  that  nothing 
more  than  a  very  scanty  narrative  can  be  constructed  from  these,  as  seen  in  the  light  of  the 
general  history  of  the  time  and  combined  with  the  few  notices  of  him  found  elsewhere. 
But  the  account,  though  short,  cannot  be  seriously  defective.  Apart  from  one  or  two 
episodes,  it  is  eminently  the  history  of  a  mind,  and  of  a  singularly  consistent  mind,  whose 
antecedents  we  can,  in  the  main,  recognise,  and  whose  changes  of  thought  are  few, 
and  can  be  followed. 

He  was  born,  probably  about  the  year  300  a.d.',  and  almost  certainly,  since  he  was 
afterwards  its  bishop,  in  the  town,  or  in  the  district  dependent  upon  the  town,  by  the 
name  of  which  he  is  usually  styled.  Other  names,  beside  Hilarius,  he  must  have  had, 
but  we  do  not  know  them.  The  fact  that  he  has  had  to  be  distinguished  by  the  name 
of  his  see,  to  avoid  confusion  with  his  namesake  of  Aries,  the  contemporary  of  St. 
Augustine,  shews  how  soon  and  how  thoroughly  personal  details  concerning  him  were 
forgotten.  The  rank  of  his  parents  must  have  been  respectable  at  least,  and  perhaps  high ; 
go  much  we  may  safely  assume  from  the  education  they  gave  him.  Birth  in  the  Gallic 
provinces  during  the  fourth  century  brought  with  it  no  sense  of  provincial  inferiority. 
Society  was  thoroughly  Roman,  and  education  and  literature  more  vigorous,  so  far  as 
we  can  judge,  than  in  any  other  part  of  the  West.  The  citizen  of  Gaul  and  of  Northern 
Italy  was,  in  fact,  more  in  the  centre  of  the  world's  life  than  the  inhabitant  of  Rome. 
Gaul  was  in  the  West  what  Roman  Asia  was  in  the  East,  the  province  of  decisive 
importance,  both  for  position  and  for  wealth.  And  in  this  prosperous  and  highly  civilised 
community  the  opportunities  for  the  highest  education  were  ample.  We  know,  from 
Ausonius  and  otherwise,  how  complete  was  the  provision  for  teaching  at  Bordeaux  and 
elsewhere  in  Gaul.  Greek  was  taught  habitually  as  well  as  Latin.  In  fact,  never  since 
the  days  of  Hadrian  had  educated  society  throughout  the  Empire  been  so  nearly  bilingual. 
It  was  not  only  that  the  Latin-speaking  West  had  still  to  turn  for  its  culture  and  its 
philosophy  to  the  literature  of  Greece.  Since  the  days  of  Diocletian  the  court,  or  at 
least  the  most  important  court,  had  resided  as  a  rule  in  Asia,  and  Greek  had  tended 
to  become,  equally  with  Latin,  the  language  of  the  courtier  and  the  administrator.  The 
two  were  of  almost  equal  importance ;  if  an  Oriental  like  Ammianus  Marcellinus  could 
write,  and  write  well,  in  Latin,  we  may  be  certain  that,  in  return,  Greek  was  familiar 
to  educated  Westerns.  To  Hilary  it  was  certainly  familiar  from  his  youth;  his  earlier 
thoughts  were  moulded  by  Neoplatonism,  and  his  later  decisively  influenced  by  the  writings 
of  Origen  *.     His  literary  and  technical  knowledge  of  Latin  was  also  complete  s.     It  would 


3  The  latest  date  which  I  have  seen  assigned  for  his  birth 
is  320,  by  Fechtrup,  in  Wetzer-Welte's  Encyclopaedia.  But  this 
is  surely  inconsistent  with  his  styling  Ursacius  and  Valens,  in  his 
first  Epistle  to  Constantine,  '  ignorant  and  unprincipled  youths. 
This  was  written  about  the  year  355,  before  Hilary  knew  much 
of  the  Arian  controversy  or  the  combatants,  and  was  ludicrously 
inappropriate,  for  Ursacius  and  Valens  were  elderly  men.  He 
had  found  the  words  either  in  some  of  Athanasius'  writings  or 
in  the  records  of  the  Council  of  Sardica,  and  borrowed  them 
without  enquiry.  He  could  not  have  done  so  had  he  been  only 
tome  thirty-five  years  of  age ;  at  fifty-five  they  are  natural 
enough. 

4  It  is  impossible  to  agree  with  Zingerle  {Comment.  WSlfflin. 
p.  218)  that  Hilary  was  under  the  necessity  of  using  a  Greek  and 


Latin  Glossary.  Such  a  passage  as  Tract,  in  Ps.  cxxxviii.  43, 
to  which  he  appeals,  shews  rather  the  extent  than  the  smallness 
of  Hilary's  knowledge  of  Greek.  What  he  frankly  confesses, 
there  as  elsewhere,  is  ignorance  of  Hebrew.  The  words  of  Jerome 
(£/>.  34,  3  f.)  about  Hilary's  friend,  the  presbyter  Heliodorus, 
to  whom  he  used  to  refer  for  explanations  of  Origen  on  the 
Psalms,  are  equally  incapable  of  being  employed  to  prove  Hilary's 
defective  Greek.  Heliodorus  knew  Hebrew,  and  Hilary  for  want 
of  Hebrew  found  Origen's  notes  on  the  Hebrew  text  difficult 
to  understand,  and  for  this  reason,  according  to  Jerome,  used 
to  consult  his  friend  ;  not  because  he  was  unfamiliar  with  Greek. 
5  His  vocabulary  is  very  poorly  treated  in  the  dictionaries ; 
one  of  the  many  signs  of  the  neglect  into  which  he  has  fallen. 
There   are  at  least  twenty-four  words  in  the   Tractatus  super 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS. 


in 


require  wide  special  study  and  knowledge  to  fix  his  relation  in  matters  of  composition 
and  rhetoric  to  other  writers.  But  one  assertion,  that  of  Jerome6,  that  Hilary  was  a 
deliberate  imitator  of  the  style  of  Quintilian,  cannot  be  taken  seriously.  Jerome  is  the 
most  reckless  of  writers ;  and  it  is  at  least  possible  to  be  somewhat  familiar  with  the 
writings  of  both  and  yet  see  no  resemblance,  except  in  a  certain  sustained  gravity,  between 
them.  Another  description  by  Jerome  of  Hilary  as  '  mounted  on  Gallic  buskin  and 
adorned  with  flowers  of  Greece '  is  suitable  enough,  as  to  its  first  part,  to  Hilary's  dignified 
rhetoric ;  the  flowers  of  Greece,  if  they  mean  embellishments  inserted  for  their  own  sake, 
are  not  perceptible.  In  this  same  passage  i  Jerome  goes  on  to  criticise  Hilary's  en- 
tanglement in  long  periods,  which  renders  him  unsuitable  for  unlearned  readers.  But 
those  laborious,  yet  perfectly  constructed,  sentences  are  an  essential  part  of  his  method. 
Without  them  he  could  not  attain  the  effect  he  desires;  they  are  as  deliberate  and, 
in  their  way,  as  successful  as  the  eccentricities  of  Tacitus.  But  when  Jerome  elsewhere 
calls  Hilary  'the  Rhone  of  Latin  eloquence8,'  he  is  speaking  at  random.  It  is  only 
rarely  that  he  breaks  through  his  habitual  sobriety  of  utterance ;  and  his  rare  outbursts 
of  devotion  or  denunciation  are  perhaps  the  more  effective  because  the  reader  is  un- 
prepared to  expect  them.  Such  language  as  this  of  Jerome  shews  that  Hilary's  literary 
accomplishments  were  recognised,  even  though  it  fails  to  describe  them  well.  But  though 
he  had  at  his  command,  and  avowedly  employed,  the  resources  of  rhetoric  in  order  that 
his  words  might  be  as  worthy  as  he  could  make  them  of  the  greatness  of  his  theme  9, 
yet  some  portions  of  the  De  Trinitate,  and  most  of  the  Homilies  on  the  Psalms  are 
written  in  a  singularly  equable  and  almost  conversational  style,  the  unobtrusive  excellence 
of  which  manifests  the  hand  of  a  clear  thinker  and  a  practised  writer.  He  is  no  pedant  *, 
no  laborious  imitator  of  antiquity,  distant  or  near ;  he  abstains,  perhaps  more  completely 
than  any  other  Christian  writer  of  classical  education,  from  the  allusions  to  the  poets 
which  were  the  usual  ornament  of  prose.  He  is  an  eminently  businesslike  writer;  his 
pages,  where  they  are  unadorned,  express  his  meaning  with  perfect  clearness;  where  they 
are  decked  out  with  antithesis  or  apostrophe  and  other  devices  of  rhetoric,  they  would 
no  doubt,  if  our  training  could  put  us  in  sympathy  with  him,  produce  the  effect  upon 
us  which  he  designed,  and  we  must,  in  justice  to  him,  remember  as  we  read  that,  in 
their  own  kind,  they  are  excellent,  and  that,  whether  they  aid  us  or  no  in  entering 
into  his  argument,  they  never  obscure  his  thought.  Save  in  the  few  passages  when  cor- 
ruption exists  in  the  text,  it  is  never  safe  to  assert  that  Hilary  is  unintelligible.  The 
reader  or  translator  who  cannot  follow  or  render  the  argument  must  rather  lay  the 
blame  upon  his  own  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  language  and  thought  of  the  fourth 
century.  Where  he  is  stating  or  proving  truth,  whether  well-established  or  newly  ascer- 
tained, he  is  admirably  precise ;  and  even  in  his  more  dubious  speculations  he  never 
cloaks  a  weak  argument  in  ambiguous  language.  A  loftier  genius  might  have  given  us 
in  language  inadequate,  through  no  fault  of  his  own,  to  the  attempt  some  intimations 
of  remoter  truths.  We  must  be  thankful  to  the  sober  Hilary  that  he,  with  his  strong 
sense  of  the  limitations  of  our  intellect,  has  provided  a  clear  and  accurate  statement 
of  the  case  against  Arianism,  and  has  widened  the  bounds  of  theological  knowledge 
by  reasonable  deductions  from  the  text  of  Scripture,  usually  convincing  and  always 
suggestive. 


Psalmos  which  are  omitted  in  the  last  edition  of  Georges' lexicon, 
and  these  good  Latin  words,  not  technical  terms  invented  for 
purposes  of  argument.  Among  the  most  interesting  is  qiiotiensque 
for  quotienscumque ;  an  unnoticed  use  is  the  frequent  cum  quando 


6  Ep.  70,  5,  ad  Magnum.  7  Ep.  58,  10,  ad  Paulinum, 

8  Coinm.  in  Gall.  ii.  pre/. 

9  Cf.  Tract,  in  Ps.  xiii.  1,  Trin.  i.  38. 

1  Yet  he  strangely  reproaches  his  Old  Latin  Bible  with  the 


for  quandoquidem.  Of  Hilary's  other  writings  there  is  as  yet  use  of  nimis  for  ualde.  Tract,  in  Ps.  cxxxviii.  38.  This  em- 
no  trustworthy  text ;  from  them  the  list  of  new  words  could  at  ployment  of  relative  for  positive  terms  had  been  common  in 
least  be  doubled.  1  literature  for  at  least  a  century  and  a  half. 

b    2 


IV 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER   I. 


His  training  as  a  writer  and  thinker  had  certainly  been  accomplished  before  his  con- 
version. His  literary  work  done,  like  that  of  St.  Cyprian,  within  a  few  years  of  middle  life, 
displays,  with  a  somewhat  increasing  maturity  of  thought,  a  steady  uniformity  of  language 
and  idiom,  which  can  only  have  been  acquired  in  his  earlier  days.  And  this  assured 
possession  of  literary  form  was  naturally  accompanied  by  a  philosophical  training.  Of  one 
branch  of  a  philosophical  education,  that  of  logic,  there  is  almost  too  much  evidence  in 
his  pages.  He  is  free  from  the  repulsive  angularity  which  sometimes  disfigures  the  pages 
of  Novatian,  a  writer  who  had  no  great  influence  over  him ;  but  in  the  De  Trinitate  he 
too  often  refuses  to  trust  his  reader's  intelligence,  and  insists  upon  being  logical  not  only 
in  thought  but  in  expression.  But,  sound  premisses  being  given,  he  may  always  be  expected 
to  draw  the  right  conclusion.  He  is  singularly  free  from  confusion  of  thought,  and  never 
advances  to  results  beyond  what  his  premisses  warrant.  It  is  only  when  a  false,  though 
accepted,  exegesis  misleads  him,  in  certain  collateral  arguments  which  may  be  surrendered 
without  loss  to  his  main  theses,  that  he  can  be  refuted ;  or  again  when,  in  his  ventures 
into  new  fields  of  thought,  he  is  unfortunate  in  the  selection  or  combination  of  texts.  But 
in  these  cases,  as  always,  the  logical  processes  are  not  in  fault ;  his  deduction  is  clear  and 
honest. 

Philosophy  in  those  days  was  regarded  as  incomplete  unless  it  included  some  knowledge 
of  natural  phenomena,  to  be  used  for  purposes  of  analogy.  Origen  and  Athanasius  display 
a  considerable  interest  in,  and  acquaintance  with,  physical  and  physiological  matters,  and 
Hilary  shares  the  taste.  The  conditions  of  human  or  animal  birth  and  life  and  death  are 
often  discussed2;  he  believes  in  universal  remedies  for  diseases,  and  knows  of  the  em- 
ployment of  anaesthetics  in  surgery*.  Sometimes  he  wanders  further  afield,  as,  for  instance, 
in  his  account  of  the  natural  history  of  the  fig-tree  s  and  the  worm6,  and  in  the  curious  little 
piece  of  information  concerning  Troglodytes  and  topazes,  borrowed,  he  says,  from  secular 
writers,  and  still  to  be  read  in  the  elder  Pliny  7.  Even  where  he  seems  to  be  borrowing, 
on  rare  occasions,  from  the  commonplaces  of  Roman  poetry,  it  is  rather  with  the  interest 
of  the  naturalist  than  of  the  rhetorician,  as  when  he  speaks  in  all  seriousness  of  '  Marsian 
enchantments  and  hissing  vipers  lulled  to  sleep8,'  or  recalls  Lucan's  asps  and  basilisks  of 
the  African  desert  as  a  description  of  his  heretical  opponents0.  Perhaps  his  lost  work, 
twice  mentioned  by  Jerome  *,  against  the  physician  Dioscorus  was  a  refutation  of  physical 
arguments  against  Christianity. 

Hilary's  speculative  thought,  like  that  of  every  serious  adherent  of  the  pagan  creed, 
had  certainly  been  inspired  by  Neoplatonism.  We  cannot  take  the  account  of  his  spiritual 
progress  up  to  the  full  Catholic  faith,  which  he  gives  in  the  beginning  of  the  De  Trinitate, 
and  of  which  we  find  a  less  finished  sketch  in  the  Homily  on  Psalm  Ixi.  §  2,  as  literal  history. 
It  is  too  symmetrical  in  its  advance  through  steadily  increasing  light  to  the  perfect  knowledge, 
too  well  prepared  as  a  piece  of  literary  workmanship — it  is  indeed  an  admirable  example 
of  majestic  prose,  a  worthy  preface  to  that  great  treatise — for  us  to  accept  it,  as  it  stands, 
as  the  record  of  actual  experience.  But  we  may  safely  see  in  it  the  evidence  that  Hilary 
had  been  an  earnest  student  of  the  best  thought  of  his  day,  and  had  found  in  Neoplatonism 
not  only  a  speculative  training  but  also  the  desire,  which  was  to  find  its  satisfaction  in  the 
Faith,  for  knowledge  of  God,  and  for  union  with  Him.  It  was  a  debt  which  Origen,  his 
master,  shared  with  him ;  and  it  must  have  been  because,  as  a  Neoplatonist  feeling  after 
the  truth,  he  found  so  much  of  common  ground  in  Origen,  that  he  was  able  to  accept  so 


■  E.g.  Trin.  v.  IX,  vii.  14,  ix.  4. 

3  Trin.  ii.  22. 

4  Trin.  x.  14.  This  is  a  very  remarkable  allusion.  Celsus, 
▼ii.  prtzf.,  confidently  assumes  that  all  surgical  operations  must 
be  painful 


S  Corn/ft.  in  Matt-  xxi.  8.  6  Trin.  xi.  15. 

7  Tract,  in  Ps.  cxviii.  Ain.  16  ;  it  is  from  Plin.  N.H.  37,  32. 

8  Tract,  in  Ps.  lvii.  3.     It  suggests  Virgil,  Ovid,  Silius,  and 
others. 

9  Trin.  vii.  3.  «  F.f.  70,  5,  Vir.  III.  100. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS. 


fully  the  teaching  of  Alexandria.  But  it  would  be  impossible  to  separate  between  the 
lessons  which  Hilary  had  learnt  from  the  pagan  form  of  this  philosophy,  and  those  which 
may  have  been  new  to  him  when  he  studied  it  in  its  Christian  presentment.  Of  the  influence 
of  Christian  Platonism  upon  him  something  will  be  said  shortly.  At  this  point  we  need 
only  mention  as  a  noteworthy  indication  of  the  fact  that  Hilary  was  not  unmindful  of  the 
debt,  that  the  only  philosophy  which  he  specifically  attacks  is  the  godless  system  of  Epicurus, 
which  denies  creation,  declares  that  the  gods  do  not  concern  themselves  with  men,  and 
deifies  water  or  earth  or  atoms  a. 

It  was,  then,  as  a  man  of  mature  age,  of  literary  skill  and  philosophical  training,  that 
Hilary  approached  Christianity.  He  had  been  drawn  towards  the  Faith  by  desire  for  a  truth 
which  he  had  not  found  in  philosophy;  and  his  conviction  that  this  truth  was  Christianity 
was  established  by  independent  study  of  Scripture,  not  by  intercourse  with  Christian  teachers ; 
so  much  we  may  safely  conclude  from  the  early  pages  of  the  De  Trinitate.  It  must  remain 
doubtful  whether  the  works  of  Origen,  who  influenced  his  thought  so  profoundly,  had  fallen 
into  his  hands  before  his  conversion,  or  whether  it  was  as  a  Christian,  seeking  for  further 
light  upon  the  Faith,  that  he  first  studied  them.  For  it  is  certainly  improbable  that  he  would 
find  among  the  Christians  of  his  own  district  many  who  could  help  him  in  intellectual 
difficulties.  The  educated  classes  were  still  largely  pagan,  and  the  Christian  body,  which 
was,  we  may  say,  unanimously  and  undoubtingly  Catholic,  held,  without  much  mental 
activity,  a  traditional  and  inherited  faith.  Into  this  body  Hilary  entered  by  Baptism,  at 
some  unknown  date.  His  age  at  the  time,  his  employment,  whether  or  no  he  was  married 3, 
whether  or  no  he  entered  the  ministry  of  the  Church  of  Poitiers,  can  never  be  known. 
It  is  only  certain  that  he  was  strengthening  his  faith  by  thought  and  study. 

He  had  come  to  the  Faith,  St.  Augustine  says*,  laden,  like  Cyprian,  Lactantius  and 
others,  with  the  gold  and  silver  and  raiment  of  Egypt;  and  he  would  naturally  wish  to 
find  a  Christian  employment  for  the  philosophy  which  he  brought  with  him.  If  his 
horizon  had  been  limited  to  his  neighbours  in  Gaul,  he  would  have  found  little  en- 
couragement and  less  assistance.  The  oral  teaching  which  prevailed  in  the  West  fur- 
nished, no  doubt,  safe  guidance  in  doctrine,  but  could  not  supply  reasons  for  the  Faith. 
And  reasons  were  the  one  great  interest  of  Hilary.  The  whole  practical  side  of  Chris- 
tianity as  a  system  of  life  is  ignored,  or  rather  taken  for  granted  and  therefore  not 
discussed,  in  his  writings,  which  are  ample  enough  to  be  a  mirror  of  his  thought.  For 
instance,  we  cannot  doubt  that  his  belief  concerning  the  Eucharist  was  that  of  the  whole 
Church.  Yet  in  the  great  treatise  on  the  Trinity,  of  which  no  small  part  is  given  to 
the  proof  that  Christ  is  God  and  Man,  and  that  through  this  union  must  come  the 
union  of  man  with  God,  the  Eucharist  as  a  means  to  such  union  is  only  once  introduced, 
and  that  in  a  short  passage,  and  for  the  purpose  of  arguments.  And  altogether  it  would 
be  as  impossible  to  reconstruct  the  Christian  life  and  thought  of  the  day  from  his  writings 
as  from  those  of  the  half-pagan  Arnobius.  To  such  a  mind  as  this  the  teaching  which 
ordinary  Christians  needed  and  welcomed  could  bring  no  satisfaction,  and  no  aid  towards 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  The  Western  Church  was,  indeed,  in  an  almost  illogical 
position.  Conviction  was  in  advance  of  argument.  The  loyal  practice  of  the  Faith  had 
led  men  on,  as  it  were  by  intuition,  to  apprehend  and  firmly  hold  truths  which  the  more 
thoughtful  East  was  doubtfully  and  painfully  approaching.  Here,  again,  Hilary  would 
be  out  of  sympathy  with  his  neighbours,  and  we  cannot  wonder  that  in   such  a  doctrine 


•  Tract,  in  Ps.  i.  7,  lxi.  2,  Ixiii.  5,  &c.  As  usual,  Hilary  does 
not  name  his  opponents. 

3  Hilary's  legendary  daughle.  Abra,  to  whom  he  is  said  to 
have  written  a  letter  printed  in  the  editions  of  his  works,  is  now 


generally  abandoned  by  the  best  authorities,  e.g.  by  Fechtrup, 
the  writer,  in  Wetzer-Welte's  Encyclopaedia,  of  the  best  shor. 
life  of  Hilary. 

*»  De  Doctr.  Chr.  ii.  40.  5  Trin.  viii.  13 — 17. 


VI 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER    I. 


as  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit  he  held  the  conservative  Eastern  view.  Nor  were  the  Latin- 
speaking  Churches  well  equipped  with  theological  literature.  The  two 6  great  theologians 
who  had  as  yet  written  in  their  tongue,  Tertullian  and  Novatian,  with  the  former  of  whom 
Hilary  was  familiar,  were  discredited  by  their  personal  history.  St.  Cyprian,  the  one 
doctor  whom  the  West  already  boasted,  could  teach  disciplined  enthusiasm  and  Chris- 
tian morality,  but  his  scattered  statements  concerning  points  of  doctrine  convey  nothing 
more  than  a  general  impression  of  piety  and  soundness ;  and  even  his  arrangement, 
in  the  Testimonia,  of  Scriptural  evidences  was  a  poor  weapon  against  the  logical  attack 
of  Arianism.  But  there  is  little  reason  to  suppose  that  there  was  any  general  sense  of 
the  need  of  a  more  systematic  theology.  Africa  was  paralysed,  and  the  attention  of 
the  Western  provinces  probably  engrossed,  by  the  Donatist  strife,  into  which  questions 
of  doctrine  did  not  enter.  The  adjustment  of  the  relations  between  Church  and  State, 
the  instruction  and  government  of  the  countless  proselytes  who  flocked  to  the  Faith 
while  toleration  grew  into  imperial  favour,  must  have  needed  all  the  attention  that  the 
Church's  rulers  could  give.  And  these  busy  years  had  followed  upon  a  generation  of 
merciless  persecution,  during  which  change  of  practice  or  growth  of  thought  had  been 
impossible ;  and  the  confessors,  naturally  a  conservative  force,  were  one  of  the  dominant 
powers  in  the  Church.  We  cannot  be  surprised  that  the  scattered  notices  in  Hilary's 
writings  of  points  of  discipline,  and  his  hortatory  teaching,  are  in  no  respect  different 
from  what  we  find  a  century  earlier  in  St.  Cyprian.  And  men  who  were  content  to  leave 
the  superstructure  as  they  found  it  were  not  likely  to  probe  the  foundations.  Their  belief 
grew  in  definiteness  as  the  years  went  on,  and  faithful  lives  were  rewarded,  almost  un- 
consciously, with  a  deeper  insight  into  truth.  But  meanwhile  they  took  the  Faith  as 
they  had  received  it;  one  might  say,  as  a  matter  of  course.  There  was  little  heresy 
within  the  Western  Church.  Arianism  was  never  prevalent  enough  to  excite  fear,  even 
though  repugnance  were  felt.  The  Churches  were  satisfied  with  faith  and  life  as  they 
saw  it  within  and  around  them.     Their  religion  was  traditional,  in  no  degenerate  sense. 

But  such  a  religion  could  not  satisfy  ardent  and  logical  minds,  like  those  of  St. 
Hilary  and  his  two  great  successors,  St.  Ambrose  and  St.  Augustine.  To  such  men  it 
was  a  necessity  of  their  faith  that  they  should  know,  and  know  in  its  right  proportions, 
the  truth  so  far  as  it  had  been  revealed,  and  trace  the  appointed  limits  which  human 
knowledge  might  not  overpass.  For  their  own  assurance  and  for  effective  warfare  against 
heresy  a  reasoned  system  of  theology  was  necessary.  Hilary,  the  earliest,  had  the  great- 
est difficulty.  To  aid  him  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  he  had  only  one  writer  in  his 
own  tongue,  Tertullian,  whose  teaching,  in  the  matters  which  interested  Hilary,  though 
orthodox,  was  behind  the  times.  His  strong  insistence  upon  the  subordination  of  the 
Son  to  the  Father,  due  to  the  same  danger  which  still,  in  the  fourth  century,  seemed 
in  the  East  the  most  formidable,  was  not  in  harmony  with  the  prevalent  thought 
of  the  West.  Thus  Hilary,  in  his  search  for  reasons  for  the  Faith,  was  practically 
isolated;  there  was  little  at  home  which  could  help  him  to  construct  his  system.  To 
an  intellect  so  self-reliant  as  his  this  may  have  been  no  great  trial.  Scrupulous  though 
he  was  in  confining  his  speculations  within  the  bounds  of  inherited  and  acknowledged 
truth,  yet  in  matters  still  undecided  he  exercised  a  singularly  free  judgment,  now  advanc- 
ing beyond,  now  lingering  behind,  the  usual  belief  of  his  contemporaries.  In  following 
out  his  thoughts,  royally  yet  independently,  he  was  conscious  that  he  was  breaking  what 
was  new  ground  to  his  older  fellow-Christians,  almost  as  much  as  to  himself,  the  convert 


*  This  is  on  the  assumption,  which  seems  probable,  that 
Irenaeus  was  not  yet  translated  from  the  Greek.  He  certainly 
influenced  Tertullian,  and  through  him  Hilary ;  and  his  doctrine 
of  the  recapitulation  of  mankind  in  Christ,  reappearing  as  it  does 


in  Hilary,  though  not  in  Tertullian,  suggests  that  our  writer  had 
made  an  independent  study  of  Irenaeus.  Even  if  the  present 
wretched  translation  existed,  he  would  certainly  read  the  Greek. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.   HILARY  OF  POITIERS.      vii 

from  Paganism.  And  that  he  was  aware  of  the  novelty  is  evident  from  the  sparing 
use  which  he  makes  of  that  stock  argument  of  the  old  controversialists,  the  newness 
of  heresy.  He  uses  it,  e.g.,  in  Trin.  ii.  4,  and  uses  it  with  effect ;  but  it  is  far  less 
prominent  in  him  than  in  others. 

For  such  independence  of  thought  he  could  find  precedent  in  Alexandrian  theology, 
of  which  he  was  obviously  a  careful  student  and,  in  his  free  use  of  his  own  judgment 
upon  it,  a  true  disciple.  When  he  was  drawn  into  the  Arian  controversy  and  studied 
its  literature,  his  thoughts  to  some  extent  were  modified ;  but  he  never  ceases  to  leave 
upon  his  reader  the  impression  of  an  Oriental  isolated  in  the  West.  From  the  Christian 
Platonists  of  Alexandria  '  come  his  most  characteristic  thoughts.  They  have  passed  on, 
for  instance,  from  Philo  to  him  the  sense  of  the  importance  of  the  revelation  contained 
in  the  divine  name  He  that  is.  His  peculiar  doctrine  of  the  impassibility  of  the  in- 
carnate Christ  is  derived,  more  probably  directly  than  indirectly,  from  Clement  of  Alexandria. 
But  it  is  to  Origen  that  Hilary  stands  in  the  closest  and  most  constant  relations,  now  as 
a  pupil,  now  as  a  critic.  In  fact,  as  we  shall  see,  no  small  portion  of  the  Homilies  on 
the  Psalms,  towards  the  end  of  the  work,  is  devoted  to  the  controverting  of  opinions  expressed 
by  Origen ;  and  by  an  omission  which  is  itself  a  criticism  he  completely  ignores  one  of 
that  writer's  most  important  contributions  to  Christian  thought,  the  mystical  interpretation 
of  the  Song  of  Songs.  It  is  true  that  Jerome8  knew  of  a  commentary  on  that  Book 
which  was  doubtfully  attributed  to  Hilary ;  but  if  Hilary  had  once  accepted  such  an  exegesis 
he  could  not  possibly  have  failed  to  use  it  on  some  of  the  numerous  occasions  when  it  must 
have  suggested  itself  in  the  course  of  his  writing,  for  it  is  not  his  habit  to  allow  a  thought 
to  drop  out  of  his  mind ;  his  characteristic  ideas  recur  again  and  again.  In  some  cases 
we  can  actually  watch  the  growth  of  Hilary's  mind  as  it  emancipates  itself  from  Origen's 
influence;  as,  for  instance,  in  his  psychology.  He  begins  (Co/nm.  in  Matt.  v.  8)  by  holding, 
with  Origen  and  Tertullian,  that  the  soul  is  corporeal ;  in  later  life  he  states  expressly  that 
this  is  not  the  case  9.  Yet  what  Hilary  accepted  from  Origen  is  far  more  important  than 
what  he  rejected.  His  strong  sense  of  the  dignity  of  man,  of  the  freedom  of  the  will, 
his  philosophical  belief  in  the  inseparable  connection  of  name  and  thing,  the  thought  of 
the  Incarnation  as  primarily  an  obscuring  of  the  Divine  glory J,  are  some  of  the  lessons  which 
Origen  has  taught  him.  But,  above  all,  it  is  to  him  that  he  owes  his  rudimentary  doctrine 
concerning  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hilary  says  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  truth  as  it  was  soon 
to  be  universally  recognised ;  but  his  caution  in  declining  to  accept,  or  at  least  to  state, 
the  general  belief  of  Western  Christendom  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  since  Christians  are  baptized 
in  His  Name  as  well  as  in  that  of  Father  and  Son,  is  God  in  the  same  sense  as  They, 
is  evidence  both  of  his  independence  of  the  opinion  around  him  and  of  his  dependence 
on  Origen.  Of  similar  dependence  on  any  other  writer  or  school  there  is  no  trace.  He 
knew  Tertullian  well,  and  there  is  some  evidence  that  he  knew  Hippolytus  and  Novatian, 
but  his  tnought  was  not  moulded  by  theirs;  and  when,  in  the  maturity  of  his  powers,  he 
became  a  fellow-combatant  with  Athanasius  and  the  precursors  of  the  great  Cappadocians, 
his  borrowing  is  not  that  of  a  disciple  but  of  an  equal. 

There  is  one  of  St.  Hilary's  writings,  evidently  the  earliest  of  those  extant  and  probably 
the  earliest  of  all,  which  may  be  noticed  here,  as  it  gives  no  sign  of  being  written  by  a  Bishop. 
It  is  the  Commentary  on  St.  Matt/mv.  It  is,  in  the  strictest  sense,  a  commentary,  and 
not,  like  the  work  upon  the  Psalms,  a  series  of  exegetical  discourses.  It  deals  with  the 
text  of  the  Gospel,  as  it  stood  in  Hilary's  Latin  version,  without  comment  or  criticism 
upon  its  peculiarities,  and  draws  out  the  meaning,  chiefly  allegorical,  not  of  the  whole  Gospel, 

7  Dr.  Bigg's  Bampton  Lectures  upon  them  are  full  of  hints  I        9  E.g.  Tract,  in  Ps.  cxxix.  «f. 
for  the  student  of  Hilary.  8  Vir.  III.  ioo.  I        »  E.g.  Trin.  ix.  6. 


•  •  • 

Vlll 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER   I. 


but  apparently  of  lections  that  were  read  in  public  worship.  A  few  pages  at  the  beginning 
and  end  are  unfortunately  lost,  but  they  cannot  have  contained  anything  of  such  importance 
as  to  alter  the  impression  which  we  form  of  the  book.  In  diction  and  grammar  it  is  exactly 
similar  to  Hilary's  later  writings;  the  fact  that  it  is,  perhaps,  somewhat  more  stiff  in  style 
may  be  due  to  self-consciousness  of  a  writer  venturing  for  the  first  time  upon  so  important 
a  subject.  The  exegesis  is  often  the  same  as  that  of  Origen,  but  a  comparison  of  the 
several  passages  in  which  Jerome  mentions  this  commentary  makes  it  certain  that  it  is 
not  dependent  upon  him  in  the  same  way  as  are  the  Homilies  on  the  Psalms  and  Hilary's 
lost  work  upon  Job.  Yet  if  he  is  not  in  this  work  the  translator,  or  editor,  of  Origen,  he 
is  manifestly  his  disciple.  We  cannot  account  for  the  resemblance  otherwise.  Hilary  is 
independently  working  out  Origen's  thoughts  on  Origen's  lines.  Origen  is  not  named, 
nor  any  other  author,  except  that  he  excuses  himself  from  expounding  the  Lord's  Prayer 
on  the  ground  that  Tertullian  and  Cyprian  had  written  excellent  treatises  upon  it3.  This 
is  a  rare  exception  to  his  habit  of  not  naming  other  writers.  But,  whoever  the  writes 
were  from  whom  Hilary  drew  his  exegesis,  his  theology  is  his  own.  There  is  no  immaturity 
in  the  thought ;  every  one  of  his  characteristic  ideas,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  next  chapter, 
is  already  to  be  found  here.  But  there  is  one  interesting  landmark  in  the  growth  of  the  Latin 
theological  vocabulary,  very  archaic  in  itself  and  an  evidence  that  Hilary  had  not  yet  decided 
upon  the  terms  that  he  would  use.  He  twice  3  speaks  of  Christ's  Divinity  as  '  the  theotes  which 
we  call  deltas'  In  his  later  writings  he  consistently  uses  divinitas,  except  in  the  few  instances 
where  he  is  almost  forced,  to  avoid  intolerable  monotony,  to  vary  it  with  de/tas;  and  in 
this  commentary  he  would  not  have  used  either  of  these  words,  still  less  would  he  have 
used  both,  unless  he  were  feeling  his  way  to  a  fixed  technical  term.  Another  witness  to 
the  early  date  of  the  work  is  the  absence  of  any  clear  sign  that  Hilary  knew  of  the  existence 
of  Arianism.  He  knows,  indeed,  that  there  are  heresies  which  impugn  the  Godhead  of 
Christ  *,  and  in  consequence  states  that  doctrine  with  great  precision,  and  frequently  as 
well  as  forcibly.  But  it  has  been  pointed  out5  that  he  discusses  many  texts  which  served, 
in  the  Arian  strife,  for  attack  or  defence,  without  alluding  to  that  burning  question :  and 
this  would  have  been  impossible  and,  indeed,  a  dereliction  of  duty,  in  Hilary's  later  life. 
And  there  is  one  passage 6  in  which  he  speaks  of  God  the  Father  as  '  He  with  (or  '  in ') 
Whom  the  Word  was  before  He  was  bom.'  The  Incarnation  is  spoken  of  in  words  which 
would  usually  denote  the  eternal  Generation  :  and  if  a  candid  reader  could  not  be  misled, 
yet  an  opportunity  is  given  to  the  malevolent  which  Hilary  or,  indeed,  any  careful  writer 
engaged  in  the  Arian  controversy  would  have  avoided.  The  Commentary,  then,  is  an 
early  work,  yet  in  no  respect  unworthy  of  its  author.  But  though  he  had  developed  his 
characteristic  thoughts  before  he  began  to  write  it,  they  are  certainly  less  prominent  here 
than  in  the  treatises  which  followed.  It  is  chiefly  remarkable  for  its  display  of  allegorical 
ingenuity.  Its  pages  are  full  of  fantastic  interpretations  of  the  kind  which  he  had  so  great 
a  share  in  introducing  into  Western  Europe  7.  He  started  by  it  a  movement  which  he  would 
have  been  powerless  to  stop;  that  he  was  not  altogether  satisfied  with  the  principle  of 
allegory  is  shewn  by  the  more  modest  use  that  he  made  of  it  when  he  composed,  with 
fuller  experience,  the  Homilies  on  the  Psalms.  It  is,  perhaps,  only  natural  that  there  is  little 
allegorism  in  the  JDe   Tritiitate.     Such  a  hot-house  growth  could  not  thrive  in  the  keen 


a  Comm.  in  Matt.  v.  I.  It  may  be  mentioned  that  the  chap- 
ters of  the  Commentary  do  not  coincide  with  those  of  the  Gospel. 

3  Comm.  in  Matt.  xvi.  4,  theotetam  quam  deitatem  Latini 
nuncupant,  xxvi.  5,  theotetam  quam  deitatem  nuncupamus. 
The  strange  accusative  theotetam  makes  it  the  more  probable 
that  we  have  here  a  specimen  of  the  primitive  Greek  vocabulary 
of  Latin  Christendom  of  which  so  few  examples,  e.g.  Baptism  and 
Eucharist,  have  survived.     Cyprian  had  probably  the  chief  share 


in  destroying  it;   but  the  subject  has  never  been  examined  as 
it  deserves. 

4  So  especially  xii.  18.  There  is  similarly  a  possible  allusion 
to  Marcellus'  teaching  in  xi.  9,  which,  however,  may  equally  well 
be  a  reminiscence  of  some  cognate  earlier  heresy. 

5  Maffei's  Introduction,  §  15. 

6  xxxi.  3,  penes  quern  erat  antequam  nasceretur. 

7  See  Ebert,  Litteratur  des  Mittelaltcrs,  i.  139. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.       ix 

air  of  controversy.  As  for  the  Commentary  on  St.  Matthew,  its  chief  influence  has  been 
indirect,  in  that  St.  Ambrose  made  large  use  of  it  in  his  own  work  upon  the  same  Gospel. 
The  consideration  of  Hilary's  use  of  Scripture  and  of  the  place  which  it  held  in  his  system 
of  theology  is  reserved  for  the  next  chapter,  where  illustrations  from  this  Commentary 
are  given. 

About  the  year  350  Hilary  was  consecrated  Bishop  of  Poitiers.  So  we  may  infer 
from  his  own  words8  that  he  had  been  a  good  while  regenerate,  and  for  some  little  time 
a  bishop,  on  the  eve  of  his  exile  in  356  a.d.  Whether,  like  Ambrose,  he  was  raised  directly 
from  lay  life  to  the  Episcopate  cannot  be  known.  It  is  at  least  possible  that  this  was  the  case. 
His  position  as  a  bishop  was  one  of  great  importance,  and,  as  it  must  have  seemed,  free  from 
special  difficulties.  There  was  a  wide  difference  between  the  Church  organisation  of  the 
Latin-speaking  provinces  of  the  Empire  (with  the  exception  of  Central  and  Southern  Italy  and 
of  Africa,  in  each  of  which  a  multitude  of  insignificant  sees  were  dependent  upon  the  au- 
tocracy of  Rome  and  Carthage  respectively)  and  that  of  the  Greek-speaking  provinces  of 
the  East.  In  the  former  there  was  a  mere  handful  of  dioceses,  of  huge  geographical  extent ; 
in  the  latter  every  town,  at  least  in  the  more  civilised  parts,  had  its  bishop.  The  Western 
bishops  were  inevitably  isolated  from  one  another,  and  could  exercise  none  of  that  constant 
surveillance  over  each  other's  orthodoxy  which  was,  for  evil  as  well  as  for  good,  so  marked 
a  feature  of  the  Church  life  of  the  East.  And  the  very  greatness  of  their  position  gave  them 
stability.  The  equipoise  of  power  was  too  perfect,  the  hands  in  which  it  was  vested  too  few, 
the  men  themselves,  probably,  too  statesmanlike,  for  the  Western  Church  to  be  infected  with 
that  nervous  agitation  which  possessed  the  shifting  multitudes  of  Eastern  prelates,  and  made 
them  suspicious  and  loquacious  and  disastrously  eager  for  compromise.  It  was,  in  fact,  the 
custom  of  the  West  to  take  the  orthodoxy  of  its  bishops  for  granted,  and  an  external  impulse 
was  necessary  before  they  could  be  overthrown.  The  two  great  sees  with  which  Hilary  was 
in  immediate  relation  were  those  of  Aries  and  Milan,  and  both  were  in  Arian  hands.  But 
it  needed  the  direct  incitation  of  a  hostile  Emperor  to  set  Saturninus  against  Hilary ;  and  it 
was  in  vain  that  Hilary,  in  the  floodtide  of  orthodox  revival  in  the  West,  attacked  Auxentius. 
The  orthodox  Emperor  upheld  the  Arian,  who  survived  Hilary  by  eight  years  and  died 
in  possession  of  his  see.  But  this  great  and  secure  position  of  the  Western  bishop  had 
its  drawbacks.  Hilary  was  conscious  of  its  greatness 9,  and  strove  to  be  worthy  of  it;  but  it 
was  a  greatness  of  responsibility  to  which  neither  he,  nor  any  other  man,  could  be  equal. 
For  in  his  eyes  the  bishop  was  still,  as  he  had  been  in  the  little  Churches  of  the  past, 
and  still  might  be  in  quiet  places  of  the  East  or  South,  the  sole  priest,  sacerdos1,  of  his 
flock.  In  his  exile  he  reminds  the  Emperor  that  he  is  still  distributing  the  communion 
through  his  presbyters  to  the  Church.  This  survival  can  have  had  none  but  evil  results. 
It  put  both  bishop  and  clergy  in  a  false  position.  The  latter  were  degraded  by  the  denial 
to  them  of  a  definite  status  and  rights  of  their  own.  Authority  without  influence  and 
information  in  lieu  of  knowledge  was  all  for  which  the  former  could  hope.  And  this  lack 
of  any  organised  means  of  influencing  a  wide-spread  flock — such  a  diocese  as  that  of  Poitiers 
must  have  been  several  times  as  large  as  a  rural  diocese  of  England — prevented  its  bishop 
from  creating  any  strong  public  opinion  within  it,  unless  he  were  an  evangelist  with  the  gifts 
of  a  Martin  of  Tours.  It  was  impossible  for  him  to  excite  in  so  unwieldy  a  district  any 
popular  enthusiasm  or  devotion  to  himself.  Unlike  an  Athanasius,  he  could  be  deported 
into  exile  at  the  Emperor's  will  with  as  little  commotion  as  the  bishop  of  some  petty  half- 
Greek  town  in  Asia  Minor. 


8  Syn.  91 ;  regeneratus  pridem  et  in  episcopatu  aliquantis-  9  E.g.  Trin.  viii.  i.     The  bishop  is  a  prince  of  the  Church. 

per  manens.     The  renderings  'long  ago'  and  'for  some  time'  '  Sacerdos  in  Hilary,  as  in  all  writers  till  near  the  end  ofth« 

in  this  translation  seem  rather  too  strong.  fnnrth  century,  means  '  bishon  '  alwa\  ■- 


X 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER    I. 


During  the  first  years  of  Hilary's  episcopate  there  was  civil  turmoil  in  Gaul,  but  the 
Church  was  at  peace.  While  the  Eastern  ruler  Constantius  favoured  the  Arians,  partly 
misled  by  unprincipled  advisers  and  partly  guided  by  an  unwise,  though  honest,  desire  for 
compromise  in  the  interests  of  peace,  his  brother  Constans,  who  reigned  in  the  West,  upheld 
the  Catholic  cause,  to  which  the  immense  majority  of  his  clergy  and  people  was  attached. 
He  was  slain  in  January,  350,  by  the  usurper  Magnentius,  who,  with  whatever  motives, 
took  the  same  side.  It  was  certainly  that  which  would  best  coi  ciliate  his  own  subjects; 
but  he  went  further,  and  attempted  to  strengthen  his  precarious  throne  against  the  impending 
attack  of  Constantius  by  negotiations  with  the  discontented  Nicene  Christians  of  the  East. 
He  tried  to  win  over  Athanasius,  who  was,  however,  too  wise  to  listen  ;  and,  in  any  case, 
he  gained  nothing  by  tampering  with  the  subjects  of  Constantius.  Constantius  defeated 
Magnentius,  pursued  him,  and  finally  slew  him  on  the  nth  August,  353,  and  was  then 
undisputed  master  not  only  of  the  East  but  of  the  West,  which  he  proceeded  to  bring  into 
ecclesiastical  conformity,  as  far  as  he  could,  with  his  former  dominions. 

The  general  history  of  Arianism  and  the  tendencies  of  Christian  thought  at  this  time 
have  been  so  fully  and  admirably  delineated  in  the  introduction  to  the  translation  of  St. 
Athanasius  in  this  series2,  that  it  would  be  superfluous  and  presumptuous  to  go  over  the 
same  ground.  It  must  suffice  to  say  that  Constantius  was  animated  with  a  strong  personal 
hatred  against  Athanasius,  and  that  the  prelates  at  his  court  seem  to  have  found  their 
chief  employment  in  intrigues  for  the  expulsion  of  bishops,  whose  seats  might  be  filled  by 
friends  of  their  own.  Athanasius  was  a  formidable  antagonist,  from  his  strong  position  in 
Alexandria,  even  to  an  Emperor;  and  Constantius  was  attempting  to  weaken  him  by  creating 
an  impression  that  he  was  unworthy  of  the  high  esteem  in  which  he  was  held.  Even  in 
the  East,  as  yet,  the  Nicene  doctrine  was  not  avowedly  rejected ;  still  less  could  the  doctrinal 
issue  be  raised  in  Gaul,  where  the  truths  stated  in  the  Nicene  Creed  were  regarded  as  so 
obvious  that  the  Creed  itself  had  excited  little  interest  or  attention.  Hilary  at  this  time 
had  never  heard  its,  though  nearly  thirty  years  had  passed  since  the  Council  decreed  it. 
But  there  were  personal  charges  against  Athanasius,  of  which  he  has  himself  given  us 
a  full  and  interesting  account*,  which  had  done  him,  and  were  to  do  him,  serious  injury. 
They  had  been  disproved  publicly  and  completely  more  than  once,  and  with  great  solemnity 
and  apparent  finality  ten  years  before  this,  at  Sardica  in  343  a.d.  But  in  a  distant  province, 
aided  by  the  application  of  sufficient  pressure,  they  might  serve  their  turn,  and  if  the  Emperor 
could  obtain  his  enemy's  condemnation,  and  that  in  a  region  whose  theological  sympathies 
were  notoriously  on  his  side,  a  great  step  would  be  gained  towards  his  expulsion  from  Egypt. 
No  time  was  lost.  In  October,  353,  a  Council  was  called  at  Aries  to  consider  the  charges. 
It  suited  Constantius'  purpose  well  that  Saturninus  of  Aries,  bishop  of  the  most  important 
see  in  Gaul,  and  the  natural  president,  was  both  a  courtier  and  an  Arian.  He  did  his  work 
well.  The  assembled  bishops  believed,  or  were  induced  to  profess  that  they  believed,  that 
the  charges  against  Athanasius  were  not  made  in  the  interests  of  his  theological  opponents, 
and  that  the  Emperor's  account  of  them  was  true.  The  decision,  condemning  the  accused, 
was  almost  unanimous.  Even  the  representative  of  Liberius  of  Rome  consented,  to  be  dis- 
avowed on  his  return;  and  only  one  bishop,  Paulinus  of  Treves,  suffered  exile  for  resistance. 
He  may  have  been  the  only  advocate  for  Athanasius,  or  Constantius  may  have  thought  that 
one  example  would  suffice  to  terrify  the  episcopate  of  Gaul  into  submission.  It  is  impossible 
to  say  whether  Hilary  was  present  at  the  Council  or  no.  It  is  not  probable  that  he  was 
absent :  and  his  ignorance,  even  later,  on  important  points  in  the  dispute  shews  that  he  may 


*  By  Dr.  Robertson  of  King's  College,  London.  This,  and 
Professor  Gwatkin's  Studies  of  Arianism,  are  the  best  English 
accounts. 


3  Syn.  91. 

4  The  Apolegim  centra  Arianos,  p.  xooff.  in  Dr.  Robertson's 
translation. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.       xi 


well  have  given  an  honest  verdict  against  Athanasius.  The  new  ruler's  word  had  been  given 
that  he  was  guilty ;  nothing  can  yet  have  been  known  against  Constantius  and  much  must 
have  been  hoped  from  him.  It  was  only  natural  that  he  should  obtain  the  desired  decision. 
Two  years  followed,  during  which  the  Emperor  was  too  busy  with  warfare  on  the  frontiers 
of  Gaul  to  proceed  further  in  the  matter  of  Athanasius.  But  in  the  Autumn  of  355  he 
summoned  a  Council  at  Milan,  a  city  whose  influence  over  Gaul  was  so  great  that  it  might 
almost  be  called  the  ecclesiastical  capital  of  that  country.  Here  again  strong  pressure  was 
used,  and  the  verdict  given  as  Constantius  desired.  Hilary  was  not  present  at  this  Council ; 
he  was  by  this  time  aware  of  the  motives  of  Constantius  and  the  courtier  bishops,  and  would 
certainly  have  shared  in  the  opposition  offered,  and  probably  in  the  exile  inflicted  upon  three 
of  the  leaders  in  it.  These  were  Dionysius  of  Milan,  who  disappears  from  history,  his 
place  being  taken  by  Hilary's  future  enemy,  Auxentius,  and  Eusebius  of  Vercelli  and 
Lucifer  of  Cagliari,  both  of  whom  were  to  make  their  mark  in  the  future. 

By  this  time  Hilary  had  definitely  taken  his  side,  and  it  will  be  well  to  consider  his 
relation  to  the  parties  in  the  controversy.  And  first  as  to  Arianism.  As  we  have  seen, 
Arian  prelates  were  now  in  possession  of  the  two  great  sees  of  Aries  and  Milan  in  his 
own  neighbourhood ;  and  Arianisers  of  different  shades,  or  at  least  men  tolerant  of  Arianism, 
held  a  clear  majority  of  the  Eastern  bishoprics,  except  in  the  wholly  Catholic  Egypt.  But 
it  is  certain  that,  in  the  West  at  any  rate,  the  fundamental  difference  of  the  Arian  from 
the  Catholic  position  was  not  generally  recognised.  Arian  practice  and  Arian  practical 
teaching  was  indistinguishable  from  Catholic;  and  unless  ultimate  principles  were  questioned, 
Catholic  clergy  might  work,  and  the  multitudes  of  Catholic  laity  might  live  and  die,  without 
knowing  that  their  bishop's  creed  was  different  from  their  own.  The  Abbe  Duchesne 
has  made  the  very  probable  suggestion  that  the  stately  Ambrosian  ritual  of  Milan  was 
really  introduced  from  the  East  by  Auxentius,  the  Arian  intruder  from  Cappadocia,  of 
whom  we  have  spoken  s.  Arian  Baptism  and  the  Arian  Eucharist  were  exactly  the  same 
as  the  Catholic.  They  were  not  sceptical ;  they  accepted  all  current  beliefs  or  superstitions, 
and  had  their  own  confessors  and  workers  of  miracles6.  The  Bible  was  common  ground 
to  both  parties:  each  professed  its  confidence  that  it  had  the  support  of  Scripture.  "No 
false  system  ever  struck  more  directly  at  the  life  of  Christianity  than  Arianism.  Yet  after 
all  it  held  aloft  the  Lord's  example  as  the  Son  of  Man,  and  never  wavered  in  its  worship 
of  Him  as  the  Son  of  God  7."  And  the  leaders  of  this  school  were  in  possession  of  many 
of  the  great  places  of  the  Church,  and  asserted  that  they  had  the  right  to  hold  them ; 
that  if  they  had  not  the  sole  right,  at  least  they  had  as  good  a  right  as  the  Catholics, 
to  be  bishops,  and  yet  to  teach  the  doctrine  that  Christ  was  a  creature,  not  the  Son. 
And  what  made  things  worse  was  that  they  seemed  to  be  at  one  with  the  Catholics, 
and  that  it  was  possible,  and  indeed  almost  inevitable,  that  the  multitudes  who  did  not 
look  below  the  surface  should  be  satisfied  to  take  them  for  what  they  seemed.  Many  of 
the  Arians  no  doubt  honestly  thought  that  their  position  was  a  tenable  one,  and  held 
their  offices  with  a  good  conscience ;  but  we  cannot  wonder  that  men  like  Athanasius 
and  Hilary,  aware  of  the  sophistical  nature  of  many  of  the  arguments  used,  and  knowing 
that  some,  at  least,  of  the  leaders  were  unscrupulous  adventurers,  should  have  regarded 
all  Arianism  and  all  Arians  as  deliberately  dishonest.  It  seemed  incredible  that  they 
could  be  sincerely  at  home  in  the  Church,  and  intolerable  that  they  should  have  the 
power  of  deceiving  the  people  and  persecuting  true  believers.  It  is  against  Arianism 
in  the  Church  that  Hilary's  efforts  are  directed,  not  against  Arianism  as  an  external 
heresy.     He   ignores   heresies   outside   the   Church   as   completely  as   does   Cyprian;   they 

5  Originet  du  cult*  chritien,  p.  88.  6  Gwatkin,  Studies  of  Arianism,  p.  1^4.  7  lb.,  p.  28. 


Xll 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER   I. 


are  outside,  and  therefore  he  has  nothing  to  do  with  them.  But  Arianism,  as  represented 
by  an  Auxentius  or  a  Saturninus,  is  an  internum  ma/urn3;  and  to  the  extirpation  of 
this  '  inward  evil '  the  remaining  years  of  his  life  were  to  be  devoted. 

His  own  devotion,  from  the  time  of  his  conversion  to  the  Catholic  Faith,  which 
almost  all  around  him  held,  was  not  the  less  sincere  because  it  did  not  find  its  natural 
expression  in  the  Nicene  Creed.  That  document,  which  primarily  concerned  only  bishops, 
and  them  only  when  their  orthodoxy  was  in  question,  was  hardly  known  in  the  West, 
where  the  bishops  had  as  yet  had  little  occasion  for  doubting  one  another's  faith.  Hilary 
had  never  heard  it, — he  can  hardly  have  avoided  hearing  of  it, — till  just  before  his  exile. 
In  his  earlier  conflicts  he  rarely  mentions  it,  and  when  he  does  it  is  in  connection  with 
the  local  circumstances  of  the  East.  In  later  life  he,  with  Western  Christendom  at  large, 
recognised  its  value  as  a  rallying  point  for  the  faithful ;  but  even  then  there  is  no  attachment 
to  the  Creed  for  its  own  sake.  It  might  almost  seem  that  the  Creed,  by  his  defence 
of  which  Athanasius  has  earned  such  glory,  owed  its  original  celebrity  to  him  rather  than 
he  to  it.  His  unjust  persecution  and  heroic  endurance  excited  interest  in  the  symbol 
of  which  he  was  the  champion.  If  it  were  otherwise,  there  has  been  a  strange  conspiracy  of 
silence  among  Western  theologians.  In  their  great  works  on  the  Trinity,  Hilary  most  rarely, 
and  Augustine  never,  allude  to  it;  the  Council  of  Aquileia,  held  in  the  same  interests 
and  almost  at  the  same  time  as  that  of  Constantinople  in  381,  absolutely  ignores  it  9. 
The  Creed,  in  the  year  355,  was  little  known  in  the  West  and  unpopular  in  the  East. 
Even  Athanasius  kept  it  somewhat  in  the  background,  from  reasons  of  prudence,  and 
Hilary's  sympathies,  as  we  shall  see,  were  with  the  Eastern  School  which  could  accept 
the  truth,  though  they  disliked  this  expression  of  it. 

The  time  had  now  come  for  Hilary,  holding  these  views  of  Arianism  and  of  the 
Faith,  to  take  an  active  part  in  the  conflict.  We  have  seen  that  he  was  not  at  Milan ; 
he  was  therefore  not  personally  compromised,  but  the  honour  of  the  Church  compelled 
him  to  move.  He  exerted  himself  to  induce  the  bishops  of  Gaul  to  withdraw  from 
communion  with  Saturninus,  and  with  Ursacius  and  Valens,  disciples  of  Arius  during  his 
exile  on  the  banks  of  the  Danube  thirty  years  before,  and  now  high  in  favour  with 
Constantius,  and  his  ministers,  we  might  almost  say,  for  the  ecclesiastical  affairs  of  the 
Western  provinces.  We  do  not  know  how  many  bishops  were  enlisted  by  Hilary  against 
Saturninus.  It  is  probable  that  not  many  would  follow  him  in  so  bold  a  venture ;  even 
men  of  like  mind  with  himself  might  well  think  it  unwise.  It  was  almost  a  revolutionary 
act;  an  importation  of  the  methods  of  Eastern  controversy  into  the  peaceful  West, 
for  this  was  not  the  constitutional  action  of  a  synod  but  the  private  venture  of  Hilary 
and  his  allies.  However  righteous  and  necessary,  in  the  interests  of  morality  and  religion, 
their  conduct  may  have  seemed  to  them,  to  Constantius  and  his  advisers  it  must  have 
appeared  an  act  of  defiance  to  the  law,  both  of  Church  and  State.  And  Hilary  would 
certainly  not  win  favour  with  the  Emperor  by  his  letter  of  protest,  the  First  Epistle  to 
Constantius,  written  about  the  end  of  the  year  355.  He  adopts  the  usual  tone  of  the 
time,  that  of  exaggerated  laudation  and  even  servility  towards  the  Emperor.  Such  language 
was,  of  course,  in  great  measure  conventional;  we  know  from  Cicero's  letters  how  little 
superlatives,  whether  of  flattery  or  abuse,  need  mean,  and  language  had  certainly  not 
grown  more  sincere  under  the  Empire.  The  letter  was,  in  fact,  a  singularly  bold  manifesto, 
and   one  which    Hilary   himself  must   have   foreseen   was   likely   to   bring   upon   him   the 


8  Trin.  vii.  3. 

9  There  is  much  more  evidence  to  this  effect  in  Reuter, 
Augustinische  Studien,  p.  182  f.  It  was  probably  due  to  jealousy 
between  West  and  East  ;  cf.  the  way  in  which  John  of  Jerusalem 
ignored  the  A'rican  decision   in   Pelajjius'  case.     But   the   West 


was  ignorant,  as  well  as  jealous,  of  the  East.  Even  in  his  last 
years,  after  his  sojourn  in  Asia  Minor,  Hilary  believed  that 
Jerusalem  was,  as  had  been  prophesied,  an  uninhabited  ruin ; 
Tr.  in  Ps.  cxxiv.  §  3,  cxxxi.  §§  18,  23,  cxlvL  f  1. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS,     xiii 


punishment  which  had   befallen   the  recusants  at  Aries   and    Milan.     He  begins   (§   i)  in 
studiously  general  terms,  making  no  mention  of  the  provinces  in  which  the  offences  were 
being  committed,  with  a  complaint  of  the  tyrannical  interference  of  civil  officers  in  religious 
matters.     If  there  is  to  be  peace  (§  2),   there  must   be  liberty;    Catholics   must   not   be 
forced  to  become  Arians.     The  voice  of  resistance  was  being  raised  ;   men  were  beginning 
to  say  that  it  was  better  to  die  than  to  see  the  faith  defiled  at  the  bidding  of  an  individual. 
Equity  required   that  God-fearing  men   should  not   suffer  by  compulsory  intercourse   with 
the  teachers  of  execrable  blasphemy,  but  be  allowed   bishops  whom  they  could  obey  with 
a  good  conscience.     Truth   and   falsehood,   light   and   darkness   could   not   combine.     He 
entreated   the   Emperor   to   allow  the   people   to   choose   for  themselves  to  what   teachers 
they  would  listen,  with  whom  they  would  join  in  the  Eucharist  and  in  prayer  for  him. 
Next  (§  3)  he  denies  that  there  is  any  purpose  of  treason,  or  any  discontent.     The  only 
disturbance   is   that   caused   by  Arian   propagators   of  heresy,  who   are   busily  engaged   in 
misleading  the  ignorant.     He  now  (§  4)  prays  that  the  excellent  bishops  who  have  been 
sent   into  exile  may  be  restored;    liberty  and  joy  would   be  the  result.     Then  (§   5)  he 
attacks  the  modern  and  deadly  Arian  pestilence.     Borrowing,  somewhat  incautiously,  the 
words  of  the  Council  of  Sardica,   now  twelve  years  old,   he   gives  a  list  of  Arian  chiefs 
which   ends   with  "those   two   ignorant  and    unprincipled    youths,    Ursacius   and    Valens.': 
Communion  with   such    men    as    these,   even    communion   in   ignorance,  is  a  participation 
in  their  guilt,  a  fatal  sin.     He  proceeds,  in  §  6,  to  combine  denunciation  of  the  atrocities 
committed   in    Egypt  with  a  splendid   plea   for   liberty  of  conscience;   it   is  equally  vain 
and  wicked   to   attempt    to   drive    men    into   Arianism,   and   an    enforced   faith   is,  in  any 
case,  worthless.     The  Arians  (§  7)  were  themselves  legally  convicted  long  ago  and  Athanasius 
acquitted;    it   is   a   perversion    of  justice   that   the   condemned   should   now  be   intriguing 
against  one  so  upright  and  so  faithful  to  the  truth.     And  lastly  (§  8)  he  comes  to  the 
wrong  just  done  at  Milan,  and  tells  the  well-known  story  of  the  violence  practised  upon 
Eusebius  of  Vercelli  and  others  in   the  'Synagogue  of  malignants,'  as  he  calls  it.     Here 
also  he  takes  occasion  to  speak  of  Paulinus  of  Treves,  exiled  for  his  resistance  at  Aries 
two  years  before,  where  he   "had   withstood  the  monstrous  crimes  of  those  men."     The 
conclusion  of  the  letter  is   unfortunately  lost,  and   there  are  one  or   more   gaps   in    the 
body  of  it ;  these,  we  may  judge,  would  only  have  made  it  more  unacceptable  to  Constantius. 
It  was,  indeed,  from  the  Emperor's  point  of  view,  a  most  provocatory  Epistle.     He 
and  his  advisers  were  convinced   that   compromise  was  the  way  of  peace.     They  had  no 
quarrel  with  the  orthodoxy  of  the  West,  if  only  that  orthodoxy  would  concede  that  Arianisers 
were  entitled  to  office  in  the  Church,  or  would  at  least  be  silent ;  and  they  were  animated 
by  a  persistent   hatred   of  Athanasius.     Moreover,   the  whole   tendency  of  thought,   since 
Constantine   began  to  favour  the   Church,   had   run   towards  glorification  of  the  Emperor 
as  the  vice-gerent  of  God ;    and    the  orthodox  had   had    their   full    share   in    encouraging 
the  idea.     That  a  bishop,  with  no  status  to  justify  his  interference,  should  renounce  com- 
munion with  his  own  superior,  the  Emperor's   friend,  at   Aries;   should  forbid  the  officers 
of  state  to  meddle  in  the  Church's  affairs,  and  demand  an  entirely  new  thing,  recognition 
by  the  state  as  lawful  members  of  the  Church  while  yet  they  rejected  the  prelates  whom 
the   state   recognised ;    should   declare   that   peace  was    impossible    because    the  conflicting 
doctrines  were  as   different   as   light  and   darkness,   and   that   the   Emperor's  friends   were 
execrable  heretics ;  should  assert,  while  denying  that  he  or  his  friends  had  any  treasonable 
purpose,  that  men  were  ready  to  die  rather  than  submit ;   should  denounce  two  Councils, 
lawfully  held,  and  demand  reinstatement  of  those  who  had  opposed  the  decision  of  those 
Councils ;  should,  above  all,  take  the  part  of  Athanasius,  now  obviously  doomed  to  another 
exile ; — all  this  must  have  savoured  of  rebellion.     And  rebellion  was  no  imaginary  danger. 


xiv  INTRODUCTION      CHAPTER  I. 

We  have  seen  that  Magnentius  had  tried  to  enlist  Athanasius  on  his  side  against  the 
Arian  Emperor.  Constantius  was  but  a  new  ruler  over  Gaul,  and  had  no  claim,  through 
services  rendered,  to  its  loyalty.  He  might  reasonably  construe  Hilary's  words  into  a  threat 
that  the  orthodox  of  Gaul  would,  if  their  wishes  were  disregarded,  support  an  orthodox 
pretender.  And  there  was  a  special  reason  for  suspicion.  At  this  very  time  Constantius 
had  just  conferred  the  government  of  the  West  upon  his  cousin  Julian,  who  was  installed 
as  Caesar  on  the  6th  November,  355.  From  the  first,  probably,  Constantius  distrusted 
Julian,  and  Julian  certainly  distrusted  Constantius.  Thus  it  might  well  seem  that  the 
materials  were  ready  for  an  explosion;  that  a  disloyal  Caesar  would  find  ready  allies  in 
discontented  Catholics. 

We  cannot  wonder  that  Hilary's  letter  had  no  effect  upon  the  policy  of  Constantius. 
It  is  somewhat  surprising  that  several  months  elapsed  before  he  was  punished.  In  the 
spring  of  the  year  356  Saturninus  presided  at  a  Council  held  at  Beziers,  at  which  Hilary 
was,  he  tells  us,  compelled  to  attend.  In  what  the  compulsion  consisted  we  do  not  know. 
It  may  simply  have  been  that  he  was  summoned  to  attend;  a  summons  which  he  could 
not  with  dignity  refuse,  knowing,  as  he  must  have  done,  that  charges  would  be  brought 
against  himself.  Of  the  proceedings  of  the  Synod  we  know  little.  The  complaints  against 
Hilary  concerned  his  conduct,  not  his  faith.  This  latter  was,  of  course,  above  suspicion, 
and  it  was  not  the  policy  of  the  court  party  to  attack  orthodoxy  in  Gaul.  He  seems  to 
have  been  charged  with  exciting  popular  discontent ;  and  this,  as  we  have  seen,  was  an 
accusation  which  his  own  letter  had  rendered  plausible.  He  tried  to  raise  the  question 
of  the  Faith,  challenging  the  doctrine  of  his  opponents.  But  though  a  large  majority  of 
a  council  of  Gallic  bishops  would  certainly  be  in  sympathy  with  him,  he  had  no  success. 
Their  position  was  not  threatened;  Hilary,  like  Paulinus,  was  accused  of  no  doctrinal 
error,  and  these  victims  of  Constantius,  if  they  had  raised  no  questions  concerning  their 
neighbours'  faith  and  made  no  objections  to  the  Emperor's  tyranny,  might  also  have  passed 
their  days  in  peace.  The  tone  of  the  episcopate  in  Gaul  was,  in  fact,  by  no  means  heroic. 
If  we  may  trust  Sulpicius  Severus  %  in  all  these  Councils  the  opposition  was  prepared  to 
accept  the  Emperor's  word  about  Athanasius,  and  excommunicate  him,  if  the  general  question 
of  the  Faith  might  be  discussed.  But  the  condition  was  evaded,  and  the  issue  never  frankly 
raised;  and,  if  it  was  cowardly,  it  was  not  unnatural  that  Hilary  should  have  been  condemned 
by  the  Synod,  and  condemned  almost  unanimously.  Only  Rodanius  of  Toulouse  was 
punished  with  him ;  the  sufferers  would  certainly  have  been  more  numerous  had  there 
been  any  strenuous  remonstrance  against  the  injustice.  The  Synod  sent  their  decision 
to  the  Caesar  Julian,  their  immediate  ruler.  Julian  took  no  action ;  he  may  have  felt  that 
the  matter  was  too  serious  for  him  to  decide  without  reference  to  the  Emperor,  but  it  is 
more  likely  that  he  had  no  wish  to  outrage  the  dominant  Church  feeling  of  Gaul  and  alienate 
sympathies  which  he  might  need  in  the  future.  In  any  case  he  refused  to  pass  a  sentence 
which  he  must  have  known  would  be  in  accordance  with  the  Emperor's  desire ;  and  the 
vote  of  the  Synod,  condemning  Hilary,  was  sent  to  Constantius  himself.  He  acted  upon 
it  at  once,  and  in  the  summer  of  the  same  year,  356,  Hilary  was  exiled  to  the  diocese, 
or  civil  district  comprising  several  provinces,  of  Asia. 

We  now  come  to  the  most  important  period  of  Hilary's  life.  He  was  already,  as  we 
have  seen,  a  Greek  scholar  and  a  follower  of  Greek  theology.  He  was  now  to  come  into 
immediate  contact  with  the  great  problems  of  the  day  in  the  field  on  which  they  were 
being  constantly  debated.  And  he  was  well  prepared  to  take  his  part  He  had  formed 
his  own  convictions  before  he  was  acquainted  with  homoousion,  homoiousion  or  the  Nicene 

1  Chron.  ii.  39. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.       xv 

Creed  '.  He  was  therefore  in  full  sympathy  with  Athanasius  on  the  main  point.  And  his 
manner  of  treating  the  controversy  shews  that  the  policy  of  Athanasius  was  also,  in  a  great 
measure,  his.  Like  Athanasius,  he  spares  Marcellus  as  much  as  possible.  We  know  that 
Athanasius  till  the  end  refused  to  condemn  him,  though  one  of  the  most  formidable  weapons 
in  the  armoury  of  the  Anti-Nicene  party  was  the  conjunction  in  which  they  could  plausibly 
put  their  two  names,  as  those  of  the  most  strenuous  opponents  of  Arianism.  Similarly 
Hilary  never  names  Marcellus3,  as  he  never  names  Apollinaris,  though  he  had  the  keenest 
sense  of  the  danger  involved  in  either  heresy,  and  argues  forcibly  and  often  against  both. 
Like  Athanasius  again,  he  has  no  mercy  upon  Photinus  the  disciple,  while  he  spares 
Marcellus  the  master;  and  it  is  a  small,  though  clear,  sign  of  dependence  that  he  occasionally 
applies  Athanasius'  nickname  of  Ariomanitte,  or  '  Arian  lunatics,'  to  his  opponents.  It  is 
certain  that  Hilary  was  familiar  with  the  writings  of  Athanasius,  and  borrowed  freely  from 
them.  But  so  little  has  yet  been  done  towards  ascertaining  the  progress  of  Christian  thought 
and  the  extent  of  each  writer's  contribution  to  it,  that  it  is  impossible  to  say  which  arguments 
were  already  current  and  may  have  been  independently  adopted  by  Hilary  and  by  Athanasius, 
and  for  which  the  former  is  indebted  to  the  latter «.  Yet  it  is  universally  recognised  that 
the  debt  exists;  and  Hilary's  greatness  as  a  theologians,  his  mastery  of  the  subject,  would 
embolden  him  to  borrow  and  adapt  the  more  freely  that  he  was  dealing  as  with  an  equal 
and  a  fellow-combatant  in  the  same  cause. 

Athanasius  and  Hilary  can  never  have  met  face  to  face.  But  the  eyes  and  the  agents 
of  Athanasius  were  everywhere,  and  he  must  have  known  something  of  the  exile  and  of 
the  services  of  Hilary,  who  was,  of  course,  well  acquainted  with  the  history  of  Athanasius, 
though,  with  the  rest  of  Gaul,  he  may  not  have  been  whole-hearted  in  his  defence.  And 
now  he  was  the  m  re  likely  to  be  drawn  towards  him  because  this  was  the  time  of  his  approxi- 
mation to  the  younger  generation  of  the  Conservative  School.  For  it  is  with  them  that  Hilary's 
affinities  are  closest  and  most  obvious.  The  great  Cappadocians  were  devoted  Origenists — 
we  know  the  service  they  rendered  to  their  master  by  the  publication  of  the  Philocalia, — 
and  there  could  be  no  stronger  bond  of  union  between  Hilary  and  themselves.  They 
were  the  outgrowth  of  that  great  Asiatic  school  to  which  the  name  of  Semiarians, 
somewhat  unkindly  given  by  Epiphanius,  has  clung,  and  which  was  steadily  increasing 
in  influence  over  the  thought  of  Asia,  the  dominant  province,  at  this  time,  of  the  whole 
Empire.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  the  eldest  of  the  three  great  writers,  was  probably  not 
more  than  twenty-five  years  of  age  when  Hilary  was  sent  into  exile,  and  none  of  them 
can  have  seriously  affected  even  his  latest  works.  But  they  represented,  in  a  more  perfect 
form,  the  teaching  of  the  best  men  of  the  Conservative  School ;  and  when  we  find  that 
Hilary,  who  was  old  enough  to  be  the  father  of  Basil  and  the  two  Gregories,  has  thoughts 
in  common  with  them  which  are  not  to  be  found  in  Athanasius,  we  may  safely  assign 
this  peculiar  teaching  to  the  influence  upon  Hilary,  predisposed  by  his  loyalty  to  Origen 
to  listen  to  the  representatives  of  the  Origenist  tradition,  of  this  school  of  theology.  We 
see  one  side  of  .this  influence  in  Hilary's  understatement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  Semiarians  were  coming  to  be  of  one  mind  with  the  Nicenes  as  to  the  consubstantial 
Deity  of  the  Son  ;  none  of  them,  in  all  probability,  at  this  time  would  have  admitted  the 

2  Syn.  01.  I        4  No  such  examination  seems  to  have  been  made  as  that  to 


3  This  sparing  of  Marcellus,  in  the  case  of  a  Western  like 
Hilary,  may  have  been  a  concession  to  the  incapacity  of  the 
West,  e.g.  Julius  of  Rome  and  the  Council  of  Sardica,  to  see 
his  error.  But  this  is  not  so  likely  as  that  it  was  a  falling  in 
with  the  general  policy  of  Athanasius,  as  was  the  rare  mention 
of  the  homoousion  ;  cf.  Gwatkin,  op.  cit.  42  n.  Hilary  was  sin- 
gularly independent  of  Western  opinion,  and  his  whole  aim  was 
to  win  the  East. 


which  Reuter  in  his  admirable  Augustinische  Studien  has  sub- 
jected some  of  the  thoughts  of  St.  Augustine. 

5  Harnack,  Dogntengeschichte,  ii.  p.  243  n.  (ed.  3).  Hilary  is, 
'making  all  allowance  for  dependence  on  Athanasius,  an  inde- 
pendent thinker,  who  hasi  indeed,  excelled  the  bishop  of  Alex, 
andria  as  a  theologian.' 


XVI 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 


consubstantial  Deity  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  unity  of  their  School  was  to  be  wrecked  in 
future  years  upon  this  point.  The  fact  that  Hilary  could  use  language  so  reserved  upon 
this  subject  must  have  led  them  to  welcome  his  alliance  the  more  heartily.  Neither  he 
nor  they  could  foresee  the  future  of  the  doctrine,  and  both  sides  must  have  sincerely 
thought  that  they  were  at  one.  And,  indeed,  on  Hilary's  part  there  was  a  great  willingness 
to  believe  in  this  unity,  which  led  him,  as  we  shall  see,  into  an  unfortunate  attempt  at 
ecclesiastical  diplomacy.  Another  evidence  of  contact  with  this  Eastern  School,  but  at 
its  most  advanced  point,  is  the  remarkable  expression,  '  Only-begotten  God,'  which  Hilary 
'employs  with  startling  freedom,  evidently  as  the  natural  expression  of  his  own  inmost 
thought6.'  Dr.  Hort,  whose  words  these  are,  states  that  the  term  is  used  by  Athanasius 
only  twice,  once  in  youth  and  once  in  old  age ;  but  that,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  familiar 
to  two  of  the  Cappadocians,  Basil  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  They  must  have  learned  it  from 
some  Asiatic  writer  known  to  Hilary  as  a  contemporary,  to  them  as  successors.  And 
when  we  find  Hilary?  rejecting  the  baptism  of  heretics,  and  so  putting  himself  in  opposition 
to  what  had  been  the  Roman  view  for  a  century  and  that  of  Gaul  since  the  Council  of 
Aries  in  314,  and  then  find  this  opinion  echoed  by  Gregory  of  Nazianzus8,  we  are  reminded 
not  only  of  Hilary's  general  independence  of  thought,  but  of  the  circumstance  that 
St.  Cyprian  found  his  stoutest  ally  in  contesting  this  same  point  in  the  Cappadocian 
Firmilian.  A  comparison  of  the  two  sets  of  writings  would  probably  lead  to  the  discovery 
of  more  coincidences  than  have  yet  been  noticed ;  of  the  fact  itself,  of  '  the  Semiarian 
influence  so  visible  in  the  De  Synodis  of  Hilary,  and  even  in  his  own  later  work?,'  there 
can  be  no  doubt. 

With  these  affinities,  with  an  adequate  knowledge  of  the  Greek  language  and  a  strong 
sympathy,  as  well  as  a  great  familiarity,  with  Greek  modes  of  thought,  Hilary  found  himself 
in  the  summer  of  the  year  356  an  exile  in  Asia  Minor.  It  was  exile  in  the  most  favourable 
circumstances.  He  was  still  bishop  of  Poitiers,  recognised  as  such  by  the  government, 
which  only  forbade  him,  for  reasons  of  state  ostensibly  not  connected  with  theology,  to 
reside  within  his  diocese.  He  held  free  communication  with  his  fellow-bishops  in  Gaul, 
and  was  allowed  to  administer  his  own  diocese,  so  far  as  administration  by  letter  was 
possible,  without  interruption.  And  his  diocese  did  not  forget  him.  We  learn  from 
Sulpicius  Severus *  that  he  and  the  others  of  the  little  band  of  exiles,  who  had  suffered 
at  Aries,  and  Milan,  and  Beziers,  were  the  heroes  of  the  day  in  their  own  country.  That 
orthodox  bishops  should  suffer  for  the  Faith  was  a  new  thing  in  the  West;  we  cannot 
wonder  that  subsidies  were  raised  for  their  support  and  delegations  sent  to  assure  them 
of  the  sympathy  of  their  flocks.  To  a  man  like  Hilary,  of  energy  and  ability,  of  recognised 
episcopal  rank  and  unimpeached  orthodoxy,  the  position  offered  not  less  but  more  oppor- 
tunities of  service  than  hitherto  he  had  enjoyed.  For  no  restriction  was  put  upon  his 
movements,  so  long  as  he  kept  within  the  wide  bounds  allotted  him.  He  had  perfect 
leisure  for  travel  or  for  study,  the  money  needed  for  the  expense  of  his  journeys,  and 
something  of  the  glory,  still  very  real,  with  which  the  confessor  was  invested.  And  his 
movements  were  confined  to  the  very  region  where  he  could  learn  most  concerning  the 
question  of  the  hour,  and  do  most  for  its  solution.  In  fact,  in  sending  Hilary  into  such 
an  exile  as  this,  Constantius  had  done  too  much,  or  too  little;  he  had  injured,  and  not 
advanced,  his  own  favourite  cause  of  unity  by  way  of  compromise.  In  this  instance,  as 
in  those  of  Arius  and  Athanasius  and  many  others,  exile  became  an  efficacious  means  for 


*  Hort,  Two  Dissertations,  p.  ay. 
1  Trin.  viii.  40. 

•  Cf.  Gwatkin,  Studies  ofArianism,  p.  13a 

9  lb.,  p.  159.     It  would  not  be  fair  to  judge  Hilary  by  the 


de  Synodis  alone.     The  would-be  diplomatist,  in  his  eagernes» 
to  bring  about  a  reconciliation,  is  not  quite  just  either  to  the 
facts  or  to  his  own  feelings. 
1  Chron.  ii.  39. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.   HILARY  OF  POITIERS,      xvd 


the  spreading  and  strengthening  of  convictions.  If  Hilary  had  no  great  success,  as  we  shah 
see,  in  the  Council  which  he  attended,  yet  his  presence,  during  these  critical  years,  in  a  region 
where  men  were  gradually  advancing  to  the  fuller  truth  cannot  have  been  without  influence 
upon  their  spiritual  growth  ;  and  his  residence  in  Asia  no  doubt  confirmed  and  enriched  his 
own  apprehension  of  the  Faith. 

It  is  certain  that  Hilary  was  busily  engaged  in  writing  his  great  work  upon  the  Trinity, 
and  that  some  parts  of  it  were  actually  published,  during  his  exile.  But  as  this  work  in 
its  final  form  would  appear  to  belong  to  the  next  stage  of  Hilary's  life,  it  will  be  well  to 
postpone  its  consideration  for  the  present,  and  proceed  at  once  to  his  share  in  the  conciliar 
action  of  the  time.  We  have  no  information  concerning  his  conduct  before  the  year  358, 
but  it  is  necessary  to  say  something  about  the  important  events  which  preceded  his  pub- 
lication of  the  De  Synodis  and  his  participation  in  the  Council  of  Seleucia. 

It  was  a  time  when  new  combinations  of  parties  were  being  formed.  Arianism  was 
shewing  itself  openly,  as  it  had  not  dared  to  do  since  Nicaea.  In  357  Hilary's  adversaries, 
Ursacius  and  Valens,  in  a  Synod  at  Sirmium,  published  a  creed  which  was  Arian  without 
concealment;  it  was,  indeed,  as  serious  a  blow  to  the  Emperor's  policy  of  compromise 
as  anything  that  Athanasius  or  Hilary  had  ventured.  But  it  was  the  work  of  friends 
of  the  Emperor,  and  shewed  that,  for  the  moment  at  any  rate,  the  Court  had  been 
won  over  to  the  extreme  party.  But  the  forces  of  Conservatism  were  still  the  strongest. 
Within  a  few  months,  early  in  358,  the  great  Asiatic  prelates,  soon  to  be  divided  over 
the  question  of  the  Godhead  of  the  Holy  Spirit  but  still  at  one,  Basil  of  Ancyra, 
Macedonius  and  others,  met  at  Ancyra  and  repudiated  Arianism  while  ignoring,  after 
their  manner,  the  Nicene  definition.  Then  their  delegates  proceeded  to  the  Court,  now 
at  Sirmium,  and  won  Constantius  back  to  his  old  position.  Ursacius  and  Valens,  who 
had  no  scruples,  signed  a  Conservative  creed,  as  did  the  weak  Liberius  of  Rome,  anxious 
to  escape  from  an  exile  to  which  he  had  been  consigned  soon  after  the  banishment  of 
Hilary.  It  was  a  great  triumph  to  have  induced  so  prominent  a  bishop  to  minimise — 
we  cannot  say  that  he  denied — his  own  belief  and  that  of  the  Western  churches.  And  the 
Asiatic  leaders  were  determined  to  have  the  spoils  of  victory.  Liberius,  of  course,  was 
allowed  to  return  home,  for  he  had  proved  compliant,  and  the  Conservatives  had  no  quarrel 
with  those  who  held  the  homoousion.  But  the  most  prominent  of  the  Arian  leaders,  those 
who  had  the  courage  of  their  conviction,  to  the  number,  it  is  said,  of  seventy,  were  exiled. 
It  is  true  that  Constantius  was  quickly  persuaded  by  other  influences  to  restore  them  ; 
but  the  theological  difference  was  embittered  by  the  sense  of  personal  injury,  and  further 
conflicts  rendered  inevitable  between  Conservatives  and  Arians. 

It  was  with  this  Conservative  party,  victorious  for  the  moment,  that  Hilary  had  to  deal. 
Its  leaders,  and  especially  Basil  of  Ancyra,  had  the  ear  of  the  Emperor,  and  seemed  to 
hold  the  future  of  the  Church  in  their  hands.  Hilary  was  on  friendly  terms  with  Basil, 
with  whom,  as  we  have  seen,  he  had  much  in  common,  and  corresponded  on  his  behalf 
with  the  Western  Bishops.  He  was,  indeed,  by  the  peculiar  combination  in  him  of  the 
Eastern  and  the  Western,  perhaps  the  only  man  who  could  have  played  the  part  he  undertook. 
He  was  thoroughly  and  outspokenly  orthodox,  yet  had  no  prejudice  in  favour  of  the  Nicene 
definition.  He  would  have  been  content,  like  the  earlier  generation  of  Eastern  bishops, 
with  a  simple  formulary;  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  traditional  standard  of  the  West,  satisfied 
the  exigencies  even  of  his  own  precise  thought.  And  if  a  personal  jealousy  of  Athanasius 
and  his  school  on  the  part  of  the  Asiatic  Conservatives  was  one  of  the  chief  obstacles  to  peace, 
here  again  Hilary  had  certain  advantages.  We  have  seen  that  there  was  no  personal' 
communication  between  him  and  Athanasius ;  he  could  ignore,  and  may  even  have  been 
ignorant  of,  the  antipathy  of  Asia  to  Alexandria.  And  he  was  no  absolute  follower  of 
Athanasius*  teaching.  We  saw  that  in  some  important  respects  he  was  an  independent 
VOL.  ix.  c 


xviii  .    INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 

thinker,  and  that  in  others  he  is  on  common  ground  with  the  Cappadocians,  the  heirs  of 
the  best  thought  of  such  men  as  Basil  of  Ancyra.  Nor  could  he  labour  under  any  suspicion 
of  being  involved  in  the  heresy  of  Marcellus.  It  was  an  honourable  tradition  of  Eastern 
Christendom  to  guard  against  the  recrudescence  of  such  heresy  as  his,  which  revived  the 
fallacies  of  Paul  of  Samosata  and  of  Sabellius,  and  seemed  in  Asia  the  most  formidable 
of  all  possible  errors.  Marcellus  had  forged  it  as  a  weapon  in  defence  of  the  Nicene  faith ; 
and  if  his  doctrine  were  among  the  most  formidable  antagonists  of  Arianism,  it  may  well 
have  seemed  that  there  was  not  much  to  choose  between  the  two.  And  while  Athanasius 
had  never  condemned  Marcellus,  and  the  West  had  more  than  once  pronounced  him  innocent, 
the  general  feeling  of  the  East  was  decisively  against  him,  and  deeply  suspicious  of  any 
appearance  of  sympathy  with  him.  And  further,  by  one  of  those  complications  of  personal 
with  theological  opposition  which  were  so  sadly  frequent,  Basil  was  in  possession  of  that  very 
see  of  Ancyra  from  which  the  heretic  Marcellus  had  been  expelled.  Hilary,  who  was 
unconcerned  in  all  this,  saw  a  new  hope  for  the  Church  in  his  Asiatic  friends,  and  his  own 
tendencies  of  thought  must  have  been  a  welcome  surprise  to  them,  accustomed  as  they  were 
to  suspect  Sabellianism  in  the  West.  The  prospect,  indeed,  was  at  first  sight  a  fair  one. 
The  Faith,  it  seemed,  might  be  upheld  by  imperial  support,  now  that  it  had  advocates  who 
were  not  prejudiced  in  the  Emperor's  eyes  as  was  Athanasius;  and  Athanasius  himself, 
accredited  by  the  testimony  of  Asia,  might  recover  his  position.  Yet  Hilary  was  building 
on  an  unsound  foundation.  The  Semiarian  party  was  not  united.  Hilary  may  not  have 
suspected,  or  may,  in  his  zeal  for  the  cause,  have  concealed  from  himself  the  fact,  that  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Ghost  there  lay  the  seeds  of  a  strife  which  was  soon  to  divide  his  allies 
as  widely  as  Arius  was  separated  from  Athanasius.  And  these  allies,  as  a  body,  were  not 
worthy  supporters  of  the  truth.  There  were  many  sincere  men  among  them,  but  these 
were  mixed  with  adventurers,  who  used  the  conflict  as  a  means  of  attaining  office,  with  as  few 
scruples  as  any  of  the  other  prelates  who  hung  around  the  court.  But  the  fatal  obstacle 
to  success  was  that  the  whole  plan  depended  on  the  favour  of  Constantius.  For  the  moment 
Basil  and  his  friends  possessed  this,  but  their  adversaries  were  men  of  greater  dexterity  and 
fewer  scruples  than  they.  Valens  and  Ursacius  and  their  like  were  doing  their  utmost  to 
retrieve  defeat  and  enjoy  revenge.  It  is  significant  that  Athanasius,  as  it  seems,  had  no  share 
in  Hilary's  hopes  and  schemes  for  drawing  East  and  West  together.  He  had  an  unrivalled 
knowledge  of  the  circumstances,  and  an  open  mind,  willing  to  see  good  in  the  Semiarians; 
had  the  plan  contained  the  elements  of  success  it  would  have  received  his  warm  support. 

Hilary  threw  himself  heartily  into  it.  He  travelled,  we  know,  extensively ;  so  much  so, 
that  his  letters  from  Gaul  failed  to  reach  him  in  the  year  358.  This  was  a  serious  matter. 
We  have  seen  that  the  exiles  from  the  West  had  derived  great  support  from  their  flocks. 
Hilary's  own  weight  as  a  negotiator  must  have  depended  upon  the  general  knowledge  that 
he  did  not  stand  alone,  but  represented  the  public  opinion  of  a  great  province.  For  this 
reason,  as  well  as  for  his  own  peace  of  mind,  it  must  have  been  a  welcome  relief  to  him 
to  learn,  when  letters  came  at  last,  that  his  friends  had  not  forgotten  or  deserted  him; 
and  he  seized  the  opportunity  of  reply  to  send  to  the  bishops  of  all  the  Gallic  provinces  and 
of  Britain  the  circular  letter  which  we  call  the  De  Synodis,  translated  in  this  volume.  The 
Introduction  to  it,  here  given,  makes  it  unnecessary  to  describe  its  contents.  It  may  suffice 
to  say  rihat  it  is  an  able  arc}  well-written  attempt  to  explain  the  Eastern  position  to  Western 
theologians.  He  shews  thv^  *he  Eastern  creeds,  which  had  been  composed  since  the 
Nicene,  were  susceptible  of  an  orthodox  meaning,  and  felicitously  brings  out  their  merits 
by  contrast  with  the  unmitigated  heresy  of  the  second  creed  of  Sirmium,  which  he  cites 
at  full  length.  It  must  be  admitted  that  there  is  a  certain  amount  of  special  pleading;  that 
his  eyes  are  resolutely  shut  to  any  other  aspect  of  the  documents  than  that  which  he 
is  commending  to  the  attention  of  his  readers  in  Gaul.     And  he  is  as  boldly  original  in  his 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS,     xix 


rendering  of  history  as  of  doctrine.  He  actually  describes  the  Council  of  the  Dedication, 
which  confirmed  the  deposition  of  Athanasius  and  propounded  a  compromising  creed, 
definitely  intended  to  displace  the  Nicene,  as  an  'assembly  of  the  saints2.'  The  West,  we 
know,  cared  little  for  Eastern  disputes  and  formularies.  There  can  have  been  no  great 
risk  that  Hilary's  praise  should  revolt  the  minds  of  his  friends,  and  as  little  hope  that 
it  would  excite  any  enthusiasm  among  them.  This  description,  and  a  good  deal  else  in  the 
De  Synodis,  was  obviously  meant  to  be  read  in  the  land  where  it  was  written.  When 
all  possible  allowance  is  made  for  his  sympathy  with  the  best  men  among  the  Asiatics, 
and  for  the  hopefulness  with  which  he  might  naturally  regard  his  allies,  it  is  still  impossible 
to  think  that  he  was  quite  sincere  in  asserting  that  their  object  in  compiling  ambiguous  creeds 
was  the  suppression  of  Sabellianism  and  not  the  rejection  of  the  homoousion.  Yet  it  was 
natural  enough  that  he  should  write  as  he  did,  for  the  prospect  must  have  seemed  most 
attractive.  If  this  open  letter  could  convince  the  Eastern  bishops  that  they  were  regarded 
in  the  West  not  with  suspicion,  as  teachers  of  the  inferiority  of  Christ,  but  with  admiration, 
as  steadfast  upholders  of  His  reality,  a  great  step  was  made  towards  union.  And  if  Hilary 
could  persuade  his  brethren  in  Gaul  that  the  imperfect  terms  in  which  the  East  was 
accustomed  to  express  its  faith  in  Christ  were  compatible  with  sound  belief,  an  approach 
could  be  made  from  that  side  also.  And  in  justice  to  Hilary  we  must  bear  in  mind 
that  he  does  not  fall  into  the  error  of  Liberius.  It  was  a  serious  fault  for  a  Western  bishop 
to  abandon  words  which  were,  for  him  and  for  his  Church,  the  recognised  expression 
of  the  truth ;  it  was  a  very  different  matter  to  argue  that  inadequate  terms,  in  the  mouth 
of  those  who  were  unhappily  pledged  to  the  use  of  them,  might  contain  the  saving  Faith. 
This  latter  is  the  argument  which  Hilary  uses.  He  urges  the  East  to  advance  to  the 
definiteness  of  the  Nicene  confession  ;  he  urges  the  West  to  welcome  the  first  signs  of 
such  an  advance,  and  meantime  to  recognise  the  truth  that  was  half-concealed  in  their 
ambiguous  documents.  The  attempt  was  a  bold  one,  and  met,  as  was  inevitable,  with 
severe  criticism  from  the  side  of  uncompromising  orthodoxy,  which  we  may  for  the  moment 
leave  unnoticed.  What  Athanasius  thought  of  the  treatise  we  do  not  know;  it  would 
be  unsafe  to  conjecture  that  his  own  work,  which  bears  the  same  title  and  was  written  in  the 
following  year,  when  the  futility  of  the  hope  which  had  buoyed  Hilary  up  had  been  de- 
monstrated, was  a  silent  criticism  upon  the  De  Synodis  of  the  other.  It  is,  at  least, 
a  success  in  itself,  and  was  a  step  towards  the  ultimate  victory  of  truth;  we  cannot  say 
as  much  of  Hilary's  effort,  admirable  though  its  intention  was,  and  though  it  must  have 
contributed  something  to  the  softening  of  asperities.  But  Alexandria  and  Gaul  were  distant, 
and  while  the  one  excited  repugnance  in  the  Emperor's  mind,  the  other  had  little  influence 
with  him.  The  decision  seemed  to  lie  in  the  hands  of  Basil  of  Ancyra  and  his  colleagues. 
The  men  who  had  the  ear  of  Constantius,  and  had  lately  induced  him  to  banish  the  Arians, 
must  in  consistency  use  their  influence  for  the  restoration  of  exiles  who  were  suffering 
for  their  opposition  to  Arianism ;  and  this  influence,  if  only  the  West  would  heartily  join  with 
them,  would  be  strong  enough  to  secure  even  the  restoration  of  Athanasius.  Such  thoughts 
were  certainly  present  in  the  mind  of  Hilary  when  he  painted  so  bright  a  picture  of  Eastern 
Councils,  and  represented  Constantius  as  an  innocent  believer,  once  misguided  but  now 
returned  to  the  Faith  3.  From  the  Semiarian  leaders,  controlling  the  policy  of  Constantius, 
he  expected  peace  for  the  Church,  restoration  of  the  exiles,  the  suppression  of  Arianism. 
And  if  to  some  extent  he  deceived  himself,  and  was  willing  to  believe  and  to  persuade  others 
that  men's  faith  and  purpose  differed  from  what  in  fact  it  was,  we  must  remember  that  it  was 
a  time  of  passionate  earnestness,  when  cool  judgment  concerning  friend  or  foe  was  almost 
impossible  for  one  who  was  involved  in  that  great  conflict  concerning  the  Divinity  of  Christ. 


a  Syn.  32.  3  lb.  78. 

C    2 


xx  INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 

But  the  times  were  not  ripe  for  an  understanding  between  East  and  West,  and  the 
Asiatics  in  whom  Hilary  had  put  his  trust  were  not,  and  did  not  deserve  to  be,  the  restorers 
of  the  Church.  Their  victory  had  been  complete,  but  the  Emperor  was  inconstant  and  their 
adversaries  were  men  of  talent,  who  had  once  guided  his  counsels  and  knew  how  to  recover 
their  position.  The  policy  of  Constantius  was,  as  we  know,  one  of  compromise,  and  it  might 
seem  to  him  that  the  prevailing  confusion  would  cease  if  only  a  sufficiently  comprehensive 
formula  could  be  devised  and  accepted.  *  Specious  charity  and  colourless  indefiniteness  *' 
was  the  policy  of  the  new  party,  formed  by  Valens  and  Arians  of  every  shade,  which 
won  the  favour  of  Constantius  within  a  year  of  the  Semiarian  victory.  They  had  been 
mortified,  had  been  forced  to  sign  a  confession  which  they  disbelieved,  many  of  them 
had  suffered  a  momentary  exile.  Now  they  were  to  have  their  revenge ;  not  only  were 
the  terms  of  communion  to  be  so  lax  that  extreme  Arianism  should  be  at  home  within  the 
Church,  but,  as  in  a  modern  change  of  ministry,  the  Semiarians  were  to  yield  their  sees  to 
their  opponents.  To  attain  these  ends  a  Council  was  necessary.  The  general  history 
of  the  Homoean  intrigues,  of  their  division  of  the  forces  opposed  to  them  by  the  as- 
sembling of  a  Western  Council  at  Rimini,  of  an  Eastern  at  Seleucia,  and  their  apparent 
triumph,  gained  by  shameless  falsehood,  in  the  former,  would  be  out  of  place.  Hilary  and 
his  Asiatic  friends  were  concerned  only  with  the  Council  which  met  at  Seleucia  in  September, 
359.  The  Emperor,  who  hoped  for  a  final  settlement,  desired  that  the  Council  should  be  as 
large  as  possible,  and  the  governors  of  provinces  exerted  themselves  to  collect  bishops,  and 
to  forward  them  to  Seleucia,  as  was  usual,  at  the  public  expense.  Among  the  rest,  Hilary, 
who  was,  we  must  remember,  a  bishop  with  a  diocese  of  his  own,  and  of  unimpugned  ortho- 
doxy, exiled  ostensibly  for  a  political  offence,  received  orders  to  attend  at  the  cost  of  the 
State5.  In  the  Council,  which  numbered  some  160  bishops,  his  Semiarian  friends  were 
in  a  majority  of  three  to  one ;  the  uncompromising  Nicenes  of  Egypt  and  the  uncompromising 
Arians,  taken  together,  did  not  number  more  than  a  quarter  of  the  whole.  Hilary  was  wel- 
comed heartily  and,  as  it  would  seem,  unanimously;  but  he  had  to  disclaim,  on  behalf  of  the 
Church  in  Gaul,  the  Sabellianism  of  which  it  was  suspected,  and  with  some  reason  after 
the  Western  welcome  of  Marcellus.  He  stated  his  faith  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Council 
in  accordance  with  the  Nicene  confession  6.  We  cannot  doubt  that  he  made  use  of  its  very 
words,  for  Hilary  was  not  the  man  to  retreat  from  the  position  he  held,  and  the  terms  of  his 
alliance  with  the  school  of  Basil  of  Ancyra  required  no  such  renunciation.  The  proceedings 
of  the  Council,  in  which  Hilary  took  no  public  part,  may  be  omitted.  The  Semiarians, 
strong  in  numbers  and,  as  they  still  thought,  in  the  Emperor's  favour,  swept  everything  before 
them.  They  adopted  the  ambiguous  creed  of  the  Council  of  the  Dedication, — that  Council 
which  Hilary  had  lately  called  an  'assembly  of  the  Saints' — for  the  Nicenes  were  a  powerless 
minority;  and  they  repeated  their  sentence  of  excommunication  upon  the  Arians,  who  were 
still  fewer  in  number.  They  even  ventured  to  consecrate  a  successor  to  Eudoxius,  one  of  the 
most  extreme,  for  the  great  Church  of  Antioch.  Then  the  Council  elected  a  commission 
of  ten  of  the  leaders  of  the  majority  to  present  to  the  Emperor  a  report  of  its  proceedings, 
and  dispersed.  In  spite  of  some  ominous  signs  of  obstinacy  on  the  part  of  the  Arians,  and 
of  favour  towards  them  shewn  by  the  government  officials,  they  seemed  to  have  succeeded  in 
establishing  still  more  firmly  the  results  attained  at  Ancyra  two  years  before,  and  to  have 
struck  another  and,  as  they  might  hope,  a  more  effectual  blow  at  the  heretics. 

But  when  the  deputation,  with  whom  Hilary  travelled,  reached  Constantinople,  they 
found  that  the  position  was  entirely  different  from  their  expectation.  The  intriguing  party, 
whose  aim  was  to  punish  and  displace  the  Semiarians,  had  contrived  a  double  treason.  They 
misrepresented  the  Western   Council   to  the  Emperor  as  in   agreement   with   themselves  j 

4  Gwatkin,  Studies  0/ Arianism,  p.  163.  5  Sulp.  Sev.  Chroiu  ii.  4a. 

6  Sulp.  Sev.  ii.  42,  iuxta  ea,  qua  Nicact  trant  a  fatribut  conscrifta. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS,      xxi 

and  they  sacrificed  their  more  honest  colleagues  in  Arianism.  They  hated  those  who,  like 
Basil  of  Ancyra,  maintained  the  homoionsion,  the  doctrine  that  the  Son  is  of  like  nature  with 
the  Father ;  the  Emperor  sincerely  rejected  the  logical  Arianism  which  said  that  He  is 
of  unlike  nature.  They  abandoned  their  friends  in  order  to  induce  Constantius  to  sacrifice 
his  old  Semiarian  advisers  ;  and  proposed  with  success  their  new  Homoean  formula,  that  the 
Son  is  '  like  the  Father  in  all  things,  as  Scripture  says.'  His  nature  is  not  mentioned  ; 
the  last  words  were  a  concession  to  the  scruples  of  the  Emperor.  We  shall  see  presently  that 
this  rupture  with  the  consistent  Arians  is  a  matter  of  some  importance  for  the  dating  of 
Hilary's  De  Trinitate ;  for  the  present  we  must  follow  the  fortunes  of  himself  and  his  allies. 
He  had  journeyed  with  them  to  Constantinople.  This  was,  apparently,  a  breach  of  the  order 
given  him  to  confine  himself  to  the  diocese  of  Asia;  but  he  had  already  been  commanded 
to  go  to  Seleucia,  which  lay  beyond  those  limits,  and  his  journey  to  Constantinople  may 
have  been  regarded  as  a  legitimate  sequel  to  his  former  journey.  In  any  case  he  was 
not  molested,  and  was  allowed  to  appear,  with  the  deputation  from  Seleucia,  at  the  Court 
of  Constantius.  For  the  last  two  months  of  the  year  359  the  disputes  concerning  the 
Faith  still  continued.  But  the  Emperor  was  firm  in  his  determination  to  bring  about  a 
compromise  which  should  embrace  every  one  who  was  not  an  extreme  and  conscientious 
Arian,  and  the  Homoean  leaders  supported  him  ably  and  unscrupulously.  They  falsified 
the  sense  of  the  Council  of  Rimini  and  denied  their  own  Arianism,  and  Constantius  backed 
them  up  by  threats  against  the  Seleucian  deputation.  Hilary,  of  course,  had  no  official 
position,  and  could  speak  only  for  himself.  The  Western  Church  seemed  to  have  decided 
against  its  own  faith,  and  the  decision  of  the  East,  represented  by  the  ten  delegates,  was 
not  yet  declared,  though  it  must  have  been  probable  that  they  would  succumb  to  the 
pressure  exercised  upon  them,  and  desert  their  own  convictions  and  those  of  the  Council 
whose  commission  they  held.  In  these  circumstances  Hilary  had  the  courage,  which  we 
cannot  easily  overestimate,  to  make  a  personal  appeal  to  Constantius  ?.  It  is  evident  that 
as  yet  he  is  hopeful,  or  at  least  that  he  thinks  it  worth  while  to  make  an  attempt.  He  writes 
with  the  same  customary  humility  which  we  found  in  his  former  address  to  the  Emperor. 
Constantius  is  '  most  pious,'  '  good  and  religious,'  '  most  gracious,'  and  so  forth.  The 
sincerity  of  the  appeal  is  manifest ;  Hilary  still  believes,  or  is  trying  to  believe,  that  the 
Emperor,  who  had  so  lately  been  on  the  side  of  Basil  of  Ancyra  and  his  friends,  and 
had  at  their  instigation  humiliated  and  exiled  their  opponents,  has  not  transferred  his  favour 
once  more  to  the  party  of  Valens.  The  address  is  written  with  great  dignity  of  style  and 
of  matter.  Hilary  begins  by  declaring  that  the  importance  of  his  theme  is  such  that  it 
enforces  attention,  however  insignificant  the  speaker  may  be ;  yet  (§  2)  his  position  entitles 
him  to  speak.  He  is  a  bishop,  in  communion  with  all  the  churches  and  bishops  of  Gaul 
and  to  that  very  day  distributing  the  Eucharist  by  the  hands  of  his  presbyters  to  his 
own  Church.  He  is  in  exile,  it  is  true,  but  he  is  guiltless ;  falsely  accused  by  designing  men 
who  had  gained  the  Emperor's  ear.  He  appeals  to  Julian's  knowledge  of  his  innocence; 
indeed,  the  malice  of  his  opponents  had  inflicted  less  of  suffering  upon  himself  than  of 
discredit  upon  the  administration  of  Julian,  under  which  he  had  been  condemned.  The 
Emperor's  rescript  sentencing  Hilary  to  exile  was  public  ;  it  was  notorious  that  the  charges 
upon  which  the  sentence  was  based  were  false.  Saturninus,  the  active  promoter,  if  not 
the  instigator,  of  the  attack,  was  now  in  Constantinople.  Hilary  confidently  promises  to 
demonstrate  that  the  proceedings  were  a  deception  of  Constantius,  and  an  insult  to  Julian  ; 
if  he  fails,  he  will  no  longer  petition  to  be  allowed  to  return  to  the  exercise  of  his  office, 


1  Sulpicius  Sevexus,  Chron.  ii.  45,  says  that  he  addressed  at .  two  appeals,  that  before  the  exile  and  the  present  one,  and  th« 
this  time  three  petitions  to  the  Emperor.    This  is,  of  course,  not    Invective, 
impossible  ;   bii*  it  is  more  likely  that  he  had  in  his  mind  the  I 


xxii  INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 

but  will  retire  to  pass  the  rest  of  his  days  as  a  layman  in  repentance.  To  this  end  he 
asks  to  be  confronted  with  Satuminus  (§  3),  or  rather  takes  for  granted  that  Constantius 
will  do  as  he  wishes.  He  leaves  the  Emperor  to  determine  all  the  conditions  of  the  debate, 
in  which,  as  he  repeats,  he  will  wring  from  Satuminus  the  confession  of  his  falsehood. 
Meanwhile  he  promises  to  be  silent  upon  the  subject  till  the  appointed  time.  Next,  he  turns 
to  the  great  subject  of  the  day.  The  world's  danger,  the  guilt  of  silence,  the  judgment 
of  God,  fill  him  with  fear;  he  is  constrained  to  speak  when  his  own  salvation  and  that 
of  the  Emperor  and  of  mankind  is  at  stake,  and  encouraged  by  the  consciousness  of 
multitudes  who  sympathise  with  him.  He  bids  the  Emperor  (§  4)  call  back  to  his  mind  the 
Faith  which  (so  he  says)  Constantius  is  longing  in  vain  to  hear  from  his  bishops.  Those 
whose  duty  is  to  proclaim  the  Faith  of  God  are  employed,  instead,  in  composing  faiths  of  their 
own,  and  so  they  revolve  in  an  endless  circle  of  error  and  of  strife.  The  sense  of  human 
infirmity  ought  to  have  made  them  content  to  hold  the  Faith  in  the  same  form  of  words 
in  which  they  had  received  it.  At  their  baptism  they  had  professed  and  sworn  their  faith, 
In  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  doubt  or  change  are 
equally  unlawful.  Yet  men  were  using  the  sacred  words  while  they  dishonestly  assigned 
to  them  another  meaning,  or  even  were  daring  to  depart  from  them.  Thus  to  some  the  three 
sacred  Names  were  empty  terms.  Hence  innovations  in  the  statement  of  the  Faith ;  the 
search  for  novelties  took  the  place  of  loyalty  to  ancient  truth,  and  the  creed  of  the  year 
displaced  the  creed  of  the  Gospels.  Every  one  framed  his  confession  according  to  his 
own  desire  or  his  own  character ;  while  creeds  were  multiplying,  the  one  Faith  was  perishing. 
Since  the  Council  of  Nicasa  (§  5)  there  had  been  no  end  to  this  writing  of  creeds.  So 
busily  were  men  wrangling  over  words,  seeking  novelties,  debating  knotty  points,  forming 
factions  and  pursuing  ambitions,  refusing  to  agree  and  hurling  anathemas  at  one  another, 
that  almost  all  had  drifted  away  from  Christ.  The  confusion  was  such  that  none  could 
either  teach  or  learn  in  safety.  Within  the  last  year  no  less  than  four  contradictory  creeds 
had  been  promulgated.  There  was  no  single  point  of  the  Faith  which  they  or  their  fathers 
had  held  upon  which  violent  hands  had  not  been  laid.  And  the  pitiful  creed  which  for 
the  moment  held  the  field  was  that  the  Son  is  '  like  the  Father' ;  whether  this  likeness  were 
perfect  or  imperfect  was  left  in  obscurity.  The  result  of  constant  change  and  ceaseless 
dispute  was  self-contradiction  and  mutual  destruction.  This  search  for  a  faith  (§  6)  involved 
the  assumption  that  the  true  Faith  was  not  ready  to  the  believer's  hand.  They  would 
have  it  in  writing,  as  though  the  heart  were  not  its  place.  Baptism  implied  the  Faith  and 
was  useless  without  its  acceptance;  to  teach  a  new  Christ  after  Baptism,  or  to  alter  the 
Faith  then  declared,  was  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  chief  cause  of  the  continuance  of 
the  present  blasphemy  was  the  love  of  applause ;  men  invented  grandiloquent  paraphrases 
in  place  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  to  delude  the  vulgar,  to  conceal  their  aberrations,  to  effect  a 
compromise  with  other  forms  of  error.  They  would  do  anything  rather  than  confess  that 
they  had  been  wrong.  When  the  storm  arises  (§  7)  the  mariner  returns  to  the  harbour 
he  had  left ;  the  spendthrift  youth,  with  ruin  in  prospect,  to  the  sober  habits  of  his  father's 
home.  So  Christians,  with  shipwreck  of  the  Faith  in  sight  and  the  heavenly  patrimony 
almost  lost,  must  return  to  the  safety  which  lies  in  the  primitive,  Apostolic  Baptismal  Creed. 
They  must  not  condemn  as  presumptuous  or  profane  the  Nicene  confession,  but  eschew 
it  as  giving  occasion  to  attacks  upon  the  Faith  and  to  denials  of  the  truth  on  the  ground 
of  novelty.  There  is  danger  lest  innovation  creep  in,  excused  as  improvement  of  this  creed  ; 
and  emendation  is  an  endless  process,  which  leads  the  emenders  to  condemnation  of  each 
other.  Hilary  now  (§  8)  professes  his  sincere  admiration  of  Constantius'  devout  purpose  and 
earnestness  in  seeking  the  truth,  which  he  who  denies  Is  antichrist,  and  he  who  feigns 
is  anathema.  He  entreats  the  Emperor  to  allow  him  to  expound  the  Faith,  in  his  own 
presence,   before   the   Council   which   was   now   debating   the    subject   at   Constantinople. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS,    xxiii 


His  exposition  shall  be  Scriptural ;  he  will  use  the  words  of  Christ,  Whose  exile  and  Whose 
bishop  he  is.  The  Emperor  seeks  the  Faith;  let  him  hear  it  not  from  modern  volumes, 
but  from  the  books  of  God.  Even  in  the  West  it  may  be  taught,  whence  shall  come 
some  that  shall  sit  at  meat  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  This  is  a  matter  not  of  philosophy, 
but  of  the  teaching  of  the  Gospel.  He  asks  audience  rather  for  the  Emperor's  sake  and  for 
God's  Churches  than  for  himself.  He  is  sure  of  the  faith  that  is  in  him  ;  it  is  God's,  and  he 
will  never  change  it.  But  (§  9)  the  Emperor  must  bear  in  mind  that  every  heretic  professes 
that  his  own  is  the  Scriptural  doctrine.  So  say  Marcellus,  Photinus,  and  the  rest.  He  prays 
(§  10)  for  the  Emperor's  best  attention ;  his  plea  will  be  for  faith  and  unity  and  eternal 
life  He  will  speak  in  all  reverence  for  Constantius'  royal  position,  and  for  his  faith, 
and  what  he  says  shall  tend  to  peace  between  East  and  West.  Finally  (§  n)  he  gives, 
as  an  outline  of  the  address  he  proposes  to  deliver,  the  series  of  texts  on  which  he  will 
base  his  argument.  This  is  what  the  Holy  Spirit  has  taught  him  to  believe.  To  this 
faith  he  will  ever  adhere,  loyal  to  the  Faith  of  his  fathers,  and  the  creed  of  his  Baptism, 
and  the  Gospel  as  he  has  learnt  it. 

In  this  address,  to  which  we  cannot  wonder  that  Constantius  made  no  response,  there 
is  much  that  is  remarkable.  There  is  no  doubt  that  Hilary's  exile  had  been  a  political 
measure,  and  that  the  Emperor,  in  this  as  in  the  numerous  other  cases  of  the  same  kind,  had 
acted  deliberately  and  with  full  knowledge  of  the  circumstances  in  the  way  that  seemed 
to  him  most  conducive  to  the  interests  of  permanent  peace.  Hilary's  assumption  that 
Constantius  had  been  deceived  is  a  legitimate  allusion,  which  no  one  could  misunderstand, 
to  a  fact  which  could  not  be  respectfully  stated.  That  he  should  have  spoken  as  he  did,  and 
indeed  that  he  should  have  raised  the  subject  at  all,  is  a  clear  sign  of  the  uncertainty  of  the 
times.  A  timorous  appeal  for  mercy  would  have  been  useless  ;  a  bold  statement  of  innocence, 
although,  as  things  turned  out,  it  failed,  was  an  effort  worth  making  to  check  the  Homoean 
advance.  Saturninus,  as  we  saw,  was  one  of  the  Court  party  among  the  bishops ;  and  he  was 
an  enemy  of  Julian,  who  was  soon  to  permit  his  deposition.  Julian's  knowledge  of  Hilary 
can  have  been  but  small ;  his  exile  began  within  a  month  or  two  of  the  Caesar's  arrival 
in  Gaul,  and  Julian  was  not  responsible  for  it.  For  good  or  for  evil,  he  had  little  to  say 
in  the  case.  But  the  suspicions  were  already  aroused  which  were  soon  to  lead  to  Julian's 
revolt,  and  Constantius  had  begun  to  give  the  orders  which  would  lessen  Julian's  military 
force,  and  were,  as  he  supposed,  intended  to  prepare  his  downfall.  To  appeal  to  Julian  and 
to  attack  Saturninus  was  to  remind  Constantius  very  broadly  that  great  interests  were  at 
stake,  and  that  a  protector  might  be  found  for  the  creed  which  he  persecuted.  And  his 
double  mention  of  the  West  (§§  8,  10)  as  able  to  teach  the  truth,  and  as  needing  to  be 
reconciled  with  the  East,  has  a  political  ring.  It  suggests  that  the  Western  provinces 
are  a  united  force,  with  which  the  Emperor  must  reckon.  The  fact  that  Constantius,  though 
he  did  not  grant  the  meeting  in  his  own  presence  with  Saturninus,  which  Hilary  had  asked 
for,  yet  did  grant  the  substance  of  his  prayer,  allowing  him  to  return  without  obstacle 
to  his  diocese,  seems  to  shew  that  the  Emperor  felt  the  need  for  caution  and  concession 
in  the  West. 

The  theological  part  of  the  letter  is  even  more  remarkable.  Its  doctrine  is,  of  course, 
exactly  that  of  the  De  Tri7iitate.  The  summary  of  Scripture  proofs  for  the  doctrine  in  §  11, 
the  allusion  to  unlearned  fishermen  who  have  been  teachers  of  the  Faith 8,  and  several 
other  passages,  are  either  anticipations  or  reminiscences  of  that  work.  But  the  interest 
of  the  letter  lies  in  its  bold  proposal  to  go  behind  all  the  modern  creeds,  of  the  confusion 
of  which  a  vivid  picture  is  drawn,  and  revert  to  the  baptismal  formula.  Here  is  a  lead- 
ing combatant  on  the  Catholic  side  actually  proposing   to   withdraw   the   Nicene   confes- 

8  Cf.   Trin.  ii.  I3ff. 


XXIV 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 


sion : — '  Amid  these  shipwrecks  of  faith,  when  our  inheritance  of  the  heavenly  patri- 
mony is  almost  squandered,  our  safety  lies  in  clinging  to  that  first  and  only  Gospel 
Faith  which  we  confessed  and  apprehended  at  our  Baptism,  and  in  making  no  change 
in  that  one  form  which,  when  we  welcome  it  and  listen  to  it,  brings  the  right  faith  9 
I  do  not  mean  that  we  should  condemn  as  a  godless  and  blasphemous  writing  the  work 
of  the  Synod  of  our  fathers;  yet  rash  men  make  use  of  it  as  a  means  of  gainsaying' 
(§  7).  The  Nicene  Creed  ',  Hilary  goes  on  to  say,  had  been  the  starting-point  of  an  end- 
less chain  of  innovations  and  amendments,  and  thus  had  done  harm  instead  of  good. 
We  have  seen  that  Hilary  was  not  only  acting  with  the  Semiarians,  but  was  nearer 
to  them  in  many  ways  than  he  was  to  Athanasius.  The  future  of  his  friends  was  now 
in  doubt;  not  only  was  their  doctrine  in  danger,  but,  after  the  example  they  had  them- 
selves set,  they  must  have  been  certain  that  defeat  meant  deposition.  This  was  a  concession 
which  only  a  sense  of  extreme  urgency  could  have  induced  Hilary  to  make.  Yet  even 
now  he  avoids  the  mistake  of  Liberius.  He  offers  to  sign  no  compromising  creed ;  he 
only  proposes  that  all  modern  creeds  be  consigned  to  the  same  oblivion.  It  was,  in  effect, 
the  offer  of  another  compromise  in  lieu  of  the  Homoean  ;  though  Hilary  makes  it  perfectly 
clear  what  is,  in  his  eyes,  the  only  sense  in  which  this  simple  and  primitive  confession  can 
honestly  be  made,  yet  assuredly  those  whose  doctrine  most  widely  diverged  would  have 
felt  able  to  make  it.  That  the  proposal  was  sincerely  meant,  and  that  his  words,  uncom- 
promising as  they  are  in  assertion  of  the  truth,  were  not  intended  for  a  simple  defiance 
of  the  enemy,  is  shewn  by  the  list  of  heretics  whom  he  advances,  in  §  9,  in  proof  of  his 
contention  that  all  error  claims  to  be  based  on  Scripture.  Three  of  them,  Montanus, 
Manichaeus  and  Marcion,  were  heretics  in  the  eyes  of  an  Arian  as  much  as  of  a  Catholic ; 
the  other  three,  Marcellus,  Photinus  and  Sabellius,  were  those  with  whom  the  Arians  were 
constantly  taunting  their  adversaries.  Hilary  avoids,  deliberately  as  we  may  be  sure,  the 
use  of  any  name  which  could  wound  his  opponents.  But  bold  and  eloquent  and  true  as 
the  appeal  of  Hilary  was,  it  was  still  less  likely  that  his  petition  for  a  hearing  in  Council 
should  be  granted  than  that  he  should  be  allowed  to  disprove  the  accusations  which  had 
led  to  his  exile.  The  Homoean  leaders  had  the  victory  in  their  hands,  and  they  knew  it, 
if  Hilary  and  his  friends  were  still  in  the  dark.  They  did  not  want  conciliation,  but 
revenge,  and  this  appeal  was  foredoomed  to  failure.  The  end  of  the  crisis  soon  came. 
The  Semiarian  leaders  were  deposed,  not  on  the  charge  of  heresy,  for  that  would  have 
been  inconsistent  with  the  Homoean  position  and  also  with  their  acquiescence  in  the 
Homoean  formula,  but  on  some  of  those  complaints  concerning  conduct  which  were 
always  forthcoming  when  they  were  needed.  Among  the  victims  was  not  only  Basil  of 
Ancyra,  Hilary's  friend,  but  also  Macedonius  of  Constantinople,  who  was  in  after  days  to 
be  the  chief  of  the  party  which  denied  the  true  Godhead  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  and 
his  friends  were  probably  unconscious  at  this  time  of  the  gulf  which  divided  them  from 
such  men  as  Hilary,  who  for  their  part  were  content,  in  the  interests  of  unity,  with  language 
which  understated  their  belief,  or  else  had  not  yet  a  clear  sense  of  their  faith  upon  this 
point.  In  any  case  it  was  well  that  the  final  victory  of  the  true  Faith  was  not  won  at 
this  time,  and  with  the  aid  of  such  allies ;  we  may  even  regard  it  as  a  sign  of  some 
short-sightedness  on  Hilary's  part  that  he  had  thrown  himself  so  heartily  into  their  cause. 
But  he,  at  any  rate,  was  not  to  suffer.  The  two  Eastern  parties,  Homoean  and  Semiarian, 
which  alternately  ejected  one  another  from  their  sees,  were  very  evenly  balanced,  and 
though  Constantius  was   now  on    the    side    of   the    former,  his   friendship   was   not   to  be 


V  Reading  kabet  for  habeo,  but  the  text  is  obscure. 

*  It  is  true  that  the  Nicene  Council  is  not  named  here,  but 
the  allusion  is  obvious.  The  Conservatives  had  actually  objected 
to  the  novelty  of  the  Creed  ;  and  the  Arians  had,  as  Hilary  goes 


on  to  say,  used  the  pretext  of  novelty  to  destroy  the  GospeL 
The  Council  of  Nica;a  was  thirty-five  years  before,  and  is  very 
accurately  described  as  a  '  Synod  of  our  fathers.' 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.     xx» 


trusted.  The  solid  orthodoxy  of  the  West  was  an  influence  which,  as  Hilary  had  hinted, 
could  not  be  ignored  ;  and  even  in  the  East  the  Nicenes  were  a  power  worth  conciliating. 
Hence  the  Homoeans  gave  a  share  of  the  Semiarian  spoils  to  them  2 ;  and  it  was  part 
of  the  same  policy,  and  not,  as  has  been  quaintly  suggested,  because  they  were  afraid  of 
his  arguments,  that  they  permitted  Hilary  to  return  to  Gaul.  Reasons  of  state  as  well 
as  of  ecclesiastical  interest  favoured  his  restoration. 

In  the  late  revolution,  though  the  Faith  had  suffered,  individual  Catholics  had  gained 
But  the  party  to  which  Hilary  had  attached  himself,  and  from  which  he  had  hoped  so  much 
was  crushed  :  and  his  personal  advantage  did  not  compensate,  in  his  eyes,  for  the  injury  to 
truth.  He  has  left  us  a  memorial  of  his  feelings  in  the  Invective  against  Constantius,  one 
of  the  bitterest  documents  of  a  controversy  in  which  all  who  engaged  were  too  earnest 
to  spare  their  opponents.  It  is  an  admirable  piece  of  rhetoric  suffused  with  passion,  not 
the  less  spontaneous  because  its  form,  according  to  the  canons  of  taste  of  that  time,  is  perfect. 
For  we  must  remember  that  the  education  of  the  day  was  literary,  its  aim  being  to  provide 
the  recipient  with  a  prompt  and  felicitous  expression  of  his  thoughts,  whatever  they  might  be. 
The  Invective  was  certainly  written  in  the  first  place  as  a  relief  to  Hilary's  own  feelings; 
he  could  not  anticipate  that  Constantius  had  changed  his  views  for  the  last  time;  that 
he  would  soon  cease  to  be  the  master  of  Gaul,  and  would  be  dead  within  some  eighteen 
months.  But  the  existence  of  other  attacks  upon  Constantius,  composed  about  this  time, 
makes  it  probable  that  there  was  some  secret  circulation  of  such  documents ;  and  we  can  as 
little  accuse  the  writers  of  cowardice,  when  we  consider  the  Emperor's  far-reaching  power, 
as  we  can  attribute  to  them  injustice  towards  him. 

The  book  begins  with  an  animated  summons  to  resistance : — '  The  time  for  speech 
is  come,  the  time  of  silence  past.  Let  us  look  for  Christ's  coming,  for  Antichrist  is  already 
in  power.  Let  the  shepherds  cry  aloud,  for  the  hirelings  are  fled.  Let  us  lay  down  our 
lives  for  the  sheep,  for  the  thieves  have  entered  in  and  the  ravening  lion  prowls  around. 
With  such  words  on  our  lips  let  us  go  forth  to  martyrdom,  for  the  angel  of  Satan  has 
transfigured  himself  into  an  angel  of  light.'  After  more  Scriptural  language  of  the  same 
kind,  Hilary  goes  on  to  say  (§  2)  that,  though  he  had  been  fully  conscious  of  the  extent 
of  the  danger  to  the  Faith,  he  had  been  strictly  moderate  in  his  conduct.  After  the  exiling 
of  orthodox  bishops  at  Aries  and  Milan,  he  and  the  bishops  of  GauL  had  contented 
themselves  with  abstaining  from  communion  with  Saturninus,  Ursacius  and  Valens.  Other 
heretical  bishops  had  been  allowed  a  time  for  repentance.  And  even  after  he  had  been 
forced  to  attend  the  Synod  of  Be'ziers,  refused  a  hearing  for  the  charges  of  heresy  which 
he  wished  to  bring,  and  finally  exiled,  he  had  never,  in  word  or  writing,  uttered  any 
denunciation  against  his  opponents,  the  Synagogue  of  Satan,  who  falsely  claimed  to  be 
the  Church  of  Christ.  He  had  not  faltered  in  his  own  belief,  but  had  welcomed  every 
suggestion  that  held  out  a  hope  of  unity ;  and  in  that  hope  he  had  even  refrained  from 
blaming  those  who  associated  or  worshipped  with  the  excommunicate.  Setting  all  personal 
considerations  on  one  side,  he  had  laboured  for  a  restoration  of  the  Church  through  a  general 
repentance.  This  reserve  and  consistency  (§  3)  is  evidence  that  what  he  is  about  to  say 
is  not  due  to  personal  irritation.  He  speaks  in  the  name  of  Christ,  and  his  prolonged 
silence  makes  it  his  duty  to  speak  plainly.  It  had  been  happy  for  him  had  he  lived  in 
the  days  of  Nero  or  Decius  (§  4).  The  Holy  Spirit  would  have  fired  him  to  endure  as 
did  the  martyrs  of  Scripture  ;  torments  and  death  would  have  been  welcome.  It  would 
have  been  a  fair  fight  with  an  open  enemy.  But  now  (§  5)  Constantius  was  Antichrist, 
and  waged  his  warfare  by  deceit  and  flattery.  It  was  scourging  then,  pampering  now ; 
no   longer  freedom  in  prison,  but  slavery  at  court,  and  gold  as  deadly  as  the  sword  had 

*  nr.  '■J-vofVin    Studies  of  A  rianism,  p    18?. 


XXVI 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 


been ;  martyrs  no  longer  burnt  at  the  stake,  but  a  secret  lighting  of  the  fires  of  hell. 
All  that  seems  good  in  Constantius,  his  confession  of  Christ,  his  efforts  for  unity,  his 
severity  to  heretics,  his  reverence  for  bishops,  his  building  of  churches,  is  perverted  to 
evil  ends.  He  professes  loyalty  to  Christ,  but  his  constant  aim  is  to  prevent  Christ  from 
being  honoured  equally  witli  the  Father.  Hence  (§  6)  it  is  a  clear  duty  to  speak  out, 
as  the  Baptist  to  Herod  and  the  Maccabees  to  Antiochus.  Constantius  is  addressed 
(§  7)  in  the  words  in  which  Hilary  would  have  addressed  Nero  or  Decius  or  Maximian, 
had  he  been  arraigned  before  them,  as  the  enemy  of  God  and  His  Church,  a  persecutor 
and  a  tyrant.  But  he  has  a  peculiar  infamy,  worse  than  theirs,  for  it  is  as  a  pretended 
Christian  that  he  opposes  Christ,  imprisons  bishops,  overawes  the  Church  by  military 
force,  threatens  and  starves  one  council  (at  Rimini)  into  submission,  and  frustrates 
the  purpose  of  another  (Seleucia)  by  sowing  dissension.  To  the  pagan  Emperors  the 
Church  owed  a  great  debt  (§  8) ;  the  Martyrs  with  whom  they  had  enriched  her  were 
still  working  daily  wonders,  healing  the  sick,  casting  out  evil  spirits,  suspending  the  law  of 
gravitation  3.  But  Constantius'  guilt  has  no  mitigation.  A  nominal  Christian,  he  has  brought 
unmixed  evil  upon  the  Church.  The  victims  of  his  perversion  cannot  even  plead  bodily 
suffering  as  an  excuse  for  their  lapse.  The  devil  is  his  father,  from  whom  he  has  learnt 
his  skill  in  misleading.  He  says  to  Christ,  Lord,  Lord,  but  shall  not  enter  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  (§  9),  for  he  denies  the  Son,  and  therefore  the  fatherhood  of  God.  The  old 
persecutors  were  enemies  of  Christ  only;  Constantius  insults  the  Father  also,  by  making 
Him  lie.  He  is  a  wolf  in  sheep's  clothing  (§  10).  He  loads  the  Church  with  the  gold  of 
the  state  and  the  spoil  of  pagan  temples ;  it  is  the  kiss  with  which  Judas  betrayed  his  Master. 
The  clergy  receive  immunities  and  remissions  of  taxation :  it  is  to  tempt  them  to  deny 
Christ.  He  will  only  relate  such  acts  of  Constantius'  tyranny  as  affect  the  Church  (§  n). 
He  will  not  press,  for  he  does  not  know  the  offence  alleged,  his  conduct  in  branding 
bishops  on  the  forehead,  as  convicts,  and  setting  them  to  labour  in  the  mines.  But  he 
recounts  his  long  course  of  oppression  and  faction  at  Alexandria  ;  a  warfare  longer  than 
that  which  he  had  waged  against  Persia  1  Elsewhere,  in  the  East,  he  had  spread  terror 
and  strife,  always  to  prevent  Christ  being  preached.  Then  he  had  turned  to  the  West. 
The  excellent  Paulinus  had  been  driven  from  Treves,  and  cruelly  treated,  banished  from 
all  Christian  society  s,  and  forced  to  consort  with  Montanist  heretics.  Again,  at  Milan, 
the  soldiers  had  brutally  forced  their  way  through  the  orthodox  crowds  and  torn  bishops 
from  the  altar ;  a  crime  like  that  of  the  Jews  who  slew  Zacharias  in  the  Temple.  He 
had  robbed  Rome  also  of  her  bishop,  whose  restoration  was  as  disgraceful  to  the  Emperor 
as  his  banishment.  At  Toulouse  the  clergy  had  been  shamefully  maltreated,  and  gross 
irreverence  committed  in  the  Church.  These  are  the  deeds  of  Antichrist.  Hitherto, 
Hilary  has  spoken  of  matters  of  public  notoriety,  though  not  of  his  own  observation. 
Now  (§  12)  he  comes  to  the  Synod  of  Seleucia,  at  which  he  had  been  present.  He 
found  there  as  many  blasphemers  as  Constantius  chose.  Only  the  Egyptians,  with  the 
exception  of  George,  the  intruder  into  the  See  of  Athanasius,  were  avowedly  Homoousian. 


3  '  Bodies  lifted  up  without  support,  women  hanging  by  the 
feet  without  their  garments  falling  about  their  face.'  The  other 
references  which  the  Benedictine  editor  gives  for  this  curious 
statement  are  evidently  borrowed  from  this  of  Hilary.  From  the 
time  of  the  first  Apologists  exorcism  is,  of  course,  constantly  ap- 
pealed to  as  an  evidence  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  but  usually 
in  somewhat  perfunctory  language,  and  without  the  assertion 
that  the  writer  has  himself  seen  what  he  records.  Hilary  himself 
does  not  profess  to  be  an  eye-witness. 

4  This  is  a  telling  point.  Constantius  had  been  notoriously 
unsuccessful  in  his  Persian  Wars. 

5  The  text  is  corrupt,  but  it  is  not  probable  that  Hilary  means 
that  Paulinus  was  first  relegated  to  Phiygia  and  then  to  some 


pagan  frontier  district,  if  such  there  was.  It  is  quite  in  Hilary's 
present  vein  to  assume  that  because  the  Montanists  were  usually 
called  after  the  province  of  their  origin,  in  which  they  were  still 
numerous,  therefore  all  Phrygians  were  heretics  and  outside  the 
pale  of  Christendom.  If  hordeo  be  read  for  horreo  the  passage 
is  improved.  Paulinus  had  either  to  be  satisfied  with  rations 
of  barley  bread,  the  food  of  slaves,  or  else  to  beg  from  the  heretics. 
Such  treatment  is  very  improbable,  when  we  remember  Hilary's 
own  comfort  in  exile.  But  passions  were  excited,  and  men  be- 
lieved the  worst  of  their  opponents.  We  may  compare  the  false- 
hoods in  Walker's  Sufferings  of  the  Clergy,  and  in  Neal's  Puri- 
tans, which  were  eagerly  believed  in  and  after  our  own  Civil 
War. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS,   xxvii 

Yet  of  the  one  hundred  and  five  bishops  who  professed  the  Homoeousian  Creed,  he  found 
'some  piety  in  the  words  of  some.'  But  the  Anomoeans  were  rank  blasphemers;  he  gives, 
in  §  J3>  words  from  a  sermon  by  their  leader,  Eudoxius  of  Antioch,  which  were  quoted 
by  the  opposition,  and  received  with  the  abhorrence  they  deserved.  This  party  found 
(§  14)  that  no  toleration  was  to  be  expected  for  such  doctrines,  and  so  forged  the 
Homoean  creed,  which  condemned  equally  the  homoousion,  the  homoiousion  and  the 
anomoion.  Their  insincerity  in  thus  rejecting  their  own  belief  was  manifest  to  the  Council, 
and  one  of  them,  who  canvassed  Hilary's  support,  avowed  blank  Arianism  in  the  conversation. 
The  large  Homoeousian  majority  (§  15)  deposed  the  authors  of  the  Homoean  confession, 
who  flew  for  aid  to  Constantius,  who  received  them  with  honour  and  allowed  them  to  air 
their  heresy.  The  tables  were  turned  ;  the  minority,  aided  by  the  Emperor's  threats  of 
exile,  drove  the  majority,  in  the  persons  of  their  ten  delegates,  to  conform  to  the  new  creed. 
The  people  were  coerced  by  the  prefect,  the  bishops  threatened  within  the  palace  walls; 
the  chief  cities  of  the  East  were  provided  with  heretical  bishops.  It  was  nothing  less  than 
making  a  present  to  the  devil  of  the  whole  world  for  which  Christ  died.  Constantius 
professed  (§  16)  that  his  aim  was  to  abolish  unscriptural  words.  But  what  right  had  he 
to  give  orders  to  bishops  or  dictate  the  language  of  their  sermons  ?  A  new  disease  needed 
new  remedies ;  warfare  was  inevitable  when  fresh  enemies  arose.  And,  after  all,  the  Homoean 
formula,  Mike  the  Father,'  was  itself  unscriptural.  Scripture  is  adduced  (§  17)  by  Hilary 
to  prove  that  the  Son  is  not  merely  like,  but  equal  to,  the  Father;  and  (§  18)  one  in 
nature  with  Him,  having  (§  19)  the  form  and  the  glory  of  God.  This  'likeness'  is  a  trap 
(§  20) ;  chaff  strewn  on  water,  straw  covering  a  pit,  a  hook  hidden  in  the  bait.  The 
Catholic  sense  is  the  only  true  sense  in  which  the  word  can  be  used,  as  is  shewn  more 
fully,  by  arguments  to  be  found  in  the  De  Trinitate,  in  §§  21,  22.  And  now  he  asks 
Constantius  (§  23)  the  plain  question,  what  his  creed  is.  He  has  made  a  hasty  progress, 
by  a  steep  descent,  to  the  nethermost  pit  of  blasphemy.  He  began  with  the  Faith,  which 
deserved  the  name,  of  Nicaea ;  he  changed  it  at  Antioch.  But  he  was  a  clumsy  builder  • 
the  structure  he  raised  was  always  falling,  and  had  to  be  constantly  renewed ;  creed 
after  creed  had  been  framed,  the  safeguards  and  anathemas  of  which  would  have  been 
needless  had  he  remained  steadfast  to  the  Nicene.  Hilary  does  not  lament  the  creeds 
which  Constantius  had  abandoned  (§  24) ;  they  might  be  harmless  in  themselves,  but  they 
represented  no  real  belief.  Yet  why  should  he  reject  his  own  creeds  ?  There  was  no 
such  reason  for  his  discontent  with  them  as  there  had  been,  in  his  heresy,  for  his 
rejection  of  the  Nicene.  This  ceaseless  variety  arose  from  want  of  faith ;  '  one  Faith,  one 
Baptism,'  is  the  mark  of  truth.  The  result  had  been  to  stultify  the  bishops.  They  had 
been  driven  to  condemn  in  succession  the  accurate  homoousion  and  the  harmless  homoiousion, 
and  even  the  word  ousia,  or  substance.  These  were  the  pranks  of  a  mere  buffoon,  amusing 
himself  at  the  expense  of  the  Church,  and  compelling  the  bishops,  like  dogs  returning 
to  their  vomit,  to  accept  what  they  had  rejected.  So  many  had  been  the  contradictory 
creeds  that  every  one  was  now,  or  had  been  in  the  past,  a  heretic  confessed.  And  this 
result  had  only  been  attained  (§  26)  by  violence,  as  for  instance  in  the  cases  of  the  Eastern 
and  African  bishops.  The  latter  had  committed  to  writing  their  sentence  upon  Ursacius 
and  Valens ;  the  Emperor  had  seized  the  document.  It  might  go  to  the  flames,  as  would 
Constantius  himself,  but  the  sentence  was  registered  with  God.  Other  men  (§  27)  had 
waged  war  with  the  living,  but  Constantius  extended  his  hostility  to  the  dead ;  he  con- 
tradicted the  teaching  of  the  saints,  and  his  bishops  rejected  their  predecessors,  to  whom 
they  owed  their  orders,  by  denying  their  doctrine.  The  three  hundred  and  eighteen  at 
Nicsea  were  anathema  to  him,  and  his  own  father  who  had  presided  there.  Yet  though 
he  might  scorn  the  past,  he  could  not  control  the  future.  The  truth  defined  at  Nicaea 
had  been  solemnly  committed  to  writing  and  remained,  however  Constantius  might  contemn 


XXV111 


INTRODUCTION.    CHAPTER  I. 


it.  'Give  ear,'  Hilary  concludes,  'to  the  holy  meaning  of  the  words,  to  the  unalterable 
determination  of  the  Church,  to  the  faith  which  thy  father  avowed,  to  the  sure  hope  in 
which  man  must  put  his  trust,  the  universal  conviction  of  the  doom  of  heresy ;  and 
learn  therefrom  that  thou  art  the  foe  of  God's  religion,  the  enemy  of  the  tombs  of  the 
saints  6,  the  rebellious  inheritor  of  thy  father's  piety.' 

Here,  again,  there  is  much  of  interest.  Hilary's  painful  feeling  of  isolation  is  manifest. 
He  had  withdrawn  from  communion  with  Saturninus  and  the  few  Arians  of  Gaul,  but  has 
to  confess  that  his  own  friends  were  not  equally  uncompromising.  The  Gallic  bishops,  with 
their  enormous  dioceses,  had  probably  few  occasions  for  meeting,  and  prudent  men  could 
easily  avoid  a  conflict  which  the  Arians,  a  feeble  minority,  would  certainly  not  provoke.  The 
bishops  had  been  courteous,  or  more  than  courteous;  and  Hilary  dared  not  protest.  His 
whole  importance  as  a  negotiator  in  the  East  depended  on  the  belief  that  he  was  the 
representative  of  a  harmonious  body  of  opinion.  To  advertise  this  departure  from  his  policy 
of  warfare  would  have  been  fatal  to  his  influence.  And  if  weakness,  as  he  must  have  judged 
it,  was  leading  his  brethren  at  home  into  a  recognition  of  Arians,  Constantius  and  his 
Homoean  counsellors  had  ingeniously  contrived  a  still  more  serious  break  in  the  orthodox 
line  of  battle.  There  was  reason  in  his  bitter  complaint  of  the  Emperor's  generosity.  He 
was  lavish  with  his  money,  and  it  was  well  worth  a  bishop's  while  to  be  his  friend.  And  of  this 
expenditure  Nicenes  were  enjoying  their  share,  and  that  without  having  to  surrender  their 
personal  belief,  for  all  that  was  required  was  that  they  should  not  be  inquisitive  as  to  their 
neighbours'  heresies.  But  Nicene  bishops,  of  an  accommodating  character,  were  not  only 
holding  their  own;  they  were  enjoying  a  share  of  the  spoils  of  the  routed  Semiarians. 
It  was  almost  a  stroke  of  genius  thus  to  shatter  Hilary's  alliance ;  for  it  was  certainly  not 
by  chance  that  among  the  sees  to  which  Nicenes,  in  full  and  formal  communion  with  him, 
were  preferred,  was  Ancyra  itself,  from  which  his  chosen  friend  Basil  had  been  ejected. 
Disgusted  though  Hilary  must  have  been  with  such  subservience,  and  saddened  by  the 
downfall  of  his  friends,  it  is  clear  that  the  Emperor's  policy  had  some  success,  even  with  him. 
His  former  hopes  being  dashed  to  the  ground,  he  now  turns,  with  an  interest  he  had  never 
before  shewn,  to  the  Nicene  Creed  as  a  bulwark  of  the  Faith.  And  we  can  see  the  same 
feeling  at  work  in  his  very  cold  recognition  that  there  was  'some  piety  in  the  words  of  some' 
among  his  friends  at  Seleucia.  It  would  be  unjust  to  think  of  Hilary  as  a  timeserver,  but  we 
must  admit  that  there  is  something  almost  too  businesslike  in  this  dismission  from  his  mind 
of  former  hopes  and  friendships.  He  looked  always  to  a  practical  result  in  the  establishment 
of  truth,  and  a  judgment  so  sound  as  his  could  not  fail  to  see  that  the  Asiatic  negotiations 
were  a  closed  chapter  in  his  life.  And  his  mind  must  have  been  full  of  the  thought  that  he 
was  returning  to  the  West,  which  had  its  own  interests  and  its  own  prejudices,  and  was 
impartially  suspicious  of  all  Eastern  theologians;  whose  'selfish  coldness 7'  towards  the 
East  was,  indeed,  ten  years  later  still  a  barrier  against  unity.  If  Hilary  was  to  be,  as  he 
purposed,  a  power  in  the  West,  he  must  promptly  resume  the  Western  tone;  and  he  will  have 
succumbed  to  very  natural  infirmity  if,  in  his  disappointment,  he  was  disposed  to  couple 
together  his  allies  who  had  failed  with  the  Emperor  who  had  caused  their  failure. 

The  historical  statements  of  the  -Invective,  as  has  been  said,  cannot  always  be  verified. 
The  account  of  the  Synod  of  Seleucia  is,  however,  unjust  to  Constantius.     It  was  the  free 


6  Hilary  had  previously  (§  27)  asserted  that  'the  Apostle  has 
taught  us  to  communicate  with  the  tombs  of  the  saints."  This 
is  an  allusion  to  Rom.  xii.  13,  with  the  strange  reading  '  tombs' 
ior  'necessities'  (nvtlais  for  XPe'a'*)>  which  has,  in  fact,  con- 
siderable authority  in  the  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament  and  in 
the  Latin  Christian  writers.  How  far  this  reading  may  have 
been  the  cause,  how  far  the  effect,  of  the  custom  of  celebrating 


the  Eucharist  at  the  tombs  of  Martyrs,  it  is  impossible  to  say. 
The  custom  was  by  this  time  more  than  a  century  old,  and  one  of 
its  purposes  was  to  maintain  the  sense  of  unity  with  the  saints 
of  the  past.  Constantius,  by  denying  their  doctrine,  had  mada 
himself  their  enemy. 

7  Gwatkin,  Studies  of  Arianism,  p.  944. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS,    xxix 


expression  of  the  belief  of  Asia,  and  if  heretics  were  present  by  command  of  the  Emperor,  an 
overwhelming  majority,  more  or  less  orthodox,  were  present  by  the  same  command.  But  the 
character  and  policy  of  Constantius  are  delineated  fairly  enough.  The  results,  disastrous  both 
to  conscience  and  to  peace,  are  not  too  darkly  drawn,  and  no  sarcasm  could  be  too  severe  for 
the  absurd  as  well  as  degrading  position  to  w.hich  he  had  reduced  the  Church.  But  the 
Invective  is  interesting  not  only  for  its  contents  but  as  an  illustration  of  its  writer's  character. 
Strong  language  meant  less  in  Latin  than  in  English,  but  the  passionate  earnestness  of  these 
pages  cannot  be  doubted.  They  are  not  more  violent  than  the  attacks  of  Athanasius  upon 
Constantius,  nor  less  violent  than  those  of  Lucifer ;  if  the  last  author  is  usually  regarded  as 
pre-eminent  in  abuse,  he  deserves  his  reputation  not  because  of  the  vigour  of  his  denunciation, 
but  because  his  pages  contain  nothing  but  railing.  The  change  is  sudden,  no  doubt,  from 
respect  for  Constantius  and  hopefulness  as  to  his  conduct,  but  the  provocation,  we  must 
remember,  had  been  extreme.  If  the  faith  of  the  Fathers  was  intense  and,  in  the  best  sense, 
childlike,  there  is  something  childlike  also  in  their  gusts  of  passion,  their  uncontrolled 
emotion  in  victory  or  defeat,  the  personal  element  which  is  constantly  present  in  their 
controversies.  Though,  henceforth,  ecclesiastical  policy  was  to  be  but  a  secondary  interest 
with  Hilary,  and  diplomacy  was  to  give  place  to  a  more  successful  attempt  to  influence 
thought,  yet  we  can  see  in  another  sphere  the  same  spirit  of  conflict ;  for  it  is  evident  that 
his  labours  against  heresy,  beside  the  more  serious  satisfaction  of  knowing  that  he  was  on  the 
side  of  truth,  are  lightened  by  the  logician's  pleasure  in  exposing  fallacy. 

The  deposition  of  the  Semiarian  leaders  took  place  very  early  in  the  year  360,  and 
Hilary's  dismissal  homewards,  one  of  the  same  series  of  measures,  must  soon  have  followed. 
If  he  had  formed  the  plan  of  his  Invective  before  he  left  Constantinople,  it  is  not  probable 
that  he  wrote  it  there.  It  was  more  probably  the  employment  of  his  long  homeward  journey. 
His  natural  route  would  be  by  the  great  Egnatian  Way,  which  led  through  Thessalonica  to 
Durazzo,  thence  by  sea  to  Brindisi,  and  so  to  Rome  and  the  North.  It  is  true  that  the 
historians,  or  rather  Rufinus,  from  whom  the  rest  appear  to  have  borrowed  all  their 
knowledge,  say  that  Illyricum  was  one  sphere  of  his  labours  for  the  restoration  of  the  Faith. 
But  a  journey  by  land  through  Illyricum,  the  country  of  Valens  and  Ursacius  and  thoroughly 
indoctrinated  with  Arianism,  would  not  only  have  been  dangerous  but  useless.  For  Hilary's 
purpose  was  to  confirm  the  faithful  among  the  bishops  and  to  win  back  to  orthodoxy  those 
who  had  been  terrorised  or  deceived  into  error,  and  thus  to  cement  a  new  confederacy  against 
the  Homoeans ;  not  to  make  a  vain  assault  upon  what  was,  for  the  present,  an  impregnable 
position.  And  though  the  Western  portion  of  the  Via  Egnatia  did  not  pass  through  the 
existing  political  division  called  Illyricum,  it  did  lie  within  the  region  called  in  history  and 
literature  by  that  name.  Again,  the  evidence  that  Hilary  passed  through  Rome  is  not 
convincing;  but  since  it  was  his  best  road,  and  he  would  find  there  the  most  important  person 
among  those  who  had  wavered  in  their  allegiance  to  truth,  we  may  safely  accept  it.  He 
made  it  his  business,  we  are  told  8,  to  exhort  the  Churches  through  which  he  passed  to  abjure 
heresy  and  return  to  the  true  faith.  But  we  know  nothing  of  the  places  through  which  he 
passed  before  reaching  Rome,  the  see  of  Liberius,  with  whom  it  was  most  desirable  for  him 
to  be  on  friendly  terms.  Liberius  was  not  so  black  as  he  has  sometimes  been  painted,  but 
he  was  not  a  heroic  figure.  His  position  was  exactly  that  of  many  other  bishops  in  the 
Western  lands.  They  had  not  denied  their  own  faith,  but  at  one  time  or  another,  in  most 
cases  at  Rimini,  they  had  admitted  that  there  was  room  in  the  same  communion  for  Arian 
bishops  and  for  themselves.  In  the  case  of  Liberius  the  circumstances  are  involved  in  some 
obscurity,  but  it  is  clear  that  he  had,  in  order  to  obtain  remission  of  his  exile,  taken  a  position 

•  Rufinus,  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  30,  31,  and,  dependent  on  him,  Socrates  iii.  10,  and  Sozomen  ▼.  13. 


xxx  INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 


which  was  practically  that  of  the  old  Council  of  the  Dedication  9.  Hilary,  we  remember,  had 
called  that  Council  a  '  Synod  of  the  Saints,'  when  speaking  of  it  from  the  Eastern  point  of 
view.  But  he  had  never  stooped  to  such  a  minimising  of  the  Faith  as  its  words,  construed 
at  the  best,  involved.  Easterns,  in  their  peculiar  difficulties,  he  was  hopeful  enough  to 
believe,  had  framed  its  terms  in  a  legitimate  sense ;  he  could  accept  it  from  them,  but  could 
not  use  it  as  the  expression  of  his  own  belief.  So  to  do  would  have  been  a  retrograde  step ; 
and  this  step  Liberius  had  taken,  to  the  scandal  of  the  Church.  Yet  he,  and  all  whose 
position  in  any  way  resembled  his — all,  indeed,  except  some  few  incorrigible  ringleaders — 
were  in  the  Church ;  their  deflection  was,  in  Hilary's  words,  an  '  inward  evil.'  And  Hilary 
was  no  Lucifer ;  his  desire  was  to  unite  all  who  could  be  united  in  defence  of  the  truth.  This 
was  the  plan  dictated  by  policy  as  well  as  by  charity,  and  in  the  case  of  Liberius,  if,  as  is 
probable,  they  met,  it  was  certainly  rewarded  with  success.  Indeed,  according  to  Rufinus, 
Hilary  was  successful  at  every  stage  of  his  journey.  Somewhere  on  his  course  he  fell  in 
with  Eusebius  of  Vercelli,  who  had  been  exiled  at  the  Council  of  Milan,  had  passed  his  time 
in  the  region  to  the  East  of  that  in  which  Hilary  had  been  interned,  and  was  now  profiting 
by  the  same  Homoean  amnesty  to  return  to  his  diocese.  He  also  had  been  using  the 
opportunities  of  travel  for  the  promotion  of  the  Faith.  He  had  come  from  Antioch,  and 
therefore  had  probably  landed  at  or  near  Naples.  He  was  now  travelling  northwards, 
exhorting  as  he  went.  His  encounter  with  Hilary  stimulated  him  to  still  greater  efforts; 
but  Rufinus  tells  us  x  that  he  was  the  less  successful  of  the  two,  for  Hilary,  '  a  man  by  nature 
mild  and  winning,  and  also  learned  and  singularly  apt  at  persuasion,  applied  himself  to  the 
task  with  a  greater  diligence  and  skill.'  They  do  not  appear  to  have  travelled  in  company ; 
the  cities  to  be  visited  were  too  numerous  and  their  own  time,  eager  as  they  must  have  been 
to  reach  their  homes,  too  short.  But  their  journey  seems  to  have  been  a  triumphal  progress  ; 
the  bishops  were  induced  to  renounce  their  compromise  with  error,  and  the  people  inflamed 
against  heresy,  so  that,  in  the  words  of  Rufinus  2,  '  these  two  men,  glorious  luminaries  as  it 
were  of  the  universe,  flooded  Illyricum  and  Italy  and  the  Gallic  provinces  with  their  splendour, 
so  that  even  from  hidden  nooks  and  corners  all  darkness  of  heresy  was  banished.' 

In  the  passage  just  quoted  Rufinus  directly  connects  the  publication  of  Hilary's 
masterpiece,  usually  called  the  De  Trinitate,  with  this  work  of  reconciliation.  After  speaking 
of  his  success  in  it,  he  proceeds,  '  Moreover  he  published  his  books  Concerning  the  Faith, 
composed  in  a  lofty  style,  wherein  he  displayed  the  guile  of  the  heretics  and  the  deceptions 
practised  upon  our  friends,  together  with  the  credulous  and  misplaced  sincerity  of  the  latter, 
with  such  skill  that  his  ample  instructions  amended  the  errors  not  only  of  those  whom  he 
encountered,  but  also  of  those  whom  distance  hindered  him  from  meeting  face  to  face.' 
Some  of  the  twelve  books  of  which  the  work  is  composed  had  certainly  been  published  during 
his  exile,  and  it  is  possible  that  certain  portions  may  date  from  his  later  residence  in  Gaul. 
But  a  study  of  the  work  itself  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  Rufinus  was  right  in  the  main 
in  placing  it  at  this  stage  of  Hilary's  life;  this  was  certainly  the  earliest  date  at  which  it  can 
have  been  widely  influential. 

The  title  which  Hilary  gave  to  his  work  as  a  whole  was  certainly  De  Fide,  Concerning  the 
Faith,  the  name  by  which,  as  we  saw,  Rufinus  describes  it.  It  is  probable  that  its  con- 
troversial purpose  was  indicated  by  the  addition  of  contra  Arianos;  but  it  is  certain  that  its 
present  title,  De  Trinitate,  was  not  given  to  it  by  Hilary.  The  word  Trinitas  is  of  extra- 
ordinarily rare  occurrence  in  his  writings ;  the  only  instances  seem  to  be  in  Trin.  i.  22,  36, 
where  he  is  giving  a  very  condensed  summary  of  the  contents  of  his  work.  In  the  actual 
course  of  his  argument  the  word  is  scrupulously  avoided,  as  it  is  in  all  his  other  writings.     In 

9  Cf.  Dr.  Bright,  Waytnarks,  p.  217  n.  *  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  30,  31. 

a  0>.  tit.  i.  31.     The  recantation  of  Liberius  and  of  the  Italian  bishops  may  be  read  in  Hilary's  12th  Fraement. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS,    xxxi 


this  respect  he  resembles  Athanasius,  who  will  usually  name  the  Three  Persons  rather  than 
employ  this  convenient  and  even  then  familiar  term.  There  may  have  been  some  undesirable 
connotation  in  it  which  he  desired  to  avoid,  though  this  is  hardly  probable;  it  is  more  likely 
that  both  Athanasius  and  Hilary,  conscious  that  the  use  of  technical  terms  of  theology  was  in 
their  times  a  playing  with  edged  tools,  deliberately  avoided  a  word  which  was  unnecessary, 
though  it  might  be  useful.  And  in  Hilary's  case  there  is  the  additional  reason  that  to  his 
mind  the  antithesis  of  truth  and  falsehood  was  One  God  or  Two  Gods*;  that  to  him,  more 
than  to  any  other  Western  theologian,  the  developed  and  clearly  expressed  thought  of  Three 
coequal  Persons  was  strange.  Since,  then,  the  word  and  the  thought  were  rarely  present  in 
his  mind,  we  cannot  accept  as  the  title  of  his  work  what  is,  after  all,  only  a  mediaeval 
description. 

The  composite  character  of  the  treatise,  which  must  still  for  convenience  be  called  the 
De  Trinitate,  is  manifest.  The  beginnings  of  several  of  its  books,  which  contain  far  more 
preliminary,  and  often  rhetorical,  matter  than  is  necessary  to  link  them  on  to  their  pre- 
decessors, point  to  a  separate  publication  of  each ;  a  course  which  was,  indeed,  necessary 
under  the  literary  conditions  of  the  time.  This  piecemeal  publication  is  further  proved  by  the 
elaborate  summaries  of  the  contents  of  previous  books  which  are  given  as,  e.g.,  at  the 
beginning  of  Trin.  x. ;  and  by  the  frequent  repetition  of  earlier  arguments  at  a  later  stage, 
which  shews  that  the  writer  could  not  trust  to  the  reader's  possession  of  the  whole.  Though 
no  such  attention  has  been  devoted  to  the  growth  of  this  work  as  Noeldechen  has  paid  to  that 
of  the  treatises  of  Tertullian,  yet  some  account  of  the  process  can  be  given.  For  although 
Hilary  himself,  in  arranging  the  complete  treatise,  has  done  much  to  make  it  run  smoothly 
and  consecutively,  and  though  the  scribes  who  have  copied  it  have  probably  made  it  appear 
still  more  homogeneous,  yet  some  clues  to  its  construction  are  left.  The  first  is  his  de- 
scription of  the  fifth  book  as  the  second  (v.  3).  This  implies  that  the  fourth  is  the  first ; 
and  when  we  examine  the  fourth  we  find  that,  if  we  leave  out  of  consideration  a  little 
preliminary  matter,  it  is  the  beginning  of  a  refutation  of  Arianism.  It  states  the  Arian  case, 
explains  the  necessity  of  the  term  ho?noousios,  gives  a  list  of  the  texts  on  which  the  Arians 
relied,  and  sets  out  at  length  one  of  their  statements  of  doctrine,  the  Epistle  of  Arius  to 
Alexander,  which  it  proceeds  to  demolish,  in  the  remainder  of  the  fourth  book  and  in  the  fifth, 
by  arguments  from  particular  passages  and  from  the  general  sense  of  the  Old  Testament.  In 
the  sixth  book,  for  the  reason  already  given,  the  Arian  Creed  is  repeated,  after  a  vivid 
account  of  the  evils  of  the  time,  and  the  refutation  continued  by  arguments  from  the  New 
Testament.  In  §  2  of  this  book  there  is  further  evidence  of  the  composite  character  of  the 
treatise.  Hilary  says  that  though  in  the,  first  book  he  has  already  set  out  the  Arian  manifesto, 
yet  he  thinks  good,  as  he  is  still  dealing  with  it,  to  repeat  it  in  this  sixth.  Hilary  seems 
to  have  overlooked  the  discrepancy,  which  some  officious  scribe  has  half  corrected  s.  The 
seventh  book,  he  says  at  the  beginning,  is  the  climax  of  the  whole  work.  If  we  take  the 
De  Trinitate  as  a  whole,  this  is  a  meaningless  flourish ;  but  if  we  look  on  to  the  eighth  book, 
and  find  an  elaborate  introduction  followed  by  a  line  of  argument  different  from  that  of  the 
four  preceding  books,  we  must  be  inclined  to  think  that  the  seventh  is  the  climax  and 
termination  of  what  has  been  an  independent  work,  consisting  of  four  books.  And  if  we 
turn  to  the  end  of  the  seventh,  and  note  that  it  alone  of  all  the  twelve  has  nothing  that  can 
be  called  a  peroration,  but  ends  in  an  absolutely  bald  and  businesslike  manner,  we  are  almost 
forced  to  conclude  that  this  is  because  the  peroration  which  it  once  had,  as  the  climax  of  the 
work,  was  unsuitable  for  its  new  position  and  has  been  wholly  removed.  Had  Hilary  written 
this  book  as  one  of  the  series  of  twelve,  he  would  certainly,  according  to  all  rules  of  literary 


*  TV8-.     rtH-  **  x7*  I  which  we  call  first,  though,  as  we  saw,  in  v.  3  he  speaks  of  our 

5  Similarly  in  iy.  a  he  alludes  to  the  first  book,  meaning  that  |  fifth  as  his  second. 


xxxii  INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 

propriety,  have  given  it  a  formal  termination.  In  these  four  books  then,  the  fourth  to  the 
seventh,  we  may  see  the  nucleus  of  the  De  Trinitate ;  not  necessarily  the  part  first  written, 
for  he  says  (iv.  i)6  that  some  parts,  at  any  rate,  of  the  three  first  books  are  of  earlier  date, 
but  that  around  which  the  whole  has  been  arranged.  It  has  a  complete  unity  of  its  own, 
following  step  by  step  the  Arian  Creed,  of  which  we  shall  presently  speak.  It  is  purely 
controversial,  and  quite  possibly  the  title  Contra  Arianos,  for  which  there  is  some  evidence, 
really  belongs  to  this  smaller  work,  though  it  clung,  not  unnaturally,  to  the  whole  for  which 
Hilary  devised  the  more  appropriate  name  De  Fide.  Concerning  the  date  of  these  four  books, 
we  can  only  say  that  they  must  have  been  composed  during  his  exile.  For  though  he  does  not 
mention  his  exile,  yet  he  is  already  a  bishop  (vi.  2),  and  knows  about  the  homoousion  (iv.  4). 
We  have  seen  already  that  his  acquaintance  with  the  Nicene  Creed  began  only  just  before  his 
exile ;  he  must,  therefore,  have  written  them  during  his  enforced  leisure  in  Asia. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  book  Hilary  refers  back  to  the  proof  furnished  in  the 
previous  books,  written  some  time  ago,  of  the  Scriptural  character  of  his  faith  and  of  the 
unscriptural  nature  of  all  the  heresies.  Setting  aside  the  first  book,  which  does  not  correspond 
to  this  description,  we  find  what  he  describes  in  the  second  and  third.  These  form  a  short 
connected  treatise,  complete  in  itself.  It  is  much  more  academic  than  that  of  which  we  have 
already  spoken ;  it  deals  briefly  with  all  the  current  heresies  (ii.  4  ff.),  but  shews  no*  sign  that 
one  of  them,  more  than  the  others,  was  an  urgent  danger.  There  is  none  of  the  passion 
of  conflict;  Hilary  is  in  the  mood  for  rhetoric,  and  makes  the  most  of  his  opportunities.  He 
expatiates,  for  instance,  on  the  greatness  of  his  theme  (ii.  5),  harps  almost  to  excess  upon  the 
Fisherman  to  whom  mysteries  so  great  were  revealed  (ii.  13  ff.),  dilates,  after  the  manner 
of  a  sermon,  upon  the  condescension  and  the  glory  manifested  in  the  Incarnation,  describes 
miracles  with  much  liveliness  of  detail  (iii.  5,  20),  and  ends  the  treatise  (iii.  24 — 26)  with 
a  nobly  eloquent  statement  of  the  paradox  of  wisdom  which  is  folly  and  folly  which  is  wisdom, 
and  of  faith  as  the  only  means  of  knowing  God.  The  little  work,  though  it  deals  professedly 
with  certain  heresies,  is  in  the  main  constructive.  It  contains  far  more  of  positive  assertion 
of  the  truth,  without  reference  to  opponents,  than  it  does  of  criticism  of  their  views.  In 
sustained  calmness  of  tone — it  recognises  the  existence  of  honest  doubt  (iii.  1), — and  in 
literary  workmanship,  it  excels  any  other  part  of  the  De  Trinitate,  and  in  the  latter  respect  is 
certainly  superior  to  the  more  conversational  Homilies  on  the  Psalms.  But  it  suffers,  in 
comparison  with  the  books  which  follow,  by  a  certain  want  of  intensity ;  the  reader  feels  that 
it  was  written,  in  one  sense,  for  the  sake  of  writing  it,  and  written,  in  another  sense,  for 
purposes  of  general  utility.  It  is  not,  as  later  portions  of  the  work  were,  forged  as  a  weapon 
for  use  in  a  conflict  of  life  and  death.  Yet,  standing  as  it  does,  at  the  beginning  of  the  whole 
great  treatise,  it  serves  admirably  as  an  introduction.  It  is  clear,  convincing  and  interesting, 
and  its  eloquent  peroration  carries  the  reader  on  to  the  central  portion  of  the  work,  which 
begins  with  the  fourth  book.  Except  that  the  second  book  has  lost  its  exordium,  for  the 
same  reason  that  the  seventh  has  lost  its  conclusion,  the  two  books  are  complete  as  well  as 
homogeneous.  Of  the  date  nothing  definite  can  be  said.  There  is  no  sign  of  any  special 
interest  in  Arianism ;  and  Hilary's  leisure  for  a  paper  conflict  with  a  dead  foe  like  Ebionism 
suggests  that  he  was  writing  before  the  strife  had  reached  Gaul.  The  general  tone  of  the  two 
books  is  quite  consistent  with  this ;  and  we  may  regard  it  as  more  probable  than  not  that  they 
were  composed  before  the  exile;  whether  they  were  published  at  the  time  as  a  separate 
treatise,  or  laid  on  one  side  for  a  while,  cannot  be  known ;  the  former  supposition  is  the  more 
reasonable. 

The  remaining  books,   from   the  eighth  to  the  twelfth,  appear  to  have  been  written 


•  i.e.  in  the  passage  introduced  at  a  connecting  link  with  the  books  which  now  precede  it,  when  the  whole  work  was  pot 
into  its  present  shape. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS,    xxxiii 


continuously,  with  a  view  to  their  forming  part  of  the  present  connected  whole.  They  were, 
no  doubt,  published  separately,  and  they,  with  books  iv.  to  vii.,  may  well  be  the  letters 
(stripped,  of  course,  in  their  permanent  shape  of  their  epistolary  accessories)  which,  Hilary 
feared,  were  obtaining  no  recognition  from  his  friends  in  Gaul.  The  last  five  have  certain 
references  back  to  arguments  in  previous  books  7,  while  these  do  not  refer  forward,  nor  do  the 
groups  ii.  iii.  and  iv. — vii.  refer  to  one  another.  But  books  viii. — xii.  have  also  internal 
references,  and  promise  that  a  subject  shall  be  fully  treated  in  due  course8.  We  may 
therefore  assume  that,  when  he  began  to  write  book  viii.,  Hilary  had  already  determined 
to  make  use  of  his  previous  minor  works,  and  that  he  now  proceeded  to  complete  his  task 
with  constant  reference  to  these.  Evidences  of  exact  date  are  here  again  lacking;  he  writes  as 
a  bishop  and  as  an  exile  9,  and  under  a  most  pressing  necessity.  The  preface  to  book  viii., 
with  its  description  of  the  dangers  of  the  time  and  of  Hilary's  sense  of  the  duty  of  a  bishop, 
seems  to  represent  the  state  of  mind  in  which  he  resolved  to  construct  the  present  De 
Trinitate.  It  is  too  emphatic  for  a  mere  transition  from  one  step  in  a  continuous  discussion 
to  another.  Regarding  these  last  five  books,  then,  as  written  continuously,  with  one  purpose 
and  with  one  theological  outlook,  we  may  fix  an  approximate  date  for  them  by  two  consider- 
ations. They  shew,  in  books  ix.  and  x.,  that  he  was  thoroughly  conscious  of  the  increasing 
peril  of  Apollinarianism.  They  shew  also,  by  their  silence,  that  he  had  determined  to  ignore 
what  was  one  of  the  most  obvious  and  certainly  the  most  offensive  of  the  current  modes  of 
thought.  There  is_  no  refutation,  except  implicitly,  and  no  mention  of  Anomoeanism,  that 
extreme  Arianism  which  pronounced  the  Son  unlike  the  Father  s.  This  can  be  explained  only 
in  one  way.  We  have  seen  that  Hilary  thinks  Arianism  worth  attack  because  it  is  an  '  inward 
evil ; '  that  he  does  not,  except  in  early  and  leisurely  work  such  as  book  ii.,  pay  any  attention 
to  heresies  which  were  obviously  outside  the  Church  and  had  an  organization  of  their  own. 
We  have  seen  also  that  the  Homoeans  cast  out  their  more  honest  Anomoean  brethren  in  359. 
The  latter  made  no  attempt  to  retrieve  their  position  within  the  Church ;  they  proceeded  to 
establish  a  Church  of  their  own,  which  was,  so  they  protested,  the  true  one.  It  was  under 
Jovian  (a.d.  362 — 363)  that  they  consecrated  their  own  bishop  for  Constantinople2;  but  th<* 
separation  must  have  been  visible  for  some  time  before  that  decisive  step  was  taken.  Thus, 
when  the  De  Trinitate  took  its  present  form,  Apollinarianism  was  risen  above  the  Church's 
horizon  and  Anomoeanism  was  sunk  below  it.  We  cannot,  therefore,  put  the  completion  of 
the  work  earlier  than  the  remission  of  Hilary's  exile ;  we  cannot,  indeed,  suppose  that  he  had 
leisure  to  make  it  perfect  except  in  his  home.  Yet  the  work  must  have  been  for  the  most 
part  finished  before  its  writer  reached  Italy  on  his  return ;  and  the  issue  or  reissue  of  its 
several  portions  was  a  natural,  and  certainly  a  powerful,  measure  towards  the  end  which  he 
had  at  heart. 

There  remains  the  first  book,  which  was  obviously,  as  Erasmus  saw,  the  last  to  be 
composed.  It  is  a  survey  of  the  accomplished  task,  beginning  with  that  account  of  Hilary's 
spiritual  birth  and  growth  which  has  already  been  mentioned.  This  is  a  piece  of  writing 
which  it  is  no  undue  praise  to  rank,  for  dignity  and  felicity  of  language,  among  the  noblest 
examples  of  Roman  eloquence.  Hooker,  among  English  authors,  is  the  one  whom  it 
most  suggests.  Then  there  follows  a  brief  summary  of  the  argument  of  the  successive 
books,  and  a  prayer  for  the  success  of  the  work.  This  reads,  and  perhaps  it  was  meant 
to  read,  as  though  it  were  a  prayer  that  he  might  worthily  execute  a  plan  which  as  yet  existed 
only  in  his  brain ;  but  it  may  also  be  interpreted,  in  the  more  natural  sense,  as  a  petition  that 
his  hope  might  not  be  frustrated,  and  that  his  book  might  appear  to  others' what  he  trusted, 


7  E.g.  ix.  31  to  iii.  12,  ix.  43  to  vii.  17. 

8  E.g.  x.  54  in. 

9  viii.  1,  x.  4. 

VOL.   IX. 


1  This  heresy  is  not  even  mentioned  in  xii.  6,  where  the  open* 
ing  was  obvious. 

2  Dr.  Gwatkin,  Studies  0/  Arianism,  p.  326. 


XXXIV 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 


in  his  own  mind,  that  it  was,  true  to  Scripture,  sound  in  logic,  and  written  with  that  lofty 
gravity  which  befitted  the  greatness  of  his  theme. 

After  speaking  of  the  construction  of  the  work,  as  Hilary  framed  it,  something  must 
be  said  of  certain  interpolations  which  it  has  suffered.  The  most  important  are  those 
at  the  end  of  book  ix.  and  in  x.  8,  which  flatly  contradict  his  teaching  3.  They  are  obvious 
intrusions,  imperfectly  attested  by  manuscript  authority,  and  condemned  by  their  own 
character.  Hilary  was  not  the  writer  to  stultify  himself  and  confuse  his  readers  by  so  clumsy 
a  device  as  that  of  appending  a  bald  denial  of  its  truth  to  a  long  and  careful  exposition  of  his 
characteristic  doctrine.  Another  passage,  where  the  scholarship  seems  to  indicate  the  work 
of  an  inferior  hand,  is  Trin.  x.  40,  in  which  there  is  a  singular  misunderstanding  of  the  Greek 
Testament  *.  The  writer  must  have  known  Greek,  for  no  manuscript  of  the  Latin  Bible  would 
have  suggested  his  mistake,  and  therefore  he  must  have  written  in  early  days.  It  is  even 
possible  that  Hilary  himself  was,  for  once,  at  fault  in  his  scholarship.  Yet,  at  the  most,  the 
interpolations  are  few  and,  where  they  seriously  affect  the  sense,  are  easily  detected*. 
Not  many  authors  of  antiquity  have  escaped  so  lightly  in  this  respect  as  Hilary. 

Hilary  certainly  intended  his  work  to  be  regarded  as  a  whole  ;  as  a  treatise  Concerning 
the  Faith,  for  it  had  grown  into  something  more  than  a  refutation  of  Arianism.  He 
has  carefully  avoided,  so  far  as  the  circumstances  of  the  time  and  the  composite  character 
of  the  treatise  would  allow  him,  any  allusion  to  names  and  events  of  temporary  interest  ; 
there  is,  in  fact,  nothing  more  definite  than  a  repetition  of  the  wish  expressed  in  the  Second 
Epistle  to  Constantius,  that  it  were  possible  to  recur  to  the  Baptismal  formula  as  the 
authoritative  statement  of  the  Faith  6.  It  is  not,  like  the  De  Synodis,  written  with  a  diplo- 
matic purpose ;  it  is,  though  cast  inevitably  in  a  controversial  form,  a  statement  of  permanent 
truths.  This  has  involved  the  sacrifice  of  much  that  would  have  been  of  immediate  service, 
and  deprived  the  book  of  a  great  part  of  its  value  as  a  weapon  in  the  conflicts  of  the  day. 
But  we  can  see,  by  the  selection  he  made  of  a  document  to  controvert,  that  Hilary's  choice 
was  deliberate.  It  was  no  recent  creed,  no  confession  to  which  any  existing  body  of  partisans 
was  pledged.  He  chose  for  refutation  the  Epistle  of  Arius  to  Alexander,  written  almost 
forty  years  ago  and  destitute,  it  must  have  seemed,  of  any  but  an  historical  interest.  And 
it  was  no  extreme  statement  of  the  Arian  position.  This  Epistle  was  '  far  more  temperate 
and  cautious  ? '  than  its  alternative,  Arius'  letter  to  Eusebius.  The  same  wide  outlook 
as  is  manifest  in  this  indifference  to  the  interests  of  the  moment  is  seen  also  in  Hilary's 
silence  in  regard  to  the  names  of  friends  and  foes.  Marcellus,  Apollinaris,  Eudoxius,  Acacius 
are  a  few  of  those  whom  it  must  have  seemed  that  he  would  do  well  to  renounce  as  imagined 
friends  who  brought  his  cause  discredit,  or  bitter  enemies  to  truth  and  its  advocates. 
But  here  also  he  refrains ;  no  names  are  mentioned  except  those  of  men  whose  heresies 
were  already  the  commonplaces  of  controversy.  And  there  is  also  an  absolute  silence 
concerning  the  feuds  and  alliances  of  the  day.  No  notice  is  taken  of  the  loyalty  of  living 
confessors  or  the  approximation  to  truth  of  well-meaning  waverers.  The  book  contains 
no  sign  that  it  has  any  but  a  general  object;  it  is,  as  far  as  possible,  an  impersonal  refutation 
of  error  and  statement  of  truth. 

This  was  the  deliberate  purpose  of  Hilary,  and  he  had  certainly  counted  its  cost 
in  immediate  popularity  and  success.  For  though,  as  we  have  seen,  the  work  did  produce, 
as  it  deserved,  a  considerable  effect  at  the  time  of  its  publication,  it  has  remained  ever 
since,  in  spite  of  all  its  merits,  in  a  certain  obscurity.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
this   is   largely    due   to    the    Mezentian    union    with    such    a    document    as    Arius'    Epistle 


t  Cf.  Gore's  Dissertations,  p.  134. 

4  St.  Luke  xxii.  32,  where  <?5oj0ijk  is  translated  as  a  passive. 
Christ  is  entreated  for  Peter.  There  seems  to  be  no  parallel 
In  Latin  theology. 


5  E.g.  the  cento  from  the  De  Trinitate  attached  to  the  In- 
vective against  Constantius. 

6  ii.  1. 

7  Newman,  Arians  of  the  Fourth  Century,  ii.  ▼.  2. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.   HILARY  OF  POITIERS,    xxxv 


to  Alexander  of  the  decisively  important  section  of  the  De  Trinitate.  The  books  in  which 
that  Epistle  is  controverted  were  those  of  vital  interest  for  the  age ;  and  the  method  which 
Hilary's  plan  constrained  him  to  adopt  was  such  as  to  invite  younger  theologians  to  compete 
with  him.  Future  generations  could  not  be  satisfied  with  his  presentation  of  the  case. 
And  again,  his  plan  of  refuting  the  Arian  document  point  by  point8,  contrasting  as 
it  does  with  the  free  course  of  his  thought  in  the  earlier  and  later  books,  tends  to  repel 
the  reader.  The  fourth  book  proves  from  certain  texts  that  the  Son  is  God;  the  fifth 
from  the  same  texts  that  He  is  true  God.  Hence  this  part  of  the  treatise  is  pervaded 
by  a  certain  monotony  ;  a  cumulative  impression  is  produced  by  our  being  led  forward 
again  and  again  along  successive  lines  of  argument  to  the  same  point,  beyond  which 
we  make  no  progress  till  the  last  proof  is  stated.  The  work  is  admirably  and  convincingly 
done,  but  we  are  glad  to  hear  the  last  of  the  Epistle  of  Arius  to  Alexander,  and  accompany 
Hilary  in  a  less  embarrassed  enquiry. 

Yet  the  whole  work  has  defects  of  its  own.  It  is  burdened  with  much  repetition  ; 
subjects,  especially,  which  have  been  treated  in  books  ii.  and  iii.  are  discussed  again  at  great 
length  in  later  books?.  The  frequent  stress  laid  upon  the  infinity  of  God,  the  limitations  of 
human  speech  and  knowledge,  the  consequent  incompleteness  of  the  argument  from  analogy, 
the  humility  necessary  when  dealing  with  infinities  apparently  opposed  r,  though  it  adds  to  the 
solemnity  of  the  writer's  tone  and  was  doubtless  necessary  when  the  work  was  published  in 
parts,  becomes  somewhat  tedious  in  the  course  of  a  continuous  reading.  And  something  must 
here  be  said  of  the  peculiarities  of  style.  We  saw  that  in  places,  as  for  instance  in  the 
beginning  of  the  De  Trinitate,  Hilary  can  rise  to  a  singularly  lofty  eloquence.  This  eloquence 
is  not  merely  the  unstudied  utterance  of  an  earnest  faith,  but  the  expression  given  to  it  by  one 
whom  natural  talent  and  careful  training  had  made  a  master  of  literary  form.  Yet,  since  his 
training  was  that  of  an  age  whose  standard  of  taste  was  far  from  classical  purity,  much  that 
must  have  seemed  to  him  and  to  his  contemporaries  to  be  admirably  effective  can  excite  no 
admiration  now.  He  prays,  at  the  end  of  the  first  book,  that  his  diction  may  be  worthy  of  his 
theme,  and  doubtless  his  effort  was  as  sincere  as  his  prayer.  Had  there  been  less  effort,  there 
would  certainly,  in  the  judgment  of  a  modern  reader,  have  been  more  success.  But  he  could 
not  foresee  the  future,  and  ingenious  affectations  such  as  occur  at  the  end  of  book  viii.  §  i, 
impietati  insolenti,  et  insolentitz  vaniloqutz,  et  vaniloquio  seducenti,  with  the  jingle  of  rhymes 
which  follows,  are  too  frequent  for  our  taste  in  his  pages 2.  Sometimes  we  find  purple  patches 
which  remind  us  of  the  rhetoric  of  Apuleius  3 ;  sometimes  an  excessive  display  of  symmetry 
and  antithesis,  which  suggests  to  us  St.  Cyprian  at  his  worst.  Yet  Cyprian  had  the  excuse 
that  all  his  writings  are  short  occasional  papers  written  for  immediate  effect ;  neither  he,  nor 
any  Latin  Christian  before  Hilary,  had  ventured  to  construct  a  great  treatise  of  theology, 
intended  to  influence  future  ages  as  well  as  the  present.  Another  excessive  development  of 
rhetoric  is  the  abuse  of  apostrophe,  which  Hilary  sometimes  rides  almost  to  death,  as  in  his 
addresses  to  the  Fisherman,  St.  John,  in  the  second  book*.  These  blemishes,  however,  do 
not  seriously  affect  his  intelligibility.  He  has  earned,  in  this  as  in  greater  matters,  an  unhappy 
reputation  for  obscurity,  which  he  has,  to  a  certain  extent,  deserved.  His  other  writings,  even 
the  Commentary  on  St.  Matthew,  are  free  from  the  involved  language  which  sometimes 
makes  the  De  Trinitate  hard  to  understand,  and  often  hard  to  read  with  pleasure.  When 
Hilary  was  appealing  to  the  Emperor,  or  addressing  his  own  flock,  as  in  the  Homilies  on  the 
Psalms,  he  has  command  of  a  style  which  is  always  clear,  stately  on  occasion,  never  weak  or 


8  T.  6. 

9  E.g.  bk.  iii.  is  largely  reproduced  in  ix.  ;  ii.  9  f.  =  xi.  46  £ 

1  E.g.  i.  19,  ii.  2,  iii.  1,  iv.  2,  viii.  53,  xi.  46  f. 

2  Cf.  v.  1  (beginning  of  column  130  in  Migne),  x.  4. 

3  E.g.  v.  ifin. 


4  Cf.  Ad  Const,  ii.  8,  in  writing  which  his  own  words  in  the 
De  Trinitate  must  have  come  into  his  mind.  He  had  probably 
borrowed  the  thought  from  Origen,  contra  Cehum,  i.  62.  Similar 
apostrophes  are  in  v.  19,  vi.  19  f.,  33. 


d2 


XXXVI 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 


bald ;  in  these  cases  he  resisted,  or  did  not  feel,  the  temptation  to  use  the  resources  of  his 
rhetoric.  These,  unfortunately,  had  for  then  result  the  production  of  sentences  which  are 
often  marvels  of  grammatical  contortion  and  elliptical  ingenuity.  Yet  such  sentences,  though 
numerous,  are  of  few  and  uniform  types.  In  Hilary's  case,  as  in  that  of  Tertullian,  familiarity 
makes  the  reader  so  accustomed  to  them  that  he  instinctively  expects  their  recurrence ;  and, 
at  their  worst,  they  are  never  actual  breaches  of  the  laws  of  the  language.  A  translator  can 
hardly  be  an  impartial  judge  in  this  matter,  for  constantly,  in  passages  where  the  sense  is 
perfectly  clear,  the  ingenuity  with  which  words  and  constructions  are  arranged  makes  it  almost 
impossible  to  render  their  meaning  in  idiomatic  terms.  One  can  translate  him  out  of  Latin, 
but  not  into  English.  In  this  he  resembles  one  of  the  many  styles  of  St.  Augustine.  There 
are  passages  in  the  De  Trinitate,  for  instance  viii.  27,  28,  which  it  would  seem  that  Augustine 
had  deliberately  imitated ;  a  course  natural  enough  in  the  case  of  one  who  was  deeply 
indebted  to  his  predecessor's  thought,  and  must  have  looked  with  reverence  upon  the  great 
pioneer  of  systematic  theology  in  the  Latin  tongue.  But  this  involution  of  style,  irritating  as 
it  sometimes  is,  has  the  compensating  advantage  that  it  keeps  the  reader  constantly  on  the 
alert.  He  cannot  skim  these  pages  in  the  comfortable  delusion  that  he  is  following  the 
course  of  thought  without  an  effort. 

The  same  attention  which  Hilary  demands  from  his  readers  has  obviously  been 
bestowed  upon  the  work  by  himself.  It  is  the  selected  and  compressed  result  not 
only  of  his  general  study  of  theology,  but  of  his  familiarity  with  the  literature  and  the 
many  phases  of  the  great  Arian  controversy  s.  And  he  makes  it  clear  that  he  is  engaged 
in  no  mere  conflict  of  wit ;  his  passionate  loyalty  to  the  person  of  Christ  is  the  obvious 
motive  of  his  writing.  He  has  taken  his  side  with  full  conviction,  and  he  is  equally 
convinced  that  his  opponents  have  irrevocably  taken  theirs.  There  is  little  or  no  reference 
to  the  existence  or  even  the  possibility  of  doubt,  no  charitable  construction  for  ambiguous 
creeds,  hardly  a  word  of  pleading  with  those  in  error 6.  There  is  no  excuse  for  heresy : 
it  is  mere  insanity,  when  it  is  not  wilful  self-destruction  or  deliberate  blasphemy.  The 
battle  is  one  without  quarter ;  and  sometimes,  we  must  suspect,  Hilary  has  been  misled 
in  argument  by  the  uncompromising  character  of  the  conflict.  Every  reason  advanced 
for  a  pernicious  belief,  he  seems  to  think,  must  itself  be  bad,  and  be  met  with  a  direct 
negative.  And  again,  in  the  heat  of  warfare  he  is  led  to  press  his  arguments  too  far. 
Not  only  is  the  best  and  fullest  use  of  Scripture  made — for  Hilary,  like  Athanasius,  is 
marvellously  imbued  with  its  spirit  as  well  as  familiar  with  its  letter — but  texts  are  pressed 
into  his  service,  and  interpreted  sometimes  with  brilliant  ingenuity  7,  which  cannot  bear 
the  meaning  assigned  them.  Yet  much  of  this  exegesis  must  be  laid  to  the  charge  of 
his  time,  not  of  himself;  and  in  the  De  Trinitate,  as  contrasted  with  the  Homilies  on 
the  Psalms  ;  he  is  wisely  sparing  in  the  use  of  allegorical  interpretations.  He  remembers 
that  he  is  refuting  enemies,  not  conversing  with  friends.  And  his  belief  in  their  conscious 
insincerity  leads  to  a  certain  hardness  of  tone.  They  will  escape  his  conclusions  if  they 
possibly  can ;  he  must  pin  them  down.  Hence  texts  are  sometimes  treated,  and  deductions 
drawn  from  them,  as  though  they  were  postulates  of  geometry;  and,  however  we  may 
admire  the  machine-like  precision  and  completeness  of  the  proof,  we  feel  that  we  are 
reading  Euclid  rather  than  literature8.  But  this  also  is  due  to  that  system  of  exegesis, 
fatal  to  any  recognition  of  the  eloquence  and  poetry  of  Scripture,  of  which  something 
will  be  said  in  the  next  chapter. 

These,  after  all,  are  but  petty  flaws  in  so  great  a  work.  Not  only  as  a  thinker, 
but  as  a  pioneer  of  thought,  whose  treasures  have  enriched,  often  unrecognised,  the  pages 


$  Cf.  x.  57  in. 

6  An  instance  is  xi.  24  in. 


7  E.g.  in  his  masterly  treatment,  from  his  point  of  view,  of 
the  Old  Testament  Theophanies,  iv.  15  f. 

8  Cf.  viii.  26  f.,  ix.  41. 


THK  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS,     xxxvii 

of  Ambrose  and  Augustine  and  all  later  theologians,  he  deserves  our  reverence.  Not 
without  reason  was  he  ranked,  within  a  generation  of  his  death,  with  Cyprian  and  Ambrose, 
as  one  of  the  three  chief  glories  of  Western  Christendom  9.  Jerome  and  Augustine  mention 
him  frequently  and  with  honour.  This  is  not  the  place  to  summarise  or  discuss  the  contents 
of  his  works ;  but  the  reader  cannot  fail  to  recognise  their  great  and  varied  value,  the 
completeness  of  his  refutation  of  current  heresies,  the  convincing  character  of  his 
presentation  of  the  truth,  and  the  originality,  restrained  always  by  scrupulous  reverence 
as  well  as  by  intellectual  caution,  of  his  additions  to  the  speculative  development  of  the 
Faith.  We  recognise  also  the  tenacity  with  which,  encumbered  as  he  was  with  the 
double  task  of  simultaneously  refuting  Arianism  and  working  out  his  own  thoughts,  he 
has  adhered  to  the  main  issues.  He  never  wanders  into  details,  but  keeps  steadfastly 
to  his  course.  He  refrains,  for  instance,  from  all  consideration  of  the  results  which 
Arianism  might  produce  upon  the  superstructure  of  the  Faith  and  upon  the  conduct  of 
Christians  ;  they  are  undermining  the  foundations,  and  he  never  forgets  that  it  is  these 
which  he  has  undertaken  to  strengthen  and  defend.  Our  confidence  in  him  as  a  guide 
is  increased  by  the  eminently  businesslike  use  which  he  makes  of  his  higher  qualities. 
This  is  obvious  in  the  smallest  details,  as,  for  instance,  in  his  judicious  abstinence,  which 
will  be  considered  in  the  next  chapter,  from  the  use  of  technical  terms  of  theology, 
when  their  employment  would  have  made  his  task  easier,  and  might  even,  to  superficial 
minds,  have  enhanced  his  reputation.  We  see  it  also  in  the  talent  which  he  shews 
in  the  choice  of  watchwords,  which  serve  both  to  enliven  his  pages  and  to  guide  the 
reader  through  their  argument.  Such  is  the  frequent  antithesis  of  the  orthodox  unitas 
with  the  heretical  uni'o,  the  latter  a  harmless  word  in  itself  and  used  by  Tertullian 
indifferently  with  the  former,  but  seized  by  the  quick  intelligence  of  Hilary  to  serve 
this  special  end x ;  such  also,  the  frequent  '  Not  two  Gods  but  One 2,'  and  the  more 
obvious  contrast  between  the  Catholic  unum  and  the  Arian  unus.  Thus,  in  excellence 
of  literary  workmanship,  in  sustained  cogency  and  steady  progress  of  argument,  in  the 
full  use  made  of  rare  gifts  of  intellect  and  heart,  we  must  recognise  that  Hilary  has 
brought  his  great  undertaking  to  a  successful  issue  ;  that  the  voyage  beset  with  many 
perils,  to  use  his  favourite  illustration,  has  safely  ended  in  the  haven  of  Truth  and 
Faith. 

Whether  the  De  Trinitate  were  complete  or  not  at  the  time  of  his  return  to  Poitiers, 
after  the  triumphal  passage  through  Italy,  its  publication  in  its  final  form  must  very 
ihortly  have  followed.  But  literature  was,  for  the  present,  to  claim  only  the  smaller 
-iare  of  his  attention.  Heartily  as  he  must  have  rejoiced  to  be  again  in  his  home, 
he  had  many  anxieties  to  face.  The  bishops  of  Gaul,  as  we  saw  from  the  Invectiv6 
against  Constantius,  had  been  less  militant  against  their  Arian  neighbours  than  he  had 
wished.  '?  'iere  had  been  peace  in  the  Church ;  such  peace  as  could  be  produced  by 
a  mutual  8noring  of  differences.  And  it  may  well  be  that  the  Gallican  bishops,  in  their 
prejudice  against  the  East,  thought  that  Hilary  himself  had  gone  too  far  in  the  path  of 
conciliation,  and  that  his  alliance  with  the  Semiarians  was  a  much  longer  step  towards 
compromise  with  heresy  than  their  own  prudent  neutrality.  Each  side  must  have  felt  that 
there  was  something  to  be  explained.  Hilary,  for  his  part,  by  the  publication  of  the 
De  -Trinitate  had  made  it  perfectly  clear  that  his  faith  was  above  suspicion ;  and  his 
abstinence  in  that  work  from  all  mention  of  existing  parties  or  phases  of  the  controversy 
shewed  that  he  had  withdrawn  from  his  earlier  position.  He  was  now  once  more  a  Western 
bishop,  concerned  only  with  absolute  truth  and  the  interests  of  the  Church  in  his  own 
province.     But  he  had   to   reckon  with  the   sterner  champions   of  the  Nicene  faith,  who 


9  Orosius,  Apol.  i.  i  E.g.  iv.  42/ln.  2  E.g.  i.  17. 


xxxviii  INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 

had  not  forgotten  the  De  Synodis,  however  much  they  might  approve  the  De  TrinitaU, 
Some  curious  fragments  survive  of  the  Apology  which  he  was  driven  to  write  by  the 
attacks  of  Lucifer  of  Cagliari.  Lucifer,  one  of  the  exiles  of  Milan,  was  an  uncompromising 
partisan,  who  could  recognise  no  distinctions  among  those  who  did  not  accept  the  Nicene 
Creed.  All  were  equally  bad  in  his  eyes;  no  explaining  away  of  differences  or  attempt 
at  conciliation  was  lawful.  In  days  to  come  he  was  to  be  a  thorn  in  the  side  of 
Athanasius,  and  was  to  end  his  life  in  a  schism  which  he  formed  because  the  Catholic 
Church  was  not  sufficiently  exclusive.  We,  who  know  his  after  history  and  turn  with 
repugnance  from  the  monotonous  railing  with  which  his  writings,  happily  brief,  are  filled, 
may  be  disposed  to  underestimate  the  man.  But  at  the  time  he  was  a  formidable 
antagonist.  He  had  the  great  advantage  of  being  one  of  the  little  company  of  confessors 
of  the  Faith,  whom  all  the  West  admired.  He  represented  truly  enough  the  feeling  of 
the  Latin  Churches,  now  that  the  oppression  of  their  leaders  had  awakened  their  hostility 
to  Arianism.  And  vigorous  abuse,  such  as  the  facile  pen  of  Lucifer  could  pour  forth, 
is  always  interesting  when  addressed  to  prominent  living  men,  stale  though  it  becomes 
when  the  passions  of  the  moment  are  no  longer  felt.  Lucifer's  protest  is  lost,  but  we  may 
gather  from  the  fragments  of  Hilary's  reply  that  it  was  milder  in  tone  than  was  usual  with 
him.  Indeed,  confessor  writing  to  confessor  would  naturally  use  the  language  of  courtesy. 
But  it  was  an  arraignment  of  the  policy  which  Hilary  had  adopted,  and  in  which  he  had 
failed,  though  Athanasius  was  soon  to  resume  it  with  better  success.  And  courteously  as 
it  may  have  been  worded,  it  cannot  have  been  pleasant  for  Hilary  to  be  publicly  reminded 
of  his  failure,  and  to  have  doubts  cast  upon  his  consistency ;  least  of  all  when  he  was 
returning  to  Gaul  with  new  hopes,  but  also  with  new  difficulties.  His  reply,  so  far  as 
we  can  judge  of  it  from  the  fragments  which  remain,  was  of  a  tone  which  would  be 
counted  moderate  in  the  controversies  of  to-day.  He  addresses  his  opponent  as  f  Brother 
Lucifer,'  and  patiently  explains  that  he  has  been  misunderstood.  There  is  no  confession 
that  he  had  been  in  the  wrong,  though  he  fully  admits  that  the  term  homoiousion,  innocently 
used  by  his  Eastern  friends,  was  employed  by  others  in  a  heretical  sense.  And  he  points 
out  that  Lucifer  himself  had  spoken  of  the  '  likeness '  of  Son  and  Father,  probably  alluding 
to  a  passage  in  his  existing  writings  3.  The  use  of  this  tu  qitoque  argument,  and  a  certain 
apologetic  strain  which  is  apparent  in  the  reply,  seem  to  shew  that  Hilary  felt  himself 
at  a  disadvantage.  He  must  have  wished  the  Asiatic  episode  to  be  forgotten ;  he  had  now 
to  make  his  weight  felt  in  the  West,  where  he  had  good  hope  that  a  direct  and  uncom- 
promising attack  upon  Arianism  would  be  successful. 

For  a  great  change  was  taking  place  in  public  affairs.  When  Hilary  left  Constantinople, 
early  in  the  spring  of  the  year  360,  it  was  probably  a  profound  secret  in  the  capital  that 
a  rupture  between  Constantius  and  Julian  was  becoming  inevitable.  In  affairs,  civil  and 
ecclesiastical,  the  Emperor  and  his  favourite,  the  bishop  Saturninus,  must  have  seemed 
secure  of  their  dominance  in  Gaul.  But  events  moved  rapidly.  Constantius  needed 
troops  to  strengthen  the  Eastern  armies,  never  adequate  to  an  emergency,  for  an  im- 
pending war  with  Persia ;  he  may  also  have  desired  to  weaken  the  forces  of  Julian. 
He  demanded  men  ;  those  whom  Julian  detached  for  Eastern  service  refused  to  march, 
and  proclaim  Julian  Emperor  at  Paris.  This  was  in  May,  some  months,  at  the  least, 
before  Hilary,  delayed  by  his  Italian  labours  in  the  cause  of  orthodoxy,  can  have  reached 
home.  Julian  temporised;  he  kept  up  negotiations  with  Constantius,  and  employed  his 
army  in  frontier  warfare.  But  there  could  be  no  doubt  of  the  issue.  Conflict  was  in- 
evitable, and  the  West  could  have  little  fear  as  to  the  result.  The  Western  armies  were 
the  strongest  in  the  Empire;   it  was  with  them  that,  in  the  last  great  trial  of  strength, 

3  Cf.  Kriiger,  Lucifer  Bischofvan  Calaris,  p.  30. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS,    xxxix 


Constantine  the  Great  had  won  the  day,  and  the  victory  of  his  nephew,  successful  and 
popular  both  as  a  commander  and  an  administrator,  must  have  been  anticipated.  Julian's 
march  against  Constantius  did  not  commence  till  the  summer  of  the  year  361 ;  but  long 
before  this  the  rule  of  Constantius  and  the  theological  system  for  which  he  stood  had 
been  rejected  by  Gaul.  The  bishops  had  not  shunned  Saturninus,  as  Hilary  had  desired  ; 
most  of  them  had  been  induced  to  give  their  sanction  to  Arianism  at  the  Council  of 
Rimini.  While  overshadowed  by  Constantius  and  his  representative  Saturninus,  they  had 
not  dared  to  assert  themselves.  But  now  the  moment  was  come,  and  with  it  the  leader. 
Hilary's  arrival  in  Gaul  must  have  taken  place  when  the  conflict  was  visibly  impending, 
and  he  can  have  had  no  hesitation  as  to  the  side  he  should  take.  Julian's  rule  in  Gaul 
began  but  a  few  months  before  his  exile,  and  they  had  probably  never  met  face  to  face. 
But  Julian  had  a  well  earned  reputation  as  a  righteous  governor,  and  Hilary  had  intro- 
duced his  name  into  his  second  appeal  to  Constantius,  as  a  witness  to  his  character  and 
as  suffering  in  fame  by  the  injustice  of  Constantius.  We  must  remember  that  Julian 
had  kept  his  paganism  carefully  concealed,  and  that  all  the  world,  except  a  few  intimate 
friends,  took  it  for  granted  that  he  was,  as  the  high  standard  of  his  life  seemed  to  indicate, 
a  sincere  Christian.  And  now  he  had  displaced  Constantius  in  the  supreme  rule  over  Gaul, 
and  Saturninus,  who  had  by  this  time  returned,  was  powerless.  We  cannot  wonder  that 
Hilary  continued  his  efforts ;  that  he  went  through  the  land,  everywhere  inducing  the 
bishops  to  abjure  their  own  confession  made  at  Rimini.  This  the  bishops,  for  their  paxt, 
were  certainly  willing  to  do ;  they  were  no  Arians  at  heart,  and  their  treatment  at  Rimini, 
followed  as  it  was  by  a  fraudulent  misrepresentation  of  the  meaning  of  their  words,  must 
have  aroused  their  just  resentment  Under  the  rule  of  Julian  there  was  no  risk,  there 
was  even  an  advantage,  in  shewing  their  colours;  it  set  them  right  both  with  the  new 
Emperor  and  with  public  opinion.  But  it  was  not  enough  for  Hilary's  purpose  that  the 
'  inward  evil '  of  a  wavering  faith  should  be  amended  ;  it  was  also  necessary  that  avowed 
heresy  should  be  expelled.  For  this  the  co-operation  of  Julian  was  necessary  ;  and  before 
it  was  granted  Julian  might  naturally  look  for  some  definite  pronouncement  on  Hilary's 
part.  To  this  conjuncture,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  year  360  or  the  earlier  part  of  361, 
we  may  best  assign  the  publication  of  the  Invective,  already  described,  against  Constan- 
tius. It  was  a  renunciation  of  allegiance  to  his  old  master,  not  the  less  clear  because 
the  new  is  not  mentioned.  And  with  the  name  of  Constantius  was  coupled  that  of 
Saturninus,  as  his  abettor  in  tyranny  and  misbelief.  Julian  recognised  the  value  of  the 
Catholic  alliance  by  giving  effect  to  the  decision  of  a  Council  held  at  Paris,  which  de- 
posed Saturninus.  Hilary  had  no  ecclesiastical  authority  to  gather  such  a  Council,  but 
his  character  and  the  eminence  of  his  services  no  doubt  rendered  his  colleagues  will- 
ing to  follow  him  ;  yet  neither  he  nor  they  would  have  acted  as  they  did  without  the 
assurance  of  Julian's  support.  Their  action  committed  them  irrevocably  to  Julian's  cause; 
and  it  must  have  seemed  that  his  expulsion  of  Saturninus  committed  him  irrevocably  to 
the  orthodox  side.  Yet  Julian,  impartially  disbelieving  both  creeds,  had  made  the  ostensible 
cause  of  Saturninus'  exile,  not  his  errors  of  faith,  but  some  of  those  charges  of  misconduct 
which  were  always  forthcoming  when  a  convenient  excuse  was  wanted  for  the  banish- 
ment of  a  bishop.  Saturninus  was  a  man  of  the  world,  and  very  possibly  his  Arianism 
was  only  assumed  in  aid  of  his  ambition  ;  it  is  likely  enough  that  his  conduct  furnished 
sufficient  grounds  for  his  punishment.  The  fall  of  its  chief,  Sulpicius  Severus  says,  destroyed 
the  party.  The  other  Arian  prelates,  who  must  have  been  few  in  number,  submitted  to 
the  orthodox  tests,  with  one  exception.  Paternus  of  Perigord,  a  man  of  no  fame,  had 
the  courage  of  his  convictions.  He  stubbornly  asserted  his  belief,  and  shared  the  fate  of 
Saturninus.  Thus  Hilary  obtained,  what  he  had  failed  to  get  in  the  case  of  the  more 
prominent   offender,  a    clear  precedent  for   the  deposition  of  bishops    guilty  of  Arianism. 


xl 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 


Thesynodical  letter,  addressed  to  the  Eastern  bishops  in  reply  to  letters  which  some  of 
them  had  sent  to  Hilary  since  his  return,  was  incorporated  by  him  in  his  History,  to  be 
mentioned  hereafter  4.  The  bishops  of  Gaul  assert  their  orthodoxy,  hold  Auxentius,  Valens, 
Ursacius  and  their  like  excommunicate,  and  have  just  excommunicated  Saturninus.  By 
his  action  at  Paris,  so  Sulpicius  says,  Hilary  earned  the  glory  that  it  was  by  his  single 
exertions  that  the  provinces  of  Gaul  were  cleansed  from  the  defilements  of  heresy  4*. 

These  events  happened  before  Julian  left  the  country,  in  the  middle  of  the  summer 
of  361,  on  his  march  against  Constantius;  or  at  least,  if  the  actual  proceedings  were  sub- 
sequent to  his  departure,  they  must  have  quickly  followed  it,  for  his  sanction  was  neces- 
sary, and  when  that  was  obtained  there  was  no  motive  for  delay.  And  now,  for  some 
yiars,  Hilary  disappears  from  sight.  He  tells  us  nothing  in  his  writings  of  the  ordinary 
course  of  his  life  and  work;  even  his  informal  and  discursive  Homilies  cast  no  light  upon 
his  methods  of  administration,  his  successes  or  failures,  and  very  little  on  the  character 
of  his  flock.  There  was  no  further  conflict  within  the  Church  of  Gaul  during  Hilary's 
lifetime.  The  death  of  Constantius,  which  happened  before  Julian  could  meet  him  in 
battle,  removed  all  political  anxiety.  Julian  himself  was  too  busy  with  the  revival  of 
paganism  in  the  East  to  concern  himself  seriously  with  its  promotion  in  the  Latin- 
speaking  provinces,  from  which  he  was  absent,  and  for  which  he  cared  less.  The  orthodox 
cause  in  Gaul  did  not  suffer  by  his  apostasy.  His  short  reign  was  followed  by  the  still  briefer 
rule  of  the  Catholic  Jovian.  Next  came  Valentinian,  personally  orthodox,  but  steadily  refusing 
to  allow  depositions  on  account  of  doctrine.  Under  him  Arianism  dwindled  away;  Catholic 
successors  were  elected  to  Arian  prelates,  and  the  process  would  have  been  hastened  but  by 
a  few  years  had  Hilary  been  permitted  to  expel  Auxentius  from  Milan,  as  we  shall  presently 
see  him  attempting  to  do. 

This  was  his  last  interference  in  the  politics  of  the  Church,  and  does  not  concern  us  as 
yet.  His  chief  interest  henceforth  was  to  be  in  literary  work ;  in  popularising  and,  as  he 
thought,  improving  upon  the  teaching  of  Origen.  He  commented  upon  the  book  of  Job,  as 
we  know  from  Jerome  and  Augustine.  The  former  says  that  this,  and  his  work  on  the 
Psalms,  were  translations  from  Origen.  But  that  is  far  from  an  accurate  account  of  the  latter 
work,  \nd  may  be  equally  inaccurate  concerning  the  former.  The  two  fragments  which 
St.  Augustine  has  preserved  from  the  Commentary  on  Job  are  so  short  that  we  cannot  draw 
from  them  any  conclusion  as  to  the  character  of  the  book.  If  we  may  trust  Jerome,  its  length 
was  somewhat  more  than  a  quarter  of  that  of  the  Homilies  on  the  Psalms  s,  in  their  present 
form.  It  it  unfortunate,  but  not  surprising,  that  the  work  should  have  fallen  into  oblivion. 
It  was,  no  doubt,  allegorical  in  its  method,  and  nothing  of  that  kind  could  survive  in 
competition  with  Gregory  the  Great's  inimitable  Moralia  on  Job. 

Hilary's  other  adaptation  from  Origen,  the  Homilies  on  the  Psalms,  happily  remains  to  us. 
It  is  at  least  as  great  a  work  as  the  De  Trinitate,  and  one  from  which  we  can  learn  even 
more  what  manner  of  man  its  writer  was.  For  the  De  Trinitate  is  an  appeal  to  all  thoughtful 
Christians  of  the  time,  and  written  for  future  generations  as  well  as  for  them ;  characteristic, 
as  it  is,  in  many  ways  of  the  author,  the  compass  of  the  work  and  the  stateliness  of  its  rhetoric 
tend  to  conceal  his  personality.     But  the  Homilies6  on  the  Psalms,  which  would  seem  to  have 


4  Fragment  xi. 
4»  Chron.  ii.  43. 

5  Jerome,  Afol  adv.  Rufinum,  i.  2,  says  that  the  total  length 
of  the  Commentaries  on  Job  and  the  Psalms  was  about  40,000 
lines,  i.e.  Virgilian  hexameters.  The  latter,  at  a  rough  estimate, 
must  be  nearly  35,000  lines  in  its  present  state.  But  Jerome, 
•s  we  shall  see,  was  not  acquainted  with  so  many  Homilies  as 
iave  come  down  to  us;  we  must  deduct  about  5,000  lines,  and 
this  will  leave  10.000  for  the  Commentary  on  Job,  making  it  two- 


sevenths  of  the  length  of  the  other.  Jerome,  however,  is  not 
careful  in  his  statement  of  lengths  ;  he  calls  the  short  De  Synodis 
'a  very  long  book,'  /•'/.  v.  2. 

6  Tractatus  ought  to  be  translated  thus.  It  is  the  term,  and 
the  only  term,  used  so  early  as  this  for  the  bishop's  address  to 
the  congregation  ;  in  fact,  one  might  almost  say  that  tractate, 
tractatus  in  Christian  language  had  no  other  meaning.  It  is 
an  anachronism  in  the  fourth  century  to  render  pradicare  by 
'preach;'  cf.  Duchesne,  Liber  Pontifical™,  i.  126. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS,      xll 

reached  us  in  the  notes  of  a  shorthand  writer,  so  artless  and  conversational  is  the  style,  shew 
ns  Hilary  in  another  aspect.  He  is  imparting  instruction  to  his  own  familiar  congregation ; 
and  he  knows  his  people  so  well  that  he  pours  out  whatever  is  passing  through  his  mind.  In 
fact,  he  seems  often  to  be  thinking  aloud  on  subjects  which  interest  him  rather  than  address- 
ing himself  to  the  needs  of  his  audience.  Practical  exhortation  has,  indeed,  a  much  smaller 
space  than  mystical  exegesis  and  speculative  Christology.  Yet  abstruse  questions  are  never 
made  more  obscure  by  involution  of  style.  The  language  is  free  and  flowing,  always  that  of 
an  educated  man  who  has  learnt  facility  by  practice.  And  here,  strange  as  it  seems  to 
a  reader  of  the  De  Trinitate,  he  betrays  a  preference  for  poetical  words  ?,  which  shews  that  his 
renunciation  of  such  ornament  elsewhere  is  deliberate.  Yet,  even  here,  he  indulges  in  no 
definite  reminiscences  of  the  poets. 

There  remains  only  one  trace,  though  it  is  sufficient,  of  the  original  circumstances  of 
delivery.  The  Homily  on  Psalm  xiv.  begins  with  the  words,  'The  Psalm  which  has  been  read.' 
The  Psalms  were  sung  as  an  act  of  worship,  not  read  as  a  lesson,  in  the  normal  course  of 
divine  service ;  and  therefore  we  must  assume  that  the  Psalm  to  be  expounded  was  recited, 
by  the  lector  or  another,  as  an  introduction  to  the  Homily.  We  need  not  be  surprised  that 
such  notices,  which  must  have  seemed  to  possess  no  permanent  interest,  have  been  edited 
away.  Many  of  the  Homilies  are  too  long  to  have  been  delivered  on  one  or  even  two 
occasions,  yet  the  ascription  of  praise  with  which  Hilary,  like  Origen,  always  concludes8 
has  been  omitted  in  every  case  except  at  the  end  of  the  whole  discourse.  This  shews  that 
Hilary  himself,  or  more  probably  some  editor,  has  put  the  work  into  its  final  shape.  But  this 
editing  of  the  Homilies  has  not  extended  to  the  excision  of  the  numerous  repetitions,  which 
were  natural  enough  when  Hilary  was  delivering  each  as  a  commentary  complete  in  itself,  and 
do  not  offend  us  when  we  read  the  discourse  on  a  single  Psalm,  though  they  certainly  disfigure 
the  work  when  regarded  as  a  treatise  on  the  whole  Psalter. 

It  is  probably  due  to  the  accidents  of  time  that  our  present  copies  of  the  Homilies  are 
imperfect.  We  are,  indeed,  better  off  than  was  Jerome.  His  manuscript  contained  Homilies 
on  Psalms  i,  2,  51 — 62,  118 — 150,  according  to  the  Latin  notation.  We  have,  in  addition  to 
these,  Homilies  which  are  certainly  genuine  on  Psalms  13,  14,  63 — 69  ;  and  others  on  the 
titles  of  Psalms  9  and  91,  which  are  probably  spurious  9.  Some  more  Homilies  of  uncertain 
origin  which  have  been  fathered  upon  Hilary,  and  may  be  found  in  the  editions,  may  be  left 
out  of  account.  In  the  Homily  on  Psalm  59,  §  2,  he  mentions  one,  unknown  to  Jerome  as  to 
ourselves,  on  Psalm  44;  and  this  allusion,  isolated  though  it  is,  suggests  that  the  Homilies 
contained,  or  were  meant  to  contain,  a  commentary  on  the  whole  Book  of  Psalms,  composed 
in  the  order  in  which  they  stand.  There  is,  of  course,  nothing  strange  in  the  circulation  in 
ancient  times  of  imperfect  copies ;  a  well-known  instance  is  that  of  St.  Augustine's  copy  of 
Cyprian  which  did  not  contain  an  epistle  which  has  come  down  to  us.  This  series  of 
Homilies  was  probably  continuous  as  well  as  complete.  The  incidental  allusions  to  the  events 
of  the  times  contain  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  supposition  that  he  began  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Psalter  and  went  on  to  the  end.  We  might,  indeed,  construe  the  language  of  that  on 
Psalm  52,  §  13,  concerning  prosperous  clergy,  who  heap  up  wealth  for  themselves  and  live  in 
luxury,  as  an  allusion  to  men  like  Saturninus,  but  the  passage  is  vague,  and  a  vivid  recollection, 


'  E.g.  fundamen,  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxxviii.  10,  germen,  cxxxiv.  i, 
revolubilis,  ii.  23,  peccamen,  ii.  9  Jin.  and  often.  The  shape  of 
sentences,  though  simple,  is  always  good  ;  to  take  one  test  word, 
tapt,  which  was  almost  if  not  quite  extinct  in  common  use, 
occurs  fairly  often  near  the  end  of  a  period,  where  it  was  needed 
for  rhythm,  which  Jreguenter  would  have  spoiled.  Some  Psalms, 
e.g.  xiii.,  xiv.,  are  treated  more  rhetorically  than  others. 

8  Psalm  li.  is  the  only  exception,  due,  no  doubt,  to  careless 
transcription.     The  Homilies  on  the  titles  of  Psalms  ix.  and  xci. 


do  not  count ;  they  are  probably  spurious,  and  in  any  case  are 
incomplete,  as  the  text  of  the  Psalms  is  not  discussed. 

9  So  Zingerle,  Preface,  p.  xiv,  to  whom  we  owe  the  excellent 
Vienna  Edition  of  the  Homilies,  the  only  part  of  Hilary's  writings 
which  has  as  yet  appearecLin  a  critical  text.  The  writer  of  the 
former  of  these  two  Homilies,  in  §  2,  says  that  the  title  of  a  Psalm 
always  corresponds  to  the  contents.  This  is  quite  contrary  to 
Hilary's  teaching,  who  frequently  points  out  and  ingeniously 
explains  what  seem  to  him  to  be  discrepancies. 


xlii 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 


not  a  present  evil,  may  have  suggested  it.  More  definite,  and  indeed  a  clear  note  of  time,  is 
the  Homily  on  Psalm  63,  where  heathenism  is  aggressive  and  is  become  a  real  danger,  of 
which  Hilary  speaks  in  the  same  terms  as  he  does  of  heresy.  This  contrasts  strongly  with 
such  language  as  that  of  the  Homily  on  Psalm  67,  §  20,  where  the  heathen  are  daily  flocking 
into  the  Church,  or  of  that  on  Psalm  137,  §  10,  where  paganism  has  collapsed,  its  temples  are 
ruined  and  its  oracles  silent ;  such  words  as  the  former  could  only  have  been  written  in  the 
short  reign  of  Julian.  Other  indications,  such  as  the  frequent  warnings  against  heresy  and 
denunciations  of  heretics,  are  too  general  to  help  in  fixing  the  date.  On  the  whole,  it  would 
seem  a  reasonable  hypothesis  that  Hilary  began  his  connected  series  of  Homilies  on  the 
Psalms  soon  after  his  return  to  Gaul,  that  he  had  made  good  progress  with  them  when  Julian 
publicly  apostatised,  and  that  they  were  not  completed  till  the  better  times  of  Valentinian. 

He  was  conversing  in  pastoral  intimacy  with  his  people,  and  hence  we  cannot  be 
surprised  that  he  draws,  perhaps  unconsciously,  on  the  results  of  his  own  previous  labours. 
For  instance,  on  Psalm  61,  §  2,  he  gives  what  is  evidently  a  reminiscence,  yet  with  features  of 
its  own  and  not  as  a  professed  autobiography,  of  his  mental  history  as  described  in  the  opening 
of  the  De  Trinitate.  And  while  the  direct  controversy  against  Arianism  is  not  avoided,  there 
is  a  manifest  preference  for  the  development  of  Hilary's  characteristic  Christology,  which  had 
already  occupied  him  in  the  later  books  of  the  De  Trinitate.  We  must,  indeed,  reconstruct 
his  doctrine  in  this  respect  even  more  from  the  Homilies  than  from  the  De  Trinitate ;  and  in 
the  later  work  he  not  only  expands  what  he  had  previously  suggested,  but  throws  out  still 
further  suggestions  which  he  had  not  the  length  of  life  to  present  in  a  more  perfect  form.  But 
the  Homilies  contain  much  that  is  of  far  less  permanent  interest.  Wherever  he  can T,  he 
brings  in  the  mystical  interpretation  of  numbers,  that  strange  vagary  of  the  Eastern  mind 
which  had,  at  least  from  the  time  of  Irenaeus  and  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  found  a  congenial 
home  in  Christian  thought.  This  and  other  distortions  of  the  sense  of  Scripture,  which  are  the 
lesult  in  Hilary,  as  in  Origen,  of  a  prosaic  rather  than  a  poetical  turn  of  mind,  will  find  a  more 
appropriate  place  for  discussion  at  the  beginning  of  the  next  chapter.  Allusions  to  the  mode 
of  worship  of  his  time  are  very  rare  2,  as  are  details  of  contemporary  life.  Of  general  encour- 
agement to  virtue  and  denunciation  of  vice  there  is  abundance,  and  it  repeats  with  striking 
fidelity  the  teaching  of  Cyprian.  Hilary  displays  the  same  Puritanism  in  regard  to  jewelry  as 
does  Cyprian  3,  and  the  same  abhorrence  of  public  games  and  spectacles.  Of  these  three 
elements,  the  Christology,  the  mysticism,  the  moral  teaching,  the  Homilies  are  mainly 
compact.  They  carry  on  no  sustained  argument  and  contain,  as  has  been  said,  a  good  deal  of 
repetition.  In  fact,  a  continuous  reader  will  probably  form  a  worse  impression  of  their  quality 
than  he  who  is  satisfied  with  a  few  pages  at  a  time.  They  are  eminently  adapted  for  selection, 
and  the  three  Homilies,  those  on  Psalms  1,  53  and  130,  which  have  been  translated  for  this 
volume,  may  be  inadequate,  yet  are  fairly  representative,  as  specimens  of  the  instruction  which 
Hilary  conveys  in  this  work. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  practical  teaching  of  Hilary  is  that  of  Cyprian.  But  this  is  not 
a  literary  debt*;  the  writer  to  whom  almost  all  the  exegesis  is  due,  by  borrowing  of  substance 
or  of  method,  is  Origen,  except  where  the  spirit  of  the  fourth  century  has  been  at  work.  Yet 
other  authors  have  been  consulted,  and  this  not  only  for  general  information,  as  in  the  case, 
already  cited,  of  the  elder  Pliny,  but  for  interpretation  of  the  Psalms.  For  instance,  a  strange 
legend  concerning  Mount  Hermon  is  cited  on  Psalm  132,  §  6,  from  a  writer  whose  name 
Hilary  does  not  know;  and  on  Psalm  133,  §4,  he  has  consulted  several  writers  and  rejects 
the  opinion  of  them  all.     But  these  authorities,  whoever  they  may  have  been,  were  of  little 


•  E.g.  in  the  Instruction  or  discourse  preparatory  to  the  Homi- 
lies, and  in  the  introductury  sections  of  that  on  Ps.  118  (119). 

9  E.g.  Instr.  in  Ps.,  g  12,  the  fifty  days  of  rejoicing  during 
which  Christians  must  not  prostrate  themselves  in  prayer,  nor  fast 


3  Ps.  118,  Am.,  §  16. 

*  The  account  of  exorcism  given  on  Ps.  64,  |  10,  suggests 
Cyprian,  Ad.  Don.  5,  but  the  subject  is  such  a  commonplace 
that  nothing  definite  can  be  said. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.   HILARY  OF  POITIERS,     xliii 


importance  for  his  purpose  in  comparison  with  Origen.  Still  we  can  only  accept  Jerome's 
assertion  that  the  Homilies  are  translated  from  Origen  in  a  qualified  sense.  Hilary  was 
writing  for  the  edification  of  his  own  flock,  and  was  obliged  to  modify  much  that  Origen  had 
said  if  he  would  serve  their  needs,  for  religious  thought  had  changed  rapidly  in  the  century 
which  lay  between  the  two,  and  a  mere  translation  would  have  been  as  coldly  received  as 
would  a  reprint  of  some  commentary  of  the  age  of  George  II.  to-day.  And  Hilary's  was 
a  mind  too  active  and  independent  to  be  the  slave  of  a  traditional  interpretation.  We  must, 
therefore,  expect  to  find  a  considerable  divergence ;  and  we  cannot  be  surprised  that  Hilary, 
as  he  settled  down  to  his  task,  grew   more  and  more  free  in  his  treatment  of  Origen's 


exegesis. 


Unhappily  the  remains  of  Origen's  work  upon  the  Psalms,  though  considerable,  are 
fragmentary,  and  of  the  fragments  scattered  through  Catena  no  complete  or  critical  edition 
has  yet  been  made.  Still,  insufficient  as  the  material  would  be  for  a  detailed  study  and 
comparison,  enough  survives  to  enable  us  to  form  a  general  idea  of  the  relation  between  the 
two  writers.  Origen  s  composed  Homilies  upon  the  Psalter,  a  Commentary  upon  it,  and 
a  summary  treatise,  called  the  Enchiridion.  The  first  of  these  works  was  Hilary's  model ; 
Origen's  Homilies  were  diffuse  extemporary  expositions,  ending,  like  Hilary's,  with  an 
ascription  of  praise.  It  is  unfortunate  that,  of  the  few  which  survive,  all  treat  of  Psalms  on 
which  Hilary's  Homilies  are  lost.  But  it  is  doubtful  whether  Hilary  knew  the  other  writings 
of  Origen  upon  the  Psalter.  We  have  ourselves  a  very  small  knowledge  of  them,  foi  the 
Catena  are  not  in  the  habit  of  giving  more  than  the  name  of  the  author  whom  they  cite.  Yet  it 
may  well  be  that  some  of  the  apparent  discrepancies  between  the  explanations  given  by  Hilary 
and  by  Origen  are  due  to  the  loss  of  the  passage  from  Origen's  Homily  which  would  have 
agreed  with  Hilary,  and  to  the  survival  of  the  different  rendering  given  in  the  Commentary  or 
the  Enchiridion  ;  some,  no  doubt,  are  also  due  to  the  carelessness  and  even  dishonesty  of  the 
compilers  of  Catena  in  stating  the  authorship  of  their  selections.  But  though  it  is  possible 
that  Hilary  had  access  to  all  Origen's  writings  on  the  Psalms,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  he  possessed  a  copy  of  his  Hexapla.  The  only  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  which 
he  names  beside  the  Septuagint  is  that  of  Aquila ;  he  is  aware  that  there  are  others,  but  none 
save  the  Septuagint  has  authority  or  deserves  respect,  and  his  rare  allusions  to  them  are  only 
such  as  we  find  in  Origen's  Homilies,  and  imply  no  such  exhaustive  knowledge  of  the  variants 
as  a  possessor  of  the  Hexapla  would  have. 

A  comparison  of  the  two  writers  shews  the  closeness  of  their  relation,  and  if  we  had 
Origen's  complete  Homilies,  and  not  mere  excerpts,  the  debt  of  Hilary  would  certainly  be 
still  more  manifest.  For  the  compilers  of  Catena  have  naturally  selected  what  was  best  in 
Origen,  and  most  suited  for  short  extracts ;  his  eccentricities  have  been  in  great  measure 
omitted.  Hence  we  may  err  in  attributing  to  Hilary  much  that  is  perverse  in  his  comments ; 
there  is  an  abundance  of  wild  mysticism  in  the  fragments  of  Origen,  but  its  proportion  to  the 
whole  is  undoubtedly  less  in  their  present  state  than  in  their  original  condition.  Hilary's 
method  was  that  of  paraphrasing,  not  of  servile  translation.  There  is  apparently  only  one 
literal  rendering  of  an  extant  passage  of  Origen,  and  that  a  short  one6;  but  paraphrases,  which 
often  become  very  diffuse  expansions,  are  constant  7.  But  a  just  comparison  between  the  two 
must  embrace  their  differences  as  well  as  their  resemblances.  Hilary  has  exercised  a  silent 
criticism  in  omitting  many  of  Origen's  textual  disquisitions.  He  gives,  it  is  true,  many  various 
readings,  but  his  confidence  in  the  Septuagint  often  renders  him  indifferent  in   regard  to 


5  He  is  here  cited  by  the  volume  and  page  of  the  edition  by 
Lommatzsch.  His  system  of  interpretation  is  admirably  de- 
scribed in  the  fourth  of  Dr.  Bigg's  Bampton  Lectures,  The  Chris- 
tian Platonists  of  Alexandria. 

6  Hil.  Tr.  in  Ps.  13,  §  3,  his  igitur  ita  grassantibus ,  sq.  = 
Origen  (ed.  Lommatzsch)  xii.  38. 


7  E.g.  Instr.  in  Ps.,  §  15  =  Origen  in  Eusebius,  H.E.  vi.  25 
(Philocalia  3),  Hilary  on  Ps.  51,  §§  3,  7  =  Origen  xii.  353,  354, 
and  very  often  on  Ps.  118(119),  e-%-  the  Introduction  =  Or.  xiii. 
67  f.,  Aleph,  §  13  =  ib.  70,  Beth,  §  6  =  ib.  71,  Caph,  §§  4,  9  =  ib. 
82,  83,  &c. 


xliv 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 


divergencies  which  Origen  had  taken  seriously.  The  space  which  the  latter  devotes  to  the 
Greek  versions  Hilary  employs  in  correcting  the  errors  and  variations  of  the  Latin,  or  in 
explaining  the  meaning  of  Greek  words.  But  these  are  matters  which  rather  belong  to  the 
next  chapter,  concerning,  as  they  do,  Hilary's  attitude  towards  Scripture.  It  is  more 
significant  of  his  tone  of  mind  that  he  has  omitted  Origen's  speculations  on  the  resurrection  of 
the  body,  preserved  by  Epiphanius 8,  and  on  the  origin  of  evil  9.  Again,  Origen  delights  to 
give  his  readers  a  choice  of  interpretations ;  Hilary  chooses  one  of  those  which  Origen  has 
given,  and  makes  no  mention  of  the  other.  This  is  his  constant  habit  in  the  earlier  part  of 
the  Homilies ;  towards  the  end,  however,  he  often  gives  a  rendering  of  his  own,  and  also 
mentions,  either  as  possible  or  as  wrong,  that  which  Origen  had  offered.  Or  else,  though  he 
only  makes  his  own  suggestion,  yet  it  is  obvious  to  those  who  have  Origen  at  hand  that  he 
has  in  his  mind,  and  is  refuting  for  his  own  satisfaction,  an  alternative  which  he  does  not  think 
good  to  lay  before  his  audience  r.  A  similar  liberty  with  his  original  occurs  in  the  Homily  on 
Psalm  135,  §  12: — 'The  purposes  of  the  present  discourse  and  of  this  place  forbid  us  to 
search  more  deeply.'  This  must  have  seemed  a  commonplace  to  his  hearers ;  but  it  happens 
that  Origen's  speculations  upon  the  passage  have  survived,  and  we  can  see  that  Hilary  was 
rather  making  excuses  to  himself  for  his  disregard  of  them  than  directly  addressing  his 
congregation.  Apart  from  the  numerous  instances  where  Hilary  derives  a  different  result  from 
the  same  data,  there  are  certain  cases  where  he  accepts  the  current  Latin  text,  though  it 
differed  from  Origen's  Greek,  and  draws,  without  any  reference  to  Origen,  his  own  conclusions 
as  to  the  meaning 2.  These,  again,  seem  to  be  confined  to  the  latter  part  of  the  work,  and 
may  be  the  result  of  occasional  neglect  to  consult  the  authorities,  rather  than  a  deliberate 
departure  from  Origen's  teaching. 

But  the  chief  interest  of  the  comparison  between  the  writings  of  these  two  Fathers  upon 
the  Psalms  lies  in  the  insight  which  it  affords  into  their  respective  modes  of  thought. 
Fragmentary  as  they  are,  Origen's  words  are  a  manifestly  genuine  and  not  inadequate 
expression  of  his  mind ;  and  Hilary,  a  recognised  authority  and  conscious  of  his  powers,  has 
so  moulded  and  transformed  his  original,  now  adapting  and  now  rejecting,  that  he  has  made 
it,  even  on  the  ground  which  is  common  to  both,  a  true  and  sufficient  representation  of  his 
own  mental  attitude.  The  Roman  contrasts  broadly  with  the  Greek.  He  constantly  illus- 
trates his  discourse  with  historical  incidents  of  Scripture,  taken  in  their  literal  sense;  there 
are  few  such  in  Origen.  Origen  is  full,  as  usual,  of  praises  of  the  contemplative  state ;  in 
speculation  upon  Divine  things  consists  for  him  the  happiness  everywhere  promised  to  the 
saints.  Hilary  ignores  abstract  speculation,  whether  as  a  method  of  interpretation  or  as 
a  hope  for  the  future,  and  actually  describes  3  the  contemplation  of  God's  dealings  with  men  as 
merely  one  among  other  modes  of  preparation  for  eternal  blessings.  In  the  same  discourse 
he  paraphrases  the  words  of  Origen,  '  He  who  has  done  all  things  that  conduce  to  the 
knowledge  of  God,'  by  'They  who  have  the  abiding  sense  of  a  cleansed  heart-*.'  Though  he 
is  the  willing  slave  of  the  allegorical  method,  yet  he  revolts  from  time  to  time  against  its 
excesses  in  Origen;  their  treatment  of  Psalm  126,  in  the  one  case  practical,  in  the  other 
mystical,  is  a  typical  example  s.  Hilary's  attention  is  fixed  on  concrete  things ;  the  enemies 
denounced  in  the  Psalms  mean  for  him  the  heretics  of  the  day,  while  Origen  had  recognised  in 
them  the  invisible  agency  of  evil  spirits 6.  The  words  '  Who  teacheth  my  hands  to  fight ' 
suggest  to  Origen  intellectual  weapons  and  victories ;   they  remind   Hilary  of  the  '  I  have 


8  H teres.  64,  I2f. 

9  Origen  xiii.  134.  Hilary  has  omitted  this  from  his  Homily 
on  Ps.  134,  §  12. 

1  Instances  of  such  independence  are  Ps.  118,  Daleth,  §  6 
(xiii.  74),  119,  §  15  {ib.  108),  122,  §  2  (ib.  112),  133,  §  3  (ib.  131). 
The  references  to  Origen  are  in  brackets. 

2  E.g.  Ps.  118,  lleth,  §  10,  121,  §  1  ;  Origen  xiii.  80,  m. 


3  Ps.  118,  Gimel,  §  21. 

4  Origen  xiii.  72  ;   Hilary,  Ps.  118,  Gi>nel,  §  1. 

5  Cf.  also  Ps.  118,  Heth,  §  7,  Koph,  §  4,  with  Origen  xiii. 
79,  98.  Here  again  the  spirit  of  independence  manifests  itself 
towards  the  end  of  the  work. 

6  Cf.  Ps.  118,  Samech,  §  6     Origen  xiii.  9*. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.      xlv 

overcome  the  world  '  of  Christ?.  In  fact,  the  thought  of  Hilary  was  so  charged  with  definite 
convictions  concerning  Christ,  and  so  impressed  with  their  importance,  that  his  very  earnest- 
ness and  concentration  betrays  him  into  error  of  interpretation.  It  would  be  an  insufficient, 
yet  not  a  false,  contrast  between  him  and  Origen  to  say  that  the  latter  distorts,  with  an  almost 
playful  ingenuity,  the  single  words  or  phrases  of  Scripture,  while  Hilary,  with  masterful 
indifference  to  the  principles  of  exegesis,  will  force  a  whole  chapter  to  render  the  sense  which 
he  desires.  And  his  obvious  sincerity,  his  concentration  of  thought  upon  one  great  and  always 
interesting  doctrine,  his  constant  appeal  to  what  seems  to  be,  and  sometimes  is,  the  exact 
sense  of  Scripture,  and  the  vigour  of  his  style,  far  better  adapted  to  its  purpose  than  that  of 
Origen ;  all  these  render  him  an  even  more  convincing  exponent  than  the  other  of  the  bad 
sys-em  of  interpretation  which  loth  have  adopted.  Sound  theological  deductions  and  wise 
mo^al  reflections  on  every  pag.  make  'he  reader  willing  to  pardon  a  vicious  method,  for 
Hilary's  doctrine  is  never  b  .sed  upon  hi ;  ex  ^esis  of  the  Psalms.  No  primary  truth  depends 
for  him  upon  allegorj  or  i  lyst  cism,  ard  it  may  he  t^at  he  us-vj  the  method  with  the  less 
caution  because  he  looked  or  r  othing  more  than  that  i  si  ould  illustrate  ?„nd  co"fim  what  was 
already  established.  Since,  then,  the  permanent  interest  of  the  .vork  is  thai  it  iht-ws  us  what 
seemed  to  Hilary,  as  a  representative  of  his  age,  to  be  che  truth,  and  we  have  in  it  a  powerful 
and  original  presentation  of  that  truth,  we  can  welcome,  as  a  quaint  and  not  ungraceful 
enlivening  of  his  argument,  this  ingenuity  of  misinterpretation.  And  we  may  learn  also 
a  lesson  for  ourselves  of  the  importance  of  the  doctrine  which  he  inculcates  with  such 
perseverance.  Confronting  him  as  it  did,  in  various  aspects,  at  every  turn  and  in  the  most 
unlikely  places  during  his  journey  through  the  Psalter,  his  faith  concerning  Christ  was 
manifestly  in  Hilary's  eyes  the  vital  element  of  religion. 

The  Homilies  on  the  Psalms  have  never  been  a  popular  work.  Readable  as  they  are,  and 
free  from  most  of  the  difficulties  which  beset  the  De  Trinitate,  posterity  allowed  them  to  be 
mutilated,  and,  as  we  saw,  only  a  portion  has  come  down  to  us.  Their  chief  influence,  like 
that  of  the  other  treatise,  has  been  that  which  Hilary  has  exercised  through  them  upon  writers 
of  greater  fame.  Ambrose  has  borrowed  from  them  liberally  and  quite  uncritically  for  his  own 
exposition  of  certain  of  the  Psalms ;  and  Ambrose,  accredited  by  his  own  fame  and  that  of 
his  greater  friend  Augustine,  has  quite  overshadowed  the  fame  of  Hilary.  The  Homilies  may, 
perhaps,  have  also  suffered  from  an  undeserved  suspicion  that  anything  written  by  the  author 
of  the  De  Trinitate  would  be  hard  to  read.  They  have,  in  any  case,  been  little  read;  and  yet, 
as  the  first  important  example  in  Latin  literature  of  the  allegorical  method,  and  as  furnishing 
the  staple  of  a  widely  studied  work  of  St.  Ambrose,  they  have  profoundly  affected  the  course 
of  Christian  thought.  Their  historical  interest  as  well  as  their  intrinsic  value  commands  our 
respect. 

In  his  Homily  on  Psalm  138,  §  4,  Hilary  briefly  mentions  the  Patriarchs  as  examples  of 
faith,  and  adds,  '  but  these  are  matters  of  which  we  must  discourse  more  suitably  and  fully  in 
their"  proper  place.'  This  is  a  promise  to  which  till  of  late  no  known  work  of  our  writer 
corresponded.  Jerome  had,  indeed,  informed  us  ?"  that  Hilary  had  composed  a  treatise  entitled 
De  Mysteriis,  but  no  one  had  connected  it  with  his  words  in  the  Homily.  It  had  been 
supposed  that  the  lost  treatise  dealt  with  the  sacraments,  in  spite  of  the  facts  that  it  is  Hilary's 
custom  to  speak  of  types  as  'mysteries,'  and  that  the  sacraments  are  a  theme  upon  which  he 
never  dwells.  But  in  1887  a  great  portion  of  Hilary's  actual  treatise  on  the  Mysteries  was 
recovered  in  the  same  manuscript  which  contained  the  more  famous  Pilgrimage  to  the  Holy 
Places  of  Silvia  of  Aquitaine 8.  It  is  a  short  treatise  of  two  books,  unhappily  mutilated  at  the 
beginning,  in  the  middle  and  near  the  end,  though  the  peroration  has  survived.     The  title  is 


7  Ps.  143,  §  4 ;  Origen  xiii.  149.  7»  Vir.  III.  100. 

*  J.  F   Gamurrini,  5".  HSarii  Tractatus  de  Mysteriis  et  Hymni,  etc.,  4to.,  Rome,  1887.     The  De  Mysteriit  occupies  pp  3 — at. 


xlvi 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 


lost,  but  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Jerome  was  nearly  right  in  calling  it  a  iractatus, 
though  he  would  have  done  better  had  he  used  the  plural.  It  is  written  in  the  same  easy  style 
as  the  Homilies  on  the  Psalms,  and  if  it  was  not  originally  delivered  as  two  homilies,  as  is 
probable,  it  must  be  a  condensation  of  several  discourses  into  a  more  compact  form.  The 
first  book  deals  with  the  Patriarchs,  the  second  with  the  Prophets,  regarded  as  types  of  Christ. 
The  whole  is  written  from  the  point  of  view  with  which  Hilary's  other  writings  have  made  us 
familiar.  Every  deed  recorded  in  Scripture  proclaims  or  typifies  or  proves  the  advent  of  the 
incarnate  Christ,  and  it  is  Hilary's  purpose  to  display  the  whole  of  His  work  as  reflected  in 
the  Old  Testament,  like  an  image  in  a  mirror.  He  begins  with  Adam  and  goes  on  to  Moses, 
deriving  lessons  from  the  lives  of  all  the  chief  characters,  often  with  an  exercise  of  great 
ingenuity.  For  instance,  in  the  history  of  the  Fall  Eve  is  the  Church,  which  is  sinful  but  shall 
be  saved  through  bearing  children  in  Baptism  9  ■  the  burning  bush  is  a  type  of  the  endurance 
of  the  Church,  of  which  St.  Paul  speaks  in  2  Cor.  iv.  81;  the  manna  was  found  in  the  morning, 
the  time  of  Christ's  Resurrection  and  therefore  of  the  reception  of  heavenly  food  in  the 
Eucharist.  They  who  collect  too  much  are  heretics  with  their  excess  of  argument 2.  In  the 
second  book  we  have  a  fragmentary  and  desultory  treatment  of  incidents  in  the  lives  of  the 
Prophets,  which  Hilary  ends  by  saying  that  in  all  the  events  which  he  has  recorded  we 
recognise  '  God  the  Father  and  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Son  from  God  the  Father,  Jesus 
Christ,  God  and  Man  3.'  The  peroration,  in  fact,  reads  like  a  summary  of  the  argument  of  the 
De  Trinitate.  Of  the  genuineness  of  the  little  work  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Its  language,  its 
plan,  its  arguments  are  unmistakeably  those  of  Hilary*.  The  homilies  were  probably 
delivered  soon  after  he  had  finished  his  course  on  the  Psalms,  of  which  they  contain  some 
reminiscences,  such  as  we  saw  are  found  in  the  later  Homilies  on  the  Psalms  of  earlier 
passages  in  the  same.  In  all  probability  the  subject  matter  of  the  De  Mysteriis  is  mainly 
drawn  from  Origen.  It  is  too  short,  and  too  much  akin  to  Hilary's  more  important  writings, 
to  cast  much  light  upon  his  modes  of  thought.  He  has,  indeed,  no  occasion  to  speak  here 
upon  the  points  on  which  his  teaching  is  most  original  and  characteristic. 

In  this  same  manuscript,  discovered  by  Gamurrini  at  Arezzo,  are  the  remains  of  what 
professes  to  be  Hilary's  collection  of  hymns.  He  has  always  had  the  fame  of  being  the 
earliest  Latin  hymn  writer.  This  was,  indeed,  a  task  which  the  circumstances  of  his  life  must 
have  suggested  to  him.  The  conflict  with  Arianism  forced  him  to  become  the  pioneer  of 
systematic  theology  in  the  Latin  tongue ;  it  also  drove  him  into  exile  in  the  East,  where  he 
must  have  acquainted  himself  with  the  controversial  use  made  of  hymnody  by  the  Arians. 
Thus  it  was  natural  that  he  should  have  introduced  hymns  also  into  the  West.  But  if  the  De 
Trinitate  had  little  success,  the  hymns  were  still  more  unfortunate.  Jerome  tells  us  that 
Hilary  complained  of  finding  the  Gauls  unteachable  in  sacred  songs;  and  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  he  had  any  wide  or  permanent  success  in  introducing  hymns  into  public 
worship6.  If  Hilary  must  have  the  credit  of  originality  in  this  respect,  the  honour  of  turning 
his  suggestion  to  account  belongs  to  Ambrose,  whose  fame  in  more  respects  than  one  is  built 
upon  foundations  laid  by  the  other.  And  if  but  a  scanty  remnant  of  the  verse  of  Ambrose, 
popular  as  it  was,  survives,  we  cannot  be  surprised  that  not  a  line  remains  which  can  safely  be 


9  Ed.  Gamurrini,  p.  5.  1  lb.  p.  17. 

a  lb.  p.  21  ;  there  is  the  not  uncommon  play  on  the  two  senses 
of  colligere. 

3  lb.  p.  27. 

4  It  must  be  confessed  that  some  authorities  refuse  to  regard 
this  work  as  the  De  Mysteriis  of  Hilary.  Among  these  is  Ebert, 
Litteratur  des  Mittelalters,  p.  142,  who  admits  that  the  matter 
might  be  Hilary's,  but  denies  that  the  manner  and  style  are  his. 

5  Comm.  in  Ep.  ad  Gal.  it  pre/. '.  Hilarius  in  hymnorum  car- 
mine Gallos  indociles  vocat.  This  may  mean  that  Hilary  actually 
nsed  the  words  '  stubborn  Gauls  '  in  one  of  his  hymns.     There 


would  be  nothing  extraordinary  in  this  ;  the  early  efforts,  and  es- 
pecially those  of  the  Arians  which  Hilary  imitated  for  a  better 
purpose,  often  departed  widely  from  the  propriety  of  later  composi- 
tions, as  we  shall  see  in  one  of  those  attributed  to  Hilary  himself. 

6  It  is  true  that  the  Fourth  Council  of  Toledo  (a.d.  633)  in 
its  13th  canon  couples  Hilary  with  Ambrose  as  the  writer  of 
hymns  in  actual  use.  But  these  canons  are  verbose  productions, 
and  this  may  be  a  mere  literary  flourish,  natural  enough  in  coun- 
trymen and  contemporaries  of  Isidore  of  Seville,  who  knew,  no 
doubt  from  Jerome's  Viri  lllustres,  that  Hilary  was  the  first 
Latin  hymn  writer. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS   OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS,     xlvii 


rttributed  to  Hilary,  though  authorities  who  deserve  respect  have  pronounced  in  favour  of 
more  than  one  of  the  five  hymns  which  we  must  consider. 

Hilary's  own  opinion  concerning  the  use  of  hymns  can  best  be  learnt  from  his  Homilies 
on  Psalms  64  and  65.  In  the  former  (§  12)  the  Church's  delightful  exercise  of  singing  hymns 
at  morning  and  evening  is  one  of  the  chief  tokens  which  she  has  of  God's  mercy  towards  her. 
In  the  latter  (§  1)  we  are  told  that  sacred  song  requires  the  accompaniment  of  instrumental 
harmonies ;  that  the  combination  to  this  end  of  different  forms  of  service  and  of  art  produces 
a  result  acceptable  to  God.  The  lifting  of  the  voice  to  God  in  exultation,  as  an  act  of 
spiritual  warfare  against  the  devil  and  his  hosts,  is  given  as  an  example  of  the  uses  of  hymnody 
{§  4).  It  is  a  means  of  putting  the  enemy  to  flight ;  '  Whoever  he  be  that  takes  his  post 
outside  the  Church,  let  him  hear  the  voice  of  the  people  at  their  prayers,  let  him  mark  the 
multitudinous  sound  of  our  hymns,  and  in  the  performance  of  the  divine  Sacraments  let  him 
recognise  the  responses  which  our  loyal  confession  makes.  Every  adversary  must  needs  be 
affrighted,  the  devil  routed,  death  conquered  in  the  faith  of  the  Resurrection,  by  such  jubilant 
utterance  of  our  exultant  voice.  The  enemy  will  know  that  this  gives  pleasure  to  God  and 
assurance  to  our  hope,  even  this  public  and  triumphant  raising  of  our  voice  in  sorig.' 
Original  composition,  both  of  words  and  music,  is  evidently  in  Hilary's  mind  ;  and  we  can  see 
that  he  is  rather  recommending  a  useful  novelty  than  describing  an  established  practice.  It 
is  a  remarkable  coincidence  that  the  five  hymns  which  are  called  his  are,  in  fact,  a  song  of 
triumph  over  the  devil,  and  a  hymn  in  praise  of  the  Resurrection,  which  are,  so  their  editor 
thinks,  actually  alluded  to  in  the  Homily  cited  above ;  a  confession  of  faith ;  and  a  morning 
hymn  and  one  which  has  been  taken  for  an  evening  hymn.  These  are  exactly  the  subjects 
which  correspond  to  Hilary's  description. 

But,  when  we  come  to  the  examination  of  these  hymns  in  detail,  the  gravest  doubts  arise. 
The  first  three  were  discovered  in  the  same  manuscript  to  which  we  owe  the  De  Mysteriis. 
They  formed  part  of  a  small  collection,  which  cannot  have  numbered  more  than  seven  or  eight 
hymns,  of  which  these  three  only  have  escaped,  not  without  some  mutilation.  That  which 
stands  first  is  the  confession  of  faith,  the  matter  of  which  contains  nothing  that  is  inconsistent 
with  Hilary's  time.  But  beyond  this,  and  the  fact  that  the  manuscript  ascribes  it  to  Hilary, 
there  is  nothing  to  suggest  his  authorship.  It  is  a  dreary  production  in  a  limping  imitation  of 
an  Horatian  metre;  an  involved  argumentative  statement  of  Catholic  doctrine,  in  which  it 
would  be  difficult  to  say  whether  verse  or  subject  suffers  the  more  from  their  unwonted  union. 
The  sequence  of  thought  is  helped  out  by  the  mechanical  device  of  an  alphabetical  arrange- 
ment of  the  stanzas,  but  even  this  assistance  could  not  make  it  intelligible  to  an  ordinary 
congregation  ?.  And  the  want  of  literary  skill  in  the  author  makes  it  impossible  to  suppose 
that  Hilary  is  he ;  classical  knowledge  was  still  on  too  high  a  level  for  an  educated  man  to 
perpetrate  such  solecisms. 

In  the  same  manuscript  there  follow,  after  an  unfortunate  gap,  the  two  hymns  to  which  it 
has  been  suggested  that  Hilary  alludes  in  his  Homily  on  Psalm  65,  those  which  celebrate  the 
praises  of  the  Resurrection  and  the  triumph  over  Satan.  The  former  is  by  a  woman's  hand, 
and  the  feminine  forms  of  the  language  must  have  made  it,  one  would  think,  unsuitable  for 
congregational  singing.  There  is  no  reason  why  the  poem  should  not  date  from  the  fourth 
century  ;  indeed,  since  it  is  written  by  a  neophyte,  that  date  is  more  probable  than  a  later 
time,  when  adult  converts  to  Christianity  were  more  scarce.     It  has  considerable  merits  ;'it  is 

7  Two  of  the  simplest  stanzas  are  as  follows : — 

Extra  quam  capere  potest  Felix  qui  potuit  fide               ,  It  is  written  in  stanzas  of  six  lines  in  the  MS. ;  the  metre  is  the 

'mens  humana  res  tantas  penitus                ;  second  Asclepiad.     Gamurrini,  the  discoverer,  and  Fechtrup  (in 

manet  Filius  in  Patre,  credulus  assequi,                 '  Wetzer  Welte's  Encyclopaedia)  regard  it  as  the  work  of  Hilary, 

rursus  quern  penes  sit  Pater  ut  incorporeo  ex  Deo            but  the  weight  of  opinion  is  against  them, 

dignus,  qui  genitus  est  profectus  fuerit 

Filius  in  Deum.  primogenitus  Dei. 


xlviii 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER    I. 


fervid  in  tone  and  free  in  movement,  and  has  every  appearance  of  being  the  expression  of 
genuine  feeling.  It  is,  in  fact,  likely  enough  that,  if  it  were  written  in  Hilary's  day,  he  should 
have  inserted  it  in  a  collection  of  sacred  verse.  Concerning  its  authorship  the  suggestion  has 
been  made8  that  it  was  written  by  Florentia,  a  heathen  maiden  converted  by  Hilary  near 
Seleucia,  who  followed  him  to  Gaul,  lived,  died,  and  was  buried  by  him  in  his  diocese.  The 
story  of  Florentia  rests  on  no  better  authority  than  the  worthless  biography  of  Hilary,  written 
by  Fortunatus,  who,  moreover,  says  nothing  about  hymns  composed  by  her.  Neither  proof 
nor  disproof  is  possible :  unless  we  regard  the  defective  Latinity  as  evidence  in  favour  of 
a  Greek  origin  for  the  authoress.  The  third  hymn,  which  celebrates  the  triumph  of  Christ 
over  Satan,  may  or  may  not  be  the  work  of  the  same  hand  as  the  second.  It  bears  much 
more  resemblance  to  it  than  to  the  laborious  and  prosaic  effusion  which  stands  first.  The 
manuscript  which  contains  these  three  hymns  distinctly  assigns  the  first,  and  one  or  more 
which  have  perished,  to  Hilary : — '  Incipiunt  hymni  eiusdem.'  Whether  a  fresh  title  stood 
before  the  later  hymns,  which  clearly  belong  to  another,  we  cannot  say ;  the  collection  is  too 
short  for  this  to  be  probable.  It  is  obvious  that,  if  we  have  in  this  manuscript  the  remains  of 
a  hymn-book  for  actual  use,  it  was,  like  ours,  a  compilation ;  brief  as  it  was,  it  may  have  been 
as  large  as  the  cumbrous  shape  of  ancient  volumes  would  allow  to  be  cheaply  multiplied  and 
conveniently  used.  Many  popular  treatises,  as  for  instance  some  by  Tertullian  and  Cyprian, 
were  quite  as  short.  Who  the  compiler  may  have  been  must  remain  unknown.  We  must 
attach  some  importance  to  the  evidence  of  the  manuscript  which  has  restored  to  us  the  De 
Mysteriis  and  the  Pilgrimage  of  Silvia ;  and  we  may  reasonably  suppose  that  this  collection 
was  made  in  the  time,  and  even  with  the  sanction,  of  Hilary,  though  we  cannot  accept  him  as 
the  author  of  any  of  the  three  hymns  which  remain. 

The  spurious  letter  to  his  imaginary  daughter  Abra  was  apparently  written  with  the 
ingenious  purpose  of  fathering  upon  Hilary  the  morning  hymn,  Lucis  Largitor  splendide. 
This  is  a  hymn  of  considerable  beauty,  in  the  same  metre  as  the  genuine  Ambrosian  hymns. 
But  there  is  this  essential  difference,  that  while  in  the  latter  the  rules  of  classical  versification 
as  regards  the  length  of  syllables  are  scrupulously  followed,  in  the  former  these  rules  are 
ignored,  and  rhythm  takes  the  place  of  quantity.  This  is  a  sufficient  proof  that  the  hymn 
is  of  a  later  date  than  Ambrose,  and,  a  fortiori,  than  Hilary.  There  remains  the  so-called 
evening  hymn,  which  has  been  supposed  to  be  the  companion  to  the  last  9.  This,  again, 
is  alphabetical,  and  contains  in  twenty-three  stanzas  a  confession  of  sin,  an  appeal  to  Christ 
and  an  assertion  of  orthodoxy.  The  rules  of  metre  are  neglected  in  favour  of  an  uncouth 
attempt  at  rhythm.  Latin  appears  to  have  been  a  dead  language  to  the  writer1,  who 
adorns  his  lines  with  little  pieces  of  pagan  mythology,  and  whose  taste  is  indicated  by 
his  description  of  heretics  as  '  barking  Sabellius  and  grunting  Simon.'  The  hymn  is  probably 
the  work  of  some  bombastic  monk,  perhaps  of  the  time  of  Charles  the  Great ;  unlike  the 
other  four,  it  cannot  possibly  date  from  Hilary's  generation. 

Omitting  certain  fragments  of  treatises  of  which  Hilary  may,  or  may  not,  have  been 
the  author2,  we  now  come   to   his   attack   upon  Auxentius  of  Milan,  and  to  the  last  of 


8  By  Gamurrini  in  Studi  e  documenti,  1884,  p.  83  f. 

9  Printed  in  full  by  Mai,  Patrunt  Nova  Bibliotheca,  p.  490. 
He  suspends  judgment,  and  will  not  say  that  it  is  unworthy  of 
Hilary.  The  Benedictine  editor,  Coustant,  gives  a  few  stanzas 
as  specimens,  and  summarily  rejects  it. 

1  The  four  quarters  of  the  universe  are  ortus,  occasus,  aquilo, 
septentrio ;  one  of  these  last  must  mean  the  south.  This  would 
point  to  some  German  land  as  the  home  of  the  author;  in  no 
country  of  Romance  tongue  could  such  an  error  have  been  per- 
petrated.    Perire  is  used  ior  perdere,  but  this  it  not  unparalleled. 

■  In  Mai's  Patrum  Nova  Bibliotheca,  vol.  i.,  is  a  short  treatise 
on  the  Genealogies  of  Christ.     The  method  of  interpretation  is 


the  same  as  Hilary's,  but  tha  language  is  not  his ;  and  the  terms 
used  of  the  Virgin  in  §§  11,  13,  are  not  so  early  as  the  fourth 
century.  In  the  same  volume  is  an  exposition  of  the  beginning 
of  St.  John's  Gospel  in  an  anti-Arian  sense.  In  spite  of  some 
difference  of  vocabulary,  there  is  no  strong  reason  why  this  should 
not  be  by  Hilary;  cf.  especially,  §§  5 — 7.  Mai  also  prints  in  the 
same  volume  a  short  fragment  on  the  Paralytic  (St.  Matt.  ix.  2), 
too  brief  for  a  judgment  to  be  formed.  In  Pitra's  Spicilegiunt 
Solesmettse,  vol.  i.,  is  a  brief  discussion  on  the  first  chapters  of 
Genesis,  dealing  chiefly  with  the  Fall.  It  appears,  like  the  Homi- 
lies on  the  Psalms,  to  be  the  report  of  some  extemporary  ad« 
dresses,  and  is  more  likely  than  any  of  the  preceding  to  be  tin 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS,     xlix 

his  complete  works.  Dionysius  of  Milan  had  been,  as  we  saw,  a  sufferer  in  the  same  cause 
as  Hilary.  But  he  had  been  still  more  hardly  treated  ;  he  had  not  only  been  exiled, 
but  his  place  had  been  taken  by  Auxentius,  an  Eastern  Arian  of  the  school  favoured  by 
Constantius.  Dionysius  died  in  exile,  and  Auxentius  remained  in  undisputed  possession  of 
the  see.  He  must  have  been  a  man  of  considerable  ability  ;  perhaps,  as  we  have  mentioned, 
he  was  the  creator  of  the  so-called  Ambrosian  ritual,  and  certainly  he  was  the  leader  of 
the  Arian  party  in  Italy  and  the  further  West.  The  very  fact  that  Constantius  and  his 
advisers  chose  him  for  so  great  a  post  as  the  bishopric  of  Milan  proves  that  they  had 
confidence  in  him.  He  justified  their  trust,  holding  his  own  without  apparent  difficulty 
at  Milan  and  working  successfully  in  the  cause  of  compromise  at  Ariminum  and  elsewhere 
Athanasius  mentions  him  often  and  bitterly  as  a  leader  of  the  heretics;  and  he  must  be 
ranked  with  Ursacius  and  Valens  as  one  of  the  most  unscrupulous  of  his  party.  While 
Constantius  reigned  Auxentius  was,  of  course,  safe  from  attack.  But  at  the  end  of  the 
year  364  Hilary  thought  that  the  opportunity  was  come.  Since  his  last  entry  into  the 
conflict  Julian  and  his  successor  Jovian  had  died,  and  Valentinian  had  for  some  months 
been  Emperor.  He  had  just  divided  the  Roman  Empire  with  his  brother  Valens,  himself 
choosing  the  Western  half  with  Milan  for  his  capital,  while  he  gave  Constantinople  and 
the  East  to  Valens.  The  latter  was  a  man  of  small  abilities,  unworthy  to  reign,  and 
a  convinced  Arian ;  Valentinian,  with  many  faults,  was  a  strong  ruler,  and  favoured  the 
cause  of  orthodoxy.  But  he  was,  before  all  else,  a  soldier  and  a  statesman ;  his  orthodoxy 
was,  perhaps,  a  mere  acquiescence  in  the  predominant  belief  among  his  subjects,  and  it 
had,  in  any  case,  much  less  influence  over  his  conduct  than  had  Arianism  over  that  of  Valens. 
It  must  have  seemed  to  Hilary  and  to  Eusebius  of  Vercelli  that  there  was  danger  t© 
the  Church  in  the  possession  by  Auxentius  of  so  commanding  a  position  as  that  of  bishop 
of  Milan,  with  constant  access  to  the  Emperor's  ear ;  and  especially  now  that  the  Emperor 
was  new  to  his  work  and  had  no  knowledge,  perhaps  no  strong  convictions,  concerning 
the  points  at  issue.  As  far  as  they  could  judge,  their  success  or  failure  in  displacing 
Auxentius  would  influence  the  fortunes  of  the  Church  for  a  generation  at  least.  It  would, 
therefore,  be  unjust  to  accuse  Hilary  as  a  mere  busy-body.  He  interfered,  it  is  true, 
outside  his  own  province,  but  it  was  at  a  serious  crisis ;  and  his  knowledge  of  the  Western 
Church  must  have  assured  him  that,  if  he  did  not  act,  the  necessary  protest  would 
probably  remain  unmade.  • 

Hilary,  then,  in  company  with  his  ally  Eusebius,  hastened  to  Milan  in  order  to 
influence  the  mind  of  Valentinian  against  Auxentius,  and  to  waken  the  dormant  orthodoxy 
of  the  Milanese  Church.  For  there  seems  to  have  been  little  local  opposition  to  the  Arian 
bishop  :  no  organised  congregation  of  Catholics  in  the  city  rejected  his  communion.  On 
the  other  hand,  there  was  no  militant  Arianism ;  the  worship  conducted  by  Auxentius  could 
excite  no  scruples,  and  in  his  teaching  he  would  certainly  avoid  the  points  of  difference. 
He  and  his  school  had  no  desire  to  persecute  orthodoxy  because  it  was  orthodox.  From 
their  point  of  view,  the  Faith  had  been  settled  in  such  a  way  that  their  own  position 
was  unassailable,  and  all  they  wished  was  to  live  and  to  let  live.  And  we  must  remembe» 
that  the  Council  of  Rimini,  disgraceful  as  the  manner  was  in  which  its  decision  had  beer 
reached,  was  still  the  rule  of  the  Faith  for  the  Western  Church.  Hilary  and  Eusebius 
had  induced  a  multitude  of  bishops,  amid  the  applause  of  their  flocks,  to  recant ;  but  private 
expressions  of  opinion,  however  numerous,  could  not  erase  the  definitions  of  Rimini  from 


work  of  Hilary.  It  is  quite  in  his  style,  but  the  contents  are 
unimportant.  But  we  must  remember  that  the  scribes  were  rarely 
content  to  confess  that  they  were  ignorant  of  the  name  of  an 
author  whom  they  transcribed;  and  that,  being  as  ill-furnished 
with  scruples  as  with  imagination,  they  assigned  everything  that 
came  to  hand  to  a  few  familiar  names.  Two  further  works 
VOL.  IX. 


ascribed  to  Hilary  are  obviously  not  his.  Pitra,  in  the  volume 
already  cited,  has  printed  considerable  remains  of  a  Commentary 
on  the  Pauline  Epistles,  which  really  belongs  to  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia ;  and  a  Commentary  on  the  seven  Canonical  Epistles, 
recently  published  in  the  Spicilegium  Casinense,  vol.  iii.,  is  there 
attributed,  with  much  reason,  to  his  namesake  of  Aries. 


1  INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 


the  records  of  the  Church.  It  was  not  till  the  year  369  that  a  Council  at  Rome  expunged 
them.  The  first  object  of  the  allies  was  to  excite  opposition  to  the  Arian,  and  in  this 
they  had  some  success.  Auxentius,  in  his  petition  to  the  Emperor,  which  we  possess, 
asserts  that  they  stirred  up  certain  of  the  laity,  who  had  been  in  communion  neither  with 
himself  nor  with  his  predecessors,  to  call  him  a  heretic.  The  immediate  predecessor  of 
Auxentius  was  the  Catholic  Dionysius,  and  we  cannot  suppose  that  this  is  a  fair  description 
of  Hilary's  followers.  But  it  is  probable  that  the  malcontents  were  not  numerous,  for  none 
but  enthusiasts  would  venture  into  apparent  schism  on  account  of  a  heresy  which  was 
certainly  not  conspicuous.  How  long  Hilary  was  allowed  to  continue  his  efforts  is  unknown. 
Valentinian  reached  Milan  in  the  November  of  364,  and  left  it  in  the  Autumn  of  the 
following  year;  and  before  his  departure  his  decision  had  frustrated  Hilary's  purpose. 
We  only  know  that,  as  soon  as  the  matter  grew  serious,  Auxentius  appealed  to  the  Emperor. 
There  was  no  point  more  important  in  the  eyes  of  the  government  than  unity  within 
the  local  Churches,  and  Auxentius,  being  formally  in  the  right,  must  have  made  his 
appeal  with  much  confidence.  His  success  was  immediate.  The  Emperor  issued  what 
Hilary  calls  a  'grievous  edicts,'  the  terms  of  which  Hilary  does  not  mention.  He  only 
says  that  under  the  pretext,  and  with  the  desire,  of  unity,  Valentinian  threw  the  faithful 
Church  of  Milan  into  confusion.  In  other  words,  he  forbade  Hilary  to  agitate  for  a  separation 
of  the  people  from  their  bishop. 

But  Hilary,  silenced  in  the  city,  exerted  himself  at  court.  With  urgent  importunity, 
he  tells  us,  he  pressed  his  charges  against  Auxentius,  and  induced  the  Emperor  to  appoint 
a  commission  to  consider  them.  In  due  time  this  commission  met.  It  consisted  of  two 
lay  officials,  with  '  some  ten  '  bishops  as  assessors  *.  Hilary  and  Eusebius  were  present,  as 
well  as  the  accused.  Auxentius  pleaded  his  own  cause,  beginning  with  the  unfortunate 
attack  upon  his  adversaries  that  they  had  been  deposed  by  Council,  and  therefore  had 
no  locus  standi  as  accusers  of  a  bishop.  This  was  untrue;  Hilary,  we  know,  had  been 
banished,  but  his  see  had  never  been  declared  vacant,  nor,  in  all  probability,  had  that 
of  Eusebius.  They  were  not  intruders,  like  Auxentius,  though  even  he  had  gained  some 
legality  for  his  position  from  the  death  of  Dionysius  in  exile.  The  failure  of  this  plea 
was  so  complete  that  Hilary,  in  his  account  of  the  matter,  declares  that  it  is  not  worth 
his  while  to  repeat  his  defence.  Next  came  the  serious  business  of  the  commission.  This 
was  not  the  theological  enquiry  after  truth,  but  the  legal  question  whether,  in  fact,  the 
teaching  of  Auxentius  was  in  conformity  with  recognised  standards.  Hilary  had  asserted 
that  his  creed  differed  from  that  of  the  Emperor  and  of  all  other  Christians,  and  had 
asserted  it  in  very  unsparing  language.  He  now  maintained  his  allegation,  and,  in  doing 
so,  gave  Auxentius  a  double  advantage.  For  he  diverged  into  the  general  question  of 
theology,  while  Auxentius  stuck  to  the  letter  of  the  decisions  of  Rimini ;  and  the  words 
of  Hilary  had  been  such  that  he  could  claim  to  be  a  sufferer  from  calumny.  Hilary's 
account  of  the  doctrinal  discussion  is  that  he  forced  the  reluctant  Auxentius  by  his 
questions  to  the  very  edge  of  a  denial  of  the  Faith ;  that  Auxentius  escaped  from  this 
difficulty  by  a  complete  surrender,  to  which  Hilary  pinned  him  down  by  making  hijn 
sign  an  orthodox  confession,  in  terms  to  which  he  had  several  times  agreed  during  the 
course  of  the  debate ;  that  Hilary  remitted  this  confession  through  the  Quaestor,  the  lay 
president  of  the  commission,  to  the  Emperor.  This  document,  which  Hilary  says  that 
he  appended  to  his  explanatory  letter,  is  unfortunately  lost.  The  brief  account  of  the 
matter  which  Auxentius  gives  is  not  inconsistent  with  Hilary's.  He  tells  us  that  he  began 
by  protesting  that  he  had  never  known  or  seen  Arius,  and  did  not  even  know  what  his 

3  Contra  Auxcntium,  §  7.  1  that  the  decision  lay  with  the  laymen.    Auxentius,  in  his  account 

4  Tt  's  "lear  from  Hilary's  account  (Contra  Auxentium,  \  7)   I  of  the  matter,  does  not  even  mention  the  bishops. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.  ii 

doctrine  was ;  he  proceeded  to  declare  that  he  still  believed  and  preached  the  truths 
which  he  had  been  taught  in  his  infancy  and  of  which  he  had  satisfied  himself  by  study 
of  Scripture  ;  and  he  gives  a  summary  of  the  statement  of  faith  which  he  made  before 
the  commission.  But  he  says  not  a  word  about  the  passage  of  arms  between  Hilary 
and  himself,  of  his  defeat,  and  of  the  enforced  signature  of  a  confession  which  contradicted 
his  previous  assertions. 

Hilary's  account  of  the  proceedings  must  certainly  be  accepted.  But,  though  his  moral 
and  dialectical  victory  was  complete,  it  is  obvious  that  he  had  gained  no  advantage  for 
his  cause.  He  had  taunted  Auxentius  as  an  adherent  of  Arius.  Auxentius  had  an  immediate 
reply,  which  put  his  opponent  in  the  wrong.  We  cannot  doubt  that  he  spoke  the  truth, 
when  he  said  that  he  had  never  known  Arius;  and  it  certainly  was  the  case,  that  in 
the  early  years  of  the  fourth  century,  inadequate  statements  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
were  widely  prevalent  and  passed  without  dispute.  It  was  also  true  that  the  dominant 
faction  at  the  court  of  Constantius,  of  which  Auxentius  had  been  a  leader,  had  in  the 
most  effectual  way  disclaimed  complicity  with  Arianism  by  ejecting  its  honest  professors 
from  their  sees  and  by  joining  with  their  lips  in  the  universal  condemnation  of  the  founder 
of  that  heresy.  But  if  this  was  their  shame,  it  was  also,  in  such  circumstances  as  those 
of  Auxentius,  their  protection.  And  Auxentius  held  one  of  the  greatest  positions  in  the 
Church,  and  even  in  the  state,  now  that  Milan  was  to  be,  so  it  seemed,  the  capital  of 
the  West.  The  spirit  of  the  government  at  that  time  was  one  of  almost  Chinese  reverence 
for  official  rank ;  and  it  must  have  seemed  an  outrage  that  the  irresponsible  bishop  of 
a  city,  mean  in  comparison  with  Milan,  should  assail  Auxentius  in  such  terms  as  Hilary 
had  used.  Even  though  he  had  admitted,  instead  of  repudiating,  the  affinity  with  Arius, 
there  would  have  seen  an  impropriety  in  the  use  (A  that  familiar  weapon,  the  labelling 
of  a  party  with  the  name  of  its  most  discredited  and  unpopular  member.  We  may  be  sure 
that  Auxentius,  a  man  of  the  world,  would  derive  all  possible  advantage  from  this  excessive 
vehemence  of  his  adversary.  In  the  debate  itself,  where  Hilary  would  have  the  advantage 
not  only  of  a  sound  cause,  but  of  greater  earnestness,  we  cannot  be  surprised  that  he 
won  the  victory.  Auxentius  was  probably  indifferent  at  heart ;  Hilary  had  devoted  his 
life  and  all  his  talents  to  the  cause.  But  such  a  victory  could  have  no  results,  beyond 
lowering  Auxentius  in  public  esteem  and  self-respect.  It  does  not  appear  from  his  words 
or  from  those  of  Hilary,  that  the  actual  creed  of  Rimini  was  imported  into  the  dispute. 
It  was  on  it  that  Auxentius  relied ;  if  he  did  not  expressly  contradict  its  terms,  the  debate 
became  a  mere  discussion  concerning  abstract  truth.  The  legal  standard  of  doctrine  was 
no  more  affected  by  his  unwilling  concession  than  it  had  been  a  few  years  before  by 
the  numerous  repudiations,  prompted  by  Hilary  and  Eusebius,  of  the  vote  given  at  Rimini. 
The  confession  which  Hilary  annexed  in  triumph  to  his  narrative  was  the  mere  incidental 
expression  of  a  private  opinion,  which  Auxentius,  in  his  further  plea,  could  afford  to  leave 
unnoticed. 

The  commissioners  no  doubt  made  their  report  privately  to  the  Emperor.  We  do  not 
know  its  tenour,  but  from  the  sequel  we  may  be  sure  that  they  gave  it  as  their  opinion  that 
Auxentius  was  the  lawful  bishop  of  Milan.  Some  time  passed  before  Valentinian  spoke. 
Whether  Hilary  took  any  further  steps  to  influence  his  decision  is  unknown ;  but  we  possess 
a  memorial  addressed  4  to  the  most  blessed  and  glorious  Emperors  Valentinian  and  Valens '  by 
Auxentius.  The  two  brothers  were,  by  mutual  arrangement,  each  sovereign  within  his  own 
dominion,  but  they  ruled  as  colleagues,  not  as  rivals;  and  Auxentius  must  have  taken  courage 
from  the  thought  that  it  would  seem  unnatural  and  impolitic  for  the  elder  to  seize  this  first 
opportunity  of  proclaiming  his  dissent  from  the  cherished  convictions  of  the  younger,  by 
degrading  one  of  the  very  school  which  his  brother  delighted  to  honour.  For  what  had  been 
proposed  was  not  the  silent  filling  of  a  vacant  place,  but  the  public  ejection  of  a  bishop  whose 

e  2 


Hi  INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 

station  was  not  much  less  prominent  than  that  of  Athanasius  himself,  and  his  ejection  on 
purely  theological  grounds.  Constantius  himself  had  rarely  been  so  bold;  his  acts  of 
oppression,  as  in  Hilary's  case,  were  usually  cloaked  by  some  allegation  of  misconduct  on  the 
victim's  part.  But  Auxentius  had  more  than  the  character  of  Valens  and  political  consider- 
ations on  which  to  rely.  In  the  forefront  of  his  defence  he  put  the  Council  of  Rimini.  This 
attack  by  Hilary  and  his  friends  was,  according  to  him,  the  attempt  of  a  handful  of  men  to 
break  up  the  unity  attained  by  the  labours  of  that  great  assembly  of  six  hundred  bishops 5. 
He  declared  his  firm  assent  to  all  its  decisions ;  every  heresy  that  it  had  condemned  he 
condemned.  He  sent  with  his  address  a  copy  of  the  Acts  of  the  Council,  and  begged  the 
Emperor  to  have  them  read  to  him.  Its  language  would  convince  him  that  Hilary  and 
Eusebius,  bishops  long  deposed,  were  merely  plotting  universal  schism.  This,  with  his  own 
account  of  the  proceedings  before  the  commission  and  a  short  statement  of  his  belief,  forms 
his  appeal  to  the  Emperor.  It  was  composed  with  great  skill,  and  was  quite  unanswerable. 
His  actual  possession  of  the  see,  the  circumstances  of  the  time,  the  very  doctrine  of  the 
Church — for  only  a  Council  could  undo  what  a  Council  had  done — rendered  his  position 
unassailable.  And  if  he  was  in  the  right,  Hilary  and  his  colleague  were  in  the  wrong. 
Nothing  but  success  could  have  saved  them  from  the  humiliation,  to  which  they  were  now 
subjected,  of  being  expelled  from  Milan  and  bidden  to  return  to  their  homes,  while  the 
Emperor  publicly  recognised  Auxentius  by  receiving  the  Communion  at  his  hands.  Yet 
morally  they  had  been  in  the  right  throughout.  The  strong  legal  position  of  Auxentius  and 
the  canons  of  that  imposing  Council  of  six  hundred  bishops  behind  which  he  screened  himself 
had  been  obtained  by  deliberate  fraud  and  oppression.  He  and  his  creed  could  not  have,  and 
did  not  deserve  to  have,  any  stability.  Yet  Valentinian  was  probably  in  the  right,  even  in  the 
interests  of  truth,  in  refusing  to  make  a  martyr  of  Auxentius.  There  would  have  been  reprisals 
in  the  East,  where  the  Catholic  cause  had  far  more  to  lose  than  had  Arianism  in  the  West ; 
and  general  considerations  of  equity  and  policy  must  have  inclined  him  to  allow  the  Arian  to 
pass  the  remainder  of  his  days  in  peace.  But  we  cannot  wonder  that  Hilary  failed  to 
appreciate  such  reasons.  He  had  thrown  himself  with  all  his  heart  into  the  attack,  and 
risked  in  it  his  public  credit  as  bishop  and  confessor  and  first  of  Western  theologians.  Hence 
his  published  account  of  the  transaction  is  tinged  with  a  pardonable  shade  of  personal 
resentment.  It  was,  indeed,  necessary  that  he  should  issue  a  statement.  The  assault  and 
the  repulse  were  rendered  conspicuous  by  time  and  place,  and  by  the  eminence  of  the  persons 
engaged ;  and  it  was  Hilary's  duty  to  see  that  the  defeat  which  he  had  incurred  brought  no 
injury  upon  his  cause.  He  therefore  addressed  a  public  letter  '  to  the  beloved  brethen  who 
abide  in  the  Faith  of  the  fathers  and  repudiate  the  Arian  heresy,  the  bishops  and  all  their 
flocks.'  He  begins  by  speaking  of  the  blessings  of  peace,  which  the  Christians  of  that  day 
could  neither  enjoy  nor  promote,  beset  as  they  were  by  the  forerunners  of  Antichrist,  who 
boasted  of  the  peace,  in  other  words  of  the  harmonious  concurrence  in  blasphemy,  which  they 
had  brought  about.  They  bear  themselves  not  as  bishops  of  Christ  but  as  priests  of 
Antichrist.  This  is  not  random  abuse  (§  2),  but  sober  recognition  of  the  fact,  stated  by 
St.  John,  that  there  are  many  Antichrists.  For  these  men  assume  the  cloak  of  piety,  and  pretend 
to  preach  the  Gospel,  with  the  one  object  of  inducing  others  to  deny  Christ.  It  was  (§  3)  the 
misery  and  folly  of  the  day  that  men  endeavoured  to  promote  the  cause  of  God  by  human 
means  and  the  favour  of  the  world.  Hilary  asks  bishops,  who  believe  in  their  office,  whether 
the  Apostles  had  secular  support  when  by  their  preaching  they  converted  the  greater  part  of 
mankind.  They  were  not  adorned  with  palace  dignities ;  scourged  and  fettered,  they  sang 
their  hymns.     It  was  in  obedience  to  no  royal  edict  that  Paul  gathered  a  Church  for  Christ; 

5  This  wat  a  gross  exaggeration.     They  cannot  have  been  I  that  the  Homoean  decision  was  only  obtained  by  fraud,  as  Auxen* 
■more  than  400,  and  probably  were  less.     And  we  must  remember  I  tius  well  knew. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.       liii 


he  was  exposed  to  public  view  in  the  theatre.  Nero  and  Vespasian  and  Decius  were  no 
patrons  of  the  Church  ;  it  was  through  their  hatred  that  the  truth  had  thriven.  The  Apostles 
laboured  with  their  hands  and  worshipped  in  garrets  and  secret  places,  and  in  defiance  of 
senate  or  monarch  visited,  it  might  be  said,  every  village  and  every  tribe.  Yet  it  was  these 
rebels  who  had  the  keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven ;  the  more  they  were  forbidden,  the  more 
they  preached,  and  the  power  of  God  was  made  manifest.  But  now  (§  4)  the  Faith  finds 
favour  with  men.  The  Church  seeks  for  secular  support,  and  in  so  doing  insults  Christ  by 
the  implication  that  His  support  is  insufficient.  She  in  her  turn  holds  out  the  threat  of  exile 
and  prison.  It  was  her  endurance  of  these  that  drew  men  to  her;  now  she  imposes  her  faith 
by  violence.  She  craves  for  favours  at  the  hands  of  her  communicants;  once  it  was  her 
consecration  that  she  braved  the  threatenings  of  persecutors.  Bishops  in  exile  spread  the 
Faith ;  now  it  is  she  that  exiles  bishops.  She  boasts  that  the  world  loves  her ;  the  world's 
hatred  was  the  evidence  that  she  was  Christ's.  The  ruin  is  obvious  which  has  fallen  upon  the 
Church.  The  reason  is  plain  (§  5).  The  time  of  Antichrist,  disguised  as  an  angel  of  light, 
has  come.  The  true  Christ  is  hidden  from  almost  every  mind  and  heart.  Antichrist  is  now 
obscuring  the  truth  that  he  may  assert  falsehood  hereafter.  Hence  the  conflicting  opinions 
of  the  time,  the  doctrine  of  Arius  and  of  his  heirs,  Valens,  Ursacius,  Auxentius  and  their 
fellows.  Their  preaching  of  novelties  concerning  Christ  is  the  work  of  Antichrist,  who  is 
using  them  to  introduce  his  own  worship.  This  is  proved  (§  6)  by  a  statement  of  their 
minimising  and  prevaricating  doctrine,  which  has,  however,  made  no  impression  upon  the 
guileless  and  well-meaning  laity.  Then  (§§  7 — 9)  comes  Hilary's  account  of  his  proceedings  at 
Milan,  strongly  coloured  by  the  intensity  of  his  feelings.  The  Emperor's  first  refusal  to 
interfere  with  Auxentius  is  a  'command  that  the  Church  of  the  Milanese,  which  confesses  that 
Christ  is  true  God,  of  one  divinity  and  substance  with  the  Father,  should  be  thrown  into 
confusion  under  the  pretext,  and  with  the  desire,  of  unity.'  The  canons  of  Rimini  are  described 
as  those  of  the  Thracian  Nicasa ;  Auxentius'  protest  that  he  had  never  known  Arius  is  met  by 
the  assertion  that  he  had  been  ordained  to  the  presbyterate  in  an  Arian  Church  under  George 
of  Alexandria.  Hilary  refuses  to  discuss  the  Council  of  Rimini ;  it  had  been  universally  and 
righteously  repudiated.  His  ejection  from  Milan,  in  spite  of  his  protests  that  Auxentius  was 
a  liar  and  a  renegade,  is  a  revelation  of  the  mystery  of  ungodliness.  For  Auxentius  (§§  10,  n) 
had  spoken  with  two  contrary  voices ;  the  one  that  of  the  confession  which  Hilary  had  driven 
him  to  sign,  the  other  that  of  Rimini.  His  skill  in  words  could  deceive  even  the  elect,  but  he 
had  been  clearly  exposed.  Finally  (§  12)  Hilary  regrets  that  he  cannot  state  the  case  to  each 
bishop  and  Church  in  person.  He  begs  them  to  make  the  best  of  his  letter;  he  dares  not 
make  it  fully  intelligible  by  circulating  with  it  the  Arian  blasphemies  which  he  had  assailed. 
He  bids  them  beware  of  Antichrist,  and  warns  against  love  and  reverence  for  the  material 
structure  of  their  churches,  wherein  Antichrist  will  one  day  have  his  seat.  Mountains  and 
woods  and  dens  of  beasts  and  prisons  and  morasses  are  the  places  of  safety;  in  them  some 
of  the  Prophets  had  lived,  and  some  had  died.  He  bids  them  shun  Auxentius  as  an  angel  of 
Satan,  an  enemy  of  Christ,  a  deceiver  and  a  blasphemer.  '  Let  him  assemble  against  me  what 
synods  he  will,  let  him  proclaim  me,  as  he  has  often  done  already,  a  heretic  by  public 
advertisement,  let  him  direct,  at  his  will,  the  wrath  of  the  mighty  against  me;  yet,  being  an 
Arian,  he  shall  be  nothing  less  than  a  devil  in  my  eyes.  Never  will  I  desire  peace  except  with 
them  who,  following  the  doctrine  of  our  fathers  at  Nicaea,  shall  make  the  Arians  anathema  and 
proclaim  the  true  divinity  of  Christ.' 

These  are  the  concluding  words  of  Hilary's  last  public  utterance.  We  see  him  again 
giving  an  unreserved  adhesion,  in  word  as  well  as  in  heart,  to  the  Nicene  confession.  It  was 
the  course  dictated  by  policy  as  well  as  by  conviction.  His  cautious  language  in  earlier  days 
had  done  good  service  to  the  Church  in  the  East,  and  had  made  it  easier  for  those  who  had 
compromised  themselves  at  Rimini  to  reconcile  themselves  with  him  and  with  the  truth  for 


liv  INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 


which  he  stood.  But  by  this  time  all  whom  he  could  wish  to  win  had  given  in  their  adhesion; 
Auxentius  and  the  few  who  held  with  him,  if  such  there  were,  were  irreconcileable.  They  took 
their  stand  upon  the  Council  of  Rimini,  and  their  opponents  found  in  the  doctrine  of  Nicaea 
the  clear  and  uncompromising  challenge  which  was  necessary  for  effective  warfare.  But  if 
Hilary's  doctrinal  position  is  definite,  his  theory  of  the  relations  of  Church  and  State,  if  indeed 
his  indignation  allowed  him  to  think  of  them,  is  obscure.  An  orthodox  Emperor  was  uphold- 
ing an  Arian,  and  Hilary,  while  giving  Valentinian  credit  for  personal  good  faith,  is  as  eager 
as  in  the  worst  days  of  Constantius  for  a  severance.  We  must,  however,  remember  that  this 
manifesto,  though  it  is  the  expression  of  a  settled  policy  in  the  matter  of  doctrine,  is  in  other 
respects  the  unguarded  outpouring  of  an  injured  feeling.  And  here  again  we  find  the  old 
perplexity  of  the  '  inward  evil.'  Auxentius  is  represented  as  in  the  Church  and  outside  it  at 
the  same  time.  He  is  an  Antichrist,  a  devil,  all  that  is  evil ;  but  Hilary  is  threatened  and  it  is 
the  Church  that  threatens,  submission  to  an  Arian  is  enforced  and  it  is  the  Church  which 
enforces  it 6.  And  if  Auxentius  had  adhered  to  the  confession  which  Hilary  had  induced  him 
to  sign,  all  objection  to  his  episcopate  would  apparently  have  ceased.  The  time  had  not  come, 
if  it  ever  can  come,  for  the  solution  of  such  problems.  Meantime  Hilary  did  his  best,  so  far  as 
words  could  do  it,  to  brush  aside  the  sophistries  behind  which  Auxentius  was  defending 
himself.  The  doctrine  of  Rimini  is  named  that  of  Nicaea,  in  Thrace,  where  the  discreditable 
and  insignificant  assembly  met  in  which  its  terms  were  settled ;  the  Church  of  Alexandria 
under  the  intruder  George  is  frankly  called  Arian.  It  was  an  appeal  to  the  future  as  well  as 
an  apology  for  himself.  But  certainly  it  could  not  move  Valentinian,  nor  can  Hilary  have 
expected  that  it  should.  And,  after  all,  Valentinian's  action  was  harmless,  at  least.  By 
Hilary's  own  confession,  Auxentius  had  no  influence  for  evil  over  his  flock,  and  these 
proceedings  must  have  warned  him,  if  he  needed  the  warning,  that  abstinence  from  aggressive 
Arianism  was  necessary  if  he  would  end  his  days  in  peace.  The  Emperor's  policy  remained 
unchanged.  At  the  Roman  Council  of  the  year  369  the  Western  bishops  formally 
annulled  the  proceedings  of  Rimini,  and  so  deprived  Auxentius  of  his  legal  position.  At  the 
same  time,  as  the  logical  consequence,  they  condemned  him  to  deposition,  but  Valentinian 
refused  to  give  effect  to  their  sentence,  and  Auxentius  remained  bishop  of  Milan  till  his  death 
in  the  year  374.  He  had  outlived  Hilary  and  Eusebius,  and  also  Athanasius,  the  promoter  of 
the  last  attack  upon  him ;  he  had  also  outlived  whatever  Arianism  there  had  been  in  Milan. 
His  successor,  St.  Ambrose,  had  the  enthusiastic  support  of  his  people  in  his  conflicts  with 
Arian  princes.  The  Church  could  have  gained  little  by  Hilary's  success,  and  yet  we  cannot 
be  sure  that,  in  a  broad  sense,  he  failed.  So  resolute  a  bearing  must  have  effectually 
strengthened  the  convictions  of  Valentinian  aad  the  fears  of  Auxentius. 

There  remains  one  work  of  Hilary  to  be  considered.  This  was  a  history  of  the  Arian 
controversy  in  such  of  its  aspects  as  had  fallen  under  his  own  observation.  We  know 
from  Jerome's  biography  of  Hilary  that  he  wrote  a  book  againt  Valens  and  Ursacius, 
containing  an  account  of  the  Councils  of  Rimini  and  Seleucia.  They  had  been  his  adversaries 
throughout  his  career,  and  had  held  their  own  against  him.  To  them,  at  least  as  much  as 
to  Constantius,  the  overthrow  of  his  Asiatic  friends  was  due,  and  to  them  he  owed  the 
favour,  which  must  have  galled  him,  of  permission  to  return  to  his  diocese.  Auxentius 
was  one  of  their  allies,  and  the  failure  of  Hilary's  attack  upon  him  made  it  clear  that 
these  men  too,  as  subjects  of  Valentinian,  were  safe  from  merited  deposition.  Their 
worldly  success  was  manifest ;  it  was  a  natural  and  righteous  task  which  Hilary  undertook 
when  he  exposed  their  true  character.  It  was  clear  that  while  Valens  and  Valentinian 
lived — and  they  were  in  early  middle  life — there  would  be  an  armed  peace  within  the 
Western   Church;    that  the  overthrow  of  bishop  by  bishop  in  theological  strife  would  be 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.        lv 

forbidden.  The  pen  was  the  only  weapon  left  to  Hilary,  and  he  used  it  to  give  an 
account  of  events  from  the  time  of  that  Council  of  Aries,  in  the  year  353,  which  was 
the  beginning  for  Gaul  of  the  Arian  conflict.  He  followed  its  course,  with  especial 
reference  to  Ursacius  and  Valens,  until  the  year  367,  or  at  least  the  end  of  366  ;  the 
latest  incident  recorded  in  the  fragments  which  we  possess  must  have  happened  within 
a  few  months  of  his  death.  The  work  was  less  a  history  than  a  collection  of  documents 
strung  together  by  an  explanatory  narrative.  It  is  evident  that  it  was  not  undertaken  as 
a  literary  effort ;  its  aim  is  not  the  information  of  future  generations,  but  the  solemn 
indictment  at  the  bar  of  public  opinion  of  living  offenders.  It  must  have  been,  when 
complete,  a  singularly  businesslike  production,  with  no  graces  of  style  to  render  it  attractive 
and  no  generalisations  to  illuminate  its  pages.  Had  the  whole  been  preserved,  we  should 
have  had  a  complete  record  of  Hilary's  life ;  as  it  is,  we  have  thirteen  valuable  fragments  ?, 
to  which  we  owe  a  considerable  part  of  our  general  knowledge  of  the  time,  though  they 
tell  us  comparatively  little  of  his  own  career.  The  commencement  of  the  work  has  happily 
survived,  and  from  it  we  learn  the  spirit  in  which  he  wrote.  He  begins  (Fragment  i.  §§  t,  2) 
with  an  exposition  of  St.  Paul's  doctrine  of  faith,  hope,  and  love.  He  testifies,  with  the 
Apostle,  that  the  last  is  the  greatest.  The  inseparable  bond,  of  which  he  is  conscious, 
of  God's  love  for  him  and  his  for  God,  has  detached  him  from  worldly  interests.  He, 
like  others  (§  3),  might  have  enjoyed  ease  and  prosperity  and  imperial  friendship,  and 
have  been,  as  they  were,  a  bishop  only  in  name  and  a  burden  upon  the  Church.  But 
the  condition  imposed  was  that  of  tampering  with  Gospel  truths,  wilful  blindness  to 
oppression  and  the  condonation  of  tyranny.  Public  opinion,  ill-informed  and  unused  to 
theological  subtleties,  would  not  have  observed  the  change.  But  it  would  have  been 
a  cowardly  declension  from  the  love  of  Christ  to  which  he  could  not  stoop.  He  feels  (§  4) 
the  difficulty  of  the  task  he  undertakes.  The  devil  and  the  heretics  had  done  their  wst, 
multitudes  had  been  terrified  into  denial  of  their  convictions.  The  story  was  complicated 
by  the  ingenuity  in  evil  of  the  plotters,  and  evidence  was  difficult  to  obtain.  The  scene 
of  intrigue  could  not  be  clearly  delineated,  crowded  as  it  was  with  the  busy  figures  of 
bishops  and  officers,  putting  every  engine  into  motion  against  men  of  apostolic  mind. 
The  energy  with  which  they  propagated  slander  was  the  measure  of  its  falsehood.  They 
had  implanted  in  the  public  mind  the  belief  that  the  exiled  bishops  had  suffered  merely 
for  refusing  to  condemn  Athanasius  ;  that  they  were  inspired  by  obstinacy,  not  by  principle. 
Out  of  reverence  for  the  Emperor,  whose  throne  is  from  God  (§  5),  Hilary  will  not  comment 
upon  his  usurped  jurisdiction  over  a  bishop,  nor  on  the  manner  in  which  it  was  exercised ; 
nor  yet  on  the  injustice  whereby  bishops  were  forced  to  pass  sentence  upon  the  accused 
in  his  absence.  In  this  volume  he  will  give  the  true  causes  of  trouble,  in  comparison 
of  which  such  tyranny,  grievous  though  it  be,  is  of  small  account.  Once  before — this, 
no  doubt,  was  at  Beziers — he  had  spoken  his  mind  upon  the  matter.  But  that  was  a  hasty 
and  unprepared  utterance,  delivered  to  an  audience  as  eager  to  silence  him  as  he  was 
to  speak.  He  will,  therefore  (§  6),  give  a  full  and  consecutive  narrative  of  events  from 
the  Council  of  Aries  onwards,  with  such  an  account  of  the  question  there  debated  as  will 

7  There  are  fifteen  in  the  collection,  hut  the  second  and  third,  course,  notorious  that  he  never  did  so ;  the  mistake  is  one  which 
which  are  as  long  as  all  the  rest  together,  and  are  obviously  ex-  .  Hilary  could  not  possibly  have  made.  None  the  less,  these  frag- 
tracts  from  the  same  work,  are  not  by  Hilary.  He  expressly  says  j  ments  are,  both  in  themselves  and  in  the  documents  which  they 
(Fragm.  i.  §  6)  that  he  will  commence  with  the  Council  of  Aries  i  embody,  one  of  our  most  important  authorities  for  the  transactions 


and  the  exile  of  Paulinus.  These  documents  narrate  at  great 
length  events  which  began  six  years  earlier,  and  with  which 
Hilary  and  his  province  had  no  direct  concern.  This  proves 
that  the  fragments  are  not  a  portion  of  the  Liber  adversus  Ursa- 
Hum  et  Valentem.  Internal  evidence  proves  not  less  clearly 
that  they  cannot  be  excerpts  from  some  other  work  of  Hilary. 
In  Fragm.  ii.  §  ai  we  are  told  that,  apparently  in  the  year  349, 


Athanasius  excommunicated    Marcellus    of   Ancyra.      It   is,   of    been  suggested  by  the  wish  to  disbelieve 


they  narrate,  and  are  indisputably  contemporary  and  authentic. 
Nor  is  there  any  reasonable  doubt  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the 
thirteen.  Those  of  them  which  reveal  the  inconstancy  of  Liberius 
have  been  assailed  by  some  Roman  Catholic  writers,  though  they 
are  accepted  by  others.  The  same  suspicion  has  extended  to 
others  among  the  fragments,  because  they  are  found  in  company 
with  these  revelations  concerning  Liberius.     But  the  doubts  have 


lvi  INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  I. 

shew  the  true  merits  of  Paulinus,  and  make  it  clear  that  nothing  less  than  the  Faith 
was  at  stake.  He  ends  his  introduction  (§  7)  by  warning  the  reader  that  this  is  a  work 
which  needs  to  be  seriously  studied.  The  multitude  of  letters  and  of  synods  which  he 
must  adduce  will  merely  confuse  and  disgust  him,  if  he  do  not  bear  in  mind  the  dates 
and  the  persons,  and  the  exact  sense  in  which  terms  are  used.  Finally,  he  reminds  him  of 
the  greatness  of  the  subject.  This  is  the  knowledge  of  God,  the  hope  of  eternity;  it 
is  the  duty  of  a  Christian  to  acquire  such  knowledge  as  shall  enable  him  to  form  and 
to  maintain  his  own  conclusions.  The  excerpts  from  the  work  have  evidently  been  made 
by  some  one  who  was  interested  in  Italy  and  Illyricum  rather  than  in  Gaul,  and  thought 
that  the  documents  were  more  importar**  than  the  narrative.  Hence  Hilary's  character 
is  as  little  illustrated  as  the  events  of  his  life.  Nor  can  the  date  of  the  work  be  precisely 
fixed.  It  is  clear  that  he  had  already  taken  up  his  final  attitude  of  uncompromising  adherence 
to  the  Nicene  Symbol;  that  is  to  say,  he  began  to  write  after  all  the  waverers  had  been 
reclaimed  from  contact  with  Arianism.  He  must,  therefore,  have  written  the  book  in  his 
latest  years;  and  it  is  manifest  that  after  he  had  brought  the  narrative  down  to  the 
time  of  his  return  from  exile,  he  continued  to  add  to  it  from  time  to  time  even  till 
the  end  of  his  life.  For  the  last  incident  recorded  in  the  Fragments,  the  secession  from 
the  party  of  Valens  and  Ursacius  of  an  old  and  important  ally,  Germinius  of  Sirmium, 
must  have  come  to  his  knowledge  very  shortly  before  his  death.  He  had  had  little  success 
in  his  warfare  with  error ;  if  he  and  his  friends  had  held  their  own,  they  had  not  succeeded 
either  in  synod  or  at  court  in  overthrowing  their  enemies;  and  it  is  pleasant  to  think 
that  this  gleam  of  comfort  came  to  brighten  the  last  days  of  Hilary8.  The  news  must 
have  reached  Gaul  early  in  the  year  367,  and  no  subsequent  event  of  importance  can 
have  come  to  his  knowledge. 

But  though  we  have  reached  the  term  of  Hilary's  life,  there  remains  one  topic  on 
which  something  must  be  said,  his  relation  to  St.  Martin  of  Tours.  Martin,  born  in 
Pannonia,  the  country  of  Valens  and  Ursacius,  but  converted  from  paganism  under 
Catholic  influences,  was  attracted  by  Hilary,  already  a  bishop,  and  spent  some  years  in 
his  society  before  the  outbreak  of  the  Arian  strife  in  Gaul.  Hilary,  we  are  told,  wished 
to  ordain  him  a  priest,  but  at  his  urgent  wish  refrained,  and  admitted  him  instead  to 
the  humble  rank  of  an  exorcist.  At  an  uncertain  date,  which  cannot  have  long  preceded 
Hilary's  exile,  he  felt  himself  moved  to  return  to  his  native  province  in  order  to  convert 
his  parents,  who  were  still  pagans.  He  succeeded  in  the  case  of  his  mother  and  of  many 
of  his  countrymen.  But  he  was  soon  compelled  to  abandon  his  labours,  for  he  had,  as 
a   true  disciple  of  Hilary,  regarded   it  as   his   duty  to  oppose  the  Arianism  dominant  in 

8  This  correspondence  which  Hilary  has  preserved  (Fragm.  i  to  neighbouring  bishops,  which  they  trust  will  be  proved  ground- 
sill.— xv.)  is  interesting  as  shewing  how  difficult  it  must  have  been  '  less.  Germinius  made  no  direct  reply  to  this  letter,  but  addressed 
for  the  laity  to  determine  who  was,  and  who  was  not,  a  heretic,  !  a  manifesto  to  a  number  of  more  sympathetic  bishops,  containing 


when  all  parties  used  the  same  Scriptural  terms  in  commendation 
of  themselves  and  condemnation  of  their  opponents.  It  begins 
with  a  public  letter  in  which  Germinius  makes  a  declaration  of 
faith  in  Homoeousion  terms,  without  any  mention  of  the  reasons 
which  had  induced  him  to  depart  from  the  Homoean  position. 
This  is  followed  by  a  reproachful  letter,  also  intended  for  pub- 
licity, from  Valens,  Ursacius,  and  others.  They  had  refused 
to  attend  to  the  rumour  of  his  defection  ;  but  now  are  compelled, 
by  his  own  published  letter,  to  ask  the  plain  question,  whether 
or  no  he  adheres  to  '  the  Catholic  Faith  set  forth  and  confirmed 
by  the  Holy  Council  at  Rimini.'  If  he  had  added  to  the  Homoean 
formula,  which  was  that  the  Son  is  Mike  the  Father,' the  words 
'in  substance'  or  'in  all  things,'  he  had  fallen  into  the  justly 
condemned  heresy  of  Basil  of  Ancyra.  They  demand  an  explicit 
Statement  that  he  never  had  said,  and  never  would  say,  anything 
of  the  kind;  and  warn  him  that  he  is  gravely  suspected,  com- 
faints  of  his  teaching  having  been  made  by  certain  of  his  clergy 


the  Scriptural  proofs  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  recalling  the 
fact  that  the  Homoean  leaders,  before  their  own  victory,  had 
acquiesced  in  the  Homoeousian  confession.  Any  teaching  to  the 
contrary  is  the  work,  not  of  God,  but  of  the  spirit  of  this  world; 
and  he  entreats  those  whom  he  addresses  to  circulate  his  letter 
as  widely  as  possible,  lest  any  should  fall  through  ignorance  into 
the  snares  of  the  devil.  Germinius  was  assured  of  safety  in 
writing  thus.  Valentinian's  support  of  Auxentius  had  proved 
that  bishops  might  hold  what  opinions  they  would  on  the  great 
question,  provided  they  were  not  avowed  Arians.  Germinius  had 
been  a  leader  of  the  Homoean  party,  and  it  is  at  least  possible 
that  his  change  of  front  was  due  to  his  knowledge  that  the  Em- 
peror, though  he  would  not  eject  Homoeans,  had  no  sympathy 
with  them  and  would  allow  them  no  influence.  In  fact,  the 
smaller  the  share  of  conscience,  the  greater  the  historical  interest 
of  Germinius'  action  as  shewing  the  decline  of  Homoean  influenc* 
in  the  West. 


THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.        lvii 


the  province.  Opposition  to  the  bishops  on  the  part  of  a  man  holding  so  low  a  station  in 
the  Church  was  a  civil  as  well  as  an  ecclesiastical  offence,  and  Martin  can  have  expected 
no  other  treatment  than  that  which  he  received,  of  scourging  and  expulsion  from  the 
province.  Hilary  was  by  this  time  in  exile,  and  Martin  turned  to  Milan,  where  the 
heresy  of  the  intruder  Auxentius  called  forth  his  protests,  which  were  silenced  by  another 
expulsion.  He  next  retired  to  a  small  island  off  the  Italian  coast,  where  he  lived  in 
seclusion  till  he  heard  of  Hilary's  return.  He  hastened  to  Rome,  so  Fortunatus  tells  us, 
to  meet  his  friend,  but  missed  him  on  the  way;  and  followed  him  at  once  to  Poitiers. 
There  Hilary  gave  him  a  site  near  the  city,  on  which  he  founded  the  first  monastery  in 
that  region,  over  which  he  presided  for  the  rest  of  Hilary's  life  and  for  four  years  after 
his  death.  In  the  year  371  he  was  consecrated  bishop  of  Tours,  and  so  continued  till 
his  death  twenty-five  years  later.  It  is  clear  that  Martin  was  never  able  to  exert  any 
influence  over  the  mind  or  action  of  Hilary,  whose  interests  were  in  an  intellectual  sphere 
above  his  reach.  But  the  courage  and  tenacity  with  which  Martin  held  and  preached 
the  Faith  was  certainly  inspired  to  some  considerable  extent  by  admiration  of  Hilary 
and  confidence  in  his  teaching.  And  the  joy  which  Hilary  expresses,  as  we  have  seen, 
in  his  later  Homilies  on  the  Psalms  over  the  rapid  spread  of  Christianity  in  Gaul,  was 
no  doubt  occasioned  by  the  earlier  triumphs  of  Martin  among  the  peasantry.  The  two 
men  were  formed  each  to  be  the  complement  of  the  other.  It  was  the  work  of  Hilary 
to  prove  with  cogent  clearness  to  educated  Christians,  that  reason  as  well  as  piety  dictated 
an  acceptance  of  the  Catholic  Faith  ;  the  mission  of  Martin  was  to  those  who  were  neither 
educated  nor  Christian,  and  his  success  in  bringing  the  Faith  home  to  the  lives  and 
consciences  of  the  pagan  masses  marks  him  out  as  one  of  the  greatest  among  the 
preachers  of  the  Gospel.  Both  of  them  actively  opposed  Arianism,  and  both  suffered 
in  the  conflict.  But  the  confessorship  of  neither  had  any  perceptible  share  in  promoting 
the  final  victory  of  truth.  Their  true  glory  is  that  they  were  fellow-labourers  equally 
successful  in  widely  separate  parts  of  the  same  field;  and  Hilary  is  entitled,  beyond 
the  honour  due  to  his  own  achievements,  to  a  share  in  that  of  St.  Martin,  whose  merits 
he  discovered  and  fostered. 

We  have  now  reached  the  end  of  Hilary's  life.  Sulpicius  Severus?  tells  us  that  he 
died  in  the  sixth  year  from  his  return.  He  had  probably  reached  Poitiers  early  in  the 
year  361  ;  we  have  seen  that  the  latest  event  recorded  in  the  fragments  of  his  history 
must  have  come  to  his  knowledge  early  in  367.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt-  that  this 
was  the  conclusion  of  the  history,  and  no  consideration  suggests  that  Sulpicius  was  wrong 
in  his  date.  We  may  therefore  assign  the  death  of  Hilary,  with  considerable  confidence, 
to  the  year  367,  and  probably  to  its  middle  portion.  Of  the  circumstances  of  his  death 
nothing  is  recorded.  This  is  one  of  the  many  signs  that  his  contemporaries  did  not  value 
him  at  his  true  worth.  To  them  he  must  have  been  the  busy  and  somewhat  unsuccessful 
man  of  affairs ;  their  successors  in  the  next  generation  turned  away  from  him  and  his 
works  to  the  more  attractive  writings  and  more  commanding  characters  of  Ambrose 
and  Augustine.  Yet  certainly  no  firmer  purpose  or  more  convinced  faith,  perhaps  no 
keener  intellect  has  devoted  itself  to  the  defence  and  elucidation  of  truth  than  that  of 
Hilary :  and  it  may  be  that  Christian  thinkers  in  the  future  will  find  an  inspiration  of 
new  and  fruitful  thoughts  in  his  writings. 


9  Chron.  U.  45. 


iviii  INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  II. 

CHAPTER   II. 
The  Theology  of  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers. 

This  Chapter  offers  no  more  than  a  tentative  and  imperfect  outline  of  the  theology 
of  St.  Hilary;  it  is  an  essay,  not  a  monograph.  Little  attempt  will  be  made  to  estimate 
the  value  of  his  opinions  from  the  point  of  view  of  modern  thought ;  little  will  be  said 
about  his  relation  to  earlier  and  contemporary  thought,  a  subject  on  which  he  is  habitually 
silent,  and  nothing  about  the  after  fate  of  his  speculations.  Yet  the  task,  thus  narrowed, 
is  not  without  its  difficulties.  Much  more  attention,  it  is  true,  has  been  paid  to  Hilary's 
theology  than  to  the  history  of  his  life,  and  the  student  cannot  presume  to  dispense  with 
the  assistance  of  the  books  already  written  x.  But  they  cannot  release  him  from  the  necessity 
of  collecting  evidence  for  himself  from  the  pages  of  Hilary,  and  of  forming  his  own  judgment 
upon  it,  for  none  of  them  can  claim  completeness  and  they  differ  widely  as  to  the  views 
which  Hilary  held.  There  is  the  further  difficulty  that  a  brief  statement  of  a  theologian's 
opinions  must  be  systematic.  But  Hilary  has  abstained,  perhaps  deliberately,  from  con- 
structing a  system  ;  the  scattered  points  of  his  teaching  must  be  gathered  from  writings 
composed  at  various  times  and  with  various  purposes.  The  part  of  his  work  which  was, 
no  doubt,  most  useful  in  his  own  day,  his  summary  in  the  De  Tri?iitate  of  the  defence 
against  Arianism,  is  clear  and  well  arranged,  but  it  bears  less  of  the  stamp  of  Hilary's 
genius  than  any  other  of  his  writings.  His  characteristic  thoughts  are  scattered  over  the 
pages  of  this  great  controversial  treatise,  where  the  exigencies  of  his  immediate  argument 
often  deny  him  full  scope  for  their  development ;  or  else  they  must  be  sought  in  his 
Commentary  on  St.  Matthew,  where  they  find  incidental  expression  in  the  midst  of  allegorical 
exegesis ;  or  again,  amid  the  mysticism  and  exhortation  of  the  Homilies  on  the  Psalms. 
It  is  in  some  of  these  last  that  the  Christology  of  Hilary  is  most  completely  stated  ;  but 
the  Homilies  were  intended  for  a  general  audience,  and  are  unsystematic  in  construction 
and  almost  conversational  in  tone.  Hilary  has  never  worked  out  his  thoughts  in  consistent 
theological  form,  and  many  of  the  most  original  among  them  have  failed  to  attract  the 
attention  which  they  would  have  received  had  they  been  presented  in  such  a  shape  as 
that  of  the  later  books  of  the  De  Trinitaie. 

This  desultory  mode  of  composition  had  its  advantages  in  life  and  warmth  of  present 
interest,  and  gives  to  Hilary's  writings  a  value  as  historical  documents  which  a  formal 
and  comprehensive  treatise  would  have  lacked.  But  it  seriously  increases  the  difficulty  of 
the  present  undertaking.  It  was  inevitable  that  Hilary's  method,  though  he  is  a  singularly 
consistent  thinker,  should  sometimes  lead  him  into  self-contradiction  and  sometimes  leave 
his  meaning  in  obscurity.  In  such  cases  probabilities  must  be  balanced,  with  due  regard 
to  the  opinion  of  former  theologians  who  have  studied  his  writings,  and  a  definite  conclusion 
must  be  given,  though  space  cannot  be  found  for  the  considerations  upon  which  it  is  based. 
But  though  the  writer  may  be  satisfied  that  he  has,  on  the  whole,  fairly  represented  Hilary's 
belief,  it  is  impossible  that  a  summary  of  doctrine  can  be  an  adequate  reflection  of  a  great 
teacher's  mind.  Proportions  are  altogether  changed  ;  a  doctrine  once  stated  and  then  dis- 
missed must  be  set  down  on  the  same  scale  as  another  to  which  the  author  recurs  again 

1  Those  which  have  been  in  constant  use  in  the  preparation  the  Benedictine  edition  is  useful,   though   its  value   is   lessened 

of  this  chapter   have   been   an   excellent   article  by  Th.  Forster  by  an  evident  desire  to  make   Hilary  conform  to  the   accepted 

in  the   Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken  for  1888,   p.  645  ff.,  opinions  of  a  later  age.     Dorner's  great  work  on  the  Doctrine 

and  two  full  and  valuable  papers  by  Dr.  Baltzer  on  the  Theologie  0/  the  Person  0/  Christ,  in   the   English   translation,   with   the 

and  Christologie  of  Hilary  in  the  Programm  of  the  Rottweil  Gym-  Doginengeschichte  of  Schwane  (ed.  2,  1895)  and  that  of  Harnack 

nasium  for  1879  and  1889  respectively.     I  have  unfortunately  not  (ed.  3,  1894)  have  also  been  constantly  and  profitably  consulted. 

had  access  to  Wirthmuller's  work,   Die  Lehre  d.  hi.  Hit.   iiber  Indebtedness  to  other  works  is  from  time  to  time  acknowledged 

die  Selbstentausserung  Christi,  but  the  citations  in  Baltzer  and  in  the  notes. 
Schwane  give  some  clue  to  its   contents.     The   Introduction   to 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS. 


lix 


and  again  with  obvious  interest.  The  inevitable  result  is  an  apparent  coldness  and  stiffness 
and  excess  of  method  which  does  Hilary  an  injustice  both  as  a  thinker  and  as  a  writer. 
In  the  interests  of  orderly  sequence  not  only  must  he  be  represented  as  sometimes  more 
consistent  than  he  really  is,  but  the  play  of  thought,  the  undeveloped  suggestions,  often 
brilliant  in  their  originality,  the  striking  expression  given  to  familiar  truths,  must  all  be 
sacrificed,  and  with  them  great  part  of  the  pleasure  and  profit  to  be  derived  from  his 
writings.  For  there  are  two  conclusions  which  the  careful  student  will  certainly  reach ; 
the  one  that  every  statement  and  argument  will  be  in  hearty  and  scrupulous  consonance 
with  the  Creeds,  the  other  that,  within  this  limit,  he  must  not  be  surprised  at  any  ingenuity 
or  audacity  of  logic  or  exegesis  in  explanation  and  illustration  of  recognised  truths,  and 
especially  in  the  speculative  connection  of  one  truth  with  another.  But  the  evidence  that 
Hilary's  heart,  as  well  as  his  reason,  was  engaged  in  the  search  and  defence  of  truth 
must  be  sought,  where  it  will  be  abundantly  found,  in  the  translations  given  in  this  volume. 
The  present  chapter  only  purposes  to  set  out,  in  a  very  prosaic  manner,  the  conclusions 
at  which  his  speculative  genius  arrived,  working  as  it  did  by  the  methods  of  strict  logic 
in  the  spirit  of  eager  loyalty  to  the  Faith. 

In  his  effort  to  render  a  reason  for  his  belief  Hilary's  constant  appeal  is  to  Scripture  ; 
and  he  avails  himself  freely  of  the  thoughts  of  earlier  theologians.  But  he  never  makes 
himself  their  slave;  he  is  not  the  avowed  adherent  of  any  school,  and  never  cites  the 
names  of  those  whose  arguments  he  adopts.  These  he  adjusts  to  his  own  system  of  thought, 
and  presents  for  acceptance,  not  on  authority,  but  on  their  own  merits.  For  Scripture, 
however,  he  has  an  unbounded  reverence.  Everything  that  he  believes,  save  the  fundamental 
truth  of  Theism,  of  which  man  has  an  innate  consciousness,  being  unable  to  gaze  upon 
the  heavens  without  the  conviction  that  God  exists  and  has  His  home  there  2,  is  directly 
derived  from  Holy  Scripture.  Scripture  for  Hilary  means  the  Septuagint  for  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  Latin  for  the  New.  He  was,  as  we  saw,  no  Hebrew  Scholar,  and  had  small 
respect  either  for  the  versions  which  competed  with  the  Septuagint  or  for  the  Latin  rendering 
of  the  Old  Testament,  but  there  is  little  evidence  3  that  he  was  dissatisfied  with  the  Latin 
of  the  New ;  in  fact,  in  one  instance,  whether  through  habitual  contentment  with  his  Latin  or 
through  momentary  carelessness  in  verifying  the  sense,  he  bases  an  argument  on  a  thoroughly 
false  interpretation  4.  Of  his  relation  to  Origen  and  the  literary  aspects  of  his  exegetical  work, 
something  has  been  said  in  the  former  chapter.  Here  we  must  speak  of  bis  use  of  Scripture 
as  the  source  of  truth,  and  of  the  methods  he  employs  to  draw  out  its  meaning. 

In  Hilary's  eyes  the  two  Testaments  form  one  homogeneous  revelation,  of  equal 
value  throughout  s,  and  any  part  of  the  whole  may  be  used  in  explanation  of  any  other 
part  The  same  title  of  beatissimus  is  given  to  Daniel  and  to  St.  Paul  when  both  are 
cited  in  Comm.  in  Matt.  xxv.  3  ;  indeed,  he  and  others  of  his  day  seem  to  have  felt 
that  the  Saints  of  the  Old  Covenant  were  as  near  to  themselves  as  those  of  the  New. 
Not  many  years  had  passed  since  Christians  were  accustomed  to  encourage  themselves 
to  martyrdom,  in  default  of  well-known  heroes  of  their  own  faith,  by  the  example  of  Daniel 
and  his  companions,  or  of  the  Seven  Maccabees  and  their  Mother.  But  Scripture  is  not 
only  harmonious  throughout,  as  Origen  had  taught ;  it  is  also  never  otiose.  It  never  repeats 
itself,  and  a  significance  must  be  sought  not  only  in  the  smallest  differences  of  language,  but 
also  in  the  order  in  which  apparent  synonyms  occur 6 ;  in  fact,  every  detail,  and  every  sense 


■  Tr.  in  Pt     xxii.  2,  4. 

3  Ae  fc.g.  Tritt.  vi.  45. 

4  St.  John  v.  44  in  Trin.  ix.  as. 

5  Thin  the   Book  of  Banich,  regarded  as  part  of  Jeremiah, 


is  cited  with  the  same  confidence  as  Isaiah  and  the  other  pro- 
phets in  Trin.  v.  39. 

6  E.g.  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.  Aleph.  1,  cxxviii.  12,  cxxxi.  8. 
It  must  he  confessed  that  Hilary's  illustrations  of  the  principle 
are  not  always  fortunate. 


Ix 


INTRODUCTION.    CHAPTER  II. 


in  which  every  detail  may  be  interpreted,  is  a  matter  for  profitable  enquiry  7.  Hence,  the  text 
of  Scripture  not  only  bears,  but  demands,  the  most  strict  and  literal  interpretation.  Hilary's 
explanation  of  the  words,  '  My  soul  is  sorrowful  even  unto  death,'  in  Tract,  in  Ps.  cxli.  8 
and  Trin.  x.  36,  is  a  remarkable  instance  of  his  method 8 ;  as  is  the  argument  from  the  words 
of  Isaiah,  'We  esteemed  Him  stricken,'  that  this,  so  far  as  it  signifies  an  actual  sense 
of  pain  in  Christ,  is  only  an  opinion,  and  a  false  one'.  Similarly  the  language  of  St.  Paul 
about  the  treasures  of  knowledge  hidden  in  Christ  is  made  to  prove  His  omniscience 
on  earth.  Whatever  is  hidden  is  present  in  its  hiding-place ;  therefore  Christ  could  not 
be  ignorant1.  But  this  close  adherence  to  the  text  of  Scripture  is  combined  with  great 
boldness  in  its  interpretation.  Hilary  does  not  venture,  with  Origen,  to  assert  that  some 
passages  of  Scripture  have  no  literal  sense,  but  he  teaches  that  there  are  cases  when  its 
statements  have  no  meaning  in  relation  to  the  circumstances  in  which  they  were  written  a, 
and  uses  this  to  enforce  the  doctrine,  which  he  holds  as  firmly  as  Origen,  that  the  spiritual 
meaning  is  the  only  one  of  serious  importance  3.  All  religious  truth  is  contained  in  Scripture, 
and  it  is  our  duty  to  be  ignorant  of  what  lies  outside  it  4.  But  within  the  limits  of  Scripture 
the  utmost  liberty  of  inference  is  to  be  admitted  concerning  the  purpose  with  which  the 
words  were  written  and  the  sense  to  be  attached  to  them.  Sometimes,  and  especially 
in  his  later  writings,  when  Hilary  was  growing  more  cautious  and  weaning  himself  from 
the  influence  of  Origen,  we  are  warned  to  be  careful^  not  to  read  too  much  of  definite 
dogmatic  truth  into  every  passage,  to  consider  the  context  and  occasion  5.  Elsewhere, 
but  this  especially  in  that  somewhat  immature  and  unguarded  production,  the  Commentary 
on  St. ,  Matthew,  we  find  a  purpose  and  meaning,  beyond  the  natural  sense,  educed  by 
such  considerations  as  that,  while  all  the  Gospel  is  true,  its  facts  are  often  so  stated  as 
to  be  a  prophecy  as  well  as  a  history ;  or  that  part  of  an  event  is  sometimes  suppressed 
in  the  narrative  in  order  to  make  the  whole  more  perfect  as  a  prophecy 6.  But  he  can  derive 
a  lesson  not  merely  from  what  Scripture  says  but  also  from  the  discrepancies  between 
the  different  texts  in  which  it  is  conveyed  to  us.  Hilary  had  learnt  from  Origen  to  regard 
the  Septuagint  as  an  independent  and  inspired  authority  for  the  revelation  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Its  translators  are  'those  seventy  elders  who  had  a  knowledge  of  the  Law 
and  of  the  Prophets  which  transcends  the  limitations  and  doubtfulness  of  the  letter  ?. 
His  confidence  in  their  work,  which  is  not  exceeded  by  that  of  St.  Augustine,  encourages 
him  to  draw  lessons  from  the  differences  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint  titles 
of  the  Psalms.  For  instance,  Psalm  cxlii.  has  been  furnished  in  the  Septuagint  with  a  title 
which  attributes  it  to  David  when  pursued  by  Absalom.  The  contents  of  the  Psalm  are 
appropriate  neither  to  the  circumstances  nor  to  the  date.  But  this  does  not  justify  us 
in  ignoring  the  title.  We  must  regard  the  fact  that  a  wrong  connection  is  given  to  the 
Psalm  as  a  warning  to  ourselves  not  to  attempt  to  discover  its  historical  position,  but  confine 
ourselves  to  its  spiritual  sense.  And  this  is  not  all.  Another  Psalm,  the  third,  is  assigned 
in  the  Hebrew  to  the  same  King  in  the  same  distress.  But,  though  this  attribution  is 
certainly  correct,  here  also  we  must  follow  the  leading  of  the  Septuagint,  which  was  led 
to  give  a  wrong  title  to  one  Psalm  lest  we  should  attach  importance  to  the  correct  title 
of  another.  In  both  cases  we  must  fix  our  attention  not  on  the  afflictions  of  David,  but 
on  the  sorrows  of  Christ.  Thus,  negatively  if  not  positively,  the  Septuagint  must  guide 
our  judgment8.     But  Hilary  often  goes  even  further,  and  ventures  upon  a  purely  subjective 


7  Thus  in  Trin.  xi.  15,  in  commenting  on  Ps.  xxii.  6,  he  puts 
forward  two  alternative  theories  of  the  generation  of  worms,  only 
one  of  which  can  be  true,  while  both  may  be  false.  But  he  uses 
both,  to  illustrate  two  truths  concerning  our  Lord. 

8  Cf.  also  Trin.  x.  67.  9  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxxxviii.  q. 
1   Trin.  ix.  62.     There  is  a  similar  argument  in  §  63 


*  E.g.  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxxv.  x.  3  Cf.  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxlii.  t. 

4  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxxxii.  6. 

5  E.g.  Tr.  in  Ps.  lxiii.  2  ;   Trin.  iv.  14,  Ix.  59. 

6  Comm.  in  Matt.  xix.  4,  xxi.  13. 

7  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxlii.  1  ;  cf.  ib.  cxxxi.  24,  cxxxiii.  4,  cL  I. 

8  Similar  arguments  are  often  used  ;  cf.  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxlv.  1. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.   HILARY  OF  POITIERS. 


lxi 


interpretation,  which  sometimes  gives  useful  insight  into  the  modes  of  thought  of  Gaul  in 
the  fourth  century.  For  instance,  he  is  thoroughly  classical  in  taking  it  for  granted  that 
the  Psalmist's  words,  '  I  will  lift  up  mine  eyes  unto  the  hills,'  cannot  refer  to  the  natural 
feature ;  that  he  can  never  mean  the  actual  mountains  bristling  with  woods,  the  naked  rocks 
and  pathless  precipices  and  frozen  snows  9.  And  even  Gregory  the  Great  could  not  surpass 
the  prosaic  grotesqueness  with  which  Hilary  declares  it  impious  to  suppose  that  God  would 
feed  the  young  ravens,  foul  carrion  birds  x ;  and  that  the  lilies  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
must  be  explained  away,  because  they  wear  no  clothing,  and  because,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
it  is  quite  possible  for  men  to  be  more  brightly  attired  than  they2.  Examples  of  such 
reasoning,  more  or  less  extravagant,  might  be  multiplied  from  Hilary's  exegetical  writings; 
passages  in  which  no  allowance  is  made  for  Oriental  imagery,  for  poetry  or  for  rhetoric  3. 

But  though  Hilary  throughout  his  whole  period  of  authorship  uses  the  mystical  method 
of  interpretation,  never  doubting  that  everywhere  in  Scripture  there  is  a  spiritual  meaning 
which  can  be  elicited,  and  that  whatever  sense,  consistent  with  truth  otherwise  ascertained, 
can  be  extracted  from  it,  may  be  extracted,  yet  there  is  a  manifest  increase  in  sobriety  in  his 
later  as  compared  with  his  earlier  writings.  From  the  riotous  profusion  of  mysticisms  in  the 
Commentary  on  St.  Matthew,  where,  for  instance,  ever)-  character  and  detail  in  the  incident 
of  St.  John  Baptist's  death  becomes  a  symbol,  it  is  a  great  advance  to  the  almost  Athanasian 
cautiousness  in  exegesis  of  the  De  Trinitate  ;  though  even  here,  especially  in  the  early  books 
which  deal  with  the  Old  Testament,  there  is  some  extravagance  and  a  very  liberal  employ- 
ment of  the  method  ♦.  His  reasons,  when  he  gives  them,  are  those  adduced  in  his  other 
■snitings ;  the  inappropriateness  of  the  words  to  the  time  when  they  were  written,  or 
the  plea  that  reverence  or  reason  bids  us  penetrate  behind  the  letter.  His  increasing 
caution  is  due  to  no  distrust  of  the  principle  of  mysticism. 

ThosgV.  Hikry  was  not  its  inventor,  and  was  forced  by  the  large  part  played  by 
Old  Testament  exegesis  in  the  Arian  controversy  to  employ  it,  whether  he  would  or  nots, 
yet  it  is  certain  that  his  hearty,  though  not  indiscriminate6,  acceptance  of  the  method 
led  to  its  general  adoption  in  the  West.  Tertullian  and  Cyprian  had  made  no  great  use 
of  such  speculations ;  Irenseus  probably  had  little  influence.  It  was  the  introduction 
of  Origen's  thought  to  Latin  Christendom  by  Hilary  and  his  contemporaries  which  set 
the  fashion,  and  none  of  them  can  have  had  such  influence  as  Hilary  himself.  It  is 
a  strange  irony  of  fate  that  so  deep  and  original  a  thinker  should  have  exerted  his  most 
permanent  influence  not  through  his  own  thoughts,  but  through  this  dubious  legacy  which 
he  handed  on  from  Alexandria  to  Europe.  Yet,  within  certain  limits,  it  was  a  sound 
and,  for  that  age,  even  a  scientific  method;  and  Hilary  might  at  least  plead  that  he 
never  allowed  the  system  to  be  his  master,  and  that  it  was  a  means  which  enabled  him 
to  derive  from  Scriptures  which  otherwise,  to  him,  would  be  unprofitable,  some  measure 
of  true  and  valuable  instruction.  It  never  moulds  his  thoughts ;  at  the  most,  he  regards 
it  as  a  useful  auxiliary.  No  praise  can  be  too  high  for  his  wise  and  sober  marshalling 
not  so  much  of  texts  as  of  the  collective  evidence  of  Scripture  concerning  the  relation 
of  the  Father  and  the  Son  in  the  De  Trinitate;  and  if  his  Christology  be  not  equally 
convincing,  it  is  not  the  fault  of  his  method,  but  of  its  application  7. 


9  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxx.  4. 
1  lb.  cxlvi.  n. 

•  Contm.  in  Matt.  v.  u. 

3  E.g.  Contm.  in  Matt,  xviii.  3 ;  Tr.  imPs.  cxix.  20,  cxxxiv.  12, 
cxxxvi.  6,  7  ;  Trin.  iv.  38. 

*  E.g.  Trin.  i.  6. 

5  The  unhesitating  use  of  the  Theophaaies  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament as  direct  evidence  for  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  noteworthy. 


Similar  to  the  usual  proofs  for  the  distinction  of  Persons  within 
the  Trinity,  from  the  alternate  use  of  plural  and  singular,  are 
the  arguments  in  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.,  Iod,  5,  cxxvii.  4. 

6  It  is  worth  notice  that  he  makes  no  use  of  Origen's  mystical 
interpretation  of  the  Canticles.  Silence  in  such  a  case  is  itself 
a  criticism. 

7  Compare  such  a  passage  as  Trin.  x.  34  with  his  we  of  tk« 
proof-texts  against  Arianism. 


lxii 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER    II. 


We  cannot  wonder  that  Hilary,  who  owed  his  clear  dogmatic  convictions  to  a  careful 
and  independent  study  of  Scripture,  should  have  wished  to  lead  others  to  the  same 
source  of  knowledge.  He  couples  it  with  the  Eucharist  as  a  second  Table  of  the  Lord, 
a  public  means  of  grace,  which  needs,  if  it  is  to  profit  the  hearer,  the  same  preparation 
of  a  pure  heart  and  life8.  Attention  to  the  lessons  read  in  church  is  a  primary  duty, 
but  private  study  of  Scripture  is  enforced  with  equal  earnestness'.  It  must  be  for  all, 
as  Hilary  had  found  it  for  himself,  a  privilege  as  well  as  a  duty. 

His  sense  of  the  value  of  Scripture  is  heightened  by  his  belief  in  the  sacredness 
of  language.  Names  belong  inseparably  to  the  things  which  they  signify ;  words  are 
themselves  a  revelation.  This  is  a  lesson  learnt  from  Origen ;  and  the  false  antithesis 
between  the  nature  and  the  name  of  God,  of  which,  according  to  the  Arians,  Christ 
had  the  latter  only,  made  it  of  special  use  to  Hilary1.  But  if  this  high  dignity  belongs 
to  every  statement  of  truth,  there  is  the  less  need  for  technical  terms  of  theology.  The 
rarity  of  their  occurrence  in  the  pages  of  Hilary  has  already  been  mentioned.  '  Trinity ' 2 
is  almost  absent,  and  '  Person '  3  hardly  more  common ;  he  prefers,  by  a  turn  of  language 
which  would  scarcely  be  seemly  in  English,  to  speak  of  the  '  embodied '  Christ  and 
of  His  'Embodiment,'  though  Latin  theology  was  already  familiar  with  the  '  Incarnation  ♦.' 
In  fact,  it  would  seem  that  he  had  resolved  to  make  himself  independent  of  technical 
terms  and  of  such  lines  of  thought  as  would  require  them.  But  he  is  never  guilty  of 
confusion  caused  by  an  inadequate  vocabulary.  He  has  the  literary  skill  to  express 
in  ordinary  words  ideas  which  are  very  remote  from  ordinary  thought,  and  this  at  no 
inordinate  length.  No  one,  for  instance,  has  developed  the  idea  of  the  mutual  indwelling 
of  Father  and  Son  more  fully  and  clearly  than  he ;  yet  he  has  not  found  it  necessary 
to  employ  or  devise  the  monstrous  '  circuminsession '  or  '  perichoresis '  of  later  theology. 
And  where  he  does  use  terms  of  current  theology,  or  rather  metaphysic,  he  shews  that 
he  is  their  master,  not  their  slave.  The  most  important  idea  of  this  kind  which  he 
had  to  express  was  that  of  the  Divine  substance.  The  word  '  essence  '  is  entirely  rejected  s •• 
'substance'  and  'nature'  are  freely  used  as  synonyms,  but  in  such  alternation  that  both 
of  them  still  obviously  belong  to  the  sphere  of  literature,  and  not  of  science.  They  are 
twice  used  as  exact  alternatives,  for  the  avoidance  of  monotony,  in  parallel  clauses  of 
Trin.  vi.  18,  19.  So  also  the  nature  of  fire  in  vii.  29  is  not  an  abstraction;  and  in  ix.  36 
fin.  the  Divine  substance  and  nature  are  equivalents.  These  are  only  a  few  of  many 
instances6.  Here,  as  always,  there  is  an  abstention  from  abstract  thoughts  and  terms, 
which  indicates,  on  the  part  of  a  student  of  philosophy  and  of  philosophical  theology, 
a  deliberate  narrowing  of  his  range  of  speculation.  We  may  illustrate  the  purpose  of 
Hilary  by  comparing  his  method  with  that  of  the  author  of  a  treatise  on  Astronomy 
without    Mathematics.     But   some   part   of  his   caution   is   probably  due   to   his   sense   of 


8  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxxvii.  10. 

9  E.g.  Tr.  in  Ps.  xci.  10,  cxviii.  Tod,  15,  cxxxiv.  1,  cxxxv.  1. 

*  E.g.  Trin.  vii.  13 ;  and  cf.  the  argument,  which  is  also 
Athanasian,  of  vii.  31. 

2  Beside  the  passages  mentioned  on  p.  xxx.,  it  only  occurs  in 
the  Instructio  Psalmorum,  §  13. 

3  The  translation  of  the  De  Trinitate  in  this  volume  may  give 
a  somewhat  false  impression  in  this  respect.  For  the  sake  of 
conciseness  the  word  Person  has  been  often  used  in  the  English 
where  it  is  absent,  and  absent  designedly  in  the  Latin.  The 
word  occurs  Trin.  iii.  23  in.,  iv.  42,  v.  10,  26,  vii.  39,  40,  and 
in  a  few  other  places. 

4  Concorporatio,  Comnt.  in  Matt.  vi.  1  ;  corporatio,  Tr.  in 
Ps.  \.  14,  ii.  3,  and  often  ;  corporaius  Dens,  Comm.  in  Matt.  iv. 
14,  Tr.  in  Pi.  Ii.  16 ;  corporaiitas,  Comm.  in  Matt.  iv.  14 
(twice),  Tnstr.  Ps.  vi.     In  the  De  Trinitate  he  usually  prefers 


a  periphrasis  ; — assumpta  caro,  assumpsit  carnem.  Corporatio 
is  used  of  man's  dwelling  in  a  body  in  Trin.  zi.  15,  and  De 
Mysteriis,  ed.  Gamurrini,  p.  5. 

5  It  occurs  in  the  De  Synodis  69,  but  in  that  work  Hilary 
is  writing  as  an  advocate  in  defence  of  language  used  by  others, 
not  as  the  exponent  of  his  own  thoughts.  It  also  occurs  once 
or  twice  in  translations  from  the  Greek,  probably  by  another 
hand  than  Hilary's  ;  but  from  his  own  authorship  it  is  completely 
absent. 

6  Trin.  v.  10,  Syn.  69,  '  God  is  One  not  in  Person,  but  in 
nature  ; '  Trin.  iv.  42,  '  Not  by  oneness  of  Person  but  by  unity 
of  substance  ;'  vi.  35,  '  the  birth  of  a  living  Nature  from  a  living 
Nature.'  Often  enough  the  substance  or  nature  of  God  or  Christ 
is  simply  a  periphrasis.  The  two  natures  in  the  Incarnate  Christ 
are  also  mentioned,  though,  as  we  shall  see,  Hilary  here  aba 
avoids  a  precise  nomenclature. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS. 


lxiii 


the  inadequacy  of  the  terms  with  which  Latin  theology  was  as  yet  equipped,  and  of 
the  danger,  not  only  to  his  readers'  faith,  but  to  his  own  reputation  for  orthodoxy,  which 
might  result  from  ingenuity  in  the  employment  or  invention  of  technical  language. 

Though,  as  we  have  seen,  the  contemplative  state  is  not  the  ultimate  happiness  of  man, 
yet  the  knowledge  of  God  is  essential  to  salvation  7 ;  man,  created  in  God's  image,  is  by 
nature  capable  of,  and  intended  for,  such  knowledge,  and  Christ  came  to  impart  it,  the 
necessary  condition  on  the  side  of  humanity  being  purity  of  mind  8,  and  the  result  the  elevation 
of  man  to  the  life  of  God.  Hilary  does  not  shrink  from  the  emphatic  language  of  the 
Alexandrian  school,  which  spoke  of  the  'deification'  of  man;  God,  he  says,  was  born  to  be 
man,  in  order  that  man  might  be  born  to  be  God  9.  If  this  end  is  to  be  attained,  obviously 
what  is  accepted  as  knowledge  must  be  true ;  hence  the  supreme  wickedness  of  heresy,  which 
destroys  the  future  of  mankind  by  palming  upon  them  error  for  truth  ;  the  greater  their 
dexterity  the  greater,  because  the  more  deliberate,  their  crime.  And  Hilary  was  obviously 
convinced  that  his  opponents  had  conceived  this  nefarious  purpose.  It  is  not  in  the  language 
of  mere  conventional  polemics,  but  in  all  sincerity,  that  he  repeatedly  describes  them  as  liars 
who  cannot  possibly  be  ignorant  of  the  facts  which  they  misrepresent,  inventors  of  sophistical 
arguments  and  falsifiers  of  the  text  of  Scripture,  conscious  that  their  doom  is  sealed,  and 
endeavouring  to  divert  their  minds  from  the  thought  of  future  misery  by  involving  others  in 
their  own  destruction ".  He  fully  recognises  the  ability  and  philosophical  learning  displayed 
by  them  ;  it  only  makes  their  case  the  worse,  and,  after  all,  is  merely  folly.  But  it  increases 
the  difficulties  of  the  defenders  of  the  Faith.  For  though  man  can  and  must  know  God,  Who, 
for  His  part,  has  revealed  Himself,  our  knowledge  ought  to  consist  in  a  simple  acceptance  of 
the  precise  terms  of  Scripture.  The  utmost  humility  is  necessary;  error  begins  when  men 
grow  inquisitive.  Our  capacity  for  knowledge,  as  Hilary  is  never  tired  of  insisting,  is  so 
limited  that  we  ought  to  be  content  to  believe  without  defining  the  terms  of  our  belief.  For 
weak  as  intellect  is,  language,  the  instrument  which  it  must  employ,  is  still  less  adequate  to  so 
great  a  task3.  Heresy  has  insisted  upon  definition,  and  the  true  belief  is  compelled  to  follow 
suit3.  Here  again,  in  the  heretical  abuse  of  technical  terms  and  of  logical  processes,  we  find 
a  reason  for  the  almost  ostentatious  simplicity  of  diction  which  we  often  find  in  Hilary's  pages. 
He  evidently  believed  that  it  was  possible  for  us  to  apprehend  revealed  truth  and  to  profit 
fully  by  it,  without  paraphrase  or  other  explanation.  In  the  case  of  one  great  doctrine,  as  we 
shall  see,  no  necessities  of  controversy  compelled  him  to  develope  his  belief;  if  he  had  had 
his  way,  the  Faith  should  never  have  been  stated  in  ampler  terms  than  '  I  believe  in  the  Holy 
Ghost' 

In  a  great  measure  he  has  succeeded  in  retaining  this  simplicity  in  regard  to  the  doctrine 
of  God.  He  had  the  full  Greek  sense  of  the  divine  unity ;  there  is  no  suggestion  of  the 
possession  by  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity  of  contrasted  or  complementary  qualities.  The 
revelation  he  would  defend  is  that  of  God,  One,  perfect,  infinite,  immutable.  This  absolute 
God  has  manifested  Himself  under  the  name  '  He  that  is,'  to  which  Hilary  constantly  recurs. 
It  is  only  through  His  own  revelation  of  Himself  that  God  can  be  known.  But  here  we  are 
faced  by  a  difficulty;  our  reason  is  inadequate  and  tends  to  be  fallacious.  The  argument  from 
analogy,  which  we  should  naturally  use,  cannot  be  a  sufficient  guide,  since  it  must  proceed 
from  the  finite  to  the  infinite.  Hilary  has  set  this  forth  with  great  force  and  frequency,  and 
with  a  picturesque  variety  of  illustration.  Again,  our  partial  glimpses  of  the  truth  are  often 
in  apparent  contradiction ;  when  this  is  the  case,  we  need  to  be  on  our  guard  against  the 


7  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxxxi.  6,  '  The  supreme  achievement  of  Christ 
was  to  render  man,  instructed  in  the  knowledge  of  God,  worthy 
to  be  God's  dwelling-place  ;'  cf.  ib.  §  23. 

8  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.,  Aleph.,  Si.  9  Trin.  x   7. 


1  Cf.  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxix.  xo ;   Trin.  v.  1,  26,  vu  46  ff.,  viii.  37, 
&c,  &c. 

2  Trin.  iv.  a,  xi.  44. 

3  Trin.  ii.  2,  in  vitium  vitio  coarctamur  alieno. 


Ixiv 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  II. 


temptation  to  reject  one  as  incompatible  with  the  other.  We  must  devote  an  equal  attention 
to  each,  and  believe  without  hesitation  that  both  are  true.  The  interest  of  the  De  Trinitate  is 
greatly  heightened  by  the  skill  and  courage  with  which  Hilary  will  handle  some  seeming 
paradox,  and  make  the  antithesis  of  opposed  infinities  conduce  to  reverence  for  Him  of  Whom 
they  are  aspects.  And  he  never  allows  his  reader  to  forget  the  immensity  of  his  theme  ;  and 
here  again  the  skill  is  manifest  with  which  he  casts  upon  the  reader  the  same  awe  with  which 
he  is  himself  impressed. 

Of  God  as  Father  Hilary  has  little  that  is  new  to  say.  He  is  called  Father  in  Scripture ; 
therefore  He  is  Father  and  necessarily  has  a  Son.  And  conversely  the  fact  that  Scripture 
speaks  of  God  the  Son  is  proof  of  the  fatherhood.  In  fact,  the  name  '  Son '  contains 
a  revelation  so  necessary  for  the  times  that  it  has  practically  banished  that  of  'the  Word,' 
which  we  should  have  expected  Hilary,  as  a  disciple  of  Origen,  to  employ  by  preference*.  But 
since  faith  in  the  Father  alone  is  insufficient  for  salvation  s,  and  is,  indeed,  not  only  insufficient 
but  actually  false,  because  it  denies  His  fatherhood  in  ignoring  the  consubstantial  Son,  Hilary's 
attention  is  concentrated  upon  the  relation  between  these  two  Persons.  This  relation  is  one 
of  eternal  mutual  indwelling,  or  '  perichoresis,'  as  it  has  been  called,  rendered  possible  by  Their 
oneness  of  nature  and  by  the  infinity  of  Both.  The  thought  is  worked  out  from  such  passages 
as  Isaiah  xlv.  14,  St.  John  xiv.  n,  with  great  cogency  and  completeness,  yet  always  with  due 
stress  laid  on  the  incapacity  of  man  to  comprehend  its  immensity.  Hilary  advances  from  this 
scriptural  position  to  the  profound  conception  of  the  divine  self-consciousness  as  consisting 
in  Their  mutual  recognition.  Each  sees  Himself  in  His  perfect  image,  which  must  be  coeternal 
with  Himself.  In  Hilary  this  is  only  a  hint,  one  of  the  many  thoughts  which  the  urgency  of 
the  conflict  with  Arianism  forbade  him  to  expand.  But  Dorner  justly  sees  in  it  '  a  kind  of 
speculative  construction  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  out  of  the  idea  of  the  divine  self- 
consciousness  6.' 

The  Arian  controversy  was  chiefly  waged  over  the  question  of  the  eternal  generation 
of  the  Son.  By  the  time  that  Hilary  began  to  write,  every  text  of  Scripture  which  could 
be  made  applicable  to  the  point  in  dispute  had  been  used  to  the  utmost.  There  was 
little  or  nothing  that  remained  to  be  done  in  the  discovery  or  combination  of  passages. 
Of  that  controversy  Athanasius  was  the  hero ;  the  arguments  which  he  used  and  those 
which  he  refuted  are  admirably  set  forth  in  the  introduction  to  the  translation  of  his  writings 
in  this  series.  In  writing  the  De  Trinitate,  so  far  as  it  dealt  directly  with  the  original 
controversy,  it  was  neither  possible  nor  desirable  that  Hilary  should  leave  the  beaten  path. 
His  object  was  to  provide  his  readers  with  a  compendious  statement  of  ascertained  truth 
for  their  own  guidance,  and  with  an  armoury  of  weapons  which  had  been  tried  and  found 
effective  in  the  conflicts  of  the  day.  It  would,  therefore,  be  superfluous  to  give  in  this 
place  a  detailed  account  of  his  reasonings  concerning  the  generation  of  the  Son,  nor  would 
such  an  account  be  of  any  assistance  to  those  who  have  his  writings  in  their  hands.  Hilary's 
treatment  of  the  Scriptural  evidence  is  very  complete,  as  was,  indeed,  necessary  in  a  work 
which  was  intended  as  a  handbook  for  practical  use.  The  Father  alone  is  unbegotten  ; 
the  Son  is  truly  the  Son,  neither  created  nor  adopted.  The  Son  is  the  Creator  of  the  worlds, 
the  Wisdom  of  God,  Who  alone  knows  the  Father,  Who  manifested  God  to  man  in  the 
various  Theophanies  of  the  Old  Testament.  His  birth  is  without  parallel,  inasmuch  as 
other  births  imply  a  previous  non-existence,  while  that  of  the  Son  is  from  eternity.  For  the 
generation  on  the  part  of  the  Father  and  the  birth  on  the  part  of  the  Son  are  not  connected  as  by 


4  Dcui  Verbum  often ;  Vtrbum  alone  rarely,  if  ever.  Dorner, 
witk  his  iteration  of '  Logos,'  gives  an  altogether  false  impression 
of  Hilary's  vocabulary. 

5  Trin.  i.  17  and  often 


*  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  I.  ii.  p.  302,  English 
translation.  The  passages  to  which  he  refers  are  Comm.  in  Matt, 
xi.  ia  ;  Tr.  in  Ps.  xci.  6  ;  Trin.  ii.  3,  ix.  69.  There  is  a  good, 
though   brief,  statement  of  this  vi«w  in  Mason's  Faith  of  the 

Gospel,  p.  <;6. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.  lxv 


a  temporal  sequence  of  cause  and  effect,  but  exactly  coincide  in  a  timeless  eternity  7. 
Hilary  repudiates  the  possibility  of  illustrating  this  divine  birth  by  sensible  analogies ; 
it  is  beyond  our  understanding  as  it  is  beyond  time.  Nor  can  we  wonder  at  this,  seeing 
that  our  own  birth  is  to  us  an  insoluble  mystery.  The  eternal  birth  of  the  Son  is  the  ex- 
pression of  the  eternal  nature  of  God.  It  is  the  nature  of  the  One  that  He  should  be 
Father,  of  the  Other  that  He  should  be  Son ;  this  nature  is  co-eternal  with  Themselves,  and 
therefore  the  One  is  co-eternal  with  the  Other.  Hence  Athanasius  had  drawn  the  conclusion 
that  the  Son  is  '  by  nature  and  not  by  will 8 ;  not  that  the  will  of  God  is  contrary  to  His 
nature,  but  that  (if  the  words  may  be  used)  there  was  no  scope  for  its  exercise  in  the 
generation  of  the  Son,  which  came  to  pass  as  a  direct  consequence  of  the  Divine  nature. 
Such  language  was  a  natural  protest  against  an  Arian  abuse  ;  but  it  was  a  departure  from 
earlier  precedent  and  was  not  accepted  by  that  Cappadocian  school,  more  true  to  Alex- 
andrian tradition  than  Athanasius  himself,  with  which  Hilary  was  in  closest  sympathy.  In 
their  eyes  the  generation  of  the  Son  must  be  an  act  of  God's  will,  if  the  freedom  of  Om- 
nipotence, for  which  they  were  jealous,  was  to  be  respected;  and  Hilary  shared  their 
scruples.  Not  only  in  the  De  Synodis  but  in  the  De  Trinitatev  he  assigns  the  birth  of 
the  Son  to  the  omnipotence,  the  counsel  and  will  of  God  acting  in  co-operation  with  His 
nature.  This  two-fold  cause  of  birth  is  peculiar  to  the  Son ;  all  other  beings  owe  their 
existence  simply  to  the  power  and  will,  not  to  the  nature  of  God  x.  Such  being  the  relation 
between  Father  and  Son,  it  is  obvious  that  They  cannot  differ  in  nature.  The  word  '  birth,' 
by  which  the  relation  is  described,  indicates  the  transmission  of  nature  from  parent  to 
offspring;  and  this  word  is,  like  'Father'  and  'Son,'  an  essential  part  of  the  revelation. 
The  same  divine  nature  or  substance  exists  eternally  and  in  equal  perfection  in  Both,  un- 
begotten  in  the  Father,  begotten  in  the  Son.  In  fact,  the  expression,  •  Only-begotten  God,' 
may  be  called  Hilary's  watchword,  with  such  'peculiar  abundance2'  does  it  occur  in  his 
writings,  as  in  those  of  his  Cappadocian  friends.  But,  though  the  Son  is  the  Image  of 
the  Father,  Hilary  in  his  maturer  thought,  when  free  from  the  influence  of  his  Asiatic 
allies,  is  careful  to  avoid  using  the  inadequate  and  perilous  term  'likeness'  to  describe 
the  relation  3.  Such  being  the  birth,  and  such  the  unity  of  nature,  the  Son  must  be  very 
God.  This  is  proved  by  all  the  usual  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  from  the  Creation 
onwards.  These  are  used,  as  by  the  other  Fathers,  to  prove  that  the  Son  has  not  the 
name  only,  but  the  reality,  of  Godhead  ;  the  reality  corresponding  to  the  nature.  All  things 
were  made  through  Him  out  of  nothing ;  therefore  He  is  Almighty  as  the  Father  is  Almighty. 
If  man  is  made  in  the  image  of  Both,  if  one  Spirit  belongs  to  Both,  there  can  be  no 
difference  of  nature  between  the  Two.  But  They  are  not  Two  as  possessing  one  nature, 
like  human  father  and  son,  while  living  separate  lives.  God  is  One,  with  a  Divinity 
undivided  and  indivisible*;  and  Hilary  is  never  weary  of  denying  the  Arian  charge  that 
his  creed  involved  the  worship  of  two  Gods.  No  analogies  from  created  things  can  explain 
this  unity.  Tree  and  branch,  fire  and  heat,  source  and  stream  can  only  illustrate  Their 
inseparable  co-existence ;  such  comparisons,  if  pressed,  lead  inevitably  to  error.  The 
true  unity  of  Father  and  Son  is  deeper  than  this ;  deeper  also  than  any  unity,  however 
perfect,  of  will  with  will.  For  it  is  an  eternal  mutual  indwelling,  Each  perfectly  corre- 
sponding with  and  comprehending  and  containing  the  Other,  and  Himself  in  the  Other ; 


7  Trin.  xii.  21,  '  the  birth  is  in  the  generation  and  the  genera- 
tion in  the  birth.' 

8  Discourses  against  the  Arians,  iii.  58 ff.  ;  see  Robertson's 
notes  in  the  Athanasius  volume  of  this  series,  p.  426. 

9  E.g.  Syn.  35,  37,  59,  Trin.  iii.  4,  vi.  21,  viii.  54. 
*  Cf.  Baltzer,  Theologie  d,  hi.  Hit.  p.  19  f. 


3  It  constantly  appears,  though  with  all  due  safeguards,  in  the 
De  Synodis,  where  sympathy  as  well  as  policy  impelled  him  to 
approximate  to  the  language  used  by  his  friends.  Similarly  in 
Trin.  iii.  23,  he  argues,  from  the  admitted  likeness,  that  there 
can  be  no  difference.  But,  as  we  saw,  this  part  of  the  De  Trini- 
tate  is  probably  an  early  work,  and  does  not  represent  Hilary'* 


«  Hort,  Two  Dissertations ,  p.  ax,  and  cf.  p.  xvi.,  afore.  I  later  thought.  *  Trin.  v.  38. 

vol..  IX.  f 


lx 


VI 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  II. 


and  this  not  after  the  manner  of  earthly  commingling  of  substances  or  exchange  of  .pro- 
perties. The  only  true  comparison  that  can  be  made  is  with  the  union  between  Christ, 
in  virtue  of  His  humanity,  and  the  believer  s  ;  such  is  the  union,  in  virtue  of  the  Godhead, 
between  Father  and  Son.  And  this  unity  extends  inevitably  to  will  and  action.  Since 
the  Father  is  acting  in  all  that  the  Son  does,  the  Son  is  acting  in  all  that  the  Father  does ; 
'he  that  hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the  Father.'  This  doctrine  reconciles  all  our  Lord's 
statements  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  concerning  His  own  and  His  Father's  work. 

But,  notwithstanding  this  unity,  there  is  a  true  numerical  duality  of  Person.  Sabellius, 
we  must  remember,  had  held  for  two  generations  the  pre-eminence  among  heretics.  To 
the  Greek-speaking  world  outside  Egypt  the  error  which  he  and  Paul  of  Samosata  had 
taught,  that  God  is  one  Person,  was  still  the  most  dangerous  of  falsehoods ;  the  supreme 
victory  of  truth  had  not  been  won  in  their  eyes  when  Arius  was  condemned  at  Nicaea, 
but  when  Paul  was  deposed  at  Antioch.  The  Nicene  leaders  had  certainly  counted  the 
cost  when  they  adopted  as  the  test  of  orthodoxy  the  same  word  which  Paul  had  used 
for  the  inculcation  of  error.  But  the  homoousion,  however  great  its  value  as  a  permanent 
safeguard  of  truth,  was  the  immediate  cause  of  alienation  and  suspicion.  And  not  only  did 
it  make  the  East  misunderstand  the  West,  but  it  furnished  the  Arians  with  the  most  effective 
of  instruments  for  widening  the  breach  between  the  two  forces  opposed  to  them.  They  had  an 
excuse  for  calling  their  opponents  in  Egypt  and  the  West  by  the  name  of  Sabellians,  the  very 
name  most  likely  to  engender  distrust  in  Asia6.  Hilary,  who  could  enter  with  sympathy 
into  the  Eastern  mind  and  had  learnt  from  his  own  treatment  at  Seleucia  how  strong  the 
feeling  was,  labours  with  untiring  patience  to  dissipate  the  prejudice.  There  is  no  Arian  plea 
against  which  he  argues  at  greater  length.  The  names  'Father'  and  'Son,'  being  parts  of  the 
revelation,  are  convincing  proofs  of  distinction  of  Person  as  well  as  of  unity  of  nature.  They 
prove  that  the  nature  is  the  same,  but  possessed  after  a  different  manner  by  Each  of  the  Two ; 
by  the  One  as  ingenerate,  by  the  Other  as  begotten.  The  word  '  Image,'  also  a  part  of  the 
revelation,  is  another  proof  of  the  distinction ;  an  object  and  its  reflection  in  a  mirror  are  ob- 
viously not  one  thing.  Again,  the  distinct  existence  of  the  Son  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  He 
has  free  volition  of  His  own ;  and  by  a  multitude  of  passages  of  Scripture,  many  of  them 
absolutely  convincing,  as  for  instance,  those  from  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  But  these  two 
Persons,  though  one  in  nature,  are  not  equal  in  dignity.  The  Father  is  greater  than  the 
Son  ;  greater  not  merely  as  compared  to  the  incarnate  Christ,  but  as  compared  to  the  Son,  be- 
gotten from  eternity.  This  is  not  simply  by  the  prerogative  inherent  in  all  paternity ;  it  is  be- 
cause the  Father  is  self-existent,  Himself  the  Source  of  all  being7.  With  one  of  his  happy  phrases 
Hilary  describes  it  as  an  inferiority  generatio?ie,  non  genere*  ;  the  Son  is  one  in  kind  or  nature 
with  the  Father,  though  inferior,  as  the  Begotten,  to  the  Unbegotten.  But  this  inferiority  is 
not  to  be  so  construed  as  to  lessen  our  belief  in  His  divine  attributes.  For  instance,  when 
He  addresses  the  Father  in  prayer,  this  is  not  because  He  is  subordinate,  but  because  He  wishes 
to  honour  the  Fatherhood?;  and,  as  Hilary  argues  at  great  length  *,  the  end,  when  God  shall  be 
all  in  all,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  surrender  of  the  Son's  power,  in  the  sense  of  loss.  It  is 
a  mysterious  final  state  of  permanent,  willing  submission  to  the  Father's  will,  into  which  He 
enters  by  the  supreme  expression  of  an  obedience  which  has  never  failed.  Again,  our  Lord's 
language  in  St.  Mark  xiii.  32,  must  not  be  taken  as  signifying  ignorance  on  the  part  of  the 
Son  of  His  Father's  purpose.     For,  according  to  St.  Paul  (Col.  ii.  3),  in  Him  are  hid  all  the 


5  Trin.  viii.  13  ff. 

'  Cf.  Sulp  Sev.,  Chron.  ii.  4a  for  the  Eastern  suspicion  that 
the  West  held  a  trionynta  unto; — one  Person  under  three  names. 
Sulpicius  ascribes  it  to  Arian  slander,  but  its  causes  lay  deeper 
than  this. 

7  This  was  the  doctrine  of  all  the  earlier  theologians,  soon 


to  be  displaced  in  the  stress  of  controversy  by  the  opinion  that 
the  inferiority  concerns  the  Son  only  as  united  with  man.  See 
the  citations  in  Westcott's  Gospel  of  St.  John,  additional  nolj 
to  xiv.  28. 

8  TV.  in  Ps.  cxxxviii.  17.  9  lb.  cxli.  6. 

1  Trin.  xi.  ai  ff.,  on  1  Cor.  *▼.  ai  ff. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.   HILARY  OF  POUTERS.  lxvii 


treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge,  and  therefore  He  must  know  the  day  and  hour  of  judg- 
ment. He  is  ignorant  relatively  to  us,  in  the  sense  that  He  will  not  betray  His  Father's 
secret  2.  Whether  or  no  it  be  possible  in  calmer  times  to  maintain  that  the  knowledge  and 
the  ignorance  are  complementary  truths  which  finite  minds  cannot  reconcile,  we  cannot 
wonder  that  Hilary,  ever  on  the  watch  against  apparent  concessions  to  Arianism,  should  in  this 
instance  have  abandoned  his  usual  method  of  balancing  against  each  other  the  apparent 
contraries.  His  reasoning  is,  in  any  case,  a  striking  proof  of  his  intense  conviction  of  the 
co-equal  Godhead  of  the  Son. 

Such  is  Hilary's  argument,  very  briefly  stated.  We  may  read  almost  all  of  it,  where 
Hilary  himself  had  certainly  read  it,  in  the  Discourses  against  the  Arians  and  elsewhere 
in  the  writings  of  Athanasius.  How  far,  however,  he  was  borrowing  from  the  latter  must 
remain  doubtful,  as  must  the  question  as  to  the  originality  of  Athanasius.  For  the  con- 
troversy was  universal,  and  both  of  these  great  writers  had  the  practical  purpose  of  col- 
lecting the  best  arguments  out  of  the  multitude  which  were  suggested  in  ephemeral 
literature  or  verbal  debate.  Their  victory,  intellectual  as  well  as  moral,  over  their  ad- 
versaries was  decisive,  and  the  more  striking  because  it  was  the  Arians  who  had  made 
the  attack  on  ground  chosen  by  themselves.  The  authority  of  Scripture  as  the  final  court 
of  appeal  was  their  premiss  as  well  as  that  of  their  opponents  ;  and  they  had  selected  the 
texts  on  which  the  verdict  of  Scripture  was  to  be  based.  Out  of  their  own  mouth  they 
were  condemned,  and  the  work  done  in  the  fourth  century  can  never  need  to  be  re- 
peated. It  was,  of  course,  an  unfinished  work.  As  we  have  seen,  Hilary  concerns  him- 
self with  two  Persons,  not  with  three ;  and  since  he  states  the  contrasted  truths  of  plurality 
and  unity  without  such  explanation  of  the  mystery  as  the  speculative  genius  of  Augustine 
was  to  supply,  he  leaves,  in  spite  of  all  his  efforts,  a  certain  impression  of  excessive  dualism. 
But  these  defects  do  not  lessen  the  permanent  value  of  his  work.  Indeed,  we  may  even 
assert  that  they,  together  with  some  strange  speculations  and  many  instances  of  wild  inter- 
pretation, which  are,  however,  no  part  of  the  structure  of  his  argument  and  do  not  affect 
its  solidity,  actually  enhance  its  human  and  historical  interest.  The  De  Trinitate  remains 
'the  most  perfect  literary  achievement  called  forth  by  the  Arian  controversy  3.' 

Hitherto  we  have  been  considering  the  relations  within  the  Godhead  of  Father  and 
Son,  together  with  certain  characters  which  belong  to  the  Son  in  virtue  of  His  eternal 
birth.  We  now  come  to  the  more  original  part  of  Hilary's  teaching,  which  must  be  treated 
in  greater  detail.  Till  now  he  has  spoken  only  of  the  Son  ;  he  now  comes  to  speak  of 
Christ,  the  name  which  the  Son  bears  in  relation  to  the  world.  We  have  seen  that  Hilary 
regards  the  Son  as  the  Creator*.  This  was  proved  for  him,  as  for  Athanasius,  by  the 
passage,  Proverbs  viii.  22,  which  they  read  according  to  the  Septuagint,  'The  Lord  hath 
created  Me  for  the  beginning  of  His  ways  for  His  Works  5.'  These  words,  round  which 
the  controversy  raged,  were  interpreted  by  the  orthodox  as  implying  that  at  the  time, 
and  for  the  purpose,  of  creation  the  Father  assigned  new  functions  to  the  Son  as  His 
representative.  The  gift  of  these  functions,  the  exercise  of  which  called  into  existence 
orders  of  being  inferior  to  God,  marked  in  Hilary's  eyes  a  change  so  definite  and  important 
in  the  activity  of  the  Son  that  it  deserved  to  be  called  a  second  birth,  not  ineffable  like 
the  eternal  birth,  but  strictly  analogous  to  the  Incarnation.  This  last  was  a  creation,  which 
brought  Him  within  the  sphere  of  created  humanity;  the  creation  of  Wisdom  for  the 
beginning  of  God's  ways  had  brought  Him,  though  less  closely,  into  the  same  relation  6,  and 


•  Trin.  ix.  58  ff.  3  Bardenhewer,  Patrologie,  p.  377. 

4  This  is  one  of  Hilary's  many  reminiscences  of  Origen. 
Athanasius  brought  the  Father  into  direct  connection  with  the 
world  ;  cf.  Harnack,  Dogmengesch.  ii.  206  (ed.  3). 

5  Trin.  xii.   35  ff.    The  passage  is  treated  at  much  greater  I  of  the  ways  of  God 

f  2 


length  in  Athanasius'  Discourses  against  the  Arians,  ii.  18  if., 
where  see  Robertson's  notes. 

6  Trin.  xii.  45 ;  at  the  Incarnation  Christ  is  '  created  in  the 
body,'  and  this  is  connected  with  His  creation  for  the  beginning 


lxviii 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  II. 


the  Incarnation  is  the  completion  of  what  was  begun  in  preparation  for  the  creation  of 
the  world.  Creation  is  the  mode  by  which  finite  being  begins,  and  the  beginning  of  each 
stage  in  the  connection  between  the  infinite  Son  and  His  creatures  is  called,  from  the 
one  point  of  view,  a  creation,  from  the  other,  a  birth.  We  cannot  fail  to  see  here  an 
anticipation  of  the  opinion  that  '  the  true  Protevangelium  is  the  revelation  of  Creation, 
or  in  other  words  that  the  Incarnation  was  independent  of  the  Fall  7,'  for  the  Incarnation 
is  a  step  in  the  one  continuous  divine  progress  from  the  Creation  to  the  final  consummation 
of  all  things,  and  has  not  sin  for  its  cause,  but  is  part  of  the  original  counsel  of  God 8. 
Together  with  this  new  office  the  Son  receives  a  new  name.  Henceforth  Hilary  calls  Him 
Christ ;  He  is  Christ  in  relation  to  the  world,  as  He  is  Son  in  relation  to  the  Father. 
From  the  beginning  of  time,  then,  the  Son  becomes  Christ  and  stands  in  immediate  relation 
to  the  world ;  it  is  in  and  through  Christ  that  God  is  the  Author  of  all  things  °,  and  the 
title  of  Creator  strictly  belongs  to  the  Son.  This  beginning  of  time,  we  must  remember, 
is  hidden  in  no  remote  antiquity.  The  world  had  no  mysterious  past;  it  came  into  exist- 
ence suddenly  at  a  date  which  could  be  fixed  with  much  precision,  some  5,600  years  before 
Hilary's  day  r,  and  had  undergone  no  change  since  then.  Before  that  date  there  had  been 
nothing  outside  the  Godhead ;  from  that  time  forth  the  Son  has  stood  in  constant  relation 
to  the  created  world. 

Christ,  for  so  we  must  henceforth  call  Him,  has  not  only  sustained  in  being  the 
universe  which  He  created,  but  has  also  imparted  to  men  a  steadily  increasing  knowledge 
of  God.  For  such  knowledge,  we  remember,  man  was  made,  and  his  salvation  depends 
upon  its  possession.  All  the  Theophanies  of  the  Old  Testament  are  such  revelations  by  Him 
of  Himself;  and  it  was  He  that  spoke  by  the  mo"th  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets.  But  how- 
ever significant  and  valuable  this  Divine  teaching  and  manifestation  might  be,  it  was  not 
complete  in  itself,  but  was  designed  to  prepare  men's  minds  to  expect  its  fulfilment  in 
the  Incarnation.  Just  as  the  Law  was  preliminary  to  the  Gospel,  so  the  appearances  of 
Christ  in  human  form  to  Abraham  and  to  others  were  a  foreshadowing  of  the  true  humanity 
which  He  was  to  assume.  They  were  true  revelations,  as  far  as  they  went;  but  their 
purpose  was  not  simply  to  impart  so  much  knowledge  as  they  explicitly  conveyed,  but 
also  to  lead  men  on  to  expect  more,  and  to  expect  it  in  the  very  form  in  which  it  ulti- 
mately came2.  For  His  self-revelation  in  the  Incarnation  was  but  the  treading  again  of 
a  familiar  path.  He  had  often  appeared,  and  had  often  spoken,  by  His  own  mouth  or 
by  that  of  men  whom  He  had  inspired ;  and  in  all  this  contact  with  the  world  His  one 
object  had  been  to  bestow  upon  mankind  the  knowledge  of  God.  With  the  same  object 
He  became  incarnate  ;  the  full  revelation  was  to  impart  the  perfect  knowledge.  He  became 
man,  Hilary  says,  in  order  that  we  might  believe  Him  j — '  to  be  a  Witness  from  among 
us  to  the  things  of  God,  and  by  means  of  weak  flesh  to  proclaim  God  the  Father  to  our 
weak  and  carnal  selves  3.'  Here  again  we  see  the  continuity  of  the  Divine  purpose,  the 
fulfilment  of  the  counsel  which  dates  back  to  the  beginning  of  time.  If  man  had  not 
sinned,  he  would  still  have  needed  the  progressive  revelation;  sin  has  certainly  modified 
Christ's  course  upon  earth,  but  was  not  the  determining  cause  of  the  Incarnation. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  or  Embodiment  as  Hilary  prefers  to  call  it,  is  presented 
very  fully  in  the  De  Trinitate,  and  with  much  originality.  The  Godhead  of  Christ  is  secured 
by  His  identity  with  the  eternal  Son  and  by  the  fact  that  at  the  very  time  of  His  humilia- 


7  Westcott,  essay  on  'The  Gospel  of  Creation,'  in  his  edition 
of  St.  John's  Epistles,  where,  however,  Hilary  is  not  mentioned. 

8  Cf.  Trin.  xi.  49. 

9  Trin.  ii.  6,  xii.  4,  &c.    He  is  also  often  named  Jesus  Christ 
in  this  connection,  e.g.  Trin.  ir.  6. 

1  According  to  Eusebius'  computation,  which  Hilary  would 


probably  accept  without  dispute,  there  were  5,228  years  from 
the  Creation  to  our  Lord's  commencement  of  His  mission  in  th« 
15th  year  of  Tiberius,  a.d.  29. 

■  E.g.  Trin.  iv.  ay ;  Tr.  in  Ps.  lxviii.  1%, 

3  Trin.  iii.  9 ;  cf.  St.  John  xvii.  3. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.   HILARY  OF  POITIERS.  lxix 


tion  upon  earth  He  was  continuing  without  interruption  His  divine  work  of  maintaining 
the  existence  of  the  worlds  4.  Indeed,  by  a  natural  protest  against  the  degradation  which 
the  Arians  would  put  upon  Him,  it  is  the  glory  of  Christ  upon  which  Hilary  (ays  chief 
stress.  And  this  is  not  the  moral  glory  of  submission  and  self-sacrifice,  but  the  visible  glory 
of  miracles  attesting  the  Divine  presence.  In  the  third  book  of  the  De  Trinitate  the  miracles 
of  Cana  and  of  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  the  entrance  into  the  closed  room  where 
the  disciples  were  assembled,  the  darkness  and  the  earthquake  at  the  Crucifixion,  are 
the  proofs  urged  for  His  Godhead ;  and  the  wonderful  circumstances  surrounding  the  birth 
at  Bethlehem  are  similarly  employed  in  book  ii.  s  Sound  as  the  reasoning  is,  it  is  typical 
of  a  certain  unwillingness  on  Hilary's  part  to  dwell  upon  the  self-surrender  of  Christ ;  he 
prefers  to  think  of  Him  rather  as  the  Revealer  of  God  than  as  the  Redeemer  of  men. 
But,  apart  from  this  preference,  he  constantly  insists  that  the  Incarnation  has  caused  neither 
loss  nor  change  of  the  Divine  nature  in  Christ6,  and  proves  the  point  by  the  same  words 
of  our  Lord  which  had  been  used  to  demonstrate  the  eternal  Sonship.  And  the  assump- 
tion of  flesh  lessens  His  power  as  little  as  it  degrades  His  nature.  For  though  it  is,  in 
one  aspect,  an  act  of  submission  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  it  is,  in  another,  an  exertion  of 
His  own  omnipotence.  No  inferior  power  could  appropriate  to  itself  an  alien  nature ;  only 
God  could  strip  Himself  of  the  attributes  of  Godhead  ?. 

But  the  incarnate  Christ  is  as  truly  man  as   He  is  truly  God.     We   have   seen   that 
He  is  '  created  in  the  body ' ;  and   Hilary  constantly  insists  that  His  humanity  is  neither 
fictitious  nor  different  in  kind  from  ours  8.     We  must  therefore  consider  what  is  the  con- 
stitution of  man.     He  is,  so  Hilary  teaches,  a  physically  composite  being ;  the  elements 
of  which   his  body  is  composed  are  themselves   lifeless,  and   man  himself  is  never    fully 
alive  9.     According  to  this  physiology,  the   father  is  the   author  of  the   child's  body,   the 
maternal  function  being  altogether  subsidiary.     It  would  seem  that  the  mother  does  nothing 
more  than  protect  the  embryo,  so  giving  it  the  opportunity  of  growth,  and  finally  bring  the 
child  to  birth  \     And  each  human  soul  is  separately  created,  like  the  universe,  out  of  nothing. 
Only  the  body  is  engendered  ;  the  soul,   wherein   the  likeness  of  man  to  God  consists, 
has  a  nobler  origin,  being  the  immediate  creation  of  God 2.     Hilary   does   not   hold,   or 
at  least  does   not  attach  importance  to,  the  tripartite  division  of  man;   for  the  purposes 
of  his   philosophy  we  consist  of  soul  and  body.     We  may  now  proceed   to  consider  his 
theory  of  the  Incarnation.     This  is  based  upon  the   Pauline  conception  of  the  first  and 
second  Adam.     Each  of  these  was  created,  and  the  two  acts  of  creation  exactly  correspond. 
Christ,  the  Creator,   made  clay  into  the  first  Adam,  who  therefore  had  an  earthly  body. 
He   made    Himself  into    the    second   Adam,   and   therefore    has    a   heavenly    Body.     To 
this  end  He  descended  from  heaven  and  entered  into  the  Virgin's  womb.     For,  in  accord- 
ance with  Hilary's  principle  of  interpretation  3,  the  word  '  Spirit '  must  not  be  regarded  as 
necessarily  signifying  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  one   or  other  of  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity  as 
the  context  may  require;   and  in  this  case  it  means  the  Son,  since  the  question  is  of  an 
act  of  creation,  and  He,  and   none  other,  is  the   Creator.     Moreover,  the  correspondence 
between  the  two  Adams  would  be  as  effectually  broken  were  the  Holy  Ghost  the  Agent  in 
the  conception,  as  it  would    be   were   Christ's   body   engendered  and    not   created.     Thus 

4  Trin.  ii.  25  and  often.  1  the  nurse  of  the  germ.     This  is  contrary  to  Aristotle's  teaching; 

5  Trin.  ii.  27.     The  same  conclusion  is  constantly  drawn  in  '  ^Eschylus  and   Hilary   evidently   represent   a    rival    current    of 


the  Comnt.  in  Matt. 

6  E.g.  Trin.  ix.  4,  14,  51 ;  Tr.  in  Ps.  ii.  n,  25. 

7  Trin.  ii.  26,  xii.  6,  &c.  8  E.g.  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxxxviii.  3. 

9  This,  in  contrast  with  God,  Who  is  Life,  is  proved  by  the 
fact  that  certain  bodily  growths  can  be  removed  without  our 
being  conscious  of  the  operation ;  Trin,  vii.  28. 

*  Cf.  Trin.  vii.  28,  x.  15,  16.  Similarly  in  the  Eumenides 
637,  ^E-;chylus  make?  Apollo  excuse  Orestes'  murder  of  Clytaem- 


ancient  opinion. 

2  Trin.  x.  20.  In  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.,  lod,  6,  7,  this  thought  is 
developed.  Man  has  a  double  origin.  First,  he  is  made  after 
the  likeness  of  God.  This  is  the  soul,  which  is  immaterial  and 
has  no  resemblance  and  owes  no  debt,  as  of  effect  to  cause,  to 
any  other  nature  (i.e.  substance)  than  God.  It  is  not  His  like- 
ness, but  is  after  His  likeness.  Secondly,  there  is  the  body, 
composed  of  earthly  matter. 


ne^ra  on  the  ground  that  the  mother  is  not  the  parent,  but  only  3   Trin.  ii.  3of. ,  viii.  23  f 


lxx 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  II. 


He  is  Himself  not  only  the  Author  but  (if  the  word  may  be  used)  the  material  of  His  own 
body4;  the  language  of  St.  John,  that  the  Word  became  flesh,  must  be  taken  literally.  It 
would  be  insufficient  to  say  that  the  Word  took,  or  united  Himself  to,  the  flesh  s.  But  this 
creation  of  the  Second  Adam  to  be  true  man  is  not  our  only  evidence  of  His  humanity. 
We  have  seen  that  in  Hilary's  judgment  the  mother  has  but  a  secondary  share  in  her 
offspring.  That  share,  whatever  it  be,  belongs  to  the  Virgin ;  she  contributed  to  His  growth 
and  to  His  coming  to  birth  'everything  which  it  is  the  nature  of  her  sex  to  impart6.'  But 
though  Christ  is  constantly  said  to  have  been  born  of  the  Virgin,  He  is  habitually  called 
the  '  Son  of  Man,'  not  the  Son  of  the  Virgin,  nor  she  the  Mother  of  God.  Such  language 
would  attribute  to  her  an  activity  and  an  importance  inconsistent  with  Hilary's  theory 
For  no  portion  of  her  substance,  he  distinctly  says,  was  taken  into  the  substance  of  her 
Son's  human  body 7;  and  elsewhere  he  argues  that  St.  Paul's  words  'made  of  a  woman'  are 
deliberately  chosen  to  describe  Christ's  birth  as  a  creation  free  from  any  commingling 
with  existing  humanity8.  But  the  Virgin  has  an  essential  share  in  the  fulfilment 
of  prophecy.  For  though  Christ  without  her  co-operation  could  have  created  Himself 
as  Man,  yet  He  would  not  have  been,  as  He  was  fore-ordained  to  be,  the  Son  of 
Man  9.  And  since  He  holds  that  the  Virgin  performs  every  function  of  a  mother,  Hilary 
avoids  that  Valentinian  heresy  according  to  which  Christ  passed  through  the  Virgin  '  like 
water  through  a  pipe1,'  for  He  was  Himself  the  Author  of  a  true  act  of  creation  within 
her,  and,  when  she  had  fulfilled  her  office,  was  born  as  true  flesh.  Again,  Hilary's  clear 
sense  of  the  eternal  personal  pre-existence  of  the  Word  saves  him  from  any  contact  with 
the  Monarchianism  combated  by  Hippolytus  and  Tertullian,  which  held  that  the  Son  was 
the  Father  under  another  aspect.  Indeed,  so  secure  does  he  feel  himself  that  he  can 
venture  to  employ  Monarchian  theories,  now  rendered  harmless,  in  explanation  of  the 
mysteries  of  the  Incarnation,  for  we  cannot  fail  to  see  a  connection  between  his  opinions 
and  theirs  ;  and  it  might  seem  that,  confident  in  his  wider  knowledge,  he  has  borrowed 
not  only  from  the  arguments  used  by  Tertullian  against  the  Monarchian  Praxeas,  but 
also  from  those  which  Tertullian  assigns  to  the  latter.  Such  reasonings,  we  know,  had 
been  very  prevalent  in  the  West ;  and  Hilary's  use  of  certain  of  them,  in  order  to  turn  their 
edge  by  showing  that  they  were  not  inconsistent  with  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the 
Faith  2,  may  indicate  that  Monarchianism  was  still  a  real  danger. 

Thus  the  Son  becomes  flesh,  and  that  by  true  maternity  on  the  Virgin's  part.  But  man 
is  more  than  flesh  ;  he  is  soul  as  well,  and  it  is  the  soul  which  makes  him  man  instead 
of  matter.  The  soul,  as  we  saw,  is  created  by  a  special  act  of  God  at  the  beginning  of  the 
separate  existence  of  each  human  being ;  and  Christ,  to  be  true  man  and  not  merely  true 
flesh,  created  for  Himself  the  human  soul  which  was  necessary  for  true  humanity.  He 
had  borrowed  from  the  Apollinarians,  consciously  no  doubt,  their  interpretation  of  one 
of  their  favourite  passages,  'The  Word  became  flesh';  here  again  we  find  an  argument 
of  heretics  rendered  harmless  and  adopted   by  orthodoxy.     For  the  strange  Apollinarian 


4  Trin.  x.  16,  caro  non  aliunde  originent  sumpserat  quant 
ex  Verbo,  and  ib.  15, 18,  25.  Dorner,  I.  ii.,  p.  403,  n.  1,  points  out 
that  this  is  exactly  the  teaching  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa. 

5  This  view  that  the  conception  by  the  Holy  Ghost  means 
conception  by  the  Son  is  consistently  held  by  Hilary  throughout 
his  writings.  It  appears  in  the  earliest  of  them;  in  Comm.  in 
Matt.  ii.  s,  Christ  is  '  born  of  a  woman  ;  .  .  .  made  flesh  through 
the  Word.'  So  in  Trin.  ii.  24,  He  is  '  born  of  the  Virgin  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  Himself  ministering  to  Himself  in  this  oper- 
ation. .  .  .  By  His  own,  that  is  God's,  overshadowing  power  He 
sowed  for  Himself  the  beginnings  of  His  body  and  ordained  that 
His  fle-.li  should  commence  to  exist ;'  and  Trin.  x.  16. 

6  Trin.  x.  16;  cf.  ib.  17.  In  the  Instructio  Psalmorum,  §  6, 
he  speaks  in  more  usual  language  ; — adventus  Domini  ex  virgine 
in  Aominem  procreandi,  and  so  also  in  some  other  passages. 


Dorner's  view  (I.  ii.  403  f.  and  note  74,  p.  533)  differs  from  that 
here  taken.  But  he  is  influenced  (see  especially  p.  404)  by  the 
desire  to  save  Hilary's  consistency  rather  than  to  state  his  actual 
opinion.  And  Hilary  was  too  early  in  the  field,  too  anxiously 
employed  in  feeling  his  way  past  the  pitfalls  of  heresy,  to  escape 
the  danger  of  occasional  inconsistency. 

7  Trin.  iii.  19,  perfectum  ipsa  de  suis  non  imminuta  gene- 
ravit.  So  ib.  ii.  25,  unigenitus  Deus  ....  Virginis  utero  in- 
sert us  accrescit.  He  grew  there,  but  nothing  more.  In  Vir- 
ginem  exactly  corresponds  to  ex  Virgine. 

8  Trin.  xii.  50  ;  it  would  be  a  watering  of  the  sense  to  regard 
commixlio  in  this  passage  as  simply  equivalent  to  coitio. 

9  Trin.  x.  16.  »  Irenaeus,  L  r,  13. 

a  He  often  and  emphatically  repudiates  the  use  which  th* 
Monarchians  made  of  them,  e.g.  Trin.  iv.  4. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.  lxxi 

denial  to  Christ  of  a  human  soul,  and  therefore  of  perfect  manhood,  is  not  only  expressly 
contradicted  \  but  repudiated  on  every  page  by  the  contrary  assumption  on  which  all 
Hilary's  arguments  are  based.  Christ,  then,  is  'perfect  man*,  of  a  reasonable  soul  and 
human  flesh  subsisting,'  for  Whom  the  Virgin  has  performed  the  normal  functions  of 
maternity.  But  there  is  one  wide  and  obvious  difference  between  Hilary's  mode  of  handling 
the  matter  and  that  with  which  we  are  familiar.  His  view  concerning  the  mother's  office 
forbids  his  laying  stress  upon  our  Lord's  inheritance  from  her.  Occasionally,  and  without 
emphasis,  he  mentions  our  Lord  as  the  Son  of  David,  or  otherwise  introduces  His  human 
ancestry  s,  but  he  never  dwells  upon  the  subject.  He  neither  bases  upon  this  ancestry  the 
truth,  nor  deduces  from  it  the  character,  of  Christ's  humanity.  Such  is  Hilary's  account 
of  the  facts  of  the  Incarnation.  In  his  teaching  there  is  no  doubt  error  as  well  as  defect, 
but  only  in  the  mode  of  explanation,  not  in  the  doctrine  explained.  It  will  help  us 
to  do  him  justice  if  we  may  compare  the  theories  that  have  been  framed  concerning 
another  great  doctrine,  that  of  the  Atonement,  and  remember  that  the  strangely  diverse 
speculations  of  Gregory  the  Great  and  of  St.  Anselm  profess  to  account  for  the  same  facts, 
and  that,  so  far  as  definitions  of  the  Church  are  concerned,  we  are  free  to  accept  one 
or  other,  or  neither,  of  the  rival  explanations. 

Christ,  then,  Who  had  been  perfect  God  from  eternity,  became  perfect  Man  by  His 
self-wrought  act  of  creation.  Thus  there  was  an  approximation  between  God  and  man ; 
man  was  raised  by  God,  Who  humbled  Himself  to  meet  Him.  On  the  one  hand  the  Virgin 
was  sanctified  in  preparation  for  her  sacred  motherhood 6 ;  on  the  other  hand  there  was 
a  condescension  of  the  Son  to  our  low  estate.  The  key  to  this  is  found  by  Hilary  in 
the  language  of  St.  Paul.  Christ  emptied  Himself  of  the  form  of  God  and  took  the  form 
of  a  servant ;  this  is  a  revelation  as  decisive  as  the  same  Apostle's  words  concerning  the 
first  and  the  second  Adam.  The  form  of  God,  wherein  the  Son  is  to  the  Father  as  the  exact 
image  reflected  in  a  mirror,  the  exact  impression  taken  from  a  seal,  belongs  to  Christ's  very 
being.  He  could  not  detach  it  from  Himself,  if  He  would,  for  it  is  the  property  of  God 
to  be  eternally  what  He  is ;  and,  as  Hilary  constantly  reminds  us,  the  continuous  existence 
of  creation  is  evidence  that  there  had  been  no  break  in  the  Son's  divine  activity  in  maintain- 
ing the  universe  which  He  had  made.  While  He  was  in  the  cradle  He  upheld  the  worlds  i. 
Yet,  in  some  real  sense,  Christ  emptied  Himself  of  this  form  of  God  8.  It  was  necessary 
that  He  should  do  so  if  manhood,  even  the  sinless  manhood  created  by  Himself  for  His 
own  Incarnation,  was  to  co-exist  with  Godhead  in  His  one  Person  9.  This  is  stated  as 
distinctly  as  is  the  correlative  fact  that  He  retained  and  exercised  the  powers  and  the  majesty 
of  His  nature.  Thus  it  is  clear  that,  outside  the  sphere  of  His  work  for  men,  the  form  and 
the  nature  of  God  remained  unchanged  in  the  Son ;  while  within  that  sphere  the  form, 
though  not  the  nature,  was  so  affected  that  it  could  truly  be  said  to  be  laid  aside.  But 
when  we  come  to  Hilary's  explanation  of  this  process,  we  can  only  acquit  him  of  incon- 
sistency in  thought  by  admitting  the  ambiguity  of  his  language.  In  one  group  of  passages 
he  recognises  the  self-emptying,  but  minimises  its  importance;  in  another  he  denies  that 
our  Lord  could  or  did  empty  Himself  of  the  form  of  God.  And  again,  his  definitions 
of  the  word  '  form '  are    so    various    as    to    be    actually  contradictory.      Yet   a   consistent 

3  E.g.   Trin.  x.  22  in.     The  human  soul  is  clearly  intended.  5  E.g.  Comm,  in  Matt.  i.  ;  Tr.  in  Ps.  lxviii.  19. 
Schwane,  ii.  268,  justly  praises  Hilary  for  greater  accuracy  than          6  Trin.  ii.  26.  7  lb.  viii.  45,  47,  ix.  14,  &c. 

his  contemporaries  in  laying  stress  upon  each  of  the  constituent  8  This  'evacuation'  or  '  exinanition '  is  represented  in  Tr.  in 

elements  of  Christ's   humanity,  and   especially   upon   the   soul ;  Ps.  lxviii.  4  by  the  more  precise  metaphor  of  a  vessel  drained 

in  this  respect  following  Tertullian  and  Origen.  of  its  liquid  contents. 

4  In  Trin.  x.  21  f.  is  an  argument  analogous  to  that  of  the  9  Hilary  has  devoted  his  Homily  on  Psalm  lxviii.  to  this 
De  Synodis  concerning  the  Godhead.  Christ  is  Man  because  subject.  In  §  25  he  asks,  '  How  could  He  exist  in  the  form  of 
He  is  perfectly  like  man,  just  as  in  the  Homoeusian  argument  man  while  remaining  in  the  form  of  God?'  There  are  many 
He  is  God  because  He  is  perfectly  like  God.  equally  emphatic  statements  throughout  his  writings. 


lxxii 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  II. 


sense,  and  one  exceedingly  characteristic  of  Hilary,  can  be  derived  from  a  comparison 
of  his  statements  ' ;  and  in  judging  him  we  must  remember  that  we  have  no  systematic 
exposition  of  his  views,  but  must  gather  them  not  only  from  his  deliberate  reasonings, 
but  sometimes  from  homiletical  amplifications  of  Scripture  language,  composed  for  edification 
and  without  the  thought  of  theological  balance,  and  sometimes  from  incidental  sayings, 
thrown  out  in  the  course  of  other  lines  of  argument.  To  the  minimising  statements  belongs 
his  description  of  the  evacuation  as  a  '  change  of  apparel a,'  and  his  definition  of  the  word 
*  form  'as  meaning  no  more  than  'face'  or  '  appearance  3,'  as  also  his  insistence  from  time 
to  time  upon  the  permanence  of  this  form  in  Christ,  not  merely  in  His  supramundane 
relations,  but  as  the  Son  of  Man  *.  On  the  other  hand  Hilary  expressly  declares  that  the 
1  concurrence  of  the  two  forms  s '  is  impossible,  they  being  mutually  exclusive.  This  repre- 
sents the  higher  form,  that  of  God,  as  something  more  than  a  dress  or  appearance  which 
could  be  changed  or  masked ;  and  stronger  still  is  the  language  used  in  the  Homily 
on  Psalm  lxviii.  There  (§  4)  he  speaks  of  Christ  being  exhausted  of  His  heavenly  nature, 
this  being  used  as  a  synonym  for  the  form  of  God,  and  even  of  His  being  emptied  of 
His  substance.  But  it  is  probable  that  the  Homily  has  descended  to  us,  without  revision 
by  its  author,  in  the  very  words  which  the  shorthand  writer  took  down.  This  mention 
of  '  substance '  is  unlike  Hilary's  usual  language,  and  the  antithesis  between  the  substance 
which  the  Son  had  not,  because  He  had  emptied  Himself  of  it,  and  the  substance  which 
He  had,  because  He  had  assumed  it,  is  somewhat  infelicitously  expressed.  The  term 
must  certainly  not  be  taken  as  the  deliberate  statement  of  Hilary's  final  opinion,  still 
less  as  the  decisive  passage  to  which  his  other  assertions  must  be  accommodated;  but 
it  is  at  least  clear  evidence  that  Hilary,  in  the  maturity  of  his  thought,  was  not  afraid 
to  state  in  the  strongest  possible  language  the  reality  and  completeness  of  the  evacuation. 
The  reconciliation  of  these  apparently  contradictory  views  concerning  Christ's  relation 
to  the  form  of  God  can  only  be  found  in  Hilary's  idea  of  the  Incarnation  as  a  '  dispensation,' 
or  series  of  dispensations.  The  word  and  the  thought  are  borrowed  through  Tertullian  6  from 
the  Greek  '  economy ' ;  but  in  Hilary's  mind  the  notion  of  Divine  reserve  has  grown 
till  it  has  become,  we  might  almost  say,  the  dominant  element  of  the  conception.  This 
self-emptying  is  a  dispensation  7,  whereby  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  appears  to  be,  what 
He  is  not,  destitute  of  the  form  of  God.  For  this  form  is  the  glory  of  God,  concealed 
by  our  Lord  for  the  purposes  of  His  human  life,  yet  held  by  Hilary,  to  a  greater  extent, 
perhaps,  than  by  any  other  theologian,  to  have  been  present  with  Him  on  earth.  In 
words  which  have  a  wider  application,  and  must  be  considered  hereafter,  Hilary  speaks 
of  Christ  as  'emptying  Himself  and  hiding  Himself  within  Himself8.'  Concealment  has 
a  great  part  to  play  in  Hilary's  theories,  and  is  in  this  instance  the  only  explanation 
consistent  with  his  doctrinal  positions. 

Thus  the  Son  made  possible  the  union  of  humanity  with  Himself.  He  '  shrank  from 
God  into  man x '  by  an  act  not  only  of  Divine  power,  but  of  personal  Divine  will.  He  Who 
did  this  thing  could  not  cease  to  be  what  He  had  been  before ;  hence  His  very  deed 
in  submitting  Himself  to  the  change  is  evidence  of  His  unchanged  continuity  of  existence2. 


*  Baltzer  and  Schwane  have  been  followed  in  this  matter, 
in  opposition  to  Dorner. 

a  Trin.  ix.  38,  habitus  demutatio,  and  similarly  ib.  14. 
3  Tr.  in  Ps.  lxviii.  25.  4  E.g.  Trin.  viii.  45. 

5  Trin.  ix.  14,  concursus  utriusque  for  nice. 

6  It  is  very  characteristic  that  it  lies  outside  Cyprian's  voca- 
bulary and  range  of  ideas. 

7  Trin.  ix.  38  jh. ,  and  especially  ib.  39.     The  unity  of  glory 
departed  through  His  obedience  in  the  Dispensation. 

8  Trin.  xi.  48  ;  cf.  the  end  of  this  section  and  xii.  6. 

9  Cf.  Baltzer,  Christologie,  p.  10  f.,  Schwane,  p.  272  f.     Other 


explanations  which  have  been  suggested  are  quite  inadmissible. 
Dorner,  p.  407,  takes  the  passage  cited  above  about  'substance' 
too  seriously,  and  wavers  between  the  equally  impossible  inter- 
pretations of  countenance'  and  'personality.'  Forster(l.c.  p.  659) 
understands  the  word  to  mean  'mode  of  existence.'  Wirthmiiller, 
cited  by  Schwane,  p.  273,  has  the  courage  to  regard  'form  of 
God'  and  'form  of  a  servant*  as  equivalent  to  Divinity  and 
humanity. 

1  Trin.  xii.  6,   decedere  ex  Deo  in  hominem.      Perhaps  it 
should  be  decidere,  as  in  Tr.  in  Ps.  lxviii.  4. 

2  Tr.  in  Ps.  lxviii.  25. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS. 


lxxiii 


And  furthermore,  His  assumption  of  the  servant's  form  was  not  accomplished  by  a  single 
act.  His  wearing  of  that  form  was  one  continuous  act  of  voluntary  self-repression  3, 
and  the  events  of  His  life  on  earth  bear  frequent  witness  to  His  possession  of  the  powers 
of  God. 

Thus  in  Him  God  is  united  with  man ;  these  two  natures  form  the  ( elements '  or 
'parts'  of  one  Person  4.  The  Godhead  is  superposed  upon  the  manhood;  or,  as  Hilary 
prefers  to  say,  the  manhood  is  assumed  by  Christ s.  And  these  two  natures  are  not 
confused6,  but  simultaneously  coexist  in  Him  as  the  Son  of  Man 7.  There  are  not  two 
Christs8,  nor  is  the  one  Christ  a  composite  Being  in  such  a  sense  that  He  is  intermediate 
in  kind  between  God  and  Man.  He  can  speak  as  God  and  can  also  speak  as  Man; 
in  the  Homilies  on  the  Psalms  Hilary  constantly  distinguishes  between  His  utterances  in 
the  one  and  the  other  nature.  Yet  He  is  one  Person  with  two  natures,  of  which  the  one 
dominates,  though  it  does  not  extinguish,  the  other  in  every  relation  of  His  existence  as 
the  Son  of  Man  9.  Every  act,  bodily  or  mental,  done  by  Him  is  done  by  both  natures 
of  the  one  Christ.  Hence  a  certain  indifference  towards  the  human  aspects  of  His  life, 
and  a  tendency  rather  to  explain  away  what  seems  humiliation  than  to  draw  out  its  lessons x. 
And  Hilary  is  so  impressed  with  the  unity  of  Christ  that  the  humanity,  a  notion  for  which 
he  has  no  name2,  would  have  been  in  his  eyes  nothing  more  than  a  collective  term  for 
certain  attributes  of  One  Who  is  more  than  man,  just  as  the  body  of  Christ  is  not  for 
him  a  dwelling  occupied,  or  an  instrument  used,  by  God,  but  an  inseparable  property 
of  Christ,  Who  personally  is  God  and  Man. 

Hence  the  body  of  Christ  has  a  character  peculiar  to  itself.  It  is  a  heavenly  body  3, 
because  of  its  origin  and  because  of  its  Owner,  the  Son  of  Man  Who  came  down  from 
heaven,  and  though  on  earth  was  in  heaven  still  4.  It  performs  the  functions  and  experiences, 
the  limitations  of  a  human  body,  and  this  is  evidence  that  it  is  in  every  sense  a  true,  not 
an  alien  or  fictitious  body.  Though  it  is  free  from  the  sins  of  humanity,  it  has  our 
weaknesses.  But  here  the  distinction  must  be  made,  which  will  presently  be  discussed, 
between  the  two  kinds  of  suffering,  that  which  feels  and  that  which  only  endures.  Christ 
was  not  conscious  of  suffering  from  these  weaknesses,  which  could  inflict  no  sense  of  want 
of  weariness  or  pain  upon  His  body,  a  body  not  the  less  real  because  it  was  perfect. 
He  took  our  infirmities  as  truly  as  He  bore  our  sins.  But  He  was  no  more  under  the 
dominion  of  the  one  than  of  the  others.  His  body  was  in  the  likeness  of  ours,  but  its 
reality  did  not  consist  in  the  likeness 6,  but  in  the  fact  that  He  had  created  it  a  true  body. 
Christ,  by  virtue  of  His  creative  power,  might  have  made  for  Himself  a  true  body,  by 
means  of  which  to  fulfil  God's  purposes,  that  should  have  been  free  from  these  infirmities. 
It  was  for  our  sake  that  He  did  not.  There  would  have  been  a  true  body,  but  it  would 
have   been   difficult  for  us  to  believe  it.     Hence  He  assumed  one  which  had  for  habits 


3  Trin.  xi.  48,  'emptying  Himself'  might  have  been  a  single 
act;  'hiding  Himself  within  Himself  was  a  sustained  course 
of  conduct. 

4  Genus  is  fairly  common,  though  much  rarer  than  natura; 
pars  occurs  in  Trin.  xi.  14, 15,  and  cf.  rf.40.  Elementa  is,  I  think, 
somewhat  more  frequent. 

5  Trin.  xi.  40,  natura  assumpti  corporis  nostri  natura 
patenter  dhinitatis  invecta.  Conversely,  Trin.  ix.  54,  nova 
natura  in  Deum  illata.  But  such  expressions  are  rare  ;  homi- 
nem  ad  sumpsit  is  the  normal  phrase.  In  Tr.  in  Ps.  lxviii.  4, 
he  speaks  as  if  the  two  natures  had  been  forced  to  coalesce  by 
a  Power  higher  than  either.  But,  as  we  have  seen,  in  this  part 
of  the  Homily  Hilary's  language  is  destitute  of  theological  ex- 
actness. 

«  Tr.  in  Ps.  liv.  2. 

7  E.g.    Trin.  ix.  II,  39,  x.  16.      The  expression   utriusque 


naturee  persona  in  Trin.  ix.  14  is  susceptible  of  another  inter- 
pretation. 

8  E.g.  Trin.  x.  22. 

9  Trin.  x.  22,  quia  totus  hominis  filius  totus  Deifilius  sit. 

1  Cf.  Gore's  Dissertations,  p.  138  f.  But  Hilary,  though  he 
shares  and  even  exaggerates  the  general  tendency  of  his  time, 
has  also  a  strong  sense  of  the  danger  of  Apollinarianism. 

2  Homo  assumptus  is  constantly  used,  and  similarly  homo 
noster  for  our  manhood,  e.g.  Trin.  ix.  7.  This  often  leads  to 
an  awkwardness  of  which  Hilary  must  have  been  fully  conscious, 
though  he  regarded  it  as  a  less  evil  than  the  use  of  an  abstract 
term. 

3  Corpus  coeleste,  x.  18. 

4  Tr.  in  Ps.  ii.  n,  from  St.  John  Hi.  13. 

5  Trin.  x.  47  f.  ;  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxxxviii.  3. 

6  Trin.  x.  25. 


IXX1V 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  II. 


what  are  necessities  to  us,  in  order  to  demonstrate  to  us  its  reality  ?.  It  was  foreordained 
that  He  should  be  incarnate;  the  mode  of  the  Incarnation  was  determined  by  considerations 
of  our  advantage.  The  arguments  by  which  this  thesis  is  supported  will  be  stated 
presently,  in  connection  with  Hilary's  account  of  the  Passion.  It  would  be  difficult  to 
decide  whether  he  has  constructed  his  theory  concerning  the  human  activities  of  our 
Lord  upon  the  basis  of  this  preponderance  of  the  Divine  nature  in  His  incarnate  personality, 
or  whether  he  has  argued  back  from  what  he  deems  the  true  account  of  Christ's  mode 
of  life  on  earth,  and  invented  the  hypothesis  in  explanation  of  it.  In  any  case  he  has  had 
the  courage  exactly  to  reverse  the  general  belief  of  Christendom  regarding  the  powers 
normally  used  by  Christ.  We  are  accustomed  to  think  that  with  rare  exceptions,  such  as 
the  Transfiguration,  He  lived  a  life  limited  by  the  ordinary  conditions  of  humanity,  to 
draw  lessons  for  ourselves  from  His  bearing  in  circumstances  like  our  own,  to  estimate 
His  condescension  and  suffering,  in  kind  if  not  in  degree,  by  our  own  consciousness. 
Hilary  regards  the  normal  state  of  the  incarnate  Christ  as  that  of  exaltation,  from  which 
He  stooped  on  rare  occasions,  by  a  special  act  of  will,  to  self-humiliation.  Thus  the 
Incarnation,  though  itself  a  declension  from  the  pristine  glory,  does  not  account  for 
the  facts  of  Christ's  life;  they  must  be  explained  by  further  isolated  and  temporary 
declensions.  And  since  the  Incarnation  is  the  one  great  event,  knowledge  and  faith  con- 
cerning which  are  essential,  the  events  which  accompany  or  result  from  it  tend,  in  Hilary's 
thought,  to  shrink  in  importance.  They  can  and  must  be  minimised,  explained  away, 
regarded  as  'dispensations,'  if  they  seem  to  derogate  from  the  Majesty  of  Him  Who  was 
incarnate. 

When  we  examine  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  by  which  Hilary  reaches  the  desired 
conclusions  we  find  it,  in  many  instances,  strange  indeed.  The  letter  of  the  Gospels  tells 
us  of  bodily  needs  and  of  suffering  ;  Christ,  though  more  than  man,  is  proved  to  be  Man  by 
His  obvious  submission  to  the  conditions  of  human  life.  But  according  to  Hilary  all  human 
suffering  is  due  to  the  union  of  an  imperfect  soul  with  an  imperfect  body.  The  soul  of  Christ, 
though  truly  human,  was  perfect ;  His  body  was  that  of  a  Person  Divine  as  well  as  human. 
Thus  both  elements  were  perfect  of  their  kind,  and  therefore  as  free  from  infirmity8  as  from  sin, 
for  affliction  is  the  lot  of  man  not  because  he  is  man,  but  because  he  is  a  sinner.  In  contrast 
with  the  squalor  of  sinful  humanity,  glory  surrounded  'Christ  from  the  Annunciation  onward 
throughout  His  course  on  earth  9.  Miracle  is  the  attestation  of  His  Godhead,  and  He  Who 
was  thus  superior  to  the  powers  of  nature  could  not  be  subject  to  the  sufferings  which  nature 
inflicts.  But,  being  omnipotent,  He  could  subject  Himself  to  humiliations  which  no  power 
less  than  His  own  could  lay  upon  Him,  and  this  self-subjection  is  the  supreme  evidence 
of  His  might  as  well  of  His  goodwill  towards  men.  God,  and  only  God,  could  occupy  at 
once  the  cradle  and  the  throne  on  high  x.  Thus  in  emphasizing  the  humiliation  Hilary  is 
extolling  the  majesty  of  Christ,  and  refuting  the  errors  of  Arianism.  That  school  had  made 
the  most  of  Christ's  sufferings,  holding  them  a  proof  of  His  inferiority  to  the  Father.  In 
Hilary's  eyes  His  power  to  condescend  and  His  final  victory  are  equally  conclusive  evidences 
of  His  co-equal  Divinity.  But  if  He  stoops  to  our  estate,  and  is  at  the  same  time  God 
exercising  His  full  prerogatives,  here  again  there  must  be  a  '  dispensation.'  He  was  truly 
subject  to  the  limitations  of  our  nature  ;  that  is  a  fact  of  revelation.  But  He  was  subject  by 
a  succession  of  detached  acts  of  self-restraint,  culminating  in  the  act,  voluntary  like  the  others, 
of  His  death 2.  Of  His  acceptance  of  the  ordinary  infirmities  of  humanity  we  have  already 
spoken.     Hilary   gives   the   same   explanation   of  the   Passion  as  he  does  of  the  thirst  or 


7  Trin.  x.  24.  The  purpose  of  the  Old  Testament  Theopha- 
nies,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  the  same.  Ood  appeared  as 
Man,  in  order  to  make  men  familiar  with  the  future  reality  and 
so  more  ready  to  believe.     See  Trin.  v.  17. 


8  Trin.  x.  14,  15. 

9  Trin.  ii.  26  f.,  iii.  18  f.  and  often,  especially  in  the  Comm* 
in  Matt. 

'  E.g.  Trin.  ix.  4,  xi.  48.  2  16.  x.  n,  61. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS. 


lxxv 


weariness  of  Christ.  That  He  could  suffer,  and  that  to  the  utmost,  is  proved  by  the  fact 
that  He  did  suffer;  yet  was  He,  or  could  He  be,  conscious  of  suffering?  For  the  fulfilment 
of  the  Divine  purpose,  for  our  assurance  of  the  reality  of  His  work,  the  acts  had  to  be  done; 
but  it  was  sufficient  that  they  should  be  done  by  a  dispensation,  in  other  words,  that  the 
events  should  be  real  and  yet  the  feelings  be  absent  of  which,  had  the  events  happened  to 
us,  we  should  have  been  conscious.  To  understand  this  we  must  recur  to  Hilary's  theory  of 
the  relation  of  the  soul  to  the  body  The  former  i?  the  organ  of  sense,  the  latter  a  lifeless 
thing.  But  the  soul  may  fall  below  or  rise  above  its  normal  state  Mortification  of  the 
body  may  set  in,  or  drugs  be  administered  which  shall  render  the  soul  incapable  of  feeling  the 
keenest  pain  3.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  capable  of  a  spiritual  elevation  which  shall  make 
it  unconscious  of  bodily  needs  or  sufferings,  as  when  Moses  and  Elijah  fasted,  or  the  three 
Jewish  youths  walked  amid  the  flames  *.  On  this  high  level  Christ  always  dwelt.  Others 
might  rise  for  a  moment  above  themselves  ;  He,  not  although,  but  because  He  was  true  and 
perfect  Man,  never  fell  below  it.  He  placed  Himself  in  circumstances  where  shame  and 
wounds  and  death  were  inflicted  upon  Him ;  He  had  lived  a  life  of  humiliation,  not  only  real, 
in  that  it  involved  a  certain  separation  from  God,  but  also  apparent.  But  as  in  this  latter 
respect  we  may  no  more  overlook  His  glory  than  we  may  suppose  Him  ignorant,  as  by 
a  dispensation  He  professed  to  be  5,  so  in  regard  to  the  Passion  we  must  not  imagine  that  He 
was  inferior  to  His  saints  in  being  conscious,  as  they  were  not,  of  suffering  6.  So  far,  indeed, 
is  He  from  the  sense  of  suffering  that  Hilary  even  says  that  the  Passion  was  a  delight  to 
Him  7,  and  this  not  merely  in  its  prospective  results,  but  in  the  consciousness  of  power  which 
He  enjoyed  in  passing  through  it.  Nor  could  this  be  surprising  to  one  who  looked  with 
Hilary's  eyes  upon  the  humanity  of  Christ.  He  enforces  his  view  sometimes  with  rhetoric, 
as  when  he  repudiates  the  notion  that  the  Bread  of  Life  could  hunger,  and  He  who  gives  the 
living  water,  thirst 8,  that  the  hand  which  restored  the  servant's  ear  could  itself  feel  pain  9,  that 
He  Who  said,  '  Now  is  the  Son  of  Man  glorified,'  when  Judas  left  the  chamber,  could  at  that 
moment  be  feeling  sorrow  r,  and  He  before  Whom  the  soldiers  fell  be  capable  of  fear  2,  or 
shrink  from  the  pain  of  a  death  which  was  itself  an  exertion  of  His  own  free  will  and  power  3. 
Or  else  he  dwells  upon  the  general  character  of  Christ's  manhood.  He  recognises  no  change 
in  the  mode  of  being  after  the  Resurrection ;  the  passing  through  closed  doors,  the  sudden 
disappearance  at  Emmaus  are  typical  of  the  normal  properties  of  His  body,  which  could  heal 
the  sick  by  a  touch,  and  could  walk  upon  the  waves  4.  It  is  a  body  upon  the  sensibility 
of  which  the  forces  of  nature  can  make  no  impression  whatever  ;  they  can  no  more "  pain  Him 
than  the  stroke  of  a  weapon  can  affect  air  or  water  s ;  or,  as  Hilary  puts  it  elsewhere,  fear  and 
death,  which  have  so  painful  a  meaning  to  us,  were  no  more  to  Him  than  a  shower  falling 
upon  a  surface  which  it  cannot  penetrate6.  It  is  not  the  passages  of  the  Gospel  which 
tell  of  Christ's  glory,  but  those  which  speak  of  weakness  or  suffering  that  need  to  be  explained  ; 
and  Hilary  on  occasion  is  not  afraid  to  explain  them  away.  For  instance,  we  read  that  when 
our  Lord  had  fasted  forty  days  and  forty  nights  '  He  was  afterward  an  hungred.'  Hilary 
denies  that  there  is  a  connection  of  cause  and  effect     Christ's  perfect  body  was  unaffected 


3  Trin.  x.  14. 

4  Cornm.  in  Matt.  Hi.  2  ;  Trin.  x.  45.  The  freedom  of  Chris- 
tian martyrs  from  pain  is  frequently  noticed  in  early  writers. 

5  Cf.  p.  lxvi. 

«  Hilary  was  undoubtedly  influenced  more  than  he  knew  by 
the  Latin  words  pati  and  dolere,  the  one  purely  objective,  the 
other  subjective.  By  a  line  of  thought  which  recalls  that  of 
Mozley  concerning  Miracles  he  refuses  to  argue  from  our  ex- 
perience to  that  of  Christ.  That  He  suffered,  in  the  sense  of 
having  wounds  and  death  inflicted  upon  Him,  is  a  fact ;  that  He 
was  conscious  of  suffering  is  an  inference,  a  supposition  (putatur 
dolere  quia patitur,  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxxxviii.  3,  fallitur  ergo  hum  ante 


wstimationis  opinio  putans  hunc  dolere  quod  patitur,  Trin.  x.  47), 
and  one  which  we  are  not  entitled  to  make.  In  fact,  the  passage 
last  cited  states  that  He  has  no  natura  dolendi ;  so  also  x.  23, 
35,  and  cf.  Tr.  in  Ps.  liii.  12.  Or,  as  Hilary  puts  it,  Trin.  x.  24, 
He  is  subject  to  the  natura passionum  not  to  their  iniuriai 

7  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxxxviii.  26.  8  Trin.  x.  24. 

9  lb.  28.  1  lb.  29.  2  lb.  27.  3  lb.  11. 

*  lb.  23.  These  instances  of  His  power  are  used  as  a  direct 
proof  of  Christ's  incapacity  of  pain.  Hilary  is  willing  to  confess 
that  He  could  feel  it,  if  it  be  shewn  that  we  can  follow  Him  in 
these  respects. 

5  loc.  cit.  6  Tr.  in  Ps-  liv.  6. 


lxxvi 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  II. 


by  abstinence  ;  but  after  the  fast  by  an  exertion  of  His  will  He  experienced  hunger'.  So  also 
the  Agony  in  the  Garden  is  ingeniously  misinterpreted.  He  took  with  Him  the  three 
Apostles,  and  then  began  to  be  sorrowful.  He  was  not  sorrowful  till  He  had  taken  them  j 
they,  not  He,  were  the  cause.  When  He  said,  '  My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful,  even  unto 
death,'  the  last  words  must  not  be  regarded  as  meaning  that  His  was  a  mortal  sorrow,  but  as 
giving  a  note  of  time.  The  sorrow  of  which  He  spoke  was  not  for  Himself  but  for  His 
Apostles,  whose  flight  He  foresaw,  and  He  was  asserting  that  this  sorrow  would  last  till 
He  died.  And  when  He  prayed  that  the  cup  might  pass  away  from  Him,  this  was  no 
entreaty  that  He  might  be  spared.  It  was  His  purpose  to  drink  it.  The  prayer  was  for  His 
disciples  that  the  cup  might  pass  on  from  Him  to  them ;  that  they  might  suffer  for  Him  as 
martyrs  full  of  hope,  without  pain  or  fear8.  One  passage,  St  Luke  xxii.  43,  44,  which 
conflicts  with  his  view  is  rejected  by  Hilary  on  textual  grounds,  and  not  without  some  reason'. 
He  had  looked  for  it,  and  found  it  absent,  in  a  large  number  of  manuscripts,  both  Greek  and 
Latin.  But  perhaps  the  strangest  argument  which  he  employs  is  that  when  the  Gospel  tells 
us  that  Christ  thirsted  and  hungered  and  wept,  it  does  not  proceed  to  say  that  He  ate 
and  drank  and  felt  griefs.  Hunger  and  thirst,  eating  and  drinking,  were  two  sets  of 
dispensations,  unconnected  by  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect ;  the  tears  were  another 
dispensation,  not  the  expression  of  personal  grief.  If,  as  a  habit,  He  accepts  the  needs  and 
functions  of  our  body,  this  does  not  render  His  own  body  more  real,  for  by  the  act  of 
its  creation  it  was  made  truly  human ;  His  purpose,  as  has  been  said,  is  to  enable  us  to 
recognise  its  reality,  which  would  otherwise  be  difficult x.  If  He  wept,  He  had  the  same 
object ;  this  use  of  one  of  the  evidences  of  bodily  emotion  would  help  us  to  believe3.  And 
so  it  is  throughout  Christ's  life  on  earth.  He  suffered  but  He  did  not  feel.  No  one  but 
a  heretic,  says  Hilary,  would  suppose  that  He  was  pained  by  the  nails  which  fixed  Him  to  the 
Cross  3. 

It  is  obvious  that  Hilary's  theory  offers  a  perfect  defence  against  the  two  dangers 
of  the  day,  Arianism  and  Apollinarianism.  The  tables  are  turned  upon  the  former  by 
emphatic  insistence  upon  the  power  manifested  in  the  humiliation  and  suffering  of  Christ 
That  He,  being  what  He  was,  should  be  able  to  place  Himself  in  such  circumstances 
was  the  most  impressive  evidence  of  His  Divinity.  And  if  His  humanity  was  endowed 
with  Divine  properties,  much  more  must  His  Divinity  rise  above  that  inferiority  to 
which  the  Arians  consigned  it.  Apollinarianism  is  controverted  by  the  demonstration 
of  His  true  humanity.  No  language  can  be  too  strong  to  describe  its  glories  ;  but  the 
true  wonder  is  not  that  Christ,  as  God,  has  such  attributes,  but  that  He  Who  has  them  is 
very  Man.  The  theory  was  well  adapted  for  service  in  the  controversies  of  the  day; 
for  us,  however  we  may  admire  the  courage  and  ingenuity  it  displays,  it  can  be  no 
more  than  a  curiosity  of  doctrinal  history.  Yet,  whatever  its  defects  as  an  explanation 
of  the  facts,  the  skill  with  which  dangers  on  either  hand  are  avoided,  the  manifest  anxiety 
to  be  loyal  to  established  doctrine,  deserve  recognition  and  respect.  It  has  been  said 
that  Hilary  •  constantly  withdraws  in  the  second  clause  what  he  has  asserted  in  the  first  V 
and  in  a  sense  it  is  true.  For  many  of  his  statements  might  make  him  seem  the  advocate 
of  an    extreme  doctrine   of  Kenosis,  which   would    represent   our   Lord's   self-emptying   as 


7  Comm.  in  Matt.  Hi.  2. 

8  lb.  xxxi.  1 — 7.  These  were  not  immature  speculations,  aban- 
doned by  a  riper  judgment.  The  explanation  of  'even  unto 
death'  is  repeated,  and  that  concerning  the  cup  implied,  in  Trin. 
X-  36,  37- 

9  Trin.  x.  41.  Westcott  and  Hort  insert  it  within  brackets. 
Even  if  the  passage  be  retained,  Hilary  has  an  explanation  which 
agrees  with  his  theoiy. 

9*  lb.  24.  »  loc.  cit.,  Tr.  in  Ps.  liii.  7 


»  In  Tr.  in  Ps.  liii.  7,  there  is  also  the  moral  purpose.  He 
prays  humbly.  His  prayer  expresses  no  need  of  His  own,  but 
is  meant  to  teach  us  the  lesson  of  meekness. 

3  Trin.  x.  45.  Yet  Hilary  himself  is  not  always  consistent. 
In  the  purely  homiletical  writing  of  Tr.  in  Ps.  lxviii.  1,  he  dwells 
upon  Christ's  endurance  of  pain.  His  argument  obliged  Him 
to  emphasize  the  suffering ;  it  was  natural,  though  not  logical, 
that  he  should  sometimes  insist  also  upon  the  feeling. 

4  Harnack,  Dogmengesch.  ii.  301  n. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.  lxxvii 

complete.  But  often  expressed  and  always  present  in  Hilary's  thought,  for  the  coherence 
of  which  it  is  necessary,  is  the  correlative  notion  of  the  dispensation,  whereby  Christ  seemed 
for  our  sake  to  be  less  than  He  truly  was.  Again,  Hilary  has  been  accused  of  '  sailing 
somewhat  close  to  the  cliffs  of  Docetism  V  but  all  admit  that  he  has  escaped  shipwreck. 
Various  accounts  of  his  teaching,  all  of  which  agree  in  acquitting  him  of  this  error,  have 
been  given ;  and  that  which  has  been  accepted  in  this  paper,  of  Christ  by  the  very  per- 
fection of  His  humanity  habitually  living  in  such  an  ecstasy  as  that  of  Polycarp  or  Perpetua 
at  their  martyrdom,  is  a  noble  conception  in  itself  and  consistent  with  the  Creeds,  though 
it  cannot  satisfy  us.  In  part,  at  any  rate,  it  belonged  to  the  lessons  which  Hilary  had 
learned  from  Alexandria.  Clement  had  taught,  though  his  successor  Origen  rejected,  the 
impassibility  of  Christ,  Who  had  eaten  and  drunk  only  by  a  '  dispensation  ' ; — c  He  ate 
not  for  the  sake  of  His  body,  which  was  sustained  by  a  holy  power,  but  that  that  false  notion 
might  not  creep  into  the  minds  of  His  companions  which  in  later  days  some  have,  in 
fact,  conceived,  that  He  had  been  manifested  only  in  appearance.  He  was  altogether  im- 
passible ;  there  entered  from  without  into  Him  no  movement  of  the  feelings,  whether 
pleasure  or  pain 6.'  Thus  Hilary  had  what  would  be  in  his  eyes  high  authority  for  his 
opinion.  But  he  must  have  felt  some  doubts  of  its  value  if  he  compared  the  strange 
exegesis  and  forced  logic  by  which  it  was  supported  with  that  frank  acceptance  of  the 
obvious  sense  of  Scripture  in  which  he  takes  so  reasonable  a  pride  in  his  direct  controversy 
with  the  Arians.  And  another  criticism  may  be  ventured.  In  that  controversy  he  balances 
with  scrupulous  reverence  mystery  against  mystery,  never  forgetting  that  he  is  dealing  with 
infinities.  In  this  case  the  one  is  made  to  overwhelm  the  other ;  the  infinite  glory  ex- 
cludes the  infinite  sorrow  from  his  view.  Here,  if  anywhere,  Hilary  needs,  and  may  justly 
claim,  the  indulgence  he  has  demanded.  It  had  not  been  his  wish  to  define  or  explain ; 
he  was  content  with  the  plain  words  of  Scripture  and  the  simplest  of  creeds.  But  he  was 
compelled  by  the  fault  of  others  to  commit  a  fault  7  •  and  speculation  based  on  sound 
principles,  however  perilous  to  him  who  made  the  first  attempt,  had  been  rendered  by 
the  prevalence  of  heresy  a  necessary  evil.  Again,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  Hilary  was 
essentially  a  Greek  theologian,  to  whom  the  supremely  interesting  as  well  as  the  supremely 
important  doctrine  was  that  God  became  Man.  He  does  not  conceal  or  undervalue  the 
fact  of  the  Atonement  and  of  the  Passion  as  the  means  by  which  it  was  wrought.  But, 
even  though  he  had  not  held  his  peculiar  theory  of  impassibility,  he  would  still  have  thought 
the  effort  most  worth  making  not  that  of  realising  the  pains  of  Christ  by  our  experience  of 
suffering  and  sense  of  the  enormity  of  sin,  but  that  of  apprehending  the  mystery  of  the 
Incarnation.  For  that  act  of  condescension  was  greater,  not  only  in  scale  but  in  kind, 
than  any  humiliation  to  which  Christ,  already  Man,  submitted  Himself  in  His  human 
state. 

Christ,  Whose  properties  as  incarnate  are  thus  described  by  Hilary,  is  one  Person. 
This,  of  course,  needs  no  proof,  but  something  must  be  said  of  the  use  which  he  makes 
of  the  doctrine.  It  is  by  Christ's  own  work,  by  an  act  of  power,  even  of  violence  8,  exercised 
by  Him  upon  Himself,  that  the  two  natures  are  inseparably  associated  in  Him ;  so  in- 
separably that  between  His  death  and  resurrection  His  Divinity  was  simultaneously  present 
with  each  of  the  severed  elements  of  His  humanity  9.     Hence,  though  Hilary  frequently 


5  The  words  are  FSrster's,  op.  eit.  p.  662,  and  are  accepted 
as  representing  their  opinion  by  Bardenhewer,  Patrohgie,  p.  382, 
and  Baltzer,  Christologie,  p.  32. 

6  Strom,  vi.  g  ft.  Bigg,  Chrittian  Platonists,  p.  71,  gives 
other  sources,  by  which  Hilary  is  less  likely  to  have  been  in- 
fluenced, from  which  he  may  have  derived  this  teaching.  This 
is  not  the  only  coincidence  between  him  and  Clement. 


8  Tr.  in  Ps.  lxviii.  4.  The  unity  is  also  strongly  put  in 
Trin.  viii.  13,  x.  61. 

9  Trin.  x.  34.  This  was  Hilary's  deliberate  belief.  But  in 
earlier  life  he  had  written  rashly  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (i.e.  God 
the  Son)  surrendering  His  humanity  to  be  tempted,  and  of  the 
cry  upon  the  Cross  'testifying  the  departure  of  God  the  Word 
from  Him'  (Comm.  in  Matt.  iii.  t,  xxxiii.  6).     This,  if  it  had 


7   Trin   ii.  2,  in  vitium  vitio  coarctamur  alieno.  represented  Hilary's  teaching  in  that  treatise,  would  have  prov«4 


lxxviii 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER    II. 


discriminates  between  Christ's  utterances  as  God  and  as  Man  %  he  never  fails  to  keep  his 
reader's  attention  fixed  upon  the  unity  of  His  Person.  And  this  unity  is  the  more  obvious 
because,  as  has  been  said,  the  Manhood  in  Christ  is  dominated  by  the  Godhead.  Though 
we  are  not  allowed  to  forget  that  He  is  truly  Man,  yet  as  a  rule  Hilary  prefers  to  speak  in 
such  words  as,  '  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God  was  crucified  2,'  or  to  say  more  briefly,  '  God 
was  crucified  3.'  Judas  is  '  the  betrayer  of  God  * ; '  'the  life  of  mortals  is  renewed  through  the 
death  of  immortal  God V  Such  expressions  are  far  more  frequent  than  the  balanced  language, 
'  the  Passion  of  Jesus  Christ,  our  God  and  Lord  6,'  and  these  again  than  such  an  exaltation  of 
the  manhood  as  '  the  Man  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lord  of  Majesty  7.'  But  once,  in  an  unguarded 
moment,  an  element  of  His  humanity  seems  to  be  deified.  Hilary  never  says  that  Christ's 
body  is  God,  but  he  speaks  of  the  spectators  of  the  Crucifixion  'contemplating  the  power 
of  the  soul  which  by  signs  and  deeds  had  proved  itself  God  V 

But  though  distinctions  may  be  drawn,  and  though  for  the  sake  of  emphasis  and 
brevity  Christ  may  be  called  by  the  name  of  one  only  of  His  two  natures,  the 
essential  fact  is  never  forgotten  that  He  is  God  and  man,  one  Person  in  two  forms, 
God's  and  the  servant's.  And  these  two  natures  do  not  stand  isolated  and  apart, 
merely  contained  within  the  limits  of  one  personality.  Just  as  we  saw  that  Hilary 
recognises  a  complete  mutual  indwelling  and  interpenetration  of  Father  and  Son,  so  he 
teaches  that  in  the  narrower  sphere  of  the  Incarnation  there  is  an  equally  exact  and 
comprehensive  union  of  the  Godhead  and  Manhood  in  Christ.  Jesus  is  Christ,  and 
Christ  is  Jesus  9.  Not  merely  is  the  one  Christ  perfect  Man  and  perfect  God,  but 
the  whole  Son  of  Man  is  the  whole  Son  of  God l.  So  far  is  His  manhood  from 
being  merged  and  lost  in  His  Divinity,  that  the  extent  of  the  one  is  the  measure 
of  the  other.  We  must  not  imagine  that,  simultaneously  with  the  incarnate,  there 
existed  a  non-incarnate  Christ,  respectively  submitting  to  humiliation  and  ruling  the 
worlds ;  nor  yet  must  we  conceive  of  one  Christ  in  two  unconnected  states  of  being, 
as  though  the  assumption  of  humanity  were  merely  a  function  analogous  to  the  guid- 
ing of  the  stars.  On  the  contrary,  the  one  Person  is  co-extensive  with  all  infinity, 
and  all  action  lies  within  His  scope.  Whatever  He  does,  whether  it  be,  or  be  not, 
in  relation  to  humanity,  and  in  the  former  case  whether  it  be  the  exaltation  of  man- 
hood or  the  self-emptying  of  Godhead,  is  done  '  within  the  sphere  of  the  Incarnation  2,' 
the  sphere  which  embraces  His  whole  being  and  His  whole  action.  The  self-emptying 
itself  was  not  a  self-determination,  instant  and  complete,  made  before  the  Incarnation, 
but,  as  we  saw,  a  process  which  continued  throughout  Christ's  life  on  earth  and  was  ac- 
tive to  the  end.  For  as  He  hung,  deliberately  self-emptied  of  His  glory,  on  the  Cross, 
He  manifested  His  normal  powers  by  the  earthquake  shock.  His  submission  to  death 
was  the  last  of  a  consistent  series  of  exertions  of  His  will,  which  began  with  the  Annun- 
ciation and  culminated  in  the  Crucifixion. 


it  heretical  ;  but  the  whole  tenour  of  the  commentary  proves  that 
this  was  simply  carelessness.  In  the  Homilies  on  the  Psalms 
he  also  writes  somewhat  loosely  on  occasion;  e.g.  liii.  4 fin., 
where  he  mentions  Christ's  former  nature,  i  e.  the  Divinity,  and 
ib.  5,  where  he  speaks  of  '  Him  Who  after  being  God  {ex  Deo) 
had  died  as  man.'  But  only  malevolence  could  give  an  evil 
interpretation  to  these  passages,  delivered  as  they  were  for  the 
edification  of  Hilary's  flock,  and  with  no  thought  of  theological 
accuracy.  It  is,  indeed,  quite  possible  that  they  were  never 
revised,  or  even  intended,  for  publication  by  him. 

1  E.g.  Trin.  ix.  6,  and  often  in  the  Homilies  on  the  Psalms, 
as  exxxviii.  13. 

a  Tr.  in  Ps.  liii.  12.  3  loc.  cit. 

4  Tr.  in  Ps.  exxxix.  15. 

5  Trin.  x.  63.  Similarly  in  Tr.  in  Ps.  lxvii.  21,  he  speaks  of 
'  the  passion,  the  cross,  the  death,  the  burial  of  God.' 


«  Tr.  in  Ps.  liii.  4. 

7  Trin.  ix.  3. 

8  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxli.  4.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  text  is 
corrupt,  though  the  words  as  they  stand  are  rank  Apollinarianism, 
and  the  more  significant  as  dating  from  the  maturity  of  Hilary's 
thought.  But  here,  as  often,  we  must  remember  that  the  Homi- 
lies are  familiar  addresses. 

9  Trin.  x.  52.  We  must  remember  not  only  that  heretical 
distinctions  had  been  made,  but  that  Christ  is  the  name  of  the 
Son  in  pretemporal  relation  to  the  world  (see  p.  lxvii.),  as  well  as 
in  the  world. 

1  Ib.  22,  52. 

a  Cf.  Gore,  Dissertations,  p.  an.  It  is  in  relation  to  the  self- 
emptying  that  Hilary  uses  such  definite  language  ;  Trin.  xi.  48, 
intra  suam  ipse  vacuefactus  potestatetn  .  .  .  .  Se  ipsum  intra 
se  vacuefaciens  continuit ;  xii.  6,  st  evacuavit  in  sese. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS. 


lxxi.N 


Hilary  estimates  the  cost  of  the  Incarnation  not  by  any  episodes  of  Christ's  life  on 
earth,  but  by  the  fact  that  it  brought  about  a  real,  though  partial,  separation  or 
breach  3  within  the  Godhead.  Henceforward  there  was  in  Christ  the  nature  of  the  crea- 
ture as  well  as  that  of  the  Creator  ;  and  this  second  nature,  though  it  had  been  assumed 
in  its  most  perfect  form,  was  sundered  by  an  infinite  distance  from  God  the  Father, 
though  indissolubly  united  with  the  Divinity  of  his  Son.  A  barrier  therefore  was  raised 
between  them,  to  be  overcome  in  due  time  by  the  elevation  of  manhood  in  and  through 
the  Son.  When  this  elevation  was  complete  within  the  Person  of  Christ,  then  the 
separation  between  Him  and  His  Father  would  be  at  an  end.  He  would  still  have  true 
humanity,  but  this  humanity  would  be  raised  to  the  level  of  association  with  the  Father. 
In  Hilary's  doctrine  the  submission  of  Christ  to  this  isolation  is  the  central  fact  of 
Christianity,  the  supreme  evidence  of  His  love  for  men.  Not  only  did  it  thus  isolate 
Him,  truly  though  partially,  from  the  Father,  but  it  introduced  a  strain,  a  '  division '  4 
within  His  now  incarnate  Person.  The  union  of  natures  was  real,  but  in  order  that  it 
might  become  perfect  the  two  needed  to  be  adjusted  ;  and  the  humiliation  involved  in 
this  adjustment  is  a  great  part  of  the  sacrifice  made  by  Christ.  There  was  conflict,  in 
a  certain  sense,  within  Himself,  repression  and  concealment  of  His  powers.  But  finally 
the  barrier  was  to  be  removed,  the  loss  regained,  by  the  exaltation  of  the  manhood  into 
harmonious  association  with  the  Godhead  of  Father  and  of  Sons.  Then  He  Who  had 
become  in  one  Person  God  and  Man  would  become  for  ever  fully  God  and  fully  Man. 
The  humanity  would  gain,  the  Divinity  regain,  its  appropriate  dignity 6,  while  each  retained 
the  reality  it  had  had  on  earth. 

Thus  Christ's  life  in  the  world  was  a  period  of  transition.  He  had  descended;  this 
was  the  time  of  preparation  for  an  equal,  and  even  loftier,  ascent.  We  must  now  consider 
in  what  the  preparation  consisted  ;  and  here,  at  first  sight,  Hilary  has  involved  himself 
in  a  grave  difficulty.  For  it  is  manifest  that  his  theory  of  Christ's  life  as  one  lived  without 
effort,  spiritual  or  physical,  or  rather  as  a  life  whose  exertion  consisted  in  a  steady  self- 
accommodation  to  the  infirmities  -of  men,  varied  by  occasional  and  special  acts  of  con- 
descension to  suffering,  excludes  the  possibility  of  an  advance,  a  growth  in  grace  as  well 
as  in  stature,  such  as  Athanasius  scripturally  taught  7.  We  might  say  of  Hilary,  as  has 
been  said  of  another  Father,  '  under  his  treatment  the  Divine  history  seems  to  be  dissolved 
into  a  docetic  drama  8.'  In  such  a  life  it  might  seem  that  there  was  not  merely  no  possibility 
of  progress,  but  even  an  absence  of  identity,  in  the  sense  of  continuity.  The  phenomena 
of  Christ's  life,  therefore,  are  not  manifestations  of  the  disturbance  and  strain  on  which 
Hilary  insists,  for  they  are,  when,  rightly  considered,  proofs  of  His  union  with  God  and 
of  His  Divine  power,  not  of  weakness  or  of  partial  separation.  It  would,  indeed,  be  vain 
for  us  to  seek  for  sensible  evidence  of  the  process  of  adjustment,  for  it  went  on  within 
the  inmost  being  of  the  one  Person.  It  did  not  affect  the  Godhead  or  the  Manhood, 
both  visibly  revealed  as  aspects  of  the  Person,  but  the  hidden  relation  between  the  two. 
Our  knowledge  assures  us  that  the  process  took  place,  but  it  is  a  knowledge  attained  by 
inference  from  what  He  was  before  and  after  the  state  of  transition,  not  by  observation 
of  His  action  in  that  state.  Both  natures  of  the  one  Person  were  affected;  'everything' — 
glory  as  well  as  humiliation — 'was  common  to  the  entire  Person  at  every  moment,  though 
to  each  aspect  in  its  own  distinctive  manner.'  The  entire  Person  entered  into  inequality  with 
Himself:  the  actuality  of  each  aspect,  during  the  state  of  humiliation,  fell  short  of  its  idea — 
of  the  idea  of  the  Son,  of  the  idea  of  the  perfect  man,  of  the  idea  of  the  God-man.     It  was 


3  Offensio,  Trin.  ix.  38. 

4  Trin.  x.  22,  A  se  dividuus.  5  E.g.  Trin.  ix.  38. 

6  Trin.  ix.  6.     On  earth  Christ  is  Deus  and  homo;   in  glory 
"He  is  totus  Deus  and  totus  homo. 


7  E.g.  Discourses  against  the  Arians,  iii.  53,  p.  422  of  the 
translation  in  this  series. 

8  Bp.  Westcott  on  Cyril  of  Alexandria  in  St.  John's  Gospel 
(Speaker's  Commentary),  p.  xcv. 


lxxx 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER    II. 


not  merely  the  human  aspect  that  was  at  first  inadequate  to  the  Divine ;  for,  through  the 
medium  of  the  voluntary  '  evacuatio,'  it  dragged  down  the  Divine  nature  also,  so  far  as  it 
permitted  it,  to  its  own  inequality  9.'  Such  is  the  only  explanation  which  will  reconcile  Hilary's 
various,  and  sometimes  obscure,  utterances  on  this  great  subject.  It  is  open  to  the  obvious 
and  fatal  objection  that  it  cuts,  instead  of  loosening,  the  knot.  For  it  denies  any  connection 
between  the  dispensation  of  Christ's  life  on  earth  and  the  mystery  of  His  assumption  and 
exaltation  of  humanity;  the  one  becomes  somewhat  purposeless,  and  the  other  remains 
unverified.  But  it  is  at  least  a  bold  and  reverent  speculation,  not  inconsistent  with  the  Faith 
as  a  system  of  thought,  though  no  place  can  be  found  for  it  in  the  Faith,  regarded  as  a 
revelation  of  fact. 

It  was  on  behalf  of  mankind  that  this  great  sacrifice  was  made  by  the  Son.  While 
it  separated  Him  from  the  Father,  it  united  Him  to  men.  We  must  now  consider  what  was 
the  spiritual  constitution  of  the  humanity  which  He  assumed,  as  we  have  already  considered 
the  physical  Man,  as  we  saw  (p.  lxix.)  is  constituted  of  body  and  soul,  an  outward  and  an 
inward  substance,  the  one  earthly,  the  other  heavenly1.  The  exact  process  of  his  creation 
has  been  revealed.  First,  man — that  is,  his  soul — was  made  in  the  image  of  God ;  next,  long 
afterwards,  his  body  was  fashioned  out  of  dust;  finally  by  a  distinct  act,  man  was  made 
a  living  soul  by  the  breath  of  God,  the  heavenly  and  earthly  natures  being  thus  coupled 
together2.  The  world  was  already  complete  when  God  created  the  highest,  the  most  beautiful 
of  His  works  after  His  own  image.  His  other  works  were  made  by  an  instantaneous  com- 
mand; even  the  firmament  was  established  by  his  hand* ;  man  alone  was  made  by  the  hands 
of  God ; — '  Thy  hands  have  made  me  and  fashioned  me.'  This  singular  honour  of  being 
made  by  a  process,  not  an  act,  and  by  the  hands,  not  the  hand  or  the  voice,  of  God,  was  paid 
to  man  not  simply  as  the  highest  of  the  creatures,  but  as  the  one  for  whose  sake  the  rest  of 
the  universe  was  called  into  being  *.  It  is,  of  course,  the  soul,  made  after  the  image  of  God, 
which  has  this  high  honour ;  an  honour  which  no  length  of  sinful  ancestry  can  forfeit,  for  each 
soul  is  still  separately  created.  Hence  no  human  soul  is  akin  to  any  other  human  soul ;  the 
uniformity  of  type  is  secured  by  each  being  made  in  the  same  pattern,  and  the  dignity  of 
humanity  by  the  fact  that  this  pattern  is  that  of  the  Son,  the  Image  of  God.  But  the  soul 
pervades  the  whole  body  with  which  it  is  associated,  even  as  God  pervades  the  universe  s. 
The  soul  of  each  man  is  individual,  special  to  himself;  his  brotherhood  with  mankind  belongs 
to  him  through  his  body,  which  has  therefore  something  of  universality.  Hence  the  relation 
of  mankind  with  Christ  is  not  through  his  human  soul ;  it  was  '  the  nature  of  universal  flesh ' 
which  He  took  6  that  has  made  Him  one  with  us  in  the  Incarnation  and  in  the  Eucharist '. 
The  reality  of  His  body,  as  we  have  seen,  is  amply  secured  by  Hilary ;  its  universality  is 
assured  by  the  absence  of  any  individual  human  paternity,  which  would  have  isolated  Him 
from  others 8.  Thus  He  took  all  humanity  into  His  one  body ;  He  is  the  Church  °,  for  He 
contains  her  through  the  mystery  of  His  body.  In  Him,  by  the  same  means,  '  there  is 
contained  the  congregation,  so  to  speak,  of  the  whole  race  of  men.'  Hence  He  spoke  of 
Himself  as  the  City  set  on  a  hill;   the  inhabitants  are  mankind1.     But  Christ  not  only 


»  Dorner,  I.  ii.  415.  The  liberty  has  been  taken  of  putting 
*  Himself  for  '  itself.'  On  the  same  page  Dorner  speaks  of  an 
'ever  increasing  return  of  the  Logos  into  equality  with  Him- 
self.' This  is  a  contradiction  of  his  own  explanation.  God  has 
become  God-man.  He  could  not  again  become  simply  the  Logos. 
The  key  to  Hilary's  position  is  the  double  nature  of  Christ. 
The  Godhead  and  the  Manhood  are  aspects  in  revelation,  ab- 
stractions in  argument.  That  which  connects  them  and  gives 
them  reality  is  the  one  Person,  the  object  of  thought  and  faith. 

*  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviiL,  lod,  6,  cxxix.  5. 

•  lb.  cxxix.  5. 

3  Isai.  xlv.  is,  the  Old   Latin,  translated   from  the   LXX., 


having  the  singular.    This  characteristic  piece  of  exegesis  is  in 
TV.  in  Ps.  cxviii.,  Jod,  5  ;  cf.  ii.  7,  8. 

4  lb.  lod,  1.  5  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.,  Koj>h,  8. 

6  lb.  Ii.  16,  naturam  in  se  universal  carnis  adsumpsit,  it. 
liv.  9,  universitatis  nostra  caro  est  foetus ;  so  also  Trim.  xi. 
16 in.,  and  often. 

7  This  latter  is  the  argument  of  Trin.  viii.  13  f. 

8  Trin.  ii.  24 ;  in  Him  there  is  the  universi  generis  kumam 
corpus  because  He  is  homo  /actus  ex  virgine. 

9  Tr.  in  Ps.  exxv.  6. 

1  Comtn.  in  Matt.  iv.  11 ;  habitatio,  as  is  often  the  case  Mi 
late  Latin  with  abstracts,  is  collective.     Hilary  also  speaks  of 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.  lxxxi 

embraces  all  humanity  in  Himself,  but  the  archetype  after  Whom,  and  the  final  cause  for 
Whom,  man  was  made.  Every  soul,  when  it  proceeds  from  the  hands  of  God,  is  pure, 
free  and  immortal,  with  a  natural  affinity  and  capacity  for  good 2,  which  can  find  its 
satisfaction  only  in  Christ,  the  ideal  Man.  But  if  Christ  is  thus  everything  to  man, 
humanity  has  also,  in  the  foreordained  purpose  of  God,  something  to  confer  upon  Christ. 
The  temporary  humiliation  of  the  Incarnation  has  for  its  result  a  higher  glory  than  He 
possessed  before  3,  acquired  through  the  harmony  of  the  two  natures. 

The  course  of  this  elevation  is  represented  by  Hilary  as  a  succession  of  births,  in 
continuation  of  the  majestic  series.  First  there  had  been  the  eternal  generation  of  the 
Son ;  then  His  creation  for  the  ways  and  for  the  works  of  God,  His  appointment,  which 
Hilary  regards  as  equivalent  in  importance  to  another  birth,  to  the  office  of  Creator;  next 
the  Incarnation,  the  birth  in  time  which  makes  Him  what  He  was  not  before,  namely  Man  ♦ 
This  is  followed  by  the  birth  of  Baptism,  of  which  Hilary  speaks  thrice  s.  He  read  in 
St.  Matthew  iii.  17,  instead  of  the  familiar  words  of  the  Voice  from  heaven,  'Thou 
art  My  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  Thee.'  This  was  in  his  judgment  the  institution 
of  the  sacrament  of  Baptism  ;  because  Christ  was  baptized,  we  must  follow  His  example. 
It  was  a  new  birth  to  Him,  and  therefore  to  us.  He  had  been  the  Son ;  He  became 
through  Baptism  the  perfect  Son  by  this  fresh  birth 6.  It  is  difficult  to  see  what  Hilary's 
thought  was ;  perhaps  he  had  not  defined  it  to  himself.  But,  with  this  reading  in  his 
copy  of  the  Gospel,  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  be  ready  with  an  explanation ;  and 
though  there  remained  a  higher  perfection  to  be  reached,  this  birth  in  Baptism  might  well 
be  regarded  as  a  stage  in  the  return  of  Christ  to  His  glory,  an  elevation  of  His  humanity 
to  a  more  perfect  congruity  with  His  Godhead.  This  birth  is  followed  by  another,  the 
effect  and  importance  of  which  is  more  obvious,  that  of  the  Resurrection,  '  the  birthday  of 
His  humanity  to  glory  7. '  By  the  Incarnation  He  had  lost  unity  with  the  Father;  but  the 
created  nature,  by  the  assumption  of  which  He  had  disturbed  the  unity  both  within  Him- 
self and  in  relation  to  the  Father,  is  now  raised  to  the  level  on  which  that  unity  is  again  pos- 
sible. In  the  Resurrection,  therefore,  it  is  restored;  and  this  stage  of  Christ's  achievement  is 
regarded  as  a  new  birth8,  by  which  His  glory  becomes,  as  it  had  been  before,  the  same  as  that 
of  the  Father.  But  now  the  glory  is  shared  by  His  humanity ;  the  servant's  form  is  promoted 
to  the  glory  of  God  9  and  the  discordance  comes  to  an  end.  Christ,  God  and  Man,  stands 
where  the  Word  before  the  Incarnation  stood.  In  this  Resurrection,  the  only  step  in  this 
Divine  work  which  is  caused  by  sin,  His  full  humanity  partakes.  In  order  to  satisfy  all 
the  conditions  of  actual  human  life,  He  died  and  visited  the  lower  world1;  and  also, 
as  man  shall  do,  He  rose  again  with  the  same  body  in  which  He  had  died 2.  Then 
comes  that  final  state,  of  which  something  has  already  been  said,  when  God  shall  be  all 
in  all.  No  further  change  will  be  possible  within  the  Person  of  Christ,  for  his  humanity, 
already  in  harmony  with  the  Godhead,  will  now  be  transmuted.  The  whole  Christ,  Man 
as  well  as  God,  will  become  wholly  God.  Yet  the  humanity  will  still  exist,  for  it  is 
inseparable  from  the  Divinity,  and  will  consist,  as  before,  of  body  and  soul.  But  there 
will  be  nothing  earthly  or  fleshly  left  in  the  body;  its  nature  will  be  purely  spiritual 3. 
The  only  form  in  which  Hilary  can  express  this  result  is  the  seeming  paradox  that  Christ 
will,  by  virtue  of  the  final  subjection,  'be  and  continue  what  He  is  not*.'     By  this  return  of 


Christ  as  gertns  nos,   Trin.  x.  25,  which  recalls  the  gestans  of 
Tertullian  and  the  portans  of  Cyprian. 

2  Tr.  in  Ps.  ii.  16,  lvii.  3,  lxii.  3,  and  often. 

3  Trin.  xi.  40 — 42.  *  Tr.  in  Ps.  ii.  27. 

S  Comtn.  in  Matt.  ii.  6 ;  Tr.  in  Ps.  ii.  29 ;  Trin.  viiL  25. 
Ym  he  twice  (Trin.  vi.  23  ;  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxxxviii.  6)  gives  the 
ordinary  text,  without  any  hint  that  he  knew  of  an  important 
variant. 

V>L.  IX. 


6  Tr.  in  Ps.  ii.  29,  ipse  Deo  renascebatur  in  filium  perfectum. 
Trin.  viii.  25,  perfecta  nativitas. 

7  Dorner,  I.  ii.  417.     Dorner  overlooks  the  birth  in  Baptism. 

8  Tr.  in  Ps.  ii.  27,  liii.  14. 

9  lb.  cxxxviii.  19.  1  lb.  liii.  14.  »  lb.  lv.  xa. 
3  Trin.  xi.  40,  49. 

*  lb.  40,  habens  in  Sacramento  rubisctionit  us*  ac  mantrt 
quod  non  est. 


Ixxxii 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  II. 


the  whole  Christ  into  perfect  union  with  God,  humanity  attains  the  purpose  of  its  creati  >n. 
He  was  the  archetype  after  Whose  likeness  man  was  fashioned,  and  in  His  Person  all 
the  possibilities  of  mankind  are  attained.  And  this  great  consummation  not  only  fulfils 
the  destinies  of  humanity;  it  brings  also  an  augmentation  of  the  glory  of  Him  Who  is 
glorified  in  Christ  s. 

In  the  fact  that  humanity  is  thus  elevated  in  Christ  consists  the  hope  of  individual 
men.  Man  in  Him  has,  in  a  true  sense,  become  God 6 ;  and  though  Hilary  as  a  rule 
avoids  the  phrase,  familiar  to  him  in  the  writings  of  his  Alexandrian  teachers  and  freely 
used  by  Athanasius  and  other  of  his  contemporaries,  that  men  become  gods  because 
God  became  Man,  still  the  thought  which  it  conveys  is  constantly  present  to  his  mind. 
As  we  have  seen,  men  are  created  with  such  elevation  as  their  final  cause ;  they  have  the 
innate  certainty  that  their  soul  is  of  Divine  origin  and  a  natural  longing  for  the  knowledge 
and  hope  of  things  eternal  ?.  But  they  can  only  rise  by  a  process,  corresponding  to  that 
by  which  the  humanity  in  Christ  was  raised  to  the  level  of  the  Divinity.  This  process 
begins  with  the  new  birth  in  the  one  Baptism,  and  attains  its  completion  when  we  fully 
receive  the  nature  and  the  knowledge  of  God.  We  are  to  be  members  of  Christ's  body 
and  partakers  in  Him,  saved  into  the  name  and  the  nature  of  God8.  And  the  means 
to  this  is  knowledge  of  Him,  received  into  a  pure  mind  9.  Such  knowledge  makes  the  soul 
of  man  a  dwelling  rational,  pure  and  eternal,  wherein  the  Divine  nature,  whose  properties 
these  are,  may  eternally  abide  *.  Only  that  which  has  reason  can  be  in  union  with  Him 
Who  is  reason.  Faith  must  be  accurately  informed  as  well  as  sincere.  Christ  became 
Man  in  order  that  we  might  believe  Him ;  that  He  might  be  a  witness  to  us  from  among 
ourselves  touching  the  things  of  God 2. 

We  have  now  followed  Hilary  through  his  great  theory,  in  which  we  may  safely  say 
that  no  other  theologian  entirely  agrees,  and  which,  where  it  is  most  original,  diverges 
most  widely  from  the  usual  lines  of  Christian  thought.  Yet  it  nowhere  contradicts  the 
accepted  standards  of  belief;  and  if  it  errs  it  does  so  in  explanation,  not  in  the  statement 
of  the  truths  which  it  undertakes  to  explain.  Hilary  has  the  distinction  of  being  the  only 
one  of  his  contemporaries  with  the  speculative  genius  to  imagine  this  development  ending 
in  the  abolition  of  incongruity  and  in  the  restoration  of  the  full  majesty  of  the  Son  and 
of  man  with  Him  3.  He  saw  that  there  must  be  such  a  development,  and  if  he  was 
wrong  in  tracing  its  course,  there  is  a  reverence  and  loyalty,  a  solidity  of  reasoning  and 
steady  grasp  of  the  problems  under  discussion,  which  save  him  from  falling  into  mere 
ingenuity  or  ostentation.  Sometimes  he  may  seem  to  be  on  the  verge  of  heresy;  but 
in  each  case  it  will  be  found  that,  whether  his  system  be  right  or  no,  the  place  in  it 
which  he  has  found  for  an  argument  used  elsewhere  in  the  interests  of  error  is  one  where 
the  argument  is  powerless  for  evil.  Sometimes — and  this  is  the  most  serious  reproach  that 
can  be  brought  against  him — it  must  seem  that  his  theology  is  abstract,  moving  in  a  region 
apart  from  the  facjs  of  human  life.  It  must  be  admitted  that  this  is  the  case ;  that  though, 
as  we  shall  presently  see,  Hilary  had  a  clear  sense  of  the  realities  of  temptation  and  sin 
and  of  the  need  of  redemption,  and  has  expressed  himself  in  these  regards  with  the 
fervour  and  practical  wisdom  of  an  earnest  and  experienced  pastor,  still  these  subjects 
lie  within  the  sphere  of  his  feelings  rather  than  of  his  thought.  It  was  not  his  fault  that 
he  lived  in  the  days  before  St.  Augustine,  and  in  the  heat  of  an  earlier  controversy; 
and  it  is  his  conspicuous  merit  that  in  his  zeal  for  the  Divinity  of  Christ  he  traced  the 
Incarnation    back    beyond   the   beginning   of  sin   and  found   its   motive   in   God's   eternal 


5  Trin.  xi.  42,  incrcmentum  glorificati  in  to  Dti. 
*  E.g.  Trin.  ix.  4,  x.  7. 

1  Tr.  in  Ps.  lxii.  3;  cf.  Comm.  in  Matt.  xvi.  5. 
8  Tr.  in  Ps.  Ivi.  7,  liii.  5.     We  must  remember  the  importance 
of  names  in  Hilary's  eyes.     They  are  not  arbitrary  symbols,  but 


belong  essentially  to  the  objects  which  they  signify.  Hnd  there 
been  no  sin,  from  which  man  needed  to  be  saved,  he  would  still 
have  required  raising  to  this  name  and  nature. 

9  lb.  cxviii.,  Altph,  1,  cxxxi.  6.  *  lb.  cxxxi.  23. 

a  Trin.  iii.  g.  3  Farster,  op.  cit. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.  lxxxiii 


purpose  of  uniting  man  to  Himself.  He  does  not  estimate  the  condescension  of  Christ 
by  the  distance  which  separates  the  Sinless  from  the  sinful.  To  his  wider  thought  sin  is 
not  the  cause  of  that  great  sequence  of  Divine  acts  of  grace,  but  a  disturbing  factor  which 
has  modified  its  course.  The  measure  of  the  love  of  God  in  Christ  is  the  infinity  He 
overpassed  in  uniting  the  Creator  with  the  creature. 

But  before  we  approach   the  practical  theology  of  Hilary  something  must  be  said  of 
his  teaching  concerning  the  Third  Person  of  the  Trinity.     The  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  little   developed  in   his  writings.     The   cause  was,  in   part,   his   sympathy  with    Eastern 
thought.     The  West,  in  this  as  in  some  other  respects,  was  in  advance  of  the  contemporary 
Greeks ;    but   Hilary  was  too  independent  to   accept    conclusions   which   were   as  yet   un- 
reasoned*.    But  a  stronger  reason  was  that  the  doctrine  was  not  directly  involved  in  the 
Arian  controversy.     On  the  main  question,  as  we  have   seen,  he  kept  an  open  mind,  and 
was  prepared  to  modify  from  time  to  time  the  terms  in  which  he  stated  the  Divinity  of  our 
Lord  ;  but  in  other  respects  he  was  often  strangely  archaic.     Such  is  the  case  here ;  Hilary's 
is  a  logical  position,  but  the  logical  process  has  been   arrested.     There  is  nothing  in  his 
words  concerning  the   Holy  Spirit  inconsistent  with   the  later  definitions  of  faith  s,  and   it 
would  be  unfair  to  blame  him  because,  in  the  course  of  a  strenuous  life  devoted  to  the 
elucidation  and  defence  of  other  doctrines,  he  found  no  time  to  develope  this ;  unfair  also 
to  blame  him  for  not  recognising  its  full   importance.     In  his  earlier  days,  and  while  he 
was  in  alliance  with  the  Semiarians,  there  was  nothing  to  bring  this  doctrine  prominently 
before  his  mind ;  in  his  later  life  it  still  lay  outside  the  range  of  controversy,  so  far  as  he 
was  concerned.     Hilary,  in  fact,  preferred  like  Athanasius  to   rest  in  the  indefinite  terms 
of  the  original  Nicene  Creed,  the  confession  of  which  ended  with  the  simple  'And  in  the 
Holy  Ghost.'     But  there  was  a  further  and  practical  reason  for  his  reserve.     It  was  a  con- 
stant taunt  of  the  Arians  that  the  Catholics  worshipped  a  plurality  of  Gods.     The  frequency 
and  emphasis  with  which  Hilary  denies  that  Christians  have  either  two  Gods  or  one  God 
in  solitude  proves  that  he  regarded  this  plausible  assertion  as  one  of  the  most   dangerous 
weapons  wielded  by  heresy.     It  was  his  object,  as  a  skilful  disputant,  to  bring  his  whole 
forces  to  bear  upon  them,  and  this  in  a  precisely  limited   field  of  battle.     To  import  the 
question  of  the  Holy  Spirit  into  the  controversy  might  distract  his  reader's  attention  from 
the  main  issue,   and  afford   the   enemy  an   opening   for  that  evasion  which   he   constantly 
accuses  them  of  attempting.     Hence,  in    part,   the    small   space   allowed    to   so    important 
a  theme ;    and  hence  the  avoidance,  which  we  noticed,  of  the  very  word  '  Trinity.'     The 
Arians  made  the  most  of  their  argument  about  two  Gods ;    Hilary  would  not  allow  them 
the  opportunity  of  imputing  to  the  faithful  a  belief  in  three.     This  might  not  have  been 
a  sufficient  inducement,   had   it   stood   alone,  but   the    encouragement    which   he   received 
from    Origen's  vagueness,   representative   as   it   was  of  the  average   theology  of  the   third 
century,   must  have  predisposed  him  to  give  weight   to    the   practical   consideration.     Yet 
Hilary  has  not  avoided  a  formal  statement  of  his  belief.     In   Trin.  ii.  §§  29 — 35,  which  is, 
as  we  saw,  part  of  a  summary  statement  of  the  Christian  Faith,  he  sets  it  forth  with  Scripture 
proofs.     But  he  shows  clearly,  by  the  short  space  he  allows  to  it,  that  it  is  not  in  his  eyes 
of  co-ordinate  importance  with  the  other  truths  of  which  he  treats.    And  the  curious  language 
in  which  he  introduces  the  subject,  in  §  29,  seems  to  imply  that  he  throws  it  in  to  satisfy 
others  rather  than  from  his  own   sense  of  its   necessary  place   in   such  a  statement.     The 
doctrine,  as  he  here  defines  it,  is  that  the  Holy  Spirit  undoubtedly  exists ;  the  Father  and 
the  Son  are  the  Authors  of  His  being,  and,  since  He  is  joined  with  Them  in  our  confession, 

4  Cf.  Harnack,  Dogmengesch.  ii.  281.     But  Harnack  is  unjust  I        5  Gwatkin,  Studies  of  Arianism,  p.  206  ft.     '  Hilary's  belief 
in  saying  that  Hilary  had  not  made  up  his  own  mind.  1  in  the  deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  hardly  more  doubtful  than 

St.  John's :  yet  he  nowhere  states  it  in  so  many  words.' 

g  2 


lxxxiv 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  II. 


He  cannot,  without  mutilation  of  the  Faith,  be  separated  from  Them.  The  fact  that  He 
is  given  to  us  is.  a  further  proof  of  His  existence.  Yet  the  title  'Spirit'  is  often  used 
both  for  Father  and  for  Son;  in  proof  of  this  St.  John  iv.  24  and  2  Cor.  iii.  17  are  cited. 
Yet  the  Holy  Spirit  has  a  personal 6  existence  and  a  special  office  in  relation  to  us.  It 
is  through  Him  that  we  know  God.  Our  nature  is  capable  of  knowing  Him,  as  the  eye 
is  capable  of  sight;  and  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  is  to  the  soul  what  the  gift  of  light  is  to 
the  eye.  Again,  in  xii.  §§  55,  56,  the  subject  is  introduced,  as  if  by  an  after  thought,  and 
even  more  briefly  than  in  the  second  book.  As  he  has  refused  to  style  the  Son  a  creature, 
so  he  refuses  to  give  that  name  to  the  Spirit,  Who  has  gone  forth  from  God,  and  been  sent 
by  Christ.  The  Son  is  the  Only-begotten,  and  therefore  he  will  not  say  that  the  Spirit 
was  begotten ;  yet  he  cannot  call  Him  a  creature,  for  the  Spirit's  knowledge  of  the  mysteries 
of  God,  of  which  He  is  the  Interpreter  to  men,  is  the  proof  of  His  oneness  in  nature  with 
God.  The  Spirit  speaks  unutterable  things  and  is  ineffable  in  His  operation.  Hilary  cannot 
define,  yet  he  believes.  It  must  suffice  to  say,  with  the  Apostle,  simply  that  He  is  the 
Spirit  of  God.  The  tone  of  §  56  seems  that  of  silent  rebuke  to  some  excess  of  definition, 
as  he  would  deem  it,  of  which  he  had  heard.  To  these  passages  must  be  added  another 
in  Trin.  viii.  19  f.,  where  the  possession  by  Father  and  Son  of  one  Spirit  is  used  in  proof 
of  Their  own  unity.  But  in  this  passage  there  occur  several  instances  of  Hilary's  character- 
istic vagueness.  As  in  ii.  30,  so  here  we  are  told  that  'the  Spirit'  may  mean  Father  or 
Son  as  well  as  Holy  Ghost  7,  and  instances  are  given  where  the  word  has  one  or  other 
of  the  two  first-  significations.  Thus  we  must  set  a  certain  number  of  passages  where 
a  reference  in  Scripture  to  the  Holy  Spirit  is  explained  away  against  a  number,  certainly 
no  greater,  in  which  He  is  recognised  :  and  in  the  latter  we  notice  a  strong  tendency  to 
understate  the  truth.  For  though  we  are  expressly  told  that  the  Spirit  is  not  a  creature, 
that  He  is  from  the  Father  through  the  Son,  is  of  one  substance  with  Them  and  bears 
the  same  relation  to  the  One  that  He  bears  to  the  Other8,  yet  Hilary  refuses  with  some 
emphasis  and  in  a  conspicuous  place,  at  the  very  end  of  the  treatise,  to  call  Him  God. 
But  both  groups  of  passages,  those  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  is  recognised  and  those  in 
which  reason  is  given  for  non-recognition,  are  more  than  counterbalanced  by  a  multitude 
in  which,  no  doubt  for  the  controversial  reason  already  mentioned,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  left 
unnamed,  though  it  would  have  been  most  natural  that  allusion  should  be  made  to  Him  9. 
We  find  in  Hilary  '  the  premisses  from  which  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  necessary 
conclusion  l ; '  and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  he  would  have  stated  the  doctrine  of  the 
Procession  in  the  Western,  not  in  the  Eastern,  form2;  but  we  find  a  certain  willingness 
lo  keep  the  doctrine  in  the  background,  which  sufficiently  indicates  a  failure  to  grasp  its 
cardinal  importance,  and  is,  however  natural  in  his  circumstances  and  however  interesting 
as  evidence  of  his  mode  of  thought,  a  blemish  to  the  Dc  Trinitate,  if  we  seek  in  it  a  balanced 
exposition  of  the  Faith  3. 

We  may  now  turn  to  the  practical  teaching  of  Hilary.  Henceforth  he  will  be  no 
longer  the  compiler  of  the  best  Latin  handbook  of  the  Arian  controversy,  or  the  some- 
what  unsystematic   investigator    of  unexplored   regions   of  theology.     We   shall   find    him 


6  If  the  word  may  be  admitted  for  the  sake  of  clearness. 
Hilary  never  calls  the  Spirit  a  Person. 

7  §§  23,  25,  30;  so  also  ix.  69  and  notably  in  x.  16.  Similarly 
in  Comm  in  Matt.  iii.  I,  the  Spirit  means  Christ. 

8  Trin.  viii.  20,  ix.  73  fin.,  and  especially  ii.  4.  This  last  is 
not  a  reference  to  the  Macedonian  heresy,  but  to  the  logical 
result  of  Arianism. 

9  Trin.  i.  17,  v.  I,  35,  vii.  8,  31,  viii.  31,  36,  x.  6   Ac. 
1  Baltzer,  Thcologit  des  hi.  Hilarius,  p.  51. 

3  Trin.  viii.  21,  xii.  55. 


3  The  work  by  Tertullian  in  which  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit 
is  most  fully  brought  out;  in  which,  in  fact,  He  is  first  expressly 
named  God,  is  the  Adversus  Praxean.  It  was  written  after  his 
secession  from  the  Church,  and  Hilary,  upon  whom  it  had  more 
influence  than  any  other  of  Tertullian's  writings,  may  have  sus- 
pected that  this  teaching  was  the  expression  of  his  Montanisra 
rather  than  a  legitimate  deduction  from  Scripture,  and  so  have 
been  misled  by  over  caution.  He  may  also  have  been  influenced 
by  such  Biblical  passages  as  Rev.  xiv.  1,  where  the  Spirit  is 
unnamed. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS. 


lxxxv 


often  accepting  the  common  stock  of  Christian  ideas  of  his  age,  without  criticism  or  attempt 
at  improvement  upon  them  ;  often  paraphrasing  in  even  more  emphatic  language  emphatic 
and  apparently  contradictory  passages  of  Scripture,  without  any  effort  after  harmony  or  balance. 
Yet  sometimes  we  shall  find  him  anticipating  on  one  page  the  thoughts  of  later  theologians, 
while  on  another  he  is  content  to  repeat  the  views  upon  the  same  subject  which  had 
satisfied  an  earlier  generation.  His  doctrine,  where  it  is  not  traditional,  is  never  more  than 
tentative,  and  we  must  not  be  surprised,  we  must  even  expect,  to  find  him  inconsistent 
with  himself. 

No  subject  illustrates  this  inconsistency  better  than  that  of  sin,  of  which  Hilary  gives 
two  accounts,  the  one  Eastern  and  traditional,  the  other  an  anticipation  of  Augustinianism. 
These  are  never  compared  and  weighed  the  one  against  the  other.  In  the  passages  where 
each  appears,  it  is  adduced  confidently,  without  any  reservation  or  hint  that  he  is  aware 
of  another  explanation  of  the  facts  of  experience.  The  more  usual  account  is  that  which 
is  required  by  Hilary's  doctrine  of  the  separate  creation  of  every  human  soul,  which  is 
good,  because  it  is  God's  immediate  work,  and  has  a  natural  tendency  to,  and  fitness  for, 
perfection.  Because  God,  after  Whose  image  man  is  made,  is  free,  therefore  man  also  is 
free;  he  has  absolute  liberty,  and  is  under  no  compulsion  to  good  or  to  evil 4.  The  sin 
which  God  foresees,  as  in  the  case  of  Esau,  He  does  not  foreordains.  Punishment  never 
follows  except  upon  sin  actually  committed  ;  the  elect  are  they  who  show  themselves  worthy 
of  election  6.  But  the  human  body  has  defiled  the  soul ;  in  fact,  Hilary  sometimes  speaks 
as  though  sin  were  not  an  act  of  will  but  an  irresistible  pressure  exerted  by  the  body  on  the 
soul.  If  we  had  no  body,  he  says  once,  we  should  have  no  sin;  it  is  a  'body  of  death' 
and  cannot  be  pure.  This  is  the  spiritual  meaning  of  the  ancient  law  against  touching 
a  corpse  7.  When  the  Psalmist  laments  that  his  soul  cleaveth  to  the  ground,  his  sorrow 
is  that  it  is  inseparably  attached  to  a  body  of  earth 8 ;  when  Job  and  Jeremiah  cursed 
the  day  of  their  birth,  their  anger  was  directed  against  the  necessity  of  living  surrounded 
by  the  weaknesses  and  vices  of  the  flesh,  not  against  the  creation  of  their  souls  after  the 
image  of  God  9.  Such  language,  if  it  stood  alone,  would  convict  its  author  of  Manicheanism, 
but  Hilary  elsewhere  asserts  that  the  desire  of  the  soul  goes  half-way  to  meet  the  invitation 
of  sin  9%  and  this  latter  in  his  normal  teaching.  Man  has  a  natural  proclivity  to  evil,  an 
inherited  weakness *  which  has,  as  a  matter  of  experience,  betrayed  all  men  into  actual 
sin,  with  the  exception  of  Christ2.  Elsewhere,  however,  Hilary  recognises  the  possibility, 
under  existing  conditions,  of  a  sinless  life.  For  David  could  make  the  prayer,  '  Take  from 
me  the  way  of  iniquity ; '  of  iniquity  itself  he  was  guiltless,  and  only  needed  to  pray  against 
the  tendency  inherent  in  his  bodily  nature  3.  But  such  a  case  is  altogether  exceptional ; 
ordinary  men  must  confide  in  the  thought  that  God  is  indulgent,  for  He  knows  our  in- 
firmity. He  is  propitiated  by  the  wish  to  be  righteous,  and  in  His  judgment  the  merits  of 
good  men  outweigh  their  sins  ♦.  Hence  a  prevalent  tone  of  hopefulness  about  the  future 
state  of  the  baptized;  even  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  their  punishment  in  history  having 
satisfied  the  righteousness  of  God,  shall  ultimately  be  saved  s.  Yet  God  has  a  perfect,  immut- 
able goodness  of  which  human  goodness,  though  real,  falls  infinitely  short,  because  He  is 
steadfast  and  we  are  driven  by  varying  impulses6.  This  Divine  goodness  is  the  standard 
and  the  hope  set  before  us.  It  can  only  be  attained  by  grace  7,  and  grace  is  freely  offered. 
But  just  as  the  soul,  being  free,  advances  to  meet  sin,  so  it  must  advance  to  meet  grace. 
Man  must  take  the  first  step ; .  he  must  wish  and  pray  for  grace,  and  then  perseverance  in 


*  E.g.  Tr.  in  Ps.  ii.  16,  li.  23.  5  Ib.  lvii.  3. 

*  Ib.  cxviii.,  Telh,  4,  lxiv.  5.  7  lb.  cxviii.,  Gimel,  3,  4. 
8  lb.,  Daleth,  1.         9  lb.  cxix.  19(12).         9»  lb.  lxviii.  9. 

1  E.g.   ib.   cxviii.,  Aleph,  8,  lii.   12.     Natura  infirmitatis  is 
a  favourite  phrase. 


a  E.g.  ib.  lii.  9,  cxviii.,  Gimel,  12,  Vau,  6. 

3  Ib.  cxviii.  Daleth,  8  ;  cf.  He,  16.  *  Ib.  lii.  1*. 

5  Ib.  lxviii.  22,  based  on  St.  Matt.  x.  15. 

6  Ib.  lii.  11,  12. 

1  E.g.  ib.  cxviii.,  Prolog:  2,  AUph,  12,  Pke,  3. 


Ixxxvi 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  II. 


faith  will  be  granted  him  8,  together  with  such  a  measure  of  the  Spirit  as  he  shall  desire  and 
deserve  9.  He  will,  indeed,  be  able  to  do  more  than  he  need,  as  David  did  when  he  spared 
and  afterwards  lamented  Saul,  his  worst  enemy,  and  St.  Paul,  who  voluntarily  abstained  from 
the  lawful  privilege  of  marriage r.  Such  is  Hilary's  first  account,  '  a  naive,  undeveloped 
mode  of  thought  concerning  the  origin  of  sin  and  the  state  of  man  V  Its  irconsistencies 
are  as  obvious  as  their  cause,  the  unguarded  homiletical  expansion  of  isolated  passages.  There 
is  no  attempt  to  reconcile  man's  freedom  to  be  good  with  the  fact  of  universal  sin.  The 
theory,  so  far  as  it  is  consistent,  is  derived  from  Alexandria,  from  Clement  and  Origen.  It 
may  seem  not  merely  inadequate  as  theology,  but  philosophical  rather  than  Christian  ;  and  its 
aim  is,  indeed,  that  of  strengthening  man's  sense  of  moral  responsibility  and  of  heightening 
his  courage  to  withstand  temptation.  But  we  must  remember  that  Hilary  everywhere  assumes 
the  union  between  the  Christian  and  Christ.  While  this  union  exists  there  is  always  the 
power  of  bringing  conduct  into  conformity  with  His  will.  Conduct,  then,  is,  comparatively 
speaking,  a  matter  of  detail.  Sins  of  action  and  emotion  do  not  necessarily  sever  the  union; 
a  whole  system  of  casuistry  might  be  built  upon  Hilary's  foundation.  But  false  thoughts 
of  God  violate  the  very  principle  of  union  between  Him  and  man.  However  abstract  they 
may  seem  and  remote  from  practical  life,  they  are  an  insuperable  barrier.  For  intellectual 
harmony,  as  well  as  moral,  is  necessary ;  and  error  of  belief,  like  a  key  moving  in  a  lock 
with  whose  wards  it  does  not  correspond,  forbids  all  access  to  the  nature  and  the  grace 
of  God.  A  good  example  of  his  relative  estimate  of  intellectual  and  moral  offences  occurs 
in  the  Homily  on  Psalm  i.  §§  6 — 8,  where  it  is  noteworthy  that  he  does  not  trace  back  the 
former  to  moral  causes  3. 

Against  these,  the  expressions  of  Hilary's  usual  opinion,  must  be  set  others  in  which  he 
anticipates  the  language  of  St.  Augustine  in  the  Pelagian  controversy.  But  certain  deductions 
must  be  made,  before  we  can  rightly  judge  the  weight  of  his  testimony  on  the  side  of  original 
sin.  Passages  where  he  is  merely  amplifying  the  words  of  Scripture  must  be  excluded,  as 
also  those  which  are  obviously  exhibitions  of  unguarded  rhetoric.  For  instance  such  words 
as  these,  '  Ever  since  the  sin  and  unbelief  of  our  first  parent,  we  of  later  generations  have 
had  sin  for  the  father  of  our  body  and  unbelief  for  the  mother  of  our  soul  V  contradicting 
as  they  do  Hilary's  well-known  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  soul,  cannot  be  regarded  as  giving 
his  deliberate  belief  concerning  sin.  Again,  we  must  be  careful  not  to  interpret  strong 
language  concerning  the  body  (e.g.  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.,  Caph,  $fin),  as  though  it  referred  to  our 
whole  complex  manhood.  But  after  all  deductions  a  good  deal  of  strong  Augustinianism 
remains.  In  the  person  of  Adam  God  created  all  mankind,  and  all  are  implicated  in  his 
downfall,  which  was  not  only  the  beginning  of  evil  but  is  a  continuous  power 5.  Not  only 
as  a  matter  of  experience,  is  no  man  sinless,  but  no  man  can,  by  any  possibility,  be  free  from 
sin6.  Because  of  the  sin  of  one  sentence  is  passed  upon  all?;  the  sentence  of  slavery  which 
is  so  deep  a  degradation  that  the  victim  of  sin  forfeits  even  the  name  of  man8.  But  Hilary 
not  only  states  the  doctrine;  he  approaches  very  nearly,  on  rare  occasions,  to  the  term 
'original  sin 9.'  It  follows  that  nothing  less  than  a  regeneration,  the  free  gift  of  God,  will 
avail l ;  and  the  grace  by  which  the  Christian  must  be  maintained  is  also  His  spontaneous 


8  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.,  He,  12,  Nun,  20.     But  in  the  former  pas- 
sage the  perseverance  also  depends  upon  the  Christian. 

9  Trin.  ii.  35- 

1   Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.,  Nun,  11  f. 
»  Forster,  loc  cit. 

3  So  also  the  sin  against  the   Holy  Ghost  is  primarily  intel- 
Itctual,  not  ethical ;  Comm.  in  Matt.  v.  15,  xii.  17. 
A  lb.  X.  23. 

5  Trin.  iv.  21  ;  Tr.  in  Ps.  lxvi.  2  ;  Com?n.  in  Matt,  xviii.  6. 

6  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.,  He,  16. 


1  Tr.  in  Ps.  lix.  4  in. 

8  lb.  cxlii.  6,  cxviii.,  Iod,  2.  In  regard  to  the  latter  passage 
we  must  remember  once  more  what  importance  Hilary  attaches 
to  names. 

9  Comm.  in  Matt.  x.  24,  originis  nostra  peccata;  Tr.  in  Ps. 
cxviii.,  Tau,  6,  scit  sub  peccati  origine  et  sub  peccati  lege  se  esse 
nation.  Other  passages  must  be  cited  from  quotations  in  St. 
Augustine,  but  Forster,  p.  676,  has  given  reason  for  doubting 
Hilary'6  authorship. 

1  E.g.  Comm.  in  Matt.  x.  34. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.         lxxxvii 


and  unconditional  gift.  Faith,  knowledge,  Christian  life,  all  have  their  origin  and  their 
maintenance  from  Him2.  Such  is  a  brief  statement  of  Hilary's  position  as  a  forerunner  of 
St.  Augustine.  The  passages  cited  are  scattered  over  his  writings,  from  the  earliest  to  the 
latest,  and  there  is  no  sign  that  the  more  modern  view  was  gaining  ground  in  his  mind  as  his 
judgment  ripened.  He  had  no  occasion  to  face  the  question,  and  was  content  to  say 
whatever  seemed  obviously  to  arise  from  the  words  under  discussion,  or  to  be  most  profitable 
to  his  au  Hence.  His  Augustinianism,  if  it  may  be  called  so,  is  but  one  of  many  instances 
of  originality,  a  thought  thrown  out  but  not  developed.  It  is  a  symptom  of  revolt  against  the 
inadequate  views  of  older  theologians;  but  it  had  more  influence  upon  the  mind  of  his  great 
successor  than  upon  his  own.  Dealing,  as  he  did,  with  the  subject  in  hortatory  writings, 
hardly  at  all,  and  only  incidentally,  in  his  formal  treatise  on  the  Trinity,  he  preferred  to  regard 
it  as  a  matter  of  morals  rather  than  of  doctrine.  And  the  dignity  of  man,  impressed  upon 
him  by  the  great  Alexandrians,  seemed  to  demand  for  humanity  the  fullest  liberty. 

We   may  now  turn   to  the  Atonement,   by  which   Christ  has  overcome  sin.     Hilary's 
language  concerning  it  is,  as  a  rule,  simply  Scriptural  3.     He  had  no  occasion  to  discuss  the 
doctrine,  and   his   teaching   is    that  which  was    traditional    in  his    day,    without   any    such 
anticipations  of  future  thought  as  we  found  in  his  treatment  of  sin.     Since  the  humanity 
of  Christ  is  universal,  His  death   was  on  behalf  of  all  mankind,  '  to  buy  the  salvation  of 
the  whole   human  race   by  the    offering  of  this  holy  and  perfect  Victim  ♦.'     His   last   cry 
upon  the   Cross  was  the  expression   of  His   sorrow   that    some   would   not   profit  by  His 
sacrifice;    that  He  was  not,   as  He  had   desired,  bearing  the  sins  of  alls.     He   was   able 
to   take   them    upon    Him  because  He  had  both  natures.     His   manhood   could   do   what 
His  Godhead  could  not ;    it  could  atone  for  the  sins  of  men.     Man  had  been  overcome 
by  Satan ;    Satan,  in  his  turn,  has  been  overcome  by  Man.     In  the  long  conflict,  enduring 
through  Christ's  life,   of  which  the  first  pitched  battle  was    the  Temptation,   the   last   the 
Crucifixion,  the  victory  has  been  won  by  the  Mediator  in  the  flesh  6.     The  devil  was  in  the 
wrong  throughout.     He  was  deceived,  or  rather  deceived  himself,  not  recognising  what  it 
was  for   which   Christ  hungered  ?.     The  same  delusion   as    to   Christ's   character   led   him 
afterwards  to  exact  the  penalty  of  sin    from  One  Who  had  not  deserved   it 8.     Thus  the 
human   sufferings    of  Christ,    unjustly  inflicted,  involve  His    enemy   in    condemnation    and 
forfeit  his  right  to  hold  mankind  enslaved.     Therefore   we  are  set  free',  and  the  sinless 
Passion  and  death  are  the  triumph  of  the  flesh  over  spiritual  wickedness  and  the  vengeance 
of  God  upon  it l.     Man  is  set  free,  because  he  is  justified  in   Christ,  Who  is   Man.     But 
the  fact  that   Christ  could  do  the  works  necessary  to  this  end  is  proof  that  He  is  God. 
These   works   included  the   endurance    of  such   suffering — in   the   sense,    of  course,   which 
Hilary   attaches   to    the    word — as    no    one    who    was    not    more    than    man    could   bear. 
Hence  he   emphasises  the   Passion,   because  in  so  doing  he  magnifies    the    Divine   nature 
of  Him  Who  sustained  it  2.     He  sets  forth  the  sufferings  in  the  light  of  deeds,  of  displays 
of  power  3,  the   greatest   wonder   being  that  the    Son    of  God    should  have  made   Himself 
passible.     Yet  though   it  was  from  union  with   the  Godhead  that   His  humanity  possessed 
the  purity,  the   willingness,   the  power  to  win  this  victory,  and  though,  in  Hilary's  words 
it  was  immortal  God   Who  died   upon   the   Cross,   still  it  was  a  victory  won  not  by  God 
but  by  the  flesh  4.     But  the   Passion    must  not   be   regarded   simply  as   an   attack,    ending 
in  his  own  overthrow,  made  by  Satan  upon  Christ.     It  is  also  a  free  satisfaction  offered  to 
God  by  Christ  as  Man,  in  order  that  His  sufferings  might  release  us  from  the  punishment 
we  had   deserved,   being  accepted  instead  of  ours  s.     This  latter  was  a  thought  peculiarly 


2  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.,  Vau,  4,  Lamed,  1  ;  cf.  Nun,  20. 

3  E.g.  Trin.  ix.  10;   Tr.  in  Ps.  cxxix.  9. 

4  Tr.  in  Ps.  liii.  13  Jin.  5  Comm.  in  Matt,  xxxiii.  6. 
6  Ib-  "'•  2                   7  lb.  iii.  3.  8   Tr.  in  Ps.  lxviii.  8. 


9  Tr.  in  Ps.  lxi.  2. 
3  E.g.  ib.  x.  11. 
5  E.g.    Tr.   in  Ps. 
Ixiv.  4. 


*  Trin.  ix.  7.     *  E.g.  Trin.  x.  23,  47  in. 

4  Comm.  in  Matt.  iii.  2. 
liii.   12,    13   (translated  in  this  volume) 


Ixxxviii 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  II. 


characteristic  of  the  West,  and  especially  of  St.  Cyprian's  teaching  ;  but  Hilary  has  had 
his  share  in  giving  prominence  to  the  propitiatory  aspect  of  Christ's  self-sacrifice6.  Yet 
it  must  be  confessed  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  somewhat  in  the  background ;  that  Hilary 
is  less  interested  in  its  positive  value  than  in  its  negative  aspect,  as  the  cessation  from  earthly 
life  and  the  transition  to  glory.  Upon  this,  and  upon  the  evidential  importance  of  the 
Passion  as  a  transcendent  exertion  of  power,  whereby  the  Son  of  God  held  Himself  down 
and  constrained  Himself  to  suffer  and  die,  Hilary  chiefly  dwells.  The  death  has  not,  in  his 
eyes,  the  interest  of  the  Resurrection.  The  reason  is  that  it  does  not  belong  to  the  course  of 
the  Incarnation  as  fore-ordained  by  God,  but  is  only  a  modification  of  it,  rendered  necessary 
by  the  sinful  self-will  of  man.  Had  there  been  no  Fall,  the  visible,  palpable  flesh  would 
still  have  been  laid  aside,  though  not  by  death  upon  the  Cross,  when  Christ's  work  in  the 
world  was  done ;  and  there  would  have  been  some  event  corresponding  to  the  Ascension,  if 
not  to  the  Resurrection.  The  body,  laid  aside  on  earth,  would  have  been  resumed  in  glory ; 
and  human  flesh,  unfallen  and  therefore  not  corrupt,  yet  free  and  therefore  corruptible,  would 
have  entered  into  perfectly  harmonious  union  with  His  Divinity,  and  so  have  been  rendered 
safe  from  all  possibility  of  evil.  The  purpose  of  raising  man  to  the  society  of  God  was 
anterior  to  the  beginnings  of  sin  ;  and  it  is  this  broader  conception  that  renders  the  Passion 
itself  intelligible,  while  relegating  it  to  a  secondary  place.  But  Hilary,  though  as  a  rule 
he  mentions  the  subject  not  for  its  own  sake  but  in  the  course  of  argument,  has  as  firm 
a  faith  in  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  death  and  of  His  continued  intercession  in  His  humanity 
for  mankind  7  as  he  has  in  His  triumphant  Resurrection. 

In  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  man  is  to  profit  by  the  Atonement,  Hilary  shews 
the  same  inconsistency  as  in  the  case  of  sin.  On  the  one  hand,  he  lays  frequent  stress 
on  knowledge  concerning  God  and  concerning  the  nature  of  sin  as  the  first  conditions 
of  salvation;  on  the  other,  he  insists,  less  often  yet  with  equal  emphasis,  upon  its  being 
God's  spontaneous  gift  to  men,  to  be  appropriated  only  by  faith.  We  have  already  seen 
that  one  of  Hilary's  positions  is  that  man  must  take  the  first  step  towards  God;  that  if 
we  will  make  the  beginning  He  will  give  the  increase8.  This  increase  is  the  knowledge 
of  God  imparted  to  willing  minds  9,  which  lifts  them  up  to  piety.  He  states  strongly  the 
superiority  of  knowledge  to  faith  ; — "■  There  is  a  certain  greater  effectiveness  in  knowledge 
than  in  faith.  Thus  the  writer  here  did  not  believe;  he  knew1.  For  faith  has  the  reward 
of  obedience,  but  it  has  not  the  assurance  of  ascertained  truth.  The  Apostle  has  indicated 
the  breadth  of  the  interval  between  the  two  by  putting  the  latter  in  the  lower  place  in  his 
list  of  the  gifts  of  graces.  '  To  the  first  wisdom,  to  the  next  knowledge,  to  the  third  faith  ' 
is  his  message 2 ;  for  he  who  believes  may  be  ignorant  even  while  he  believes,  but  he  who 
has  come  to  know  is  saved  by  his  possession  of  knowledge  from  the  very  possibility  of 
unbelief 3."  This  high  estimation  of  sound  knowledge  was  due,  no  doubt,  to  the  intellectual 
character  of  the  Arian  conflict,  in  which  each  party  retorted  upon  the  other  the  charge 
of  ignorance  and  folly ;  and  it  must  have  been  confirmed  by  the  observation  that  some 
who  were  conspicuous  for  the  misinterpretation  of  Scripture  were  notorious  also  for  moral 
obliquity.  There  was,  however,  that  deeper  reason  which  influenced  all  Hilary's  thought ; 
the  conviction  that  if  there  is  to  be  any  harmony,  any  understanding  between  God  and 
the  soul  of  man,  it  must  be  a  perfect  harmony  and  understanding.  And  knowledge  is 
pre-eminently  the  sphere  in  which  this  is  possible,  for  the  revelation  of  God  is  clear  and 
precise,   and  unmistakeable  in    its    import*.     But   there   was    another,  a   directly  practical 


•  Cf.  Harnack,  ii.  177  ;  Schwane,  ii.  271. 

7  E.g.   Tr.  in  Ps.  liii.  4. 

8  Cf.  p.  \xxxv.Jin.  In  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.,  Nun,  ao,  Hilary 
says  'the  reward  of  the  consummation  attained  depends  upon  the 
initiative  of  the  will  ;'  so  also  Trin.  i    it 


9  Tr.  in  Ps.  ii.  40. 

1  Hilary  is  commenting  on  the  words,  '  I  know,  O  Lord,  that 
Thy  judgments  are  right.' 

a  1  Cor.  xii.  8.  »  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.!  Iod,  is. 

4  E.g.  Trin.  x.  70,  xi.  1. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS. 


lxxxix 


reason  for  this  insistence.  Apprehension  of  Divine  truths  is  the  unfailing  test  of  a  Christian 
mind  ;  conduct  changes  and  faith  varies  in  intensity,  but  the  facts  of  religion  remain  the 
same,  and  the  believer  can  be  judged  by  his  attitude  towards  them.  Hence  we  cannot 
be  surprised  that  Hilary  maintains  the  insufficiency  of  '  simplicity  of  faith,'  and  ranks  its 
advocates  with  heathen  philosophers  who  regard  purity  of  life  as  a  substitute  for  religion. 
God,  he  says,  has  provided  copious  knowledge,  with  which  we  cannot  dispense s.  But 
this  knowledge  is  to  embrace  not  only  the  truth  concerning  God,  but  also  concerning  the 
realities  of  human  life.  It  is  to  be  a  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  sins  have  been  committed 
and  an  opening  of  the  eyes  to  their  enormity6.  This  will  be  followed  by  confession  to  God, 
by  the  promise  to  Him  that  we  will  henceforth  regard  sin  as  He  regards  it,  and  by  the 
profession  of  a  firm  purpose  to  abandon  it.  Here  again  the  starting-point  is  human 
knowledge.  When  the  right  attitude  towards  sin,  intellectually  and  therefore  morally, 
has  been  assumed,  when  there  is  the  purpose  of  amendment  and  an  earnest  and  successful 
struggle  against  sensual  and  worldly  temptations,  then  we  shall  become  '  worthy  of  the 
favour  of  God  ?.'  In  this  light  confession  is  habitually  regarded  8 ;  it  is  a  voluntary  moral 
act,  a  self-enlightenment  to  the  realities  of  sin,  necessarily  followed  by  repugnance  and 
the  effort  to  escape,  and  antecedent  to  Divine  pardon  and  aid.  But  in  contrast  to  this, 
Hilary's  normal  judgment,  there  are  passages  where  human  action  is  put  altogether  in 
the  background.  Forgiveness  is  the  spontaneous  bounty  of  God,  overflowing  from  the 
riches  of  His  loving-kindness,  and  faith  the  condition  of  its  bestowal  and  the  means  by 
which  it  is  appropriated  °.  Even  the  Psalmist,  himself  perfect  in  all  good  works,  prayed 
for  mercy;  he  put  his  whole  trust  in  God,  and  so  must  we1.  And  faith  precedes  knowledge 
also,  which  is  unattainable  except  by  the  believer2.  Salvation  does  not  come  first,  and 
then  faith,  but  through  faith  is  the  hope  of  salvation ;  the  blind  man  believed  before  he 
saw 3.  Here  again,  as  in  the  case  of  sin,  we  have  two  groups  of  statements  without  attempt 
at  reconciliation;  but  that  which  lays  stress  upon  human  initiative  is  far  more  numerous  than 
the  other,  and  must  be  regarded  as  expressing  Hilary's  underlying  thought  in  his  exhortations 
to  Christian  conduct,  to  his  doctrine  of  which  we  may  now  turn. 

We  must  first  premise  that  Christ's  work  as  our  Example  as  well  as  our  Saviour  is 
fully  recognised.  Many  of  his  deeds  on  earth  were  done  by  way  of  dispensation,  in  order 
to  set  us  a  pattern  of  life  and  thought*.  Christian  life  has,  of  course,  its  beginning  in 
the  free  gift  of  Baptism,  with  the  new  life  and  the  new  faculties  then  bestowed,  which 
render  possible  the  illumination  of  the  soul  s.  Hilary,  as  was  natural  at  a  time  when 
Baptism  was  often  deferred  by  professed  Christians,  and  there  were  many  converts  from 
paganism,  seems  to  contemplate  that  of  adults  as  the  rule ;  and  he  feels  it  necessary  to 
warn  them  that  their  Baptism  will  not  restore  them  to  perfect  innocence.  In  fact,  by 
a  strange  conjecture  tentatively  made,  he  once  suggests  that  our  Baptism  is  that  wherewith 
John  baptized  our  Lord,  and  that  the  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  awaits  us  hereafter, 
in  cleansing  fires  beyond  the  grave  or  in  the  purification  of  martyrdom 6.  Hilary  nowhere 
says  in  so  many  words  that  while  Baptism  abolishes  sins  previously  committed,  alms  and 
other  good  deeds  perform  a  similar  office  for  later  offences,  but  his  view,  which  will  be 
presently  stated,  concerning  good  works  shews  that  he  agreed  in  this  respect  with  St.  Cyprian  ; 
neither,  however,  would  hold  that  the  good  works  were  sufficient  in  ordinary  cases  without 


5  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.,  prolog.  4. 

6  lb.  cxxxv.  3 ;  con/essio  is  paraphrased  by  pro/tssa  cognitio. 
Similar  language  is  used  in  cxxxvii.  2  f. 

t  lb.  ii.  38;  cf.  Hi.  12  in.,  cxix.  11  (4). 

8  It  is  always  confession  to  God  directly.  There  is  no  hint 
of  public  or  ceremonial  confession,  or  of  absolution.  Rut  Hilary's 
abstinence  from  allusion  to  the  practical  system  of  the  Church 
is   so   complete   that   no   argument   can   ever   be   drawn    from    his 


silence  as  to  the  existence,  or  the  importance  in  his  eyes,  of  her 
institutions. 

9  Tr.  in  Ps.  lxvi.  2,  Ivi.  3. 

1  lb.  cxviii.,  Koph,  6. 

2  Trin.  i.  12.  3  Comm.  in  Matt.  ix.  9. 
*  E.g.  Tr.  in  Ps.  liii.  7.  5  E.g.  Trin.  i   18. 

6   Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.,  Gimcl,  5.     Hilary  never  mentions  Con- 
firmation. 


xc 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER   II. 


the  further  purification.  Martyrdoms  had,  of  course,  ceased  in  Hilary's  day  throughout 
the  Roman  empire,  but  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that  the  old  opinion,  which  had  such 
power  in  the  third  century,  still  survived.  The  Christian,  then,  has  need  for  fear,  but 
he  has  a  good  hope,  for  all  the  baptized  while  in  this  world  are  still  in  the  land  of  the 
living,  and  can  only  forfeit  their  citizenship  by  wilful  and  persistent  unworthiness  7.  The 
means  for  maintaining  the  new  life  of  effort  is  the  Eucharist,  which  is  equally  necessary 
with  Baptism8.  But  the  Eucharist  is  one  of  the  many  matters  of  practical  importance 
on  which  Hilary  is  almost  silent,  having  nothing  new  to  say,  and  being  able  to  assume 
that  his  readers  and  hearers  were  well  informed  and  of  one  mind  with  himself.  His  reticence 
is  never  a  proof  that  he  regarded  them  with  indifference. 

The  Christian  life  is  thus  a  life  of  hope  and  of  high  possibilities.  But  Hilary  frankly 
and  often  recognises  the  serious  short-comings  of  the  average  believers  of  his  day  9.  Some- 
times, in  his  zeal  for  their  improvement  and  in  the  wish  to  encourage  his  flock,  he  even 
seems  to  condone  their  faults,  venturing  to  ascribe  to  God  what  may  almost  be  styled 
mere  good-nature,  as  when  he  speaks  of  God,  Himself  immutable,  as  no  stern  Judge 
of  our  changefulness,  but  rather  appeased  by  the  wish  on  our  part  for  better  things  than 
angry  because  we  cannot  perform  impossibilities.  But  in  this  very  passage I  he  holds 
up  for  our  example  the  high  attainment  of  the  Saints,  explaining  that  the  Psalmist's 
words,  '  There  is  none  that  doeth  good,  no  not  one,'  refer  only  to  those  who  are  altogether 
gone  out  of  the  way  and  become  abominable,  and  not  to  all  mankind.  Indeed,  holding 
as  he  does  that  all  Christians  may  have  as  much  grace  from  God  as  they  will  take2, 
and  that  the  conduct  which  is  therefore  possible  is  also  necessary  to  salvation,  he  could 
not  consistently  maintain  the  lower  position.  In  fact,  the  standard  of  life  which  Hilary 
sets  in  the  Homilies  on  the  Psalms  is  very  high.  Cleanness  of  hand  and  heart  is  the 
first  object  at  which  we  must  aim  3,  and  the  Law  of  God  must  be  our  delight.  This  is 
the  lesson  inculcated  throughout  his  discourses  on  Psalm  cxix.  He  recognises  the  complexity 
of  life,  with  its  various  duties  and  difficulties,  which  are,  however,  a  privilege  inasmuch 
as  there  is  honour  to  be  won  by  victory  over  them  *  ;  and  he  takes  a  common-sense  view 
of  our  powers  and  responsibilities  s.  But  though  his  tone  is  buoyant  and  life  in  his  eyes 
is  well  worth  living  for  the  Christian6,  he  insists  not  merely  upon  a  general  purity  of 
life,  but  upon  renunciation  of  worldly  pleasures.  Like  Cyprian,  he  would  apparently  have 
the  wealthy  believer  dispose  of  his  capital  and  spend  his  income  in  works  of  charity, 
without  thought  of  economy  7.  Like  Cyprian,  again,  he  denounces  the  wearing  of  gold 
and  jewellery8,  and  the  attendance  at  public  places  of  amusement.  Higher  interests,  spiritual 
and  intellectual,  must  take  the  place  of  such  dissipation.  Sacred  melody  will  be  more 
attractive  than  the  immodest  dialogue  of  the  theatre,  and  study  of  the  course  of  the  stars 
a  more  pleasing  pursuit  than  a  visit  to  the  racecourse  9.  Yet  strictly  and  even  sternly 
Christian  as  Hilary  is,  he  does  not  allow  us  altogether  to  forget  that  his  is  an  age  with 
another  code  than  ours.  Vengeance  with  him  is  a  Christian  motive.  He  takes  with 
absolute  literalness  the  Psalmist's  imprecations r.  Like  every  other  emotion  which  he 
expresses,  that  of  delight  at  the  punishment  of  evil  doers  ought  to  have  a  place  in  the 
Christian  soul.  This  was  an  inheritance  from  the  days  of  persecution,  which  were  still 
within  the  memory  of  living  men.  Cyprian  often  encourages  the  confessors  to  patience 
by  the  prospect  of  seeing  the  wrath  of  God  upon   their  enemies ;    but  he  never  gives  so 


7  Tr.  inPs.  li.  16,  17. 

8  E.g.  ib.  cxxxi.  23;  Trin.  viii.  13.  The  latter  is  the  only 
passage  in  Hilary's  writings  in  which  the  subject  is  discussed 
at  length  ;  and  even  here  it  is  not  introduced  for  its  own  sake. 

9  E.g.  Tr.  in  Ps.  i.  g(.,  cxviii.,  Koph,  6.  Conduct  in  church 
was  not  more  exemplary  than  outside.  The  most  innocent  em- 
ployment which  he  attributes  to  many  of  his  people  during  the 


reading  of  the  lessons  is  the  casting  up  of  their  business  accounts, 
Tr.  in  Ps.  exxxv.  1. 

1   Tr.  in  Ps.  Hi.  9 — 12.  *  Trin.  ii.  35. 

3  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.,  Aleph,  1.  4  lb.  Phe,  9. 

S  lb.  i.  12.  6  E.g.  Trin.  i.  14,  vi.  19. 

7  Ib.  li.  21.  8  Ib.  cxviii.,  Ain,  16,  17. 

9  lb.,  He,  14.  »  E.g.  ib.  liii.  10. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.  xci 


strong  expression  to  the  feeling  as  Hilary  does,  when  he  enforces  obedience  to  our  Lord's 
command  to  turn  the  other  cheek  by  the  consideration  that  fuller  satisfaction  will  be 
gained  if  the  wrong  be  stored  up  against  the  Day  of  Judgment2.  There  is  something  hard 
and  Puritan  in  the  tone  which  Hilary  has  caught  from  the  men  of  the  times  of  persecution  ; 
. Mid  his  conflict  with  heretics  gave  him  ample  opportunity  for  indulgence  in  the  thought 
of  vengeance  upon  them.  This  was  no  mere  pardonable  excitement  of  feeling;  it  was 
a  Christian  duty  and  privilege  to  rejoice  in  the  future  destruction  of  his  opponents.  But 
there  is  an  even  stranger  difference  between  his  standard  and  ours.  Among  the  difficulties 
ot  keeping  in  the  strait  and  narrow  way  he  reckons  that  of  truthfulness.  A  lie,  he  says, 
is  often  necessary,  and  deliberate  falsehood  sometimes  useful  3.  We  may  mislead  an  assassin, 
and  so  enable  his  intended  victim  to  escape  ;  our  testimony  may  save  a  defendant  who 
is  in  peril  in  the  courts;  we  may  have  to  cheer  a  sick  man  by  making  light  of  his 
ailment  Such  are  the  cases  in  which  the  Apostle  says  that  our  speech  is  to  be 
'seasoned  with  salt.'  It  is  not  the  lie  that  is  wrong;  the  point  of  conscience  is  whether 
or  no  it  will  inflict  injury  upon  another.  Hilary  is  not  alone  in  taking  falsehood  lightly  *, 
and  allowance  must  be  made  for  the  age  in  which  he  lived.  And  his  words  cast  light 
upon  the  history  of  the  time.  The  constant  accusations  made  against  the  character  and 
conduct  of  theological  opponents,  which  are  so  painful  a  feature  of  the  controversies  of 
the  early  centuries,  find  their  justification  in  the  principle  which  Hilary  has  stated.  No 
harm  was  done,  rather  a  benefit  was  conferred  upon  mankind,  if  a  false  teacher  could  be 
discredited  in  a  summary  and  effective  manner;  such  was  certainly  a  thought  which 
presented  itself  to  the  minds  of  combatants,  both  orthodox  and  heterodox.  Apart  from 
these  exceptions,  which,  however,  Hilary  would  not  have  regarded  as  such,  his  standard 
of  life,  as  has  been  said,  is  a  high  one  both  in  faith  and  in  practice,  and  his  exhortation 
is  full  of  strong  common  sense.  It  is,  however,  a  standard  set  for  educated  people ;  there 
is  little  attention  paid  to  those  who  are  safe  from  the  dangers  of  intellect  and  wealth.  The 
worldliness  which  he  rebukes  is  that  of  the  rich  and  influential ;  and  his  arguments  are 
addressed  to  the  reading  class,  as  are  his  numerous  appeals  to  his  audience  in  the 
Homilies  on  the  Psalms  to  study  Scripture  for  themselves.  Indeed,  his  advice  to  them 
seems  to  imply  that  they  have  abundant  leisure  for  spiritual  exercises  and  for  reflection. 
But  he  does  not  simply  ignore  the  illiterate,  still  mostly  pagans,  for  the  work  of  St.  Martin 
of  Tours  only  began,  as  we  saw,  in  Hilary's  last  days  ;  in  one  passage  at  least  he  speaks 
with  the  scorn  of  an  ancient  philosopher  of  '  the  rustic  mind,'  which  will  fail  to  find  the 
meaning  of  the  Psalms5. 

Hilary  is  not  content  with  setting  a  standard  which  his  flock  must  strive  to  reach. 
He  would  have  them  attain  to  a  higher  level  than  is  commanded,  and  at  the  same  time 
constantly  remember  that  they  are  failing  to  perform  their  duty  to  God.  This  higher 
life  is  set  before  his  whole  audience  as  their  aim.  He  recognises  the  peculiar  honour 
of  the  widow  and  the  virgin6,  but  has  singularly  little  to  say  about  these  classes  of  the 
Christian  community,  or  about  the  clergy,  and  no  special  counsel  for  them.  The  works 
of  supererogation — the  word  is  not  his — which  he  preaches  are  within  the  reach  of  all 
Christians.     They    consist   in   the    more    perfect    practice   of   the   ordinary   virtues.     King 

2  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxxxvii.  16.  Cf.  Trin.  x.  55,  where  he  refuses  does  not  represent  his  mouthpiece  as  a  model  of  virtue.  It  is 
to  believe  that  it  was  with  real  sorrow  that  our  Lord  wept  over  more  significant  that  Tertullian,  Pud.  19,  classes  breach  of  trust 
Jerusalem,  that  godless  and  murderous  city.  His  tears  were  a  I  and  lying  among  slight  sins  which  may  happen  to  any  one  any 
'  dispensa-lion.'  [day.    This  was  in  his  strictest  and  most  censorious  period.    There 

3  Tr.  in  Ps.  xiv.  10,  est  enim  ?iecessarium  flerumque  men-  '  are  grave  difficulties  in  reconciling  some  of  Cyprian's  statements 
daciion ,  ct  nonnunquam  fahitas  utilis  est.  The  latter  apparently  concerning  his  opponents  with  one  another  and  with  probability, 
refers  to  his  second  example.  but  he  has  not  ventured  upon  any  general  extenuation  ol  the  vice. 

*  Hermas,  Mand,  iii.  3f  confesses  to  wholesale  lying;  he  had  I        5  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxxxiv.  1. 
never  heard  that  it  was  wrong.     But  the  writer  of  the  Shepherd  6  lb.  cxxxi.  24,  cxxvii.  7,  and  especially  cxviii.,  Nun,  14. 


XC11 


INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  II. 


David  'was  not  content  henceforth  to  be  confined  to  the  express  commands  of  the  Law, 

nor  to  be   subject   to   a   mere   necessity   of  obedience.'     '  The    Prophet   prays   that   these 

free-will  offerings  may  be  acceptable  to  God,   because    the    deeds   done  in   compliance  to 

the  Law's  edict  are  performed  under  the  actual  compulsion  of  servitude  ?.     As  an  instance 

he  gives  the  character  of  David.     His  duty  was  to  be  humble ;    he  made  himself  humble 

exceedingly,  thus  doing  more  than  he  was  legally  bound  to  do.     He  spared  his  enemies 

so   far   as   in  him   lay,  and  bewailed   their  death ;    this  was  a  free   service   to   which   he 

was   bound  by  no  compulsion.     Such  conduct  places  those  who  practice  it  on  the  same 

level   with   those    whose   lives   are   formally   consecrated ;    the   state   of    the    latter    beino- 

regarded,  as   always   in   early  times,  as   admirable  in  itself,  and  not  as  a  means  towards 

higher  things.     Vigils  and  fasts  and  acts  of  mercy  are  the  methods  advocated  by  Hilary 

for   such   attainment.      But   they  must   not   stand   alone,  nor  must  the   Christian   put   his 

trust  in  them.     Humility  must  have  faith  for  its  principle,  and  fasting  be  combined  with 

charity 8.     And  the  Christian   must   never   forget   that    though    he    may   in    some   respects 

be  doing  more  than  he  need,  yet  in  others  he  is  certainly  falling  short.     For  the  conflict 

is  unceasing ;    the  devil,  typified  by  the  mountains  in  the  Psalm,  has  been  touched  by  God 

and   is   smoking,  but   is   not   yet   burning  and   powerless   for  mischiefs.     Hence    there   is 

constant   danger  lest  the  Christian  fall  into  unbelief  or  unfruitfulness,  sins  equally  fatal *  • 

he  must  not  trust  in  himself,  either  that  he  can  deserve  forgiveness  for  the  past  or  resist 

future  temptations 2.     Nor  may  he  dismiss  his  past  offences  from  his  memory.     It  can  never 

cease  to  be  good  for  us  to  confess  our  former  sins,  even  though  we  have  become  righteous. 

St.  Paul  did  not  allow  himself  to  forget  that  he  had  persecuted   the    Church   of  God  3. 

But  there  is  a  further  need  than  that  of  penitence.     Like  Cyprian  before  him  and  Augustine 

after  him,    Hilary  insists  upon  the  value  of  alms  in  the  sight  of  God.     The   clothing  of 

the  naked,  the  release  of  the  captive  plead  with  God  for  the  remission  of  our  sins  *  j    and 

the   man   who   redeems   his  faults  by  alms  is  classed  among  those  who   win    His   favour, 

with  the  perfect  in  love  and  the  blameless  in  faith  s. 

Thus  the  thought  of  salvation  by  works  greatly  preponderates  over  that  of  salvation 
by  grace.  Hilary  is  fearful  of  weakening  man's  sense  of  moral  responsibility  by  dwelling 
too  much  upon  God's  work  which,  however,  he  does  not  fail  to  recognise.  Of  the  two 
great  dangers,  that  of  faith  and  that  of  life,  the  former  seemed  to  him  the  more  serious. 
God's  requirements  in  that  respect  were  easy  of  fulfilment;  He  had  stated  the  truth  and 
He  expected  it  to  be  unhesitatingly  accepted.  But  if  belief,  being  an  exertion  of  the  will, 
was  easy,  misbelief  must  be  peculiarly  and  fatally  wicked.  The  confession  of  St.  Peter, 
the  foundation  upon  which  the  Church  is  built,  is  that  Christ  is  God6;  the  sin  against 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  denial  of  this  truth?.  These  are  the  highest  glory  and  the  deepest 
shame  of  man.  It  does  not  seem  that  Hilary  regarded  any  man,  however  depraved,  as 
beyond  hope  so  long  as  he  did  not  dispute  this  truth;  he  has  no  code  of  mortal  sins. 
But  heresy  concerning  Christ,  whatever  the  conduct  and  character  of  the  heretic,  excludes 
all  possibility  of  salvation,  for  it  necessarily  cuts  him  off  from  the  one  Faith  and  the  one 
Church  which  are  the  condition  and  the  sphere  of  growth  towards  perfection;    and  the 


7  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.,  Nun,  13,  15.  It  is  in  this  passage  that 
Hilary  gives  his  views  most  fully.  His  antithesis  is  between 
legititna  and  voluntaria. 

8  I.e.  Nun,  14,  Comm.  in  Matt.  v.  2.  In  the  latter  passage 
there  is  a  piece  of  practical  advice  which  shews  that  public  fnsts 
were  generally  recognised.  Hilary  tells  his  readers  that  they 
must  not  take  literally  our  Lord's  command  to  anoint  themselves 
when  they  fast.  If  they  do,  they  will  render  themselves  con- 
spicuous and  ridiculous.  The  passage,  Comm.  in  Matt,  xxvii. 
5,6,  on  the  parables  of  the  Virgins  with  their  lamps  and  of  the 
Talents  cannot  be  taken,  as  by  Koriter,  as  evidence  that  Hilary 


rejected  the  later  doctrine  of  the  supererogatory  righteousness 
of  the  Saints.  He  is  speaking  of  the  impossibility  of  conlenv 
poraries  conveying  righteousness  to  one  another  in  the  present 
life,  and  his  words  have  no  bearing  on  that  doctrine. 

9  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxliii.  II.  *  Ib.  li.  16. 

a  E.g.  ib.  lxi.  6,  cxviii.,  He,  12,  Nun,  20,  Koph,  6. 

3  Ib.  exxxv.  4.  *  Ib.  li.  21. 

5  Ib.  cxviii.,  Lamed,  15.  Similar  passages  are  fairly  numer- 
ous ;  e.g.  Comm.  in  Matt.  iv.  26. 

*  Trin.  vi.  36. 

7  Comm.  in  Matt.  xii.  17,  xxxi.  5. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS.  xciii 

severance  is  just,  because  misbelief  is  a  wilful  sin.  Since,  then,  compliance  or  non-com- 
pliance with  one  of  God's  demands,  that  for  faith  in  His  revelation,  depends  upon  the 
will,  it  was  natural  that  Hilary  should  lay  stress  upon  the  importance  of  the  will  in  regard 
to  God's  other  demand,  that  for  a  Christian  life.  This  was,  in  a  sense,  a  lighter  requirement, 
for  various  degrees  of  obedience  were  possible.  Conduct  could  neither  give  nor  deny  faith, 
but  only  affect  its  growth,  while  without  the  frank  recognition  of  the  facts  of  religion  no 
conduct  could  be  acceptable  to  God.  Life  presents  to  the  will  a  constantly  changing  series 
of  choices  between  good  and  evil,  while  the  Faith  must  be  accepted  or  rejected  at  once 
and  as  a  whole.  It  is  clear  from  Hilary's  insistence  upon  this  that  the  difficulties,  apart 
from  heresy,  with  which  he  had  to  contend  resembled  those  of  Mission  work  in  modern 
India.  There  were  many  who  would  accept  Christianity  as  a  revelation,  yet  had  not  the 
moral  strength  to  live  in  conformity  with  their  belief.  Of  such  persons  Hilary  will  not 
despair.  They  have  the  first  essential  of  salvation,  a  clear  and  definite  acceptance  of 
doctrinal  truth  ;  they  have  also  the  offer  of  sufficient  grace,  and  the  free  will  and  power  to 
use  it  And  time  and  opportunity  are  granted,  for  the  vicissitudes  of  life  form  a  progressive 
education ;  they  are,  if  taken  aright,  the  school,  the  training-ground  for  immortality 8.  This 
is  because  all  Christians  are  in  Christ,  by  virtue  of  His  Incarnation.  They  are,  as  St.  Paul 
says,  complete  in  Him,  furnished  with  the  faith  and  hope  they  need.  But  this  is  only 
a  preparatory  completeness ;  hereafter  they  shall  be  complete  in  themselves,  when  the 
perfect  harmony  is  attained  and  they  are  conformed  to  His  glory'.  Thus  to  the  end  the 
dignity  and  responsibility  of  mankind  is  maintained.  But  it  is  obvious  that  Hilary  has 
failed  to  correlate  the  work  of  Christ  with  the  work  of  the  Christian.  The  necessity  of  His 
guidance  and  aid,  and  the  manner  in  which  these  are  bestowed,  is  sufficiently  stated,  and 
the  duty  of  the  Christian  man  is  copiously  and  eloquently  enforced.  But  the  importance 
of  Christ's  work  within  Himself,  in  harmonising  the  two  natures,  has  withdrawn  most  of 
Hilary's  attention  from  His  work  within  the  believing  soul ;  and  the  impression  which 
Hilary's  writings  leave  upon  the  mind  concerning  the  Saviour  and  redeemed  mankind  is 
that  of  allied  forces  seeking  the  same  end  but  acting  independently,  each  in  a  sphere  of 
its  own. 

There  still  remains  to  be  considered  Hilary's  account  of  the  future  state.  The  human 
soul,  being  created  after  the  image  of  God,  is  imperishable ;  resurrection  is  as  inevitable 
as  death  *.  And  the  resurrection  will  be  in  the  body,  for  good  and  bad  alike.  The  body 
of  the  good  will  be  glorified,  like  that  of  Christ ;  its  substance  will  be  the  same  as  in  the 
present  life,  its  glory  such  that  it  will  be  in  all  other  respects  a  new  body2.  Indeed,  the 
true  life  of  man  only  begins  when  this  transformation  takes  place  3.  No  such  change  awaits 
the  wicked  ;  we  shall  all  rise,  but  we  shall  not  all  be  changed,  as  St.  Paul  says 4.  They 
remain  as  they  are,  or  rather  are  subjected  to  a  ceaseless  process  of  deterioration, 
whereby  the  soul  is  degraded  to  the  level  of  the  body,  while  this  in  the  case  of  others  is 
raised,  either  instantly  or  by  a  course  of  purification,  to  the  level  of  the  soul  s.  Their 
last  state  is  vividly  described  in  language  which  recalls  that  of  Virgil ;  crushed  to  powder 
and  dried  to  dust  they  will  fly  for  ever  before  the  wind  of  God's  wrath6.  For  the  thoroughly 
good  and  the  thoroughly  bad  the  final  state  begins  at  the  moment  of  death.  There  is  no 
judgment  for  either  class,  but  only  for  those  whose  character  contains  elements  of  both  good 
and  evil  7.  But  perfect  goodness  is  only  a  theoretical  possibility,  and  Hilary  is  not  certain 
of  the  condemnation  of  any  except  wilful  unbelievers.  Evil  is  mingled  in  varying  proportions 
with  good  in  the  character  of  men  at  large ;  God  can  detect  it  in  the  very  best.     All  therefore 


8  Trin.  i.  14.  9  lb.  ix.  8,  commenting  on  Col.  ii.  10. 

»  Tr.  in  Ps.  Ii.  18,  Ixiii.  9.  *  lb.  ii.  41. 

3  lb.  cxviii.,  Gimel,  3.  a  lb.  Hi.  1- 


S  Comm._  in  Matt.  x.  19.  6  Tr.  in  Pt.  i.  19. 

7  lb.  i.   19  ff.,   translated  in  this  volume.     For  the  good,  $e» 
also  ib.  lvii.  7  ;   for  the  bad,  lvii.  5,  Trin.  vi    -\. 


xcv  INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER  II. 

need  to  be  purified  after  death,  if  they  are  to  excape  condemnation  on  the  Day  of  Judgment. 
Even  the  Mother  of  our  Lord  needs  the  purification  of  pain ;  this  is  the  sword  which 
should  pierce  through  her  soul 8.  All  who  are  infected  by  sin,  the  heretic  who  has  erred 
in  ignorance  among  them  9,  must  pass  through  cleansing  fires  after  death.  Then  comes 
the  general  Resurrection.  To  the  good  it  brings  the  final  change  to  perfect  glory ;  the 
bad  will  rise  only  to  return  to  their  former  place  r.  The  multitude  of  men  will  be  judged, 
and  after  the  education  and  purification  of  suffering  to  which,  by  God's  mercy,  they  have 
been  submitted,  will  be  accepted  by  Him.  Hilary's  writings  contain  no  hint  that  any  who 
are  allowed  to  present  themselves  on  the  Day  of  Judgment  will  then  be  rejected. 

We  have  now  completed  the  survey  of  Hilary's  thoughts.  Many  of  these  were 
strange  and  new  to  his  contemporaries,  and  his  originality,  we  may  be  sure,  deprived 
him  of  some  of  the  influence  he  wished  to  exert  in  the  controversies  of  his  day.  Yet 
he  shared  the  spirit  and  entered  heartily  into  the  interests  and  conflicts  of  his  age,  and 
therefore  his  thoughts  in  many  ways  were  different  from  our  own.  To  this  we  owe,  no 
doubt,  the  preservation  of  his  works;  writings  which  anticipated  modern  opinion  would 
have  been  powerless  for  good  in  that  day,  and  would  not  have  survived  to  ours.  Thus 
from  his  own  century  to  ours  Hilary  has  been  somewhat  isolated  and  neglected,  and  even 
misunderstood.  Yet  he  is  one  of  the  most  notable  figures  in  the  history  of  the  early 
Church,  and  must  be  numbered  among  those  who  have  done  most  to  make  Christian 
thought  richer  and  more  exact.  If  we  would  appreciate  him  aright  as  one  of  the  builders 
of  the  dogmatic  structure  of  the  Faith,  we  must  omit  from  the  materials  of  our  estimate 
a  great  part  of  his  writings,  and  a  part  which  has  had  a  wider  influence  than  any  other. 
His  interpretation  of  the  letter,  though  not  of  the  spirit,  of  Scripture  must  be  dismissed ; 
interesting  as  it  always  is,  and  often  suggestive,  it  was  not  his  own  and  was  a  hindrance, 
though  he  did  not  see  it,  to  the  freedom  of  his  thought.  Yet  his  exegesis  in  detail  is 
often  admirable.  For  instance,  it  would  not  be  easy  to  overpraise  his  insight  and  courage 
in  resisting  the  conventional  orthodoxy,  sanctioned  by  Athanasius  in  his  own  generation 
and  by  Augustine  in  the  next,  which  interpreted  St.  Paul's  '  First-born  of  every  creature ' 
as  signifying  the  Incarnation  of  Christ,  and  not  His  eternal  generation  2.  We  must  omit 
also  much  that  Hilary  borrowed  without  question  from  current  opinion ;  it  is  his  glory 
that  he  concentrated  his  attention  upon  some  few  questions  of  supreme  importance,  and 
his  strength,  not  his  weakness,  that  he  was  ready  to  adopt  in  other  matters  the  best  and 
wisest  judgments  to  which  he  had  access.  An  intelligent,  and  perhaps  ineffective,  curiosity 
may  keep  itself  abreast  of  the  thought  of  the  time,  to  quote  a  popular  phrase  ;  Hilary 
was  content  to  survey  wide  regions  of  doctrine  and  discipline  with  the  eyes  of  Origen  and 
of  Cyprian.  This  limitation  of  the  interests  of  a  powerful  mind  has  enabled  him  to  pene- 
trate further  into  the  mysteries  of  the  Faith  than  any  of  his  predecessors ;  to  points,  in  fact, 
where  his  successors  have  failed  to  establish  themselves.  We  cannot  blame  him  that 
later  theologians,  starting  where  he  left  off,  have  in  some  directions  advanced  further  still. 
The  writings  of  Hilary  are  the  quarry  whence  many  of  the  best  thoughts  of  Ambrose  and 
of  Leo  are  hewn.  Eminent  and  successful  as  these  men  were,  we  cannot  rank  them  with 
Hilary  as  intellectually  his  equals  ;  we  may  even  wonder  how  many  of  their  conclusions 
they  would  have  drawn  had  not  Hilary  supplied  the  premisses.  It  is  a  greater  honour 
that  the  unrivalled  genius  of  Augustine  is  deeply  indebted  to  him.  Nor  may  we  blame 
him,  save  lightly,  for  some  rashness  and  error  in  his  speculations.  He  set  out,  unwillingly, 
as  we  know,  but  not  half-heartedly,  upon  his  novel  journey  of  exploration.  He  had  not, 
as  we  have,   centuries    of  criticism    behind  him,  and  could   not   know   that  some  of  the 

8  Tr.  in  Ps.  cxviii.,  Gimel,  la.  9  Trin.  vi.  3.  l  Tr.  in  Ps.  lii.  17,  lxix.  3. 

2  Trin.  viii.  50  ;  Tr.  in  Ps.  ii.  23.     Cf.  Lightfoot  on  Col.  i.  is- 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  HILARY  OF  POITIERS. 


xcv 


avenues  he  followed  would  lead  him  astray.  It  may  be  that  we  are  sober  because  we 
are,  in  a  sense,  disillusioned;  that  modern  Christian  thought  which  starts  from  the  old 
premisses  tends  to  excess  of  circumspection.  And  certainly  Hilary  would  not  have  earned 
his  fame  as  one  of  the  most  original  and  profound  of  teachers,  whose  view  of  Christology 
is  one  of  the  most  interesting  in  the  whole  of  Christian  antiquity  3,  had  he  not  been  in- 
spired by  a  sense  of  freedom  and  of  hope  in  his  quest.  Yet  great  as  was  his  genius 
and  reverent  the  spirit  in  which  lie  worked,  the  errors  into  which  he  fell,  though  few,  were 
serious.  There  are  instances  in  which  he  neglects  his  habitual  balancing  of  corresponding 
infinities  ;  as  when  he  shuts  his  eyes  to  half  the  revelation,  and  asserts  that  Christ  could 
not  be  ignorant  and  could  not  feel  pain.  And  there  is  that  whole  system  of  dispensations 
which  he  has  built  up  in  explanation  of  Christ's  life  on  earth  ;  a  system  against  which 
our  conscience  and  our  common  sense  rebel,  for  it  contradicts  the  plain  words  of  Scripture 
and  attributes  to  God  '  a  process  of  Divine  reserve  which  is  in  fact  deception  +.'  We  may 
compare  Hilary's  method  in  such  cases  to  the  architecture  of  Gloucester  and  of  Sher- 
borne, where  the  ingenuity  of  a  later  age  has  connected  and  adorned  the  massive  and 
isolated  columns  of  Norman  date  by  its  own  light  and  graceful  drapery  of  stonework. 
We  cannot  but  admire  the  result  j  yet  there  is  a  certain  concealment  of  the  original  de- 
sign, and  perhaps  a  perilous  cutting  away  of  the  solid  structure.  But,  in  justice  to  Hilary, 
we  must  remember  that  in  these  speculations  he  is  venturing  away  from  the  established 
standards  of  doctrine.  When  he  is  enunciating  revealed  truths,  or  arguing  onward  from 
them  to  conclusions  towards  which  they  point,  he  has  the  company  of  the  Creeds,  or  at 
least  they  indicate  the  way  he  must  go.  But  in  explaining  the  connection  between  doc- 
trine and  doctrine  he  is  left  to  his  own  guidance.  It  is  as  though  a  traveller,  not  content 
to  acquaint  himself  with  the  highroads,  should  make  his  way  over  hedge  and  ditch  from 
one  of  them  to  another ;  he  will  not  always  hit  upon  the  best  and  straightest  course.  But 
at  least  Hilary's  conclusions,  though  sometimes  erroneous,  were  reached  by  honest  and 
reverent  reasoning,  and  neither  ancient  nor  modern  theology  can  afford  to  reproach  him. 
The  tendency  of  the  former,  especially  ofter  the  rise  of  Nestorius,  was  to  exaggerate  some 
of  his  errors ;  and  the  latter  has  failed  to  develope  and  enforce  some  of  his  highest 
teaching. 

This  is,  indeed,  worthy  of  all  admiration.  On  the  moral  side  of  Christianity  we  see 
him  insisting  upon  the  voluntary  character  of  Christ's  work  ;  upon  His  acts  of  will,  which 
are  a  satisfaction  to  God  and  an  appeal  to  us s.  On  the  intellectual  side  we  find  the 
Unity  in  Trinity  so  luminously  declared  that  Bishop  French  of  Lahore,  one  of  the  greatest 
of  missionaries,  had  the  works  of  Hilary  constantly  in  his  hands,  and  contemplated  a  tran- 
slation of  the  De  T?-initate  into  Arabic  for  the  benefit  of  Mohammedans  6.  This  was  not 
because  Hilary's  explanation  of  our  Lord's  sufferings  might  seem  to  commend  the  Gospel 
to  their  prejudices  ;  such  a  concession  would  have  been  repugnant  to  French's  whole 
mode  of  thought.  It  was  because  in  the  central  argument  on  behalf  of  the  Godhead  of 
Christ,  where  he  had  least  scope  for  originality  of  thought,  Hilary  has  never  suffered  him- 
self to  become  a  mere  mechanical  compiler.     The  light  which  he  has  cast  upon  his  sub- 


3  Dorner,  I.  ii.  399. 

4  Gore,  Dissertations,  p.  151. 

5  Schwa-ie,  ii.  271,  says,  'Though  we  reject  that  part  of  it 
which  attributes  a  natural  impassibility  to  the  body  of  Christ, 
yet  Hilary's  exposition  presents  one  truth  more  clearly  than  the 
earlier  Fathers  had  stated  it,  by  giving  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
representative  satisfaction  of  Christ  its  reasonable  explanation  as 
a  free  service  of  satisfaction.  He  conceives  rightly  of  the  Lord's 
whole  life  on  earth,  with  ail  its  troubles  and  infirmities,  as  a 
sacrifice  of  free  love  on  the  part  of  the  God-Man  ;  it  is  onl$    V>is 


closer  definition  of  this  sacrifice  that  is  inaccurate.  .  .  .  Hilary 
lays  especial  stress  upon  the  freedom  of  the  Lord's  acceptance 
of  death.'     He  quotes  Trin.  x.  11. 

6  He  had  evidently  been  long  familiar  with  it  (Life,  i.  155), 
but  the  first  mention  of  its  use  for  missionary  purposes  is  in  1862 
{id.  i.  137).  He  began  the  translation  into  Arabic  at  Tunis  in 
1890,  after  his  resignation  of  the  bishopric  of  Lahore  (ii.  333), 
but  it  seems  doubtful  whether  he  was  able  to  make  any  progress 
with  it  at  Muscat.  His  biographer  says  nothing  of  the  amount 
actually  accomplished. 


xcvi  INTRODUCTION.     CHAPTER    II. 

ject,  though  clear,  is  never  hard  ;  and  the  doctrine  which,  because  it  was  attractive  to 
himself,  he  has  made  attractive  to  his  readers,  is  that  of  the  unity  of  God,  the  very  doctrine 
which  is  of  supreme  importance  in  Mohammedan  eyes  7. 

But,  above  all,  it  is  Hilary's  doctrine  concerning  the  Incarnation  as  the  eternal  purpose 
of  God  for  the  union  of  the  creature  with  the  Creator,  that  must  excite  our  interest  and 
awaken  our  thoughts.  He  renders  it,  on  the  one  hand,  impossible  to  rate  too  highly  the 
dignity  of  man,  created  to  share  the  nature  and  the  life  of  God ;  impossible,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  estimate  highly  enough  the  condescension  of  Christ  in  assuming  humanity.  It 
is  by  His  humiliation  that  we  are  saved ;  by  the  fact  that  the  nature  of  man  was  taken 
by  his  Maker,  not  by  the  fact  that  Christ,  being  man,  remained  sinless.  For  sin  began 
against  God's  will  and  after  His  counsel  was  formed;  it  might  deflect  the  march  of  His 
purpose  towards  fulfilment,  but  could  no  more  impede  its  consummation  than  it  could 
cause  its  inception.  The  true  salvation  of  man  is  not  that  which  rescues  him,  when  corrupt, 
from  sin  and  its  consequences,  but  that  which  raises  him,  corruptible,  because  free,  even 
though  he  had  not  become  corrupt,  into  the  safety  of  union  with  the  nature  of  God. 
Human  life,  though  pure  from  actual  sin,  would  have  been  aimless  and  hopeless  without  the 
Incarnation.  And  the  human  body  would  have  had  no  glory,  for  its  glory  is  that  Christ  has 
taken  it,  worn  it  awhile  in  its  imperfect  state,  laid  it  aside  and  finally  resumed  it  in  its 
perfection.  All  this  He  must  have  done,  in  accordance  with  God's  purpose,  even  though 
the  Fall  had  never  occurred.  Hence  the  Incarnation  and  the  Resurrection  are  the  facts 
of  paramount  interest;  the  death  of  Christ,  corresponding  as  it  does  to  the  hypothetical 
laying  aside  of  the  unglorified  flesh,  loses  something  of  its  usual  prominence  in  Christian 
thought.  It  is  represented  as  being  primarily  for  Christ  the  moment  of  transition,  for  the 
Christian  the  act  which  enables  him  to  profit  by  the  Incarnation ;  but  it  is  the  Incarnation 
itself  whereby,  in  Hilary's  words,  we  are  saved  into  the  nature  and  the  name  of  God.  But 
though  we  may  feel  that  this  great  truth  is  not  stated  in  its  full  impressiveness,  we  must 
allow  that  the  thought  which  has  taken  the  foremost  place  is  no  mere  academic  speculation. 
And,  after  all,  sin  and  the  Atonement  are  copiously  treated  in  his  writings,  though  they 
do  not  control  his  exposition  of  the  Incarnation.  Yet  even  in  this  there  are  large  spaces 
of  his  argument  where  these  considerations  have  a  place,  though  only  to  give  local  colour, 
so  to  speak,  and  a  sense  of  reality  to  the  description  of  a  purpose  formed  and  a  work  done 
for  man  because  he  is  man,  not  because  he  is  fallen.  But  if  Hilary  has  somewhat  erred 
in  placing  the  Cross  in  the  background,  he  is  not  in  error  in  magnifying  the  scope  of 
the  reconciliation  8  which  includes  it  as  in  a  wider  horizon.  Man  has  in  Christ  the  nature 
of  God ;  the  infinite  Mind  is  intelligible  to  the  finite.  The  Creeds  are  no  dry  statement  of 
facts  which  do  not  touch  our  life;  the  truths  they  contain  are  the  revelation  of  God's  self 
to  us.  Not  for  the  pleasure  of  weaving  theories,  but  in  the  interests  of  practical  piety,  Hilary 
has  fused  belief  and  conduct  into  the  unity  of  that  knowledge  which  Isaiah  foresaw  and 
St.  John  possessed ;  the  knowledge  which  is  not  a  means  towards  life,  but  life  itself. 


7  For  Bishop  French's  view  of  the  importance  of  this  doctrine, 
I  his  Life,  i.  84. 

8  Compare  Bishop  Lightfoot'    comprehensive  words  on  Col.  i. 


ao.  The  reconciliation  of  mankind  implies  '  a  restitution  to  a  stat« 
from  which  they  had  fallen,  or  which  was  potentially  theirs,  or 
for  which  they  were  destined.' 


INTRODUCTION  TO   THE  TREATISE 

DE    SYNODIS. 


Hilary  had  taken  no  part  in  the  Synod  held  at  Ancyra  in  the  spring  of  a.d.  358, 
but  he  had  been  made  acquainted  with  its  decisions  and  even  with  the  anathemas  which 
the  legates  of  that  Synod  concealed  at  Sirmium.  He  saw  that  these  decisions  marked 
an  approach.  The  horror  which  was  felt  at  the  Sirmian  Blasphemia  by  those  Eusebians 
whose  only  objection  to  the  Nicene  faith  was  that  they  did  not  understand  it,  augured  well 
for  the  future.  At  the  same  time  the  majority  of  the  Eastern  bishops  were  deliberately 
heretical.     It  was  natural  that  Hilary  should  be  anxious  about  the  episcopate  of  the  West. 

He  had  been  in  exile  about  three  years  and  had  corresponded  with  the  Western 
bishops.  From  several  quarters  letters  had  now  ceased  to  arrive,  and  the  fear  came  that 
the  bishops  did  not  care  to  write  to  one  whose  convictions  were  different  to  their  own. 
Great  was  his  joy  when,  at  the  end  of  the  year  358,  he  received  a  letter  which  not  only 
explained  that  the  innocent  cause  of  their  silence  was  ignorance  of  his  address,  but  also 
that  they  had  persistently  refused  communion  with  Saturninus  and  condemned  the  Blas- 
frhemia. 

Early  in  359  he  dispatched  to  them  the  Liber  de  Synodis.  It  is  a  double  letter,  ad- 
dressed to  Western  bishops,  but  containing  passages  intended  for  Orientals,  into  whose 
hands  the  letter  would  doubtless  come  in  time.  Hilary  had  recognized  that  the  orthodox  of 
the  West  had  kept  aloof  from  the  orthodox  of  the  East,  firstly  from  ignorance  of  events, 
secondly  from  misunderstanding  of  the  word  6/zoovcno?,  and  thirdly  from  the  feelings  of  dis- 
trust then  prevalent.     These  facts  determined  the  contents  of  his  letter. 

He  begins  with  an  expression  of  the  delight  he  experienced  on  receiving  the  news 
that  the  Gallican  bishops  had  condemned  the  notorious  Sirmian  formula.  He  praises  the 
constancy  of  their  faith. 

He  then  mentions  that  he  has  received  from  certain  of  their  number  a  request  that  he 
would  furnish  them  with  an  account  of  the  creeds  which  had  been  composed  in  the  East 
He  modestly  accedes  to  this  request  beseeching  his  readers  not  to  criticise  his  letter  until 
they  have  read  the  whole  letter  and  mastered  the  complete  argument.  His  aim  throughout 
is  to  frustrate  the  heretic  and  assist  the  Catholic. 

In  the  first  or  historical  division   of  the   letter  he  promises  a  transcription,  with  ex 
planations,  of  all  the  creeds  drawn  up  since  the  Council  of  Nicasa.    He  protests  that  he  is  not 
responsible  for  any  statement  contained  in  these  creeds,  and  leaves  his  readers  to  judge  of 
their  orthodoxy. 

The  Greek  confessions  had  already  been  translated  into  Latin,  but  Hilary  considered  it 
necessary  to  give  his  own  independent  translations,  the  previous  versions  having  been  half- 
unintelligible  on  account  of  their  slavish  adherence  to  the  original. 

The  historical  part  of  the  book  consists  of  fifty-four  chapters  (c.  10 — 63).  It  begins 
with  the  second  Sirmian  formula,  and  the  opposing  formula  promulgated  at  Ancyra  in  a.d. 
358.  The  Sirmian  creed  being  given  in  c.  10,  Hilary,  before  proceeding  to  give  the  twelve 
anathemas  directed  against  its  teaching  by  the  bishops  who  assembled  at  Ancyra,  explains 

VOL.  IX.  B 


INTRODUCTION    TO    THE    TREATISE 


the  meaning  of  essentia  and  substantia.  Concerning  the  former  he  says,  Essentia  est  res  quae 
est,  vel  ex  quibus  est,  et  quae  in  eo  quod  maneat  subsisiit.  This  esse?i!ia  is  therefore  identical 
with  substantia,  quia  res  quae  est  necesse  est  subsistat  in  sese.  The  Ancyran  anathemas  are  then 
appended,  with  notes  and  a  summary. 

In  the  second  division  (c.  29 — t>Z)  or"  the  historical  part,  Hilary  considers  the  Dedi- 
cation creed  drawn  up  at  Antioch  in  a.d.  341.  He  interprets  it  somewhat  favourably. 
After  stating  that  the  creed  is  perhaps  not  sufficiently  explicit  in  declaring  the  exact  likeness 
of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  he  excuses  this  inadequacy  by  pointing  out  that  the  Synod  was 
not  held  to  contradict  Anomcean  teaching,  but  teaching  of  a  Sabellian  tendency.  The  com- 
plete similarity  of  the  Son's  essence  to  that  of  the  Father  appears  to  him  to  be  guarded  by 
the  phrase  Deum  de  Deo,  totmn  ex  toto. 

The  third  division  (c.  34 — 37)  contains  the  creed  drawn  up  by  the  Synod,  or  Cabal 
Synod,  which  met  at  Philippopolis  in  a.d.  343.  Hilary  does  not  discuss  the  authority  of  the 
Synod;  it  was  enough  for  his  purpose  that  it  was  composed  of  Orientals,  and  that  its  lan- 
guage emphatically  condemns  genuine  Arianism  and  asserts  the  Son  is  God  of  God.  The 
anathema  which  the  creed  pronounces  on  those  who  declare  the  Son  to  have  been  begotten 
without  the  Father's  will,  is  interpreted  by  Hilary  as  an  assertion  that  the  eternal  Birth  was 
not  conditioned  by  those  passions  which  affect  human  generation. 

The  fourth  division  (c.  38 — 61)  contains  the  long  formula  drawn  up  at  Sirmium  in 
A.D.  351  against  Photinus.  The  twenty-seven  anathemas  are  then  separately  considered  and 
commended.  The  two  remaining  chapters  of  the  historical  part  of  the  work  include 
a  reflection  on  the  many-sided  character  of  these  creeds  both  in  their  positive  and  negative 
aspects.  God  is  infinitus  et  immensus,  and  therefore  short  statements  concerning  His  nature 
may  often  prove  misleading.  The  bishops  have  used  many  definitions  and  phrases  because 
clearness  will  remove  a  danger.  These  frequent  definitions  would  have  been  quite  un- 
necessary if  it  had  not  been  for  the  prevalence  of  heresy.  Asia  as  a  whole  is  ignorant  ot 
God,  presenting  a  piteous  contrast  to  the  fidelity  of  the  Western  bishops. 

The  theological  part  of  the  work  opens  in  c.  64  with  Hilary's  exposition  of  his  own 
belief.  He  denies  that  there  is  in  God  only  one  personality,  as  he  denies  that  there  is  any 
difference  of  substance.  The  Father  is  greater  in  that  He  is  Father,  the  Son  is  not  less 
because  He  is  Son.  He  asks  his  readers  to  remember  that  if  his  words  fall  short,  his  meaning 
is  sound.  This  done,  he  passes  to  discuss  the  meaning  of  the  word  ofioovaiov.  Three  wrong 
meanings  may  be  attributed  to  it.  Firstly,  it  may  be  understood  to  deny  the  personal  dis- 
tinctions in  the  Trinity.  Secondly,  it  may  be  thought  to  imply  that  the  divine  essence  is 
capable  of  division.  Thirdly,  it  may  be  represented  as  implying  that  the  Father  and  the  Son 
both  equally  partake  of  one  prior  substance.  A  short  expression  like  opooiKnos  must  there- 
fore receive  an  exact  explanation.  A  risk  is  attached  to  its  use,  but  there  is  no  risk  if  we 
understand  it  to  mean  that  the  Father  is  unbegotten  and  the  Son  derives  His  being  from  the 
Father,  and  is  like  Him  in  power,  and  honour,  and  nature.  The  Son  is  subordinate  to 
the  Father  as  to  the  Author  of  His  being,  yet  it  was  not  by  a  robbery  that  He  made  Himself 
equal  with  God.  He  is  not  from  nothing.  He  is  wholly  God.  He  is  not  the  Author  of  the 
divine  life,  but  the  Image.  He  is  no  creature,  but  is  God.  Not  a  second  God,  but  one  God 
with  the  Father  through  similarity  of  essence.  This  is  the  ideal  meaning  of  6/jloov<tios,  and  in 
this  sense  it  is  not  an  error  to  assert,  but  to  deny,  the  consubstantiality. 

Hilary  then  makes  a  direct  appeal  to  the  Western  bishops.  They  might  forget  the 
contents  of  the  word  while  retaining  the  sound,  but  provided  that  the  meaning  was  granted, 
what  objection  could  be  made  to  the  word  ?  Was  the  word  onotovatov  free  from  all  possible 
objections?  Hilary  (c.  72 — 75)  shews  that  really  like  means  really  equal.  Scripture  is  ap- 
pealed to  as  proving  the  assertion  that  the  Son  is  both  like  God  and  equal  to  God.  This 
essential  likeness  can  alone  justify  the  statement  that  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  one.     It 


DE   SYNODIS. 


is  blasphemous  to  represent  the  similarity  as  a  mere  analogy.  The  similitude  is  a  similitude 
of  proper  nature  and  equality.  The  conclusion  of  the  argument  is  that  the  word  o/xotovo-toj,  if 
understood,  leads  us  to  the  word  6/xoovo-ior  which  helps  to  guard  it,  and  that  it  does  not 
imply  any  separation  between  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity. 

The  saint  now  turns  to  the  Eastern  bishops,  a  small  number  of  whom  still  remained 
faithful.  He  bestows  upon  them  titles  of  praise,  and  expresses  his  joy  at  the  decisions 
they  had  made,  and  at  the  Emperor's  repudiation  of  his  former  mistake.  With  Pauline 
fervour  Hilary  exclaims  that  he  would  remain  in  exile  all  his  life,  if  only  truth  might  be 
preached. 

Then,  in  a  chapter  which  displays  alike  his  knowledge  of  the  Bible  and  his  power  of  re- 
fined sarcasm,  he  unveils  his  suspicions  concerning  Valens  and  Ursacius.  He  doubts  whether 
they  could  have  been  so  inexperienced  as  to  be  ignorant  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  otxoovaioi. 
when  they  signed  the  third  Sirmian  Creed.  Furthermore  he  is  obliged  to  point  out  a  defect  in 
the  letter  which  the  Oriental  bishops  wrote  at  the  Synod  of  Ancyra.  The  word  Sfioova-iov  is 
there  rejected.  The  three  grounds  for  such  rejection  could  only  be  that  the  word  was  thought 
to  imply  a  prior  substance,  or  the  teaching  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  or  that  the  word  was 
not  in  Scripture.  The  first  two  grounds  were  only  illusions,  the  third  was  equally  fatal  to  the 
word  6/j.oiovo-iov.  Those  who  intelligibly  maintained  o/jloovctiov  or  Snoiovaiov,  meant  the  same 
thing  and  condemned  the  same  impiety  (c.  82).  Why  should  any  one  wish  to  decline 
the  word  which  the  Council  of  Nicaea  had  used  for  an  end  which  was  unquestionably  good  ? 
The  argument  is  enforced  by  the  insertion  of  the  Nicene  Creed  in  full.  True,  the  word 
onoovatov  is  quite  capable  of  misconstruction.  But  the  application  of  this  test  to  the  difficult 
passages  in  the  Bible  would  lead  to  the  chaos  of  all  belief.  The  possible  abuse  of  the  word 
does  not  abolish  its  use.  The  authority  of  the  eighty  bishops  who  condemned  the  Samos- 
atene  abuse  of  it  does  not  affect  the  authority  of  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  who  ratified 
its  Nicene  meaning.  Hilary  adds  a  statement  of  great  importance.  Before  he  was  ac- 
quainted with  the  term  he  had  personally  believed  what  it  implied.  The  term  has  merely 
invigorated  his  previous  faith  (c.  88,  cf.  c.  91).  In  other  words,  Hilary  tells  his  contem- 
poraries and  tells  posterity  that  the  word  Snoova-iov  is  Scripture  because  it  is  the  sense 
of  Scripture,  and  is  truly  conservative  because  it  alone  adequately  preserves  the  faith  of  the 
fathers.  The  argument  is  interwoven  with  a  spirited  appeal  to  the  Eastern  bishops  to  return 
to  that  faith  as  expressed  at  Nicaea. 

The  last  chapter  (c.  92)  is  addressed  to  the  Western  bishops.  It  modestly  defends  the 
action  of  Hilary  in  writing,  and  urges  a  corresponding  energy  on  the  part  of  his  readers.  The 
whole  concludes  with  a  devout  prayer. 

The  Liber  de  Synodis,  like  other  works  in  which  Catholicism  has  endeavoured  to  be  con- 
ciliatory, did  not  pass  unchallenged.  It  satisfied  neither  the  genuine  Arian  nor  the  violently 
orthodox.  The  notes  or  fragments  which  we  call  Hilary's  Apology  throw  light  upon  the 
latter  fact.  Hilary  has  to  explain  that  he  had  not  meant  that  the  Eastern  bishops  had  stated 
the  true  faith  at  Ancyra,  and  tells  his  Lord  and  brother  Lucifer  that  it  was  against  his  will  that 
he  had  mentioned  the  word  6fj.oiovo-ioi>.  We  must  ourselves  confess  that  Hilary  puts  an  inter- 
pretation on  the  meaning  of  the  Eastern  formulae  which  would  have  been  impossible  if  he  had 
written  after  the  Synod  of  Ariminum.  Speaking  when  he  did,  his  arguments  were  not  only 
pardonable  but  right. 


B  2 


ON    THE    COUNCILS, 


OR, 


THE   FAITH    OF   THE   EASTERNS. 


To  the  most  dearly  loved  and  blessed  bre- 
thren our  fellow-bishops  of  the  province 
of  Germania  Prima  and  Germania  Se- 
cunda,  Belgica  Prima  and  Belgica  Se- 
cunda,  Lugdunensis  Prima  and  Lugdu- 
nensis  Secunda,  and  the  province  of  Aqui- 
tania,  and  the  province  of  Novempopulana, 
and  to  the  laity  and  clergy  of  Tolosa  in 
the  Provincia  Narbonensis,  and  to  the 
bishops  of  the  provinces  of  Britain,  Hilary 
the  servant  of  Christ,  eternal  salvation  in 
God  our  Lord. 

I  had  determined,  beloved  brethren,  to  send 
no  letter  to  you  concerning  the  affairs  of  the 
Church  in  consequence  of  your  prolonged 
silence.  For  when  I  had  by  writing  from 
several  cities  of  the  Roman  world  frequently 
informed  you  of  the  faith  and  efforts  of  our 
religious  brethren,  the  bishops  of  the  East,  and 
how  the  Evil  One  profiting  by  the  discords 
of  the  times  had  with  envenomed  lips  and 
tongue  hissed  out  his  deadly  doctrine,  I  was 
afraid.  I  feared  lest  while  so  many  bishops 
were  involved  in  the  serious  danger  of  dis- 
astrous sin  or  disastrous  mistake,  you  were 
holding  your  peace  because  a  defiled  and  sin- 
stained  conscience  tempted  you  to  despair. 
Ignorance  I  could  not  attribute  to  you  ;  you 
had  been  too  often  warned.  I  judged  there- 
fore that  I  also  ought  to  observe  silence  to- 
wards you,  carefully  remembering  the  Lord's 
saying,  that  those  who  after  a  first  and  second 
entreaty,  and  in  spite  of  the  witness  of  the 
Church,  neglect  to  hear,  are  to  be  unto  us  as 
heathen  men  and  publicans1. 

2.  But  when  I  received  the  letters  that  your 
blessed  faith  inspired,  and  understood  that 
their  slow  arrival  and  their  paucity  were  due 
to  the  remoteness  and  secrecy  of  my  place  of 
exile,  I  rejoiced  in  the  Lord  that  you  had  con- 
tinued pure  and  undefiled  by  the  contagion  of 

*  Matt.  xiii.  15  ff. 


any  execrable  heresy,  and  that  you  were  united 
with  me  in  faith  and  spirit,  and  so  were  par- 
takers of  that  exile  into  which  Saturninus,  fear- 
ing his  own  conscience,  had  thrust  me  after 
beguiling  the  Emperor,  and  after  that  you  had 
denied  him  communion  for  the  whole  three 
years  ago  until  now.  I  equally  rejoiced  that 
the  impious  and  infidel  creed  which  was  sent 
straightway  to  you  from  Sirmium  was  not  only 
not  accepted  by  you,  but  condemned  as  soon 
as  reported  and  notified.  I  felt  that  it  was 
now  binding  on  me  as  a  religious  duty  to  write 
sound  and  faithful  words  to  you  as  my  fellow- 
bishops,  who  communicate  with  me  in  Christ. 
I,  who  through  fear  of  what  might  have  been 
could  at  one  time  only  rejoice  with  my  own 
conscience  that  I  was  free  from  all  these  errors, 
was  now  bound  to  express  delight  at  the 
purity  of  our  common  faith.  Praise  God  for 
the  unshaken  stability  of  your  noble  hearts,  for 
your  firm  house  built  on  the  foundation  of  the 
faithful  rock,  for  the  undefiled  and  unswerving 
constancy  of  a  will  that  has  proved  immacu- 
late !  For  since  the  good  profession  at  the 
Council  of  Biterrae,  where  I  denounced  the 
ringleaders  of  this  heresy  with  some  of  you  for 
my  witnesses,  it  has  remained  and  still  con- 
tinues to  remain,  pure,  unspotted  and  scru- 
pulous. 

3.  You  awaited  the  noble  triumph  of  a  holy 
and  steadfast  perseverance  without  yielding  to 
the  threats,  the  powers  and  the  assaults  of 
Saturninus:  and  when  all  the  waves  of  awaken- 
ing blasphemy  struggled  against  God,  you  who 
still  remain  with  me  faithful  in  Christ  did  not 
give  way  when  threatened  with  the  onset  of 
heresy,  and  now  by  meeting  that  onset  you 
have  broken  all  its  violence.  Yes,  brethren, 
you  have  conquered,  to  the  abundant  joy  of 
those  who  share  your  faith  :  and  your  unim- 
paired constancy  gained  the  double  glory  of 
keeping  a  pure  conscience  and  giving  an  au- 
thoritative example.     For   the   fame   of  your 


ON   THE   COUNCILS. 


unswerving  and  unshaken  faith  has  moved  cer- 
tain Eastern  bishops,  late  though  it  be,  to 
some  shame  for  the  heresy  fostered  and  sup- 
ported in  those  regions  :  and  when  they  heard 
of  the  godless  confession  composed  at  Sir- 
mium,  they  contradicted  its  audacious  authors 
by  passing  certain  decrees  themselves.  And 
though  they  withstood  them  not  without  in 
their  turn  raising  some  scruples,  and  inflicting 
some  wounds  upon  a  sensitive  piety,  yet  they 
withstood  them  so  vigorously  as  to  compel 
those  who  at  Sirmium  yielded  to  the  views  of 
Potamius  and  Hosius  as  accepting  and  con- 
firming those  views,  to  declare  their  ignorance 
and  error  in  so  doing;  in  fact  they  had  to 
condemn  in  writing  their  own  action.  And 
they  subscribed  with  the  express  purpose  of 
condemning  something  else  in  advance  2. 

4.  But  your  invincible  faith  keeps  the  hon- 
ourable distinction  of  conscious  worth,  and 
content  with  repudiating  crafty,  vague,  or  hes- 
itating action,  safely  abides  in  Christ,  pre- 
serving the  profession  of  its  liberty.  You  ab- 
stain from  communion  with  those  who  oppose 
their  bishops  with  their  blasphemies  and  keep 
them  in  exile,  and  do  not  by  assenting  to  any 
crafty  subterfuge  bring  yourselves  under  a 
charge  of  unrighteous  judgment.  For  since 
we  all  suffered  deep  and  grievous  pain  at  the 
actions  of  the  wicked  against  God,  within  our 
boundaries  alone  is  communion  in  Christ  to 
be  found  from  the  time  that  the  Church  began 
to  be  harried  by  disturbances  such  as  the 
expatriation  of  bishops,  the  deposition  of 
priests,  the  intimidation  of  the  people,  the 
threatening  of  the  faith,  and  the  determination 
of  the  meaning  of  Christ's  doctrine  by  human 
will  and  power.  Your  resolute  faith  does  not 
pretend  to  be  ignorant  of  these  facts  or  profess 
that  it  can  tolerate  them,  perceiving  that  by 
the  act  of  hypocritical  assent  it  would  bring 
itself  before  the  bar  of  conscience. 

5.  And  although  in  all  your  actions,  past 
and  present,  you  bear  witness  to  the  uninter- 
rupted independence  and  security  of  your 
faith  ;  yet  in  particular  you  prove  your  warmth 
and  fervour  of  spirit  by  the  fact  that  some  of 
you  whose  letters  have  succeeded  in  reaching 
me  have  expressed  a  wish  that  I,  unfit  as  I  am, 
should  notify  to  you  what  the  Easterns  have 
since  said  in  their  confessions  of  faith.     They 


»  Hosius,  bishop  of  Cordova  in  Spain,  had  been  sent  by  Con- 
stantine  to  Alexandria  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Arian  controversy. 
He  had  presided  at  the  Council  of  Nicsea  in  325,  and  had  taken 
part  in  the  Council  of  Sardica  in  343,  when  the  Nicene  Creed 
was  reaffirmed.  In  his  extreme  old  age  he  was  forced  with  blows 
to  accept  this  extreme  Arian  Creed  drawn  up  at  the  third  Council 
of  Sirmium  in  the  summer  of  357.  This  is  what  is  stated  by 
Socrates,  and  it  is  coiroborated  by  Athanasius,  Hist.  Arian,  c.  45, 
where  it  is  added  that  he  anathematized  Arianism  before  dying. 
Hilary_  certainly  does  Hosius  an  injustice  in  declaring  him  to 
be  a  joint-author  of  the  '  blasphemous  '  creed. 


affectionately  laid  the  additional  burden  upon 
me  of  indicating  my  sentiments  on  all  their 
decisions.  I  know  that  my  skill  and  learning 
are  inadequate,  for  I  feel  it  most  difficult  to 
express  in  words  my  own  belief  as  I  under- 
stand it  in  my  heart ;  far  less  easy  must  it  be 
to  expound  the  statements  of  others. 

6.  Now  I  beseech  you  by  the  mercy  of  the 
Lord,  that  as  I  will  in  this  letter  according  to 
your  desire  write  to  you  of  divine  things  and 
of  the  witness  of  a  pure  conscience  to  our 
faith,  no  one  will  think  to  judge  me  by  the 
beginning  of  my  letter  before  he  has  read  the 
conclusion  of  my  argument.  For  it  is  unfair 
before  the  complete  argument  has  been 
grasped,  to  conceive  a  prejudice  on  account 
of  initial  statements,  the  reason  of  which  is  yet 
unknown,  since  it  is  not  with  imperfect  state- 
ments before  us  that  we  must  make  a  de- 
cision for  the  sake  of  investigation,  but  on  the 
conclusion  for  the  sake  of  knowledge.  I 
have  some  fear,  not  about  you,  as  God  is  wit- 
ness of  my  heart,  but  about  some  who  in  their 
own  esteem  are  very  cautious  and  prudent 
but  do  not  understand  the  blessed  apostle's 
precept  not  to  think  of  themselves  more  highly 
than  they  ought  3 :  for  I  am  afraid  that  they 
are  unwilling  to  know  all  those  facts,  the  com- 
plete account  of  which  I  will  offer  at  the  end, 
and  at  the  same  time  they  avoid  drawing  the 
true  conclusion  from  the  aforesaid  facts.  But 
whoever  takes  up  these  lines  to  read  and 
examine  them  has  only  to  be  consistently 
patient  with  me  and  with  himself  and  pe- 
ruse the  whole  to  its  completion.  Perchance 
all  this  assertion  of  my  faith  will  result 
in  those  who  conceal  their  heresy  being  unable 
to  practise  the  deception  they  wish,  and  in 
true  Catholics  attaining  the  object  which  they 
desire. 

7.  Therefore  I  comply  with  your  affection- 
ate and  urgent  wish,  and  I  have  set  down  all 
the  creeds  which  have  been  promulgated  at 
different  times  and  places  since  the  holy 
Council  of  Nicsea,  with  my  appended  ex- 
planations of  all  the  phrases  and  even  words 
employed.  If  they  be  thought  to  contain  any- 
thing faulty,  no  one  can  impute  the  fault  to 
me :  for  I  am  only  a  reporter,  as  you  wished 
me  to  be,  and  not  an  author.  But  if  anything 
is  found  to  be  laid  down  in  right  and  apostolic 
fashion,  no  one  can  doubt  that  it  is  no  credit 
to  the  interpreter  but  to  the  originator.  In 
any  case  I  have  sent  you  a  faithful  account  of 
these  transactions  :  it  is  for  you  to  determine 
by  the  decision  your  faith  inspires  whether 
their  spirit  is  Catholic  or  heretical. 

8.  For  although  it  was  necessary  to  reply  to 

3  Rom.  xii.  3. 


DE    SYNODIS. 


your  letters,  in  which  you  offered  me  Christian 
communion  with  your  faith,  (and,  moreover, 
certain  of  your  number  who  were  summoned 
to  the  Council  which  seemed  pending  in 
Bithynia  did  refuse  with  firm  consistency  of 
faith  to  hold  communion  with  any  but  myself 
outside  Gaul),  it  also  seemed  fit  to  use  my 
episcopal  office  and  authority,  when  heresy 
was  so  rife,  in  submitting  to  you  by  letter  some 
godly  and  faithful  counsel.  For  the  word  of 
God  cannot  be  exiled  as  our  bodies  are,  or  so 
chained  and  bound  that  it  cannot  be  imparted 
to  you  in  any  place.  But  when  I  had  learnt 
that  synods  were  to  meet  in  Ancyra  and  Ari- 
minum,  and  that  one  or  two  bishops  from  each 
province  in  Gaul  would  assemble  there,  I 
thought  it  especially  needful  that  I,  who  am 
confined  in  the  East,  should  explain  and  make 
known  to  you  the  grounds  of  those  mutual 
suspicions  which  exist  between  us  and  the 
Eastern  bishops,  though  some  of  you  know 
those  grounds  ;  in  order  that  whereas  you  had 
condemned  and  they  had  anathematized  this 
heresy  that  spreads  from  Sirmium,  you  might 
nevertheless  know  with  what  confession  of 
faith  the  Eastern  bishops  had  come  to  the 
same  result  that  you  had  come  to,  and  that 
I  might  prevent  you,  whom  I  hope  to  see  as 
shining  lights  in  future  Councils,  differing, 
through  a  mistake  about  words,  even  a  hair's- 
breadth  from  pure  Catholic  belief,  when  your 
interpretation  of  the  apostolic  faith  is  identi- 
cally the  same  and  you  are  Catholics  at  heart. 

9.  Now  it  seems  to  me  right  and  appro- 
priate, before  I  begin  my  argument  about  sus- 
picions and  dissensions  as  to  words,  to  give 
as  complete  an  account  as  possible  of  the 
decisions  of  the  Eastern  bishops  adverse  to 
the  heresy  compiled  at  Sirmium.  Others 
have  published  all  these  transactions  very 
plainly,  but  much  obscurity  is  caused  by  a 
translation  from  Greek  into  Latin,  and  to  be 
absolutely  literal  is  to  be  sometimes  partly 
unintelligible. 

10.  You  remember  that  in  the  Blasphemia, 
lately  written  at  Sirmium,  the  object  of  the 
authors  was  to  proclaim  the  Father  to  be  the 
one  and  only  God  of  all  things,  and  deny  the 
Son  to  be  God  :  and  while  they  determined 
that  men  should  hold  their  peace  about  bpoov- 
<tiop  and  ofioiovawv,  they  determined  that  God 
the  Son  should  be  asserted  to  be  born  not 
of  God  the  Father,  but  of  nothing,  as  the  first 
creatures  were,  or  of  another  essence  than 
God,  as  the  later  creatures.  And  further  that 
in  saying  the  Father  was  greater  in  honour, 
dignity,  splendour  and  majesty,  they  implied 
that  the  Son  lacked  those  things  which  con- 
stitute the  Father's  superiority.  Lastly,  that 
while  it  is  affirmed  that  His  birth  is  unknow- 


able, we  were  commanded  by  this  Compulsory 
Ignorance  Act  not  to  know  that  He  is  of  God  : 
just  as  if  it  could  be  commanded  or  decreed 
that  a  man  should  know  what  in  future  he 
is  to  be  ignorant  of,  or  be  ignorant  of  what 
he  already  knows.  I  have  subjoined  in  full 
this  pestilent  and  godless  blasphemy,  though 
ngainst  my  will,  to  facilitate  a  more  complete 
knowledge  of  the  worth  and  reason  of  the 
replies  made  on  the  opposite  side  by  those 
Easterns  who  endeavoured  to  counteract  all 
the  wiles  of  the  heretics  according  to  their 
understanding  and  comprehension. 

A  copy  of  the  Blasphemia  composed  at  Sirmium 
by  Osius  and  Potamius. 

ii.  Since  there  appeared  to  be  some  mis- 
understanding respecting  the  faith,  all  points 
have  been  carefully  investigated  and  discussed 
at  Sirmium  in  the, presence  of  our  most  rever- 
end brothers  and  fellow-bishops,  Valens,  Ur- 
sacius  and  Germinius. 

It  is  evident  that  there  is  one  God,  the 
Father  Almighty,  according  as  it  is  believed 
throughout  the  whole  world ;  and  His  only 
Son  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour,  begotten  of  Him 
before  the  ages.  But  we  cannot  and  ought 
not  to  say  that  there  are  two  Gods,  for  the 
Lord  Himself  said,  /  will  go  unto  My  Father 
and  your  Father,  unto  My  God  and  your  God*. 
So  there  is  one  God  over  all,  as  the  Apostle 
hath  taught  us,  Is  He  the  God  of  the  Jews  only  ? 
Is  He  not  also  of  the  Gentiles  ?  Yes,  of  the 
Gentiles  also ;  seeing  it  is  one  God,  which  shall 
justify  the  circumcision  by  faith,  and  the  uncir- 
cumcision  through  faith.  And  in  all  other  things 
they  agreed  thereto,  nor  would  they  allow  any 
difference. 

But  since  some  or  many  persons  were  dis- 
turbed by  questions  concerning  substance, 
called  in  Greek  oio-ta,  that  is,  to  make  it  under- 
stood more  exactly,  as  to  bpoovcnov,  or  what 
is  called  Snoioia-iou,  there  ought  to  be  no 
mention  made  of  these  at  all.  Nor  ought  any 
exposition  to  be  made  of  them  for  the  reason 
and  consideration  that  they  are  not  contained 
in  the  divine  Scriptures,  and  that  they  are 
above  man's  understanding,  nor  can  any  man 
declare  the  birth  of  the  Son,  of  whom  it  is 
written,  Who  shall  declare  His  generation  s  ? 
For  it  is  plain  that  only  the  Father  knows  how 
He  begat  the  Son,  and  the  Son  how  He  was 
begotten  of  the  Father.  There  is  no  question 
that  the  Father  is  greater.  No  one  can  doubt 
that  the  Father  is  greater  than  the  Son  in 
honour,  dignity,  splendour,  majesty,  and  in  the 
very  name  of  Father,  the  Son  Himself  testifying, 
He  that  sent  Me  is  greater  than  I6.  And  no  one 


4  John  xx.  17. 


5  Is.  liii.  8. 


6  John  xir.  a8. 


ON   THE   COUNCILS. 


is  ignorant  that  it  is  Catholic  doctrine  that 
there  are  two  Persons  of  Father  and  Son  ;  and 
that  the  Father  is  greater,  and  that  the  Son 
is  subordinated  to  the  Father,  together  with 
all  things  which  the  Father  has  subordinated 
to  Him,  and  that  the  Father  has  no  beginning 
and  is  invisible,  immortal  and  impassible,  but 
that  the  Son  has  been  begotten  of*  the  Father, 
God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  and  that  the 
generation  of  this  Son,  as  is  aforesaid,  no  one 
knows  but  His  Father.  And  that  the  Son 
of  God  Himself,  our  Lord  and  God,  as  we  re  id, 
took  flesh,  that  is,  a  body,  that  is,  man  of  the 
womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  of  the  Angel  an- 
nounced. And  as  all  the  Scriptures  teach, 
and  especially  the  doctor  of  the  Gentiles  him- 
self, He  took  of  Mary  the  Virgin,  man,  through 
whom  He  suffered.  And  the  whole  faith  is 
summed  up  and  secured  in  this,  that  the 
Trinity  must  always  be  preserved,  as  we  read 
in  the  Gospel,  Go  ye  and  baptize  all  nations 
in  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost '?.  Complete  and  perfect  is 
the  number  of  the  Trinity.  Now  the  Paraclete, 
the  Spirit,  is  through  the  Son  :  Who  was  sent 
and  came  according  to  His  promise  in  order 
to  instruct,  teach  and  sanctify  the  apostles  and 
all  believers. 

12.  After  these  many  and  most  impious 
statements  had  been  made,  the  Eastern  bishops 
on  their  side  again  met  together  and  composed 
definitions  of  their  confession.  Since,  however, 
we  have  frequently  to  mention  the  words 
essence  and  substance,  we  must  determine  the 
meaning  of  essence,  lest  in  discussing  facts 
we  prove  ignorant  of  the  signification  of  our 
words.  Essence  is  a  reality  which  is,  or  the 
reality  of  those  things  from  which  it  is,  and 
which  subsists  inasmuch  as  it  is  permanent. 
Now  we  can  speak  of  the  essence,  or  nature, 
or  genus,  or  substance  of  anything.  And  the 
strict  reason  why  the  word  essence  is  employed 
•is  because  it  is  always.  But  this  is  identical 
with  substance,  because  a  thing  which  is,  ne- 
cessarily subsists  in  itself,  and  whatever  thus 
subsists  possesses  unquestionably  a  permanent 
genus,  nature  or  substance.  When,  therefore, 
we  say  that  essence  signifies  nature,  or  genus, 
or  substance,  we  mean  the  essence  of  that 
thing  which  permanently  exists  in  the  nature, 
genus,  or  substance.  Now,  therefore,  let  us 
review  the  definitions  of  faith  drawn  up  by 
the  Easterns. 

I.  "  If  any  one  hearing  that  the  Son  is  the 
image  of  the  invisible  God,  says  that  the  image 
of  God  is  the  same  as  the  invisible  God,  as 
though  refusing  to  confess  that  He  is  truly 
Son  :  let  him  be  anathema." 

7  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 


13.  Hereby  is  excluded  the  assertion  of 
those  who  wish  to  represent  the  relationship 
of  Father  and  Son  as  a  matter  of  names,  in- 
asmuch as  every  image  is  similar  in  species 
to  that  of  which  it  is  an  image.  For  no  one 
is  himself  his  own  image,  but  it  is  necessary 
that  the  image  should  demonstrate  him  of 
whom  it  is  an  image.  So  an  image  is  the 
figured  and  indistinguishable  likeness  of  one 
thing  equated  with  another.  Therefore  the 
Father  is,  and  the  Son  is,  because  the  Son 
is  the  image  of  the  Father :  and  he  who  is  an 
image,  if  he  is  to  be  truly  an  image,  must  have 
in  himself  his  original's  species,  nature  and 
essence  in  virtue  of  the  fact  that  he  is  an 
image. 

II.  "And  if  any  one  hearing  the  Son  say, 
As  the  Father  hath  life  in  Himself  so  also  hath 
He  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  Himself z, 
shall  say  that  He  who  has  received  life  from 
the  Father,  and  who  also  declares,  I  live  by  the 
Father 9,  is  the  same  as  He  who  gave  life:  let 
him  be  anathema." 

14.  The  person  of  the  recipient  and  of  the 
giver  are  distinguished  so  that  the  same  should 
not  be  made  one  and  sole.  For  since  he  is 
under  anathema  who  has  believed  that,  when 
recipient  and  giver  are  mentioned  one  solitary 
and  unique  person  is  implied,  we  may  not 
suppose  that  the  selfsame  person  who  gave 
received  from  Himself.  For  He  who  lives  and 
He  through  whom  He  lives  are  not  identical, 
for  one  lives  to  Himself,  the  other  declares  that 
He  lives  through  the  Author  of  His  life,  and 
no  one  will  declare  that  He  who  enjoys  life 
and  He  through  whom  His  life  is  caused  are 
personally  identical. 

III.  "  And  if  any  one  hearing  that  the  Only- 
begotten  Son  is  like  the  invisible  God,  denies 
that  the  Son  who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible 
God  (whose  image  is  understood  to  include 
essence)  is  Son  in  essence,  as  though  deny- 
ing His  true  Sonship  :  let  him  be  anathema." 

15.  It  is  here  insisted  that  the  nature  is 
indistinguishable  and  entirely  similar.  For 
since  He  is  the  Only-begotten  Son  of  God 
and  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  it  is 
necessary  that  He  should  be  of  an  essence 
similar  in  species  and  nature.  Or  what  dis- 
tinction can  be  made  between  Father  and 
Son  affecting  their  nature  with  its  similar 
genus,  when  the  Son  subsisting  through  the 
nature  begotten  in  Him  is  invested  with  the 
properties    of  the  Father,  viz.,  glory,  worth, 

jDOwer,  invisibility,  essence?  And  while  these 
prerogatives  of  divinity  are  equal  we  neither 
understand  the  one  to  be  less  because  He 
is  Son,  nor  the  other  to  be  greater  because 


8  John  v.  26. 


9  lb.  vi.  57. 


8 


DE   SYNODIS. 


He  is  Father :  since  the  Son  is  the  image 
of  the  Father  in  species,  and  not  dissimilar 
in  genus  ;  since  the  similarity  of  a  Son  begot- 
ten of  the  substance  of  His  Father  does  not 
admit  of  any  diversity  of  substance,  and  the 
Son  and  image  of  the  invisible  God  embraces 
in  Himself  the  whole  form  of  His  Father's 
divinity  both  in  kind  and  in  amount :  and  this 
is  to  be  truly  Son,  to  reflect  the  truth  of  the 
Father's  form  by  the  perfect  likeness  of  the 
nature  imaged  in  Himself. 

IV.  "And  if  any  one  hearing  this  text,  For 
as  the  Father  hath  life  in  Himself  so  also  He 
hath  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  Himself'1 ; 
denies  that  the  Son  is  like  the  Father  even 
in  essence,  though  He  testifies  that  it  is  even 
as  He  has  said  ;  let  him  be  anathema.  For  it 
is  plain  that  since  the  life  which  is  understood 
to  exist  in  the  Father  signifies  substance,  and 
the  life  of  the  Only-begotten  which  was  be- 
gotten of  the  Father  is  also  understood  to 
mean  substance  or  essence,  He  there  signifies 
a  likeness  of  essence  to  essence." 

1 6.  With  the  Son's  origin  as  thus  stated 
is  connected  the  perfect  birth  of  the  undivided 
nature.  For  what  in  each  is  life,  that  in  each 
is  signified  by  essence.  And  in  the  life  which 
is  begotten  of  life,  i.e.  in  the  essence  which  is 
born  of  essence,  seeing  that  it  is  not  born 
unlike  (and  that  because  life  is  of  life),  He 
keeps  in  Himself  a  nature  wholly  similar  to 
His  original,  because  there  is  no  diversity  in 
the  likeness  of  the  essence  that  is  born  and 
that  begets,  that  is,  of  the  life  which  is  possessed 
and  which  has  been  given.  For  though  God 
begat  Him  of  Himself,  in  likeness  to  His  own 
nature,  He  in  whom  is  the  unbegotten  like- 
ness did  not  relinquish  the  property  of  His 
natural  substance.  For  He  only  has  what  He 
gave ;  and  as  possessing  life  He  gave  life  to 
be  possessed.  And  thus  what  is  born  of 
essence,  as  life  of  life,  is  essentially  like  itself, 
and  the  essence  of  Him  who  is  begotten  and 
of  Him  who  begets  admits  no  diversity  or 
unlikeness. 

V.  "  If  any  one  hearing  the  words  formed  or 
created  it  and  begat  me  spoken  by  the  same 
lips2,  refuses  to  understand  this  begat  me  of 
likeness  of  essence,  but  says  that  begat  ?ne  and 
formed  ?ne  are  the  same  :  as  if  to  deny  that  the 
perfect  Son  of  God  was  here  signified  as  Son 
under  two  different  expressions,  as  Wisdom 
has  given  us  to  piously  understand,  and  asserts 
that  formed  me  and  begat  me  only  imply  forma- 
tion and  not  sonship  :  let  him  be  anathema." 

17.  Those  who  say  that  the  Son  of  God 
is  only  a  creature  or  formation  are  opposed 


1  John  v.  26. 


3  Prov.  viii.  22. 


by  the  following  argument.  For  this  profane 
presumption  of  the  impiety  of  heretics  is  based 
on  the  fact  that  they  say  they  have  read  The 
Lord  formed  or  created  me,  which  seems  to 
imply  formation  or  creation  ;  but  they  omit 
the  following  sentence,  which  is  the  key  to 
the  first,  and  from  the  first  wrest  authority 
for  their  impious  statement  that  the  Son  is 
a  creature,  because  Wisdom  has  said  that  she 
was  created.  But  if  she  were  created,  how 
could  she  be  also  born?  For  all  birth,  of 
whatever  kind,  attains  its  own  nature  from  the 
nature  that  begets  it :  but  creation  takes  its 
beginning  from  the  power  of  the  Creator,  the 
Creator  being  able  to  form  a  creature  from 
nothing.  So  Wisdom,  who  said  that  she  was 
created,  does  in  the  next  sentence  say  that 
she  was  also  begotten,  using  the  word  creation 
of  the  act  of  the  changeless  nature  of  her 
Parent,  which  nature,  unlike  the  manner  and 
wont  of  human  parturition,  without  any  detri- 
ment or  change  of  self  created  from  itself  what 
it  begat.  Similarly  a  Creator  has  no  need  of 
passion  or  intercourse  or  parturition.  And 
that  which  is  created  out  of  nothing  begins  to 
exist  at  a  definite  moment.  And  He  who 
creates  makes  His  object  through  His  mere 
power,  and  creation  is  the  work  of  might,  not 
the  birth  of  a  nature  from  a  nature  that  begets 
it.  But  because  the  Son  of  God  was  not 
begotten  after  the  manner  of  corporeal  child- 
bearing,  but  was  born  perfect  God  of  perfect 
God ;  therefore  Wisdom  says  that  she  was 
created,  excluding  in  her  manner  of  birth  every 
kind  of  corporeal  process. 

18.  Moreover,  to  shew  that  she  possesses 
a  nature  that  was  born  and  not  created, 
Wisdom  has  added  that  she  was  begotten, 
that  by  declaring  that  she  was  created  and  also 
begotten,  she  might  completely  explain  her 
birth.  By  speaking  of  creation  she  implies 
that  the  nature  of  the  Father  is  changeless, 
and  she  also  shews  that  the  substance  of  her. 
nature  begotten  of  God  the  Father  is  genuine 
and  real.  And  so  her  words  about  creation 
and  generation  have  explained  the  perfection 
of  her  birth :  the  former  that  the  Father  is 
changeless,  the  latter  the  reality  of  her  own 
nature.  The  two  things  combined  become 
one,  and  that  one  is  both  in  perfection  :  for  the 
Son  being  born  of  God  without  any  change 
in  God,  is  so  born  of  the  Father  as  to  be 
created ;  and  the  Father,  who  is  changeless  in 
Himself  and  the  Son's  Father  by  nature,  so 
forms  the  Son  as  to  beget  Him.  Therefore 
the  heresy  which  has  dared  to  aver  that  the 
Son  of  God  is  a  creature  is  condemned  because 
while  the  first  statement  shews  the  impassible 
perfection  of  the  divinity,  the  second,  which 
asserts    His    natural   generation,    crushes   the 


ON  THE   COUNCILS. 


impious  opinion  that  He  was  created  out  of 
nothing. 

VI.  "  And  if  any  one  grant  the  Son  only 
a  likeness  of  activity,  but  rob  Him  of  the  like- 
ness of  essence  which  is  the  corner-stone  of 
our  faith,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  Son 
Himself  reveals  His  essential  likeness  with  the 
Father  in  the  words,  For  as  the  Father  hath 
life  in  Himself,  so  also  hath  He  given  to  the  Son 
to  have  life  in  Himself*,  as  well  as  His  likeness 
in  activity  by  teaching  us  that  What  things 
soever  the  Father  doeth,  these  also  doeth  the  Son 
likewise*,  such  a  man  robs  himself  of  the  know- 
ledge of  eternal  life  which  is  in  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  and  let  him  be  anathema." 

19.  The  heretics  when  beset  by  autho- 
ritative passages  in  Scripture  are  wont  only 
to  grant  that  the  Son  is  like  the  Father  in 
might  while  they  deprive  Him  of  similarity  of 
nature.  This  is  foolish  and  impious,  for  they 
do  not  understand  that  similar  might  can  only 
be  the  result  of  a  similar  nature.  For  a  lower 
nature  can  never  attain  to  the  might  of  a 
higher  and  more  powerful  nature.  What  will 
the  men  who  make  these  assertions  say  about 
the  omnipotence  of  God  the  Father,  if  the 
might  of  a  lower  nature  is  made  equal  to  His 
own  ?  For  they  cannot  deny  that  the  Son's 
power  is  the  same,  seeing  that  He  has  said, 
What  things  soever  the  Father  doeth,  these  also 
doeth  the  Son  likewise. 

No,  a  similarity  of  nature  follows  on  a  simi- 
larity of  might  when  He  says,  As  the  Father 
hath  life  in  Himself,  so  also  hath  He  given  to 
the  Son  to  have  life  in  Himself.  In  life  is  im- 
plied nature  and  essence  ;  this,  Christ  teaches, 
has  been  given  Him  to  have  as  the  Father 
hath.  Therefore  similarity  of  life  contains 
similarity  of  might :  for  there  cannot  be  simi- 
larity of  life  where  the  nature  is  dissimilar. 
So  it  is  necessary  that  similarity  of  essence 
follows  on  similarity  of  might :  for  as  what 
the  Father  does,  the  Son  does  also,  so  the 
life  that  the  Father  has  He  has  given  to  the 
Son  to  have  likewise.  Therefore  we  condemn 
the  rash  and  impious  statements  of  those  who 
confess  a  similarity  of  might  but  have  dared 
to  preach  a  dissimilarity  of  nature,  since  it  is 
the  chief  ground  of  our  hope  to  confess  that 
in  the  Father  and  the  Son  there  is  an  identical 
divine  substance. 

VII.  "And  if  any  one  professing  that  he 
believes  that  there  is  a  Father  and  a  Son,  says 
that  the  Father  is  Father  of  an  essence  unlike 
Himself  but  of  similar  activity  •  for  speaking 
profane  and  novel  words  against  the  essence  of 
the  Son  and  nullifying  His  true  divine  Sonship, 
let  him  be  anathema." 


3  John  v.  a6. 


4  lb. 


r.  19. 


20.  By  confused  and  involved  expressions 
the  heretics  very  frequently  elude  the  truth  and 
secure  the  ears  of  the  unwary  by  the  mere 
sound  of  common  words,  such  as  the  titles 
Father  and  Son,  which  they  do  not  truthfully 
utter  to  express  a  natural  and  genuine  com- 
munity of  essence :  for  they  are  aware  that 
God  is  called  the  Father  of  all  creation,  and 
remember  that  all  the  saints  are  named  sons 
of  God.  In  like  manner  they  declare  that  the 
relationship  between  the  Father  and  the  Son 
resembles  that  between  the  Father  and  the 
universe,  so  that  the  names  Father  and  Son 
are  rather  titular  than  real.  For  the  names 
are  titular  if  the  Persons  have  a  distinct  nature 
of  a  different  essence,  since  no  reality  can  be 
attached  to  the  name  of  father  unless  it  be 
based  on  the  nature  of  his  offspring.  So  the 
Father  cannot  be  called  Father  of  an  alien 
substance  unlike  His  own,  for  a  perfect  birth 
manifests  no  diversity  between  itself  and  the 
original  substance.  Therefore  we  repudiate  all 
the  impious  assertions  that  the  Father  is 
Father  of  a  Son  begotten  of  Himself  and  yet 
not  of  His  own  nature.  We  shall  not  call  God 
Father  for  having  a  creature  like  Him  in 
might  and  activity,  but  for  begetting  a  nature 
of  an  essence  not  unlike  or  alien  to  Himself: 
for  a  natural  birth  does  not  admit  of  any  dis- 
similarity with  the  Father's  nature.  Therefore 
those  are  anathema  who  assert  that  the  Father 
is  Father  of  a  nature  unlike  Himself,  so  that 
something  other  than  God  is  born  of  God,  and 
who  suppose  that  the  essence  of  the  Father 
degenerated  in  begetting  the  Son.  For  so  far 
as  in  them  lies  they  destroy  the  very  birthless 
and  changeless  essence  of  the  Father  by  daring 
to  attribute  to  Him  in  the  birth  of  His  Only- 
begotten  an  alteration  and  degeneration  of  His 
natural  essence. 

VIII.  "And  if  any  one  understanding  that 
the  Son  is  like  in  essence  to  Him  whose  Son 
He  is  admitted  to  be,  says  that  the  Son  is  the 
same  as  the  Father,  or  part  of  the  Father,  or 
that  it  is  through  an  emanation  or  any  such 
passion  as  is  necessary  for  the  procreation  of 
corporeal  children  that  the  incorporeal  Son 
draws  His  life  from  the  incorporeal  Father: 
let  him  be  anathema." 

21.  We  have  always  to  beware  of  the  vices 
of  particular  perversions,  and  countenance  no 
opportunity  for  delusion.  For  many  heretics 
say  that  the  Son  is  like  the  Father  in  divinity 
in  order  to  support  the  theory  that  in  virtue  of 
this  similarity  the  Son  is  the  same  Person  as 
the  Father:  for  this  undivided  similarity  ap- 
pears to  countenance  a  belief  in  a  single 
monad.  For  what  does  not  differ  in  kind 
seems  to  retain  identity  of  nature. 

22.  But   birth    does   not   countenance   this 


10 


DE   SYNODIS. 


vain  imagination ;  for  such  identity  without 
differentiation  excludes  birth.  For  what  is 
born  has  a  father  who  caused  its  birth.  Nor 
because  the  divinity  of  Him  who  is  being  born 
is  inseparable  from  that  of  Him  who  begets, 
are  the  Begetter  and  the  Begotten  the  same 
Person ;  while  on  the  other  hand  He  who  is 
born  and  He  who  begets  cannot  be  unlike. 
He  is  therefore  anathema  who  shall  proclaim 
a  similarity  of  nature  in  the  Father  and  the 
Son  in  order  to  abolish  the  personal  meaning 
of  the  word  Son  :  for  while  through  mutual 
likeness  one  differs  in  no  respect  from  the 
other,  yet  this  very  likeness,  which  does  not 
admit  of  bare  union,  confesses  both  the  Father 
and  the  Son  because  the  Son  is  the  change- 
less likeness  of  the  Father.  For  the  Son  is 
not  part  of  the  Father  so  that  He  who  is 
born  and  He  who  begets  can  be  called  one 
Person.  Nor  is  He  an  emanation  so  that  by 
a  continual  flow  of  a  corporeal  uninterrupted 
stream  the  flow  is  itself  kept  in  its  source, 
the  source  being  identical  with  the  flow  in 
virtue  of  the  successive  and  unbroken  con- 
tinuity. But  the  birth  is  perfect,  and  remains 
alike  in  nature ;  not  taking  its  beginning  ma- 
terially from  a  corporeal  conception  and  bear- 
ing, but  as  an  incorporeal  Son  drawing  His 
existence  from  an  incorporeal  Father  according 
to  the  likeness  which  belongs  to  an  identical 
nature. 

IX.  "And  if  any  one,  because  the  Father 
is  never  admitted  to  be  the  Son  and  the  Son 
is  never  admitted  to  be  the  Father,  when  he 
says  that  the  Son  is  other  than  the  Father 
(because  the  Father  is  one  Person  and  the 
Son  another,  inasmuch,  as  it  is  said,  There  is 
another  that  beareth  witness  of  Me,  even  the 
Father  who  sent  Me 5),  does  in  anxiety  for  the 
distinct  personal  qualities  of  the  Father  and  the 
Son  which  in  the  Church  must  be  piously 
understood  to  exist,  fear  that  the  Son  and  the 
Father  may  sometimes  be  admitted  to  be  the 
same  Person,  and  therefore  denies  that  the 
Son  is  like  in  essence  to  the  Father :  let  him 
be  anathema." 

23.  It  was  said  unto  the  apostles  of  the 
Lord,  Be  ye  wise  as  serpents,  and  harmless  as 
doves  6.  Christ  therefore  wished  there  to  be  in 
us  the  nature  of  different  creatures  :  but  in 
such  a  sort  that  the  harmlessness  of  the  dove 
might  temper  the  serpent's  wisdom,  and  the 
wisdom  of  the  serpent  might  instruct  the  harm- 
lessness of  the  dove,  and  that  so  wisdom  might 
be  made  harmless  and  harmlessness  wise. 
This  precept  has  been  observed  in  the  expo- 
sition of  this  creed.  For  the  former  sentence 
of  which  we  have  spoken  guarded  against  the 


5  John  v.  32. 


6  Matt.  x.  16. 


teaching  of  a  unity  of  person  under  the  cloak 
of  an  essential  likeness,  and  against  the  denial 
of  the  Son's  birth  as  the  result  of  an  identity 
of  nature,  lest  we  should  understand  God  to 
be  a  single  monad  because  one  Person  does 
not  differ  in  kind  from  the  other.  In  the 
next  sentence,  by  harmless  and  apostolic 
wisdom  we  have  again  taken  refuge  in  that 
wisdom  of  the  serpent  to  which  we  are  bidden 
to  be  conformed  no  less  than  to  the  harm- 
lessness of  the  dove,  lest  perchance  through 
a  repudiation  of  the  unity  of  persons  on 
the  ground  that  the  Father  is  one  Person  and 
the  Son  another,  a  preaching  of  the  dis- 
similarity of  their  natures  should  again 
take  us  unawares,  and  lest  on  the  ground 
that  He  who  sent  and  He  who  was  sent 
are  two  Persons  (for  the  Sent  and  the 
Sender  cannot  be  one  Person)  they  should  be 
considered  to  have  divided  and  dissimilar 
natures,  though  He  who  is  born  and  He  who 
begets  Him  cannot  be  of  a  different  essence. 
So  we  preserve  in  Father  and  in  Son  the  like- 
ness of  an  identical  nature  through  an  es- 
sential birth  :  yet  the  similarity  of  nature  does 
not  injure  personality  by  making  the  Sent  and 
the  Sender  to  be  but  one.  Nor  do  we  do  away 
with  the  similarity  of  nature  by  admitting  dis- 
tinct personal  qualities,  for  it  is  impossible 
that  the  one  God  should  be  called  Son  and 
Father  to  Himself.  So  then  the  truth  as  to 
the  birth  supports  the  similarity  of  essence 
and  the  similarity  of  essence  does  not  under- 
mine the  personal  reality  of  the  birth.  Nor 
again  does  a  profession  of  belief  in  the  Be- 
getter and  the  Begotten  exclude  a  similarity  of 
essence ;  for  while  the  Begetter  and  the  Be- 
gotten cannot  be  one  Person,  He  who  is  born 
and  He  who  begets  cannot  be  of  a  different 
nature. 

X.  "  And  if  any  one  admits  that  God  be- 
came Father  of  the  Only-begotten  Son  at  any 
point  in  time  and  not  that  the  Only-begotten 
Son  came  into  existence  without  passion  be- 
yond all  times  and  beyond  all  human  calcu- 
lation :  for  contravening  the  teaching  of  the 
Gospel  which  scorned  any  interval  of  time 
between  the  being  of  the  Father  and  the  Son 
and  faithfully  has  instructed  us  that  In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  ivas 
with  God,  and  the  Word  was  Godi,  let  him  be 
anathema." 

24.  It  is  a  pious  saying  that  the  Father 
is  not  limited  by  times :  for  the  true  meaning 
of  the  name  of  Father  which  He  bore  before 
time  began  surpasses  comprehension.  Al- 
though religion  teaches  us  to  ascribe  to  Him 
this  name  of  Father  through  which  comes  the 

7  John  i.  1. 


ON    THE   COUNCILS. 


1 1 


impassible  origin  of  the  Son,  yet  He  is  not 
bound  in  time,  for  the  eternal  and  infinite 
God  cannot  be  understood  as  having  become 
a  Father  in  time,  and  according  to  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Gospel  the  Only-begotten  God  the 
Word  is  recognized  even  in  the  beginning 
rather  to  be  with  God  than  to  be  born. 

XI.  "  And  if  any  one  says  that  the  Father 
is  older  in  time  than  His  Only-begotten  Son, 
and  that  the  Son  is  younger  than  the  Father  : 
let  him  be  anathema  " 

25.  The  essential  likeness  conformed  to  the 
Father's  essence  in  kind  is  also  taught  to  be 
identical  in  time  :  lest  He  who  is  the  image 
of  God,  who  is  the  Word,  who  is  God  with 
God  in  the  beginning,  who  is  like  the  Father, 
by  the  insertion  of  time  between  Himself  and 
the  Father  should  not  have  in  Himself  in 
perfection  that  which  is  both  image,  and  Word, 
and  God.  For  if  He  be  proclaimed  to  be 
younger  in  time,  He  has  lost  the  truth  of  the 
image  and  likeness  :  for  that  is  no  longer 
likeness  which  is  found  to  be  dissimilar  in 
time.  For  that  very  fact  that  God  is  Father 
prevents  there  being  any  time  in  which  He 
was  not  Father  :  consequently  there  can  be  no 
time  in  the  Son's  existence  in  which  He  was 
not  Son.  Wherefore  we  must  neither  call  the 
Father  older  than  the  Son  nor  the  Son 
younger  than  the  Father :  for  the  true  mean- 
ing of  neither  name  can  exist  without  the 
other. 

XII.  "And  if  any  one  attributes  the  time- 
less substance  (i.e.  Person)  of  the  Only-be- 
gotten Son  derived  from  the  Father  to  the 
unborn  essence  of  God,  as  though  calling  the 
Father  Son  :  let  him  be  anathema8." 

26.  The  above  definition  when  it  denied 
that  the  idea  of  time  could  be  applied  to  the 
birth  of  the  Son  seemed  to  have  given  an 
occasion  for  heresy  (we  saw  that  it  would  be 
monstrous  if  the  Father  were  limited  by  time, 
but  that  He  would  be  so  limited  if  the  Son 
were  subjected  to  time),  so  that  by  the  help  of 
this  repudiation  of  time,  the  Father  who  is  un- 
born might  under  the  appellation  of  Son  be  pro- 
claimed as  both  Father  and  Son  in  a  single 
and  unique  Person.  For  in  excluding  time 
from  the  Son's  birth  it  seemed  to  countenance 
the  opinion  that  there  was  no  birth,  so  that 
He  whose  birth  is  not  in  time  might  be  con- 

8  Substantia  is  in  this  passage  used  as  the  equivalent  of 
Person.  The  word  was  used  by  Tertullian  in  the  sense  of  oixria, 
and  this  early  Latin  use  of  the  word  is  the  use  which  eventually 
prevailed.  The  meaning  of  the  word  in  Hilary  is  influenced  by 
its  philological  equivalent  in  Greek.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth  century  unwTao-is  was  used  in  the  same  sense  as  ovcria. 
The  latter  word  meant  '  reality,'  the  former  word  '  the  basis  of 
existence.'  Athanasius,  however,  began  the  practice  of  restricting 
uTTOTTaeris  to  the  divine  Persons.  Hilary  consequently  here  uses 
substantia  in  this  new  sense  of  the  word  un-dorao-is.  The  Alex- 
andrine Council  of  362  sanctioned  as  allowable  the  use  of  vnov- 
rao-is  in  the  sense  of  Person,  and  by  the  end  of  the  century  the 
old  usage  practically  disappeared. 


sidered  not  to  have  been  born  at  all.  Where- 
fore, lest  at  the  suggestion  of  this  denial  of 
time  the  heresy  of  the  unity  of  Persons  should 
insinuate  itself,  that  impiety  is  condemned 
which  dares  to  refer  the  timeless  birth  to  the 
unique  and  singular  Person  of  the  unborn 
essence.  For  it  is  one  thing  to  be  outside 
time  and  another  to  be  unborn  ;  the  first 
admits  of  birth  (though  outside  time),  the 
other,  so  far  as  it  is,  is  the  one  sole  author 
from  eternity  of  its  being  what  it  is. 

27.  We  have  reviewed,  beloved  brethren, 
all  the  definitions  of  faith  made  by  the 
Eastern  bishops  which  they  formulated  in 
their  assembly  against  the  recently  emerging 
heresy.  And  we,  as  far  as  we  have  been 
able,  have  adapted  the  wording  of  our  ex- 
position to  express  their  meaning,  following 
their  diction  rather  than  desiring  to  be 
thought  the  originators  of  new  phrases.  In 
these  words  they  decree  the  principles  of  their 
conscience  and  a  long  maintained  doctrine 
against  a  new  and  profane  impiety.  Those 
who  compiled  this  heresy  at  Sirmium,  or  ac- 
cepted it  after  its  compilation,  they  have 
thereby  compelled  to  confess  their  ignorance 
and  to  sign  such  decrees.  There  the  Son  is 
the  perfect  image  of  the  Father  :  there  under 
the  qualities  of  an  identical  essence,  the  Person 
of  the  Son  is  not  annihilated  and  confounded 
with  the  Father:  there  the  Son  is  declared 
to  be  image  of  the  Father  in  virtue  of  a  real 
likeness,  and  does  not  differ  in  substance  from 
the  Father,  whose  image  He  is :  there  on 
account  of  the  life  which  the  Father  has  and 
the  life  which  the  Son  has  received,  the  Father 
can  have  nothing  different  in  substance  (this 
being  implied  in  life)  from  that  which  the  Son 
received  to  have  :  there  the  begotten  Son  is 
not  a  creature,  but  is  a  Person  undistinguished 
from  the  Father's  nature  :  there,  just  as  an 
identical  might  belongs  to  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  so  their  essence  admits  of  no  difference  : 
there  the  Father  by  begetting  the  Son  in  no 
wise  degenerates  from  Himself  in  Him  through 
any  difference  of  nature  :  there,  though  the 
likeness  of  nature  is  the  same  in  each,  the 
proper  qualities  which  mark  this  likeness  are 
repugnant  to  a  confusion  of  Persons,  so  that 
there  is  not  one  subsisting  Person  who  is 
called  both  Father  and  Son  :  there,  though  it  is 
piously  affirmed  that  there  is  both  a  Father 
who  sends  and  a  Son  who  is  sent,  yet  no 
distinction  in  essence  is  drawn  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  the  Sent  and  the  Sender : 
there  the  truth  of  God's  Fatherhood  is  not 
bound  by  limits  of  time  :  there  the  Son  is  not 
later  in  time :  there  beyond  all  time  is  a  per- 
fect birth  which  refutes  the  error  that  the  Son 
could  not  be  born. 


12 


DE   SYNODIS. 


28.  Here,  beloved  brethren,  is  the  entire 
creed  which  was  published  by  some  Easterns, 
few  in  proportion  to  the  whole  number  of 
bishops,  and  which  first  saw  light  at  the  very 
time  when  you  repelled  the  introduction  of  this 
heresy.  The  reason  for  its  promulgation  was 
the  fact  that  they  were  bidden  to  say  nothing 
of  the  SfjLoovaiov.  But  even  in  former  times, 
through  the  urgency  of  these  numerous  causes, 
it  was  necessary  at  different  occasions  to  com- 
pose other  creeds,  the  character  of  which  will  be 
understood  from  their  wording.  For  when 
you  are  fully  aware  of  the  results,  it  will  be 
easier  for  us  to  bring  to  a  full  consummation, 
such  as  religion  and  unity  demand,  the  argu- 
ment in  which  we  are  interested. 

An  exposition  of  the  faith  of  the  Church  made  at 
the  Council  held  on  the  occasion  of  the  Dedica- 
tion of  the  church  at  Antioch  by  ninety-seven 
bishops  there  present,  because  of  suspicions  felt 
as  to  the  orthodoxy  of  a  certain  bishop  9. 

29.  "We  believe  in  accordance  with  evan- 
gelical and  apostolic  tradition  in  one  God  the 
Father  Almighty,  the  Creator,  Maker  and  Dis- 
poser of  all  things  that  are,  and  from  whom 
are  all  things. 

"And  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  His  Only- 
begotten  Son,  God  through  whom  are  all 
things,  who  was  begotten  of  the  Father,  God 
of  God,  whole  God  of  whole  God,  One  of  One, 
perfect  God  of  perfect  God,  King  of  King, 
Lord  of  Lord,  the  Word,  the  Wisdom,  the 
Life,  true  Light,  true  Way,  the  Resurrection, 
the  Shepherd,  the  Gate,  unable  to  change  or 
alter,  the  unvarying  image  of  the  essence  and 
might  and  glory  of  the  Godhead,  the  first-born 
of  all  creation,  who  always  was  in  the  begin- 
ning with  God,  the  Word  of  God,  according 
to  what  is  said  in  the  Gospel,  and  the  Word 
was  God,  through  whom  all  things  were  made, 
and  in  whom  all  things  subsist,  who  in  the 
last  days  came  down  from  above,  and  was 
born  of  a  virgin  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
and  was  made  the  Lamb  r,  the  Mediator  be- 
tween God  and  man,  the  Apostle  of  our  faith, 
and  leader  of  life.     For  He  said,  /  came  down 


'The  Council  at  Antioch  of  341,  generally  known  as  the 
Dedication  Council,  assembled  for  the  dedication  of  the  great 
cathedral  church  which  had  been  commenced  there  by  the  em- 
peror Constantine,  who  did  not  live  to  see  its  completion.  Four 
creeds  were  then  drawn  up,  if  we  reckon  a  document  which  was 
drawn  up  at  Antioch  by  a  continuation  of  the  Council  in  the 
following  year.  The  second,  and  most  important,  of  these  creeds 
became  the  creed  of  the  Semi-Nicene  party.  Capable  of  a  wholly 
orthodox  interpretation,  it  was  insufficient  of  itself  tc  repel  Arian- 
ism,  but  not  insufficient  to  be  used  as  an  auxiliary  means  of  oppos- 
ing it.  Hilary  throughout  assumes  that  it  is  not  to  be  interpreted 
in  an  Arian  sense,  and  uses  it  as  an  introduction  to  Niceue 
theology. 

1  Lamb  is  Hilary's  mistake  for  Man.  He  doubtless  read  the 
Original  in  a  Greek  manuscript  which  had  the  word  avBptunov 
written  in  its  abbreviated  form  ii-oi».  This  would  readily  be 
mistaken  for  the  word  apviov,  lamb.  The  Latin  word  used  by 
Hilary  as  a  substitute  for  Apostle  is  praedesti/iatus,  for  which 
word  it  seems  impossible  to  account. 


from  heaven,  not  to  do  Mine  own  will,  but  the 
will  of  Him  that  sent  me*.  Who  suffered  and 
rose  again  for  us  on  the  third  day,  and  as- 
cended into  heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right 
hand  of  the  Father,  and  is  to  come  again  with 
glory  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead. 

"  And  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  was  given 
to  them  that  believe,  to  comfort,  sanctify  and 
perfect,  even  as  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ordained 
His  disciples,  saying,  Go  ye,  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghosts, 
manifestly,  that  is,  of  a  Father  who  is  truly 
Father,  and  clearly  of  a  Son  who  is  truly  Son, 
and  a  Holy  Ghost  who  is  truly  a  Holy  Ghost, 
these  words  not  being  set  forth  idly  and  with- 
out meaning,  but  carefully  signifying  the 
Person,  and  order,  and  glory  of  each  of  those 
who  are  named,  to  teach  us  that  they  are  three 
Persons,  but  in  agreement  one. 

30.  "Having  therefore  held  this  faith  from 
the  beginning,  and  being  resolved  to  hold 
it  to  the  end  in  the  sight  of  God  and  Christ, 
we  say  anathema  to  every  heretical  and  per- 
verted sect,  and  if  any  man  teaches  contrary 
to  the  wholesome  and  right  faith  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, saying  that  there  is  or  was  time,  01 
space,  or  age  before  the  Son  was  begotten, 
let  him  be  anathema.  And  if  any  one  say 
that  the  Son  is  a  formation  like  one  of  the 
things  that  are  formed,  or  a  birth  resembling 
other  births,  or  a  creature  like  the  creatures, 
and  not  as  the  divine  Scriptures  have  affirmed 
in  each  passage  aforesaid,  or  teaches  or  pro- 
claims as  the  Gospel  anything  else  than  what 
we  have  received  :  let  him  be  anathema.  For 
all  those  things  which  were  written  in  the 
divine  Scriptures  by  Prophets  and  by  Apostles 
we  believe  and  follow  truly  and  with  fear." 

31.  Perhaps  this  creed  has  not  spoken  ex- 
pressly enough  of  the  identical  similarity  of 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  especially  in  conclud- 
ing that  the  names  Father,  Son  and  Holy 
Ghost  referred  to  the  Person  and  order  and 
glory  of  each  of  those  7vho  are  named  to  teach  us 
that  they  are  three  Persons,  but  in  agreement 
one. 

32.  But  in  the  first  place  we  must  remember 
that  the  bishops  did  not  assemble  at  Antioch 
to  oppose  the  heresy  which  has  dared  to 
declare  that  the  substance  of  the  Son  is  unlike 
that  of  the  Father,  but  to  oppose  that  which, 
in  spite  of  the  Council  of  Nica^a,  presumed 
to  attribute  the  three  names  to  the  Father. 
Of  this  we  will  treat  in  its  proper  place. 
I  recollect  that  at  the  beginning  of  my  argu- 
ment I  besought  the  patience  and  forbearance 
of  my  readers  and  hearers  until  the  completion 


2  John  vi.  38. 


3  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 


ON    THE    COUNCILS. 


*3 


of  my  letter,  lest  any  one  should  rashly  rise 
to  judge  me  before  he  was  acquainted  with 
the  entire  argument.  I  ask  it  again.  This 
assembly  of  the  saints  wished  to  strike  a  blow 
at  that  impiety  which  by  a  mere  counting 
of  names  evades  the  truth  as  to  the  Father 
and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost;  which 
represents  that  there  is  no  personal  cause  for 
each  name,  and  by  a  false  use  of  these  names 
makes  the  triple  nomenclature  imply  only  one 
Person,  so  that  the  Father  alone  could  be  also 
called  both  Holy  Ghost  and  Son.  Conse- 
quently they  declared  there  were  three  sub- 
stances, meaning  three  subsistent  Persons,  and 
not  thereby  introducing  any  dissimilarity  of 
essence  to  separate  the  substance  of  Father 
and  Son.  For  the  words  to  teach  us  that  they 
are  three  in  substance,  bid  in  agreement  one, 
are  free  from  objection,  because  as  the  Spirit 
is  also  named,  and  He  is  the  Paraclete,  it 
is  more  fitting  that  a  unity  of  agreement  should 
be  asserted  than  a  unity  of  essence  based 
on  likeness  of  substance. 

33.  Further  the  whole  of  the  above  state- 
ment has  drawn  no  distinction  whatever  be- 
tween the  essence  and  nature  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  For  when  it  is  said,  God  of  God, 
whole  God  of  whole  God,  there  is  no  room  for 
doubting  that  whole  God  is  born  of  whole 
God.  For  the  nature  of  God  who  is  of  God 
admits  of  no  difference,  and  as  whole  God 
of  whole  God  He  is  in  all  in  which  the  Father 
is.  One  of  One  excludes  the  passions  of  a 
human  birth  and  conception,  so  that  since 
He  is  One  of  One,  He  comes  from  no  other 
source,  nor  is  different  nor  alien,  for  He  is 
One  of  One,  perfect  God  of  perfect  God. 
Except  in  having  a  cause  of  its  origin  His 
birth  does  not  differ  from  the  birthless  nature ; 
since  the  perfection  of  both  Persons  is  the 
same.  Ki?ig  of  King.  A  power  that  is  ex- 
pressed by  one  and  the  same  title  allows  no 
dissimilarity  of  power.  Lord  of  Lord.  In 
'  Lord '  also  the  lordship  is  equal :  there  can 
be  no  difference  where  domination  is  confessed 
of  both  without  diversity.  But  plainest  of  all 
is  the  statement  appended  after  several  others, 
unable  to  change  or  alter,  the  unvarying  image 
of  the  Godhead  and  essence  and  might  and 
glory.  For  as  God  of  God,  whole  God  of 
whole  God,  One  of  One,  perfect  God  of  perfect 
God,  King  of  King  and  Lord  of  Lord,  since 
in  all  that  glory  and  nature  of  Godhead  in 
which  the  Father  ever  abides,  the  Son  born 
of  Him  also  subsists ;  He  derives  this  also 
from  the  Father's  substance  that  He  is  unable 
to  change.  For  in  His  birth  that  nature  from 
which  He  is  born  is  not  changed;  but  the 
Son  has  maintained  a  changeless  essence  since 
His  origin   is   in   a  changeless   nature.     For 


though  He  is  an  image,  yet  the  image  cannot 
alter,  since  in  Him  was  born  the  image  of  the 
Father's  essence,  and  there  could  not  be  in 
Him  a  change  of  nature  caused  by  any  unlike- 
ness  to  the  Father's  essence  from  which  He 
was  begotten.  Now  when  we  are  taught  that 
He  was  brought  into  being  as  the  first  of  all 
creation,  and  He  is  Himself  said  to  have 
always  been  in  the  beginning  with  God  as 
God  the  Word,  the  fact  that  He  was  brought 
into  being  shews  that  He  was  born,  and  the 
fact  that  He  always  was,  shews  that  He  is  not 
separated  from  the  Father  by  time.  There- 
fore this  Council  by  dividing  the  three  sub- 
stances, which  it  did  to  exclude  a  monad  God 
with  a  threefold  title,  did  not  introduce  any 
separation  of  substance  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  The  whole  exposition  of  faith 
makes  no  distinction  between  Father  and  Son, 
the  Unborn  and  the  Only-begotten,  in,  time, 
or  name,  or  essence,  or  dignity,  or  domination. 
But  our  common  conscience  demands  that 
we  should  gain  a  knowledge  of  the  other 
creeds  of  the  same  Eastern  bishops,  composed 
at  different  times  and  places,  that  by  the 
study  of  many  confessions  we  may  understand 
the  sincerity  of  their  faith. 

The  Creed  according  to  the  Council  of 
the  East. 

34.  "We,  the  holy  synod  met  in  Sardica 
from  different  provinces  of  the  East,  namely, 
Thebais,  Egypt,  Palestine,  Arabia,  Phoenicia, 
Coele  Syria,  Mesopotamia,  Cilicia,  Cappadocia, 
Pontus,  Paphlagonia,  Galatia,  Bithynia  and 
Hellespont,  from  Asia,  namely,  the  two  pro- 
vinces of  Phrygia,  Pisidia,  the  islands  of  the 
Cyclades,  Pamphylia,  Caria,  Lydia,  from 
Europe,  namely,  Thrace,  Haemimontus  *, 
Mcesia,  and  the  two  provinces  of  Pannonia, 
have  set  forth  this  creed. 

"We  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Al- 
mighty, Creator  and  Maker  of  all  things,  from 
whom  all  fatherhood  in  heaven  and  earth  is 
named  : 

"And  we  believe  in  His  Only-begotten 
Son  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  before  all 
ages  was  begotten  of  the  Father,  God  of  God, 
Light  of  Light,  through  whom  were  made 
all  things  which  are  in  heaven  and  earth, 
visible  and  invisible :  who  is  the  Word  and 
Wisdom  and  Might  and  Life  and  true  Light : 
and  who  in  the  last  days  for  our  sake  was 
incarnate,  and  was  born  of  the  holy  Virgin, 
who  was  crucified  and  dead  and  buried,  And 
rose   from  the  dead  on  the  third  day,  And 


4  Mount  Haemus  is  the  mountain  range  which  at  this  period 
formed  the  boundary  between  the  provinces  of  Thracia  and  Mce- 
sia Inferior.  Haemimontus  was  grouped  with  Mcesia  Inferior 
under  the  Vicarius  of  Thrace. 


H 


DE   SYNODIS. 


was  received  into  heaven,  And  sitteth  on  the 
right  hand  of  the  Father,  And  shall  come 
to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead  and  to  give 
to  every  man  according  to  his  works  :  Whose 
kingdom  remaineth  without  end  for  ever  and 
ever.  For  He  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
Father  not  only  in  this  age,  but  also  in  the 
age  to  come. 

"We  believe  also  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  that 
is,  the  Paraclete,  whom  according  to  His 
promise  He  sent  to  His  apostles  after  His 
return  into  the  heavens  to  teach  them  and 
to  bring  all  things  to  their  remembrance, 
through  whom  also  the  souls  of  them  that 
believe  sincerely  in  Him  are  sanctified. 

"  But  those  who  say  that  the  Son  of  God  is 
sprung  from  things  non-existent  or  from  another 
substance  and  not  from  God,  and  that  there 
was  a  time  or  age  when  He  was  not,  the  holy 
Catholic  Church  holds  them  as  aliens.  Like- 
wise also  those  who  say  that  there  are  three 
Gods,  or  that  Christ  is  not  God  and  that  before 
the  ages  He  was  neither  Christ  nor  Son  of 
God,  or  that  He  Himself  is  the  Father  and 
the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  that  the  Son 
is  incapable  of  birth  ;  or  that  the  Father  begat 
the  Son  without  purpose  or  will :  the  holy 
Catholic  Church  anathematizes." 

35.  In  the  exposition  of  this  creed,  concise 
but  complete  definitions  have  been  employed. 
For  in  condemning  those  who  said  that  the 
Son  sprang  from  things  non-existent,  it  attri- 
buted to  Him  a  source  which  had  no  begin- 
ning but  continues  perpetually.  And  lest  this 
source  from  which  He  drew  His  permanent 
birth  should  be  understood  to  be  any  other  sub- 
stance than  that  of  God,  it  also  declares  to  be 
blasphemers  those  who  said  that  the  Son  was 
born  of  some  other  substance  and  not  of  God. 
And  so  since  He  does  not  draw  His  sub- 
sistence from  nothing,  or  spring  from  any  other 
source  than  God,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that 
He  was  born  with  those  qualities  which  are 
God's  ;  since  the  Only-begotten  essence  of  the 
Son  is  generated  neither  from  things  which 
are  non-existent  nor  from  any  other  substance 
than  the  birthless  and  eternal  substance  of  the 
Father.  But  the  creed  also  rejects  intervals 
of  times  or  ages  :  on  the  assumption  that  He 
who  does  not  differ  in  nature  cannot  be  separ- 
able by  time. 

36.  On  every  side,  where  anxiety  might  be 
felt,  approach  is  barred  to  the  arguments  of 
heretics  lest  it  should  be  declared  that  there 
is  any  difference  in  the  Son.  For  those  are 
anathematized  who  say  that  there  are  three 
Gods  :  because  according  to  God's  true  nature 
His  substance  does  not  admit  a  number  of 
applications  of  the  title,  except  as  it  is  given 
to  individual  men  and   angels  in  recognition 


of  their  merit,  though  the  substance  of  their 
nature  and  that  of  God  is  different.  In  that 
sense  there  are  consequently  many  gods- 
Furthermore  in  the  nature  of  God,  God  is 
one,  yet  in  such  a  way  that  the  Son  also  is 
God,  because  in  Him  there  is  not  a  different 
nature :  and  since  He  is  God  of  God,  both 
must  be  God,  and  since  there  is  no  difference 
of  kind  between  them  there  is  no  distinction 
in  their  essence.  A  number  of  titular  Gods 
is  rejected  ;  because  there  is  no  diversity  in 
the  quality  of  the  divine  nature.  Since  there- 
fore he  is  anathema  who  says  there  are  man)' 
Gods  and  he  is  anathema  who  denies  that  the 
Son  is  God ;  it  is  fully  shewn  that  the  fact 
that  each  has  one  and  the  same  name  arises 
from  the  real  character  of  the  similar  substance 
in  each  :  since  in  confessing  the  Unborn  God 
the  Father,  and  the  Only-begotten  God  the 
Son,  with  no  dissimilarity  of  essence  between 
them,  each  is  called  God,  yet  God  must  be 
believed  and  be  declared  to  be  one.  So  by 
the  diligent  and  watchful  care  of  the  bishops 
the  creed  guards  the  similarity  of  the  nature 
begotten  and  the  nature  begetting,  confirming 
it  by  the  application  of  one  name. 

37.  Yet  to  prevent  the  declaration  of  one 
God  seeming  to  affirm  that  God  is  a  solitary 
monad  without  offspring  of  His  own,  it  im- 
mediately condemns  the  rash  suggestion  that 
because  God  is  one,  therefore  God  the  Father 
is  one  and  solitary,  having  in  Himself  the 
name  of  Father  and  of  Son :  since  in  the 
Father  who  begets  and  the  Son  who  comes 
to  birth  one  God  must  be  declared  to  exist 
on  account  of  the  substance  of  their  nature 
being  similar  in  each.  The  faith  of  the  saints 
knows  nothing  of  the  Son  being  incapable  of 
birth  :  because  the  nature  of  the  Son  only 
draws  its  existence  from  birth.  But  the  nature 
of  the  birth  is  in  Him  so  perfect  that  He  who 
was  born  of  the  substance  of  God  is  born  also 
of  His  purpose  and  will.  For  from  His  will 
and  purpose,  not  from  the  process  of  a  cor- 
poreal nature,  springs  the  absolute  perfection 
of  the  essence  of  God  born  from  the  essence 
of  God.  It  follows  that  we  should  now  con- 
sider that  creed  which  was  compiled  not  long 
ago  when  Photinus  was  deposed  from  the 
episcopate. 

A  copy  of  the  creed  composed  at  Sirmium  by  the 
Easterns  to  oppose  Phot i mis. 

38.  "We  believe  in  one  God  the  Father 
Almighty,  the  Creator  and  Maker,  from  whom 
every  fatherhood  in  heaven  and  in  earth  is 
named. 

"  And  in  His  only  Son  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord, 
who  was  born  of  the  Father  before  all  ages, 
God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  through  whom. 


ON   THE   COUNCILS. 


all  things  were  made  in  heaven  and  in  earth, 
visible  and  invisible.  Who  is  the  Word  and 
Wisdom  and  Might  and  Life  and  true  Light : 
who  in  the  last  days  for  our  sake  took  a  body, 
And  was  born  of  the  holy  Virgin,  And  was 
crucified,  And  was  dead  and  buried  :  who  also 
rose  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day,  And 
ascended  into  heaven,  And  sitteth  on  the  right 
hand  of  the  Father,  And  shall  come  at  the 
end  of  the  world  to  judge  the  quick  and  the 
dead  ;  whose  kingdom  continueth  without  end, 
and  remaineth  for  perpetual  ages.  For  He 
shall  be  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father, 
not  only  in  tins  age,  but  also  in  the  age  to 
come. 

"  And  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  is,  the  Para- 
clete, whom  according  to  His  promise  He 
sent  to  the  apostles  after  He  ascended  into 
heaven  to  teach  them  and  to  remind  them  of 
all  things,  through  whom  also  are  sanctified 
the  souls  of  those  who  believe  sincerely  in 
Him. 

I.  "  But  those  who  say  that  the  Son  is 
sprung  from  things  non-existent,  or  from  an- 
other substance  and  not  from  God,  and  that 
there  was  a  time  or  age  when  He  was  not, 
the  holy  Catholic  Church  regards  as  aliens. 

II.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Father  and 
the  Son  are  two  Gods  :  let  him  be  anathema. 

III.  "  And  if  any  man  says  that  God  is  one, 
but  does  not  confess  that  Christ,  God  the  Son 
of  God,  ministered  to  the  Father  in  the  crea- 
tion of  all  things  :  let  him  be  anathema. 

IV.  "  And  if  any  man  dares  to  say  that  the 
Unborn  God,  or  a  part  of  Him,  was  born  of 
Mary  :  let  him  be  anathema. 

V.  "  And  if  any  man  say  that  the  Son  born 
of  Mary  was,  before  born  of  Mary,  Son  only 
according  to  foreknowledge  or  predestination, 
and  denies  that  He  was  born  of  the  Father 
before  the  ages  and  was  with  God,  and  that  all 
things  were  made  through  Him  :  let  him  be 
anathema. 

VI.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  substance  of 
God  is  expanded  and  contracted  :  let  him  be 
anathema. 

VII.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  expanded 
substance  of  God  makes  the  Son  ;  or  names 
Son  His  supposed  expanded  substance :  let 
him  be  anathema. 

VIII.  "If  any  man  says  that  the  Son  of  God 
is  the  internal  or  uttered  Word  of  God  :  let 
him  be  anathema. 

IX.  "If  any  man  says  that  the  man  alone 
born  of  Mary  is  the  Son :  let  him  be  ana- 
thema. 

X.  "  If  any  man  though  saying  that  God  and 
Man  was  born  of  Mary,  understands  thereby 
the  Unborn  God  :  let  him  be  anathema. 

XL  "  If  any  man  hearing  The    Word  was 


made  Flesh  S  thinks  that  the  Word  was  trans- 
formed into  Flesh,  or  says  that  He  suffered 
change  in  taking  Flesh  :  let  him  be  anathema. 

XII.  "  If  any  man  hearing  that  the  only 
Son  of  God  was  crucified,  says  that  His 
divinity  suffered  corruption,  or  pain,  or  change, 
or  diminution,  or  destruction :  let  him  be 
anathema. 

XIII.  "If  any  man  says  Let  us  make  man6 
was  not  spoken  by  the  Father  to  the  Son, 
but  by  God  to  Himself:  let  him  be  anathema. 

XIV.  "If  any  man  says  that  the  Son  did 
not  appear  to  Abraham,  but  the  Unborn  God, 
or  a  part  of  Him  :  let  him  be  anathema. 

XV.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Son  did 
not  wrestle  with  Jacob  as  a  man,  but  the 
Unborn  God,  or  a  part  of  Him  :  let  him  be 
anathema. 

XVI.  "  If  any  man  does  not  understand  The 
Lord  rained  f 7-o m  the  Lord  to  be  spoken  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  but  that  the  Father 
rained  from  Himself:  let  him  be  anathema. 
For  the  Lord  the  Son  rained  from  the  Lord 
the  Father. 

XVII.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Lord  and 
the  Lord,  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  two 
Gods,  because  of  the  aforesaid  words  :  let  him 
be  anathema.  For  we  do  not  make  the  Son 
the  equal  or  peer  of  the  Father,  but  under- 
stand the  Son  to  be  subject.  For  He  did  not 
come  down  to  Sodom  without  the  Father's 
will,  nor  rain  from  Himself  but  from  the  Lord, 
to  wit  by  the  Father's  authority ;  nor  does 
He  sit  at  the  Father's  right  hand  by  His 
own  authority,  but  He  hears  the  Father 
saying,  Sit  thou  on  My  right  hand  ?. 

XVIII.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Father 
and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  one 
Person  :  let  him  be  anathema. 

XIX.  "If  any  man  speaking  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  the  Paraclete  says  that  He  is  the 
Unborn  God  :  let  him  be  anathema. 

XX.  "  If  any  man  denies  that,  as  the  Lord 
has  taught  us,  the  Paraclete  is  different  from  the 
Son ;  for  He  said,  And  the  Father  shall  send 
you  atwther  Comforter,  whom  L  shall  ask  8  .•  let 
him  be  anathema. 

XXL  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  a  part  of  the  Father  or  of  the  Son  :  let  him 
be  anathema. 

XXII.  "If  any  man  says  that  the  Father 
and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  three 
Gods  :  let  him  be  anathema. 

XXIII.  "If  any  man  after  the  example  of 
the  Jews  understands  as  said  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Eternal  Only-begotten  God  the 
words,  L  am  the  first  God,  and  L  am  the  last 


5  John  i.  14. 


6  Gen.  i.  26. 
8  John  xiv.  16. 


7  Ps.  cix    1. 


16 


DE   SYNODIS. 


God,  and  beside  Me  there  is  no  God  9,  which 
were  spoken  for  the  destruction  of  idols  and 
them  that  are  no  gods :  let  him  be  anathema. 

XXIV.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Son  was 
made  by  the  will  of  God,  like  any  object  in 
creation  :  let  him  be  anathema. 

XXV.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Son  was 
born  against  the  will  of  the  Father  :  let  him  be 
anathema.  For  the  Father  was  not  forced 
against  His  own  will,  or  induced  by  any  neces- 
sity of  nature  to  beget  the  Son  :  but  as  soon  as 
He  willed,  before  time  and  without  passion  He 
begat  Him  of  Himself  and  shewed  Him  forth. 

XXVI.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Son  is 
incapable  of  birth  and  without  beginning, 
saying  as  though  there  were  two  incapable  of 
birth  and  unborn  and  without  beginning,  and 
makes  two  Gods  :  let  him  be  anathema.  For 
the  Head,  which  is  the  beginning  of  all  things, 
is  the  Son ;  but  the  Head  or  beginning  of 
Christ  is  God  :  for  so  to  One  who  is  without 
beginning  and  is  the  beginning  of  all  things, 
we  refer  the  whole  world  through  Christ. 

XXVII.  "Once  more  we  strengthen  the 
understanding  of  Christianity  by  saying,  If  any 
man  denies  that  Christ  who  is  God  and  Son  of 
God,  personally  existed  before  time  began  and 
aided  the  Father  in  the  perfecting  of  all  things; 
but  says  that  only  from  the  time  that  He  was 
born  of  Mary  did  He  gain  the  name  of  Christ 
and  Son  and  a  beginning  of  His  deity :  let  him 
be  anathema." 

39.  The  necessity  of  the  moment  urged  the 
Council  to  set  forth  a  wider  and  broader  ex- 
position of  the  creed  including  many  intricate 
questions,  because  the  heresy  which  Photinus 
was  reviving  was  sapping  our  Catholic  home 
by  many  secret  mines.  Their  purpose  was  to 
oppose  every  form  of  stealthy  subtle  heresy  by 
a  corresponding  form  of  pure  and  unsullied 
faith,  and  to  have  as  many  complete  explan- 
ations of  the  faith  as  there  were  instances  of 
peculiar  faithlessness.  Immediately  after  the 
universal  and  unquestioned  statement  of  the 
Christian  mysteries,  the  explanation  of  the 
faith  against  the  heretics  begins  as  follows. 

I.  "But  those  who  say  that  the  Son  is 
sprung  from  things  non-existent,  or  from  an- 
other substance  and  not  from  God,  and  that 
there  was  a  time  or  age  when  He  was  not,  the 
holy  Catholic  Church  regards  as  aliens." 

40.  What  ambiguity  is  there  here?  What  is 
omitted  that  the  consciousness  of  a  sincere 
faith  oould  suggest  ?  He  does  not  spring  from 
things  non-existent :  therefore  His  origin  has 
existence.  There  is  no  other  substance  ex- 
tant to  be  His  origin,  but  that  of  God :  there- 
fore nothing  else  can  be  born  in  Him  but  all 

9  Isai.  xliv.  6. 


that  is  God  ;  because  His  existence  is  not  from 
nothing,  and  He  draws '  subsistence  from  no 
other  source.  He  does  not  differ  in  time: 
therefore  the  Son  like  the  Father  is  eternal. 
And  so  the  Unborn  Father  and  the  Only- 
begotten  Son  share  all  the  same  qualities. 
They  are  equal  in  years,  and  that  very  simi- 
larity between  the  sole-existing  paternal  essence 
and  its  offspring  prevents  distinction  in  any 
quality. 

II.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Father  and 
the  Son  are  two  Gods  :  let  him  be  anathema. 

III.  "  And  if  any  man  says  that  God  is  one, 
but  does  not  confess  that  Christ  who  is  God 
and  eternal  Son  of  God  ministered  to  the 
Father  in  the  creation  of  all  things  :  let  him  be 
anathema." 

41.  The  very  statement  of  the  name  as  our 
religion  states  it  gives  us  a  clear  insight  into 
the  fact.  For  since  it  is  condemned  to  say 
that  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  two  Gods, 
and  it  is  also  accursed  to  deny  that  the  Son  is 
God,  any  opinion  as  to  the  substance  of  the 
one  being  different  from  that  of  the  other  in 
asserting  two  Gods  is  excluded.  For  there  is  no 
other  essence,  except  that  of  God  the  Father, 
from  which  God  the  Son  of  God  was  born 
before  time.  For  since  we  are  compelled  to 
confess  God  the  Father,  and  roundly  declare 
that  Christ  the  Son  of  God  is  God,  and  be- 
tween these  two  truths  lies  the  impious  con- 
fession of  two  Gods  :  They  must  on  the  ground 
of  their  identity  of  nature  and  name  be  one  in 
the  kind  of  their  essence  if  the  name  of  their 
essence  is  necessarily  one. 

IV.  "  If  any  one  dares  to  say  that  the 
Unborn  God,  or  a  part  of  Him,  was  born  of 
Mary:  let  him  be  anathema." 

42.  The  fact  of  the  essence  declared  to  be 
one  in  the  Father  and  the  Son  having  one 
name  on  account  of  their  similarity  of  nature 
seemed  to  offer  an  opportunity  to  heretics 
to  declare  that  the  Unborn  God,  or  a  part 
of  Him,  was  born  of  Mary.  The  danger  was 
met  by  the  wholesome  resolution  that  he  who 
declared  this  should  be  anathema.  For  the 
unity  of  the  name  which  religion  employs  and 
which  is  based  on  the  exact  similarity  of  their 
natural  essence,  has  not  repudiated  the  Person 
of  the  begotten  essence  so  as  to  represent, 
under  cover  of  the  unity  of  name,  that  the 
substance  of  God  is  singular  and  undifferen- 
tiated because  we  predicate  one  name  for  the 
essence  of  each,  that  is,  predicate  one  God, 
on  account  of  the  exactly  similar  substance 
of  the  undivided  nature  in  each  Person. 

V.  "  If  any  man  say  that  the  Son  existed 
before  Mary  only  according  to  foreknowledge 
or  predestination,  and  denies  that  He  was 
born  of  the  Father  before  the  ages  and  with 


ON   THE   COUNCILS. 


17 


God,  and  that  all  things  were  made  through 
Him  :  let  him  be  anathema." 

43.  While  denying  that  the  God  of  us  all, 
the  Son  of  God,  existed  before  He  was  born 
in  bodily  form,  some  assert  that  He  existed 
according  to  foreknowledge  and  predestina- 
tion, and  not  according  to  the  essence  of 
a  personally  subsistent  nature  :  that  is,  be- 
cause the  Father  predestined  the  Son  to  have 
existence  some  day  by  being  born  of  the 
Virgin,  He  was  announced  to  us  by  the 
Father's  foreknowledge  rather  than  born  and 
existent  before  the  ages  in  the  substance  of 
the  divine  nature,  and  that  all  things  which 
He  Himself  spake  in  the  prophets  concerning 
the  mysteries  of  His  incarnation  and  passion 
were  simply  said  concerning  Him  by  the 
Father  according  to  His  foreknowledge.  Con- 
sequently this  perverse  doctrine  is  condemned, 
so  that  we  know  that  the  Only-begotten  Son 
of  God  was  born  of  the  Father  before  all 
worlds,  and  formed  the  worlds  and  all  creation, 
and  that  He  was  not  merely  predestined  to 
be  born. 

VI.  "If  any  -man  says  that  the  substance 
of  God  is  expanded  and  contracted :  let  him 
be  anathema." 

44.  To  contract  and  expand  are  bodily  af- 
fections :  but  God  who  is  a  Spirit  and  breathes 
where  He  listeth,  does  not  expand  or  contract 
Himself  through  any  change  of  substance.  Re- 
maining free  and  outside  the  bond  of  any 
bodily  nature,  He  supplies  out  of  Himself  what 
He  wills,  when  He  wills,  and  where  He  wills. 
Therefore  it  is  impious  to  ascribe  any  change 
of  substance  to  such  an  unfettered  Power. 

VII.  "If  any  man  says  that  the  expanded 
substance  of  God  makes  the  Son,  or  names 
Son  His  expanded  substance :  let  him  be 
anathema." 

45.  The  above  opinion,  although  meant  to 
teach  the  immutability  of  God,  yet  prepared 
the  way  for  the  following  heresy.  Some  have 
ventured  to  say  that  the  Unborn  God  by  ex- 
pansion of  His  substance  extended  Himself  as 
far  as  the  holy  Virgin,  in  order  that  this  ex- 
tension produced  by  the  increase  of  His  nature 
and  assuming  manhood  might  be  called  Son. 
They  denied  that  the  Son  who  is  perfect  God 
born  before  time  began  wras  the  same  as  He 
who  was  afterwards  born  as  Man.  Therefore 
the  Catholic  Faith  condemns  all  denial  of  the 
immutability  of  the  Father  and  of  the  birth  of 
the  Son. 

VIII.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Son  is  the 
internal  or  uttered  Word  of  God  :  let  him  be 
anathema." 

46.  Heretics,  destroying  as  far  as  in  them 
lies  the  Son  of  God,  confess  Him  to  be  only 
the  word,  going  forth  as  an  utterance  from  the 

VOL.   IX. 


speaker's  lips  and  the  unembodied  sound  of 
an  impersonal  voice  :  so  that  God  the  Father 
has  as  Son  a  word  resembling  any  word  we 
utter  in  virtue  of  our  inborn  power  of  speaking. 
Therefore  this  dangerous  deceit  is  condemned, 
which  asserts  that  God  the  Word,  who  was  in 
the  beginning  with  God,  is  only  the  word  of 
a  voice  sometimes  internal  and  sometimes 
expressed. 

IX.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  man  alone 
born  of  Mary  is  the  Son  :  let  him  be  ana- 
thema." 

We  cannot  declare  that  the  Son  of  God  is 
born  of  Mary  without  declaring  Him  to  be 
both  Man  and  God.  But  lest  the  declaration 
that  He  is  both  God  and  Man  should  give 
occasion  to  deceit,  the  Council  immediately 
adds, 

X.  "  If  any  man  though  saying  that  God 
and  Man  was  born  of  Mary,  understands 
thereby  the  Unborn  God  :  let  him  be  ana- 
thema." 

47.  Thus  is  preserved  both  the  name  and 
power  of  the  divine  substance.  For  since  he 
is  anathema  who  says  that  the  Son  of  God  by 
Mary  is  man  and  not  God  ;  and  he  falls  under 
the  same  condemnation  who  says  that  the  Un- 
born God  became  man :  God  made  Man  is 
not  denied  to  be  God  but  denied  to  be  the 
Unborn  God,  the  Father  being  distinguished 
from  the  Son  not  under  the  head  of  nature  or 
by  diversity  of  substance,  but  only  by  such 
pre-eminence  as  His  birthless  nature  gives. 

XI.  "  If  any  man  hearing  The  Word  was 
made  Flesh  thinks  that  the  Word  was  trans- 
formed into  Flesh,  or  says  that  He  suffered 
change  in  taking  Flesh :  let  him  be  ana- 
thema." 

48.  This  preserves  the  dignity  of  the  God- 
head :  so  that  in  the  fact  that  the  Word  was 
made  Flesh,  the  Word,  in  becoming  Flesh,  has 
not  lost  through  being  Flesh  what  constituted 
the  Word,  nor  has  become  transformed  into 
Flesh,  so  as  to  cease  to  be  the  Word  ; 
but  the  Word  was  made  Flesh *  in  order 
that  the  Flesh  might  begin  to  be  what  the 
Word  is.  Else  whence  came  to  His  Flesh 
miraculous  power  in  working,  glory  on  the 
Mount,  knowledge  of  the  thoughts  of  human 
hearts,  calmness  in  His  passion,  life  in  His 
death  ?  God  knowing  no  change,  when  made 
Flesh  lost  nothing  of  the  prerogatives  of  His 
substance. 

XII.  "  If  any  man  hearing  that  the  only  Son 


«  The  Flesh,  without  ceasing  to  be  truly  flesh,  is  represented 
as  becoming  divine  like  the  Word.  That  is,  the  humanity  be- 
comes so  endowed  with  power,  and  knowledge,  and  holiness 
through  the  unction  ot  the  Holy  Ghost  that  its  natural  properties 
are  "deified."  These  and  similar  phrases  are  freely  used  by  the 
Fathers  of  the  fourth  century,  and  may  be  compared  with  John 
i.  14,  and  2  Pet.  i.  4. 


i8 


DE   SYNODIS. 


of  God  was  crucified,  says  that  His  divinity  suf- 
fered corruption  or  pain  or  change  or  diminu- 
tion or  destruction  :  let  him  be  anathema." 

49.  It  is  clearly  shewn  why  the  Word,  though 
He  was  made  Flesh,  was  nevertheless  not 
transformed  into  Flesh.  Though  these  kinds 
of  suffering  affect  the  infirmity  of  the  flesh,  yet 
God  the  Word  when  made  Flesh  could  not 
change  under  suffering.  Suffering  and  change 
are  not  identical.  Suffering  of  every  kind 
causes  all  flesh  to  change  through  sensitive- 
ness and  endurance  of  pain.  But  the  Word 
that  was  made  Flesh,  although  He  made  Him- 
self subject  to  suffering,  was  nevertheless  un- 
changed by  the  liability  to  suffer.  For  He 
was  able  to  suffer,  and  yet  the  Word  was  not 
passible.  Passibility  denotes  a  nature  that  is 
weak ;  but  suffering  in  itself  is  the  endurance 
of  pains  inflicted,  and  since  the  Godhead  is 
immutable  and  yet  the  Word  was  made  Flesh, 
such  pains  found  in  Him  a  material  which  they 
could  affect  though  the  Person  of  the  Word 
had  no  infirmity  or  passibility.  And  so  when 
He  suffered  His  Nature  remained  immutable, 
because  like  His  Father,  His  Person  is  of  an 
impassible  essence,  though  it  is  borna. 

XIII.  "If  any  man  says  Let  us  make  man^ 
was  not  spoken  by  the  Father  to  the  Son,  but 
by  God  to  Himself:  let  him  be  anathema. 

XIV.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Son  did  not 
appear  to  Abraham  \  but  the  Unborn  God,  or 
a  part  of  Him  :  let  him  be  anathema. 

XV.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Son  did  not 
wrestle  with  Jacob  as  a  man  s,  but  the  Unborn 
God,  or  a  part  of  Him  :  let  him  be  anathema. 

XVI.  "  If  any  man  does  not  understand  The 
Lord  rained  from  the  Lord6  to  be  spoken  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  but  says  that  the  Father 
rained  from  Himself:  let  him  be  anathema. 
For  the  Lord  the  Son  rained  from  the  Lord 
the  Father." 

50.  These  points  had  to  be  inserted  into 
the  creed  because  Photinus,  against  whom  the 
synod  was  held,  denied  them.  They  were  in- 
serted lest  any  one  should  dare  to  assert  that 
the  Son  of  God  did  not  exist  before  the  Son 
of  the  Virgin,  and  should  attach  to  the  Unborn 
God  with  the  foolish  perversity  of  an  insane 
heresy  all  the  above  passages  which  refer  to 
the  Son  of  God,  and  while  applying  them  to 


a  Passibility  may  not  be  affirmed  of  the  divine  nature  of 
Christ  which  is  incapable  of  any  change  or  limitation  within 
itself.  At  the  same  time  the  Word  may  be  said  to  have  suffered 
inasmuch  as  the  suffering  affected  the  flesh  which  He  assumed. 
This  subject  was  afterwards  carefully  developed  by  St.  John  of 
Damascus  jrepi  bp6o&6£ov  iriVreu?,  III.  4.  In  c.  79,  Hilary  criti- 
cises the  Arian  statement  that  the  Son  "jointly  suffered,"  a  word 
which  meant  that  the  divine  nature  of  the  Son  shared  in  the 
sufferings  which  were  endured  by  His  humanity.  This  phrase, 
like  the  statement  of  Arius  that  the  Logos  was  "capable  of 
change"  implied  that  the  Son  only  possessed  a  secondary  divinity. 

3  Gen.  i.  26.  4  lb.  xviii.  1.  S  lb.  xxxii.  26. 

6  lb.  xix.  24. 


the  Father,  deny  the  Person  of  the  Son.  The 
clearness  of  these  statements  absolves  us  from 
the  necessity  of  interpreting  them. 

XVII.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Lord 
and  the  Lord,  the  Father  and  the  Son,  are 
two  Gods  because  of  the  aforesaid  words  : 
let  him  be  anathema.  For  we  do  not  make 
the  Son  the  equal  or  peer  of  the  Father,  but 
understand  the  Son  to  be  subject.  For  He 
did  not  come  down  to  Sodom  without  the 
Father's  will,  nor  rain  from  Himself  but  from 
the  Lord,  to  wit,  by  the  Father's  authority  ; 
nor  does  He  sit  at  the  Father's  right  hand 
by  His  own  authority,  but  because  He  hears 
the  Father  saying,  Sit  Thou  on  My  right 
hand  7." 

51.  The  foregoing  and  the  following  state- 
ments   utterly  remove   any  ground   for   sus- 
pecting that  this  definition  asserts  a  diversity 
of  different  deities  in  the  Lord  and  the  Lord. 
No  comparison  is  made  because  it  was  seen 
to  be  impious  to  say  that  there  are  two  Gods : 
not  that  they  refrain  from  making   the   Son 
equal  and  peer  of  the  Father  in  order  to  deny 
that  He  is  God.     For,  since  he  is  anathema 
who  denies  that  Christ  is  God,  it  is  not  on 
that  score  that  it  is  profane  to  speak  of  two 
equal  Gods.     God  is  One  on  account  of  the 
true  character  of  His  natural  essence  and  be- 
cause from  the  Unborn  God  the  Father,  who 
is  the  one  God,  the  Only-begotten  God  the  Son 
is  born,  and  draws  His  divine  Being  only  from 
God ;    and  since  the  essence  of  Him  who  is 
begotten  is  exactly  similar  to  the  essence  of 
Him   who   begat   Him,   there   must    be   one 
name  for  the  exactly  similar  nature.    That  the 
Son  is  not  on  a  level  with  the  Father  and  is 
not  equal  to  Him  is  chiefly  shewn  in  the  fact 
that   He   was    subjected   to    Him   to   render 
obedience,  in  that  the  Lord  rained  from  the 
Lord  and  that  the  Father  did  not,  as  Photinus 
and  Sabellius  say,  rain  from  Himself,  as  the 
Lord  from  the  Lord  ;    in  that  He  then  sat 
down  at  the  right  hand  of  God  when  it  was 
told  Him  to  seat  Himself;  in  that  He  is  sent, 
in  that  He  receives,  in  that  He  submits  in 
all  things  to  the  will  of  Him  who  sent  Him. 
But   the   subordination   of  filial   love   is  not 
a  diminution  of  essence,  nor  does  pious  duty 
cause  a  degeneration  of  nature,  since  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  both  the  Unborn  Father  is 
God  and  the  Only-begotten  Son  of  God  is 
God,  God  is  nevertheless  One,  and  the  sub- 
jection and  dignity  of  the  Son  are  both  taught 
in  that  by  being  called  Son  He  is  made  sub- 
ject  to  that  name  which  because  it  implies 
that  God  is  His  Father  is  yet  a  name  which 
denotes  His  nature.     Having  a  name  which 

7  Ps.  ex.  x. 


ON   THE   COUNCILS. 


19 


belongs  to  Him  whose  Son  He  is,  He  is 
subject  to  the  Father  both  in  service  and 
name ;  yet  in  such  a  way  that  the  subor- 
dination of  His  name  bears  witness  to  the 
true  character  of  His  natural  and  exactly 
similar  essence. 

XVIII.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Father 
and  the  Son  are  one  Person  :  let  him  be 
anathema." 

52.  Sheer  perversity  calls  for  no  contra- 
diction :  and  yet  the  mad  frenzy  of  certain 
men  has  been  so  violent  as  to  dare  to  predi- 
cate one  Person  with  two  names. 

XIX.  "  If  any  man  speaking  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  the  Paraclete  say  that  He  is  the  Un- 
born God  :  let  him  be  anathema." 

53.  The  further  clause  makes  liable  to 
anathema  the  predicating  Unborn  God  of  the 
Paraclete.  For  it  is  most  impious  to  say  that 
He  who  was  sent  by  the  Son  for  our  conso- 
lation is  the  Unborn  God. 

XX.  "  If  any  man  deny  that,  as  the  Lord 
has  taught  us,  the  Paraclete  is  different  from 
the  Son  ;  for  He  said,  And  the  Father  shall 
send  you  another  Comforter,  whom  I  shall  ask  : 
let  him  be  anathema." 

54.  We  remember  that  the  Paraclete  was 
sent  by  the  Son,  and  at  the  beginning  the 
creed  explained  this.  But  since  through  the 
virtue  of  His  nature,  which  is  exactly  similar, 
the  Son  has  frequently  called  His  own  works 
the  works  of  the  Father,  saying,  I  do  the  works 
of  My  Father8:  so  when  He  intended  to  send 
the  Paraclete,  as  He  often  promised,  He  said 
sometimes  that  He  was  to  be  sent  from  the 
Father,  in  that  He  was  piously  wont  to  refer 
all  that  He  did  to  the  Father.  And  from  this 
the  heretics  often  seize  an  opportunity  of  say- 
ing that  the  Son  Himself  is  the  Paraclete  : 
while  by  the  fact  that  He  promised  to  pray 
that  another  Comforter  should  be  sent  from 
the  Father,  He  shews  the  difference  between 
Him  who  is  sent  and  Him  who  asked. 

XXI.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  a  part  of  the  Father  or  of  the  Son  : 
let  him  be  anathema." 

55.  The  insane  frenzy  of  the  heretics,  and 
not  any  genuine  difficulty,  rendered  it  neces- 
sary that  this  should  be  written.  For  since 
the  name  of  Holy  Spirit  has  its  own  signifi- 
cation, and  the  Holy  Spirit  the  Paraclete  has 
the  office  and  rank  peculiar  to  His  Person, 
and  since  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  every- 
where declared  to  be  immutable :  how  could 
the  Holy  Spirit  be  asserted  to  be  a  part  either 
of  the  Father  or  of  the  Son  ?  But  since  this 
folly  is  often  affirmed  amid   other  follies  by 


godless  men,  it  was  needful  that  the  pious 
should  condemn  it. 

XXII.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Father 
and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  three 
Gods  :  let  him  be  anathema." 

56.  Since  it  is  contrary  to  religion  to  say 
that  there  are  two  Gods,  because  we  remember 
and  declare  that  nowhere  has  it  been  affirmed 
that  there  is  more  than  one  God  :  how  much 
more  worthy  of  condemnation  is  it  to  name 
three  Gods  in  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost  ?  Nevertheless,  since  heretics  say  this, 
Catholics  rightly  condemn  it. 

XXIII.  "  If  any  man,  after  the  example 
of  the  Jews,  understand  as  said  for  the  de- 
struction of  the  Eternal  Only-begotten  God,  the 
words,  7"  am  the  first  God,  and  I  am  the  last 
God,  and  beside  Me  there  is  no  God^,  which 
were  spoken  for  the  destruction  of  idols  and 
them  that  are  no  gods :  let  him  be  ana- 
thema." 

57.  Though  we  condemn  a  plurality  of  gods 
and  declare  that  God  is  only  one,  we  cannot 
deny  that  the  Son  of  God  is  God.  Nay,  the 
true  character  of  His  nature  causes  the  name 
that  is  denied  to  a  plurality  to  be  the  privilege 
of  His  essence.  The  words,  Beside  Me  there 
is  no  God,  cannot  rob  the  Son  of  His  divinity: 
because  beside  Him  who  is  of  God  there  is  no 
other  God.  And  these  words  of  God  the  Father 
cannot  annul  the  divinity  of  Him  who  was 
born  of  Himself  with  an  essence  in  no  way 
different  from  His  own  nature.  The  Jews 
interpret  this  passage  as  proving  the  bare 
unity  of  God,  because  they  are  ignorant  of  the 
Only-begotten  God.  But  we,  while  we  deny 
that  there  are  two  Gods,  abhor  the  idea  of 
a  diversity  of  natural  essence  in  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  The  words,  Beside  Me  there  is 
no  God,  take  away  an  impious  belief  in  false 
gods.  In  confessing  that  God  is  One,  and  also 
saying  that  the  Son  is  God,  our  use  of  the 
same  name  affirms  that  there  is  no  difference 
of  substance  between  the  two  Persons. 

XXIV.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Son  was 
made  by  the  will  of  God,  like  any  object  in 
creation  :  let  him  be  anathema." 

58.  To  all  creatures  the  will  of  God  has 
given  substance  :  but  a  perfect  birth  gave  to 
the  Son  a  nature  from  a  substance  that  is 
impassible  and  itself  unborn.  All  created 
things  are  such  as  God  willed  them  to  be :  but 
the  Son  who  is  born  of  God  has  such  a  per- 
sonality as  God  has.  God's  nature  did  not 
produce  a  nature  unlike  itself:  but  the  Son 
begotten  of  God's  substance  has  derived  the 
essence  of  His  nature  by  virtue  of  His  origin, 


8  John  x.  37. 


9  It.  xliv.  6. 


C  2 


20 


DE   SYNODIS. 


not  from  an  act  of  will  after  the  manner  of 
creatures. 

XXV.  "  If  any  man  says  that  the  Son  was 
horn  against  the  will  of  the  Father  :  let  him  he 
anathema.  For  the  Father  was  not  forced 
against  His  own  will,  or  induced  against  His 
will  by  any  necessity  of  nature,  to  heget  His 
Son  ;  but  as  soon  as  He  willed,  before  time 
and  without  passion  He  begat  Him  of  Himself 
and  shewed  Him  forth." 

59.  Since  it  was  taught  that  the  Son  did 
not,  like  all  other  things,  owe  His  existence  to 
Cod's  will,  lest  He  should  be  thought  to  derive 
His  essence  only  at  His  Father's  will  and  not 
in  virtue  of  His  own  nature,  an  opportunity 
seemed  thereby  to  be  given  to  heretics  to 
attribute  to  God  the  Father  a  necessity  of  be- 
getting the  Son  from  Himself,  as  though  He 
had  brought  forth  the  Son  by  a  law  of  nature 
in  spite  of  Himself.  But  such  liability  to  be 
acted  upon  does  not  exist  in  God  the  Father  : 
in  the  ineffable  and  perfect  birth  of  the  Son  it 
was  neither  mere  will  that  begat  Him  nor  was 
the  Father's  essence  changed  or  forced  at  the 
bidding  of  a  natural  law.  Nor  was  any  sub- 
stance sought  for  to  beget  Him,  nor  is  the 
nature  of  the  Begetter  changed  in  the  Be- 
gotten, nor  is  the  Father's  unique  name  affected 
by  time.  Before  all  time  the  Father,  out  of 
the  essence  of  His  nature,  with  a  desire  that 
was  subject  to  no  passion,  gave  to  the  Son 
a  birth  that  conveyed  the  essence  of  His 
nature. 

XXVI.  "If  any  man  says  that  the  Son  is 
incapable  of  birth  and  without  beginning, 
speaking  as  though  there  were  two  incapable 
of  birth  and  unborn  and  without  beginning, 
and  makes  two  Gods  :  let  him  be  anathema. 
For  the  Head,  which  is  the  beginning  of  all 
things,  is  the  Son  ;  but  the  Head  or  beginning 
of  Christ  is  God  :  for  so  to  One  who  is  without 
beginning  and  is  the  beginning  of  all  things, 
we  refer  the  whole  world  through  Christ." 

60.  To  declare  the  Son  to  be  incapable  of 
birth  is  the  height  of  impiety.  God  would  no 
longer  be  One  :  for  the  nature  of  the  one  Un- 
born God  demands  that  we  should  confess 
that  God  is  one.  Since  therefore  God  is  one, 
there  cannot  be  two  incapable  of  birth  :  be- 
cause God  is  one  (although  both  the  Father  is 
God  and  the  Son  of  God  is  God)  for  the  very 
reason  that  incapability  of  birth  is  the  only 
quality  that  can  belong  to  one  Person  only. 
The  Son  is  God  for  the  very  reason  that  He 
derives  His  birth  from  that  essence  which  can- 
not be  born.  Therefore  our  huly  faith  rejects 
the  idea  that  the  Son  is  incapable  of  birth  in 
order  to  predicate  one  God  incapable  of  birth 
and  consequently  one  God,  and  in  order  to 
embrace  the   Only-begotten  nature,  begotten 


from  the  unborn  essence,  in  the  one  name  of 
the  Unborn  God.  For  the  Head  of  all  things 
is  the  Son :  but  the  Head  of  the  Son  is  God. 
And  to  one  God  through  this  stepping-stone 
and  by  this  confession  all  things  are  referred, 
since  the  whole  world  takes  its  beginning  from 
Him  to  whom  God  Himself  is  the  beginning. 

XXVII.  "Once  more  we  strengthen  the 
understanding  of  Christianity  by  saying,  If  any 
man  denies  that  Christ,  who  is  God  and  the 
Son  of  God,  existed  before  time  began  and 
aided  the  Father  in  the  perfecting  of  all  things  ; 
but  says  that  only  from  the  time  that  He  was 
born  of  Mary  did  He  gain  the  name  of  Christ 
and  Son  and  a  beginning  of  His  deity  :  let 
him  be  anathema." 

61.  A  condemnation  of  that  heresy  on  ac- 
count of  which  the  Synod  was  held  necessarily 
concluded  with  an  explanation  of  the  whole 
faith  that  was  being  opposed.  This  heresy 
falsely  stated  that  the  beginning  of  the  Son  of 
God  dated  from  His  birth  of  Mary.  Accord- 
ing to  evangelical  and  apostolic  doctrine  the 
corner-stone  of  our  faith  is  that  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who  is  God  and  Son  of  God,  cannot 
be  separated  from  the  Father  in  title  or 
power  or  difference  of  substance  or  interval 
of  time. 

62.  You  perceive  that  the  truth  has  been 
sought  by  many  paths  through  the  advice  and 
opinions  of  different  bishops,  and  the  ground 
of*  their  views  has  been  set  forth  by  the 
separate  declarations  inscribed  in  this  creed. 
Every  separate  point  of  heretical  assertion  has 
been  successfully  refuted.  The  infinite  and 
boundless  God  cannot  be  made  compre- 
hensible by  a  few  words  of  human  speech. 
Brevity  often  misleads  both  learner  and 
teacher,  and  a  concentrated  discourse  either 
causes  a  subject  not  to  be  understood,  or 
spoils  the  meaning  of  an  argument  where 
a  thing  is  hinted  at,  and  is  not  proved  by  full 
demonstration.  The  bishops  fully  understood 
this,  and  therefore  have  used  for  the  purpose 
of  teaching  many  definitions  and  a  profusion 
of  words  that  the  ordinary  understanding 
might  find  no  difficulty,  but  that  their  hearers 
might  be  saturated  with  the  truth  thus  differ- 
ently expressed,  and  that  in  treating  of  divine 
things  these  adequate  and  manifold  definitions 
might  leave  no  room  for  danger  or  obscurity. 

63.  You  must  not  be  surprised,  dear  bre- 
thren, that  so  many  creeds  have  recently  been 
written.  The  frenzy  of  heretics  makes  it  neces- 
sary. The  danger  of  the  Eastern  Churches  is 
so  great  that  it  is  rare  to  find  either  priest  or 
layman  that  belongs  to  this  faith,  of  the  ortho- 
doxy of  which  you  may  judge.  Certain  in- 
dividuals have  acted  so  wrongly  as  to  support 
the  side  of  evil,  and  the  strength  of  the  wicked 


ON   THE   COUNCILS. 


21 


has  been  increased  by  the  exile  of  some  of  the 
bishops,  the  cause  of  which  you  are  acquainted 
with.  I  am  not  speaking  about  distant  events 
or  writing  down  incidents  of  which  I  know 
nothing :  I  have  heard  and  seen  the  faults 
which  we  now  have  to  combat.  They  are  not 
laymen  but  bishops  who  are  guilty.  Except 
the  bishop  Eleusius  J  and  his  few  comrades, 
the  greater  part  of  the  ten  provinces  of  Asia, 
in  which  I  am  now  staying,  really  know  not 
God.  Would  that  they  knew  nothing  about 
Him,  for  their  ignorance  would  meet  with 
a  readier  pardon  than  their  detraction.  These 
faithful  bishops  do  not  keep  silence  in  their 
pain.  They  seek  for  the  unity  of  that  faith 
of  which  others  have  long  since  robbed  them. 
The  necessity  of  a  united  exposition  of  that 
faith  was  first  felt  when  Hosius  forgot  his 
former  deeds  and  words,  and  a  fresh  yet  fester- 
ing heresy  broke  out  at  Sirmium.  Of  Hosius 
I  say  nothing,  I  leave  his  conduct  in  the  back- 
ground lest  man's  judgment  should  forget  what 
once  he  was.  But  everywhere  there  are  scan- 
dals, schisms  and  treacheries.  Hence  some 
of  those  who  had  formerly  written  one  creed 
were  compelled  to  sign  another.  I  make  no 
complaint  against  these  long-suffering  Eastern 
bishops,  it  was  enough  that  they  gave  at  least 
a  compulsory  assent  to  the  faith  after  they  had 
once  been  willing  to  blaspheme.  1  think  it 
a  subject  of  congratulation  that  a  single  peni- 
tent should  be  found  among  such  obstinate, 
blaspheming  and  heretical  bishops.  But,  bre- 
thren, you  enjoy  happiness  and  glory  in  the 
Lord,  who  meanwhile  retain  and  conscien- 
tiously confess  the  whole  apostolic  faith,  and 
have  hitherto  been  ignorant  of  written  creeds. 
You  have  not  needed  the  letter,  for  you 
abounded  in  the  spirit.  You  required  not  the 
office  of  a  hand  to  write  what  you  believed  in 
your  hearts  and  professed  unto  salvation.  It 
was  unnecessary  for  you  to  read  as  bishops 
what  you  held  when  new-born  converts.  But 
necessity  has  introduced  the  custom  of  ex- 
pounding creeds  and  signing  expositions. 
Where  the  conscience  is  in  danger  we  must 
use  the  letter.  Nor  is  it  wrong  to  write  what 
it  is  wholesome  to  confess. 

64.  Kept  always  from  guile  by  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  we  confess  and  write  of  out- 
own  will  that  there  are  not  two  Gods  but  one 
God  ;  nor  do  we  therefore  deny  that  the  Son 


»  Eleusius  is  criticised  by  Socrates  II.  40,  for  disliking  any 
attempt  at  a  repudiation  of  the  "Dedication"  creed  of  341, 
although  the  "Dedication"  creed  was  little  better  than  a  repu- 
diation ot  the  Nicene  creed.  He  was,  in  fact,  a  semi-Arian.  But 
hU  vigorous  opposition  to  the  extreme  form  of  Arianism  and  the 
hopefulness  witli  which  Hilary  always  regarded  the  seuii-Arians, 
here  invest  him  with  a  reputation  for  the  "  true  knowledge  of 
God."  In  s3i  he  refused  to  accept  the  Niceue  creed  or  take  part 
IB  the  Council  of  Constantinople. 


of  God  is  also  God ;  for  He  is  God  of  God. 
We  deny  that  there  are  two  incapable  of  birth, 
because  God  is  one  through  the  prerogative 
of  being  incapable  of  birth  ;  nor  does  it  follow 
that  the  Unbegotten  is  not  God,  for  His 
source  is  the  Unborn  substance.  There  is 
not  one  subsistent  Person,  but  a  similar  sub- 
stance in  both  Persons.  There  is  not  one 
name  of  God  applied  to  dissimilar  natures, 
but  a  wholly  similar  essence  belonging  to  one 
name  and  nature.  One  is  not  superior  to  the 
other  on  account  of  the  kind  of  His  substance, 
but  one  is  subject  to  the  other  because  born 
of  the  other.  The  Father  is  greater  because 
He  is  Father,  the  Son  is  not  the  less  be- 
cause He  is  Son.  The  difference  is  one  of 
the  meaning  of  a  name  and  not  of  a  nature. 
We  confess  that  the  Father  is  not  affected 
by  time,  but  do  not  deny  that  the  Son  is 
equally  eternal.  We  assert  that  the  Father 
is  in  the  Son  because  the  Son  has  nothing 
in  Himself  unlike  the  Father:  we  confess  that 
the  Son  is  in  the  Father  because  the  existence 
of  the  Son  is  not  from  any  other  source.  We 
recognize  that  their  nature  is  mutual  and 
similar  because  equal :  we  do  not  think  them 
to  be  one  Person  because  they  are  one :  we 
declare  that  they  are  through  the  similarity 
of  an  identical  nature  one,  in  such  a  way  that 
they  nevertheless  are  not  one  Person. 

65.  I  have  expounded,  beloved  brethren,  my 
belief  in  our  common  faith  so  far  as  our  wonted 
human  speech  permitted  and  the  Lord,  whom 
I  have  ever  besought,  as  He  is  my  witness, 
has  given  me  power.  If  I  have  said  too  little, 
nay,  if  I  have  said  almost  nothing,  I  ask  you 
to  remember  that  it  is  not  belief  but  words 
that  are  lacking.  Perhaps  I  shall  thereby 
prove  that  my  human  nature,  though  not  my 
will,  is  weak  :  and  I  pardon  my  human  nature 
if  it  cannot  speak  as  it  would  of  God,  for  it 
is  enough  for  its  salvation  to  have  believed 
the  things  of  God. 

66.  Since  your  faith  and  mine,  so  far  as 
I  am  conscious,  is  in  no  danger  before  God, 
and  I  have  shewn  you,  as  you  wished,  the 
creeds  that  have  been  set  forth  by  the*Eastern 
bishops  (though  I  repeat  that  they  were  few 
in  number,  for,  considering  how  numerous  the 
Eastern  Churches  are,  that  faith  is  held  by 
few),  I  have  also  declared  my  own  convictions 
about  divine  things,  according  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  apostles.  It  remains  for  you  to  in- 
vestigate without  suspicion  the  points  that 
mislead  the  unguarded  temper  of  our  simple 
minds,  for  there  is  now  no  opportunity  left 
of  hearing.  And  although  I  shall  no  longer 
fear  that  sentence  will  not  be  passed  upon  me 
in  accordance  with  the  whole  exposition  of 
the  creed,  I  ask  you  to  allow  me  to  express 


22 


DE   SYNODIS. 


a  wish  that  I  may  not  have  the  sentence  passed 
until  the  exposition  is  actually  completed. 

67.  Many  of  us,  beloved  brethren,  declare 
the  substance  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  to 
be  one  in  such  a  spirit  that  I  consider  the 
statement  to  be  quite  as  much  wrong  as  right. 
The  expression  contains  both  a  conscientious 
conviction  and  the  opportunity  for  delusion. 
If  we  assert  the  one  substance,  understanding 
it  to  mean  the  likeness  of  natural  qualities  and 
such  a  likeness  as  includes  not  only  the  species 
but  the  genus,  we  assert  it  in  a  truly  religious 
spirit,  provided  we  believe  that  the  one  sub- 
stance signifies  such  a  similitude  of  qualities 
that  the  unity  is  not  the  unity  of  a  monad  but 
of  equals.  By  equality  I  mean  exact  similarity 
so  that  the  likeness  may  be  called  an  equality, 
provided  that  the  equality  imply  unity  because 
it  implies  an  equal  pair,  and  that  the  unity 
which  implies  an  equal  pair  be  not  wrested  to 
mean  a  single  Person.  Therefore  the  one 
substance  will  be  asserted  piously  if  it  does 
not  abolish  the  subsistent  personality  or  divide 
the  one  substance  into  two,  for  their  substance 
by  the  true  character  of  the  Son's  birth  and  by 
their  natural  likeness  is  so  free  from  difference 
that  it  is  called  one. 

68.  But   if  we  attribute  one  substance  to 
the  Father  and  the  Son  to  teach  that  there 
is  a  solitary  personal  existence  although  de- 
noted by  two  titles :    then  though  we  confess 
the  Son  with  our  lips  we  do  not  keep  Him 
in  our  hearts,  since  in  confessing  one  substance 
we  then  really  say  that  the  Father  and  the  Son 
constitute  one  undifferentiated  Person.  _  Nay, 
there  immediately   arises   an   opportunity  for 
the  erroneous  belief  that  the  Father  is  divided, 
and  that  He  cut  off  a  portion  of  Himself  to  be 
His  Son.     That  is   what   the   heretics   mean 
when  they  say  the  substance  is  one  :  and  the 
terminology  of  our  good  confession  so  gratifies 
them  that  it  aids  heresy  when  the  word  fyo- 
ova-ios  is  left  by  itself,  undefined  and  ambiguous. 
There  is  also  a  third  error.     When  the  Father 
and  the  Son  are  said  to  be  of  one  substance 
this  is   thought   to   imply  a  prior   substance, 
which  the  two   equal   Persons  both   possess. 
Consequently  the  word  implies  three  things, 
one  original  substance  and  two  Persons,  who 
are  as  it  were  fellow-heirs  of  this  one  substance. 
For   as    two    fellow-heirs    are    two,    and    the 
heritage    of  which    they    are    fellow-heirs   is 
anterior  to  them,   so  the  two   equal  Persons 
might  appear   to   be  sharers  in  one  anterior 
substance.    The  assertion  of  the  one  substance 
of  the  Father  and  the  Son  signifies  either  that 
there   is  one  Person  who  has   two  titles,  or 
one   divided   substance    that   has   made   two 
imperfect  substances,  or  that  there  is  a  third 
prior  substance  which  has  been  usurped  and 


assumed  by  two  and  which  is  called  one  be- 
cause it  was  one  before  it  was  severed  into 
two.  Where  then  is  there  room  for  the  Son's 
birth  ?  Where  is  the  Father  or  the  Son,  if  these 
names  are  explained  not  by  the  birth  of  the 
divine  nature  but  a  severing  or  sharing  of  one 
anterior  substance  ? 

69.  Therefore  amid  the  numerous  dangers 
which  threaten  the  faith,  brevity  of  words 
must  be  employed  sparingly,  lest  what  is 
piously  meant  be  thought  to  be  impiously 
expressed,  and  a  word  be  judged  guilty  of 
occasioning  heresy  when  it  has  been  used  in 
conscientious  and  unsuspecting  innocence. 
A  Catholic  about  to  state  that  the  substance 
of  the  Father  and  the  Son  is  one,  must  not 
begin  at  that  point:  nor  hold  this  word  all 
important  as  though  true  faith  did  not  exist 
where  the  word  was  not  used.  He  will  be 
safe  in  asserting  the  one  substance  if  he  has 
first  said  that  the  Father  is  unbegotten,  that  the 
Son  is  born,  that  He  draws  His  personal 
subsistence  from  the  Father,  that  He  is  like 
the  Father  in  might,  honour  and  nature,  that 
He  is  subject  to  the  Father  as  to  the  Author 
of  His  being,  that  He  did  not  commit  robbery 
by  making  Himself  equal  with  God,  in  whose 
form  He  remained,  that  He  was  obedient  unto 
death.  He  did  not  spring  from  nothing,  but 
was  born.  He  is  not  incapable  of  birth  but 
equally  eternal.  He  is  not  the  Father,  but 
the  Son  begotten  of  Him.  He  is  not  any 
portion  of  God,  but  is  whole  God.  He  is 
not  Himself  the  source  but  the  image;  the 
image  of  God  born  of  God  to  be  God.  He 
is  not  a  creature  but  is  God.  Not  another 
God  in  the  kind  of  His  substance,  but  the  one 
God  in  virtue  of  the  essence  of  His  exactly 
similar  substance.  God  is  not  one  in  Person 
but  in  nature,  for  the  Born  and  the  Begetter 
have  nothing  different  or  unlike.  After  saying 
all  this,  he  does  not  err  in  declaring  one  sub- 
stance of  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Nay,  if 
he  now  denies  the  one  substance  he  sins. 

70.  Therefore  let  no  one  think  that  our 
words  were  meant  to  deny  the  one  substance. 
We  are  giving  the  very  reason  why  it  should 
not  be  denied.  Let  no  one  think  that  the 
word  ought  to  be  used  by  itself  and  unex- 
plained. Otherwise  the  word  Sfioovaws  is  not 
used  in  a  religious  spirit.  I  will  not  endure  to 
hear  that  Christ  was  born  of  Mary  unless  I 
also  hear,  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and 
the  Word  was  God*.  I  will  not  hear  Christ 
was  hungry,  unless  I  hear  that  after  His  fast  of 
forty  days  He  said,  Man  doth  not  live  by  bread 
alone*.  I  will  not  hear  He  thirsted  unless 
I  also  hear,  Whosoever  drinketh  of  the  water 


»  John  i.  x. 


3  Matt.  tv.  4. 


ON  THE   COUNCILS. 


23 


that  I  shall  give  him  shall  never  thirst*.  I  will 
not  hear  Christ  suffered  unless  I  hear,  The  horn- 
is  come  that  the  Son  of  man  should  be  glorified s. 
I  will  not  hear  He  died  unless  I  hear  He  rose 
again.  Let  us  bring  forward  no  isolated  point 
of  the  divine  mysteries  to  rouse  the  suspicions 
of  our  hearers  and  give  an  occasion  to  the 
blasphemers.  We  must  first  preach  the  birth 
and  subordination  of  the  Son  and  the  likeness 
of  His  nature,  and  then  we  may  preach  in 
godly  fashion  that  the  Father  and  the  Son  are 
of  one  substance.  I  do  not  personally  under- 
stand why  we  ought  to  preach  before  every- 
thing else,  as  the  most  valuable  and  important 
of  doctrines  and  in  itself  sufficient,  a  truth 
which  cannot  be  piously  preached  before  other 
truths,  although  it  is  impious  to  deny  it  after 
them. 

71.  Beloved  brethren,  we  must  not  deny 
that  there  is  one  substance  of  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  but  we  must  not  declare  it  without 
giving  our  reasons.  The  one  substance  must 
be  derived  from  the  true  character  of  the  be- 
gotten nature,  not  from  any  division,  any  con- 
fusion of  Persons,  any  sharing  of  an  anterior 
substance.  It  may  be  right  to  assert  the  one 
substance,  it  may  be  right  to  keep  silence 
about  it.  You  believe  in  the  birth  and  you 
believe  in  the  likeness.  Why  should  the  word 
cause  mutual  suspicions,  when  we  view  the 
fact  in  the  same  way?  Let  us  believe  and 
say  that  there  is  one  substance,  but  in  virtue 
of  the  true  character  of  the  nature  and  not  to 
imply  a  blasphemous  unity  of  Persons.  Let 
the  oneness  be  due  to  the  fact  that  there  are 
similar  Persons  and  not  a  solitary  Person. 

72.  But  perhaps  the  word  similarity  may 
not  seem  fully  appropriate.  If  so,  I  ask  how 
I  can  express  the  equality  of  one  Person  with 
the  other  except  by  such  a  word  ?  Or  is  to 
be  like  not  the  same  thing  as  to  be  equal? 
If  I  say  the  divine  nature  is  one  I  am  sus- 
pected of  meaning  that  it  is  undifferentiated : 
if  I  say  the  Persons  are  similar,  I  mean  that 
I  compare  what  is  exactly  like.  I  ask  what 
position  equal  holds  between  like  and  one? 
I  enquire  whether  it  means  similarity  rather 
than  singularity.  Equality  does  not  exist  be- 
tween things  unlike,  nor  does  similarity  exist  in 
one.  What  is  the  difference  between  those 
that  are  similar  and  those  that  are  equal  ?  Can 
one  equal  be  distinguished  from  the  other? 
So  those  who  are  equal  are  not  unlike.  If 
then  those  who  are  unlike  are  not  equals,  what 
can  those  who  are  like  be  but  equals? 

73.  Therefore,  beloved  brethren,  in  declar- 
ing that  the  Son  is  like  in  all  things  to  the 
Father,  we  declare  nothing  else  than  that  He 


*  John  iv.  13. 


5  lb.  xii.  23. 


is  equal.  Likeness  means  perfect  equality, 
and  this  fact  we  may  gather  from  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  And  Adam  lived  iivo  hundred  and 
thirty  years,  and  begat  a  son  according  to  his 
own  image  and  according  to  his  own  likeness  ; 
and  called  his  name  Seth  6.  I  ask  what  was  the 
nature  of  his  likeness  and  image  which  Adam 
begat  in  Seth?  Remove  bodily  infirmities, 
remove  the  first  stage  of  conception,  remove 
birth-pangs,  and  every  kind  of  human  need. 
I  ask  whether  this  likeness  which  exists  in 
Seth  differs  in  nature  from  the  author  of  his 
being,  or  whether  there  was  in  each  an  essence 
of  a  different  kind,  so  that  Seth  had  not  at  his 
birth  the  natural  essence  of  Adam?  Nay,  he 
had  a  likeness  to  Adam,  even  though  we  deny 
it,  for  his  nature  was  not  different.  This  like- 
ness of  nature  in  Seth  was  not  due  to  a  nature 
of  a  different  kind,  since  Seth  was  begotten 
from  only  one  father,  so  we  see  that  a  likeness 
of  nature  renders  things  equal  because  this 
likeness  betokens  an  exactly  similar  essence. 
Therefore  every  son  by  virtue  of  his  natural 
birth  is  the  equal  of  his  father,  in  that  he  has 
a  natural  likeness  to  him.  And  with  regard 
to  the  nature  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  the 
blessed  John  teaches  the  very  likeness  which 
Moses  says  existed  between  Seth  and  Adam, 
a  likeness  which  is  this  equality  of  nature. 
He  says,  Therefore  the  Jews  sought  the  more  to 
kill  Him,  because  He  not  only  had  broken  the 
Sabbath,  but  said  also  that  God  was  His  father, 
making  Himself  equal  with  GodT.  Why  do  we 
allow  minds  that  are  dulled  with  the  weight  of 
sin  to  interfere  with  the  doctrines  and  sayings 
of  such  holy  men,  and  impiously  match  our 
rash  though  sluggish  senses  against  their  im- 
pregnable assertions?  According  to  Moses, 
Seth  is  the  likeness  of  Adam,  according  to 
John,  the  Son  is  equal  to  the  Father,  yet  we 
seek  to  find  a  third  impossible  something 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son.  He  is  like 
the  Father,  He  is  the  Son  of  the  Father,  He 
is  born  of  Him  :  this  fact  alone  justifies  the 
assertion  that  they  are  one. 

74.  I  am  aware,  dear  brethren,  that  there 
are  some  who  confess  the  likeness,  but  deny 
the  equality.  Let  them  speak  as  they  will, 
and  insert  the  poison  of  their  blasphemy  into 
ignorant  ears.  If  they  say  that  there  is  a  dif- 
ference between  likeness  and  equality,  I  ask 
whence  equality  can  be  obtained  ?  If  the  Son 
is  like  the  Father  in  essence,  might,  glory  and 
eternity,  I  ask  why  they  decline  to  say  He  is 
equal  ?  In  the  above  creed  an  anathema  was 
pronounced  on  any  man  who  should  say  that 
the  Father  was  Father  of  an  essence  unlike 
Himself.    Therefore  if  He  gave  to  Him  whom 


6  Gen.  v.  3. 


7  John  v.  18. 


24 


DE   SYNODIS. 


He  begat  without  effect  upon  Himself  a  nature 
which  was  neither  another  nor  a  different 
nature,  He  cannot  have  given  Him  any  other 
than  His  own.  Likeness  then  is  the  sharing 
of  what  is  one's  own,  the  sharing  of  one's 
own  is  equality,  and  equality  admits  of  no 
difference  8.  Those  things  which  do  not  differ 
at  all  are  one.  So  the  Father  and  the  Son  are 
one,  not  by  unity  of  Person  but  by  equality  of 
nature. 

75.  Although  general  conviction  and  divine 
authority  sanction  no  difference  between  like- 
ness and  equality,  since  both  Moses  and  John 
would  lead  us  to  believe  the  Son  is  like  the 
Father  and  also  His  equal,  yet  let  us  consider 
whether  the  Lord,  when  the  Jews  were  angry 
with  Him  for  calling  God  His  Father  and  thus 
making  Himself  equal  with  God,  did  Himself 
teach  that  He  was  equal  with  God.  He  says, 
The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  Himself,  but  what 
He  seeth  the  Father  do*.  He  shewed  that  the 
Father  originates  by  saying  Can  do  nothing  of 
Himself,  He  calls  attention  to  His  own  obe- 
dience by  adding,  but  what  He  seeth  the  Father 
do.  There  is  no  difference  of  might,  He  says 
He  can  do  nothing  that  He  does  not  see, 
because  it  is  His  nature  and  not  His  sight 
that  gives  Him  power.  But  His  obedience 
consists  in  His  being  able  only  when  He  sees. 
And  so  by  the  fact  that  He  has  power  when 
He  sees,  He  shews  that  He  does  not 
gain  power  by  seeing  but  claims  power  on  the 
authority  of  seeing.  The  natural  might  does 
not  differ  in  Father  and  Son,  the  Son's  equality 
of  power  with  the  Father  not  being  due  to  any 
increase  or  advance  of  the  Son's  nature  but  to 
the  Father's  example.  In  short  that  honour 
which  the  Son's  subjection  retained  for  the 
Father  belongs  equally  to  the  Son  on  the 
strength  of  His  nature.  He  has  Himself 
added,  What  things  soever  He  doeth,  these  also 
doeth  the  Son  likewise?*.  Surely  then  the  like- 
ness implies  equality.  Certainly  it  does,  even 
though  we  deny  it :  for  these  also  doeth  the  Son 
likewise.  Are  not  things  done  likewise  the 
same?  Or  do  not  the  same  things  admit 
equality  ?  Is  there  any  other  difference  between 
likeness  and  equality,  when  things  that  are 
done  likewise  are  understood  to  be  made  the 
same  ?  Unless  perchance  any  one  will  deny 
that  the  same  things  are  equal,  or  deny  that 
similar  things  are  equal,  for  tilings  that  are 
done  in  like  manner  are  not  only  declared  to 
be  equal  but  to  be  the  same  things. 

76.  Therefore,  brethren,  likeness  of  nature 


8  Projtrietas,  or  sharing  one's  own.  The  word  proprietas  is 
not  here  used  in  a  technical  sense.  In  its  technical  sense  pro- 
prietor or  JSiotjjs  signifies  the  special  property  of  each  Person 
ol  the  Godhead,  and  the  word  is  used  to  secure  the  distinctions 
of  the  three  Persons  and  exclude  any  Sabellian  misunderstanding. 

9  John  v.  19.  9»  Ih. 


can  be  attacked  by  no  cavil,  and  the  Son 
cannot  be  said  to  lack  the  true  qualities  of 
the  Father's  nature  because  He  is  like  Him. 
No  real  likeness  exists  where  there  is  no 
equality  of  nature,  and  equality  of  nature 
cannot  exist  unless  it  imply  unity,  not  unity 
of  person  but  of  kind.  It  is  right  to  believe, 
religious  to  feel,  and  wholesome  to  confess, 
that  we  do  not  deny  that  the  substance  of 
the  Father  and  the  Son  is  one  because  it 
is  similar,  and  that  it  is  similar  because  they 
are  one. 

77.  Beloved,  after  explaining  in  a  faithful 
and  godly  manner  the  meaning  of  the  phrases 
one  substance,  in  Greek  ofioovaiov,  and  similar 
substance  or  Sfiotovaiov,  and  shewing  very  com- 
pletely the  faults  which  may  arise  from  a 
deceitful  brevity  or  dangerous  simplicity  of 
language,  it  only  remains  for  me  to  address 
myself  to  the  holy  bishops  of  the  East.  We 
have  no  longer  any  mutual  suspicions  about 
our  faith,  and  those  which  before  now  have 
been  due  to  mere  misunderstanding  are  being 
cleared  away.  They  will  pardon  me  if  I  pro- 
ceed to  speak  somewhat  freely  with  them 
on  the  basis  of  our  common  faith. 

78.  Ye  who  have  begun  to  be  eager  for 
apostolic  and  evangelical  doctrine,  kindled 
by  the  fire  of  faith  amid  the  thick  darkness 
of  a  night  of  heresy,  with  how  great  a  hope 
of  recalling  the  true  faith  have  you  inspired 
us  by  consistently  checking  the  bold  attack 
of  infidelity !  In  former  days  it  was  only 
in  obscure  corners  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
was  denied  to  be  the  Son  of  God  according 
to  His  nature,  and  was  asserted  to  have  no 
share  in  the  Father's  essence,  but  like  the 
creatures  to  have  received  His  origin  from 
things  that  were  not  But  the  heresy  now 
bursts  forth  backed  by  civil  authority,  and 
what  it  once  muttered  in  secret  it  has  of  late 
boasted  of  in  open  triumph.  Whereas  in 
former  times  it  has  tried  by  secret  mines  to 
creep  into  the  Catholic  Church,  it  has  now 
put  forth  every  power  of  this  world  in  the 
fawning  manners  of  a  false  religion.  For  the 
perversity  of  these  men  has  been  so  audacious 
that  when  they  dared  not  preach  this  doctrine 
publicly  themselves,  they  beguiled  the  Emperor 
to  give  them  hearing.  For  they  did  beguile 
an  ignorant  sovereign  so  successfully  that 
though  he  was  busy  with  war  he  expounded 
their  infidel  creed,  and  before  he  was  regen- 
erate by  baptism  imposed  a  form  of  faith 
upon  the  churches.  Opposing  bishops  they 
drove  into  exile.  They  drove  me  also  to  wish 
for  exile,  by  trying  to  force  me  to  commit 
blasphemy.  May  1  always  be  an  exile,  if  only 
the  truth  begins  to  be  preached  again!  I  thank 
God  that  the  Emperor,  through  your  warnings, 


ON   THE   COUNCILS. 


25 


acknowledged  his  ignorance,  and  through  these 
your  definitions  of  faith  came  to  recognize 
an  error  which  was  not  his  own  but  that  of 
his  advisers.  He  freed  himself  from  the  re- 
proach of  impiety  in  the  eyes  of  God  and  men, 
when  he  respectfully  received  your  embassy, 
and  after  you  had  won  from  him  a  confession 
of  his  ignorance,  shewed  his  knowledge  of 
the  hypocrisy  of  the  men  whose  influence 
brought  him  under  this  reproach. 

79.  These  are  deceivers,  I  both  fear  and 
believe  they  are  deceivers,  beloved  brethren  ; 
for  they  have  ever  deceived.  This  very  docu- 
ment is  marked  by  hypocrisy.  They  excuse 
themselves  for  having  desired  silence  as  to 
ofjiooviriov  and  ofiowvo-iov  on  the  ground  that 
they  taught  that  the  meaning  of  the  words 
was  identical.  Rustic  bishops,  I  trow,  and 
untutored  in  the  significance  of  Sjuoovaiov : 
as  though  there  had  never  been  any  Council 
about  the  matter,  or  any  dispute.  But  suppose 
they  did  not  know  what  Sfxoovaiov  was,  or  were 
really  unaware  that  Sfimova-iov  meant  of  a  like 
essence.  Granted  that  they  were  ignorant 
of  this,  why  did  they  wish  to  be  ignorant  of 
the  generation  of  the  Son  ?  If  it  cannot  be 
expressed  in  words,  is  it  therefore  unknown- 
able?  But  if  we  cannot  know  how  He  was 
born,  can  we  refuse  to  know  even  this,  that 
God  the  Son  being  born  not  of  another  sub- 
stance but  of  God,  has  not  an  essence  differing 
from  the  Father's?  Have  they  not  read  that 
the  Son  is  to  be  honoured  even  as  the  Father, 
that  they  prefer  the  Father  in  honour  ?  Were 
they  ignorant  that  the  Father  is  seen  in  the 
Son,  that  they  make  the  Son  differ  in  dignity, 
splendour  and  majesty?  Is  this  due  to  ignor- 
ance that  the  Son,  like  all  other  things,  is 
made  subject  to  the  Father,  and  while  thus 
subjected  is  not  distinguished  from  them  ? 
A  distinction  does  exist,  for  the  subjection 
of  the  Son  is  filial  reverence,  the  subjection  of 
all  other  things  is  the  weakness  of  things 
created.  They  knew  that  He  suffered,  but 
when,  may  I  ask,  did  they  come  to  know  that 
He  jointly  suffered  ?  They  avoid  the  words 
ojxoovaiuv  and  ofMoiovatuv,  because  they  are  not 
in  Scripture  :  I  enquire  whence  they  gathered 
that  the  Son  jointly  suffered  ?  Can  they  mean 
that  there  were  two  Persons  who  suffered  ? 
This  is  what  the  word  leads  us  to  believe. 
What  of  those  words,  Jesus  Christ  the  Son 
of  Goal  Is  Jesus  Christ  one,  and  the  Son 
of  God  another?  If  the  Son  of  God  is  not 
one  and  the  same  inwardly  and  outwardly, 
if  ignorance  on  such  a  point  is  permissible, 
then  believe  that  they  were  ignorant  of  the 
meaning  of  6/xoovanov.  But  if  on  these  points 
ignorance  leads  to  blasphemy  and  yet  cannot 
find  even  a  false  excuse,  I  fear  that  they  lied  | 


in  professing  ignorance  of  the  word  oymovaiov. 
I  do  not  greatly  complain  of  the  pardon  you 
extended  them ;  it  is  reverent  to  reserve  for 
God  His  own  prerogatives,  and  mistakes  of 
ignorance  are  but  human.  But  the  two 
bishops,  Ursacius  and  Valens,  must  pardon 
me  for  not  believing  that  at  their  age  and 
with  their  experience  they  were  really  ignorant. 
It  is  very  difficult  not  to  think  they  are  lying, 
seeing  that  it  is  only  by  a  falsehood  that  they 
can  clear  themselves  on  another  score.  But 
God  rather  grant  that  I  am  mistaken  than  that 
they  really  knew.  For  I  had  rather  be  judged 
in  the  wrong  than  that  your  faith  should  be 
contaminated  by  communion  with  the  guilt  of 
heresy. 

80.  Now  I  beseech  you,  holy  brethren,  to 
listen  to  my  anxieties  with  indulgence.  The 
Lord  is  my  witness  that  in  no  matter  do  I  wish 
to  criticise  the  definitions  of  your  faith,  which 
you  brought  to  Sirmium.  But  forgive  me  if 
I  do  not  understand  certain  points ;  I  will 
comfort  myself  with  the  recollection  that  the 
spirits  0/ the  prophets  are  subject  to  the  prophets1. 
Perhaps  I  am  not  presumptuous  in  gathering 
from  this  that  I  too  may  understand  something 
that  another  does  not  know.  Not  that  I  have 
dared  to  hint  that  you  are  ignorant  of  anything 
according  to  the  measure  of  knowledge :  but 
for  the  unity  of  the  Catholic  faith  suffer  me 
to  be  as  anxious  as  yourselves. 

81.  Your  letter  on  the  meaning  of  S/jloovo-wv 
and  Sfiuiovaiov,  which  Valens,  Ursacius  and 
Germinius  demanded  should  be  read  at  Sir- 
mium, I  understand  to  have  been  on  certain 
points  no  less  cautious  than  outspoken.  And 
with  regard  to  oixoovaiov  and  6jj.oiovaiov  your 
proof  has  left  no  difficulty  untouched.  As 
to  the  latter,  which  implies  the  similarity  of 
essence,  our  opinions  are  the  same.  But  in 
dealing  with  the  opoovviov,  or  the  one  essence, 
you  declared  that  it  ought  to  be  rejected 
because  the  use  of  this  word  led  to  the  idea 
that  there  was  a  prior  substance  which  two 
Persons  had  divided  between  themselves. 
I  see  the  flaw  in  that  way  of  taking  it.  Any 
such  sense  is  profane,  and  must  be  rejected 
by  the  Church's  common  decision.  The  second 
reason  that  you  added  was  that  our  fathers, 
when  Paul  of  Samosata  was  pronounced  a 
heretic,  also  rejected  the  word  onoovcnov,  on 
the  ground  that  by  attributing  this  title  to 
God  he  had  taught  that  He  was  single  and 
undifferentiated,  and  at  once  Father  and  Son 
to  Himself.  Wherefore  the  Church  stid  re- 
gards it  as  most  profane  to  exclude  the  differ- 
ent personal  qualities,  and,  under  the   mask 


»  1  Cor.  xiv.  32. 


26 


DE   SYNODIS. 


of  the  aforesaid  expressions,  to  revive  the 
error  of  confounding  the  Persons  and  deny- 
ing the  personal  distinctions  in  the  God- 
head. Thirdly  you  mentioned  this  reason  for 
disapproving  of  the  6fxooCcnov,  that  in  the 
Council  of  Nicaea  our  fathers  were  compelled 
to  adopt  the  word  on  account  of  those  who 
said  the  Son  was  a  creature  :  although  it  ought 
not  to  be  accepted,  because  it  is  not  to  be 
found  in  Scripture.  Your  saying  this  causes 
me  some  astonishment.  For  if  the  word 
6fj.oovaiov  must  be  repudiated  on  account  of 
its  novelty,  I  am  afraid  that  the  word  Sfioiovaiov, 
which  is  equally  absent  in  Scripture,  is  in 
some  danger. 

82.  But  I  am  not  needlessly  critical  on  this 
point.  For  I  had  rather  use  an  expression 
that  is  new  than  commit  sin  by  rejecting  it. 
So,  then,  we  will  pass  by  this  question  of  in- 
novation, and  see  whether  the  real  question 
is  not  reduced  to  something  which  all  our 
fellow-Christians  unanimously  condemn.  What 
man  in  his  senses  will  ever  declare  that  there 
is  a  third  substance,  which  is  common  to  both 
the  Father  and  the  Son  ?  And  who  that  has 
been  reborn  in  Christ  and  confessed  both  the 
Son  and  the  Father  will  follow  him  of  Samo- 
sata  in  confessing  that  Christ  is  Himself  to 
Himself  both  Father  and  Son?  So  in  con- 
demning the  blasphemies  of  the  heretics  we 
hold  the  same  opinion,  and  such  an  inter- 
pretation of  Snoovaiov  we  not  only  reject  but 
hate.  The  question  of  an  erroneous  interpre- 
tation is  at  an  end,  when  we  agree  in  con- 
demning the  error. 

83.  But  when  I  at  last  turn  to  speak  on  the 
third  point,  I  pray  you  to  let  there  be  no 
conflict  of  suspicions  where  there  is  peace  at 
heart.  Do  not  think  I  would  advance  any- 
thing hurtful  to  the  progress  of  unity.  For 
it  is  absurd  to  fear  cavil  about  a  word  when 
the  fact  expressed  by  the  word  presents  no 
difficulty.  Who  objects  to  the  fact  that  the 
Council  of  Nicsea  adopted  the  word  Snoovviov  ? 
He  who  does  so,  must  necessarily  like  its  re- 
jection by  the  Arians.  The  Avians  rejected 
the  word,  that  God  the  Son  might  not  be 
asserted  to  be  born  of  the  substance  of  God 
the  Father,  but  formed  out  of  nothing,  like 
the  creatures.  This  is  no  new  thing  that  I 
speak  of.  The  perfidy  of  the  Arians  is  to  be 
found  in  many  of  their  letters  and  is  its  own 
witness.  If  the  godlessness  of  the  negation 
then  gave  a  godly  meaning  to  the  assertion, 
I  ask  why  we  should  now  criticise  a  word 
which  was  then  rightly  adopted  because  it  was 
wrongly  denied?  If  it  was  rightly  adopted, 
why  after  supporting  the  right  should  that 
which  extinguished  the  wrong  be  called  to 
account?    Having  been  used  as  the  instrument 


of  evil  it  came  to  be  the  instrument  of 
good  2. 

84.  Let  us  see,  therefore,  what  the  Council  of 
Nicasa  intended  by  saying  onoovaiov,  that  is, 
of  one  substance  :  not  certainly  to  hatch  the 
heresy  which  arises  from  an  erroneous  inter- 
pretation of  o/xoova-iov.  I  do  not  think  the 
Council  says  that  the  Father  and  the  Son 
divided  and  shared  a  previously  existing 
substance  to  make  it  their  own.  It  will  not 
be  adverse  to  religion  to  insert  in  our  argu- 
ment the  creed  which  was  then  composed  to 
preserve  religion. 

"  We  believe  in  one  God  the  Father  Al- 
mighty, Maker  of  all  things  visible  and  in- 
visible : 

"And  in  one  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God,  born  of  the  Father,  Only-begotten, 
that  is,  of  the  substance  of  the  Father,  God  of 
God,  Light  of  Light,  Very  God  of  very  God, 
born  not  made,  of  one  substance  with  the 
Father  (which  in  Greek  they  call  o/jlooCo-lov)  ; 
By  whom  all  things  were  made  which  are 
in  heaven  and  in  earth,  Who  for  our  salva- 
tion came  down,  And  was  incarnate,  And  was 
made  man,  And  suffered,  And  rose  again  the 
third  day,  And  ascended  into  heaven,  And 
shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead. 

"  And  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"  But  those  who  say,  There  was  when  He 
was  not,  And  before  He  was  born  He  was 
not,  And  that  He  was  made  of  things  that 
existed  not,  or  of  another  substance  and  es- 
sence, saying  that  God  was  able  to  change 
and  alter,  to  these  the  Catholic  Church  says 
anathema." 

Here  the  Holy  Council  of  religious  men 
introduces  no  prior  substance  divided  between 
two  Persons,  but  the  Son  born  of  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Father.  Do  we,  too,  deny  it, 
or  confess  anything  else  ?  And  after  other 
explanations  of  our  common  faith,  it  says, 
Born  not  made,  of  one  substance  with  the 
Father  (which  in  Greek  they  call  6/u.ooCaiov). 
What  occasion  is  there  here  for  an  erroneous 
interpretation  ?  The  Son  is  declared  to  be 
born  of  the  substance  of  the  Father,  not 
made  :  lest  while  the  word  born  implies  His 
divinity,  the  word  made  should  imply  He  is 
a  creature.  For  the  same  reason  we  have 
of  one  substa?ice,  not  to  teach  that  there  is  one 
solitary  divine  Person,  but  that  the  Son  is 
born  of  the  substance  of  God  and  subsists 
from  no  other  source,  nor  in  any  diversity 
caused  by  a  difference  of  substance.  Surely 
again  this  is  our  faith,  that  He  subsists  from 
no  other  source,  and  He  is  not  unlike  the 


*  Impiare  se  is  used  by  Plautus,  Rud.  1,  3,  8,  in  the  sense 
of  atrefieiv.  The  sentence  probably  refers  to  the  misuse  of  the 
word  o/ioou<rtos  by  Paul  of  Samosata. 


ON   THE   COUNCILS. 


27 


Father.  Is  not  the  meaning  here  of  the  word 
6i.ioov(rtov  that  the  Son  is  produced  of  the 
Father's  nature,  the  essence  of  the  Son  having 
no  other  origin,  and  that  both,  therefore,  have 
one  unvarying  essence  ?  As  the  Son's  essence 
has  no  other  origin,  we  may  rightly  believe 
that  both  are  of  one  essence,  since  the  Son 
could  be  born  with  no  substance  but  that 
derived  from  the  Father's  nature  which  was 
its  source. 

85.  But  perhaps  on  the  opposite  side  it  will 
be  said  that  it  ought  to  meet  with  disapproval, 
because  an  erroneous  interpretation  is  gener- 
ally put  upon  it.  If  such  is  our  fear,  we 
ought  to  erase  the  words  of  the  Apostle, 
There  is  one  Mediator  between  God  and  men, 
the  man  Christ  Jesus  3,  because  Photinus  uses 
this  to  support  his  heresy,  and  refuse  to  read 
it  because  he  interprets  it  mischievously.  And 
the  fire  or  the  sponge  should  annihilate  the 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  lest  Marcion  should 
read  again  in  it,  And  was  found  in  fashion  as 
a  man*,  and  say  Christ's  body  was  only  a 
phantasm  and  not  a  body.  Away  with  the 
Gospel  of  John,  lest  Sabellius  learn  from  it, 
/  and  the  Father  are  one  s.  Nor  must  those 
who  now  affirm  the  Son  to  be  a  creature  find 
it  written,  The  Father  is  greater  than  I6.  Nor 
must  those  who  wish  to  declare  that  the  Son 
is  unlike  the  Father  read  :  But  of  that  day  and 
hour  k?ioweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels  which 
are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  FatherT. 
We  must  dispense,  too,  with  the  books  of 
Moses,  lest  the  darkness  be  thought  coeval 
with  God  who  dwells  in  the  unborn  light, 
since  in  Genesis  the  day  began  to  be  after 
the  night ;  lest  the  years  of  Methuselah  extend 
later  than  the  date  of  the  deluge,  and  con- 
sequently more  than  eight  souls  were  saved  8 ; 
lest  God  hearing  the  cry  of  Sodom  when  the 
measure  of  its  sins  was  full  should  come  down 
as  though  ignorant  of  the  cry  to  see  if  the 
measure  of  its  sins  was  full  according  to  the 
cry,  and  be  found  to  be  ignorant  of  what  He 
knew  ;  lest  any  one  of  those  who  buried 
Moses  should  have  known  his  sepulchre  when 
he  was  buried ;  lest  these  passages,  as  the 
heretics  think,  should  prove  that  the  contra- 
dictions of  the  law  make  it  its  own  enemy. 
So  as  they  do  not  understand  them,  we  ought 
not  to  read  them.  And  though  I  should  not 
have  said  it  myself  unless  forced  by  the  argu- 


3  1  Tim.  ii.  5.  4  Phil.  ii.  7.  5  John  x.  30. 

6  lb.  xiv.  28.  7  Mark  xiii.  32. 

8  Methuselah's  age  was  a  favourite  problem  with  the  early 
Church.  See  Aug.  de  Civ.  Dei,  xv.  13,  and  de  fecc.  orig.  ii.  23, 
where  it  is  said  to  be  one  of  those  points  on  which  a  Christian  can 
afford  to  be  ignorant.  According  to  the  Septuagint,  Methuselah 
lived  for  fourteen  years  after  the  deluge,  so  that  more  than  '  eight 
souls '  survived,  and  1  Pet.  iii.  20,  appeared  to  be  incorrect.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Hebrew  and  Vulgate  there  is  no  difficulty,  as 
Methuselah  is  there  represented  as  dying  before  the  deluge. 


ment,  we  must,  if  it  seems  fit,  abolish  all  the 
divine  and  holy  Gospels  with  their  message  of 
our  salvation,  lest  their  statements  be  found 
inconsistent ;  lest  we  should  read  that  the 
Lord  who  was  to  send  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
Himself  born  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  lest  He 
who  was  to  threaten  death  by  the  sword  to 
those  who  should  take  the  sword,  should  before 
His  passion  command  that  a  sword  should  be 
brought ;  lest  He  who  was  about  to  descend 
into  hell  should  say  that  He  would  be  in  para- 
dise with  the  thief;  lest  finally  the  Apostles 
should  be  found  at  fault,  in  that  when  com- 
manded to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  Jesus  only.  I  speak  to 
you,  brethren,  to  you,  who  are  no  longer  nour- 
ished with  milk,  but  with  meat,  and  are  strong  9. 
Shall  we,  because  the  wise  men  of  the  world 
have  not  understood  these  things,  and  they 
are  foolish  unto  them,  be  wise  as  the  world  is 
wise  and  believe  these  things  foolish?  Because 
they  are  hidden  from  the  godless,  shall  we 
refuse  to  shine  with  the  truth  of  a  doctrine 
which  we  understand  ?  We  prejudice  the  cause 
of  divine  doctrines  when  we  think  that  they 
ought  not  to  exist,  because  some  do  not  regard 
them  as  holy.  If  so,  we  must  not  glory  in  the 
cross  of  Christ,  because  it  is  a  stumbling-block 
to  the  world  ;  and  we  must  not  preach  death 
in  connection  with  the  living  God,  lest  the 
godless  argue  that  God  is  dead. 

86.  Some  misunderstand  Sfioovaiov ;  does 
that  prevent  me  from  understanding  it  ?  The 
Samosatene  was  wrong  in  using  the  word 
ofxoovaiov ;  does  that  make  the  Arians  right  in 
denying  it?  Eighty  bishops  once  rejected  it; 
but  three  hundred  and  eighteen  recently  ac- 
cepted it.  And  for  my  own  part  I  think  the 
number  sacred,  for  with  such  a  number  Abra- 
ham overcame  the  wicked  kings,  and  was 
blessed  by  Him  who  is  a  type  of  the  eternal 
priesthood.  The  former  disapproved  of  it  to 
oppose  a  heretic :  the  latter  surely  approved 
of  it  to  oppose  a  heretic.  The  authority  of 
the  fathers  is  weighty,  is  the  sanctity  of  their 
successors  trivial  ?  If  their  opinions  were  con- 
tradictory, we  ought  to  decide  which  is  the 
better :  but  if  both  their  approval  and  dis- 
approval established  the  same  fact,  why  do  we 
carp  at  such  good  decisions  ? 

87.  But  perhaps  you  will  reply,  'Some  of 
those  who  were  then  present  at  Nicasa  have 
now  decreed  that  we  ought  to  keep  silence 
about  the  word  6/xoovcrtov.'  Against  my  will 
I  must  answer:  Do  not  the  very  same  men 
rule  that  we  must  keep  silence  about  the  word 
ofioiovaiov  ?    I  beseech  you  that  there  may  be 


9  Heb.  t.  is. 


28 


DE   SYNODIS. 


found  no  one  of  them  but  Hosius,  that  old 
man  who  loves  a  peaceful  grave  too  well,  who 
shall  be  found  to  think  that  we  ought  to  keep 
silence  about  both.  Amid  the  fury  of  the 
heretics  into  what  straits  shall  we  fall  at  last, 
if  while  we  do  not  accept  both,  we  keep 
neither?  For  there  seems  to  be  no  impiety 
in  saying  that  since  neither  is  found  in  Scrip- 
ture, we  ought  to  confess  neither  or  both. 

88.  Holy  brethren,  I  understand  by  6fxo- 
oiaiov  God  of  God,  not  of  an  essence  that 
is  unlike,  not  divided  but  born,  and  that  the 
Son  has  a  birth  which  is  unique,  of  the  sub- 
stance of  the  unborn  God,  that  He  is  begotten 
yet  co-eternal  and  wholly  like  the  Father.  I 
believed  this  before  I  knew  the  word  o^oova-iof, 
but  it  greatly  helped  my  belief.  Why  do  you 
condemn  my  faith  when  I  express  it  by  Spo- 
oiaiou  while  you  cannot  disapprove  it  when 
expressed  by  Sfioiovo-iov  ?  For  you  condemn  my 
faith,  or  rather  your  own,  when  you  condemn 
its  verbal  equivalent.  Do  others  misunder- 
stand it  ?  Let  us  join  in  condemning  the 
misunderstanding,  but  not  deprive  our  faith 
of  its  security.  Do  you  think  we  must  sub- 
scribe to  the  Samosatene  Council  to  prevent 
any  one  from  using  Sfioovaiov  in  the  sense  of 
Paul  of  Samosata?  Then  let  us  also  subscribe 
to  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  so  that  the  Arians 
may  not  impugn  the  word.  Have  we  to  fear 
that  6/jotrwioi/  does  not  imply  the  same  belief 
as  Sfxoovaiov  ?  Let  us  decree  that  there  is  no 
difference  between  being  of  one  or  of  a  similar 
substance.  The  word  otiooio-iou  can  be  under- 
stood in  a  wrong  sense.  Let  us  prove  that  it 
can  be  understood  in  a  very  good  sense.  We 
hold  one  and  the  same  sacred  truth.  I  beseech 
you  that  we  should  agree  that  this  truth,  which 
is  one  and  the  same,  should  be  regarded  as 
sacred.  Forgive  me,  brethren,  as  I  have  so 
often  asked  you  to  do.  You  are  not  Arians : 
why  should  you  be  thought  to  be  Arians  by 
denying  the  6iioovo-iov  ? 

89.  But  you  say :  '  The  ambiguity  of  the 
word  ofxaovaiov  troubles  and  offends  me.'  I  pray 
you  hear  me  again  and  be  not  offended.  I  am 
troubled  by  the  inadequacy  of  the  word  opoi- 
ovaiov.  Many  deceptions  come  from  similarity. 
I  distrust  vessels  plated  with  gold,  for  I 
may  be  deceived  by  the  metal  underneath : 
and  yet  that  which  is  seen  resembles  gold. 
I  distrust  anything  that  looks  like  milk,  lest 
that  which  is  offered  to  me  be  milk  but  not 
sheep's  milk :  for  cow's  milk  certainly  looks 
like  it.  Sheep's  milk  cannot  be  really  like 
sheep's  milk  unless  drawn  from  a  sheep. 
True  likeness  belongs  to  a  true  natural  con- 
nection. But  when  the  true  natural  connection 
exists,  the  opoovaiov  is  implied.  It  is  a  like- 
ness according  to  essence  when  one  piece  of 


metal  is  like  another  and  not  plated,  if  milk 
which  is  of  the  same  colour  as  other  milk 
is  not  different  in  taste.  Nothing  can  be  like 
gold  but  gold,  or  like  milk  that  did  not  belong 
to  that  species.  I  have  often  been  deceived 
by  the  colour  of  wine :  and  yet  by  tasting 
the  liquor  have  recognized  that  it  was  of 
another  kind.  I  have  seen  meat  look  like 
other  meat,  but  afterwards  the  flavour  has 
revealed  the  difference  to  me.  Yes,  I  fear  those 
resemblances  which  are  not  due  to  a  unity 
of  nature. 

90.  I  am  afraid,  brethren,  of  the  brood  of 
heresies  which  are  successively  produced  in 
the  East :  and  I  have  already  read  what  I  tell 
you  I  fear.  There  was  nothing  whatever  sus- 
picious in  the  document  which  some  of  you, 
with  the  assent  of  certain  Orientals,  took  on 
your  embassy  to  Sirmium  to  be  there  sub- 
scribed. But  some  misunderstanding  has  arisen 
in  reference  to  certain  statements  at  the  be- 
ginning which  I  believe  you,  my  holy  brethren, 
Basil,  Eustathius,  and  Eleusius,  omitted  to 
mention  lest  they  should  give  offence.  If  it 
was  right  to  draw  them  up,  it  was  wrong  to 
bury  them  in  silence.  But  if  they  are  now 
unmentioned  because  they  were  wrong  we 
must  beware  lest  they  should  be  repeated  at 
some  future  time.  Out  of  consideration  for 
you  I  have  hitherto  said  nothing  about  this: 
yet  you  know  as  well  as  I  do  that  this  creed 
was  not  identical  with  the  creed  of  Ancyra. 
I  am  not  talking  gossip  :  I  possess  a  copy  of 
the  creed,  and  I  did  not  get  it  from  laymen,  it 
was  given  me  by  bishops. 

91.  I  pray  you,  brethren,  remove  all  sus- 
picion and  leave  no  occasion  for  it.  To  ap- 
prove of  onoioiaiov,  we  need  not  disapprove  of 
ofioova-iov.  Let  us  think  of  the  many  holy 
prelates  now  at  rest :  what  judgment  will  the 
Lord  pronounce  upon  us  if  we  now  say  an- 
athema to  them  ?  What  will  be  our  case  if  we 
push  the  matter  so  far  as  to  deny  that  they 
were  bishops  and  so  deny  that  we  are  ourselves 
bishops?  We  were  ordained  by  them  and  are 
their  successors.  Let  us  renounce  our  epis- 
copate, if  we  took  its  office  from  men  under 
anathema.  Brethren,  forgive  my  anguish : 
it  is  an  impious  act  that  you  are  attempting. 
I  cannot  endure  to  hear  the  man  anathematized 
who  says  Sfioova-iov  and  says  it  in  the  right  sense. 
No  fault  can  be  found  with  a  word  which  does 
no  harm  to  the  meaning  of  religion.  I  do  not 
know  the  word  otioiovo-iov,  or  understand  it, 
unless  it  confesses  a  similarity  of  essence. 
I  call  the  God  of  heaven  and  earth  to  witness, 
that  when  I  had  heard  neither  word,  my  belief 
was  always  such  that  I  should  have  interpreted 
6fj.oiovcri.ov  by  o/ioovcrtov.  That  is,  I  believed  that 
nothing  could  be  similar  according  to  nature 


ON    THE   COUNCILS. 


29 


unless  it  was  of  the  same  nature.  Though  long 
ago  regenerate  in  baptism,  and  for  some  time 
a  bishop,  I  never  heard  of  the  Nicene  creed 
until  I  was  going  into  exile,  but  the  Gospels 
and  Epistles  suggested  to  me  the  meaning  of 
onoovoiov  and  6ii.oiovdi.ov.  Our  desire  is  sacred. 
Let  us  not  condemn  the  fathers,  let  us  not 
encourage  heretics,  lest  while  we  drive  one 
heresy  away,  we  nurture  another.  After  the 
Council  of  Nicaea  our  fathers  interpreted  the 
due  meaning  of  6fioovo-wv  with  scrupulous  care  ; 
the  books  are  extant,  the  facts  are  fresh  in 
men's  minds :  if  anything  has  to  be  added  to 
the  interpretation,  let  us  consult  together. 
Between  us  we  can  thoroughly  establish  the 
faith,  so  that  what  has  been  well  settled  need 
not  be  disturbed,  and  what  has  been  misunder- 
stood may  be  removed. 

92.  Beloved  brethren,  I  have  passed  beyond 
the  bounds  of  courtesy,  and  forgetting  my 
modesty  I  have  been  compelled  by  my  affec- 


tion for  you  to  write  thus  of  many  abstruse 
matters  which  until  this  our  age  were  un- 
attempted  and  left  in  silence.  I  have  spoken 
what  I  myself  believed,  conscious  that  I 
owed  it  as  my  soldier's  service  to  the  Church 
to  send  to  you  in  accordance  with  the 
teaching  of  the  Gospel  by  these  letters  the 
voice  of  the  office  which  I  hold  in  Christ. 
It  is  yours  to  discuss,  to  provide  and  to  act, 
that  the  inviolable  fidelity  in  which  you  stand 
you  may  still  keep  with  conscientious  hearts, 
and  that  you  may  continue  to  hold  what  you 
hold  now.  Remember  my  exile  in  your  holy 
prayers.  I  do  not  know,  now  that  I  have  thus 
expounded  the  faith,  whether  it  would  be  as 
sweet  to  return  unto  you  again  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  as  it  would  be  full  of  peace  to  die. 
That  our  God  and  Lord  may  keep  you  pure 
and  undefiled  unto  the  day  of  His  appearing 
is  my  desire,  dearest  brethren. 


INTRODUCTION    TO    THE 

DE    TRINITATE. 


Since  the  circumstances  in  which  the  De  Trinitate  was  written,  and  the  character  and 
object  of  the  work,  are  discussed  in  the  general  Introduction,  it  will  suffice  to  give  here 
a  brief  summary  of  its  contents,  adapted,  in  the  main,  from  the  Benedictine  edition. 

Book  I.  The  treatise  begins  with  St.  Hilary's  own  spiritual  history,  the  events  of  which 
are  displayed,  no  doubt,  more  logically  and  symmetrically  in  the  narrative  than  they  had 
occurred  in  the  writer's  experience.  He  tells  of  the  efforts  of  a  pure  and  noble  soul,  impeded, 
so  far  as  we  hear,  neither  by  unworthy  desires  nor  by  indifference,  to  find  an  adequate 
end  and  aim  of  life.  He  rises  first  to  the  conception  of  the  old  philosophers,  and  then 
by  successive  advances,  as  he  learns  more  and  more  of  the  Divine  revelation  in  Scripture, 
he  attains  the  object  of  his  search  in  the  apprehension  of  God  as  revealed  in  the  Catholic 
Faith.  But  this  happiness  is  not  the  result  of  a  mere  intellectual  knowledge,  but  of  belief 
as  well.  In  §§  i — 14  we  have  this  advance  from  ignorance  and  fear  to  knowledge  and  peace. 
And  here  he  might  have  rested,  had  he  not  been  charged  with  the  sacerdotal  (i.e.,  in  the 
language  of  that  time,  the  episcopal)  office,  which  laid  upon  him  the  duty  of  caring  for  the 
salvation  of  others.  And  such  care  was  needed,  for  (§§  15,  16)  heresies  were  abroad,  and 
chiefly  two;  the  Sabellian  which  said  that  Father  and  Son  were  mere  names  or  aspects 
of  one  Divine  Person,  and  therefore  there  had  been  no  true  birth  of  the  Son ;  and  the  Arian 
(which,  however,  Hilary  rarely  calls  by  the  name  of  its  advocate,  preferring  to  'style  it  the 
'new  heresy')  asserting  more  or  less  openly  that  the  Son  is  created  and  not  born,  and 
therefore  is  different  in  kind  from  the  Father,  and  not,  in  the  true  sense,  God.  Hilary 
declares  (§  17)  that  his  purpose  is  to  refute  these  heresies  and  to  demonstrate  the  true  faith 
by  the  evidence  of  Scripture.  He  demands  from  his  hearers  a  loyal  belief  in  the  Scriptures 
which  he  will  cite;  without  such  faith  his  arguments  will  not  profit  them  (§  18);  and  in  §  19 
he  warns  them  of  the  limits  of  the  argument  from  analogy,  which  he  must  employ,  inadequate 
as  it  is  in  respect  of  the  finite  illustrations  which  he  must  use  to  express  the  infinite.  Then 
in  §  20  he  speaks  with  a  modest  pride  of  his  careful  marshalling  of  the  arguments  which 
shall  lead  his  readers  to  the  right  conclusion,  and  in  §§  21 — 36  he  gives  a  summary  of  the 
contents  of  the  work.  He  concludes  the  first  Book  (§§  37,  38)  with  a  prayer  which  expresses 
his  certainty  that  what  he  holds  is  the  truth,  and  entreats  the  Father  and  the  Son  that 
he  may  have  the  eloquence  of  language  and  the  cogency  of  reasoning  needed  for  the  worthy 
presentation  of  the  truth  concerning  Them. 

Book  II.  He  begins  with  the  command  to  baptize  all  nations  (St.  Matt,  xxviii.  19) 
as  a  summary  of  the  faith ;  this  by  itself  would  suffice  were  not  explanations  rendered 
necessary  by  heretical  misrepresentations  of  its  meaning.  For  (§§  3,  4)  heresy  is  the  result 
of  Scripture  misunderstood ;  and  here  we  must  notice  that  Scripture  is  regarded  as  ground 
•common  to  both  sides.     All  accept  it  as  literally  true,  and  combine  its  texts  as  will  best 


12  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   DE   TRINITATE. 


serve  their  own  purposes.  Hilary,  regarding  all  heresies  as  one  combined  opposition  to 
the  truth,  makes  the  two  objections  that  their  arguments  are  mutually  destructive,  and  that 
they  are  modern.  Then  in  §  5  he  expresses  the  awe  with  which  he  approaches  the  subject. 
The  language  which  he  must  use  is  utterly  inadequate,  and  yet  he  is  compelled  to  use  it. 
In  §§  6j  7  ne  begins  with  the  notion  of  God  as  Father;  in  §§8 — 11  he  proceeds  to  that 
of  God  the  Son.  He  states  the  faith  as  it  must  be  believed;  it  is  not  enough  (§§  12,  13) 
to  accept  the  truth  of  Christ's  miracles.  The  mystery,  as  it  is  revealed  in  St.  John  i.  1 — 4, 
must  be  the  object  of  faith.  In  §§  14 — 21  he  expounds  this  passage  in  the  face  of  current 
objections,  and  then  triumphantly  asserts  that  all  the  efforts  of  heresy  are  vain  (§  22). 
He  advances  proof-texts  in  §  23  against  each  objector,  and  then  points  out  in  §§  24,  25 
our  indebtedness  to  the  infinite  Divine  condescension  thus  revealed.  For,  in  all  the 
humiliation  to  which  Christ  stooped  the  Divine  Majesty  was  still  inseparably  His,  and 
was  manifested  both  in  the  circumstances  of  His  birth  and  in  His  life  on  earth  (§§  26 — 28). 
The  book  concludes  (§§  29 — 35)  with  a  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as 
perfect  as  in  the  undeveloped  state  of  that  doctrine  was  possible. 

Book  III.  In  §§  1 — 4,  the  words,  /  in  the  Father  and  the  Father  in  Me,  are  taken 
as  typical.  Man  cannot  comprehend,  but  only  apprehend  them.  So  far  as  they  are 
explicable  Hilary  explains  them.  But  God's  self-revelation  is  always  mysterious.  The 
miracles  of  Christ  are  inexplicable  (§§  5 — 8) ;  this  is  God's  way,  and  meant  to  check  pre- 
sumption. Human  wisdom  is  limited,  and  when  it  passes  its  bounds,  and  invades  the  realm 
of  faith,  it  becomes  folly.  Next,  in  §§  9 — 17,  the  passage,  St.  John  xvii.  1  fif.,  is  explained 
as  proving  that  in  the  One  God  there  are  the  Persons  of  Father  and  of  Son,  and  as  revealing 
God  in  the  aspect  of  the  Father.  Then,  in  §§  18 — 21,  the  wonderful  deeds  of  Christ  are  put 
forth  as  an  evidence  of  His  wonderful  birth.  We  must  not  ask  how  He  can  be  coeternal 
with  the  Father,  for  it  is  in  vain  that  we  should  ask  how  He  could  pass  through  the  closed 
door.  Either  question  is  mere  presumption.  The  revelation  which  Christ  makes  (§§  22,  23) 
is  that  of  God  as  His  Father;  Uniim  sunt,  non  Unus.  And  finally,  in  §§  25,  26,  he  returns 
to  the  futility  of  reasoning.  True  wisdom  is  to  believe  where  we  cannot  comprehend; 
we  must  trifct  to  faith,  not  to  proof. 

Book  IV.  This  book  is  in  a  sense  the  beginning  of  the  treatise,  and  is  sometimes  cited 
later  on  as  the  first.  Its  three  predecessors,  he  says  in  §  1,  had  been  written  some  time 
before.  They  had  contained  a  statement  of  the  truth  concerning  the  Divinity  of  Christ* 
and  a  summary  refutation  of  the  various  heresies.  He  now  commences  his  main  attack 
upon  Arianism.  First  (§  2)  he  repeats  what  his  difficulty  is  ;  that  human  language  and 
thought  cannot  cope  with  the  Infinite.  Then  (§  3)  he  tells  how  the  Arians  explain  away 
the  eternal  Sonship  of  Christ.  As  a  defence  against  this  tampering  with  the  truth,  the 
Church  has  adopted  the  term  Homoousioti  (§§4 — 7);  Hilary  explains  and  defends  its  use. 
In  §  8  he  shews,  by  a  collection  of  the  passages  of  Scripture  which  they  wrest  to  their  own 
purposes,  that  such  a  definition  is  necessary,  and  in  §§9,  10  that  their  use  of  these  passages 
is  dishonest.  In  §  11  he  tells  us  exactly  what  the  Arian  teaching  is,  and  sets  it  forth  in  one 
of  their  own  formularies,  the  Epistola  Arii  ad  Alexandrum  (§§  12,  13).  In  §  14  this  doctrine 
is  denounced ;  it  does  not  explain,  but  explains  away.  The  proclamation  made  through 
Moses,  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  thy  God  is  One,  upon  which  the  Arians  take  their  stand, 
reveals  only  one  aspect  of  the  truth  (§  15).  It  does  not  exhaust  the  truth;  for  God  is. 
represented  as  not  one  solitary  Person  in  the  history  of  creation  (§§  16 — 22),  in  the  life 
of  Abraham  (§§  23 — 31),  and  in  that  of  Moses  (§§  32 — 34).  And  this  again  is  the  teaching, 
of  the  Prophets,  as  is  shewn  by  passages  selected  from  Isaiah,  Hosea,  and  Jeremiah  (§§  35 — \t\ 


INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   DE   TRINITATE.  33 


All  the  evidence  thus  collected  shews  that  in  the  Godhead  there  is  both  Father  and  Son, 
and  that  the  Son  is  God. 

Book  V.  Hilary  now  points  out  (§  1)  the  controversial  strength  of  the  Arian  position. 
If  he  is  silent  in  face  of  their  assertion,  they  will  claim  that  he  agrees  with  them  that  the  Son 
is  God  only  in  some  inferior  sense.  On  the  other  hand,  if  he  opposes  them,  he  will  seem 
to  be  contradicting  the  Mosaic  revelation  of  the  Divine  unity,  In  §  2  he  recapitulates  the 
argument  of  Book  IV.,  that  the  witness  of  Scripture  proves  that  God  is  not  a  solitary  Person  ; 
that,  as  he  says,  there  is  God  and  God.  But  the  Arians  had  a  further  loophole ;  their  creed 
asserted  (§  3)  one  true  God.  They  might  argue  that  Christ  is  indeed  God,  but  of  a  nature 
different  from  that  of  the  Father.  In  refutation  of  this  Hilary  goes  once  more  through 
the  history  of  creation  (§§  4 — 10),  proving  that  the  narrative  reveals  not  only  the  Son's  share 
in  that  work,  but  also  His  equality  and  oneness  of  nature  with  the  Father ;  in  other  words, 
that  He  is  not  only  God  but  true  God.  The  same  truth  is  demonstrated  from  the  life 
of  Abraham  (§§  11 — 16).  Moreover,  these  self-revelations  of  the  Son  (as  the  Angel,  on 
various  occasions)  are  anticipations  of  the  Incarnation.  He  was  first  seen  in  flesh,  afterwards 
born  in  flesh.  The  Arians  concentrate  their  attention  on  the  humble  conditions  of  Christ's 
human  life,  and  so,  from  want  of  a  comprehensive  view,  fail  to  discern  His  true  Godhead. 
But  Hilary  will  not  anticipate  the  evidence  of  the  Gospels  (§§  17,  18).  He  returns  to  the 
Old  Testament,  and  proves  his  point  from  Jacob's  visions  (§§  19,  20),  and  by  the  revelations 
made  to  Moses  (§§  21 — 23).  After  a  summary  and  an  enforcement  of  the  preceding  argu- 
ments (§§  24,  25),  he  proceeds  to  prove  from  certain  passages  of  Isaiah  that  the  Prophet 
recognised  the  Son  as  true  God  (§§  26 — 31),  and  that  St.  Paul  understood  him  in  that  sense 
(§§  32>  33)'  Then,  in  §§  34,  35,  the  result  which  has  been  attained  is  dwelt  upon.  Hilary 
shews  that  it  is  the  Arians  who  fail  to  recognise  the  one  true  God ;  for  Christ  is  true  God, 
yet  not  a  second  God.  Finally,  in  §§  36 — 39,  Moses,  Isaiah,  and  Jeremiah  are  adduced 
as  testifying  that  Christ  is  God  from  God,  and  God  in  God. 

Book  VI.  Hilary  begins  by  lamenting  the  wide  extension  of  Arianism ;  his  love  for 
souls  leads  him  to  combat  the  heresy,  whose  insidiousness  makes  it  the  more  dangerous 
(§§  ! — 4)-  He  repeats  in  §§  5,  6  the  same  Arian  creed  which  he  had  given  in  Book  IV. 
The  heretics  here  gain  the  appearance  of  orthodoxy  by  condemning  errors  inconsistent  with 
rheir  own ;  and  this  condemnation  is  designed  to  cast  upon  the  Catholic  faith  the  suspicion 
of  complicity  in  such  errors.  Hence  he  must  postpone  his  appeal  to  the  New  Testament 
*U1  he  has  examined  them  (§§  7,  8).  Accordingly  in  §§  9 — 12  he  explains  successively  the 
ioctrines  of  Valentinus,  Manichaeus,  Sabellius  and  Hieracas,  and  shews  that  the  Church 
rejects  them  all,  as  she  does  (§13)  the  doctrine  which  the  Arians  in  their  creed  have  falsely 
assigned  to  her.  Their  object  is  to  deny  that  the  Son  is  coeternal  with  the  Father  and  of  one 
substance  with  Him  (§§  14,  15);  but  this  denial  is  clean  contrary  to  Scripture,  which  it 
is  blasphemy  to  oppose  (§§  16,  17).  The  Arians  would  make  a  creature  of  Christ  (§  18), 
to  Whom,  in  §§  19 — 21,  Hilary  turns  with  an  impassioned  declaration  of  certainty  that 
He  is  very  God.  He  then  resumes  the  argument,  and  proves  that  Christ  is  Son  by  birth, 
not  by  adoption,  from  the  words  both  of  Father  and  of  Son  as  recorded  in  the  Gospel 
(§§  22 — 25).  This  is  confirmed  (§§  26,  27)  by  the  Gospel  account  of  His  acts,  which  are 
otherwise  inexplicable.  The  argument  is  clenched  by  a  discussion  of  St.  John  vii.  28,  29, 
and  viii.  42  (§§  28 — 31).  The  true  Sonship  of  Christ  is  further  proved  by  the  faith  of 
the  Apostles,  whose  certainty  increased  with  their  knowledge  (§§  31 — 35),  and  especially 
by  that  of  St.  Peter  (§§  36—38),  of  St.  John  (§§  39—43),  and  of  St  Paul  (§§  44,  45). 
To  reject  such  a  weight  of  testimony  is  to  prefer  Antichrist  to  Christ  (§  46).     And,  moreover, 

VOL.  IX.  D 


34  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE    DE   TRINITATE. 

we  have  the  witness  of  those  for  whom  He  wrought  miracles,  of  devils,  of  the  Jews,  of 
the  Apostles  in  peril  on  the  sea,  of  the  centurion  by  the  Cross,  that  Christ  is  truly  the 
Son  of  God  (§§  47 — 52). 

Book  VII.  The  Arians  are  adepts  at  concealing  their  meaning ;  at  the  use  of  Scripture 
terms  in  unscriptural  senses  (§  1).  They  have  already  been  refuted  by  the  proof  that  Christ 
is  the  true  and  coeternal  Son  ;  and  Hilary  now  advances  to  the  proof  of  the  true  Divinity 
of  Christ,  which  is  logically  inseparable  from  His  true  Sonship  (§  2).  But  the  danger  is  great 
lest,  in  attacking  one  heresy,  he  should  use  language  which  would  sanction  others  (§  3). 
Yet  the  truth  is  one,  while  heresies  are  manifold.  Each  of  them  can  be  trusted  to  demolish 
the  others,  while  none  can  establish  its  own  case.  He  illustrates  this  by  the  mutually  destruc- 
tive arguments  of  Sabellius,  Arius  and  Photinus  (§§  5 — 7).  Christ  is  proved  to  be  God  by  the 
name  God  which  is  given  Him  in  Scripture  :  The  Word  was  God  (§§  8,  9).  The  name  is  His 
in  the  strict  sense,  and  not  any  derivative  meaning  (§§  10,  11).  Yet  Father  and  Son  are  not 
two,  but  one  God  (§  13).  Being  the  Son  of  God,  He  has  the  nature  of  God,  and  therefore  is 
God  (§§  14 — 17),  and  yet  not  one  Person  with  the  Father  (§  18).  Again,  His  power,  manifested 
in  His  works,  proves  His  Godhead  (§  19),  as  does  the  fact  that  all  judgment  has  been  given 
Him  by  the  Father  (§  20).  Christ's  own  words  display  the  truth  (§  21).  The  Arians  are 
blind  to  the  plain  sense  of  Scripture,  and  are  more  blasphemous  than  the  Jews;  Christ's 
.eply  to  the  latter  meets  the  objections  of  the  former  (§§  22 — 24).  He  asserts  His  unity  with 
the  Father  (§  25),  and  makes  His  works  the  proof  (§  26).  The  Father  is  in  the  Son  and  the 
Son  is  in  the  Father  (§  27) :  this  is  illustrated  by  the  transmission  of  physical  properties  from 
parent  to  child  and  from  flame  to  flame  (§§  28 — 30).  In  fact,  the  Catholic  is  the  only 
rational  explanation  of  the  words  of  Scripture  (§§  31,  32).  Again  (§§  33 — 38),  the  way  to  the 
Father  is  through  the  Son,  and  knowledge  of  the  Son  is  knowledge  of  the  Father.  This 
would  be  impossible,  were  not  the  Son  God  in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  Father  is  God. 
Thus  the  contrary  doctrines  of  Sabellius  and  of  Arius  are  confuted  ;  there  is  neither  one 
Person,  nor  yet  two  Gods  (§§  39,  40).  Christ  calls  upon  us  to  believe  the  truth,  and  belief 
is  not  only  possible  but  reasonable  (§  41). 

Book  VIII.  Piety  is  necessary  in  a  Bishop,  but  he  needs  also  knowledge  and  dia- 
lectical skill  in  the  face  of  such  heresies  as  were  rampant  in  Hilary's  day;  for  the  heretics 
outdo  the  orthodox  in  zeal,  and  are  masters  in  the  art  of  devising  pitfalls  for  the  unwary 
reasoner  (§§  1 — 3).  He  maintains  (§  4)  that  hitherto  he  has  established  his  case;  and  now 
turns,  in  §  5,  to  the  Arian  interpretation  of  I  and  the  Father  are  One,  as  meaning  that  They 
are  one  in  will,  not  in  nature.  The  fallacy  of  this  is  shewn  by  a  comparison  of  the  unity 
of  Christians  in  Christ  (§§  7 — 9) ;  a  unity  which  is  confessedly  one  of  nature,  yet  is  not  more 
natural  than  that  of  Father  and  Son,  of  which  it  is  a  type  (§  ro).  And  indeed  the  words, 
/  and  the  Father  are  One,  are  ill-adapted  to  express  a  mere  harmony  of  will  (§  n).  This 
gift  of  unity  of  nature  could  not  be  given,  as  it  is,  through  the  Incarnation  and  the  Eucharist, 
to  Christians,  unless  the  Givers  Themselves  possessed  it ;  i.e.  unless  Father  and  Son  were 
One  God  (§§  12 — 14).  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  have  a  perfect  union,  through  the  mediation 
of  Christ,  with  the  Father ;  and  it  is  a  unity  of  nature,  a  permanent  abiding ;  an  assurance 
to  us  of  the  indwelling  of  Father  in  Son  and  Son  in  Father,  and  of  the  fact  that  Christ 
is  not  a  creature,  one  in  will  with  the  Father,  but  a  Son,  one  in  nature  with  Him  (§§  15 — 18). 
For,  again  (§§  19 — 21),  the  Mission  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  jointly  from  the  Father  and  the 
^on ;  He  is  called  sometimes  the  Spirit  of  the  Father,  sometimes  the  Spirit  of  the  Son, 
and  this  is  a  further  proof  of  the  unity  in  nature  of  Father  and  Son.  Hilary  now  enquires 
(§§  22 — 25)  into  the  senses  in  which  Scripture  speaks  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     Sometimes  this 


INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   DE   TRINITATE.  35 

litle  is  given  to  the  Father,  sometimes  to  the  Son,  in  both  cases  to  save  us  from  corporeal 
conceptions  of  God.  But  it  is  also  used,  in  the  strict  sense,  of  the  Paraclete,  as  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  Now  the  Divine  Spirit  dwells  in  Christians  ;  but  this  Spirit,  whether  styled 
the  Spirit  of  God,  or  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  or  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  proceeding  from  the  Father 
and  sent  by  the  Son,  is  only  one  Spirit.  Hence  the  Godhead  is  One,  and  the  nature  of  the 
Persons  within  that  Godhead  one  also  (§§  26,  27).  He  next  points  out  (§  28)  that  the  Arians 
are  inconsistent  in  worshipping  Christ,  and  yet  styling  Him  a  creature;  for  thus  they  fall 
under  the  curse  of  the  Law,  and  forfeit  the  Holy  Spirit  Again  (§§  29 — 34)  the  powers  and 
graces  bestowed  by  God  are  described  indiscriminately  as  gifts  of  one  or  another  Person 
in  the  Godhead.  The  Son,  therefore,  as  a  Giver,  must  be  one  with  the  Father,  Who  is 
also  a  Giver,  and  one  with  the  Spirit.  There  is  One  God  and  One  Lord  (§  35);  if  we  deny 
that  the  Son  is  God,  we  must  also  deny  that  the  Father  is  Lord;  which  is  absurd.  They  are 
One  God,  with  one  Spirit,  but  not  one  Person  (§  36).  St.  Paul  expressly  says  that  Christ 
is  God  over  all ;  an  expression  which  must,  like  all  the  Apostle's  teaching,  bear  the  Catholic 
sense,  and  is  incompatible  with  Arianism  (§§  37 — 39).  The  supporters  of  Arianism  are 
thus  alien  from  the  faith  (§  40).  After  a  restatement  of  the  truth  (§  41),  Hilary  proceeds 
to  deduce  the  Divine  nature  of  the  Son  from  the  fact  that  He  has  been  sealed  by  the  Father 
(§§  42 — 45).  This  sealing  makes  Him  the  Father's  counterpart,  Whose  Image  He  thus 
becomes,  though  in  the  form  of  a  servant.  If  He  were  thus  the  Image  of  God  after  His 
Incarnation,  how  much  more  before  that  condescension  (§  46).  In  §  47  he  again  denies 
that  this  teaching  reduces  the  Father  and  the  Son  to  one  Person ;  and  then  (§§  48 — 50) 
works  out  the  sense  in  which  Christ  is  the  Image  of  God.  It  means  that  They  are  of  one 
nature  and  of  one  power,  and  that  the  Son  is  the  Firstborn,  through  Whom  all  things  were 
created.  But  creation  and  also  reconciliation  is  the  joint  work  of  Father  and  Son  (§  51). 
Christ  could  not  have  stated  more  explicitly  than  He  has  done  His  unity  with  the  Father; 
the  recognition  of  this  truth  is  the  test  of  the  true  Church  (§  52).  Heresy  is  blind  to  the 
essential  difference  between  the  life-giving  Christ  and  the  created  universe,  which  owes 
its  life  to  Him  (§  53).  In  Him  dwells  the  whole  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily.  The  In- 
dweller  and  the  Indwelt  are  Both  Persons,  yet  are  One  God;  and  the  whole  Godhead  dwells 
in  Each  (§§  54-56). 

Book  IX.  After  a  summary  (§  1)  of  the  results  already  obtained,  Hilary  returns,  in  §  2, 
to  certain  of  the  Arian  proof-texts,  and  warns  his  readers  that  their  life  depends  on  the 
recognition  in  Christ  of  true  God  and  true  man,  for  it  is  this  twofold  nature  which  makes  Him 
the  Mediator  (§  3).  Universal  analogy  and  our  consciousness  of  the  capacity  to  rise  to  the  life 
in  God  convince  us  of  these  two  natures  in  Him,  Who  makes  this  rise  possible  (§  4).  But 
heresy  lays  hold  of  words  spoken  by  Christ  Incarnate,  appropriate  to  His  humility  as  Man, 
and  assigns  them  to  Him  in  His  previous  state ;  thus  they  make  Him  deny  His  true  Godhead. 
But  His  utterances  before  the  Incarnation,  during  His  life  on  earth,  and  after  His  return 
to  glory,  must  be  carefully  distinguished  (§§  5,  6).  Hilary  now  examines  the  aims  and 
achievements  of  Christ  Incarnate,  and  shews  that  His  work  for  men  was  a  Divine  work, 
accomplished  by  Him  for  us  only  because  He  was  throughout  both  God  and  Man,  the 
two  natures  in  Him  being  inseparable  (§§  7 — 14).  After  reaching  this  conclusion  from 
a  general  survey  of  Christ's  life  on  earth,  he  examines  in  the  light  of  it  the  Arian  arguments 
from  isolated  words.  They  assert  that  Christ  refused  to  be  called  Good  or  Master.  He 
refused  neither  title,  and  yet  declared  that  both  belong  to  God  only  (§§  15 — 18).  And, 
indeed,  He  could  not  have  associated  Himself  more  closely  than  He  did  with  the  Father, 
while  yet  He  kept  His  Person  distinct  (§  19).  The  Father  Himself  bears  witness  to  the  Son ; 
and  the  sin  and  loss  of  the  Jews  is  this,  that,  seeing  the  Father's  works  done  by  Christ, 

d  2 


36  INTRODUCTION    TO    THE    DE   TRINITATE. 

they  did  not  see  in  Him  the  Son  (§§  20,  21).  The  honour  and  glory  of  Christ  is  inseparable 
from  that  of  God  (§§  22,  23).  The  Scribe  did  well  to  confess  the  Divine  unity,  but  was 
still  outside  the  Kingdom  because  He  did  not  believe  in  Christ  as  God  (§§  24 — 27).  Next, 
the  Arian  argument  from  the  words,  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  may  know  Thee,  the  only  true 
God,  and  Jesus  Christ  Whom  Thou  hast  sent,  is  refuted  by  comparison  with  cognate  passages 
(§§  28 — 35).  For,  indeed,  if  the  Father  be  the  only  true  God,  the  Son  must  also  be  the 
only  true  God  (§  $6).  That  Divine  nature  which  is  common  to  Father  and  Son  is  subject  to 
no  limitations,  and  the  eternal  generation  can  be  illustrated  by  no  analogy  of  created  things 
(§  37)-  Christ  took  humanity,  and,  since  the  Father's  nature  did  not  share  in  this,  the 
unity  was  so  far  impaired.  But  humanity  has  been  raised  in  Christ  to  God ;  and  this 
could  only  be  because  His  unity  in  the  Divine  nature  with  the  Father  was  perfect. 
Otherwise  the  flesh  which  Christ  took  could  not  have  entered  into  the  Divine  glory  (§  38). 
There  is  but  one  glory  of  Father  and  of  Son ;  the  Son  sought  in  the  Incarnation  not 
glory  for  the  Word  but  for  the  flesh  (§§39,  40).  The  glory  of  Father  and  Son  is  one; 
in  that  unity  the  Son  bestows,  as  well  as  receives,  glory  (§§  41,  42),  and  this  glory,  common 
to  Both,  is  evidence  that  the  Divine  nature  also  is  common  to  Both  (§  42).  Again,  the 
Arians  allege  the  words,  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  Himself,  which  Hilary  shews,  by  an 
examination  of  the  context,  to  be  a  support  of  the  Catholic  cause  (§§  43 — 46).  The  Son 
does  the  Father's  work,  not  under  compulsion  as  an  inferior,  but  because  They  are  One. 
His  will  is  free,  yet  in  perfect  harmony  with  that  of  the  Father,  because  of  their  unity 
of  nature  (§§  47 — 50).  The  Arians  also  appeal  to  the  text,  The  Father  is  greater  than  I. 
The  Father  is,  in  fact,  greater,  first  as  being  the  Unbegotten,  and  secondly  inasmuch  as 
the  Son  has  condescended  to  the  state  of  man,  yet  without  forfeiting  His  Godhead  (§  51). 
But  He  is  not  greater  in  nature  than  the  Son,  Who  is  His  Image ;  or  rather,  the  Begetter 
is  the  greater,  while  the  Son,  as  the  Begotten,  is  not  less  than  He,  for,  although  begotten, 
He  had  no  beginning  of  existence  (§§  52 — 57).  Next,  the  allegation  of  ignorance,  based  on 
St.  Mark  xiii.  32,  and  therefore  of  difference  in  nature  from  God  Omniscient  is  refuted 
(§§  58 — 62),  both  by  express  statements  of  Scripture  and  by  a  consideration  of  the  Divine 
character.  It  is  only  in  figurative  senses  that  God  is  stated  in  the  Old  Testament  sometimes 
to  come  to  know,  sometimes  to  be  ignorant  of,  particular  facts  (§§  63,  64).  And  so  it  is 
with  Christ;  His  ignorance  is  but  a  wise  and  merciful  concealment  of  knowledge  (§§  65 — 67). 
Yet  the  Arians,  though  they  admit  that  Christ,  being  superior  to  man,  knows  all  the  secrets  of 
humanity,  assert  that  He  cannot  penetrate  the  mysteries  of  God  (§  68).  But  Christ  expressly 
declares  that  He  can  and  does,  for  Each  is  in  the  Other  and  is  mirrored  in  the  Other  (§  69). 
The  ignorance  can  be  nothing  but  concealment.  Only  the  Father  knows,  i.e.  He  has  told 
none  but  the  Son  ;  the  Son  does  not  know,  i.e.  He  wills  not  to  reveal  His  knowledge 
(§§  7°)  71)-  Cod  is  unlimited;  unlimited  therefore  in  knowledge.  The  nature  of  Father 
and  Son  being  one,  it  is  impossible  that  the  Son  should  be  ignorant  of  what  the  Father  knows. 
As  in  will,  so  in  knowledge,  They  are  One  (§§  72 — 74).  And  the  Apostles,  by  repeating 
their  question  after  the  Resurrection,  shew  that  they  were  aware  that  His  ignorance  meant 
reserve.  And  Christ  did  not,  this  time,  speak  of  ignorance,  though  He  withheld  the  knowledge 
which  they  asked  (§  75). 

Book  X.  Theological  differences  are  not  the  result  of  honest  reasoning,  but  of  reasoning 
distorted,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Arians,  by  preconceived  opinions,  whose  cause  is  sin  and  their 
result  hypocrisy  (§§  1 — 3).  Hilary  has  fallen  on  the  evil  times  foretold  by  the  Apostle ;  truth 
is  banished  and  so  is  he,  yet  his  sufferings  do  not  affect  his  joy  in  the  Lord  (§  4).  In  the 
preceding  books  he  has  stated  the  exact  truth,  of  which  he  now  gives  a  summary  (§§  5 — 8). 
But  the  further  objection  is  raised  that,  while  God  is  impassible,  Christ  in  His  Passion 
suffered  fear  and  pain  (§  9).     But  He  Who  taught  others  not  to  fear  death  could  not  fear 


INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   DE   TRINITATE.  37 

it  Himself  (§  10).     He  died  of  His  own  free  will,  knowing  that  in  three  days  His  Body  and 

Spirit  would  rise  again  (§§  n,  12).     Nor  did  He  fear  bodily  tortures,  for  pain  is  an  affection 

of  the  weak  human  soul,  which  inhabits  our  body,  and  is  not  felt  by  the  body  itself  (§§  13,  14). 

And,  although  the  Virgin  fulfilled  entirely  the  part  of  a  human  mother,  yet  the  Begetter  was 

Divine.     Christ,  when  He  took  the  form  of  a  servant,  remained  still  in  the  form  of  God,  and 

was  born  perfect  even  as  the  Begetter  was  perfect,  for  Mary  was  not  the  cause,  but  only  the 

means,  of  His  human  life  (§§  15,  16).     St.  Paul  draws  a  clear  distinction  between  the  First 

Man,  who  was  earthy,  and  the  Second  Man,  Who  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in 

Whom  what  is  Flesh,  in  one  aspect,  is  Bread  from  heaven  in  another  (§§   17,   18).     He  is 

therefore  perfect  Man  as  well  as  perfect  God,  and  did  not  inherit  the  flesh  or  the  soul  of 

Adam.     His  whole  human  nature  is  derived  from  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  Whom  the  Virgin 

conceived  (§§  19,  20).    Again  (§  21)  the  Arians  argue  that  the  Word  was  in  Jesus  in  the  same 

sense  in  which  the  Spirit  was  in  the  Prophets,  and  reproach  the  Catholics  with  denying  the 

true  humanity  of  Christ.     Hilary  replies  that  just  as  Christ  was  the  cause  of  the  birth  of  His 

own  human  Body,  so  He  was  the  Author  of  His  own  human  Soul :  for  no  soul  is  transmitted. 

Thus  His  human  nature  is  complete ;  He  has  taken  the  form  of  a  servant,  but  all  the  while 

He  is  in  the  form  of  God,  i.e.  He  Who  is  God  and  also  Man  is  one  Christ,  Who  was  born 

and  died  and  rose  (§  22).     In  all  this  He  endured  passion  but  not  pain,  even  as  air  or  water, 

if  pierced  by  a  blow,  is  unaffected  by  it.     The  blow  is  real,  and  the  Passion  was  real ;  but  it 

was  not  inflicted  on  our  limited  humanity  but  on  a  human  nature  which  could  walk  on  water 

and  pass  through  locked  doors  (§  23).     If  it  be  argued  that  He  wept,  hungered,  thirsted, 

Hilary  answers   that  He  could  wipe  away  tears  and   supply  needs,  and  therefore  was  not 

subject  to  them  ;  that  though  He  endured  them,  as  true  Man,  He  was  not  affected  by  them. 

Such  sufferings  are  habitual  with  men,  and  He  endured  them  to  shew  that  He  had  a  true 

Body  (§  24).     For  such  a  Body  He  had,  although  (since  He  was  not  conceived  in  sin)  one 

free  from  the  defects  of  our  bodies  ;  not  sinful  flesh,  but  only  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh.     For 

He  was  the  Word  made   Flesh,  and  continued  to  be  true  God  as  He  had  been  before 

(§§  25,  26).     The  Lord  of  glory  suffered  neither  fear  nor  pain  in  His  Passion,  as  is  shewn 

by  the  powers  which  He  exercised  on  the  verge  of  death  (§§  27,  28).     His  utterances  in  the 

Garden  and  on  the  Cross  are  not  evidences  of  pain  or  fear,  for  they  may  be  matched  by  lofty 

expressions  of  calmness  and  hope  (§§  29 — 32).     Thus  no  proof  of  fear  or  pain  or  weakness 

can  be  drawn  from  the  circumstances  of  the  Passion.     Nor  was  the  Cross  a  shame,  for  it  was 

His  road  from  humiliation  to  glory  (§  33),  nor  the  descent  to  hell  a  degradation,  for  all  the 

while  He  was  in  heaven.     How  different  the  faith  of  the  Thief  on  the  cross  to  that  of  the 

Arian!    (§  34).     The  argument  is  summed  up  in  §  35.     Next  the  Agony  is   considered. 

Christ  does  not  say  that  He  is  sorrowful  on  account  of  death,  but  unto  death.     It  is  anxiety 

on  the  Apostles'  account,  lest  their  faith  should  fail ;  a  fear  which  reached  to  His  death,  not 

beyond,  for  He  knew  that  after  His  death  His  glory  would  revive  their  faith.     This  was  the 

fear  in  which  He  was  comforted  by  the  Angel ;  for  Himself  He  was  fearless,  being  conscious 

of  His  Godhead  (§§  36—43).     He  was  free  from  pain  and  fear,  for  it  is  the  sinful  body  which 

transmits  these  affections  to  the  soul.     Yet  even  human  bodies  rise  sometimes  superior  to 

them,  e.g.  Daniel  and  other  heroes  of  faith  :    how  much  more  Christ  (§§  44—46).     In  the 

same  way  we  must  understand  His  bearing  our  suffering  and  our  sin  (§  47),  for,  as  St.  Paul 

says,  His  Passion  was  itself  a  triumph  (§  48).     The  complaint  that  He  was  forsaken  by  the 

Father  is  similarly  explained  (§  49).     The  purpose  of  the  Arian  arguments  is  to  displace  the 

truth  of  Christ  as  very  God  and  very  man  in  favour  of  one  or  other  heretical  hypothesis,  all  of 

which  the  Church  rejects  (§§  50—52).     Our  reason  must  recognise  its  limitations  and  be 

content  to  believe,  without  understanding,  apparently  contradictory  truths  (§§  53,  54).     Christ 

weeping  over  Jerusalem  and  at  the  grave  of  Lazarus  is  equally  inexplicable,  yet  certain 


38  INTRODUCTION    TO    THE    DE    TRINITATE. 

(§§  55>  56).  His  laying  down  and  taking  again  His  life  is  accounted  for  by  the  two  natures 
inseparably  united  in  one  Person  (§§  57 — 62).  After  a  short  summary  (§  63)  he  returns  to  the 
union  of  two  natures,  which  is  the  stumbling-block  of  worldly  wisdom  (§  64),  and  shews  it  to 
be  the  only  reasonable  explanation  of  the  facts  (§§  65,  66).  As  St.  Paul  says,  our  belief  must 
be  according  to  the  Scriptures ;  the  necessity  and  the  rewards  of  faith  (§§  67 — 70).  The 
seeming  infirmity  of  Christ  was  assumed  for  our  instruction  and  for  our  salvation. 

Book  XI.  The  Faith  is  one,  even  as  God  is  One ;  but  the  faiths  of  heretics  are  many 
(§§  x»  2)-  Hilary  has  now  demonstrated  the  truth  about  Christ,  so  that  it  cannot  be  denied; 
it  is  attested  also  by  miracles  even  in  his  own  day  (§  3).  The  Arians  preach  another, 
a  created  Christ;  and  in  making  Christ  a  creature  they  proclaim  another  God,  not  a  Father 
but  a  Creator  (§  4).  The  Son,  as  the  Image,  is  of  one  nature  with  the  Father;  if  He 
is  inferior  He  is  not  the  Image  (§  5).  But  the  Arians  explain  the  oneness  away  by  arguments 
from  His  condescension  to  our  estate  (§  6),  and,  even  after  His  Resurrection,  plead  that 
He  confesses  His  inequality.  They  argue  thus  from  1  Cor.  xv.  24 — 28,  a  passage  to  which 
the  rest  of  this  book  is  devoted  (§§  7,  8).  But  we  must  recognise  the  mysteriousness  of 
the  truth,  accepting  the  two  sides  of  it,  both  clearly  revealed  though  we  cannot  reconcile 
them  (§  9).  They  regard  only  one  aspect;  Hilary  in  reply  proves  once  more  that  Christ 
is  both  born  from  God,  and  Himself  God  (§§  10 — 12).  But  at  His  Incarnation  He  began 
to  have  as  Lord  the  God  Who  had  been  His  Father  eternally  (§  13),  and  when  He  said  that 
He  was  ascending  to  His  God,  He  spoke  as  when  He  calls  us  His  brethren  (§§  14,  15). 
Thus  there  are  two  senses  in  which  God  is  the  Father  of  Christ ;  and  He  Who  is  Father 
to  Christ  the  Son  is  Lord  to  Christ  the  Servant  (§§  16,  17).  And  it  was  to  Him  as  Servant 
that  the  Psalmist  said,  Thy  God  hath  anointed  Thee;  the  words  would  have  no  meaning 
if  addressed  to  Him  as  Son  (§§  18,  19).  It  is  through  this  lower  nature  that  He  is  our 
Brother  and  God  our  Father,  and  He  the  Mediator  (§  20).  But  it  is  argued  that  His  subjec- 
tion at  the  last  and  the  delivery  of  the  kingdom  to  the  Father  is  a  proof  of  inequality.  The 
passage  must  be  taken  as  a  whole  (§§  21,  22).  There  are  some  truths  which  it  is  difficult 
for  man  to  grasp,  and  if  we  misunderstand  them  we  must  not  be  ashamed  to  confess  our  error 
(§§  23»  24)-  In  tnis  passage  the  Arians  aid  their  case  by  changing  the  order  of  the  prophecy 
(§§  25 — 27)-  The  end  means  a  final  and  enduring  state,  not  the  coming  to  an  end  (§  28),  and 
though  He  delivers  up  the  kingdom  He  does  not  cease  to  reign  (§  29).  His  subjection 
to  the  Father  and  the  subjection  of  all  things  to  Him  is  next  considered  ;  in  one  sense 
it  is  figurative  language,  in  another  it  proves  the  unity  of  Father  and  Son.  The  subjection 
of  the  Son  means  His  partaking  in  the  glory  of  the  Father  (§§  30 — 36).  The  Transfiguration 
shews  the  glory  of  Christ's  Body;  a  glory  which  the  faithful  shall  share  (§§  37,  38).  The 
righteous  are  His  kingdom,  which  He,  as  Man,  shall  deliver  to  the  Father,  for  By  man  came 
also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  (§  39).  And  at  last  God  shall  be  all  in  all,  humanity  in  Christ 
not  being  discarded,  but  glorified  and  received  into  the  Godhead  (§  40).  Christ,  as  well 
as  St.  Paul,  has  foretold  this  (§§41,  42).  The  Arian  misrepresentation  of  this  truth  is  mere 
folly  (§  43).  Any  rational  explanation  must  assume  that  God's  majesty  cannot  be  augmented, 
even  as  it  cannot  be  measured  (§§  44,  45),  while  our  reason  is  limited,  and  so  contrasted 
with  the  Divine  infinity.  God  cannot  become  greater  than  He  was  in  becoming  All 
in  all.  Father  and  Son,  after  as  before,  must  Each  be  as  He  was  (§§  46 — 48).  All 
was  done  for  us  that  we  might  be  glorified,  being  conformed  to  the  likeness  of  Him 
Who  is  the  Image  of  the  Father  (§  49). 

Book  XII.     Hilary  gives  a  final  explanation  of  the  great  Arian  text,  The  Lord  created 
me  for  a  beginning  of  His  ways  ;  the  words  must  not  be  taken  literally.     Christ  is  not  created, 


INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    DE   TRINITATE.  39 

but  Creator  (§§  t — '5).  If  He  is  a  creature,  the  Father  also  is  a  creature,  for  They  are  One 
in  nature  and  in  honour  (§§  6,  7).  The  similar  passage,  /  begat  Thee  from  the  womb,  is 
figurative;  elsewhere  God's  Hands  and  Eyes  are  spoken  of.  The  sense  is  that  the  Son 
is  God  from  God  (§§  8 — 10).  Nor  was  Christ  made;  He  is  the  Son,  not  the  handiwork, 
of  the  Father  (§§  it,  12).  And  His  Sonship  is  immediate,  not  derivative  like  ours,  or  like 
that  of  Israel  His  firstborn.  This  latter  kind  of  sonship  has  a  definite  beginning  of  existence, 
and  an  origin  out  of  nothing  (§§  13 — 16).  The  Arian  arguments  fail  to  prove  that  the  Sonship 
of  Christ  has  either  of  these  characters  (§§  17,  18).  Truth  is  to  be  attained  not  by  self- 
confident  arguing  but  by  faith  (§  19),  yet  it  is  not  enough  for  us  to  avoid  their  reasonings; 
we  must  overthrow  them  (§  20).  The  Son  was  born  from  eternity,  being  the  Son  of  the 
eternal  Father  (§  21).  The  objection  that  sonship  involves  beginning  does  not  hold  in  His 
case  (§§22,23).  The  Son  has  all  that  the  Father  has;  He  has  therefore  eternity  and 
an  unconditioned  existence  (§  24).  He  is  from  the  Eternal,  and  therefore  eternal  Himself; 
from  the  Eternal,  and  therefore  not  from  nothing.  Reason  cannot  grasp,  and  therefore 
cannot  refute,  this.  We  must  not  assert  that  there  was  a  time  before  He  was  born,  a  time 
when  He  was  not  (§§25 — 27).  We  must  not  argue,  from  the  analogy  of  our  own  birth, 
that  the  truth  is  impossible  (§  28),  nor  that,  because  of  His  eternal  existence,  the  Son  was 
not  born  (§§  29 — 32).  Again,  the  Arians  deny  the  eternal  Fatherhood  of  God;  He  always 
existed,  they  say,  but  was  not  always  the  Father.  This  contradicts  Scripture  (§§  33,  34). 
They  argue  that  Wisdom  is  said  to  be  the  first  of  God's  creatures;  but  creation,  in  this  sense, 
is  a  synonym  for  generation,  and  Wisdom  was  antecedent  to  creation  (§§  35 — 38).  Wisdom 
is  coeternal  with  God  (§  39),  and  shared  His  eternal  purpose  of  creation  (§§  40,  41).  Nor 
may  we  believe  that  Christ  was  begotten  simply  in  order  to  perform  the  creative  work,  as 
God's  Minister,  for  Wisdom  took  part  in  the  design  as  well  as  in  the  execution  (§§  42,  43). 
And  again,  Wisdom  is  spoken  of  as  created,  as  an  indication  of  Her  control  over  created 
things  (§  44).  The  creation  to  be  a  beginning  of  God's  ways  is  a  separate  event  from  the 
eternal  generation.  It  means  that  Christ,  as  the  Way  of  Life,  under  the  Old  Covenant  took 
the  semblance,  under  the  New  Covenant  the  substance,  of  the  creature  man,  to  lead  us 
into  the  way.  The  two  senses  must  not  be  confused  (§§  45 — 49).  Yet  mere  inaccuracy 
of  speech,  without  heretical  intent,  is  not  unpardonable  (§  50).  After  a  final  assertion  (§  51) 
of  faith  in  Christ  as  God  from  God,  the  eternal  Son,  Hilary  appeals  to  the  Almighty  Father, 
declaring  his  creed,  his  consciousness  of  human  infirmity  and  of  the  need  of  faith  (§§  52,  53). 
The  Son  is  the  Only-begotten  of  God,  the  Second  because  He  is  the  Son  (§  54).  The  Holy 
Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  is  sent  by  the  Son.  He  also  is  no  creature,  but  of  one 
nature  with  the  God  Whose  mysteries  He  knows,  and  ineffable  like  Him  Whose  Spirit 
He  is  (§  55).  Finally,  Hilary  prays  that,  as  he  was  baptized,  so  he  may  remain  in  the  faith 
of  Three  Persons  in  One  God. 


ON    THE    TRINITY. 


BOOK    I. 


i.  When  I  was  seeking  an  employment 
adequate  to  the  powers  of  human  life  and 
righteous  in  itself,  whether  prompted  by 
nature  or  suggested  by  the  researches  of  the 
wise,  whereby  I  might  attain  to  some  result 
worthy  of  that  Divine  gift  of  understanding 
which  has  been  given  us,  many  things  occurred 
to  me  which  in  general  esteem  were  thought 
to  render  life  both  useful  and  desirable.  And 
especially  that  which  now,  as  always  in  the 
past,  is  regarded  as  most  to  be  desired,  leisure 
combined  with  wealth,  came  before  my  mind. 
The  one  without  the  other  seemed  rather 
a  source  of  evil  than  an  opportunity  for  good, 
for  leisure  in  poverty  is  felt  to  be  almost  an 
exile  from  life  itself,  while  wealth  possessed 
amid  anxiety  is  in  itself  an  affliction,  rendered 
the  worse  by  the  deeper  humiliation  which  he 
must  suffer  who  loses,  after  possessing,  the 
things  that  most  are  wished  and  sought.  And 
yet,  though  these  two  embrace  the  highest  and 
best  of  the  luxuries  of  life,  they  seem  not  far 
removed  from  the  normal  pleasures  of  the 
beasts  which,  as  they  roam  through  shady 
places  rich  in  herbage,  enjoy  at  once  their 
safety  from  toil  and  the  abundance  of  their 
food.  For  if  this  be  regarded  as  the  best  and 
most  perfect  conduct  of  the  life  of  man, 
it  results  that  one  object  is  common,  though 
the  range  of  feelings  differ,  to  us  and  the 
whole  unreasoning  animal  world,  since  all  of 
them,  in  that  bounteous  provision  and  abso- 
lute leisure  which  nature  bestows,  have  full 
scope  for  enjoyment  without  anxiety  for  pos- 
session. 

2.  I  believe  that  the  mass  of  mankind  have 
spurned  from  themselves  and  censured  in 
others  this  acquiescence  in  a  thoughtless,  ani- 
mal life,  for  no  other  reason  than  that  nature 
herself  has  taught  them  that  it  is  unworthy  of 
humanity  to  hold  themselves  born  only  to 
gratify  their  greed  and  their  sloth,  and  ushered 
into  life  for  no  high  aim  of  glorious  deed  or 
fair  accomplishment,  and  that  this  very  life 
was  granted  without   the   power   of  progress 


towards  immortality;  a  life,  indeed,  which 
then  we  should  confidently  assert  did  not 
deserve  to  be  regarded  as  a  gift  of  God,  since, 
racked  by  pain  and  laden  with  trouble,  it 
wastes  itself  upon  itself  from  the  blank  mind 
of  infancy  to  the  wanderings  of  age.  I  believe 
that  men,  prompted  by  nature  herself,  have 
raised  themselves  through  teaching  and  prac- 
tice to  the  virtues  which  we  name  patience 
and  temperance  and  forbearance,  under  the 
conviction  that  right  living  means  right  action 
and  right  thought,  and  that  Immortal  God  has 
not  given  life  only  to  end  in  death  ;  for  none 
can  believe  that  the  Giver  of  good  has  be- 
stowed the  pleasant  sense  of  life  in  order  that 
it  may  be  overcast  by  the  gloomy  fear  of  dying. 

3.  And  yet,  though  I  could  not  tax  with 
folly  and  uselessness  this  counsel  of  theirs  to 
keep  the  soul  free  from  blame,  and  evade  by 
foresight  or  elude  by  skill  or  endure  with 
patience  the  troubles  of  life,  still  I  could  not 
regard  these  men  as  guides  competent  to  lead 
me  to  the  good  and  happy  Life.  Their 
precepts  were  platitudes,  on  the  mere  level  of 
human  impulse ;  animal  instinct  could  not  fail 
to  comprehend  them,  and  he  who  understood 
but  disobeyed  would  have  fallen  into  an 
insanity  baser  than  animal  unreason.  More- 
over, my  soul  was  eager  not  merely  to  do  the 
things,  neglect  of  which  brings  shame  and 
suffering,  but  to  know  the  God  and  Father 
Who  had  given  this  great  gift,  to  Whom,  it  felt, 
it  owed  its  whole  self,  Whose  service  was  its 
true  honour,  on  Whom  all  its  hopes  were  fixed, 
in  Whose  lovingkindness,  as  in  a  safe  home 
and  haven,  it  could  rest  amid  all  the  troubles 
of  this  anxious  life.  It  was  inflamed  with 
a  passionate  desire  to  apprehend  Him  or  to 
know  Him. 

4.  Some  of  these  teachers  brought  forward 
large  households  of  dubious  deities,  and  under 
the  persuasion  that  there  is  a  sexual  activity  in 
divine  beings  narrated  births  and  lineages  from 
god  to  god.  Others  asserted  that  there  were 
gods  greater  and   less,  of  distinction  propor- 


ON    THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK    I. 


4i 


donate  to  their  power.  Some  denied  the 
existence  of  any  gods  whatever,  and  confined 
their  reverence  to  a  nature  which,  in  their 
opinion,  owes  its  being  to  chance-led  vibrations 
and  collisions.  On  the  other  hand,  many 
followed  the  common  belief  in  asserting  the 
existence  of  a  God,  but  proclaimed  Him 
heedless  and  indifferent  to  the  affairs  of  men. 
Again,  some  worshipped  in  the  elements  of 
earth  and  air  the  actual  bodily  and  visible 
forms  of  created  things ;  and,  finally,  some 
made  their  gods  dwell  within  images  of  men 
or  of  beasts,  tame  or  wild,  of  birds  or  of 
snakes,  and  confined  the  Lord  of  the  universe 
and  Father  of  infinity  within  these  narrow 
prisons  of  metal  or  stone  or  wood.  These, 
I  was  sure,  could  be  no  exponents  of  truth,  for 
though  they  were  at  one  in  the  absurdity,  the 
foulness,  the  impiety  of  their  observances,  they 
were  at  variance  concerning  the  essential 
articles  of  their  senseless  belief.  My  soul 
was  distracted  amid  all  these  claims,  yet  still  it 
pressed  along  that  profitable  road  which  leads 
inevitably  to  the  true  knowledge  of  God.  It 
could  not  hold  that  neglect  of  a  world  created 
by  Himself  was  worthily  to  be  attributed  to 
God,  or  that  deities  endowed  with  sex,  and 
lines  of  begetters  and  begotten,  were  com- 
patible with  the  pure  and  mighty  nature  of  the 
Godhead.  Nay,  rather,  it  was  sure  that  that 
which  is  Divine  and  eternal  must  be  one 
without  distinction  of  sex,  .for  that  which  is 
self-existent  cannot  have  left  outside  itself 
anything  superior  to  itself.  Hence  omni- 
potence and  eternity  are  the  possession  of  One 
only,  for  omnipotence  is  incapable  of  degrees 
of  strength  or  weakness,  and  eternity  of  priority 
or  succession.  In  God  we  must  worship 
absolute  eternity  and  absolute  power. 

5.  While  my  mind  was  dwelling  on  these 
and  on  many  like  thoughts,  I  chanced  upon 
the  books  which,  according  to  the  tradition  of 
the  Hebrew  faith,  were  written  by  Moses  and 
the  prophets,  and  found  in  them  words  spoken 
by  God  the  Creator  testifying  of  Himself 
'  I  am  that  I  am,  and  again,  He  that  is 
hath  sent  vie  unto  you'1.'  I  confess  that  I  was 
amazed  to  find  in  them  an  indication  concern- 
ing God  so  exact  that  it  expressed  in  the  terms  \ 
best  adapted  to  human  understanding  an 
unattainable  insight  into  the  mystery  of  the 
Divine  nature.  For  no  property  of  God  which 
the  mind  can  gr-sp  is  more  characteristic  of 
Him  than  existence,  since  existence,  in  the 
absolute  sense,  cannot  be  predicated  of  that 
which  shall  come  to  an  end,  or  of  that  which 
has  had  a  beginning,  and  He  who  now  joins 


continuity  of  being  with  the  possession  of 
perfect  felicity  could  not  in  the  past,  nor  can 
in  the  future,  be  non-existent ;  for  whatsoever 
is  Divine  can  neither  be  originated  nor  de- 
stroyed. Wherefore,  since  God's  eternity  is 
inseparable  from  Himself,  it  was  worthy  of 
Him  to  reveal  this  one  thing,  that  He  is,  as 
the  assurance  of  His  absolute  eternity. 

6.  For  such  an  indication  of  God's  in- 
finity the  words  '  I  am  that  I  am  '  were 
clearly  adequate ;  but,  in  addition,  we  needed 
to  apprehend  the  operation  of  His  majesty 
and  power.  For  while  absolute  existence 
is  peculiar  to  Him  Who,  abiding  eternally, 
had  no  beginning  in  a  past  however  re- 
mote, we  hear  again  an  utterance  worthy  of 
Himself  issuing  from  the  eternal  and  Holy 
God,  Who  says,  Who  holdeth  the  heaveti  in  Mis 
palm  and  the  earth  in  His  hand2,  and  again, 
The  heaven  is  My  throne  and  the  earth  is  the 
footstool  of  My  feet.  What  house  will  ye  build 
Me  or  what  shall  be  the  place  of  My  rest  3  ? 
The  whole  heaven  is  held  in  the  palm  of  God, 
the  whole  earth  grasped  in  His  hand.  Now 
the  word  of  God,  profitable  as  it  is  to  the  cur- 
sory thought  of  a  pious  mind,  reveals  a  deeper 
meaning  to  the  patient  student  than  to  the 
momentary  hearer.  For  this  heaven  which  is 
held  in  the  palm  of  God  is  also  His  throne, 
and  the  earth  which  is  grasped  in  His  hand  is 
also  the  footstool  beneath  His  feet.  This  was 
not  written  that  from  throne  and  footstool, 
metaphors  drawn  from  the  posture  of  one 
sitting,  we  should  conclude  that  He  has  exten- 
sion in  space,  as  of  a  body,  for  that  which  is 
His  throne  and  footstool  is  also  held  in  hand 
and  palm  by  that  infinite  Omnipotence.  It 
was  written  that  in  all  born  and  created  thinsrs 
God  might  be  known  within  them  and  without, 
overshadowing  and  indwelling,  surrounding  all 
and  interfused  through  all,  since  palm  and 
hand,  which  hold,  reveal  the  might  of  His  ex- 
ternal control,  while  throne  and  footstool,  by 
their  support  of  a  sitter,  display  the  sub- 
servience of  outward  things  to  One  within  Who, 
Himself  outside  them,  encloses  all  in  His  grasp, 
yet  dwells  within  the  external  world  which  is 
His  own.  In  this  wise  does  God,  from  within 
and  from  without,  control  and  correspond  to 
the  universe  ;  being  infinite  He  is  present  in 
all  things,  in  Him  Who  is  infinite  all  are 
included.  In  devout  thoughts  such  as  these 
my  soul,  engrossed  in  the  pursuit  of  truth,  took 
its  delight.  For  it  seemed  that  the  greatness 
of  God  so  far  surpassed  the  mental  powers  of 
His  handiwork,  that  however  fa*  the  limited 
mind  of  man  might  strain  in  the  hazardous 


1  Exod.  iii.  14. 


2  Isai.  xl.  12. 


3  lb.  lxvi.  1,  2. 


42 


DE  TRINITATE. 


effort  to  define  Him,  the  gap  was  not  lessened 
between  the  finite  nature  which  struggled  and 
the  boundless  infinity  that  lay  beyond  its  ken4. 
I  had  come  by  reverent  reflection  on  my  own 
part  to  understand  this,  but  I  found  it  confirmed 
by  the  words  of  the  prophet,  Whither  shall 
I  go  from  Thy  Spirit?  Or  whither  shall  I  flee 
from  Thy  face  1  If  I  ascend  up  into  heaven, 
Thou  art  there  ;  if  I  go  down  into  hell,  Thou 
art  there  also  ;  if  I  have  taken  my  wings  before 
dawn  and  made  my  dwelling  in  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  sea  (Thou  art  there).  For  thither 
Thy  hand  shall  guide  me  and  Thy  right  hand 
shall  hold  me s.  There  is  no  space  where  God 
is  not ;  space  does  not  exist  apart  from  Him. 
He  is  in  heaven,  in  hell,  beyond  the  seas ; 
dwelling  in  all  things  and  enveloping  all.  Thus 
He  embraces,  and  is  embraced  by,  the  universe, 
confined  to  no  part  of  it  but  pervading  all. 

7.  Therefore,  although  my  soul  drew  joy 
from  the  apprehension  of  this  august  and 
unfathomable  Mind,  because  it  could  worship 
as  its  own  Father  and  Creator  so  limitless  an 
Infinity,  yet  with  a  still  more  eager  desire  it 
sought  to  know  the  true  aspect  of  its  infinite 
and  eternal  Lord,  that  it  might  be  able  to 
believe  that  that  immeasurable  Deity  was 
apparelled  in  splendour  befitting  tbe  beauty 
of  His  wisdom.  Then,  while  the  devout  soul 
was  baffled  and  astray  through  its  own  feeble- 
ness, it  caught  from  the  prophet's  voice  this 
scale  of  comparison  for  God,  admirably  ex- 
pressed, By  the  greatness  of  His  works  and 
the  beauty  of  the  things  that  He  hath  made  the 
Creator  of  worlds  is  rightly  discerned**-.  The 
Creator  of  great  things  is  supreme  in  greatness, 
of  beautiful  things  in  beauty.  Since  the  work 
transcends  our  thoughts,  all  thought  must  be 
transcended  .by  the  Maker.  Thus  heaven  and 
air  and  earth  and  seas  are  fair :  fair  also  the 
whole  universe,  as  the  Greeks  agree,  who  from 
its  beautiful  ordering  call  it  Koafios,  that  is, 
order.  But  if  our  thought  can  estimate  this 
beauty  of  the  universe  by  a  natural  instinct — an 
instinct  such  as  we  see  in  certain  birds  and 
beasts  whose  voice,  though  it  fall  below  the  level 
of  our  understanding,  yet  has  a  sense  clear  to 
them  though  they  cannot  utter  it,  and  in  which, 
since  all  speech  is  the  expression  of  some 
thought,  there  lies  a  meaning  patent  to  them- 
selves— must  not  the  Lord  of  this  universal 
beauty  be  recognised  as  Himself  most  beau- 
tiful amid  all  the  beauty  that  surrounds  Him  ? 
For  though  the  splendour  of  His  eternal  glory 
overtax  our  mind's  best  powers,  it  cannot  fail 
to  see  that  He  is  beautiful.     We  must  in  truth 


4  Reading  mensjinita  and  naturcr  jinitattm  for  the  infinita 
and  infinitatem  of  the  lienedictine  Editi«n. 

5  l's.  exxxviii.  (cxxxix.)7 — 10. 
5»  Wisd.  xiii.  5. 


confess  that  God  is  most  beautiful,  and  that  with 
a  beauty  which,  though  it  transcend  our  com- 
prehension, forces  itself  upon  our  perception. 

8.  Thus  my  mind,  full  of  these  results  which 
by  its  own  reflection  and  the  teaching  of  Scrip- 
ture it  had  attained,  rested  with  assurance,  as 
on  some  peaceful  watch-tower,  upon  that  glori- 
ous conclusion,  recognising  that  its  true  nature 
made  it  capable  of  one  homage  to  its  Creator, 
and  of  none  other,  whether  greater  or  less ; 
the  homage  namely  of  conviction  that  His  is 
a  greatness  too  vast  for  our  comprehension  but 
not  for  our  faith.  For  a  reasonable  faith  is 
akin  to  reason  and  accepts  its  aid,  even  though 
that  same  reason  cannot  cope  with  the  vast- 
ness  of  eternal  Omnipotence. 

9.  Beneath  all  these  thoughts  lay  an  in- 
stinctive hope,  which  strengthened  my  asser- 
tion of  the  faith,  in  some  perfect  blessedness 
hereafter  to  be  earned  by  devout  thoughts 
concerning  God  and  upright  life  ;  the  reward, 
as  it  were,  that  awaits  the  triumphant  warrior. 
For  true  faith  in  God  would  pass  unrewarded, 
if  the  soul  be  destroyed  by  death,  and 
quenched  in  the  extinction  of  bodily  life. 
Even  unaided  reason  pleaded  that  it  was 
unworthy  of  God  to  usher  man  into  an  exist- 
ence which  has  some  share  of  His  thought  and 
wisdom,  only  to  await  the  sentence  of  life 
withdrawn  and  of  eternal  death ;  to  create  him 
out  of  nothing  to  take  his  place  in  the  world, 
only  that  when  he  has  taken  it  he  may  perish. 
For,  on  the  only  rational  theory  of  creation, 
its  purpose  was  that  things  non-existent  should 
come  into  being,  not  that  things  existing 
should  cease  to  be. 

10.  Yet  my  soul  was  weighed  down  with 
fear  both  for  itself  and  for  the  body.  It 
retained  a  firm  conviction,  and  a  devout  loyalty 
to  the  true  faith  concerning  God,  but  had 
come  to  harbour  a  deep  anxiety  concerning 
itself  and  the  bodily  dwelling  which  must,  it 
thought,  share  its  destruction.  While  in  this 
state,  in  addition  to  its  knowledge  of  the 
teaching  of  the  Law  and  Prophets,  it  learned 
the  truths  taught  by  the  Apostle  in  the 
Gospel  ;  — In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and 
the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was 
God.  The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with 
God.  All  things  were  made  through  Him,  and 
without  Him  7oas  not  anything  made.  That 
which  was  made  in  Him  is  life6,  and  the  life 
was  the  light  of  men,  and  the  light  shineth  in 
darkness,  and  the  darkness  apprehended  it  not. 
There  was  a  man  sent  from  God,  whose  name 
was  John.  He  came  for  wiiness,  that  he  might 
bear  witness  of  the  light.  That  was  the  true 
light,  which  lightenelh  every  man  that  cometh 

6  Cf.  Hilary's  explanation  of  this  passage  in  Book  ii.  §§  19,  20. 


ON   THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK    I. 


43 


into  this  world.  He  was  in  the  world,  and  the 
world  was  made  through  Him,  and  the  world 
knew  Him  not.  He  came  unto  His  own  things, 
and  they  that  were  His  own  received  Him  not. 
But  to  as  many  as  received  Him  He  gave  power 
to  become  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on 
His  Same  ;  which  were  born,  not  of  blood,  not 
of  the  will  of  man,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh, 
but  of  God.  And  the  Word  became  flesh  and 
dwelt  among  us,  and  7ce  beheld  His  glory,  glory 
as  of  the  Only-begotten  from  the  Father,  full  of 
grace  and  truthT.  Here  the  soul  makes  an 
advance  beyond  the  attainment  of  its  natural 
capacities,  is  taught  more  than  it  had  dreamed 
concerning  God.  For  it  learns  that  its  Creator 
is  God  of  God  ;  it  hears  that  the  Word  is  God 
and  was  with  God  in  the  beginning.  It  comes 
to  understand  that  the  Light  of  the  world  was 
abiding  in  the  world  and  that  the  world  knew 
Him  not ;  that  He  came  to  His  own  possession 
and  that  they  that  were  His  own  received  Him 
not ;  but  that  they  who  do  receive  Him  by 
virtue  of  their  faith  advance  to  be  sons  of  God, 
being  born  not  of  the  embrace  of  the  flesh  nor 
of  the  conception  of  the  blood  nor  .of  bodily 
desire,  but  of  God ;  finally,  it  learns  that  the 
Word  became  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  and 
that  His  glory  was  seen,  which,  as  of  the  Only- 
begotten  from  the  Father,  is  perfect  through 
grace  and  truth. 

ii.  Herein  my  soul,  trembling  and  dis- 
tressed, found  a  hope  wider  than  it  had 
imagined.  First  came  its  introduction  to  the 
knowledge  of  God  the  Father.  Then  it  learnt 
that  the  eternity  and  infinity  and  beauty  which, 
by  the  light  of  natural  reason,  it  had  attributed 
to  its  Creator  belonged  also  to  God  the  Only- 
begotten.  It  did  not  disperse  its  faith  among 
a  plurality  of  deities,  for  it  heard  that  He 
is  God  of  God  ;  nor  did  it  fall  into  the  error 
of  attributing  a  difference  of  nature  to  this 
God  of  God,  for  it  learnt  that  He  is  full  of 
grace  and  truth.  Nor  yet  did  my  soul  per- 
ceive anything  contrary  to  reason  in  God  of 
God,  since  He  was  revealed  as  having  been 
in  the  beginning  God  with  God.  It  saw  that 
there  are  very  few  who  attain  to  the  know- 
ledge of  this  saving  faith,  though  its  reward 
be  great,  for  even  His  own  received  Him  not, 
though  they  who  receive  Him  are  promoted 
to  be  sons  of  God  by  a  birth,  not  of  the  flesh 
but  of  faith.  It  learnt  also  that  this  sonship 
to  God  is  not  a  compulsion  but  a  possibility, 
for,  while  the  Divine  gift  is  offered  to  all, 
it  is  no  heredity  inevitably  imprinted  but 
a  prize  awarded  to  willing  choice.  And  lest 
this  very  truth  that  whosoever  will  may  become 
a  son  of  God   should   stagger  the  weakness 

7  St.  John  i.  i — 14. 


of  our  faith  (for  most  we  desire,  but  least 
expect,  that  which  from  its  very  greatness 
we  find  it  hard  to  hope  for),  God  the  Word 
became  flesh,  that  through  His  Incarnation 
our  flesh  might  attain  to  union  with  God  the 
Word.  And  lest  we  should  think  that  this 
incarnate  Word  was  some  other  than  God  the 
Word,  or  that  His  flesh  was  of  a  body  different 
from  outs,  He  dwelt  among  us  that  by  His 
dwelling  He  might  be  known  as  the  indwell- 
ing God,  and,  by  His  dwelling  among  us, 
known  as  God  incarnate  in  no  other  flesh 
than  our  own,  and  moreover,  though  He  had 
condescended  to  take  our  flesh,  not  destitute 
of  His  own  attributes ;  for  He,  the  Only- 
begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth, 
is  fully  possessed  of  His  own  attributes  and 
truly  endowed  with  ours. 

12.  This  lesson  in  the  Divine  mysteries  was 
gladly  welcomed  by  my  soul,  now  drawing 
near  through  the  flesh  to  God,  called  to  new 
birth  through  faith,  entrusted  with  liberty  and 
power  to  win  the  heavenly  regeneration,  con- 
scious of  the  love  of  its  Father  and  Creator, 
sure  that  He  would  not  annihilate  a  creature 
whom  He  had  summoned  out  of  nothing  into 
life.  And  it  could  estimate  how  high  are 
these  truths  above  the  mental  vision  of  man  ; 
for  the  reason  which  deals  with  the  common 
objects  of  thought  can  conceive  of  nothing 
as  existent  beyond  what  it  perceives  within 
itself  or  can  create  out  of  itself.  My  soul 
measured  the  mighty  workings  of  God,  wrought 
on  the  scale  of  His  eternal  omnipotence,  not 
by  its  own  powers  of  perception  but  by  a 
boundless  faith  ;  and  therefore  refused  to  dis- 
believe, because  it  could  not  understand,  that 
God  was  in  the  beginning  with  God,  and  that 
the  Word  became  flesh  and  dwelt  among 
us,  but  bore  in  mind  the  truth  that  with  the 
will  to  believe  would  come  the  power  to  under- 
stand. 

13.  And  lest  the  soul  should  stray  and 
linger  in  some  delusion  of  heathen  philosophy, 
it  receives  this  further  lesson  of  perfect  loyalty 
to  the  holy  faith,  taught  by  the  Apostle  in 
words  inspired  : — Be7i>are  lest  any  man  spoil 
you  through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after 
the  tradition  of  men,  after  the  rudiments  of  the 
word,  and  not  ajier  Christ ;  for  in  Him 
dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily, 
and  ye  are  made  full  in  Him,  Which  is  the 
Head  of  all  principality  and  power  ;  in  Whom 
ye  were  also  circumcised  with  a  circumcision  not 
made  with  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the 

flesh,  but  with  the  circumcision  of  Christ;  buried 
with  Him  in  Baptism,  wherein  also  ye  have 
risen  again  through  faith  in  the  working  of 
God,  Who  raised  Him  from  the  dead.  And 
you,  when  ye  were  dead  in  sins  and  in  the 


+4 


DE    TRINITATE. 


uncircumcision  of  your  flesh,  He  hath  quickened 
with  Him,  having  forgiven  you  all  your  sins, 
blotting  out   the   bond  which  was   against  us 
by  its  ordinances,  which  was  contrary  to  us  ; 
and  He  hath  taken  it  out  of  the  way,  nailing 
it  to  the  Cross ;   and  having  put  off  the  flesh 
He  made  a  show  of  powers  openly,  triumphing 
over    them    through     confidence    in    Himself*. 
Steadfast  faith  rejects  the  vain  subtleties  of 
philosophic  enquiry  ;  truth  refuses  to  be  van- 
quished by  these  treacherous  devices  of  human 
folly,  and  enslaved  by  falsehood.     It  will  not 
confine  God  within  the  limits  which  bound 
our    common    reason,    nor    judge    after    the 
rudiments  cf  the  world  concerning  Christ,  in 
Whom  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily,   and    in    such    wise    that   the   utmost 
efforts   of  the   earthly  mind  to   comprehend 
Him  are  baffled  by  that  immeasurable  Eternity 
and  Omnipotence.     My  soul  judged  of  Him 
as  One  Who,  drawing  us  upward  to  partake 
of    His    own    Divine    nature,    has    loosened 
henceforth  the  bond  of  bodily  observances ; 
Who,  unlike  the  Symbolic  Law,  has  initiated 
us  into  no  rites  of  mutilating  the  flesh,  but 
Whose  purpose  is  that  our  spirit,  circumcised 
from  vice,  should  purify  all  the  natural  faculties 
of  the  body  by  abstinence  from  sin,  that  we 
being  buried  with  His  Death  in  Baptism  may 
return  to  the  life  of  eternity  (since  regener- 
ation to  life  is  death  to  the  former  life),  and 
dying  to  our  sins  be  born  again  to  immor- 
tality, that  even  as  He  abandoned  His  immor- 
tality to  die  for  us,  so  should  we  awaken  from 
death    to   immortality   with    Him.      For   He 
took  upon  Him  the  flesh  in  which  we  have 
sinned   that  by  wearing  our  flesh  He  might 
forgive  sins ;   a  flesh  which   He  shares  with 
us  by  wearing  it,  not  by  sinning  in  it.     He 
blotted   out   through    death   the   sentence  of 
death,   that  by  a  new  creation   of  our  race 
in  Himself  He  might  sweep  away  the  penalty 
appointed  by  the  former  Law.     He  let  them 
nail    Him  to  the  cross  that  He  might  nail 
to  the  curse  of  the  cross  and  abolish  all  the 
curses  to  which  the  world  is  condemned.     He 
suffered  as  man  to  the  utmost  that  He  might 
put  powers  to  shame.     For  Scripture  had  fore- 
told that  He  Who  is  God  should  die ;  that  the 
victory   and    triumph    of  them    that    trust   in 
Him  lay  in  the  fact  that  He,  Who  is  immortal 
and  cannot  be  overcome  by  death,  was  to  die 
that  mortals  might  gain  eternity.     These  deeds 
of  God,   wrought    in   a   manner   beyond    our 
comprehension,  cannot,   I   repeat,   be  under- 
stood  by  our  natural   faculties,  for  the  work 
of  the  Infinite  and  Eternal  can  only  be  grasped 
by  an   infinite   intelligence.     Hence,  just   as 


8  Col.  ii.  8— is- 


the  truths  that  God  became  man,  that  the 
Immortal  died,  that  the  Eternal  was  buried, 
do  not  belong  to  the  rational  order  but  are  an 
unique  work  of  power,  so  on  the  other  hand 
it  is  an  effect  not  of  intellect  but  of  omni- 
potence that  He  Who  is  man  is  also  God, 
that  He  Who  died  is  immortal,  that  He  Who 
was  buried  is  eternal.  We,  then,  are  raised 
together  by  God  in  Christ  through  His  death. 
But,  since  in  Christ  there  is  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead,  we  have  herein  a  revelation  of  God 
the  Father  joining  tp  raise  us  in  Him  Who 
died ;  and  we  must  confess  that  Christ  Jesus 
is  none  other  than  God  in  all  the  fulness  of 
the  Deity. 

14.  In  this  calm  assurance  of  safety  did  my 
soul  gladly  and  hopefully  take  its  rest,  and 
feared  so  little  the  interruption  of  death,  that 
death  seemed  only  a  name  for  eternal  life. 
And  the  life  of  this  present  body  was  so  far 
from  seeming  a  burden  or  affliction  that  it  was 
regarded  as  children  regard  their  alphabet,  sick 
men  their  draught,  shipwrecked  sailors  their 
swim,  young  men  the  training  for  their  pro- 
fession, future  commanders  their  first  campaign; 
that  is,  as  an  endurable  submission  to  present 
necessities,  bearing  the  promise  of  a  blissful 
immortality.  And  further,  I  began  to  proclaim 
those  truths  in  which  my  soul  had  a  personal 
faith,  as  a  duty  of  the  episcopate  which  had 
been  laid  upon  me,  employing  my  office  to 
promote  the  salvation  of  all  men. 

15.  While  I  was  thus  engaged  there  came  to 
light  certain  fallacies  of  rash  and  wicked  men, 
hopeless  for  themselves  and  merciless  towards 
others,  who  made  their  own  feeble  nature 
the  measure  of  the  might  of  God's  nature. 
They  claimed,  not  that  they  had  ascended  to 
an  infinite  knowledge  of  infinite  things,  but 
that  they  had  reduced  all  knowledge,  undefined 
before,  within  the  scope  of  ordinary  reason,  and 
fixed  the  limits  of  the  faith.  Whereas  the  true 
work  of  religion  is  a  service  of  obedience  ;  and 
these  were  men  heedless  of  their  own  weak- 
ness, reckless  of  Divine  realities,  who  under- 
took to  improve  upon  the  teaching  of  God. 

16.  Not  to  touch  upon  the  vain  enquiries 
of  other  heretics — concerning  whom  however, 
when  the  course  of  my  argument  gives  occa- 
sion, I  will  not  be  silent — there  are  those  who 
tamper  with  the  faith  of  the  Gospel  by  denying, 
under  the  cloak  of  loyalty  to  the  One  God,  the 
birth  of  God  the  Only-begotten.  They  assert 
that  there  was  an  extension  of  God  into  man, 
not  a  descent;  that  He,  Who  for  the  season 
that  He  took  our  flesh  was  Son  of  Man,  had 
not  been  previously,  nor  was  then,  Son  of  God; 
that  there  was  no  Divine  birth  in  His  case,  but 
an  identity  of  Begetter  and  Begotten ;  and  (to 
maintain  what  they  consider  a  perfect  loyalty 


ON   THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK    I. 


45 


to  the  unity  of  God)  that  there  was  an  un- 
broken continuity  in  the  Incarnation,  the 
Father  extending  Himself  into  the  Virgin,  and 
Himself  being  born  as  His  own  Son.  Others, 
on  the  contrary  (heretics,  because  there  is  no 
salvation  apart  from  Christ,  Who  in  the  begin- 
ning was  God  the  Word  with  God),  deny  that 
He  was  born  and  declare  that  He  was  merely 
created.  Birth,  they  hold,  would  confess  Him 
to  be  true  God,  while  creation  proves  His 
Godhead  umeal;  and  though  this  explanation 
be  a  fraud  against  the  faith  in  the  unity  of 
God,  regarded  as  an  accurate  definition,  yet 
they  think  it  may  pass  muster  as  figurative 
language.  They  degrade,  in  name  and  in 
belief,  His  true  birth  to  the  level  of  a  creation, 
to  cut  Him  off  from  the  Divine  unity,  that,  as 
a  creature  called  into  being,  He  may  not 
claim  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead,  which  is  not 
His  by  a  true  birth. 

17.  My  soul  has  been  burning  to  answer 
these  insane  attacks.  I  call  to  mind  that  the 
very  centre  of  a  saving  faith  is  the  belief  not 
merely  in  God,  but  in  God  as  a  Father;  not 
merely  in  Christ,  but  in  Christ  as  the  Son  of 
God ;  in  Him,  not  as  a  creature,  but  as  God 
the  Creator,  born  of  God.  My  prime  object  is 
by  the  clear  assertions  of  prophets  and  evan- 
gelists to  refute  the  insanity  and  ignorance  of 
men  who  use  the  unity  of  God  (in  itself  a  pious 
and  profitable  confession)  as  a  cloak  for  their 
denial  either  that  in  Christ  God  was  born,  or 
else  that  He  is  very  God.  Their  purpose  is 
to  isolate  a  solitary  God  at  the  heart  of  the 
faith  by  making  Christ,  though  mighty,  only 
a  creature  ;  because,  so  they  allege,  a  birth  of 
God  widens  the  believer's  faith  into  a  trust  in 
more  gods  than  one.  But  we,  divinely  taught 
to  confess  neither  two  Gods  nor  yet  a  solitary 
God,  will  adduce  the  evidence  of  the  Gospels 
and  the  prophets  for  our  confession  of  God  the 
Father  and  God  the  Son,  united,  not  con- 
founded, in  our  faith.  We  will  not  admit  Their 
identity  nor  allow,  as  a  compromise,  that 
Christ  is  God  in  some  imperfect  sense;  for 
God,  born  of  God,  cannot  be  the  same  as  His 
Father,  since  He  is  His  Son,  nor  yet  can  He 
be  different  in  nature. 

18.  And  you,  whose  warmth  of  faith  and 
passion  for  a  truth  unknown  to  the  world  and 
its  philosophers  shall  prompt  to  read  me,  must 
remember  to  eschew  the  feeble  and  baseless 
conjectures  of  earthly  minds,  and  in  devout 
willingness  to  learn  must  break  down  the  bar* 
riers  of  prejudice  and  half-knowledge.  The 
new  faculties  of  the  regenerate  intellect  are 
needed ;  each  must  have  his  understanding 
enlightened  by  the  heavenly  gift  imparted  to 
the  soul.  First  he  must  take  his  stand  upon 
the   sure    ground    [substantia  =  v7roardo-et]    of 


God,  as  holy  Jeremiah  says  9,  that  since  he  is 
to  hear  about  that  nature  [substantia]  he  may 
expand  his  thoughts  till  they  are  worthy  of  the 
theme,  not  fixing  some  arbitrary  standard  for 
himself,  but  judging  as  of  infinity.  And  again, 
though  he  be  aware  that  he  is  partaker  of  the 
Divine  nature,  as  the  holy  apostle  Peter  says 
in  his  second  Epistle  ',  yet  he  must  not  measure 
the  Divine  nature  by  the  limitations  of  his  own, 
but  gauge  God's  assertions  concerning  Himself 
by  the  scale  of  His  own  glorious  self-revelation. 
For  he  is  the  best  student  who  does  not  read 
his  thoughts  into  the  book,  but  lets  it  reveal  its 
own  ;  who  draws  from  it  its  sense,  and  does 
not  import  his  own  into  it,  nor  force  upon  its 
words  a  meaning  which  he  had  determined  was 
the  right  one  before  he  opened  its  pages. 
Since  then  we  are  to  discourse  of  the  things  of 
God,  let  us  assume  that  God  has  full  knowledge 
of  Himself,  and  bow  with  humble  reverence  to 
His  words.  For  He  Whom  we  can  only  know 
through  His  own  utterances  is  the  fitting 
witness  concerning  Himself. 

19.  If  in  our  discussion  of  the  nature  and 
birth  of  God  we  adduce  certain  analogies,  let 
no  one  suppose  that  such  comparisons  are 
perfect  and  complete.  There  can  be  no 
comparison  between  God  and  earthly  things, 
yet  the  weakness  of  our  understanding  forces 
us  to  seek  for  illustrations  from  a  lower  sphere 
to  explain  our  meaning  about  loftier  themes. 
The  course  of  daily  life  shews  how  our  ex- 
perience in  ordinary  matters  enables  us  to  form 
conclusions  on  unfamiliar  subjects.  We  must 
therefore  regard  any  comparison  as  helpful  to 
man  rather  than  as  descriptive  of  God,  since  it 
suggests,  rather  than  exhausts,  the  sense  we 
seek.  Nor  let  such  a  comparison  be  thought 
too  bold  when  it  sets  side  by  side  carnal  and 
spiritual  natures,  things  invisible  and  things 
palpable,  since  it  avows  itself  a  necessary  aid 
to  the  weakness  of  the  human  mind,  and 
deprecates  the  condemnation  due  to  an  im- 
perfect analogy.  On  this  principle  I  proceed 
with  my  task,  intending  to  use  the  terms 
supplied  by  God,  yet  colouring  my  argument 
with  illustrations  drawn  from  human  life. 

20.  And  first,  I  have  so  laid  out  the  plan  of 
the  whole  work  as  to  consult  the  advantage  of 
the  reader  by  the  logical  order  in  which  its 
books  are  arranged.  It  has  been  my  resolve 
to  publish  no  half-finished  and  ill-considered 
treatise,  lest  its  disorderly  array  should  re- 
semble the  confused  clamour  of  a  mob  of 
peasants.  And  since  no  one  can  scale  a  pre- 
cipice unless  there  be  jutting  ledges  to  aid  his 
progress  to  the  summit,  I  have  here  set  down 


9  xxiii.  as,  according  to  the  LXX.,  iv  v7roora<r«i. 
1  ii.  14. 


46 


DE   TRINITATE. 


in  order  the  primary  outlines  of  our  ascent, 
leading  our  difficult  course  of  argument  up  the 
easiest  path  ;  not  cutting  steps  in  the  face  of 
the  rock,  but  levelling  it  to  a  gentle  slope,  that 
so  the  traveller,  almost  without  a  sense  of  effort, 
may  reach  the  heights. 

21.  Thus,  after  the  present  first  book,  the 
second  expounds  the  mystery  of  the  Divine 
birth,  that  those  who  shall  be  baptized  in  the 
Name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  may  know  the  true  Names,  and 
not  be  perplexed  about  their  sense  but  accu- 
rately informed  as  to  fact  and  meaning,  and  so 
receive  full  assurance  that  in  the  words  which 
are  used  they  have  the  true  Names,  and  that 
those  Names  involve  the  truth. 

22.  After  this  short  and  simple  discourse 
concerning  the  Trinity,  the  third  book  makes 
further  progress,  sure  though  slow.  Citing  the 
greatest  instances  of  His  power,  it  brings  within 
the  range  of  faith's  understanding  that  saying, 
in  itself  beyond  our  comprehension,  /  in  the 
Father  and  the  Father  in  Me2,  which  Christ 
utters  concerning  Himself.  Thus  truth  beyond 
the  dull  wit  of  man  is  the  prize  of  faith 
equipped  with  reason  and  knowledge ;  for 
neither  may  we  doubt  God's  Word  concerning 
Himself,  nor  can  we  suppose  that  the  devout 
reason  is  incapable  of  apprehending  His  might. 

23.  The  fourth  book  starts  with  the  doctrines 
of  the  heretics,  and  disowns  complicity  in  the 
fallacies  whereby  they  are  traducing  the  faith  of 
the  Church.  It  publishes  that  infidel  creed 
which  a  number  of  them  have  lately  pro- 
mulgated 3,  and  exposes  the  dishonesty,  and 
therefore  the  wickedness,  of  their  arguments 
from  the  Law  for  what  they  call  the  unity  of 
God.  It  sets  out  the  whole  evidence  of  Law 
and  Prophets  to  demonstrate  the  impiety  of 
asserting  the  unity  of  God  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  Godhead  of  Christ,  and  the  treason 
of  alleging  that  if  Christ  be  God  the  Only- 
begotten,  then  God  is  not  one. 

24.  The  fifth  book  follows  in  reply  the 
sequence  of  heretical  assertion.  They  had 
falsely  declared  that  they  followed  the  Law  in 
the  sense  which  they  assigned  to  the  unity  of 
God,  and  that  they  had  proved  from  it  that  the 
true  God  is  of  one  Person;  and  this  in  order 
to  rob  the  Lord  Christ  of  His  birth  by  their 
conclusion  concerning  the  One  true  God,  for 
birth  is  the  evidence  of  origin.  In  answer  I  as- 
sert, step  by  step,  what  they  deny  ;  for  from  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets  I  demonstrate  that  there 
are  not  two  gods,  nor  one  isolated  true  God, 
neither  perverting  the  faith  in  the  Divine  unity 
nor  denying  the  birth  of  Christ.    And  since  they 


»  St.  John  x.  38. 

3  The  letter  of  Arius  to  Alexander ;  Book  iv., 


12,  13. 


say  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  created  rather 
than  born,  bears  the  Divine  Name  by  gift  and 
not  by  right,  I  have  proved  His  true  Divinity 
from  the  Prophets  in  such  a  way  that,  He  being 
acknowledged  very  God,  the  assurance  of  His 
inherent  Godhead  shall  hold  us  fast  to  the 
certainty  that  God  is  One. 

25.  The  sixth  book  reveals  the  full  deceit- 
fulness  of  this  heretical  teaching.  To  win 
credit  for  their  assertions  they  denounce  the 
impious  doctrine  of  heretics  : — of  Valentinus, 
to  wit,  and  Sabellius  and  Manichseus  and 
Hieracas,  and  appropriate  the  godly  language 
of  the  Church  as  a  cover  for  their  blasphemy. 
They  reprove  and  alter  the  language  of  these 
heretics,  correcting  it  into  a  vague  resemblance 
to  orthodoxy,  in  order  to  suppress  the  holy  faith 
while  apparently  denouncing  heresy.  But  we 
state  clearly  what  is  the  language  and  what  the 
doctrine  of  each  of  these  men,  and  acquit  the 
Church  of  any  complicity  or  fellowship  with 
condemned  heretics.  Their  words  which  de- 
serve condemnation  we  condemn,  and  those 
which  claim  our  humble  acceptance  we  accept. 
Thus  that  Divine  Sonship  of  Jesus  Christ, 
which  is  the  object  of  their  most  strenuous 
denial,  we  prove  by  the  witness  of  the  Father, 
by  Christ's  own  assertion,  by  the  preaching  of 
Apostles,  by  the  faith  of  believers,  by  the  cries 
of  devils,  by  the  contradiction  of  Jews,  in 
itself  a  confession,  by  the  recognition  of  the 
heathen  who  had  not  known  God  ;  and  all  this 
to  rescue  from  dispute  a  truth  of  which  Christ 
had  left  us  no  excuse  for  ignorance. 

26.  Next  the  seventh  book,  starting  from  the 
basis  of  a  true  faith  now  attained,  delivers 
its  verdict  in  the  great  debate.  First,  armed 
with  its  sound  and  incontrovertible  proof  of 
the  impregnable  faith,  it  takes  part  in  the 
conflict  raging  between  Sabellius  and  Hebion 
and  these  opponents  of  the  true  Godhead. 
It  joins  issue  with  Sabellius  on  his  denial  of 
the  pre-existence  of  Christ,  and  with  his  as- 
sailants on  their  assertion  that  He  is  a  creature. 
Sabellius  overlooked  the  eternity  of  the  Son, 
but  believed  that  true  God  worked  in  a  human 
body.  Our  present  adversaries  deny  that  He 
was  born,  assert  that  He  was  created,  and 
fail  to  see  in  His  deeds  the  works  of  very 
God.  What  both  sides  dispute,  we  believe. 
Sabellius  denies  that  it  was  the  Son  who  was 
working,  and  he  is  wrong ;  but  he  proves 
his  case  triumphantly  when  he  alleges  that 
the  work  done  was  that  of  true  God.  The 
Church  shares  his  victory  over  those  who 
deny  that  in  Christ  was  very  God.  But  when 
Sabellius  denies  that  Christ  existed  before  the 
worlds,  his  adversaries  prove  to  conviction 
that  Christ's  activity  is  from  everlasting,  and 
we  are  on   their  side  in   this  confutation  of 


ON    THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK    I. 


47 


Sabellius,  who  recognises  true  God,  but  not 
God  the  Son,  in  this  activity.  And  our  two 
previous  adversaries  join  forces  to  refute 
Hebion,  the  second  demonstrating  the  eternal 
existence  of  Christ,  while  the  first  proves  that 
His  work  is  that  of  very  God.  Thus  the 
heretics  overthrow  one  another,  while  the 
Church,  as  against  Sabellius,  against  those 
who  call  Christ  a  creature,  against  Hebion, 
bears  witness  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is 
very  God  of  very  God,  born  before  the  worlds 
and  born  in  after  times  as  man. 

27.  No  one  can  doubt  that  we  have  taken 
the  course  of  true  reverence  and  of  sound 
doctrine  when,  after  proving  from  Law  and 
Prophets  first  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God, 
and  next  that  He  is  true  God,  and  this  without 
breach  of  the  mysterious  unity,  we  proceed 
to  support  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  by  the 
evidence  of  the  Gospels,  and  prove  from  them 
also  that  He  is  the  Son  of , God  and  Himself 
very  God.  It  is  the  easiest  of  tasks,  after 
demonstrating  His  right  to  the  Name  of  Son, 
to  shew  that  the  Name  truly  describes  His 
relation  to  the  Father ;  though  indeed  uni- 
versal usage  regards  the  granting  of  the  name 
of  son  as  convincing  evidence  of  sonship. 
But,  to  leave  no  loop-hole  for  the  trickery  and 
deceit  of  these  traducers  of  the  true  birth  of 
God  the  Only-begotten,  we  have  used  His 
true  Godhead  as  evidence  of  His  true  Son- 
ship  ;  to  shew  that  He  Who  (as  is  confessed 
by  all)  bears  the  Name  of  Son  of  God  is 
actually  God,  we  have  adduced  His  Name, 
His  birth,  His  nature,  His  power,  His  asser- 
tions. We  have  proved  that  His  Name  is 
an  accurate  description  of  Himself,  that  the 
title  of  Son  is  an  evidence  of  birth,  that  in 
His  birth  He  retained  His  Divine  Nature,  and 
with  His  nature  His  power,  and  that  that 
power  manifested  itself  in  conscious  and 
deliberate  self-revelation.  I  have  set  down 
the  Gospel  proofs  of  each  several  point,  shew- 
ing how  His  self-revelation  displays  His 
power,  how  His  power  reveals  His  nature, 
how  His  nature  is  His  by  birthright,  and  from 
His  birth  comes  His  title  to  the  name  of  Son. 
Thus  every  whisper  of  blasphemy  is  silenced, 
for  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself  by  the 
witness  of  His  own  mouth  has  taught  us  that 
He  is,  as  His  Name,  His  birth,  His  nature, 
His  power  declare,  in  the  true  sense  of  Deity, 
very  God  of  very  God. 

28.  While  its  two  predecessors  have  been 
devoted  to  the  confirmation  of  the  faith  in 
Christ  as  Son  of  God  and  true  God,  the  eighth 
book  is  taken  up  with  the  proof  of  the  unity 
of  God,  shewing  that  this  unity  is  consistent 
with  the  birth  of  the  Son,  and  that  the  birth ! 
involves  no  duality  in    the   Godhead.     First' 


it  exposes  the  sophistry  with  which  these 
heretics  have  attempted  to  avoid,  though  they 
could  not  deny,  the  confession  of  the  real 
existence  of  God,  Father  and  Son ;  it  de- 
molishes their  helpless  and  absurd  plea  that 
in  such  passages  as,  And  the  multitude  of  them 
that  bell 'Ted  tvere  one  soul  and  heart  *,  and 
again.  He  that  plant eth  and  He  that  watereth 
are  one*,  and  Neither  for  these  only  do  I  pray, 
but  for  them  also  that  shall  believe  on  Me 
through  their  word,  that  they  tnay  all  be  onet 
even  as  Thou,  Father,  art  in  Me,  and  I  in 
Ihee,  that  they  also  may  be  in  Us6,  a  unity  of 
will  and  mind,  not  of  Divinity,  is  expressed. 
From  a  consideration  of  the  true  sense  of 
these  texts  we  shew  that  they  involve  the 
reality  of  the  Divine  birth  ;  and  then,  display- 
ing the  whole  series  of  our  Lord's  self-revela- 
tions, we  exhibit,  in  the  language  of  Apostles 
and  in  the  very  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
whole  and  perfect  mystery  of  the  glory  of 
God  as  Father  and  as  Only-begotten  Son. 
Because  there  is  a  Father  we  know  that 
there  is  a  Son ;  in  that  Son  the  Father  is 
manifested  to  us,  and  hence  our  certainty 
that  He  is  born  the  Only-begotten  and  that 
He  is  very  God. 

29.  In  matters  essential  to  salvation  it  is 
not  enough  to  advance  the  proofs  which  faith 
supplies  and  finds  sufficient.  Arguments  which 
we  have  not  tested  may  delude  us  into  a  mis- 
apprehension of  the  meaning  of  our  own 
words,  unless  we  take  the  offensive  by  ex- 
posing the  hollowness  of  the  enemy's  proofs, 
and  so  establish  our  own  faith  upon  the  de- 
monstrated absurdity  of  his.  The  ninth  book, 
therefore,  is  employed  in  refuting  the  argu- 
ments by  which  the  heretics  attempt  to  in- 
validate the  birth  of  God  the  Only-begotten  ; — 
heretics  who  ignore  the  mystery  of  the  revela- 
tion hidden  from  the  beginning  of  the  world, 
and  forget  that  the  Gospel  faith  proclaims  the 
union  of  God  and  man.  For  their  denial  that 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  God,  like  unto  God 
and  equal  with  God  as  Son  with  Father,  born 
of  God  and  by  right  of  His  birth  subsisting 
as  very  Spirit,  they  are  accustomed  to  appeal 
to  such  words  of  our  Lord  as,  Why  callest' 
thou  Me  good?  None  Is  good  save  One,  even 
God '7.  They  argue  that  by  His  reproof  of 
the  man  who  called  Him  good,  and  by  His 
assertion  of  the  goodness  of  God  only,  He 
excludes  Himself  from  the  goodness  of  that 
God  Who  alone  is  good  and  from  that  true 
Divinity  which  belongs  only  to  One.  With 
this  text  their  blasphemous  reasoning  connects 
another,  And  this  is  life  eternal  that  they  should 


*  Acts  iv.    32 :    in   this  and  the  following  passages  ununt  is 
read.  5  1  Cor.  iii.  8.  6  St.  John  xvii.  20,  21. 

7  St.  Luke  xviii.  iq. 


48 


DE    TRINITATE. 


know  Thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Him  Whom 
Thou  didst  send,  Jesus  Christ z.  Here,  they 
say,  He  confesses  that  the  Father  is  the  only 
true  God,  and  that  He  Himself  is  neither  true 
nor  God,  since  this  recognition  of  an  only 
true  God  is  limited  to  the  Possessor  of  the 
attributes  assigned.  And  they  profess  to  be 
quite  clear  about  His  meaning  in  this  passage, 
since  He  also  says,  The  Son  can  do  nothing 
of  Himself,  but  what  He  hath  seen  the  Father 
doing  9.  The  fact  that  He  can  only  copy 
is  said  to  be  evidence  of  the  limitation  of  His 
nature.  There  can  be  no  comparison  between 
Omnipotence  and  One  whose  action  is  depen- 
dent upon  the  previous  activity  of  Another; 
reason  itself  draws  an  absolute  line  between 
power  and  the  want  of  power.  That  line  is 
so  clear  that  He  Himself  has  avowed  concern- 
ing God  the  Father,  The  Father  is  greater 
than  I1.  So  frank  a  confession  silences  all 
demur ;  it  is  blasphemy  and  madness  to  assign 
the  dignity  and  nature  of  God  to  One  who 
disclaims  them.  So  utterly  devoid  is  He  of 
the  qualities  of  true  God  that  He  actually 
bears  witness  concerning  Himself,  But  of  that 
day  and  hour  knoweth  no  one,  neither  the  angels 
in  heaven  nor  the  Son,  but  God  only2.  A  son 
who  knows  not  his  father's  secret  must,  from 
his  ignorance,  be  alien  from  the  father  who 
knows  ;  &  nature  limited  in  knowledge  cannot 
partake  of  that  majesty  and  might  which  alone 
is  exempt  from  the  tyranny  of  ignorance. 

30.  We  therefore  expose  the  blasphemous 
misunderstanding  at  which  they  have  arrived 
by  distortion  and  perversion  of  the  meaning 
of  Christ's  words.  We  account  for  those 
words  by  stating  what  manner  of  questions 
He  was  answering,  at  what  times  He  was 
speaking,  what  partial  knowledge  He  was 
deigning  to  impart;  we  make  the  circum- 
stances explain  the  words,  and  do  not  force  the 
former  into  consistency  with  the  latter.  Thus 
each  case  of  variance,  that  for  instance  be- 
tween The  Father  is  greater  than  J1,  and  I  and 
the  Father  are  One  3,  or  between  None  is  good 
save  One,  even  God*,  and  He  that  hath  seen 
Me  hath  seen  the  Father  also s,  or  a  difference 
so  wide  as  that  between  Father,  all  things 
that  are  Mine  are  Thine,  and  Thine  are  Mine  6, 
and  That  they  may  know  Thee,  the  only  true 
God7,  or  between  /  in  the  Father  and  the 
Jui  I  her  in  J/es,  and  But  of  the  day  and  hour 
knoweth  no  one,  neither  the  angels  in  heaven 
?wr  the  Son,  but  the  Father  only  °,  is  explained 
by   a   discrimination    between    gradual    reve- 


8  St.  John  xvii.  3. 

8  St.  Mark  xiii.  33. 
*  St.  Luke  xviii.  iq. 
6  lb.  xvii.  10. 

9  St.  Mark  xiii.  3a. 


9  lb.  v.  19.  'lb.  xiv.  28. 

3  St.  John  x.  30. 
5  St.  John  xiv.  9. 
7  lb.  3.  8  lb.  xiv.  11 


lation  and  full  expression  of  His  nature  and 
power.  Both  are  utterances  of  the  same 
Speaker,  and  an  exposition  of  the  real  force 
of  each  group  will  shew  that  Christ's  true 
Godhead  is  no  whit  impaired  because,  to  form 
the  mystery  of  the  Gospel  faith,  the  birth  and 
Name  *  of  Christ  were  revealed  gradually,  and 
under  conditions  which  He  chose  of  occasion 
and  time. 

31.  The  purpose  of  the  tenth  book  is  one 
in  harmony  with  the  faith.  For  since,  in  the 
folly  which  passes  with  them  for  wisdom,  the 
heretics  have  twisted  some  of  the  circum- 
stances and  utterances  of  the  Passion  into 
an  insolent  contradiction  of  the  Divine  nature 
and  power  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  I  am 
compelled  to  prove  that  this  is  a  blasphemous 
misinterpretation,  and  that  these  things  were 
put  on  record  by  the  Lord  Himself  as  evi- 
dences of  His  true  and  absolute  majesty. 
In  their  parody  of  the  faith  they  deceive 
themselves  with  words  such  as,  My  soul  is 
sorrowful  even  unto  death  2.  He,  they  think, 
must  be  far  removed  from  the  blissful  and 
passionless  life  of  God,  over  Whose  soul 
brooded  this  crushing  fear  of  an  impending 
woe,  Who  under  the  pressure  of  suffering  even 
humbled  Himself  to  pray,  Father,  if  it  be 
possible,  let  this  cup  pass  aivay  from  Me  3,  and 
assuredly  bore  the  appearance  of  fearing  to 
endure  the  trials  from  which  He  prayed  for 
release ;  Whose  whole  nature  was  so  over- 
whelmed by  agony  that  in  those  moments 
on  the  Cross  He  cried,  My  God,  My  God, 
why  hast  Thou  forsaken  Me  ♦  ?  forced  by  the 
bitterness  of  His  pain  to  complain  that  He 
was  forsaken  :  Who,  destitute  of  the  Father's 
help,  gave  up  the  ghost  with  the  words, 
Father,  into  Thy  hands  I  commend  My  Spirit  s. 
The  fear,  they  say,  which  beset  Him  at  the 
moment  of  expiring  made  Him  entrust  His 
Spirit  to  the  care  of  God  the  Father :  the 
very  hopelessness  of  His  own  condition  forced 
Him  to  commit  His  Soul  to  the  keeping  of 
Another. 

32.  Their  folly  being  as  great  as  their  blas- 
phemy, they  fail  to  mark  that  Christ's  words, 
spoken  under  similar  circumstances,  are  always 
consistent ;  they  cleave  to  the  letter  and  ignore 
the  purpose  of  His  words.  There  is  the 
widest  difference  between  My  soul  is  sorrowful 
even  unto  death 2,  and  Henceforth  ye  shall  see 
the  Son  of  Man  silting  at  the  right  hand  of 
pozver6  ;  so  also  between  Father,  if  it  be  pos- 
sible, let  this  cup  pass  away  from  Me  3,  and 
The  cup  which  the  Father  hath  given  Me,  shall 


1  Reading  nativitas  et  npmen.     The  clause  above,  which  if 
bracketed  in  Migne,  appears  to  be  a  gloss. 

2  St.  Matt  xxvi.  38.  3  lb.  39.  4  lb.  xxvii.  46. 
5  St.  Luke  xxiii.  46.                      6  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  64. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   I. 


49 


/  not  drink  if  ?  and  further  between  My  God, 
My  God,  ichy  hast  Thou  forsaken  Mez?  and 
Verily  I  say  unto  thee,  To-day  shalt  thou  be 
with  Me  in  Paradise  ?,  and  between  Father, 
into  Thy  hands  I  commend  My  Spirit1,  and 
Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not  what 
they  do2 ;  and  their  narrow  minds,  unable 
to  grasp  the  Divine  meaning,  plunge  into 
blasphemy  in  the  attempt  at  explanation. 
There  is  a  broad  distinction  between  anxiety 
and  a  mind  at  ease,  between  haste  and  the 
prayer  for  delay,  between  words  of  anguish 
and  words  of  encouragement,  between  despair 
for  self  and  confident  entreaty  for  others ;  and 
the  heretics  display  their  impiety  by  ignoring 
the  assertions  of  Deity  and  the  Divine  nature 
of  Christ,  which  account  for  the  one  class 
of  His  words,  while  they  concentrate  their  at- 
tention upon  the  deeds  and  words  which  refer 
only  to  His  ministry  on  earth.  I  have  there- 
fore set  out  all  the  elements  contained  in  the 
mystery  of  the  Soul  and  Body  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ ;  all  have  been  sought  out,  none 
suppressed.  Next,  casting  the  calm  light  of 
reason  upon  the  question,  I  have  referred 
each  of  His  sayings  to  the  class  to  which  its 
meaning  attaches  it,  and  so  have  shewn  that 
He  had  also  a  confidence  which  never  wavered, 
a  will  which  never  faltered,  an  assurance  which 
never  murmured,  that,  when  He  commended 
His  own  soul  to  the  Father,  in  this  was  involved 
a  prayer  for  the  pardon  of  others  3.  Thus 
a  complete  presentment  of  the  teaching  of 
the  Gospel  interprets  and  confirms  all  (and 
not  some  only)  of  the  words  of  Christ. 

33.  And  so — for  not  even  the  glory  of  the 
Resurrection  has  opened  the  eyes  of  these 
lost  men  and  kept  them  within  the  manifest 
bounds  of  the  faith — they  have  forged  a  weapon 
for  their  blasphemy  out  of  a  pretended  re- 
verence, and  even  perverted  the  revelation 
of  a  mystery  into  an  insult  to  God.  From 
the  words,  /  ascend  unto  My  Father  and 
your  Father,  to  My  God  and  your  God*, 
they  argue  that  since  that  Father  is  ours  as 
much  as  His,  and  that  God  also  ours  and 
His,  His  own  confession  that  He  shares  with 
us  in  that  relation  to  the  Father  and  to  God 
excludes  Him  from  true  Divinity,  and  sub- 
ordinates Him  to  God  the  Creator  Whose 
creature  and  inferior  He  is,  as  we  are,  al- 
though He  has  received  the  adoption  of  a 
Son.  Nay  more,  we  must  not  suppose  that 
He  possesses  any  of  the  characters  of  the 
Divine  nature,  since  the  Apostle  says,  But 
when  He  sailh,  all  things  are  put  in  subjection, 


7  St.  John  xviii.  n. 
9  St.  Luke  xxiii.  43. 
3  Reading  rum  dtsiderattt. 

VOL.  IX. 


»  St.  Matt,  xxvii.  46. 
lb.  46.  a  lb.  34. 

4  St.  John  xx.  17. 


this  is  except  Him  Who  did  subject  all  things 
unto  Him,  for  when  all  things  shall  have  been 
subjected  unto  Him,  then  shall  also  He  Himself 
be  subjected  to  Him  that  did  subject  all  things 
unto  Him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all*.  For, 
so  they  say,  subjection  is  evidence  of  want 
of  power  in  the  subject  and  of  its  possession 
by  the  sovereign.  The  eleventh  book  is  em- 
ployed in  a  reverent  discussion  of  this  argu- 
ment ;  it  proves  from  these  very  words  of 
the  Apostle  not  only  that  subjection  is  no 
evidence  of  want  of  power  in  Christ  but  that 
it  actually  is  a  sign  of  His  true  Divinity  as 
God  the  Son ;  that  the  fact  that  His  Father 
and  God  is  also  our  Father  and  God  is  an 
infinite  advantage  to  us  and  no  degradation 
to  Him,  since  He  Who  has  been  born  as 
Man  and  suffered  all  the  afflictions  of  our 
flesh  has  gone  up  on  high  to  our  God  and 
Father,  to  receive  His  glory  as  Man  our  Re- 
presentative. 

34.  In  this  treatise  we  have  followed  the 
course  which  we  know  is  pursued  in  every 
branch  of  education.  First  come  easy  lessons 
and  a  familiarity,  slowly  attained  by  practice, 
with  the  groundwork  of  the  subject;  then  the 
student  may  make  proof,  in  the  business  of 
life,  of  the  training  which  he  has  received. 
Thus  the  soldier,  when  he  is  perfect  in  his 
exercises,  can  go  out  to  battle ;  the  advocate 
ventures  into  the  conflicts  of  the  courts  when 
he  is  versed  in  the  pleadings  of  the  school 
of  rhetoric ;  the  sailor  who  has  learned  to 
navigate  his  ship  in  the  land-locked  harbour 
of  his  home  may  be  trusted  amid  the  storms 
of  open  seas  and  distant  climes.  Such  has 
been  our  proceeding  in  this  most  serious  and 
difficult  science  in  which  the  whole  faith  is 
taught.  First  came  simple  instruction  for  the 
untaught  believer  in  the  birth,  the  name,  the 
Divinity,  the  true  Divinity  of  Christ ;  since 
then  we  have  quietly  and  steadily  advanced 
till  our  readers  can  demolish  every  plea  of 
the  heretics ;  and  now  at  last  we  have  pitted 
them  against  the  adversary  in  the  present 
great  and  glorious  conflict.  The  mind  of  men 
is  powerless  with  the  ordinary  resources  of 
unaided  reason  to  grasp  the  idea  of  an  eternal 
birth,  but  they  attain  by  study  of  things  Divine 
to  the  apprehension  of  mysteries  which  lie 
beyond  the  range  of  common  thought.  They 
can  explode  that  paradox  concerning  the  Lord 
Jesus,  which  derives  all  its  strength  and  sem- 
blance of  cogency  from  a  purblind  pagan 
philosophy :  the  paradox  which  asserts,  There 
was  a  time  when  He  was  not,  and  He  zvas  not 
before  He  was  born,  and  He  was  made  out  of 

5  1  Cor.  xt.  27,  38. 


5o 


DE   TRINITATE. 


nothing,  as  though  His  birth  were  proof  that 
He  had  previously  been  non-existent  and  at 
a  given  moment  came  into  being,  and  God 
the  Only-begotten  could  thus  be  subjected  to 
the  conception  of  time,  as  if  the  faith  itself  [by 
conferring  the  title  of  'Son']  and  the  very 
nature  of  birth  proved  that  there  was  a  time 
when  He  was  not.  Accordingly  they  argue  that 
He  was  born  out  of  nothing,  on  the  ground  that 
birth  implies  the  grant  of  being  to  that  which 
previously  had  no  being.  We  proclaim  in 
answer,  on  the  evidence  of  Apostles  and  Evan- 
gelists, that  the  Father  is  eternal  and  the  Son 
eternal,  and  demonstrate  that  the  Son  is  God 
of  all  with  an  absolute,  not  a  limited,  pre- 
existence ;  that  these  bold  assaults  of  their 
blasphemous  logic — He  was  born  out  of  nothing, 
and  He  was  not  before  He  was  born — are  power- 
less against  Him ;  that  His  eternity  is  con- 
sistent with  sonship,  and  His  sonship  with 
eternity;  that  there  was  in  Him  no  unique 
exemption  from  birth  but  a  birth  from  ever- 
lasting, for,  while  birth  implies  a  Father,  Di- 
vinity is  inseparable  from  eternity. 

35.  Ignorance  of  prophetic  diction  and  un- 
skilfulness  in  interpreting  Scripture  has  led 
them  into  a  perversion  of  the  point  and  mean- 
ing of  the  passage,  The  Lord  created  Me  for 
a  beginning  of  His  ways  for  His  works  6.  They 
labour  to  establish  from  it  that  Christ  is 
created,  rather  than  born,  as  God,  and  hence 
partakes  the  nature  of  created  beings,  though 
He  excel  them  in  the  manner  of  His  creation, 
and  has  no  glory  of  Divine  birth  but  only  the 
powers  of  a  transcendent  creature.  We  in 
reply,  without  importing  any  new  consider- 
ations or  preconceived  opinions,  will  make 
this  very  passage  of  Wisdom  7  display  its  own 
true  meaning  and  object.  We  will  show  that 
the  fact  that  He  was  created  for  the  beginning 
of  the  ways  of  God  and  for  His  works,  cannot 
be  twisted  into  evidence  concerning  the  Divine 
and  eternal  birth,  because  creation  for  these 
purposes  and  birth  from  everlasting  are  two 
entirely  different  things.  Where  birth  is  meant, 
there  birth,  and  nothing  but  birth,  is  spoken 
of;  where  creation  is  mentioned,  the  cause 
of  that  creation  is  first  named.  There  is 
a  Wisdom  born  before  all  things,  and  again 
there  is  a  wisdom  created  for  particular  pur- 
poses ;  the  Wisdom  which  is  from  everlasting 
is  one,  the  wisdom  which  has  come  into  ex- 
istence during  the  lapse  of  time  is  another. 

36.  Having  thus  concluded  that  we  must 
reject  the  word  'creation'  from  our  confession 
of  faith  in  God  the  Only-begotten,  we  proceed 


6  Prov.  viii.  22,  according  to  the  LXX. 

7  Here,  as  often  in  early  writers,  the   Sapiential  books  are 
included  under  this  name. 


to  lay  down  the  teachings  of  reason  and  of 
piety  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  the 
reader,  whose  convictions  have  been  estab- 
lished by  patient  and  earnest  study  of  the 
preceding  books,  may  be  provided  with  a 
complete  presentation  of  the  faith.  This  end 
will  be  attained  when  the  blasphemies  of 
heretical  teaching  on  this  theme  also  have 
been  swept  away,  and  the  mystery,  pure  and 
undefiled,  of  the  Trinity  which  regenerates  us 
has  been  fixed  in  terms  of  saving  precision  on 
the  authority  of  Apostles  and  Evangelists. 
Men  will  no  longer  dare,  on  the  strength  of 
mere  human  reasoning,  to  rank  among  crea- 
tures that  Divine  Spirit,  Whom  we  receive 
as  the  pledge  of  immortality  and  source  of 
fellowship  with  the  sinle.ss  nature  of  God. 

37.  I  know,  O  Lord  God  Almighty,  that 
I  owe  Thee,  as  the  chief  duty  of  my  life,  the 
devotion  of  all  my  words  and  thoughts  to 
Thyself.  The  gift  of  speech  which  Thou  hast 
bestowed  can  bring  me  no  higher  reward  than 
the  opportunity  of  service  in  preaching  Thee 
and  displaying  Thee  as  Thou  art,  as  Father 
and  Father  of  God  the  Only-begotten,  to  the 
world  in  its  blindness  and  the  heretic  in  his 
rebellion.  But  this  is  the  mere  expression 
of  my  own  desire  ;  I  must  pray  also  for  the 
gift  of  Thy  help  and  compassion,  that  the 
breath  of  Thy  Spirit  may  fill  the  sails  of  faith 
and  confession  which  I  have  spread,  and  a 
favouring  wind  be  sent  to  forward  me  on 
my  voyage  of  instruction.  We  can  trust  the 
promise  of  Him  Who  said,  Ask,  and  it  shall 
be  given  you,  seek,  and  ye  shall  find,  knock,  and 
it  shall  be  opened  unto  you 8 ;  and  we  in  our 
want  shall  pray  for  the  things  we  need.  We 
shall  bring  an  untiring  energy  to  the  study  of 
Thy  Prophets  and  Apostles,  and  we  shall  knock 
for  entrance  at  every  gate  of  hidden  know- 
ledge, but  it  is  Thine  to  answer  the  prayer, 
to  grant  the  thing  we  seek,  to  open  the  door 
on  which  we  beat.  Our  minds  are  born  with 
dull  and  clouded  vision,  our  feeble  intellect 
is  penned  within  the  barriers  of  an  impassable 
ignorance  concerning  things  Divine  ;  but  the 
study  of  Thy  revelation  elevates  our  soul  to 
the  comprehension  of  sacred  truth,  and  sub- 
mission to  the  faith  is  the  path  to  a  certainty 
beyond  the  reach  of  unassisted  reason. 

38.  And  therefore  we  look  to  Thy  support 
for  the  first  trembling  steps  of  this  undertak- 
ing, to  Thy  aid  that  it  may  gain  strength  and 
prosper.  We  look  to  Thee  to  give  us  the 
fellowship  of  that  Spirit  Who  guided  the 
Prophets  and  the  Apostles,  that  we  may  take 
their  words  in  the  sense  in  which  they  spoke 
and  assign  its  right  shade  of  meaning  to  every 

8  St.  Luke  xi.  9. 


ON  THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   I. 


5* 


utterance.  For  we  shall  speak  of  things 
which  they  preached  in  a  mystery ;  of  Thee, 
O  God  Eternal,  Father  of  the  Eternal  and 
Only-begotten  God,  Who  alone  art  without 
birth,  and  of  the  One  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  born 
of  Thee  from  everlasting.  We  may  not  sever 
Him  from  Thee,  or  make  Him  one  of  a 
plurality  of  Gods,  on  any  plea  of  difference 
of  nature.  We  may  not  say  that  He  is  not 
begotten  of  Thee,  because  Thou  art  One. 
We  must  not  fail  to  confess  Him  as  true  God, 


seeing  that  He  is  born  of  Thee,  true  God, 
His  Father.  Grant  us,  therefore,  precision  of 
language,  soundness  of  argument,  grace  of 
style,  loyalty  to  truth.  Enable  us  to  utter  the 
things  that  we  believe,  that  so  we  may  confess, 
as  Prophets  and  Apostles  have  taught  us, 
Thee,  One  God  our  Father,  and  One  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  put  to  silence  the  gainsaying 
of  heretics,  proclaiming  Thee  as  God,  yet  not 
solitary,  and  Him  as  God,  in  no  unreal 
sense. 


BOOK    II. 


1.  Believers  have  always  found  their  satis- 
faction in  that  Divine  utterance,  which  our 
ears  heard  recited  from  the  Gospel  at  the 
moment  when  that  Power,  which  is  its  attes- 
tation, was  bestowed  upon  us  : — Go  now  and 
leach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  Name 
■of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 

Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  what- 
soever I  command  you  ;  and,  lo,  I  am  with  you 
alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world1.  What 
element  in  the  mystery  of  man's  salvation  is 
not  included  in  those  words  ?  What  is  for- 
gotten, what  left  in  darkness  ?  All  is  full,  as 
from  the  Divine  fulness ;  perfect,  as  from  the 
Divine  perfection.  The  passage  contains  the 
exact  words  to  be  used,  the  essential  acts,  the 
sequence  of  processes,  an  insight  into  the 
Divine  nature.  He  bade  them  baptize  in  the 
Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  that  is  with  confession  of  the 
Creator  and  of  the  Only-begotten,  and  of  the 
Gift.  For  God  the  Father  is  One,  from  Whom 
are  all  things  ;  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  the 
Only-begotten,  through  Whom  are  all  things, 
is  One ;  and  the  Spirit,  God's  Gift  to  us,  Who 
pervades  all  things,  is  also  One.  Thus  all 
are  ranged  according  to  powers  possessed  and 
benefits  conferred ; — the  One  Power  from 
Whom  all,  the  One  Offspring  through  Whom 
all,  the  One  Gift  Who  gives  us  perfect  hope. 
Nothing  can  be  found  lacking  in  that  supreme 
Union  which  embraces,  in  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Spirit,  infinity  in  the  Eternal,  His 
Likeness  in  His  express  Image,  our  enjoy- 
ment of  Him  in  the  Gift 

2.  But  the  errors  of  heretics  and  blasphe- 
mers force  us  to  deal  with  unlawful  matters, 
to  scale  perilous  heights,  to  speak  unutterable 
words,  to  trespass  on  forbidden  ground.  Faith 
ought  in  silence  to  fulfil  the  commandments, 
worshipping  the  Father,  reverencing  with  Him 
the  Son,  abounding  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  but 
we  must  strain  the  poor  resources  of  our  lan- 
guage to  express  thoughts  too  great  for  words. 
The  error  of  others  compels  us  to  err  in  daring 
to  embody  in  human  terms  truths  which  ought 
to  be  hidden  in  the  silent  veneration  of  the 
heart. 

3.  For  there  have  risen  many  who  have 
given  to  the  plain  words  of  Holy  Writ  some 

1  St.  Malt,  xxviii.  19,  ao. 


arbitrary  interpretation  of  their  own,  instead 
of  its  true  and  only  sense,  and  this  in  defiance 
of  the  clear  meaning  of  words.  Heresy  lies 
in  the  sense  assigned,  not  in  the  word  written ; 
the  guilt  is  that  of  the  expositor,  not  of  the 
text.  Is  not  truth  indestructible?  When  we 
hear  the  name  Father,  is  not  sonship  involved 
in  that  Name  ?  The  Holy  Ghost  is  mentioned 
by  name;  must  He  not  exist?  We  can  no 
more  separate  fatherhood  from  the  Father  or 
sonship  from  the  Son  than  we  can  deny  the 
existence  in  the  Holy  Ghost  of  that  gift  which 
we  receive.  Yet  men  of  distorted  mind 
plunge  the  whole  matter  in  doubt  and  diffi- 
culty, fatuously  reversing  the  clear  meaning 
of  words,  and  depriving  the  Father  of  His 
fatherhood  because  they  wish  to  strip  the  Son 
of  His  sonship.  They  take  away  the  fatherhood 
by  asserting  that  the  Son  is  not  a  Son  by  nature ; 
for  a  son  is  not  of  the  nature  of  his  father 
when  begetter  and  begotten  have  not  the  same 
properties,  and  he  is  no  son  whose  being  is 
different  from  that  of  the  father,  and  unlike  it. 
Yet  in  what  sense  is  God  a  Father  (as  He  is), 
if  He  have  not  begotten  in  His  Son  that  same 
substance  and  nature  which  are  His  own? 

4.  Since,  therefore,  they  cannot  make  any 
change  in  the  facts  recorded,  they  bring  novel 
principles  and  theories  of  man's  device  to  bear 
upon  them.  Sabellius,  for  instance,  makes 
the  Son  an  extension  of  the  Father,  and  the 
faith  in  this  regard  a  matter  of  words  rather 
than  of  reality,  for  he  makes  one  and  the  same 
Person,  Son  to  Himself  and  also  Father. 
Hebion  allows  no  beginning  to  the  Son  of  God 
except  from  Mary,  and  represents  Him  not 
as  first  God  and  then  man,  but  as  first  man 
then  God;  declares  that  the  Virgin  did  not 
receive  into  herself  One  previously  existent, 
Who  had  been  in  the  beginning  God  the 
Word  dwelling  with  God,  but  that  through 
the  agency  of  the  Word  she  bore  Flesh  ;  the 
1  Word'  meaning  in  his  opinion  not  the  nature 
of  the  pre-existent  Only-begotten  God  2,  but 
only  the  sound  of  an  uplifted  voice.  Similarly 
certain  teachers  of  our  present  day  assert  that 
the  Image  and  Wisdom  and  Power  of  God 
was  produced  out  of  nothing,  and  in  time. 
They  do  this  to  save  God,  regarded  as  Father 
of  the  Son,  from  being  lowered  to  the  Son's 


3  Reading  non  antca. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   II. 


53 


level.  They  are  fearful  lest  this  birth  of  the 
Son  from  Him  should  deprive  Him  of  His 
glory,  and  therefore  come  to  God's  rescue 
by  styling  His  Son  a  creature  made  out  of 
nothing,  in  order  that  God  may  live  on  in 
solitary  perfection  without  a  Son  born  of  Him- 
self and  partaking  His  nature.  What  wonder 
that  their  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Ghost  should 
be  different  from  ours,  when  they  presume  to 
subject  the  Giver  of  that  Holy  Ghost  to  crea- 
tion, and  change,  and  non-existence.  Thus 
do  they  destroy  the  consistency  and  complete- 
ness of  the  mystery  of  the  faith.  They  break 
up  the  absolute  unity  of  God  by  assigning 
differences  of  nature  where  all  is  clearly  com- 
mon to  Each  ;  they  deny  the  Father  by  robbing 
the  Son  of  His  true  Sonship;  they  deny  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  their  blindness  to  the  facts 
that  we  possess  Him  and  that  Christ  gave 
Him.  They  betray  ill-trained  souls  to  ruin 
by  their  boast  of  the  logical  perfection  of  their 
doctrine  ;  they  deceive  their  hearers  by  empty- 
ing terms  of  their  meaning,  though  the  Names 
remain  to  witness  to  the  truth.  I  pass  over 
the  pitfalls  of  other  heresies,  Valentinian, 
Marcionite,  Manichee  and  the  rest.  From 
time  to  time  they  catch  the  attention  of  some 
foolish  souls  and  prove  fatal  by  the  very  infec- 
tion of  their  contact ;  one  plague  as  destruc- 
tive as  another  when  once  the  poison  of  their 
teaching  has  found  its  way  into  the  hearer's 
thoughts. 

5.  Their  treason  involves  us  in  the  diffi- 
cult and  dangerous  position  of  having  to  make 
a  definite  pronouncement,  beyond  the  state- 
ments of  Scripture,  upon  this  grave  and  ab- 
struse matter.  The  Lord  said  that  the  nations 
were  to  be  baptized  in  the  Name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
words  of  the  faith  are  clear;  the  heretics  do  their 
utmost  to  involve  the  meaning  in  doubt.  We 
may  not  on  this  account  add  to  the  appointed 
form,  yet  we  must  set  a  limit  to  their  license 
of  interpretation.  Since  their  malice,  inspired 
by  the  devil's  cunning,  empties  the  doctrine 
of  its  meaning  while  it  retains  the  Names 
which  convey  the  truth,  we  must  emphasise 
the  truth  which  those  Names  convey.  We 
must  proclaim,  exactly  as  we  shall  firwi  them 
in  the  words  of  Scripture,  the  majesty  and 
functions  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  and 
so  debar  the  heretics  from  robbing  these  Names 
of  their  connotation  of  Divine  character,  and 
compel  them  by  means  of  these  very  Names 
to  confine  their  use  of  terms  to  their  proper 
meaning.  I  cannot  conceive  what  manner  of 
mind  our  opponents  have,  who  pervert  the 
truth,  darken  the  light,  divide  the  indivisible, 
rend  the  scatheless,  dissolve  the  perfect  unity. 
It  may  seem   to   them   a   light    thing   to   tear 


up  Perfection,  to  make  laws  for  Omnipo- 
tence, to  limit  Infinity  ;  as  for  me,  the  task 
of  answering  them  fills  me  with  anxiety ;  my 
brain  whirls,  my  intellect  is  stunned,  my  very 
words  must  be  a  confession,  not  that  I  am 
weak  of  utterance,  but  that  I  am  dumb.  Vet 
a  wish  to  undertake  the  task  forces  itself  upon 
me  ;  it  means  withstanding  the  proud,  guiding 
the  wanderer,  warning  the  ignorant.  But  the 
subject  is  inexhaustible ;  I  can  see  no  limit 
to  my  venture  of  speaking  concerning  God  in 
terms  more  precise  than  He  Himself  has  used. 
He  has  assigned  the  Names — Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost, — which  are  our  information  of 
the  Divine  nature.  Words  cannot  express  or 
feeling  embrace  or  reason  apprehend  the  re 
suits  of  enquiry  carried  further;  all  is  ineffable, 
unattainable,  incomprehensible.  Language  is 
exhausted  by  the  magnitude  of  the  theme,  the 
splendour  of  its  effulgence  blinds  the  gazing 
eye,  the  intellect  cannot  compass  its  boundless 
extent.  Still,  under  the  necessity  that  is  laid 
upon  us,  with  a  prayer  for  pardon  to  Him 
Wiiose  attributes  these  are,  we  will  venture, 
enquire  and  speak  ;  and  moreover — -it  is  the 
only  promise  that  in  so  grave  a  matter  we  dare 
to  make — we  will  accept  whatever  conclusion 
He  shall  indicate. 

6.  It  is  the  Father  to  Whom  all  existence 
owes  its  origin.  In  Christ  and  through  Christ 
He  is  the  source  of  all.  In  contrast  to  all  else 
He  is  self-existent.  He  does  not  draw  His 
being  from  without,  but  possesses  it  from 
Himself  and  in  Himself.  He  is  infinite,  for 
nothing  contains  Him  and  He  contains  all 
things ;  He  is  eternally  unconditioned  by 
space,  for  He  is  illimitable ;  eternally  anterior 
to  time,  for  time  is  His  creation.  Let  imagi- 
nation range  to  what  you  may  suppose  is  God's 
utmost  limit,  and  you  will  find  Him  present 
there;  strain  as  you  will  there  is  always  a 
further  horizon  towards  which  to  strain.  In- 
finity is  His  property,  just  as  the  power  of 
making  such  effort  is  yours.  Words  will  fail 
you,  but  His  being  will  not  be  circumscribed. 
Or  ag?in,  turn  back  the  pages  of  history,  and 
you  will  find  Him  ever  present ;  should  num- 
bers fail  to  express  the  antiquity  to  which  you 
have  penetrated,  yet  God's  eternity  is  not 
diminished.  Gird  up  your  intellect  to  com- 
prehend Him  as  a  whole ;  He  eludes  you. 
God,  as  a  whole,  has  left  something  within 
your  grasp,  but  this  something  is  inextricably 
involved  in  His  entirety.  Thus  you  have 
missed  the  whole,  since  it  is  only  a  part  which 
remains  in  your  hands ;  nay,  not  even  a  part, 
for  you  are  dealing  with  a  whole  which  you 
have  failed  to  divide.  For  a  part  implies 
division,  a  whole  is  undivided,  and  God  is 
everywhere  and  wholly  present  wherever  He  is. 


54 


DE   TRINITATE. 


Reason,  therefore,  cannot  cope  with  Him, 
since  no  point  of  contemplation  can  be  found 
outside  Himself  and  since  eternity  is  eternally 
His.  This  is  a  true  statement  of  the  mystery  of 
that  unfathomable  nature  which  is  expressed  by 
the  Name  'Father:'  God  invisible,  ineffable, 
infinite.  Let  us  confess  by  our  silence  that 
words  cannot  describe  Him  ;  let  sense  admit 
that  it  is  foiled  in  the  attempt  to  apprehend, 
and  reason  in  the  effort  to  define.  Yet  He  has, 
as  we  said,  in  •  Father'  a  name  to  indicate  His 
nature;  He  is  a  Father  unconditioned.  He 
does  not,  as  men  do,  receive  the  power  of 
paternity  from  an  external  source.  He  is 
unbegotten,  everlasting,  inherently  eternal. 
To  the  Son  only  is  He  known,  for  no  one 
knoweth  the  Father  save  the  Son  and  him  to 
whom  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  Him,  nor  yet 
the  Son  save  the  Fathers.  Each  has  perfect 
and  complete  knowledge  of  the  Other.  There- 
fore, since  no  one  knoweth  the  Father  save  the 
Son,  let  our  thoughts  of  the  Father  be  at  one 
with  the  thoughts  of  the  Son,  the  only  faithful 
Witness,  Who  reveals  Him  to  us. 

7.  It  is  easier  for  me  to  feel  this  concerning 
the  Father  than  to  say  it.  I  am  well  aware 
that  no  words  are  adequate  to  describe  His 
attributes.  We  must  feel  that  He  is  invisible, 
incomprehensible,  eternal.  But  to  say  that 
He  is  self-existent  and  self-originating  and  self- 
sustained,  that  He  is  invisible  and  incompre- 
hensible and  immortal ;  all  this  is  an  acknow- 
ledgment of  His  glory,  a  hint  of  our  meaning, 
a  sketch  of  our  thoughts,  but  speech  is  power- 
less to  tell  us  what  God  is,  words  cannot 
express  the  reality.  You  hear  that  He  is 
self-existent;  human  reason  cannot  explain 
such  independence.  We  can  find  objects 
which  uphold,  and  objects  which  are  upheld, 
but  that  which  thus  exists  is  obviously  distinct 
from  that  which  is  the  cause  of  its  existence. 
Again,  if  you  hear  that  He  is  self-originating, 
no  instance  can  be  found  in  which  the  giver  of 
the  gift  of  life  is  identical  with  the  life  that 
is  given.  If  you  hear  that  He  is  immortal,  then 
there  is  something  which  does  not  spring  from 
Him  and  with  which  He  has,  by  His  very 
nature4,  no  contact;  and,  indeed,  death  is 
not  the  only  thing  which  this  word  '  immortal ' 
claims  as  independent  of  God  s.  If  you  hear 
that  He  is  incomprehensible,  that  is  as  much 
as  to  say  that  He  is  non-existent,  since  contact 
with  Him  is  impossible.  If  you  say  that  He  is 
invisible,  a  being  that  does  not  visibly  exist 


3  Cf.  St.  Matt.  xi.  27. 

4  Reading  a  se,  instead  of  alter. 

5  This  is  merely  a  verbal  paradox,  to  illustrate  the  inadequacy 
of  language  to  treat  of  God.  God  is  ex  hypothesi  author  of  all 
things,  and  contains  all  things  in  Himself.  Hut  the  negative 
term  immortal '  excludes  death,  and  its  concomitants  of  disease, 
pain,  &c,  from  God's  sphere. 


cannot  be  sure  of  its  own  existence.  Thus  our 
confession  of  God  fails  through  the  defects  of 
language ;  the  best  combination  of  words  we 
can  devise  cannot  indicate  the  reality  and  the 
greatness  of  God.  The  perfect  knowledge  of 
God  is  so  to  know  Him  that  we  are  sure  we 
must  not  be  ignorant  of  Him,  yet  cannot 
describe  Him.  We  must  believe,  must  appre- 
hend, must  worship  ;  and  such  acts  of  devotion 
must  stand  in  lieu  of  definition. 

8.  We  have  now  exchanged  the  perils  of 
a  harbourless  coast  for  the  storms  of  the  open 
sea.  We  can  neither  safely  advance  nor  safely 
retreat,  yet  the  way  that  lies  before  us  has 
greater  hardships  than  that  which  lies  behind. 
The  Father  is  what  He  is,  and  as  He  is  mani- 
fested, so  we  must  believe.  The  mind  shrinks 
in  dread  from  treating  of  the  Son ;  at  every 
word  I  tremble  lest  I  be  betrayed  into  treason. 
For  He  is  the  Offspring  of  the  Unbegotten, 
One  from  One,  true  from  true,  living  from 
living,  perfect  from  perfect ;  the  Power  of 
Power,  the  Wisdom  of  Wisdom,  the  Glory  of 
Glory,  the  Likeness  of  the  invisible  God,  the 
Image  of  the  Unbegotten  Father.  Yet  in  what 
sense  can  we  conceive  that  the  Only-begotten 
is  the  Offspring  of  the  Unbegotten?  Repeat- 
edly the  Father  cries  from  heaven,  This  is  My 
beloved  Son  in  Whom  I  am  well  pleased6.  It 
is  no  rending  or  severance,  for  He  that  begat 
is  without  passions,  and  He  that  was  born  is 
the  Image  of  the  invisible  God  and  bears 
witness,  The  Father  is  in  Me  and  I  in  the 
Father  t.  It  is  no  mere  adoption,  for  He  is 
the  true  Son  of  God  and  cries,  He  that  hath 
seen  Me  hath  seen  the  Father  also  8.  Nor  did 
He  come  into  existence  in  obedience  to  a 
command  as  did  created  things,  for  He  is  the 
Only-begotten  of  the  One  God ;  and  He  has 
life  in  Himself,  even  as  He  that  begat  Him 
has  life,  for  He  says,  As  the  Father  hath  life  in 
Himself,  even  so  gave  He  to  the  Son  to  have  life 
in  Himself?.  Nor  is  there  a  portion  of  the 
Father  resident  in  the  Son,  for  the  Son  bears 
witness,  All  things  that  the  Father  hath  are 
Mine1-,  and  again,  And  all  things  that  are 
Mine  are  Thine,  and  Thine  are  Mine 2,  and  the 
Apostle  testifies,  For  in  Him  dwelleth  all  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily  *;  and  by  the 
nature  of  things  a  portion  cannot  possess  the 
whole  4.  He  is  the  perfect  Son  of  the  perfect 
Father,  for  He  Who  has  all  has  given  all  to 
Him.      Yet    we    must   not   imagine   that   the 


6  St.  Matt.  iii.  17  ;  xvii.  5.  Again  in  §  23  Hilary  says  that 
these  words  were  often  repeated.  7  St.  John  x.  38. 

8  lb.  xiv.  9.  9  lb.  v.  26.  •  lb.  xvi.  15. 

2  lb.  xvii.  10.  The  words  which  follow,  "and  Whatsoever 
tlu  Father  hath  He  hath  given  to  tlu  Son,"  printed  in  the  editions 
as  a  Scriptural  citation,  are  evidently  a  gloss  which  has  crept 
into  the  text.  The  words  do  not  occur  in  Scripture,  but  are  used 
again  by  Hilary  in  §  10  of  this  Book. 

3  Col.  ii.  9.  *  Omitting  esse. 


ON   THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK    II. 


55 


Father  did  not  give,  because  He  still  possesses, 
or  that  He  has  lost,  because  He  gave  to  the 
Son. 

9.  The  manner  of  this  birth  is  therefore  a 
secret  confined  to  the  Two.  If  any  one  lays 
upon  his  personal  incapacity  his  failure  to  solve 
the  mystery,  in  spite  of  the  certainty  that  Father 
and  Son  stand  to  Each  Other  in  those  relations, 
he  will  be  still  more  pained  at  the  ignorance 
to  which  I  confess.  I,  too,  am  in  the  dark,  yet 
I  ask  no  questions.  I  look  for  comfort  to  the 
fact  that  Archangels  share  my  ignorance,  that 
Angels  have  not  heard  the  explanation,  and 
worlds  do  not  contain  it,  that  no  prophet  has 
espied  it  and  no  Apostle  sought  for  it,  that  the 
Son  Himself  has  not  revealed  it.  Let  such 
pitiful  complaints  cease.  Whoever  you  are 
that  search  into  these  mysteries,  I  do  not  bid 
you  resume  your  exploration  of  height  and 
breadth  and  depth  ;  I  ask  you  rather  to  ac- 
quiesce patiently  in  your  ignorance  of  the 
mode  of  Divine  generation,  seeing  that  you 
know  not  how  His  creatures  come  into  exist- 
ence. Answer  me  this  one  question  : — Do 
your  senses  give  you  any  evidence  that  you 
yourself  were  begotten  ?  Can  you  explain  the 
process  by  which  you  became  a  father? 
I  do  not  ask  whence  you  drew  perception, 
how  you  obtained  life,  whence  your  reason 
comes,  what'  is  the  nature  of  jfcour  senses  of 
smell,  touch,  sight,  hearing;  the  fact  that  we 
have  the  use  of  all  these  is  the  evidence  that 
they  exist.  What  I  ask  is  : — How  do  you 
give  them  to  your  children?  How  do  you 
ingraft  the  senses,  lighten  the  eyes,  implant 
the  mind?  Tell  me,  if  you  can.  You  have, 
then,  powers  which  you  do  not  understand, 
you  impart  gifts  which  you  cannot  comprehend. 
You  are  calmly  indifferent  to  the  mysteries  of 
your  own  being,  profanely  impatient  of  ignor- 
ance concerning  the  mysteries  of  God's. 

10.  Listen  then  to  the  Unbegotten  Father, 
listen  to  the  Only-begotten  Son.  Hear  His 
words,  The  Father  is  greater  than  1$,  and  / 
and  the  Fa/her  are  One  6,  and  He  that  hath  seen 
Me  hath  seen  the  Father  also  ?,  and  The  Father 
is  in  Me  and  I  in  the  Father*,  and  I  went  out 
from  the  Father?,  and  Who  is  in  the  bosom  0/ 
the  Father1,  and  Whatsoever  the  Father  hath 
He  hath  delivered  to  the  Son*, and  The  Son 
hath  life  in  Himself,  even  as  the  Father  hath  in 
Himself*.  Hear  in  these  words  the  Son,  the 
Image,  the  Wisdom,  the  Power,  the  Glory  of 
God.  Next  mark  the  Holy  Ghost  proclaiming 
Who  shall  declare  His  generation  *?  Note  s  the 


S  St.  John  xiv.  28.  6  lb.  x.  30.  7  lb.  xiv.  9. 

8  lb.  x.  38.  9  lb.  xvi.  28.    '  »  lb.  i.  18. 

2  The  citation  which  is  interpolated  in  §  8,  where  see  the  note, 
and  cf.  St.  Matt.  xi.  25. 

3  St.  John  v.  26.  4  Isai.  liii.  8.  5  Reading  observa. 


Lord's  assurance,  No  cm  \noweth  'hi  Son  save 
the  Father,  neither  doth  any  know  the  Father 
save  the  Son  and  He  to  whom  the  Son  willeth 
to  reveal  Him6,  Penetrate  into  the  mystery, 
plunge  into  the  darkness  which  shrouds  that 
birlh,  where  you  will  be  alone  with  God  the 
Unbegotten  and  God  the  Only-begotten.  Make 
your  start,  continue,  persevere.  I  know  that 
you  will  not  reach  the  goal,  but  I  shall  rejoice 
at  your  progress.  For  He  who  devoutly  treads 
an  endless  road,  though  he  reach  no  conclusion, 
will  profit  by  his  exertions.-  Reason  will  fail 
for  want  of  words,  but  when  it  comes  to  a  stand 
it  will  be  the  better  for  the  effort  made. 

1 1.  The  Son  draws  His  life  from  that  Father 
Who  truly  has  life ;  the  Only-begotten  from 
the  Unbegotten,  Offspring  from  Parent,  Liv- 
ing from  Living.  As  the  Father  hath  life  in 
Himself,  even  so  gave  He  to  the  Son  also  to  have 
life  in  Himself  t  .  The  Son  is  perfect  from 
Him  that  is  perfect,  for  He  is  whole  from 
Him  that  is  whole.  This  is  no  division  or 
severance,  for  Each  is  in  the  Other,  and  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  is  in  the  Son.  Incom- 
prehensible is  begotten  of  Incomprehensible, 
for  none  else  knows  Them,  but  Each  knows  the 
Other;  Invisible  is  begotten  of  Invisible,  for 
the  Son  is  the  Image  of  the  invisible  God, 
and  he  that  has  seen  the  Son  has  seen  the 
Father  also.  There  is  a  distinction,  for 
They  are  Father  and  Son ;  not  that  Their 
Divinity  is  different  in  kind,  for  Both  are  One, 
God  of  God,  One  God  Only-begotten  of  One 
God  Unbegotten.  They  are  not  two  Gods, 
but  One  of  One ;  not  two  Unbegotten,  for 
the  Son  is  born  of  the  Unborn.  There  is  no 
diversity,  for  the  life  of  the  living  God  is  in 
the  living  Christ.  So  much  I  have  resolved 
to  say  concerning  the  nature  of  their  Divinity; 
not  imagining  that  I  have  succeeded  in  mak- 
ing a  summary  of  the  faith,  but  recognising 
that  the  theme  is  inexhaustible.  So  faith,  you 
object,  has  no  service  to  render,  since  there  is 
nothing  that  it  can  comprehend.  Not  so  ;  the 
proper  service  of  faith  is  to  grasp  and  confess 
the  truth  that  it  is  incompetent  to  comprehend 
its  Object. 

12.  It  remains  to  say  something  more  con- 
cerning the  mysterious  generation  of  the  Son ; 
or  rather  this  something  more  is  everything. 
1  quiver,  I  linger,  my  powers  fail,  I  know  not 
where  to  begin.  I  cannot  tell  the  time  of  the 
Son's  birth ;  it  were  impious  not  to  be  certain 
of  the  fact.  Whom  shall  I  entreat  ?  Whom 
shall  I  call  to  my  aid  ?  From  what  books 
shall  I  borrow  the  terms  needed  to  state  so 
hard  a  problem  ?  Shall  I  ransack  the  philos- 
ophy of  Greece  ?    No !  I  have  read,  Where  is 


6  St.  Matt.  xi.  27. 


7  St.  John  v.  26. 


56 


DE    TRINITATE. 


the  wise  f  Where  is  the  enquirer  of  this  world*  ? 
In  this  matter,  then,  the  world's  philosophers, 
the  wise  men  of  paganism,  are  dumb  :  for 
they  have  rejected  the  wisdom  of  God.  Shall 
I  turn  to  the  Scribe  of  the  Law  ?  He  is  in 
darkness,  for  the  Cross  of  Christ  is  an  offence 
to  him.  Shall  I,  perchance,  bid  you  shut  your 
eyes  to  heresy,  and  pass  it  by  in  silence,  on  the 
ground  that  sufficient  reverence  is  shown  to 
Him  Whom  we  preach  if  we  believe  that 
lepers  were  cleansed,  the  deaf  heard,  the  lame 
ran,  the  palsied  stood,  the  blind  (in  general) 
received  sight,  the  blind  from  his  birth  had 
eyes  given  to  him  9,  devils  were  routed,  the 
sick  recovered,  the  dead  lived.  The  heretics 
confess  all  this,  and  perish. 

13.  Look  now  to  see  a  thing  not  less  mira- 
culous than  lame  men  running,  blind  men 
seeing,  the  flight  of  devils,  the  life  from  the 
dead.  There  stnnds  by  my  side,  to  guide  me 
through  the  difficulties  which  I  have  enunci- 
ated, a  poor  fisherman,  ignorant,  uneducated, 
fishing-lines  in  hand,  clothes  dripping,  muddy 
feet,  every  inch  a  sailor.  Consider  and  decide 
whether  it  were  the  greater  feat  to  raise  the 
dead  or  impart  to  an  untrained  mind  the 
knowledge  of  mysteries  so  deep  as  he  reveals 
by  saying,  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word1. 
What  means  this  In  the  beginning  was?  He 
ranges  backward  over  the  spaces  of  time, 
centuries  are  left  behind,  ages  are  cancelled. 
Fix  in  your  mind  what  date  you  will  for  this 
beginning;  you  miss  the  mark,  for  even  then 
He,  of  Whom  we  are  speaking,  was.  Survey 
the  universe,  note  well  what  is  written  of  it, 
In  the  beginning  God  made  the  heaven  and  the 
earth 2.  This  word  beginning  fixes  the  moment 
of  creation ;  you  can  assign  its  date  to  an 
event  which  is  definitely  stated  to  have  hap- 
pened in  the  beginning.  But  this  fisherman 
of  mine,  unlettered  and  unread,  is  untram- 
melled by  time,  undaunted  by  its  immensity ; 
he  pierces  beyond  the  beginning.  For  his 
zvas  has  no  limit  of  time  and  no  commence- 
ment ;  the  uncreated  Word  was  in  the  begin- 
ning. 

14.  But  perhaps  we  shall  find  that  our 
fisherman  has  been  guilty  of  departure  from 
the  terms  of  the  problem  proposed  for  solu- 
tion 3.  He  has  set  the  Word  free  from  the 
limitations  of  time ;  that  which  is  free  lives  its 
own  life  and  is  bound  to  no  obedience.  Let 
us,  therefore,  pay  our  best  attention  to  what 
follows  : — And  the  Word  was  with  God.     We 


8  1  Cor.  i.  20. 

9  The  healing  of  the  blind  man,  St.  John  ix.  i  ff.,  is  treated  as 
a  special  case  distinct  from  more  ordinary  cases  of  blindness. 

«  St.  John  i.  1.  2  Gen.  i.  i. 

3  I.e.  how  to  reconcile  the  Unity  of  God  with  the  Divinity 
ef  Christ.  To  say  that  the  Word  is  God  might  seem  to  con- 
tradict the  Unity  by  asserting  the  existence  of  a  second  God. 


find  that  it  is  with  God  that  the  Word,  Which 
7vas  before  the  beginning,  exists  unconditioned 
by  time.  The  Word,  Which  was,  is  with 
God.  He  Who  is  absent  when  we  seek  for 
His  origin  in  time*  is  present  all  the  while 
with  the  Creator  of  time.  For  this  once  our 
fisherman  has  escaped  ;  perhaps  he  will  suc- 
cumb to  the  difficulties  which  await  him. 

15.  For  you  will  plead  that  a  word  is  the 
sound  of  a  voice  ;  that  it  is  a  naming  of  things, 
an  utterance  of  thoughts.  This  Word  was 
with  God,  and  was  in  the  beginning;  the 
expression  of  the  eternal  Thinker's  thoughts 
must  be  eternal.  For  the  present  I  will  give 
you  a  brief  answer  of  my  own  on  the  fisher- 
man's behalf,  till  we  see  what  defence  he  has 
to  make  for  his  own  simplicity.  The  nature, 
then,  of  a  word  is  that  it  is  first  a  potentiality, 
afterwards  a  past  event ;  an  existing  thing  only 
while  it  is  being  heard.  How  can  we  say,  In 
the  beginning  was  the  Word,  when  a  word 
neither  exists  before,  nor  lives  after,  a  definite 
point  of  time?  Can  we  even  say  that  there 
is*  a  point  of  time  in  which  a  word  exists? 
Not  only  are  the  words  in  a  speaker's  mouth 
non-existent  until  they  are  spoken,  and  perished 
the  instant  they  are  uttered,  but  even  in  the 
moment  of  utterance  there  is  a  change  from 
the  sound  which  commences  to  that  which 
ends  a  word.  Such  is  the  reply  that  suggests 
itself  to  me  as  a  bystander.  But  your  op- 
ponent the  Fisherman  has  an  answer  of  his 
own.  He  will  begin  by  reproving  you  for 
your  inattention.  Even  though  your  unprac- 
tised ear  failed  to  catch  the  first  clause,  In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word,  why  complain  of  the 
next,  And  the  Word  was  with  God?  Wac. 
it  And  the  Word  was  in  God  that  you  heard,— 
the  dictum  of  some  profound  philosophy  ? 
Or  is  it  that  your  provincial  dialect  makes  no 
distinction  between  in  and  with  ?  The  asser- 
tion is  that  That  Which  was  in  the  beginning 
was  with,  not  in,  Another.  But  I  will  not 
argue  from  the  beginning  of  the  sentence ;  the 
sequel  can  take  care  of  itself.  Hear  now  the 
rank  and  the  name  of  the  Word : — And  the 
Word  was  God.  Your  plea  that  the  Word 
is  the  sound  of  a  voice,  the  utterance  of 
a  thought,  falls  to  the  ground.  The  Word 
is  a  reality,  not  a  sound,  a  Being,  not  a  speech, 
God,  not  a  nonentity. 

16.  But  I  tremble  to  say  it;  the  audacity 
staggers  me.  1  hear,  And  the  Word  was 
God;  I,  whom  the  prophets  have  taught  that 
God  is  One.  To  save  me  from  further  fears, 
give  me,  friend  Fisherman,  a  fuller  imparting 
of  this  great  mystery.  Show  that  these  asser- 
tions are  consistent  with  the  unity  of  God  : 

4  Reading  a  cognitione  temporis. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    II. 


57 


that  there  is  no  blasphemy  in  them,  no  ex- 
plaining away,  no  denial  of  eternity.  He 
continues,  He  was  in  the  beginning  with  God. 
This  He  was  in  the  beginning  removes  the 
limit  of  time ;  the  word  God  shows  that  He 
is  more  than  a  voice  ;  that  He  is  with  God 
proves  that  He  neither  encroaches  nor  is 
encroached  upon,  for  His  identity  is  not  swal- 
lowed up  in  that  of  Another,  and  He  is  clearly 
stated  to  be  present  with  the  One  Unbegotten 
God  as  God,  His  One  and  Only-begotten  Son. 

17.  We  are  still  waiting,  Fisherman,  for  your 
full  description  of  the  Word.  He  was  in  the 
beginning,  it  may  be  said,  but  perhaps  He 
was  not  before  the  beginning.  To  this  also 
I  will  furnish  a  reply  on  my  Fisherman's  behalf. 
The  Word  could  not  be  other  than  He  zvas  ; 
that  was  is  unconditional  and  unlimited.  But 
what  says  the  Fisherman  for  himself?  All 
things  were  made  through  Him.  Thus,  since 
nothing  exists  apart  from  Him  through  Whom 
the  universe  came  into  being,  He,  the  Author 
of  all  things,  must  have  an  immeasurable  ex- 
istence. For  time  is  a  cognisable  and  divisible 
measure  of  extension,  not  in  space,  but  in 
duration.  All  things  are  from  Him,  without 
exception  ;  time  then  itself  is  His  creature. 

18.  But,  my  Fisherman,  the  objection  will 
be  raised  that  you  are  reckless  and  extravagant 
in  your  language  ;  that  All  things  were  made 
through  Him  needs  qualification.  There  is  the 
Unbegotten,  made  of  none ;  there  is  also  the 
Son,  begotten  of  the  Unborn  Father.  This 
All  things  is  an  unguarded  statement,  admitting 
no  exceptions.  While  we  are  silent,  not  daring 
to  answer  or  trying  to  think  of  some  reply,  do 
you  break  in  with,  And  without  Him  was 
nothing  made.  You  have  restored  the  Author 
of  the  Godhead  to  His  place,  while  proclaiming 
that  He  has  a  Companion.  From  your  saying 
that  nothing  was  made  without  Him,  I  learn 
that  He  was  not  alone.  He  through  Whom 
the  work  was  done  is  One  ;  He  without  Whom 
it  was  not  done  is  Another :  a  distinction  is 
drawn  between  Creator  and  Companion. 

19.  Reverence  for  the  One  Unbegotten 
Creator  distressed  me,  lest  in  your  sweeping 
assertion  that  all  things  were  made  by  the 
Word  you  had  included  Him.  You  have 
banished  my  fears  by  your  Without  Him  was 
nothing  made.  Yet  this  same  Without  Him  was 
?wthing  made  brings  trouble  and  distraction. 
There  was,  then,  something  made  by  that 
Other ;  not  made,  it  is  true,  without  Him.  If 
the  Other  did  make  anything,  even  though  the 
Word  were  present  at  the  making,  then  it  is 
untrue  that  through  Him  all  things  were  made. 
It  is  one  thing  to  be  the  Creator's  Companion, 
quite  another  to  be  the  Creator's  Self.  I  could 
find  answers  of  my  own  to  the  previous  ob- 


jections;  in  this  case,  Fisherman,  I  can  only 
turn  at  once  to  your  words,  All  things  were 
made  through  Him.  And  now  I  understand, 
for  the  Apostle  has  enlightened  me: — Things 
visible  and  things  invisible,  whether  thrones  or 
dominions  or  principalities  or  powers,  all  are 
through  Him  and  in  Him  5. 

20.  Since,  then,  all  things  were  made  through 
Him,  come  to  our  help  and  tell  us  what  it  was 
that  was  made  not  without  Him.  That  which 
was  made  in  Him  is  life.  That  which  was 
made  in  Him  was  certainly  not  made  without 
Him  ;  for  that  which  was  made  in  Him  was 
also  made  through  Him.  All  things  were 
created  in  Him  and  through  Him 6.  They 
were  created  in  Him  ?,  for  He  was  born  as  God 
the  Creator.  Again,  nothing  that  was  made  in 
Him  was  made  without  Him,  for  the  reason 
that  God  the  Begotten  was  Life,  and  was  born 
as  Life,  not  made  life  after  His  birth  ;  for  there 
are  not  two  elements  in  Him,  one  inborn  and 
one  afterwards  conferred.  There  is  no  interval 
in  His  case  between  birth  and  maturity.  None 
of  the  things  that  were  created  in  Him  was 
made  without  Him,  for  He  is  the  Life  which 
made  their  creation  possible.  Moreover  God, 
the  Son  of  God,  became  God  by  virtue  of  His 
birth,  not  after  He  was  born.  Being  born  the 
Living  from  the  Living,  the  True  from  the 
True,  the  Perfect  from  the  Perfect,  He  was 
born  in  full  possession  of  His  powers.  He 
needed  not  to  learn  in  after  time  what  His 
birth  was,  but  was  conscious  of  His  Godhead 
by  the  very  fact  that  He  was  born  as  God  of 
God.  /  and  the  Father  are  Ones,  are  the 
words  of  the  Only-begotten  Son  of  the  Un- 
begotten. It  is  the  voice  of  the  One  God 
proclaiming  Himself  to  be  Father  and  Son ; 
Father  speaking  in  the  Son  and  Son  in  the 
Father.  Hence  also  He  that  hath  seen  Me 
hath  seen  the  Father  also1*;  hence  All  that  the 
Father  hath,  He  hath  given  to  the  Son  l;  hence 
As  the  Father  hath  life  in  Himself,  so  hath  He 
given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  i?i  Himself'1;  hence 
No  one  knoweth  the  Father  save  the  Son,  nor  the 
Son  save  the  Father  3y  hence  In  Him  dwelleth 
all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily  *. 


S  Col.  i.  16.  «  Cf.  Col.  i.  16.  7  I.e.  potentially. 

8  St.  John  x.  30.  9  lb.  xiv.  9.  1  lb.  xvi.  15. 

2  lb.  v.  26.  3  St.  Matt.  xi.  27. 

4  Col.  ii.  9.  The  argument  of  §§  18 — 20  is  not  easy.  They 
begin  with  the  possible  objection  to  All  tilings  were  made  through 
Him,  that  this  would  include  the  Father  among  the  Son's  crea- 
tions. The  answer  is  found  in  the  following  woras,  Without  Him 
was  not  anything  made.  These  show  that  the  Son  was  not  alone 
in  His  work  ;  the  Father  is  co-existent.  But  they  raise  another 
difficulty.  What  if  the  Father  were  the  sole  agent  in  creation, 
the  Son  only  His  inseparable  Companion,  yet  taking  no  share 
in  the  work?  The  answer  is  found  in  the  preceding  words,  All 
things  were  made  through  Him,  amplified  and  explained  by 
St.  Paul  when  He  says  that  it  was  through  Him  and  in  Him. 
hi  Him,  because  when  the  Son,  the  future  Creator,  was  born,  the 
world  was  potentially  created  ;  in  Him  also  because  He  is  Life, 
and  thus  the  condition  of  all  existence.  Again,  the  truth  of  the 
words,  All  things  were  made  through  Him,  is  shewn  by  the 


w 


DE    TRINITATE. 


21.  This  Life  is  the  Light  of  men,  the  Light 
which  lightens  the  darkness.  To  comfort  us 
for  that  powerlessness  to  describe  His  genera- 
tion of  which  the  prophet  speaks  s,  the  Fisher- 
man adds,  And  the  darkness  comprehended  Him 
not6.  The  language  of  unaided  reason  was 
baffled  and  silenced;  the  Fisherman  who  lay  on 
the  bosom  of  the  Lord  was  taught  to  express 
the  mystery.  His  language  is  not  the  world's 
language,  for  He  deals  with  things  that  are  not 
of  the  world.  Let  us  know  what  it  is,  if  there 
be  any  teaching  that  you  can  extract  from  his 
words,  more  than  their  plain  sense  conveys  ; 
if  you  can  translate  into  other  terms  the  truth 
we  have  elicited,  publish  them  abroad.  1/ 
there  be  none — indeed,  because  there  are 
none — let  us  accept  with  reverence  this  teach- 
ing of  the  fisherman,  and  recognise  in  his 
words  the  oracles  of  God.  Let  us  cling  in 
adoration  to  the  true  confession  of  Father  and 
Son,  Unbegotten  and  Only-begotten  ineffably, 
Whose  majesty  defies  all  expression  and  all 
perception.  Let  us,  like  John,  lie  on  the 
bosom  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  that  we  too  may 
understand  and  proclaim  the  mystery. 

22.  This  faith,  and  every  part  of  it,  is  im- 
pressed upon  us  by  the  evidence  of  the 
Gospels,  by  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles,  by 
the  futility  of  the  treacherous  attacks  which 
heretics  make  on  every  side.  The  foundation 
stands  firm  and  unshaken  in  face  of  winds  and 
rains  and  torrents;  storms  cannot  overthrow 
it,  nor  dripping  waters  hollow  it,  nor  floods 
sweep  it  away.  Its  excellence  is  proved  by 
the  failure  of  countless  assaults  to  impair  it. 
Certain  remedies  are  so  compounded  as  to  be 
of  value  not  merely  against  some  single  disease 
but  against  all ;  they  are  of  universal  efficacy. 
So  it  is  with  the  Catholic  faith.  It  is  not 
a  medicine  for  some  special  malady,  but  for 
every  ill ;  virulence  cannot  master,  nor  num- 
bers defeat,  nor  complexity  baffle  it.  One  and 
unchanging  it  faces  and  conquers  all  its  foes. 
Marvellous  it  is  that  one  form  of  words  should 
contain  a  remedy  for  every  disease,  a  statement 
of  truth  to  confront  every  contrivance  of  false- 
hood. Let  heresy  muster  its  forces  and  every 
sect  come  forth  to  battle.  Let  our  answer  to 
their  challenge  be  that  there  is  One  Unbe- 
gotten God  the  Father,  and  One  Only-begotten 
Son  of  God,  perfect  Offspring  of  perfect 
Parent;  that  the  Son  was  begotten  by  no 
lessening  of  the  Father  or  subtraction  from 
His  Substance,  but  that  He  Who  possesses  all 
things  begat  an  all-possessing  Son ;    a  Son  not 


manner  of  His  birth.     It  was  instantaneous,  and   He  was  born 
endowed  with  all  His  powers.      We  may  say  therefore  that  He 
was  the  author  of  His   own   existence;    All  things  were  made 
through  I'iiu,  with  the  necessary  exception  of  the  Father. 
5  Isai.  liii.  8.  6  St.  John  i.  4. 


emanating  nor  proceeding  from  the  Father,  but 
compact  of,  and  inherent  in,  the  whole. Divi- 
nity of  Him  Who  wherever  He  is  present  is 
present  eternally ;  One  free  from  time,  un- 
limited in  duration,  since  by  Him  all  things 
were  made?,  and,  indeed,  He  could  not  be 
confined  within  a  limit  created  by  Himself. 
Such  is  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Faith  which 
the  Gospel  has  taught  us  and  we  avow. 

23.  Let  Sabellius.  if  he  dare,  confound  Father 
and  Son  as  two  names  with  one  meaning,  mak- 
ing of  them  not  Unity  but  One  Person.     He 
shall  have  a  prompt  answer  from  the  Gospels, 
not  once  or  twice,  but  often  repeated,  This  is 
My  beloved  Son,  in  Whom  I  am  well  pleased9. 
He  shall  hear  the  words,  The  Father  is  greater 
than  19,  and  I  go  to  the  Father1,  and  Father, 
I  thank  Thee 2,  and  Glorify  Me,  Father  3,  and 
Thou   art  the  Son  of  the  living   God*.     Let 
Hebion   try  to  sap  the  faith,  who   allows  the 
Son  of  God  no  life  before  the  Virgin's  womb, 
and  sees  in  Him  the  Word  only  after  His  life 
as  flesh   had   begun.     We  will  bid  him  read 
again,  Father,  glorify  Me  with  Thine  own  Self 
with  that  glory  which  I  had  with  Thee  before 
the  world  was5,  and  In  the  beginning  tvas  the 
Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the 
Word  was  God6,  and  All  things  were  made 
through  Him  ?,  and  He  was  in  the  world,  and 
the  world  was  made   through    Him,  and  the 
world  k7iew   Him    notz.     Let   the   preachers 
whose  apostleship  is  of  the  newest  fashion — 
an    apostleship   of  Antichrist — come   forward 
and  pour  their  mockery  and  insult  upon  the 
Son    of  God.     They  must  hear,  /  came  out 
from  the  Father ■£>,  and  The  Son  in  the  Father's 
bosom  1,  and  I  a?id  the  Father  are  One 2,  and 
/  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  Me  3.     And 
lastly,  if  they  be  wroth,  as  the  Jews  were,  that 
Christ  should  claim  God  for  His  own  Father, 
making   Himself  equal  with  God,  they  must 
take  the  answer  which   He   gave   the    Jews, 
Believe  My  works,  that  the  Father  is  in  Me 
and  I  in  the  Father*.     Thus  our  one  immov- 
able foundation,  our  one  blissful  rock  of  faith, 
is  the  confession  from  Peter's  mouth,   Thou 
art  the  Son  of  the  Living  God5.     On  it  we  can 
base  an  answer  to  every  objection  with  which 
perverted    ingenuity  or   embittered    treachery 
may  assail  the  truth. 

24.  In  what  remains  we  have  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  Father's  will.  The  Virgin, 
the  birth,  the  Body,  then  the  Cross,  the 
death,  the  visit  to  the  lower  world ;  these 
things   are   our   salvation.     For   the   sake   of 


7  Reading  sint.         8  St.  Matt.  xvii.  5.     See  the  note  to  §  8. 
9  St.  John  xiv.  28.  «  lb.  12.    "  2  lb.  xi   41. 

3  lb.  xvii.  5.  *  St.  Matt.  xvi.  17.  s  St.  John  xvii.  5. 

6  lb.  i.  1.  7  lb.  3.  8  ib.  10.  9  lb.  xvi.  28. 

1  lb.  i.  18.  '  lb.  x.  30.  3  lb.  xiv.  11. 

*  lb.  x.  38.  S  St.  Matt.  xvi.  16. 


ON    THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK    II 


59 


mankind  the  Son  of  God  was  born  of  the 
Virgin  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  this  process 
He  ministered  to  Himself;  by  His  own  power 
—the  power  of  God — which  overshadowed 
her  He  sowed  the  beginning  of  His  Body,  and 
entered  on  the  first  stage  of  His  life  in  the 
flesh.  He  did  it  that  by  His  Incarnation  He 
might  take  to  Himself  from  the  Virgin  the 
fleshly  nature,  and  that  through  this  com- 
mingling there  might  come  into  being  a  hal- 
lowed Body  of  all  humanity ;  that  so  through 
that  Body  which  He  was  pleased  to  assume 
all  mankind  might  be  hid  in  Him,  and  He  in 
return,  through  His  unseen  exisience,  be  re- 
produced in  all.  Thus  the  invisible  Image  of 
God  scorned  not  the  shame  which  marks  the 
beginnings  of  human  life.  He  passed  through 
every  stage;  through  conception,  birth,  wail- 
ing, cradle  and  each  successive  humiliation. 

25.  What  worthy  return  can  we  make  for  so 
great  a  condescension  ?  The  One  Only- 
begotten  God,  ineffably  born  of  God,  entered 
the  Virgin's  womb  and  grew  and  took  the 
frame  of  poor  humanity.  He  Who  upholds 
the  universe,  within  Whom  and  through  Whom 
are  all  things,  was  brought  forth  by  common 
childbirth ;  He  at  Whose  voice  Archangels 
and  Angels  tremble,  and  heaven  and  earth 
and  all  the  elements  of  this  world  are  melted, 
was  heard  in  childish  wailing.  The  Invisible 
and  Incomprehensible,  Whom  sight  and  feel- 
ing and  touch  cannot  gauge,  was  wrapped 
in  a  cradle.  If  any  man  deem  all  this  un- 
worthy of  God,  the  greater  must  he  own  his 
debt  for  the  benefit  conferred  the  less  such 
condescension  befits  the  majesty  of  God.  He 
by  Whom  man  was  made  had  nothing  to  gain 
by  becoming  Man  ;  it  was  our  gain  that  God 
was  incarnate  and  dwelt  among  us,  making  all 
flesh  His  home  by  taking  upon  Him  the  llesh 
of  One.  We  were  raised  because  He  was 
lowered  ;  shame  to  Him  was  glory  to  us.  He, 
being  God,  made  flesh  His  residence,  and  we 
in  return  are  lifted  anew  from  the  flesh  to  God. 

26.  But  lest  perchance  fastidious  minds  be 
exercised  by  cradle  and  wailing,  birth  and 
conception,  we  must  render  to  God  the  glory 
which  each  of  these  contains,  that  we  may 
approach  His  self-abasement  with  souls  duly 
filled  with  His  claim  to  reign,  and  not  forget 
His  majesty  in  His  condescension.  Let  us 
note,  therefore,  who  were  attendant  on  His 
conception.  An  Angel  speaks  to  Zacharias ; 
fertility  is  given  to  the  barren  ;  the  priest 
conies  forth  dumb  from  the  place  of  incense ; 
John  bursts  forth  into  speech  while  yet  con- 
fined within  his  mother's  womb ;  an  Angel 
blesses  Mary  and  promises  that  she,  a  virgin, 
shall  be  the  mother  of  the  Son  of  God.  Con- 
scious of  her  virginity,  she  is  distressed  at  this 


hard  thing  ;  the  Angel  explains  to  her  the 
mighty  working  of  God,  saying,  The  Holy 
Ghost  shall  come  from  above  into  thee,  and  the 
power  of  the  Most  High  shall  overshadow  thee6. 
The  Holy  Ghost,  descending  from  above,  hal- 
lowed the  Virgin's  womb,  and  breathing  therein 
(for  The  Spirit  bloweth  where  it  listeth''), 
mingled  Himself  with  the  fleshly  nature  of 
man,  and  annexed  by  force  and  might  that 
foreign  domain.  And,  lest  through  weakness 
of  the  human  structure  failure  should  ensue, 
the  power  of  the  Most  High  overshadowed 
the  Virgin,  strengthening  her  feebleness  in 
semblance  of  a  cloud  cast  round  her,  that  the 
shadow,  which  was  the  might  of  God,  might 
fortify  her  bodily  frame  to  receive  the  pro- 
creative  power  of  the  Spirit.  Such  is  the  glory 
of  the  conception. 

27.  And  now  let  us  consider  the  glory  which 
accompanies  the  birth,  the  wailing  and  the 
cradle.  The  Angel  tells  Joseph  that  the 
Virgin  shall  bear  a  Son,  and  that  that  Son 
shall  be  named  Emmanuel,  that  is,  God  with 
us.  The  Spirit  foretells  it  through  the  prophet, 
the  Angel  bears  witness ;  He  that  is  born 
is  God  with  us.  The  light  of  a  new  star 
shines  forth  for  the  Magi ;  a  heavenly  sign 
escorts  the  Lord  of  heaven.  An  Angel  brings 
to  the  shepherds  the  news  that  Christ  the 
Lord  is  born,  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  A 
multitude  of  the  heavenly  host  flock  together 
to  sing  the  praise  of  that  childbirth  ;  the  re- 
joicing of  the  Divine  company  proclaims  the 
fulfilment  of  the  mighty  work.  Then  glory  to 
God  in  heaven,  and  peace  on  earth  to  men  of 
good  will  is  announced.  And  now  the  Magi 
come  and  worship  Him  wrapped  in  swaddling 
clothes ;  after  a  life  devoted  to  mystic  rites  of 
vain  philosophy  they  bow  the  knee  before 
a  Babe  laid  in  His  cradle.  Thus  the  Magi 
stoop  to  reverence  the  infirmities  of  Infancy ; 
its  cries  are  saluted  by  the  heavenly  joy  of 
angels ;  the  Spirit  Who  inspired  the  prophet, 
the  heralding  Angel,  the  light  of  the  new  star, 
all  minister  around  Him.  In  such  wise  was 
it  that  the  Holy  Ghost's  descent  and  the  over- 
shadowing power  of  the  Most  High  brought 
Him  to  His  birth.  The  inward  reality  is 
widely  different  from  the  outward  appearance  ; 
the  eye  sees  one  thing,  the  soul  another.  A 
virgin  bears ;  her  child  is  of  God.  An  Infant 
wails ;  angels  are  heard  in  praise.  There  are 
coarse  swaddling  clothes;  God  is  being  wor- 
shipped. The  glory  of  His  Majesty  is  not 
forfeited  when  He  assumes  the  lowliness  of 
flesh. 

28.  So  was  it  also  during  His  further  life  on 
earth.     The  whole  time  which  He  passed  in 


6  St.  Luke  i.  35. 


7  St.  John  iii.  8. 


6o 


DE   TRINITATE. 


human  form  was  spent  upon  the  works  of  God. 
I  have  no  space  for  details ;  it  must  suffice  to 
say  that  in  all  the  varied  acts  of  power  and 
healing  which  He  wrought,  the  fact  is  con- 
spicuous that  He  was  man  by  virtue  of  the 
flesh  He  had  taken,  God  by  the  evidence  of 
the  works  He  did. 

29.  Concerning  the  Holy  Spirit  I  ought  not 
to  be  silent,  and  yet  I  have  no  need  to  speak  ; 
still,  for  the  sake  of  those  who  are  in  ignor- 
ance, I  cannot  refrain.     There  is  no  need  to 
speak,  because  we  are  bound  to  confess  Him, 
proceeding,  as  He  does,  from  Father  and  Son8. 
For  my  own  part,  I  think  it  wrong  to  discuss 
the  question  of  His  existence.     He  does  exist, 
inasmuch  as  He  is  given,  received,  retained. 
He  is  joined  with  Father  and  Son  in  our  con- 
fession of  the  faith,  and  cannot  be  excluded 
from  a  true    confession  of  Father  and   Son ; 
take   away   a   part,   and   the   whole    faith    is 
marred.     If  any  man   demand  what  meaning 
we  attach  to  this  conclusion,  he,  as  well  as  we, 
has  read  the  words  of  the  Apostle,  Because  ye 
are  sons  of  God,   God  hath  sent  the  Spirit  of 
His  Son  into  our  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father  °, 
and    Grieve  not  the  Holy   Spirit  of  God,   in 
Whom  ye  have  been  sealed'1,  and  again,  But  we 
have  received  not  the  spirit  of  this  world,  but 
the  Spirit  which  is  of  God,  that  we  may  know 
the  things  that  are  given    unto   us   by   God11, 
and  also  But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh  but  in  the 
Spirit,  if  so  be  'that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  in  you. 
But  if  any  man  hath  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
he  is  not  His 3,  and  further,  But  if  the  Spirit 
of  Him  that  raised  up  Jesus  from    the   dead 
dwelleth  in  you,  He  that  raised  up  Christ  from 
the  dead  shall  quicken  also  your  mortal  bodies 
for  the  sake  of  His  Spirit  which  dwelleth  in 
you*.    Wherefore  since   He  is,  and  is  given, 
and  is  possessed,  and  is  of  God,  let  His  tradu- 
cers  take  refuge  in  silence.     When  they  ask, 
Through  Whom  is   He?    To  what  end  does 
He  exist?    Of  what  nature  is  He?    We  answer 
that  He  it  is  through  Whom  all  things  exist, 
and  from  Whom  are  all  things,  and  that  He 
is  the  Spirit  of  God,  God's  gift  to  the  faithful. 
If  our  answer  displease  them,  their  displeasure 
must   also   fall    upon    the   Apostles    and   the 
Prophets,  who  spoke  of  Him  exactly  as  we 
have   spoken.     And  furthermore,  Father  and 
Son  must  incur  the  same  displeasure. 

30.  The  reason,  I  believe,  why  certain 
people  continue  in  ignorance  or  doubt  is  that 
they  see  this  third  Name,  that  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  often  used  to  signify  the  Father  or  'hz 
Son.     No  objection  need   be  raised    .3  this ; 

-  Qui  Patre  et  Filio  auctoribus  confitendus  est ;  A  comparison 
ghh  duin  et  usum  et  attctorcm  eius  ignorant  in  §  4  makes  tliis 
appear  the  probable  translation.  It  might,  of  course,  mean  conjcss 
Hint  on  the  evidence  0/ Father  andSo*.  S  CaL  iv   K 

1  Eph.  iv.  30.       2  1  Cor.  ii.  12.        3  Kom.  viii.  9.       *  lb.  11. 


whether  it  be  Father  or  Son,  He  is  Spirit,  and 
He  is  holy. 

31.  But  the  words  of  the  Gospel,  For  God 
is  Spirit*,  need  careful  examination  as  to  their 
sense  and  their  purpose.  For  every  saying 
has  an  antecedent  cause  and  an  aim  which 
must  be  ascertained  by  study  of  the  meaning. 
We  must  bear  this  in  mind  lest,  on  the  strength 
of  the  words,  God  is  Spirit,  we  deny  not  only 
the  Name,  but  also  the  work  and  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Lord  was  speaking 
with  a  woman  of  Samaria,  for  He  had  come 
to  be  the  Redeemer  for  all  mankind.  After 
He  had  discoursed  at  length  of  the  living 
water,  and  of  her  five  husbands,  and  of  him 
whom  she  then  had  who  was  not  her  husband, 
the  woman  answered,  Lord,  I  perceive  that 
Thou  art  a  prophet.  Our  fathers  worshipped 
in  this  mountain  ;  and  ye  say  that  in  Jerusalem 
is  the  place  where  men  ought  to  worships.  The 
Lord  replied,  Woman,  believe  Me,  the  hour 
cometh  when  ?ieither  in  this  mountain,  nor  in 
Jerusalem,  shall  ye  worship  the  Father.  Ye 
ivorship  that  which  ye  know  not ;  we  worship 
that  which  zve  know  ;  for  salvation  is  from  the 
Jews.  But  the  hour  cometh,  and  now  is,  when 
the  true  worshippers  shall  worship  the  Father 
in  the  Spirit  and  in  truth  ;  for  the  Father 
seeketh  such  to  worship  Him.  For  God  is 
Spirit,  and  they  that  worship  Him  must  wor- 
ship in  the  Spirit  and  in  truth,  for  God  is 
Spirit'.  We  see  that  the  woman,  her  mind 
full  of  inherited  tradition,  thought  that  God 
must  be  worshipped  either  on  a  mountain,  as 
at  Samaria,  or  in  a  temple,  as  at  Jerusalem ; 
for  Samaria  in  disobedience  to  the  Law  had 
chosen  a  site  upon  the  mountain  for  worship, 
while  the  Jews  regarded  the  temple  founded 
by  Solomon  as  the  home  of  their  religion,  and 
the  prejudices  of  both  confined  the  all-embrac- 
ing and  illimitable  God  to  the  crest  of  a  hill 
or  the  vault  of  a  building.  God  is  invisible, 
incomprehensible,  immeasurable ;  the  Lord 
said  that  the  time  had  come  when  God  should 
be  worshipped  neither  on  mountain  nor  in 
temple.  For  Spirit  cannot  be  cabined  or 
confined  ;  it  is  omnipresent  in  space  and  time, 
and  under  all  conditions  present  in  its  fulness. 
Therefore,  He  said,  they  are  the  true  wor- 
shippers who  shall  worship  in  the  Spirit  and 
in  truth.  And  these  who  are  to  worship  God 
the  Spirit  in  the  Spirit  shall  have  the  One  for 
the  means,  the  Other  for  the  object,  of  their 
reverence:  for  Each  of  the  Two  stands  in 
a  different  relation  to  the  worshipper.  The 
words,  God  is  Spirit,  do  not  alter  the  fact  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  has  a  Name  of  His  own,  and 
that  Ke  is  the  Gift  to  us.     The  woman  who 


5  St.  John  iv.  24. 


«  lb. 


19,  20. 


7  lb. 


-24. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    II. 


61 


confined  God  to  hill  or  temple  was  tokl  that 
God  contains  all  things  and  is  self-contained  : 
that  He,  the  Invisible  and  Incomprehensible, 
must  be  worshipped  by  invisible  and  incom- 
prehensible means.  The  imparted  gift  and 
the  object  of  reverence  were  clearly  shewn 
when  Christ  taught  that  God,  being  Spirit, 
must  be  worshipped  in  the  Spirit,  and  revealed 
what  freedom  and  knowledge,  what  boundless 
scope  for  adoration,  lay  in  this  worship  of  God, 
the  Spirit,  in  the  Spirit. 

32.  The  words  of  the  Apostle  are  of  like 
purport ;  For  the  Lord  is  Spirit,  and  where  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  is,  there  is  liberty*.  To 
make  his  meaning  clear  he  has  distinguished 
between  the  Spirit,  Who  exists,  and  Him 
Whose  Spirit  He  is.  Proprietor  and  Property, 
He  and  His  are  different  in  sense.  Thus 
when  he  says,  The  Lord  is  Spirit  he  reveals  the 
infinity  of  God;  when  He  adds,  Where  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  is,  there  is  liberty,  he  indicates 
Him  Who  belongs  to  God ;  for  He  is  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord,  and  Where  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  is,  there  is  liberty.  The  Apostle  makes 
the  statement  not  from  any  necessity  of  his 
own  argument,  but  in  the  interests  of  clearness. 
For  the  Holy  Ghost  is  everywhere  One,  en- 
lightening all  patriarchs  and  prophets  and  the 
whole  company  of  the  Law,  inspiring  John 
even  in  his  mother's  womb,  given  in  due  time  to 
the  Apostles  and  other  believers,  that  they 
might  recognise  the  truth  vouchsafed  them. 

33.  Let  us  hear  from  our  Lord's  own  words 
what  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  within  us. 
He  says,  /  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you, 
but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now  9.  For  it  is  ex- 
pedient for  you  that  L  go  :  if  L  go  I  will  send 
you  the  Advocate1-.  And  again,  L  will  ask  the 
Father  and  He  shall  send  you  another  Advo- 
cate, that  He  may  be  with  you  for  ever,  even 
the  Spirit  of  truth  2.  He  shall  guide  you  into 
all  truth,  for  He  shall  not  speak  from  Himself, 
but  whatsoever  things  He  shall  hear  He  shall 
speak,  and  He  shall  declare  unto  you  the  things 
that  are  to  come.  He  shall  glorify  Me,  for  He 
shall  take  of  Mine  3.  These  words  were  spoken 
to  show  how  multitudes  should  enter  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  ;  they  contain  an  assurance  of 
the  goodwill  of  the  Giver,  and  of  the  mode  and 
terms  of  the  Gift.  They  tell  how,  because  our 
feeble  minds  cannot  comprehend  the  Father  or 
the  Son,  our  faith  which  finds  God's  incarnation 
hard  of  credence  shall  be  illumined  by  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Bond  of  union  and  the 
Source  of  light. 

34.  The  next  step  naturally  is  to  listen  to 
the  Apostle's  account  of  the  powers  and  func- 
tions of  this  Gift.     He  says,  As  many  as  are  led 


by  the  Spirit  of  God,  these  are  the  child/ en  of 
God.  For  ye  received  not  the  Spirit  op  bondage 
again  unto  fear,  but  ye  received  the  Spirit  of 
adoption  whereby  zve  cry,  Abba,  Father*;  and 
again,  For  no  man  by  the  Spirit  of  God  saith 
anathema  to  Jesus,  and  no  man  can  say,  Jesus 
is  Lord,  but  in  the  Lloly  Spirit  $;  and  he  adds, 
Now  there  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the  same 
Spirit,  and  diversities  of  ministrations,  but  the 
same  Lord,  and  diversities  of  workings,  but  the 
same  God,  Who  worketh  all  things  in  all. 
But  to  each  one  is  given  the  enlightenment  of 
the  Spirit,  to  profit  withal.  Now  to  one  is  given 
through  the  Spirit  the  word  of  wisdom,  to  an- 
other the  word  of  knowledge  according  to  the 
same  Spirit,  to  another  faith  in  the  same  Spirit, 
to  another  gifts  of  healings  in  the  One  Spirit,  to 
another  workings  of  miracles,  to  another  pro- 
phecy, to  another  discerning  of  spirits,  to  another 
kinds  of  tongues,  to  another  interpretation  of 
tongues.  But  all  these  worketh  the  One  and 
same  Spirit6.  Here  we  have  a  statement  of 
the  purpose  and  results  of  the  Gift;  and  I 
cannot  conceive  what  doubt  can  remain,  after 
so  clear  a  definition  of  His  Origin,  His  action 
and  His  powers. 

35.  Let  us  therefore  make  use  of  this  great 
benefit,  and  seek  for  personal  experience  of 
this  most  needful  Gift.  For  the  Apostle  says, 
in  words  I  have  already  cited,  But  we  have  not 
received  the  spirit  of  this  world,  but  the  Spirit 
which  is  of  God,  that  we  may  know  the  things 
that  are  given  unto  us  by  God  "J.  We  receive 
Him,  then,  that  we  may  know.  Faculties  of  the 
human  body,  if  denied  their  exercise,  will  lie 
dormant.  The  eye  without  light,  natural  or 
artificial,  cannot  fulfil  its  office  ;  the  ear  will  be 
ignorant  of  its  function  unless  some  voice  or 
sound  be  heard  ;  the  nostrils  unconscious  of 
their  purpose  unless  some  scent  be  breathed. 
Not  that  the  faculty  will  be  absent,  because  it 
is  never  called  into  use,  but  that  there  will  be 
no  experience  of  its  existence.  So,  too,  the  soul 
of  man,  unless  through  faith  it  have  appro- 
priated the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  will  have  the 
innate  faculty  of  apprehending  God,  but  be 
destitute  of  the  light  of  knowledge.  That 
Gift,  which  is  in  Christ,  is  One,  yet  offered, 
and  offered  fully,  to  all ;  denied  to  none,  and 
given  to  each  according  to  the  measure  of  his 
willingness  to  receive  ;  its  stores  the  richer,  the 
more  earnest  the  desire  to  earn  them.  This 
gift  is  with  us  unto  the  end  of  the  world,  the 
solace  of  our  waiting,  the  assurance,  by  the 
favours  which  He  bestows,  of  the  hope  that 
shall  be  ours,  the  light  of  our  minds,  the  sun 
of  our  souls.  This  Holy  Spirit  we  must  seek 
and  must  earn,  and  then  hold  fast  by  faith  and 
obedience  to  the  commands  of  God. 


•  a  Cor.  iii.  17. 

2  lb.  xiv.  16,  17. 


9  St.  John  xvi.  12. 

3  lb.  xiv. 


n. 


*  lb.  7. 


4  Rom.  viii.  14,  15,  5  1  Cor.  xii.  3  6  lb.  4— n. 

7  1  Cor.  ii.  12,  cited  in  §  29. 


BOOK    III. 


i.  The  words  of  the  Lord,  I  in  the  Father,  and 
the  Father  in  Me x,  confuse  many  minds,  and 
not  unnaturally,  for  the  powers  of  human 
reason  cannot  provide  them  with  any  intel- 
ligible meaning.  It  seems  impossible  that  one 
object  should  be  both  within  and  without  another, 
or  that  (since  it  is  laid  down  that  the  Beings 
of  whom  we  are  treating,  though  They  do  not 
dwell  apart,  retain  their  separate  existence  and 
condition)  these  Beings  can  reciprocally  con- 
tain One  Another,  so  that  One  should  per- 
manently envelope,  and  also  be  permanently  en- 
veloped by,  the  Other,  whom  yet  He  envelopes. 
This  is  a  problem  which  the  wit  of  man  will 
never  solve,  nor  will  human  research  ever 
find  an  analogy  for  this  condition  of  Divine 
existence.  But  what  man  cannot  understand, 
God  can  be.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  the 
fact  that  this  is  an  assertion  made  by  God 
renders  it  at  once  intelligible  to  us.  We  must 
think  for  ourselves,  and  come  to  know  the 
meaning  of  the  words,  I  in  the  Father,  and  the 
Father  in  Me:  but  this  will  depend  upon  our 
success  in  grasping  the  truth  that  reasoning 
based  upon  Divine  verities  can  establish  its 
conclusions,  even  though  they  seem  to  contra- 
dict the  laws  of  the  universe. 

2.  In  order  to  solve  as  easily  as  possible 
this  most  difficult  problem,  we  must  first 
master  the  knowledge  which  the  Divine 
Scriptures  give  of  Father  and  of  Son,  that 
so  we  may  speak  with  more  precision,  as 
dealing  with  familiar  and  accustomed  matters. 
The  eternity  of  the  Father,  as  we  concluded 
after  full  discussion  in  the  last  Book,  tran- 
scends space,  and  time,  and  appearance,  and 
all  the  forms  of  human  thought.  He  is  with- 
out and  within  all  things,  He  contains  all  and 
can  be  contained  by  none,  is  incapable  of 
change  by  increase  or  diminution,  invisible, 
incomprehensible,  full,  perfect,  eternal,  not 
deriving  anything  that  He  has  from  another, 
but,  if  ought  be  derived  from  Him,  still  com- 
plete and  self-sufficing. 

3.  He  therefore,  the  Unbegotten,  before 
time  was  begat  a  Son  from  Himself;  not  from 
any  pre-existent  matter,  for  all  things  are 
through  the  Son ;  not  from  nothing,  for  the 
Son  is  from  the  Father's  self;  not  by  way  of 
childbirth,  for  in  God  there  is  neither  change 


1  St.  John  xiv.  ix. 


nor  void ;  not  as  a  piece  of  Himself  cut  or 
torn  off  or  stretched  out,  for  God  is  passionless 
and  bodiless,  and  only  a  passible  and  em- 
bodied being  could  so  be  treated,  and,  as  the 
Apostle  says,  in  Christ  dweUeth  all  the  fulness 
of  the  Godhead  bodily2.  Incomprehensibly, 
ineffably,  before  time  or  worlds,  He  begat 
the  Only-begotten  from  His  own  unbegotten 
substance,  bestowing  through  love  and  power 
His  whole  Divinity  upon  that  Birth.  Thus 
He  is  the  Only-begotten,  perfect,  eternal  Son 
of  the  unbegotten,  perfect,  eternal  Father. 
But  those  properties  which  He  has  in  con- 
sequence of  the  Body  which  He  took,  are  the 
fruit  of  His  goodwill  toward  our  salvation. 
For  He,  being  invisible  and  bodiless  and 
incomprehensible,  as  the  Son  of  God,  took 
upon  Him  such  a  measure  of  matter  and  of 
lowliness  as  was  needed  to  bring  Him  within 
the  range  of  our  understanding,  and  per- 
ception, and  contemplation.  It  was  a  con- 
descension to  our  feebleness  rather  than  a 
surrender  of  His  own  proper  attributes. 

4.  He,  therefore,  being  the  perfect  Father's 
perfect  Son.  the  Only-begotten  Offspring  of 
the  unbegotten  God,  who  has  received  all 
from  Him  Who  possesses  all,  being  God  from 
God,  Spirit  from  Spirit,  Light  from  Light, 
says  boldly,  The  Father  in  Me,  and  I  in  the 
Father's.  For  as  the  Father  is  Spirit,  so  is 
the  Son  Spirit ;  as  the  Father  is  God,  so  is  the 
Son  God ;  as  the  Father  is  Light,  so  is  the 
Son  Light.  Thus  those  properties  which  are 
in  the  Father  are  the  source  of  those  where- 
with the  Son  is  endowed ;  that  is,  He  is 
wholly  Son  of  Him  Who  is  wholly  Father; 
not  imported  from  without,  for  before  the  Son 
nothing  was  ;  not  made  from  nothing,  for  the 
Son  is  from  God  ;  not  a  son  partially,  for  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  is  in  the  Son  ;  not 
a  Son  in  some  respects,  but  in  all ;  a  Son  ac- 
cording to  the  will  of  Him  who  had  the  power, 
after  a  manner  which  He  only  knows.  What  is 
in  the  Father  is  in  the  Son  also  ;  what  is  in  the 
Unbegotten  is  in  the  Only-begotten  also.  The 
One  is  from  the  Other,  and  they  Two  are 
a  Unity ;  not  Two  made  One,  yet  One  in  the 
Other,  for  that  which  is  in  Both  is  the  same. 
The  Father  is  in  the  Son,  for  the  Son  is  from 
Him;  the  Son  is  in  the  Father,  because  the 


a  Col.  ii.  9. 


3  St.  John  x.  38. 


ON    THE    TRINITY. —  BOOK    III. 


63 


Father  is  His  sole  Origin  ;  the  Only-begotten 
is  in  the  Unbegotten,  because  He  is  the  Only- 
begotten  from  the  Unbegotten.  Thus  mutually 
Each  is  in  the  Other,  for  as  all  is  perfect  in 
the  Unbegotten  Father,  so  all  is  perfect  in  the 
Only-begotten  Son.  This  is  the  Unity  which 
is  in  Son  and  Father,  this  the  power,  this  the 
love;  our  hope,  and  faith,  and  truth,  and  way, 
and  life  is  not  to  dispute  the  Father's  powers 
or  to  depreciate  the  Son,  but  to  reverence  the 
mystery  and  majesty  of  His  birth ;  to  set  the 
unbegotten  Father  above  all  rivalry,  and  count 
the  Only-begotten  Son  as  His  equal  in  eter- 
nity and  might,  confessing  concerning  God 
the  Son  that  He  is  from  God. 

5.  Such  powers  are  there  in  God ;  powers 
which  the  methods  of  our  reason  cannot  com- 
prehend, but  of  which  our  faith,  on  the  sure 
evidence  of  His  action,  is  convinced.  We 
shall  find  instances  of  this  action  in  the  bodily 
sphere  as  well  as  in  the  spiritual,  its  mani- 
festation taking,  not  the  form  of  an  analogy 
which  might  illustrate  the  Birth,  but  of  a  deed 
marvellous  yet  comprehensible.  On  the  wed- 
ding day  in  Galilee  water  was  made  wine. 
Have  we  words  to  tell  or  senses  to  ascertain 
what  methods  produced  the  change  by  which 
the  tastelessness  of  water  disappeared,  and 
was  replaced  by  the  full  flavour  of  wine?  It 
was  not  a  mixing;  it  was  a  creation,  and  a 
creation  which  was  not  a  beginning,  but  a 
transformation.  A  weaker  liquid  was  not  ob- 
tained by  admixture  of  a  stronger  element ; 
an  existing  thing  perished  and  a  new  thing 
came  into  being.  The  bridegroom  was  anxious, 
the  household  in  confusion,  the  harmony  of 
the  marriage  feast  imperilled.  Jesus  is  asked 
for  help.  He  does  not  rise  or  busy  Himself; 
He  does  the  work  without  an  effort.  Water 
is  poured  into  the  vessels,  wine  drawn  out 
in  the  cups.  The  evidence  of  the  senses  of 
the  pourer  contradicts  that  of  the  drawer. 
They  who  poured  expect  water  to  be  drawn  ; 
they  who  draw  think  that  wine  must  have 
been  poured  in.  The  intervening  time  cannot 
account  for  any  gain  or  loss  of  character  in 
the  liquid.  The  mode  of  action  baffles  sight 
and  sense,  but  the  power  of  God  is  manitest 
in  the  result  achieved. 

6.  In  the  case  of  the  five  loaves  a  miracle 
of  the  same  type  excites  our  wonder.  By 
their  increase  five  thousand  men  and  countless 
women  and  children  are  saved  from  hunger; 
the  method  eludes  our  powers  of  observation. 
Five  loaves  are  offered  and  broken  ;  while  the 
Apostles  are  dividing  them  a  succession  of 
new-created  portions  passes,  they  cannot  tell 
how,  through  their  hands.  The  loaf  which 
•they  are  dividing  grows  no  smaller,  yet  their 
hands  are  continually  full  of  the  pieces.     The 


swiftness  of  the  process  baffles  sight;  you 
follow  with  the  eye  a  hand  full  of  portions, 
and  meantime  you  see  that  the  contents  of 
the  other  hand  are  not  diminished,  and  all 
the  while  the  heap  of  pieces  grows.  The 
carvers  are  busy  at  their  task,  the  eaters  are 
hard  at  work  ;  the  hungry  are  satisfied,  and 
the  fragments  fill  twelve  baskets.  Sight  or 
sense  cannot  discover  the  mode  of  so  note- 
worthy a  miracle.  What  was  not  existent  is 
created ;  what  we  see  passes  our  understand- 
ing. Our  only  resource  is  faith  in  God's  om- 
nipotence. 

7.  There  is  no  deception  in  these  miracles 
of  God,  no  subtle  pretence  to  please  or  to 
deceive.  These  works  of  the  Son  of  God 
were  done  from  no  desire  for  self-display ;  He 
U'hom  countless  myriads  of  angels  serve  never 
deluded  man.  What  was  there  of  ours  that 
He  could  need,  through  Whom  all  that  we 
have  was  created  ?  Did  He  demand  praise 
from  us  who  now  are  heavy  with  sleep,  now 
sated  with  lust,  now  laden  with  the  guilt  of 
riot  and  bloodshed,  now  drunken  from  revel- 
ling;— He  Whom  Archangels,  and  Dominions, 
and  Principalities,  and  Powers,  without  sleep 
or  cessation  or  sin,  praise  in  heaven  with 
everlasting  and  unwearied  voice  ?  They  praise 
Him  because  He,  the  Image  of  the  Invisible 
God,  created  all  their  host  in  Himself,  made 
the  worlds,  established  the  heavens,  appointed 
the  stars,  fixed  the  earth,  laid  the  foundations 
of  the  deep ;  because  in  after  time  He  was 
born,  He  conquered  death,  broke  the  gates 
of  hell,  won  for  Himself  a  people  to  be  His 
fellow-heirs,  lifted  flesh  from  corruption  up 
to  the  glory  of  eternity.  There  was  nothing, 
then,  that  He  might  gain  from  us,  that  could 
induce  Him  to  assume  the  splendour  of  these 
mysterious  and  inexplicable  works,  as  though 
He  needed  our  praise.  But  God  foresaw  how 
human  sin  and  folly  would  be  misled,  and 
knew  that  disbelief  would  dare  to  pass  its 
judgment  even  on  the  things  of  God,  and 
therefore  He  vanquished  presumption  by  tokens 
of  His  power  which  must  give  pause  to  our 
boldest. 

8.  For  there  are  many  of  those  wise  men 
of  the  world  whose  wisdom  is  folly  with  God, 
who  contradict  our  proclamation  of  God  from 
God,  True  from  True,  Perfect  from  Perfect, 
One  from  One,  as  though  we  taught  things 
impossible  They  pin  their  faith  to  certain 
conclusions  which  they  have  reached  by  pro- 
cess of  logic  : — NotJiing  can  be  born  of  one, 
for  every  birth  requires  two  parents,  and  If 
this  Son  be  born  of  One,  He  has  received  a  part 
of  His  Begetter :  if  He  be  a  part,  then  Neither 
of  the  Two  is  perfect,  for  something  is  missing 
from  Him  from    Whom   the   Son   issued,   and 


64 


DE   TRINITATE. 


there  cannot  be  fulness  in  One  Who  consists  of 
a  portion  of  Another.      Thus  Neither  is  perfect, 
for  the  Begetter  has  lost  His  fulness,  and  the  Be- 
gotten has  not  acquired  it.     This  is  that  wisdom 
of  the  world  which  was  foreseen  by  God  even 
in  the  prophet's  days,  and  condemned  through 
him  in  the  words,  I  will  destroy  the  wisdom  oj 
the  7viset  and  reject  the   understanding  of  the 
prudent*.     And   the  apostle    says:     Where  is 
the  7i>ise  ?     Where  is  the  scribe  ?    Where  is  the 
inquirer  of  this  world  ?   Hath   not  God  made 
foolish  the  wisdom  of  this  7vorld?   For  because 
in  the  wisdom  of  God  the  world  through  wisdom 
knetv    not    God,    it  pleased   God  through    the 
foolishness  of  preaching  to  save  them  that  believe. 
For  the  Jews  seek  signs,  and  the   Greeks  seek 
wisdom,  but  we  preach   Christ  crucified,  to  the 
Je7cs  indeed  a  stumbling-block  and  to  the  Gentiles 
foolishness,  but  unto  them  that  are  called,  both 
fe7vs  and  Greeks,  Christ  the  po7ver  of  God  and 
the  7c>isdom  of  God.     Because  the  foolishness  of 
God  is  wiser  than  men,  and  the  tveakness  of 
God  is  stronger  than  men  5. 

9.  The  Son  of  God,  therefore,  having  the 
charge  of  mankind,  was  first  made  man,  that 
men  might  believe  on  Him  ;  that  He  might 
be  to  us  a  witness,  sprung  from  ourselves,  of 
things  Divine,  and  preach  to  us,  weak  and 
carnal  as  we  are,  through  the  weakness  of  the 
flesh  concerning  God  the  Father,  so  fulfilling 
the  Father's  will,  even  as  He  says,  I  came  not 
to  do  Mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  Him  that 
sent  Me6.  It  was  not  that  He  Himself  was 
unwilling,  but  that  He  might  manifest  His 
obedience  as  the  result  of  His  Father's  will, 
for  His  own  will  is  to  do  His  Father's.  This 
is  that  will  to  carry  out  the  Father's  will  of 
which  He  testifies  in  the  words  :  Father,  the 
hour  is  come  ;  glorify  Thy  Son,  that  Thy  Son 
may  glorify  Thee;  even  as  Thou  hast  given 
Him  power  over  all  flesh,  that  whatsoever  Thou 
hast  given  Him,  He  should  give  it  eternal  life. 
And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  should  knozv 
Thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Him  Whom  Thou 
didst  send,  Jesus  Christ.  I  have  glorified  Thee 
upon  earth,  having  accomplished  the  work  which 
Thou  gavest  Me  to  do.  And  now,  O  Father, 
glorify  Me  with  Thine  own  Self  with  the  glory 
which  I  had  with  Thee  before  the  world  was. 
I  have  manifested  Thy  Name  unto  the  men 
whom  Thou  hast  given  Me  ?.  In  words  short 
and  few  He  has  revealed  the  whole  task  to 
which  He  was  appointed  and  assigned.  Yet 
those  words,  short  and  few  as  they  are,  are 
the  true  faith's  safeguard  against  every  sug- 
gestion of  the  devil's  cunning.  Let  us  briefly 
consider  the  force  of  each  separate  phrase. 


4  Isaiah  xxix.  14. 

6  St.  John  vi.  38. 


5  1  Cor.  i.  20 — »5. 
7  lb.  xvii.  1 — 6. 


10.  He  says,  Father  the  hour  is  come ;  glorify 
Thy  Son,  that  Thy  Son  may  glorify  Thee.  He 
says  that  the  hour,  not  the  day  nor  the  time, 
is  come.  An  hour  is  a  fraction  of  a  day. 
What  hour  must  this  be?  The  hour,  of  course, 
of  which  He  speaks,  to  strengthen  His  dis- 
ciples, at  the  time  of  His  passion  : — Lo,  the 
hour  is  come  that  the  Son  of  Man  should  be 
glorified*.  This  then  is  the  hour  in  which 
He  prays  to  be  glorified  by  the  Father,  that 
He  Himself  may  glorify  the  Father.  But  what 
does  He  mean  ?  Does  One  who  is  about  to 
give  glory  look  to  receive  it  ?  Does  One  who 
is  about  to  confer  honour  make  request  for 
Himself?  Is  He  in  want  of  the  very  thing 
which  He  is  about  to  repay  ?  Here  let  the 
world's  philosophers,  the  wise  men  of  Greece, 
beset  our  path,  and  spread  their  syllogistic 
nets  to  entangle  the  truth.  Let  them  ask 
How  ?  and  Whence  ?  and  Why  ?  When  they 
can  find  no  answer,  let  us  tell  them  that  it  is 
because  God  has  chosen  the  foolish  things  of 
the  7vorld  to  confound  the  7vise^.  That  is  the 
reason  why  we  in  our  foolishness  understand  l 
things  incomprehensible  to  the  world's  phi- 
losophers. The  Lord  had  said,  Father,  the 
hour  is  come;  He  had  revealed  the  hour  of 
His  passion,  for  these  words  were  spoken  at 
the  very  moment ;  and  then  He  added,  Glorify 
Thy  Son.  But  how  was  the  Son  to  be  glo- 
rified ?  He  had  been  born  of  a  virgin,  from 
cradle  and  childhood  He  had  grown  to  man's 
estate,  through  sleep  and  hunger  and  thirst 
and  weariness  and  tears  He  had  lived  man's 
life :  even  now  He  was  to  be  spitted  on, 
scourged,  crucified.  And  why?  These  things 
were  ordained  for  our  assurance  that  in  Christ 
is  pure  man.  But  the  shame  of  the  cross  is 
not  ours  ;  we  are  not  sentenced  to  the  scourge, 
nor  defiled  by  spitting.  The  Father  glorifies 
the  Son  ;  how?  He  is  next  nailed  to  the 
cross.  Then  what  followed?  The  sun,  instead 
of  setting,  fled.  How  so  ?  It  did  not  retire 
behind  a  cloud,  but  abandoned  its  appointed 
orbit,  and  all  the  elements  of  the  world  felt 
that  same  shock  of  the  death  of  Christ.  The 
stars  in  their  courses,  to  avoid  complicity  in 
the  crime,  escaped  by  self-extinction  from  be- 
holding the  scene.  What  did  the  earth  ?  It 
quivered  beneath  the  burden  of  the  Lord 
hanging  on  the  tree,  protesting  that  it  was 
powerless  to  confine  Him  who  was  dying. 
Yet  surely  rock  and  stone  will  not  refuse  Him 
a  resting-place.  Yes,  they  are  rent  and  cloven, 
and  their  strength  fails.  They  must  confess 
that  the  rock-hewn  sepulchre  cannot  imprison 
the  Body  which  awaits  its  burial. 

11.  And  next?   The  centurion  of  the  cc~ 


8  St.  John  xii.  23.       9  1  Cor.  i.  27.       »  Reading  mtclligimut. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    III. 


65 


hort,  the  guardian  of  the  cross,  cries  out, 
Truly  this  was  the  Son  of  God2.  Creation  is 
set  free  by  the  mediation  of  this  Sin-offering ; 
the  very  rocks  lose  their  solidity  and  strength. 
They  who  had  nailed  Him  to  the  cross  confess 
that  truly  this  is  the  Son  of  God.  The  out- 
come justifies  the  assertion.  The  Lord  had 
said,  Glorify  Thy  Son.  He  had  asserted,  by 
that  word  Thy,  that  He  was  God's  Son  not  in 
name  only,  but  in  nature.  Multitudes  of  us 
are  sons  of  God  ;  He  is  Son  in  another  sense. 
For  He  is  God's  true  and  own  Son,  by  origin 
and  not  by  adoption,  not  by  name  only  but 
in  truth,  born  and  not  created.  So,  after  He 
was  glorified,  that  confession  touched  the 
truth  ;  the  centurion  confessed  Him  the  true 
Son  of  God,  that  no  believer  might  doubt  a 
fact  which  even  the  servant  of  His  persecutors 
could  not  deny. 

12.  But  perhaps  some  may  suppose  that 
He  was  destitute  of  that  glory  for  which  He 
prayed,  and  that  His  looking  to  be  glorified 
by  a  Greater  is  evidence  of  want  of  power. 
Who,  indeed,  would  deny  that  the  Father  is 
the  greater;  the  Unbegotten  greater  than  the 
Begotten,  the  Father  than  the  Son,  the  Sender 
than  the  Sent,  He  that  wills  than  He  that 
obeys  ?  He  Plimself  shall  be  His  own  wit- 
ness : — The  Father  is  greater  than  I.  It  is  a 
fact  which  we  must  recognise,  but  we  must 
take  heed  lest  with  unskilled  thinkers  the 
majesty  of  the  Father  should  obscure  the 
glory  of  the  Son.  Such  obscuration  is  for- 
bidden by  this  same  glory  for  which  the  Son 
prays  ;  for  the  prayer,  Father  glorify  Thy  Son, 
is  completed  by,  That  the  Son  may  glorify 
Thee.  Thus  there  is  no  lack  of  power  in  the 
Son,  Who,  when  He  has  received  this  glory, 
will  make  His  return  for  it  in  glory.  But  why, 
if  He  were  not  in  want,  did  He  make  the 
prayer?  No  one  makes  request  except  for 
something  which  he  needs.  Or  can  it  be 
that  the  Father  too  is  in  want  ?  Or  has  He 
given  His  glory  away  so  recklessly  that  He 
needs  to  have  it  returned  Him  by  the  Son  ? 
No ;  the  One  has  never  been  in  want,  nor 
the  Other  needed  to  ask,  and  yet  Each  shall 
give  to  the  Other.  Thus  the  prayer  for  glory 
to  be  given  and  to  be  paid  back  is  neither 
a  robbery  of  the  Father  nor  a  depreciation  of 
the  Son,  but  a  demonstration  of  the  power 
of  one  Godhead  resident  in  Both.  The  Son 
prays  that  He  may  be  glorified  by  the  Father ; 
the  Father  deems  it  no  humiliation  to  be  glo- 
rified by  the  Son.  The  exchange  of  glory 
given  and  received  proclaims  the  unity  of 
power  in  Father  and  in  Son. 

13.  We    must    next    ascertain    what    and 


2  St.  Matt,  xxvii.  54. 


whence  this  glorifying  is.  God,  I  am  sure, 
is  subject  to  no  change  ;  His  eternity  admits 
not  of  defect  or  amendment,  of  gain  or  of 
loss.  It  is  the  character  of  Him  alone,  that 
what  He  is,  He  is  from  everlasting.  What 
He  from  everlasting  is,  it  is  by  His  nature 
impossible  that  He  should  ever  cease  to  be. 
How  then  can  He  receive  glory,  a  thing  which 
He  fully  possesses,  and  of  which  His  store 
does  not  diminish  ;  there  being  no  fresh  glory 
which  He  can  obtain,  and  none  that  He  has 
lost  and  can  recover  ?  We  are  brought  to 
a  standstill.  But  the  Evangelist  does  not  fail 
us,  though  our  reason  has  displayed  its  help- 
lessness. To  tell  us  what  return  of  glory  it 
was  that  the  Son  should  make  to  the  Father, 
he  gives  the  words  :  Even  as  Thou  hast  given 
Him  power  over  all  flesh,  that  whatsoever  Thou 
hast  given  Him  He  may  give  it  eternal  life. 
And  this  is  life  eternal  that  they  should  know 
Thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ 
Whom  Thou  hast  sent.  The  Father,  then,  is 
glorified  through  the  Son,  by  His  being  made 
known  to  us.  And  the  glory  was  this,  that 
the  Son,  being  made  flesh,  received  from  Him 
power  over  all  flesh,  and  the  charge  of  restor- 
ing eternal  life  to  us,  ephemeral  beings  bur- 
dened with  the  body.  Eternal  life  for  us  was 
the  result  not  of  work  done,  but  of  innate 
power ;  not  by  a  new  creation,  but  simply  by 
knowledge  of  God,  was  the  glory  of  that 
eternity  to  be  acquired.  Nothing  was  added 
to  God's  glory;  it  had  not  decreased,  and  so 
could  not  be  replenished.  But  He  is  glorified 
through  the  Son  in  the  sight  of  us,  ignorant, 
exiled,  defiled,  dwelling  in  hopeless  death  and 
lawless  darkness ;  glorified  inasmuch  as  the 
Son,  by  virtue  of  that  power  over  all  flesh 
which  the  Father  gave  Him,  was  to  bestow  on 
us  eternal  life.  It  is  through  this  work  of  the 
Son  that  the  Father  is  glorified.  So  when  the 
Son  received  all  things  from  the  Father,  the 
Father  glorified  Him;  and  conversely,  when 
all  things  were  made  through  the  Son,  He 
glorified  the  Father.  The  return  of  glory  given 
lies  herein,  that  all  the  glory  which  the  Son 
has  is  the  glory  of  the  Father,  since  everything 
He  has  is  the  Father's  gift.  For  the  glory 
of  Him  who  executes  a  charge  redounds  to 
the  glory  of  Him  Who  gave  it,  the  glory  of  the 
Begotten  to  the  glory  of  the  Begetter. 

14.  But  in  what  does  eternity  of  life  consist? 
His  own  words  tell  us  : — That  they  may  know 
Thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  Whom 
Thou  hast  sent.  Is  there  any  doubt  or  diffi- 
culty here,  or  any  inconsistency?  It  is  life 
to  know  the  true  God;  but  the  bare  know- 
ledge of  Him  does  not  give  it.  What,  then, 
does  He  add?  And  Jesus  Christ  Whom  Thou 
hast  sent.     In  Thee,  the  only  true  God,  the  Son 


VOL.  IX. 


66 


DE    TRINITATE. 


pays  the  honour  due  to  His  Father;  by  the 
addition,  And  Jesus  Christ  Whom  Thou  hast 
sent,  He  associates  Himself  with  the  true 
Godhead.  The  believer  in  his  confession 
draws  no  line  between  the  Two,  for  his  hope 
of  life  rests  in  Both,  and  indeed,  the  true  God 
is  inseparable  from  Him  Whose  Name  follows 
in  the  creed.  Therefore  when  we  read,  That 
they  may  know  Thee,  the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ  Whom  Thou  hast  sent,  these  terms 
of  Sender  and  of  Sent  are  not  intended,  under 
any  semblance  of  distinction  or  discrimination, 
to  convey  a  difference  between  the  true  God- 
head of  Father  and  of  Son,  but  to  be  a  guide 
to  the  devout  confession  of  Them  as  Begetter 
and  Begotten. 

15.  And  so  the  Son  glorifies  the  Father 
fully  and  finally  in  the  words  which  follow, 
I  have  glorified  Thee  on  the  earth,  having 
accomplished  the  work  which  Thou  hast  given 
Me  to  do.  All  the  Father's  praise  is  from 
the  Son,  for  every  praise  bestowed  upon  the 
Son  is  praise  of  the  Father,  since  all  that  He 
accomplished  is  what  the  Father  had  willed. 
The  Son  of  God  is  born  as  man ;  but  the 
power  of  God  is  in  the  virgin-birth.  The 
Son  of  God  is  seen  as  man ;  but  God  is 
present  in  His  human  actions.  The  Son  of 
God  is  nailed  to  the  cross ;  but  on  the  cross 
God  conquers  human  death.  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God,  dies;  but  all  flesh  is  made  alive  in 
Christ.  The  Son  of  God  is  in  hell ;  but  man 
is  carried  back  to  heaven.  In  proportion  to 
our  praise  of  Christ  for  these  His  works,  will 
be  the  praise  we  bring  to  Him  from  Whom 
Christ's  Godhead  is.  These  are  the  ways  in 
which  the  Father  glorifies  the  Son  on  earth  ; 
and  in  return  the  Son  reveals  by  works  of 
power  to  the  ignorance  of  the  heathen  and 
to  the  foolishness  of  the  world,  Him  from 
Whom  He  is.  This  exchange  of  glory,  given 
and  received,  implies  no  augmentation  of  the 
Godhead,  but  means  the  praises  rendered  for 
the  knowledge  granted  to  those  who  had  lived 
in  ignorance  of  God.  What,  indeed,  could 
there  be  which  the  Father,  from  Whom  are 
all  things,  did  not  richly  possess?  In  what 
was  the  Son  lacking,  in  Whom  all  the  fulness 
of  the  Godhead  had  been  pleased  to  dwell? 
The  Father  is  glorified  on  earth  because  the 
work  which  He  had  commanded  is  finished. 

16.  Next  let  us  see  what  this  glory  is  which 
the  Son  expects  to  receive  from  the  Father; 
and  then  our  exposition  will  be  complete.  The 
sequel  is,  /  have  glorified  Thee  on  the  earth, 
having  accomplished  the  work  which  Thou  hast 
given  Me  to  do.  And  now,  O  Father,  glorify 
Thou  Me  with  Thine  own  Self  with  the  glory 
which  I  had  with  Thee  befiore  the  world  was. 
I  have  manifested  Thy  name  unto  men.     It  is, 


then,  by  the  Son's  works  that  the  Father  is 
glorified,  in  that  He  is  recognised  as  God, 
as  Father  of  God  the  Only-begotten,  Who 
for  our  salvation  willed  that  His  Son  should 
be  born  as  man,  even  of  a  virgin ;  that  Son 
Whose  whole  life,  consummated  in  the  Passion, 
was  consistent  with  the  humiliation  of  the 
virgin-birth.  Thus,  because  the  Son  of  God, 
all-perfect  and  born  from  everlasting  in  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead,  had  now  by  incarna- 
tion become  Man  and  was  ready  for  His  death, 
He  prays  that  He  may  be  glorified  with  God, 
even  as  He  was  glorifying  His  Father  on  the 
earth  ;  for  at  that  moment  the  powers  of  God 
were  being  glorified  in  the  flesh  before  the 
eyes  of  a  world  that  knew  Him  not.  But 
what  is  this  glory  with  the  Father,  for  which 
He  looks?  It  is  that,  of  course,  which  He 
had  with  Him  before  the  world  was.  He  had 
the  fulness  of  the  Godhead ;  He  has  it  still, 
for  He  is  God's  Son.  But  He  Who  was  the 
Son  of  God  had  become  the  Son  of  man  also, 
for  The  Word  was  made  flesh.  He  had  not 
lost  His  former  being,  but  He  had  become 
what  He  was  not  before ;  He  had  not  abdi- 
cated His  own  position,  yet  He  had  taken 
ours ;  He  prays  that  the  nature  which  He  had 
assumed  may  be  promoted  to  the  glory  which 
He  had  never  renounced.  Therefore,  since 
the  Son  is  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  made 
flesh,  and  the  Word  was  God,  and  was  in  the 
beginning  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  Son  be- 
fore the  foundation  of  the  world ;  this  Son,  now 
incarnate,  prayed  that  flesh  might  be  to  the 
Father  what  the  Son  had  been.  He  prayed 
that  flesh,  born  in  time,  might  receive  the 
splendour  of  the  everlasting  glory,  that  the 
corruption  of  the  flesh  might  be  swallowed  up, 
transformed  into  the  power  of  God  and  the 
purity  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  His  prayer  to  God, 
the  Son's  confession  of  the  Father,  the  en- 
treaty of  that  flesh  wherein  all  shall  see  Him 
on  the  Judgment-day,  pierced  and  bearing  the 
marks  of  the  cross;  of"  that  flesh  wherein  His 
glory  was  foreshown  upon  the  Mount,  wherein 
He  ascended  to  heaven  and  is  set  down  at 
the  right  hand  of  God,  wherein  Paul  saw  Him. 
and  Stephen  paid  Him  worship. 

17.  The  name  Father  has  thus  been  re- 
vealed to  men ;  the  question  arises,  What  is 
this  Father's  own  name?  Yet  surely  the  name 
of  God  has  never  been  unknown.  Moses  heard 
it  from  the  bush,  Genesis  announces  it  at  the 
beginning  of  the  history  of  creation,  the  Law 
has  proclaimed  and  the  prophets  extolled  it, 
the  history  of  the  world  has  made  mankind 
familiar  with  it ;  the  very  heathen  have  wor- 
shipped it  under  a  veil  of  falsehood.  Men 
have  never  been  left  in  ignorance  of  the  name* 
of  God.     And  yet  they  were,  in   very  truth, 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    III. 


67 


in  ignorance 


For  no  man  knows  God  unless 
He  confess  Him  as  Father,  Father  of  the 
Only-begotten  Son,  and  confess  also  the  Son, 
a  Son  by  no  partition  or  extension  or  pro- 
cession, but  born  of  Him,  as  Son  of  Father, 
ineffably  and  incomprehensibly,  and  retaining 
the  fulness  of  that  Godhead  from  which  and 
in  which  He  was  born  as  true  and  infinite 
and  perfect  God.  This  is  what  the  fulness 
of  the  Godhead  means.  If  any  of  these  things 
be  lacking,  there  will  not  be  that  fulness  which 
was  pleased  to  dwell  in  Him.  This  is  the 
message  of  the  Son,  His  revelation  to  men 
in  their  ignorance.  The  Father  is  glorified 
through  the  Son  when  men  recognise  that 
He  is  Father  of  a  Son  so  Divine. 

1 8.  The  Son,  wishing  to  assure  us  of  the 
truth  of  this,  His  Divine  birth,  has  appointed 
His  works  to  serve  as  an  illustration,  that  from 
the  ineffable  power  displayed  in  ineffable  deeds 
we  may  learn  the  lesson  of  the  ineffable  birth. 
For  instance,  when  water  was  made  wine,  and 
five  loaves  satisfied  five  thousand  men,  beside 
women  and  children,  and  twelve  baskets  were 
filled  with  the  fragments,  we  see  a  fact  though 
we  cannot  understand  it;  a  deed  is  done, 
though  it  baffles  our  reason ;  the  process  can- 
not be  followed,  though  the  result  is  obvious. 
It  is  folly  to  intrude  in  the  spirit  of  carping, 
when  the  matter  into  which  we  enquire  is  such 
that  we  cannot  probe  it  to  the  bottom.  For 
even  as  the  Father  is  ineffable  because  He 
is  Unbegotten,  so  is  the  Son  ineffable  because 
He  is  the  Only-begotten,  since  the  Begotten 
is  the  Image  of  the  Unbegotten.  Now  it  is 
by  the  use  of  our  senses  and  of  language 
that  we  have  to  form  our  conception  of  an 
image;  and  it  must  be  by  the  same  means 
that  we  form  our  idea  of  that  which  the  image 
represents.  But  in  this  case  we,  whose  facul- 
ties can  deal  only  with  visible  and  tangible 
things,  are  straining  after  the  invisible,  and 
striving  to  grasp  the  impalpable.  Yet  we  take 
no  shame  to  ourselves,  we  reproach  ourselves 
with  no  irreverence,  when  we  doubt  and  criti- 
cise the  mysteries  and  powers  of  God.  How 
is  He  the  Son?  Whence  is  He?  What  did 
the  Father  lose  by  His  birth?  Of  what  por- 
tion of  the  Father  was  He  born  ?  So  we  ask ; 
yet  all  the  while  there  has  been  confronting 
us  the  evidence  of  works  done  to  assure  us 
that  God's  action  is  not  limited  by  our  power 
of  comprehending  His  methods. 

19.  You  ask  what  was  the  manner  in  which, 
as  the  Spirit  teaches,  the  Son  was  born? 
I  will  put  a  question  to  you  as  to  things 
corporal.  I  ask  not  in  what  manner  He 
was  born  of  a  virgin ;  I  ask  only  whether 
her  flesh,  in  the  course  of  bringing  His  flesh 
to  readiness  for  birth,  suffered  any  loss.     As- 


suredly she  did  not  conceive  Him  in  the 
common  way,  or  suffer  the  shame  of  human 
intercourse,  in  order  to  bear  Him :  yet  she 
bore  Him,  complete  in  His  human  Body, 
without  loss  of  her  own  completeness.  Surely 
piety  requires  that  we  should  regard  as  possible 
with  God  a  thing  which  we  see  became  pos- 
sible through  his  power  in  the  case  of  a  human 
being  3. 

20.  But  you,  whoever  you  are  that  would 
seek  into  the  unsearchable,  and  in  all  serious- 
ness form  an  opinion  upon  the  mysteries  and 
powers  of  God ; — I  turn  to  you  for  counsel, 
and  beg  you  to  enlighten  me,  an  unskilled  and 
simple  believer  of  all  that  God  says,  as  to 
a  circumstance  which  I  am  about  to  mention. 
I  listen  to  the  Lord's  words  and,  since  I  be- 
lieve what  is  recorded,  I  am  sure  that  after  His 
Resurrection  He  offered  Himself  repeatedly  in 
the  Body  to  the  sight  of  multitudes  of  un- 
believers. At  any  rate,  He  did  so  to  Thomas 
who  had  protested  that  he  would  not  believe 
unless  he  handled  His  wounds.  His  words  are, 
Unless  I  shall  see  in  His  hands  the  print  of  the 
nails,  and  put  my  finger  into  the  place  of  the 
nails,  and  thrust  my  hand  into  His  side,  I  will 
not  believe*.  The  Lord  stoops  to  the  level 
even  of  our  feeble  understanding;  to  satisfy 
the  doubts  of  unbelieving  minds  He  works 
a  miracle  of  His  invisible  power.  Do  you,  my 
critic  of  the  ways  of  heaven,  explain  His  action 
if  you  can.  The  disciples  were  in  a  closed 
room ;  they  had  met  and  held  their  assembly 
in  secret  since  the  Passion  of  the  Lord.  The 
Lord  presents  Himself  to  strengthen  the  faith 
of  Thomas  by  meeting  his  challenge ;  He  gives 
him  His  Body  to  feel,  His  wounds  to  handle. 
He,  indeed,  who  would  be  recognised  as  having 
suffered  wounds  must  needs  produce  the  body 
in  which  those  wounds  were  received.  I  ask  at 
what  point  in  the  walls  of  that  closed  house 
the  Lord  bodily  entered.  The  Apostle  has 
recorded  the  circumstances  with  careful  pre- 
cision ;  Jesus  came  when  the  doors  were  shut, 
and  stood  in  the  midst5.  Did  He  penetrate 
through  bricks  and  mortar,  or  through  stout 
woodwork,  substances  whose  very  nature  it  is 
to  bar  progress  ?  For  there  He  stood  in  bodily 
presence;  there  was  no  suspicion  of  deceit. 
Let  the  eye  of  your  mind  follow  His  path  as 
He  enters ;  let  your  intellectual  vision  accom- 
pany Him  as  He  passes  into  that  closed  dwell- 


3  This  is  an  argument  against  the  objection  that  God,  if 
Christ  is  His  Son,  must  have  suffered  loss.  If  God  is  His  Father 
and  the  sole  source  of  His  existence,  Christ  must  have  come 
into  being  by  separation  from  the  Father ;  i.e.  the  Father  must 
have  suffered  diminution  and  lost  His  completeness.  The  answer 
is  that  a  woman — and  a  fortiori  the  Virgin,  who  was  the  only 
human  parent  of  Christ — suffers  no  loss  of  bodily  completeness 
through  becoming  a  mother.  There  is  no  allusion  to  the  belief  ia 
the  perpetual  virginity  of  the  Mother  of  our  Lord. 

4  St.  John  zz.  35.  S  lb.  xx.  26. 


F  2 


68 


DE   TRINITATE. 


ing.  There  is  no  breach  in  the  walls,  no  door 
has  been  unbarred ;  yet  lo,  He  stands  in  the 
midst  Whose  might  no  barrier  can  resist.  You 
are  a  critic  of  things  invisible ;  I  ask  you  to  ex- 
plain a  visible  event.  Everything  remains  firm 
as  it  was  ;  no  body  is  capable  of  insinuating 
itself  through  the  interstices  of  wood  and  stone. 
The  Body  of  the  Lord  does  not  disperse 
itself,  to  come  together  again  after  a  dis- 
appearance; yet  whence  comes  He  Who  is 
standing  in  the  midst?  Your  senses  and  your 
words  are  powerless  to  account  for  it ;  the  fact 
is  certain,  but  it  lies  beyond  the  region  of 
human  explanation.  If,  as  you  say,  our  ac- 
count of  the  Divine  birth  is  a  lie,  then  prove 
that  this  account  of  the  Lord's  entrance  is 
a  fiction.  If  we  assume  that  an  event  did  not 
happen,  because  we  cannot  discover  how  it 
was  done,  we  make  the  limits  of  our  under- 
standing into  the  limits  of  reality.  But  the 
certainty  of  the  evidence  proves  the  falsehood 
of  our  contradiction.  The  Lord  did  stand  in 
a  closed  house  in  the  midst  of  the  disciples ; 
the  Son  was  born  of  the  Father.  Deny  not 
that  He  stood,  because  your  puny  wits  cannot 
ascertain  how  He  came  there ;  renounce  a  dis- 
belief in  God  the  Only-begotten  and  perfect 
Son  of  God  the  Unbegotten  and  perfect  Father, 
which  is  based  only  on  the  incapacity  of  sense 
and  speech  to  comprehend  the  transcendent 
miracle  of  that  birth. 

21.  Nay  more,  the  whole  constitution  of 
nature  would  bear  us  out  against  the  impiety 
of  doubting  the  works  and  powers  of  God. 
And  yet  our  disbelief  tilts  even  against  obvious 
truth ;  we  strive  in  our  fury  to  pluck  even  God 
from  His  throne.  If  we  could,  we  would  climb 
by  bodily  strength  to  heaven,  would  fling  into 
confusion  the  ordered  courses  of  sun  and  stars, 
would  disarrange  the  ebb  and  flow  of  tides, 
check  rivers  at  their  source  or  make  their 
waters  flow  backward,  would  shake  the  foun- 
dations of  the  world,  in  the  utter  irreverence 
of  our  rage  against  the  paternal  work  of  God. 
It  is  well  that  our  bodily  limitations  confine  us 
within  more  modest  bounds.  Assuredly,  there 
is  no  concealment  of  the  mischief  we  would  do 
if  we  could.  In  one  respect  we  are  free ;  and 
so  with  blasphemous  insolence  we  distort  the 
truth  and  turn  our  weapons  against  the  words 
of  God. 

22.  The  Son  has  said,  Father,  I  have  mani- 
fested Thy  Name  unto  men.     What  reason  is 

diero  for  denunciation  or  fury  here?  Do  you 
deny  the  Father?  Why,  it  was  the  primary 
purpose  of  the  Son  to  enable  us  to  know  the 
Father.  But  in  fact  you  do  deny  Him  when, 
according  to  you,  the  Son  was  not  born  of" 
Him.  Yet  why  should  He  have  the  name  of 
Son   if  He   be,   as   others   are,   an   arbitrary 


creation  of  God  ?  I  could  feel  awe  of  God  as 
Creator  of  Christ  as  well  as  Founder  of  the 
universe ;  it  were  an  exercise  of  power  worthy 
of  Him  to  be  the  Maker  of  Him  Who  made 
Archangels  and  Angels,  things  visible  and 
things  invisible,  heaven  and  earth  and  the 
whole  creation  around  us.  But  the  work  which 
the  Lord  came  to  do  was  not  to  enable  you 
to  recognise  the  omnipotence  of  God  as  Creator 
of  all  things,  but  to  enable  you  to  know  Him 
as  the  Father  of  that  Son  Who  addresses  you. 
In  heaven  there  are  Powers  beside  Himself, 
Powers  mighty  and  eternal ;  there  is  but  one 
Only-begotten  Son,  and  the  difference  between 
Him  and  them  is  not  one  of  mere  degree  of 
might,  but  that  they  all  were  made  through 
Him.  Since  He  is  the  true  and  only  Son,  let 
us  not  make  Him  a  bastard  by  asserting  that 
He  was  made  out  of  nothing.  You  hear  the 
name  Son  ;  believe  that  He  is  the  Son.  You 
hear  the  name  Father;  fix  it  in  your  mind  that 
He  is  the  Father.  Why  surround  these  names 
with  doubt  and  illwill  and  hostility?  The 
things  of  God  are  provided  with  names  which 
give  a  true  indication  of  the  realities ;  why  force 
an  arbitrary  meaning  upon  their  obvious  sense? 
Father  and  Son  are  spoken  of;  doubt  not  that 
the  words  mean  what  they  say.  The  end  and 
aim  of  the  revelation  of  the  Son  is  that  you 
should  know  the  Father.  Why  frustrate  the 
labours  of  the  Prophets,  the  Incarnation  of 
the  Word,  the  Virgin's  travail,  the  effect  of 
miracles,  the  cross  of  Christ?  It  was  all 
spent  upon  you,  it  is  all  offered  to  you,  that 
through  it  all  Father  and  Son  may  be  mani- 
fest to  you.  And  you  replace  the  truth  by 
a  theory  of  arbitrary  action,  of  creation  or 
adoption.  Turn  your  thoughts  to  the  war- 
fare, the  conflict  waged  by  Christ.  He  de- 
scribes it  thus : — Father,  I  have  manifested 
Thy  JVame  unto  men.  He  does  not  say,  Thou 
hast  created  the  Creator  of  all  the  heavens,  or 
Thou  hast  made  the  Maker  of  the  whole  earth. 
He  says,  Father,  I  have  manifested  Thy  JVame 
unto  men.  Accept  your  Saviour's  gift  of 
knowledge.  Be  assured  that  there  is  a  Father 
Who  begat,  a  Son  Who  was  born ;  born  in  the 
truth  of  His  Nature  of  the  Father,  Who  is. 
Remember  that  the  revelation  is  not  of  the 
Father  manifested  as  God,  but  of  God  mani- 
fested as  the  Father. 

23.  You  hear  the  words,  I  and  the  Father  are 
one6.  Why  do  you  rend  and  tear  the  Son  away 
from  the  Father  ?  They  are  a  unity :  an  ab- 
solute Existence  having  all  things  in  perfect 
communion  with  that  absolute  Existence,  from 
Whom  He  is.  When  you  hear  the  Son  saying, 
I  and  the  Father  are  one,  adjust  your  view  of 

*  St.  John  x.  30. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   III. 


69 


facts  to  the  Persons ;  accept  the  statement  which 
Begetter  and  Begotten  make  concerning  Them- 
selves.   Believe  that  They  are  One,  even  as  They 
are  also  Begetter  and  Begotten.    Why  deny  the 
common  nature?     Why  impugn  the  true  Divi- 
nity ?   You  hear  again,  The  Father  in  Me,  and  I 
in  the  Father  ?.   That  this  is  true  of  Father  and 
of  Son   is  demonstrated  by  the  Son's  works. 
Our  science  cannot  envelope  body  in  body,  or 
pour  one  into  another,  as  water  into  wine  ;  but 
we  confess  that  in  Both  is  equivalence  of  power 
and  fulness  of  the  Godhead.     For  the  Son  has 
received  all  things  from  the  Father;  He  is  the 
Likeness  of  God,  the  Image  of  His  substance. 
The  words,  Image  of  His  substance*,  discriminate 
between  Christ  and  Him  from  Whom  He  is, 
but  only  to  establish  Their  distinct  existence, 
not  to  teach  a  difference  of  nature ;  and  the 
meaning  of  Father  in  Son  and  Son  in  Father 
is  that  there  is  the  perfect  fulness  of  the  God- 
head in  Both.     The  Father  is  not  impaired  by 
the  Son's  existence,  nor  is  the  Son  a  mutilated 
fragment  of  the  Father.     An  image  implies  its 
original ;    likeness   is   a    relative  term.     Now 
nothing:  can  be   like  God  unless   it  have  its 
source   in    Him ;    a   perfect   likeness  can   be 
reflected  only  from  that  which  it  represents ; 
an  accurate  resemblance  forbids  the  assump- 
tion of  any  element  of  difference.    Disturb  not 
this  likeness ;  make  no  separation  where  truth 
shews  no  variance,  for  He  Who  said,  Let  us 
make  man  after  our  image  and  likeness1*,  by 
those  words  Our  likeness  revealed  the  existence 
of  Beings,  Each  like  the  Other.     Touch  not, 
handle  not,  pervert  not.    Hold  fast  the  Names 
which   teach    the   truth,    hold   fast   the   Son's 
declaration  of  Himself.     I  would  not  have  you 
flatter  the  Son  with  praises  of  your  own  in- 
vention ;  it  is  well  with  you  if  you  be  satisfied 
with  the  written  word. 

24.  Again,  we  must  not  repose  so  blind 
a  confidence  in  human  intellect  as  to  imagine 
that  we  have  complete  knowledge  of  the 
objects  of  our  thought,  or  that  the  ultimate 
problem  is  solved  as  soon  as  we  have  formed 
a  symmetrical  and  consistent  theory.  Finite 
minds  cannot  conceive  the  Infinite ;  a  being 
dependent  for  its  existence  upon  another 
cannot  attain  to  perfect  knowledge  either  of 
its  Creator  or  of  itself,  for  its  consciousness  of 
self  is  coloured  by  its  circumstances,  and 
bounds  are  set  which  its  perception  cannot 
pass.  Its  activity  is  not  self-caused,  but  due  to 
the  Creator,  and  a  being  dependent  on  a 
Creator  1  has  perfect  possession  of  none  of  its 
faculties,  since  its  origin  lies  outside  itself. 
Hence  by  an  inexorable  law  it  is  folly  for  that 
being  to  say  that  it  has  perfect  knowledge  of 


7  St.  John  x.  38.  8  Heb.  i.  3. 

1  Omitting  in  aliud. 


9  Gen.  i.  26. 


any  matter ;    its  powers  have  limits  which   it 
cannot  modify,  and  only  while  it  is  under  the 
delusion  that  its  petty  bounds  are  coterminous 
with  infinity  can  it  make  the  empty  boast  of 
possessing  wisdom.     For  of  wisdom   it  is  in- 
capable, its  knowledge  being   limited   to  the 
range  of  its  perception,  and  sharing  the  im- 
potence   of    its    dependent    existence.     And 
therefore  this  masquerade  2  of  a  finite  nature 
boasting  that  it  possesses  the  wisdom  which 
springs  only  from  infinite  knowledge  earns  the 
scorn  and  ridicule  of  the  Apostle,  who  calls  its 
wisdom  folly.     He  says,   For  Christ  sent  me 
not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  Gospel,  not  in 
the  language  of  wisdom,  lest  the  cross  of  Christ 
should  be  made  void.     For  the  word  of  the  cross 
is  foolishness  to  them  that  are  perishing,  but  unto 
them  that  are  being  saved  it  is  the  power  of  God. 
For  it  is  written,  I  will  destroy  the  wisdom  of 
the  wise  and  the  understanding  of  the  prudent 
I  will  reject.      Where  is  the  wise?      Where  is 
the  scribe  ?    Where  is  the  enquirer  of  this  world  ? 
Hath  not  God  made  foolish  the  wisdom  of  this 
world  1     For  seeing  that  in  the  wisdom  of  God 
the  world  through  its  wisdom  knew  not  God, 
God  decreed  through  the  foolishness  of  preaching 
to  save  them  that  believe.     For  the  Jews  ask  for 
signs  and  the  Greeks  seek  after  wisdom,  but  we 
preach    Christ  crucified,    unto   Jews  indeed  a 
stumbling-block  and  to  Gentiles  foolishness,  but 
unto  them  that  are  called,  both  Jews  and  Greeks, 
Christ  the  power  of  God  and  the  ivisdom  of  God. 
Because  the  weakness  of  God  is  stronger  than 
men,  and  the  foolishness  of  God  is  wiser  than 
men  3.     Thus  all  unbelief  is  foolishness,  for  it 
takes  such  wisdom  as  its  own  finite  perception 
can   attain,  and,    measuring   infinity   by   that 
petty   scale,    concludes   that   what   it    cannot 
understand  must  be  impossible.     Unbelief  is 
the  result  of  incapacity  engaged  in  argument. 
Men  are  sure  that  an  event  never  happened, 
because  they  have  made  up  their  minds  that 
it  could  not  happen. 

25.  Hence  the  Apostle,  familiar  with  the 
narrow  assumption  of  human  thought  that 
what  it  does  not  know  is  not  truth,  says  that 
he  does  not  speak  in  the  language  of  know- 
ledge, lest  his  preaching  should  be  in  vain.  To 
save  himself  from  being  regarded  as  a  preacher 
of  foolishness  he  adds  that  the  word  of  the 
cross  is  foolishness  to  them  that  perish.  He 
knew  that  the  unbelievers  held  that  the  only 
true  knowledge  was  that  which  formed  their 
own  wisdom,  and  that,  since  their  wisdom  was 
cognisant   only   of  matters  which   lay  within 


»  Substitutio :  this  word  seems,  except  in  technical  senses  of 
the  law,  to  be  very  late  and  very  rare.  The  only  meaning,  and 
that  one  not  attested  in  the  dictionaries,  which  will  suit  this 
passage,  seems  to  be  that  of  the  jackdaw  dressed  in  peacock'* 
feathers. 

3  1  Cor.  i.  17 — 25. 


70 


UE    TR1N1TATE. 


their  narrow  horizon,  the  other  wisdom,  which 
alone  is  Divine  and  perfect,  seemed  foolishness 
to  them.  Thus  their  foolishness  actually  con- 
sisted in  that  feeble  imagination  which  they 
mistook  for  wisdom.  Hence  it  is  that  the  very 
things  which  to  them  that  perish  are  foolish- 
ness are  the  power  of  God  to  them  that  are 
saved  ;  for  these  last  never  use  their  own  in- 
adequate faculties  as  a  measure,  but  attribute 
to  the  Divine  activities  the  omnipotence  of 
heaven.  God  rejects  the  wisdom  of  the  wise 
and  the  understanding  of  the  prudent  in  this 
sense,  that  just  because  they  recognise  their 
own  foolishness,  salvation  is  granted  to  them 
that  believe.  Unbelievers  pronounce  the  ver- 
dict of  foolishness  on  everything  that  lies 
beyond  their  ken,  while  believers  leave  to  the 
power  and  majesty  of  God  the  choice  of  the 
mysteries  wherein  salvation  is  bestowed.  There 
is  no  foolishness  in  the  things  of  God ;  the 
foolishness  lies  in  that  human  wisdom  which 
demands  of  God,  as  the  condition  of  belief, 
signs  and  wisdom.  It  is  the  foolishness  of  the 
Jews  to  demand  signs;  they  have  a  certain 
knowledge  of  the  Name  of  God  through  long 
acquaintance  with  the  Law,  but  the  offence  of 
the  cross  repels  them.  The  foolishness  of  the 
Greeks  is  to  demand  wisdom  ;  with  Gentile 
folly  and  the  philosophy  of  men  they  seek 
the  reason  why  God  was  lifted  up  on  the 
cross.  And  because,  in  consideration  for  the 
weakness  of  our  mental  powers,  these  things 
have  been  hidden  in  a  mystery,  this  foolishness 
of  Jews  and  Greeks  turns  to  unbelief;  for  they 
denounce,  as  unworthy  of  reasonable  credence, 
truths  which  their  mind  is  inherently  incapable 
of  comprehending.  But,  because  the  world's 
wisdom  was  so  foolish, — for  previously  through 


God's  wisdom  it  knew  not  God,  that  is,  the 
splendour  of  the  universe,  and  the  wonderful 
order  which  He  planned  for  His  handiwork, 
taught  it  no  reverence  for  its  Creator — God 
was  pleased  through  the  preaching  of  foolish- 
ness to  save  them  that  believe,  that  is,  through 
the  faith  of  the  cross  to  make  everlasting  life 
the  lot  of  mortals;  that  so  the  self-confidence 
of  human  wisdom  might  be  put  to  shame,  and 
salvation  found  where  men  had  thought  that 
foolishness  dwelt.  For  Christ,  Who  is  foolish- 
ness to  Gentiles,  and  offence  to  Jews,  is  the 
Power  of  God  and  the  Wisdom  of  God ;  be- 
cause what  seems  weak  and  foolish  to  human 
apprehension  in  the  things  of  God  transcends 
in  true  wisdom  and  might  the  thoughts  and 
the  powers  of  earth. 

26.  And  therefore  the  action  of  God  must 
not  be  canvassed  by  human  faculties ;  the 
Creator  must  not  be  judged  by  those  who  are 
the  work  of  His  hands.  We  must  clothe  our- 
selves in  foolishness  that  we  may  gain  wisdom  ; 
not  in  the  foolishness  of  hazardous  conclusions, 
but  in  the  foolishness  of  a  modest  sense  of  our 
own  infirmity,  that  so  the  evidence  of  God's 
power  may  teach  us  truths  to  which  the  argu- 
ments of  earthly  philosophy  cannot  attain. 
For  when  we  are  fully  conscious  of  our  own 
foolishness,  and  have  felt  the  helplessness  and 
destitution  of  our  reason,  then  through  the 
counsels  of  Divine  Wisdom  we  shall  be  ini- 
tiated into  the  wisdom  of  God ;  setting  no 
bounds  to  boundless  majesty  and  power,  nor 
tying  the  Lord  of  nature  down  to  nature's 
laws ;  sure  that  for  us  the  one  true  faith  con- 
cerning God  is  that  of  which  He  is  at  once  the 
Author  and  the  Witness. 


BOOK    IV. 


i.  The  earlier  books  of  this  treatise,  written 
some  time  ago,  contain,  I  think,  an  invincible 
proof  that  we  hold  and  profess  the  faith  in 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  which  is  taught 
by  the  Evangelists  and  Apostles,  and  that  no 
commerce  is  possible  between  us  and  the 
heretics,  inasmuch  as  they  deny  uncondition- 
ally, irrationally,  and  recklessly,  the  Divinity 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Yet  certain  points 
remained  which  I  have  felt  myself  bound  to 
include  in  this  and  the  following  books,  in 
order  to  make  our  assurance  of  the  faith  even 
more  certain  by  exposure  of  every  one  of  their 
falsehoods  and  blasphemies.  Accordingly,  we 
will  enquire  first  what  are  the  dangers  of  their 
teaching,  the  risks  involved  by  such  irrever- 
ence ;  next,  what  principles  they  hold,  and 
what  arguments  they  advance  against  the 
apostolic  faith  to  which  we  adhere,  and  by 
what  sleight  of  language  they  impose  upon 
the  candour  of  their  hearers ;  and  lastly,  by 
what  method  of  comment  they  disarm  the 
words  of  Scripture  of  their  force  and  meaning. 

2.  We  are  well  aware  that  neither  the  speech 
of  men  nor  the  analogy  of  human  nature  can 
give  us  a  full  insight  into  the  things  of  God. 
The  ineffable  cannot  submit  to  the  bounds 
and  limits  of  definition  ;  that  which  is  spiritual 
is  distinct  from  every  class  or  instance  of 
bodily  things.  Yet,  since  our  subject  is  that 
of  heavenly  natures,  we  must  employ  ordinary 
natures  and  ordinary  speech  as  our  means  of 
expressing  what  our  mind  apprehends ;  a 
means  no  doubt  unworthy  of  the  majesty  of 
God,  but  forced  upon  us  by  feebleness  of  our 
intellect,  which  can  use  only  our  own  circum- 
stances and  our  own  words  to  convey  to  others 
our  perceptions  and  our  conclusions.  This 
truth  has  been  enforced  already  in  the  first 
book  1,  but  is  now  repeated  in  order  that,  in 
any  analogies  from  human  affairs  which  we 
adduce,  we  may  not  be  supposed  to  think  of 
God  as  resembling  embodied  natures,  or  to 
compare  spiritual  Beings  with  our  passible 
selves,  but  rather  be  regarded  as  advancing 
the  outward  appearance  of  visible  things  as 
a  clue  to  the  inward  meaning  of  things  in- 
visible. 

3.  For  the  heretics  say  that  Christ  is  not 
from  God,  that  is,  that  the  Son  is  not  born 


S  19. 


from  the  Father,  and  is  God  not  by  nature 
but  by  appointment ;  in  other  words,  that  He 
has  received  an  adoption  which  consists  in  the 
giving  of  a  name,  being  God's  Son  in  the 
sense  in  which  many  are  sons  of  God  ;  again, 
that  Christ's  majesty  is  an  evidence  of  God's 
widespread  bounty,  He  being  God  in  the 
sense  in  which  there  are  gods  many;  although 
they  admit  that  in  His  adoption  and  naming 
as  God  a  more  liberal  affection  than  in  other 
cases  was  shewn,  His  adoption  being  the  first 
in  order  of  time,  and  He  greater  than  other 
adopted  sons,  and  first  in  rank  among  the 
creatures  because  of  the  greater  splendour 
which  accompanied  His  creation.  Some  add, 
by  way  of  confessing  the  omnipotence  of  God, 
that  He  was  created  into  God's  likeness,  and 
that  it  was  out  of  nothing  that  He,  like  other 
creatures,  was  raised  up  to  be  the  Image  of 
the  eternal  Creator,  bidden  at  a  word  to  spring 
from  non-existence  into  being  by  the  power 
of  God,  Who  can  frame  out  of  nothing  the 
likeness  of  Himself. 

4.  Moreover,  they  use  their  knowledge  of 
the  historical  fact  that  bishops  of  a  former 
time  have  taught  that  Father  and  Son  are  of 
one  substance,  to  subvert  the  truth  by  the 
ingenious  plea  that  this  is  a  heretical  notion. 
They  say  that  this  term  '  of  one  substance,'  in 
the  Greek  homoousion,  is  used  to  mean  and 
express  that  the  Father  is  the  same  as  the 
Son  ;  that  is,  that  He  extended  Himself  out 
of  infinity  into  the  Virgin,  and  took  a  body 
from  her,  and  gave  to  Himself,  in  the  body 
which  He  had  taken,  the  name  of  Son.  This 
is  their  first  lie  concerning  the  homoousion. 
Their  next  lie  is  that  this  word  homoousion 
implies  that  Father  and  Son  participate  in 
something  antecedent  to  Either  and  distinct 
from  Both,  and  that  a  certain  imaginary  sub- 
stance, or  ousia,  anterior  to  all  matter  what- 
soever, has  existed  heretofore  and  been  di- 
vided and  wholly  distributed  between  the  Two  ; 
which  proves,  they  say,  that  Each  of  the  Two 
is  of  a  nature  pre-existent  to  Himself,  and 
Each  identical  in  matter  with  the  Other.  And 
so  they  profess  to  condemn  the  confession  of 
the  homoousion  on  the  ground  that  that  term 
does  not  discriminate  between  Father  and 
Son,  and  makes  the  Father  subsequent  in  time 
to  that  matter  which  He  has  in  common  with 
the  Son.     And  they  have  devised  this  third 


1* 


DE    TRINITATE. 


objection  to  the  word  homoousion,  that  its 
meaning,  as  they  explain  it,  is  that  the  Son 
derives  His  origin  from  a  partition  of  the 
Father's  substance,  as  though  one  object  had 
beer  cut  in  two  and  He  were  the  severed 
portion.  The  meaning  of  '  one  substance,' 
they  say,  is  that  the  part  cut  off  from  the 
whole  continues  to  share  the  nature  of  that 
from  which  it  has  been  severed  ;  but  God, 
being  impassible,  cannot  be  divided,  for,  if 
He  must  submit  to  be  lessened  by  division, 
He  is  subject  to  change,  and  will  be  rendered 
imperfect  if  His  perfect  substance  leave  Him, 
to  reside  in  the  severed  portion. 

5.  They  think  also  that  they  have  a  com- 
pendious refutation  of  Prophets,  Evangelists 
and  Apostles  alike,  in  their  assertion  that  the 
Son  was  born  within  time.  They  pronounce 
us  illogical  for  saying  that  the  Son  has  existed 
from  everlasting;  and,  since  they  reject  the 
possibility  of  His  eternity,  they  are  forced  to 
believe  that  He  was  born  at  a  point  in  time. 
For  if  He  has  not  always  existed,  there  was 
a  time  when  He  was  not;  and  if  there  be 
a  time  when  He  was  not,  time  was  anterior 
to  Him.  He  who  has  not  existed  everlastingly 
began  to  exist  within  time,  while  He  Who  is 
free  from  the  limits  of  time  is  necessarily 
eternal.  The  reason  they  give  for  their  re- 
jection of  the  eternity  of  the  Son  is  that  His 
everlasting  existence  contradicts  the  faith  in 
His  birth ;  as  though  by  confessing  that  He 
has  existed  eternally,  we  made  His  birth  im- 
possible. 

6.  What  foolish  and  godless  fears !  What 
impious  anxiety  on  God's  behalf!  The  mean- 
ing which  they  profess  to  detect  in  the  word 
homoousion,  and  in  the  assertion  of  the  eternity 
of  the  Son,  is  detested,  rejected,  denounced 
by  the  Church.  She  confesses  one  God  from 
Whom  are  all  things  ;  she  confesses  one  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord,  through  whom  are  all  things  ; 
One  from  Whom,  One  through  Whom  ;  One 
the  Source  of  all,  One  the  Agent  through 
Whom  all  were  created.  In  the  One  from 
Whom  are  all  things  she  recognises  the  Ma- 
jesty which  has  no  beginning,  and  in  the  One 
through  Whom  are  all  things  she  recognises 
a  might  coequal  with  His  Source;  for  Both 
are  jointly  supreme  in  the  work  of  creation 
and  in  rule  over  created  things.  In  the  Spirit 
she  recognises  God  as  Spirit,  impassible  and 
indivisible,  for  she  has  learnt  from  the  Lord 
that  Spirit  has  neither  flesh  nor  bones 2 ;  a 
warning  to  save  her  from  supposing  that  God, 
being  Spirit,  could  be  burdened  with  bodily 
suffering  and  loss.  She  recognises  one  God, 
unborn  from  everlasting ;  she  recognises  also 


one  Only-begotten  Son  of  God.  She  confesses 
the  Father  eternal  and  without  beginning  ; 
she  confesses  also  that  the  Son's  beginning  is 
from  eternity.  Not  that  He  has  no  beginning, 
but  that  He  is  Son  of  the  Father  Who  has 
none  ;  not  that  He  is  self-originated,  but  that 
He  is  from  Him  Who  is  unbegotten  from 
everlasting ;  born  from  eternity,  receiving,  that 
is,  His  birth  from  the  eternity  of  the  Father. 
Thus  our  faith  is  free  from  the  guesswork  of 
heretical  perversity  ;  it  is  expressed  in  fixed 
and  published  terms,  though  as  yet  no  reasoned 
defence  of  our  confession  has  been  put  forth. 
Still,  lest  any  suspicion  should  linger  around 
the  sense  in  which  the  Fathers  have  used  the 
word  homoousion  and  round  our  confession  of 
the  eternity  of  the  Son,  I  have  set  down  the 
proofs  whereby  we  may  be  assured  that  the 
Son  abides  ever  in  that  substance  wherein  He 
was  begotten  from  the  Father,  and  that  the  birth 
of  His  Son  has  not  diminished  ought  of  that 
Substance  wherein  the  Father  was  abiding ; 
that  holy  men,  inspired  by  the  teaching  of 
God,  when  they  said  that  the  Son  is  homoousios 
with  the  Father  pointed  to  no  such  flaws  or 
defects  as  I  have  mentioned  3.  My  purpose 
has  been  to  counteract  the  impression  that 
this  ousia,  this  assertion  that  He  is  homo- 
ousios with  the  Father,  is  a  negation  of  the 
nativity  of  the  Only-begotten  Son. 

7.  To  assure  ourselves  of  the  needfulness 
of  these  two  phrases,  adopted  and  employed 
as  the  best  of  safeguards  against  the  heretical 
rabble  of  that  day,  I  think  it  best  to  reply 
to  the  obstinate  misbelief  of  our  present 
heretics,  and  refute  their  vain  and  pestilent 
teaching  by  the  witness  of  the  evangelists  and 
apostles.  They  flatter  themselves  that  they 
can  furnish  a  proof  for  each  of  their  proposi- 
tions ;  they  have,  in  fact,  appended  to  each 
some  passages  or  other  from  holy  Writ ; 
passages  so  grossly  misinterpreted  as  to  en- 
snare none  but  the  illiterate  by  the  semblance 
of  truth  with  which  perverted  ingenuity  has 
masked  their  explanation. 

8.  For  they  attempt,  by  praising  the  God- 
head of  the  Father  only,  to  deprive  the  Son  of 
His  Divinity,  pleading  that  it  is  written,  Hear, 
O  Israel,  the  Lord  thy  God  is  One  *,  and  that 
the  Lord  repeats  this  in  His  answer  to  the 
doctor  of  the  Law  who  asked  Him  what  was 
the  greatest  commandment  in  the  Law; — 
Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  thy  God  is  One  s. 
Again,  they  say  that  Paul  proclaims,  For  there 
is  One  God,  and  One  Mediator  beiween  God 
and  men  6.  And  furthermore,  they  insist  that 
God  alone  is  wise,  in  order  to  leave  no  wisdom 
for  the  Son,  relying  upon  the  words  of  the 


St.  Luke  xxiv.  39. 


3  In§4. 


4  Deut.  vi.  4. 

6  1  Tim.  ii.  5. 


5  St.  Mark  xii.  29. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    IV. 


Apostle,  Now  to  Him  that  is  able  to  stablish 
you  according  to  my  gospel  and  the  preaching  of 
Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the  revelation  of  the 
mystery  which  hath  been  kept  in  silence  through 
age-long  times,  but  now  is  manifested  through 
the  scriptures  of  the  prophets  according  to  the 
commandment  of  the  eternal  God  Who  is  made 
known  unto  all  nations  unto  obedience  of  faith  ; 
to  the  only  wise  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  to 
Whom  be  glory  for  ever  and  ever  7.    They  argue 
also  that   He  alone  is  true 8,  for  Isaiah  says, 
They  shall  bless  Thee,  the  true  God$,  and  the 
Lord  Himself  has  borne  witness  in  the  Gospel, 
saying,  And  this  is  life  eternal  that  they  should 
know    Thee,    the    only    true    God,    and  Jesus 
Christ   Whom  Thou  hast  sent x.     Again  they 
reason    that  He  alone  is  good,   to  leave  no 
goodness  for  the  Son,  because  it  has  been  said 
through  Him,  There  is  none  good  save  One,  even 
God2 ;  and  that  He  alone  has  power,  because 
Paul  has  said,  Which  in  His  own  times  He  shall 
shew  to  us,  Who  is  the  blessed  and  only  Poten- 
tate,  the  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords  3. 
And  further,  they  profess  themselves  certain 
that  in  the   Father   there  is  no  change   nor 
turning,   because    He   has    said    through   the 
prophet,  I  am  the  Lord  your  God,  and  L  am  not 
changed1',  and  the  apostle  James,  With  Whom 
there  is  no  change  s  /  certain  also  that  He  is  the 
righteous  Judge,  for  it  is  written,   God  is  the 
righteous  Judge,  strong  and  patient 6  ;    that  He 
cares  for  all,  because  the  Lord  has  said,  speak- 
ing of  the  birds,   And  your  heavenly  Father 
feedeth  them  7,  and,  Are  not  two  sparrows  sold 
for  a  farthing  ?  And  not  one  of  'them  falleth  upon 
the  ground  ivithout  the  will  of  your  Father  ;  but 
the  very  hairs  of  your  head  are  numbered*. 
They  say  that  the  Father  has  prescience  of  all 
things,  as  the  blessed  Susanna  says,  O  eternal 
God,  that  knowest  secrets,  and  knowest  all  things 
before  they  be  9 •   that  He  is  incomprehensible, 
as  it  is  written,  The  heaven  is  My  throne,  and 
the  earth   is  the  footstool  of  My  feet.       What 
house  will  ye  build  Me,  or  what  is  the  place  of 
My  rest  ?  For  these  things  hath  My  hand  made, 
and  all  these  things  are  mine  x;   that  He  con- 
tains all  things,  as  Paul  bears  witness,  For  in 
Hitn  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being2, 
and  the  Psalmist,  Whither  shall  I  go  from  Thy 
Spirit,  and  whither  shall  L  ply  from  Thy  face  1 
Lf  L  climb  up  into  heaven,  Thou  art  there  ;  if  I 
go  down  to  hell,  Thou  art  present.     Lf  L  take 
my  wings   before   the   light  and  dwell  in    the 
uttermost  parts  of  the  sea,  eve?i  thither  Thy  hand 


7  Rom.  xvi.  25 — 27. 

8  Omitting  solus  innascibilis  et,  which  are  out  of  place  here. 

9  Is.  lxv.  16.             x  St.  John  xvii.  3.  a  St.  Mark  x.  18. 
3  1  Tim.  vi.  15.                    4  Mai.  iii.  6.  5  i.  17. 

6  Ps.  vii.  12.              7  St.  Matt.  vi.  26.  _  8  lb.  x.  29,  30. 
9  Susanna  (Daniel  xiii.)  42.                    x  Isai.  Ixvi.  1,  3. 
2  Acts  xvii.  28. 


shall  lead  me  and  Thy  right  hand  shall  hold 
me* ;  that  He  is  without  body,  for  it  is  written, 
For  God  is  Spirit,  and  they  that  worship  LLim 
nutst  worship  in  spirit  and  in  truth  */  that  He 
is  immortal  and  invisible,  as  Paul  says,  Who 
only  hath  immortality^  and  dwclleth  in  light 
unapproachable,  whom  no  tnan  hath  seen  nor 
can  see  s,  and  the  Evangelist,  No  one  hath  seen 
God  at  any  time,  except  the  Only-begotten  Son, 
which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father6  ;  that  He 
alone  abides  eternally  unborn,  for  it  is  written, 
/  Am  That  L  Am,  and  Thus  shall  thou  say  to 
the  children  of  Lsrael,  L  Am  hath  sent  rne  unto 
you  7,  and  through  Jeremiah,  O  Lord,  Who  art 
Lord*. 

9.  Who  can  fail  to  observe  that  these  state- 
ments are  full  of  fraud  and  fallacy  ?  Cleverly 
as  issues  have  been  confused  and  texts  com- 
bined, malice  and  folly  is  the  character  indel- 
ibly imprinted  upon  this  laborious  effort  of 
cunning  and  clumsiness.  For  instance,  among 
their  points  of  faith  they  have  included  this, 
that  they  confess  the  Father  only  to  be  un- 
born ;  as  though  any  one  on  our  side  could 
suppose  that  He,  Who  begat  Him  through 
Whom  are  all  things,  derived  His  being  from 
any  external  source.  The  very  fact  that  He 
bears  the  name  of  Father  reveals  Him  as  the 
cause  of  His  Son's  existence.  That  name  of 
Father  gives  no  hint  that  He  who  bears  it  is 
Himself  descended  from  another,  while  it  tells 
us  plainly  from  Whom  it  is  that  the  Son  is 
begotten.  Let  us  therefore  leave  to  the  Father 
His  own  special  and  incommunicable  property, 
confessing  that  in  Him  reside  the  eternal 
powers  of  an  omnipotence  without  beginning. 
None,  I  am  sure,  can  doubt  that  the  reason 
why,  in  their  confession  of  God  the  Father,  cer- 
tain attributes  are  dwelt  upon  as  peculiarly  and 
inalienably  His  own,  is  that  He  may  be  left 
in  isolated  possession  of  them.  For  when 
they  say  that  He  alone  is  true,  alone  is  right- 
eous, alone  is  wise,  alone  is  invisible,  alone  is 
good,  alone  is  mighty,  alone  is  immortal,  they 
are  raising  up  this  word  alone  as  a  barrier  to 
cut  off  the  Son  from  His  share  in  these  attri- 
butes. He  Who  is  alone,  they  say,  has  no 
partner  in  His  properties.  But  if  we  suppose 
that  these  attributes  reside  in  the  Father  only, 
and  not  in  the  Son  also,  then  we  must  believe 
that  God  the  Son  has  neither  truth  nor  wisdom ; 
that  He  is  a  bodily  being  compact  of  visible 
and  material  elements,  ill-disposed  and  feeble 
and  void  of  immortality ;  for  we  exclude  Him 
from  all  these  attributes  of  which  we  make  the 
Father  the  solitary  Possessor. 


3  Ps.  exxxix.  6 — g  (exxxviii.  7 — 10). 
S  1  Tim.  vi.  16.        '     6  St.  John  i.  18. 
8  i.  6  (LXX). 


4  St.  John  iv.  24. 
7  Exod.  iii.  14. 


74 


DE   TR1NITATE. 


10.  We,  however,  who  propose  to  discourse 
of  that  most  perfect  majesty  and  fullest  Divinity 
which  appertains  to  the  Only-begotten  Son  of 
God,  have  no  fear  lest  our  readers  should 
imagine  that  amplitude  of  phrase  in  speaking 
of  the  Son  is  a  detraction  from  the  glory  of 
God  the  Father,  as  though  every  praise  as- 
signed to  the  Son  had  first  been  withdrawn 
from  Him.  For,  on  the  contrary,  the  majesty 
of  the  Son  is  glory  to  the  Father ;  the  Source 
must  be  glorious  from  which  He  Who  is  worthy 
of  such  glory  comes.  The  Son  has  nothing 
but  by  virtue  of  His  birth ;  the  Father  shares 
all  veneration  received  by  that  birthright. 
Thus  the  suggestion  that  we  diminish  the 
Father's  honour  is  put  to  silence,  for  all  the 
glory  which,  as  we  shall  teach,  is  inherent  in 
the  Son  will  be  reflected  back,  to  the  increased 
glory  of  Him  who  has  begotten  a  Son  so  great. 

i  r.  Now  that  we  have  exposed  their  plan  of 
belittling  the  Son  under  cover  of  magnifying 
the  Father,  the  next  step  is  to  listen  to  the 
exact  terms  in  which  they  express  their  own 
belief  concerning  the  Son.  For,  since  we  have 
to  answer  in  succession  each  of  their  allegations 
and  to  display  on  the  evidence  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture the  impiety  of  their  doctrines,  we  must  ap- 
pend, to  what  they  say  of  the  Father,  the  deci- 
sions which  they  have  put  on  record  concerning 
the  Son,  that  by  a  comparison  of  their  confession 
of  the  Father  with  their  confession  of  the  Son 
we  may  follow  a  uniform  order  in  our  solution 
of  the  questions  as  they  arise.  They  state  as 
their  verdict  that  the  Son  is  not  derived  from 
any  pre-existent  matter,  for  through  Him  all 
things  were  created,  nor  yet  begotten  from 
God,  for  nothing  can  be  withdrawn  from  God  ; 
but  that  He  was  made  out  of  what  was  non- 
existent, that  is,  that  He  is  a  perfect  creature 
of  God,  though  different  from  His  other  crea- 
tures. They  argue  that  He  is  a  creature, 
because  it  is  written,  The  Lord  hath  created 
Me  for  a  beginning  of  His  ways  9  •  that  He  is 
the  perfect  handiwork  of  God,  though  different 
from  His  other  works,  they  prove,  as  to  the 
first  point,  by  what  Paul  writes  to  the  Hebrews, 
Being  made  so  much  better  than  the  angels,  as 
He  possesseth  a  more  excellent  name  than  they ', 
and  again,  Wherefore,  holy  brethren,  partakers 
of  the  heavenly  calling,  consider  the  Apostle  and 
High  Priest  of  our  confession,  Jesus  Christ,  who 
is  faithful  to  Him  that  made  Him  2.  For  their 
depreciation  of  the  might  and  majesty  and 
Godhead  of  the  Son  they  rely  chiefly  on  His 
own  words,  The  Father  is  greater  than  I*. 
But  they  admit  that  He  is  not  one  of  the  com- 
mon herd  of  creatures  on  the  evidence  of  All 


t  ProT.  viii.  i 


»  Heb.  i.  4. 
3  St.  John  xiv.  28. 


'  lb.  iii.  i. 


things  were  made  through  Him*.  And  so  they 
sum  up  the  whole  of  their  blasphemous  teach- 
ing in  these  words  which  follow : — 

12.  "We  confess  One  God,  alone  unmade, 
alone  eternal,  alone  unoriginate,  alone  true, 
alone  possessing  immortality,  alone  good,  alone 
mighty,  Creator,  Ordainer  and  Disposer  of  all 
things,  unchangeable  and  unalterable,  righteous 
and  good,  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  and 
the  New  Testament.  We  believe  that  this 
God  gave  birth  to  the  Only-begotten  Son 
before  all  worlds,  through  Whom  He  made 
the  world  and  all  things;  that  He  gave  birth 
to  Him  not  in  semblance,  but  in  truth,  follow- 
ing His  own  Will,  so  that  He  is  unchangeable 
and  unalterable,  God's  perfect  creature  but 
not  as  one  of  His  other  creatures,  His  handi- 
work, but  not  as  His  other  works ;  not,  as 
Valentinus  maintained,  that  the  Son  is  a  de- 
velopment of  the  Father;  nor,  as  Manichseus 
has  declared  of  the  Son,  a  consubstantial  part 
of  the  Father;  nor,  as  Sabellius,  who  makes 
two  out  of  one,  Son  and  Father  at  once ;  nor, 
as  Hieracas,  a  light  from  a  light,  or  a  lamp 
with  two  flames ;  nor  as  if  He  was  previously 
in  Joeing  and  afterwards  born  or  created  afresh 
to  be  a  Son,  a  notion  often  condemned  by 
thyself,  blessed  Pope s,  publicly  in  the  Church 
and  in  the  assembly  of  the  brethren.  But, 
as  we  have  affirmed,  we  believe  that  He  was 
created  by  the  will  of  God  before  times  and 
worlds,  and  has  His  life  and  existence  from 
the  Father,  Who  gave  Him  to  share  His  own 
glorious  perfections.  For,  when  the  Father 
gave  to  Him  the  inheritance  of  all  things, 
He  did  not  thereby  deprive  Himself  of  attri- 
butes which  are  His  without  origination,  He 
being  the  source  of  all  things. 

13.  "So  there  are  three  Persons,  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  God,  for  His  part, 
is  the  cause  of  all  things,  utterly  unoriginate 
and  separate  from  all ;  while  the  Son,  put 
forth  by  the  Father  outside  time,  and  created 
and  established  before  the  worlds,  did  not 
exist  before  He  was  born,  but,  being  born 
outside  time  before  the  worlds,  came  into 
being  as  the  Only  Son  of  the  Only  Father. 
For  He  is  neither  eternal,  nor  co-eternal,  nor 
co-uncreate  with  the  Father,  nor  has  He  an 
existence  collateral  with  the  Father,  as  some 
say,  who 6  postulate  two  unborn  principles. 
But  God  is  before  all  things,  as  being  indi- 
visible and  the  beginning  of  all.  Wherefore 
He  is  before  the  Son  also,  as  indeed  we  have 
learnt  from  thee  in  thy  public  preaching.  In- 
asmuch then  as  He  hath  His  being  from  God, 
and    His   glorious   perfections,  and   His  life, 


4  Sl  John 


*3' 


Omitting  aut  aliqui. 


5  Of  Alexandria. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    IV. 


75 


and  is  entrusted  with  all  things,  for  this  reason 
God  is  His  source,  and  hath  rule  over  Him, 
as  being  His  God,  since  He  is  before  Him. 
As  to  such  phrases  as  from  Him,  and  from  the 
womb,  and  I  we?it  out  from  the  Father  and  am 
come,  if  they  be  understood  to  denote  that  the 
Father  extends  a  part  and,  as  it  were,  a  de- 
velopment of  that  one  substance,  then  the 
Father  will  be  of  a  compound  nature  and 
divisible  and  changeable  and  corporeal,  ac- 
cording to  them ;  and  thus,  as  far  as  their 
words  go,  the  incorporeal  God  will  be  sub- 
jected to  the  properties  of  matter  7." 

14.  Such  is  their  error,  such  their  pestilent 
teaching ;  to  support  it  they  borrow  the  words 
of  Scripture,  perverting  its  meaning  and  using 
the  ignorance  of  men  as  their  opportunity  of 
gaining  credence  for  their  lies.  Yet  it  is  cer- 
tainly by  these  same  words  of  God  that  we 
must  come  to  understand  the  things  of  God. 
For  human  feebleness  cannot  by  any  strength 
of  its  own  attain  to  the  knowledge  of  heavenly 
things ;  the  faculties  which  deal  with  bodily 
matters  can  form  no  notion  of  the  unseen 
world.  Neither  our  created  bodily  substance, 
nor  the  reason  given  by  God  for  the  purposes 
of  ordinary  life,  is  capable  of  ascertaining  and 
pronouncing  upon  the  nature  and  work  of 
God.  Our  wits  cannot  rise  to  the  level  of 
heavenly  knowledge,  our  powers  of  perception 
lack  the  strength  to  apprehend  that  limitless 
might.  We  must  believe  God's  word  con- 
cerning Himself,  and  humbly  accept  such  in- 
sight as  He  vouchsafes  to  give.  We  must  make 
our  choice  between  rejecting  His  witness,  as 
the  heathen  do,  or  else  believing  in  Him  as 
He  is,  and  this  in  the  only  possible  way,  by 
thinking  of  Him  in  the  aspect  in  which  He 
presents  Himself  to  us.  Therefore  let  private 
judgment  cease  ;  let  human  reason  refrain  from 
passing  barriers  divinely  set.  In  this  spirit 
we  eschew  all  blasphemous  and  reckless  asser- 
tion concerning  God,  and  cleave  to  the  very 
letter  of  revelation.  Each  point  in  our  enquiry 
shall  be  considered  in  the  light  of  His  in- 
struction, Who  is  our  theme;  there  shall  be 
no  stringing  together  of  isolated  phrases  whose 
context  is  suppressed,  to  trick  and  misinform 
the  unpractised  listener.  The  meaning  of 
words  shall  be  ascertained  by  considering  the 
circumstances  under  which  they  were  spoken ; 
words  must  be  explained  by  circumstances, 
not  circumstances  forced  into  conformity  with 
words.  We,  at  any  rate,  will  treat  our  subject 
completely;  we  will  state  both  the  circum- 
stances under  which  words  were  spoken,  and 


7  This  Epistle  of  Arius  to  Alexander  is  translated  substantially 
as  in  Newman's  Avians  of  the  Fourth  Century,  ch.  II.,  §  5, 
though  there  are  differences  of  some  importance  between  Hilary's 
Latin  version  and  the  Greek  in  Athanasius  dt  Synodis,  §  16, 
from  which  Newman's  version  is  made. 


the  true    purport  of  the  words.     Each  point 
shall  be  considered  in  orderly  sequence. 

15.  Their  starting-point  is  this;  We  confess, 
they  say,  One  only  God,  because  Moses  says, 
Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  thy  God  is  One 8.  But 
is  this  a  truth  which  any  one  has  ever  dared 
to  doubt?  Or  was  any  believer  ever  known  to 
confess  otherwise  than  that  there  is  One  God 
from  Whom  are  all  things,  One  Majesty  which 
has  no  birth,  and  that  He  is  that  unoriginated 
Power?  Yet  this  fact  of  the  Unity  of  God 
offers  no  chance  for  denying  the  Divinity  of 
His  Son.  For  Moses,  or  rather  God  through 
Moses,  laid  it  down  as  His  first  command- 
ment to  that  people,  devoted  both  in  Egypt 
and  in  the  Desert  to  idols  and  the  worship  of 
imaginary  gods,  that  they  must  believe  in  One 
God.  There  was  truth  and  reason  in  the 
commandment,  for  God,  from  Whom  are  all 
things,  is  One.  But  let  us  see  whether  this 
Moses  have  not  confessed  that  He,  through 
Whom  are  all  things,  is  also  God.  God  is 
not  robbed,  He  is  still  God,  if  His  Son  share 
the  Godhead.  For  the  case  is  that  of  God 
from  God,  of  One  from  One,  of  God  Who  is 
One  because  God  is  from  Him.  And  con- 
versely the  Son  is  not  less  God  because  God 
the  Father  is  One,  for  He  is  the  Only-begotten 
Son  of  God  ;  not  eternally  unborn,  so  as  to 
deprive  the  Father  of  His  Oneness,  nor  yet 
different  from  God,  for  He  is  born  from  Him. 
We  must  not  doubt  that  He  is  God  by  virtue 
of  that  birth  from  God  which  proves  to  us 
who  believe  that  God  is  One ;  yet  let  us  see 
whether  Moses,  who  announced  to  Israel, 
The  Lord  thy  God  is  One,  has  also  proclaimed 
the  Godhead  of  the  Son.  To  make  good  our 
confession  of  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  we  must  employ  the  evidence  of  that 
same  witness  on  whom  the  heretics  rely  for  the 
confession  of  One  Only  God,  which  they 
imagine  to  involve  the  denial  of  the  Godhead 
of  the  Son. 

16.  Since,  therefore,  the  words  of  the 
Apostle,  One  God  the  Father,  from  Whom  are 
all  things,  and  one  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord, 
through  Whom  are  all  things'),  form  an  ac- 
curate and  complete  confession  concerning 
God,  let  us  see  what  Moses  has  to  say  of  the 
beginning  of  the  world.  His  words  are,  And 
God  said,  Let  there  be  a  firmament  in  the  midst 
of  the  water,  and  let  it  divide  the  water  from  the 
water.  And  it  was  so,  and  God  made  the  fir- 
mament, and  God  divided  the  water  through  the 
midst x.  Here,  then,  you  have  the  God  from 
Whom,  and  the  God  through  Whom.  If  you 
deny  it,  you  must  tell  us  through  whom  it  was 
that  God's  work  in  creation  was  done,  or  else 


8  Deut.  ri.  4. 


9  1  Cor.  Tiii.  6. 


1  Gen.  i.  6,  7. 


76 


DE   TRINITATE. 


point  for  your  explanation  to  an  obedience 
in  things  yet  uncreated,  which,  when  God  said 
Let  there  be  a  firmament,  impelled  the  firma- 
ment to  establish  itself.  Such  suggestions  are 
inconsistent  with  the  clear  sense  of  Scripture. 
For  all  things,  as  the  Prophet  says2,  were 
made  out  of  nothing ;  it  was  no  transfor- 
mation of  existing  things,  but  the  creation 
into  a  perfect  form  of  the  non-existent. 
Through  whom  ?  Hear  the  Evangelist  :  All 
things  were  made  through  Him.  If  you  ask 
Who  this  is,  the  same  Evangelist  will  tell  you  : 
In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word 
was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.  He 
was  in  the  beginning  with  God.  All  things 
were  made  through  Him  3.  If  you  are  minded 
to  combat  the  view  that  it  was  the  Father 
Who  said,  Let  there  be  a  firmament,  the  prophet 
will  answer  you  :  He  spake,  and  they  zvere 
made ;  He  commanded,  and  they  were  created*. 
The  recorded  words,  Let  there  be  a  firmament, 
reveal  to  us  that  the  Father  spoke.  But  in 
the  words  which  follow,  And  it  was  so,  in  the 
statement  that  God  did  this  thing,  we  must 
recognise  the  Person  of  the  Agent.  He  spake, 
and  they  were  made ;  the  Scripture  does  not 
say  that  He  willed  it,  and  did  it.  He  com 
manded,  and  they  zvere  created ;  you  observe 
that  it  does  not  say  they  came  into  existence, 
because  it  was  His  pleasure.  In  that  case 
there  would  be  no  office  for  a  Mediator  be- 
tween God  and  the  world  which  was  awaiting 
its  creation.  God,  from  Whom  are  all  things, 
gives  the  order  for  creation  which  God, 
through  Whom  are  all  things,  executes.  Un- 
der one  and  the  same  Name  we  confess  Him 
Who  gave  and  Him  Who  fulfilled  the  com- 
mand. If  you  dare  to  deny  that  God  made 
is  spoken  of  the  Son,  how  do  you  explain 
All  things  were  made  through  Him  ?  Or  the 
Apostle's  words,  One  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord, 
through  Whom  are  all  things  ?  Or,  He  spake, 
and  they  were  made  ?  If  these  inspired  words 
succeed  in  convincing  your  stubborn  mind, 
you  will  cease  to  regard  that  text,  Hear,  O 
Israel,  the  Lord  thy  God  is  One,  as  a  refusal 
of  Divinity  to  the  Son  of  God,  since  at  the 
very  foundation  of  the  world  He  Who  spoke 
it  proclaimed  that  His  Son  also  is  God.  But 
let  us  see  what  increase  of  profit  we  may  draw 
from  this  distinction  of  God  Who  commands 
and  God  Who  executes.  For  though  it  is 
repugnant  even  to  our  natural  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  in  the  words,  He  com?nanded,  and 
they  were  made,  one  single  and  isolated  Person 
is  intended,  yet,  for  the  avoidance  of  all 
doubts,  we  must  expound  the  events  which 
followed  upon  the  creation  of  the  world. 

•  a  Mace.  vii.  a8.  3  St.  John  i.  1—3. 

4  Ps  clxviii.  5. 


17.  When  the  world  was  complete  and  its 
inhabitant  was  to  be  created,  the  words 
spoken  concerning  him  were,  Let  Us  make 
man  after  Our  image  and  likeness  s.  I  ask 
you,  Do  you  suppose  that  God  spoke  those 
words  to  Himself?  Is  it  not  obvious  that  He 
was  addressing  not  Himself,  but  Another? 
If  you  reply  that  He  was  alone,  then  out  of 
His  own  mouth  He  confutes  you,  for  He  says, 
Let  Us  make  man  after  Our  image  and  likeness. 
God  has  spoken  to  us  through  the  Lawgiver  in 
the  way  which  is  intelligible  to  us ;  that  is,  He 
makes  us  acquainted  with  His  action  by 
means  of  language,  the  faculty  with  which  He 
has  been  pleased  to  endow  us.  There  is, 
indeed,  an  indication  of  the  Son  of  God  6, 
through  Whom  all  things  were  made,  in  the 
words,  And  God  said,  Let  there  be  a  firmament, 
and  in,  And  God  made  the  firmament,  which 
follows  :  but  lest  we  should  think  these  words 
of  God  were  wasted  and  meaningless,  sup- 
posing that  He  issued  to  Himself  the  com- 
mand of  creation,  and  Himself  obeyed  it, — 
for  what  notion  could  be  further  from  the 
thought  of  a  solitary  God  than  that  of  giving 
a  verbal  order  to  Himself,  when  nothing  was 
necessary  except  an  exertion  of  His  will? — 
He  determined  to  give  us  a  more  perfect 
assurance  that  these  words  refer  to  Another 
beside  Himself.  When  He  said,  Let  Us  make 
man  after  Our  image  and  likeness,  Plis  indi- 
cation of  a  Partner  demolishes  the  theory  of 
His  isolation.  For  an  isolated  being  cannot 
be  partner  to  himself;  and  again,  the  words, 
Let  Us  make,  are  inconsistent  with  solitude, 
while  Our  cannot  be  used  except  to  a  com- 
panion. Both  words,  Us  and  Our,  are  in- 
consistent with  the  notion  of  a  solitary  God 
speaking  to  Himself,  and  equally  inconsistent 
with  that  of  the  address  being  made  to  a 
stranger  who  has  nothing  in  common  with  the 
Speaker.  If  you  interpret  the  passage  to  mean 
that  He  is  isolated,  I  ask  you  whether  you 
suppose  that  He  was  speaking  with  Himself?  If 
you  do  not  understand  that  He  was  speaking 
with  Himself,  how  can  you  assume  that  He 
was  isolated  ?  If  He  were  isolated,  we  should 
find  Him  described  as  isolated  ;  if  He  had 
a  companion,  then  as  not  isolated.  I  and 
Mine  would  describe  the  former  state ;  the 
latter  is  indicated  by  Us  and  Our. 

18.  Thus,  when  we  read,  Let  Us  make  fnan 
after  Our  image  and  likeness,  these  two  words 
Us  and  Our  reveal  that  there  is  neither  one 
isolated  God,  nor  yet  one  God  in  two  dis- 
similar Persons  ;  and  our  confession  must  be 
framed  in  harmony  with  the  second  as  well 
as  with  the   first    truth.     For  the  words  our 

-prove   that   there   is 


image — not 


our 


images- 


5  Gen.  i.  26. 


6  Reading  Filii. 


ON    THE   TRINITY. —  BOOK    IV. 


77 


one  nature  possessed  by  Both  But  an  argu- 
ment from  words  is  an  insufficient  proof, 
unless  its  result  be  confirmed  by  the  evidence 
of  facts ;  and  accordingly  it  is  written,  And 
God  made  man  ;  after  the  image  of  God  made 
He  him?  J  If  the  words  He  spoke,  I  ask,  were 
the  soliloquy  of  an  isolated  God,  what  meaning 
shall  we  assign  to  this  last  statement  ?  For  in 
it  I  see  a  triple  allusion,  to  the  Maker,  to 
the  being  made,  and  to  the  image.  The  being 
made  is  man ;  God  made  him,  and  made  him 
in  the  image  of  God.  If  Genesis  were  speaking 
of  an  isolated  God,  it  would  certainly  have 
been  And  made  him  after  His  own  image.  But 
since  the  book  was  foreshowing  the  Mystery 
of  the  Gospel,  it  spoke  not  of  two  Gods,  but 
of  God  and  God,  for  it  speaks  of  man  made 
through  God  in  the  image  of  God.  Thus  we 
find  that  God  wrought  man  after  an  image 
and  likeness  common  to  Himself  and  to  God ; 
that  the  mention  of  an  Agent  forbids  us  to 
assume  that  He  was  isolated;  and  that  the 
work,  done  after  an  image  and  likeness  which 
was  that  of  Both,  proves  that  there  is  no 
difference  in  kind  between  the  Godhead  of 
the  One  and  of  the  Other. 

19.  It  may  seem  waste  of  time  to  bring 
forward  further  arguments,  for  truths  concern- 
ing God  gain  no  strength  by  repetition ;  a 
single  statement  suffices  to  establish  them. 
Yet  it  is  well  for  us  to  know  all  that  has  been 
revealed  upon  the  subject,  for  though  we  are 
not  responsible  for  the  words  of  Scripture,  yet 
we  shall  have  to  render  an  account  for  the 
sense  we  have  assigned  to  them.  One  of  the 
many  commandments  which  God  gave  to  Noah 
is,  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  for  his  blood 
shall  his  life  be  shed,  for  after  the  image  of 
God  made  1  man  8.  Here  again  is  the  distinc- 
tion between  likeness,  creature,  and  Creator. 
God  bears  witness  that  He  made  man  after 
the  image  of  God.  When  He  was  about  to 
make  man,  because  He  was  speaking  of  Him- 
self, yet  not  to  Himself,  God  said,  After  our 
image;  and  again,  after  man  was  made,  God 
made  man  after  the  image  of  God.  It  would 
have  been  no  inaccuracy  of  language,  had  He 
said,  addressing  Himself,  I  have  made  man 
after  Aly  image,  for  He  had  shewn  that  the 
Persons  are  one  in  nature  by,  Let  us  make 
man  after  Our  image*.  But  for  the  more 
perfect  removal  of  all  doubt  as  to  whether 
God  be,  or  be  not,  a  solitary  Being,  when  He 
made  man  He  made  him,  we  are  told,  After 
the  image  of  God. 

20.  If  you  still  wish  to  assert  that  God  the 
Father  in  solitude  said  these  words  to  Him 
self,  I  can  go  with  you  as  far  as  to  admit  the 


7  Gen.  i.  27. 


8  lb.  ix.  6. 


9  i.e.  by  the  word  Our. 


possibility  that  He  might  in  solitude  have 
spoken  to  Himself  as  if  He  were  conversing 
with  a  companion,  and  that  it  is  credible  that 
He  wished  the  words  /  have  made  man  after 
the  image  of  God  to  be  equivalent  to  I  have 
made  man  after  My  ozcn  image.  But  your  own 
confession  of  faith  will  refute  you.  For  you 
have  confessed  that  all  things  are  from  the 
Father,  but  all  through  the  Son ;  and  the 
words,  Let  Us  make  man,  shew  that  the  Source 
from  Whom  are  all  things  is  He  Who  spoke 
thus,  while  God  made  him  after  the  image  of 
God  clearly  points  to  Him  through  Whom  the 
work  was  done. 

21.  And  furthermore,  to  make  all  self- 
deception  unlawful,  that  Wisdom,  which  you 
have  yourself  confessed  to  be  Christ,  shall  con- 
front you  with  the  words,  When  He  was  estab- 
lishing the  fountains  under  the  heaven,  when  He 
7i>as  making  strong  the  foundations  of  the  earth. 
L  was  with  Him,  setting  them  in  order.  It  was 
I,  over  Whom  He  rejoiced.  Moreover,  I  was 
daily  rejoicing  in  His  sight,  all  the  ivhile  that 
He  was  rejoicing  in  the  world  that  He  had  made, 
and  in  the  sons  of  men  x.  Every  difficulty  is 
removed ;  error  itself  must  recognise  the  truth. 
There  is  with  God  Wisdom,  begotten  before 
the  worlds ;  and  not  only  present  with  Him,  but 
setting  in  order,  for  She  was  with  Him,  setting 
them  in  order.  Mark  this  work  of  setting  in 
order,  or  arranging.  The  Father,  by  His  com- 
mands, is  the  Cause ;  the  Son,  by  His  execu- 
tion of  the  things  commanded,  sets  in  order. 
The  distinction  between  the  Persons  is  marked 
by  the  work  assigned  to  Each.  When  it  says 
Let  us  make,  creation  is  identified  with  the 
word  of  command ;  but  when  it  is  written,  I 
was  with  Him,  setting  them  in  order,  God 
reveals  that  He  did  not  do  the  work  in  iso- 
lation. For  He  was  rejoicing  before  Him, 
Who,  He  tells  us,  rejoiced  in  return ;  Moreover, 
I  was  daily  rejoicing  in  His  sight,  all  the  while 
that  He  was  rejoicing  in  the  luorld  that  He  had 
made,  and  in  the  sons  of  ?nen.  Wisdom  has 
taught  us  the  reason  of  Her  joy.  She  rejoiced 
because  of  the  joy  of  the  Father,  Who  rejoices 
over  the  completion  of  the  world  and  over  the 
sons  of  men.  For  it  is  written,  And  God  saw 
that  they  were  good.  She  rejoices  that  God  is 
well  pleased  with  His  work,  which  has  been 
made  through  Her,  at  His  command.  She 
avows  that  Her  joy  results  from  the  Father's 
gladness  over  the  finished  world  and  over  the 
sons  of  men ;  over  the  sons  of  men,  because 
in  the  one  man  Adam  the  whole  human  race 
had  begun  its  course.  Thus  in  the  creation  of 
the  world  there  is  no  mere  soliloquy  of  an 
isolated  Father;    His  Wisdom  is  His  partner 

1  Prov.  viii.  28—31. 


78 


DE   TRINITATE. 


in  the  work,  and  rejoices  with  Him  when  their 
conjoint  labour  ends. 

22.  I  am  aware  that  the  full  explanation  of 
these  words  involves  the  discussion  of  many 
and  weighty  problems.  I  do  not  shirk  them, 
but  postpone  them  for  the  present,  reserving 
their  consideration  for  later  stages  of  the  en- 
quiry. For  the  present  I  devote  myself  to  that 
article  of  the  blasphemers'  faith,  or  rather 
faithlessness,  which  asserts  that  Moses  pro- 
claims the  solitude  of  God.  We  do  not  forget 
that  the  assertion  is  true  in  the  sense  that  there 
is  One  God,  from  Whom  are  all  things  ;  but 
neither  do  we  forget  that  this  truth  is  no 
excuse  for  denying  the  Godhead  of  the  Son, 
since  Moses  throughout  the  course  of  his  writ- 
ings clearly  indicates  the  existence  of  God  and 
God.  We  must  examine  how  the  history  of 
God's  choice,  and  of  the  giving  of  the  Law, 
proclaims  God  co-ordinate  with  God. 

23.  After  God  had  often  spoken  with  Abra- 
ham, Sarah  was  moved  to  wrath  against  Hagar, 
being  jealous  that  she,  the  mistress,  was  barren, 
while  her  handmaid  had  conceived  a  son. 
Then,  when  Hagar  had  departed  from  her 
sight,  the  Spirit  speaks  thus  concerning  her, 
And  the  angel  of  the  Lord  said  unto  Hagar, 
Return  to  thy  mistress,  and  submit  thyself  under 
her  hands.  And  the  angel  of  the  Lord  said 
unto  her,  L  will  multiply  thy  seed  exceedingly, 
and  it  shall  not  be  numbered  for  multitude,  and 
again,  And  she  called  the  Name  of  the  Lord  that 
spake  with  her,  Thou  art  God,  Who  hast  seen 
me 2.  It  is  the  Angel  of  God  Who  speaks  3, 
and  speaks  of  things  far  beyond  the  powers 
which  a  messenger,  for  that  is  the  meaning  of 
the  word,  could  have.  He  says,  L  will  multiply 
thy  seed  exceedingly,  and  it  shall  not  be  numbered 
for  multitude.  The  power  of  multiplying  na- 
tions lies  outside  the  ministry  of  an  angel. 
Yet  what  says  the  Scripture  of  Him  Who  is 
called  the  Angel  of  God,  yet  speaks  words 
which  belong  to  God  alone?  And  she  called 
the  Name  of  the  Lord  that  spake  with  her, 
Thou  art  God,  Who  hast  seen  me.  First  He  is 
the  Angel  of  God;  then  He  is  the  Lord,  for 
She  called  the  Name  of  the  Lord ;  then,  thirdly, 
He  is  God,  for  Thou  art  God.  Who  hast  seen  me. 
He  Who  is  called  the  Angel  of  God  is  also 
Lord  and  God.  The  Son  of  God  is  also, 
according  to  the  prophet,  the  Angel  of  great 
counsel*:  To  discriminate  clearly  between  the 
Persons,  He  is  called  the  Angel  of  God ;  He 
Who  is  God  from  God  is  also  the  Angel  of 


»  Gen.  xvi.  9,  io;  13. 

3  The  parenthesis  which  follows:  '  Now  angel  of  God  hxs  two 
•enses,  that  of  Him  Who  is,  and  that  of  Him  Whose  He  is,' 
interrupts  the  sense  and  seems  quite  out  of  place.  The  same 
distinction  in  the  case  of  the  word  Spirit,  in  1'ook  II.  §  32  may  be 
compared. 

a  Isaiah  ix.  6  (LXX). 


God,  but,  that  He  may  have  the  honour  which 
is  His  due,  He  is  entitled  also  Lord  and  God. 

24.  In  this  passage  the  one  Deity  is  first 
the  Angel  of  God,  and  then,  successively,  Lord 
and  God.  But  to  Abraham  He  is  God  only. 
For  when  the  distinction  of  Persons  had  first 
been  made,  as  a  safeguard  against  the  delusion 
that  God  is  a  solitary  Being,  then  His  true  and 
unqualified  name  could  safely  be  uttered.  And 
so  it  is  written,  And  God  said  to  Abraham, 
Behold  Sarah  thy  wife  shall  bear  thee  a  son,  and 
thou  shall  call  his  name  Lsaac ;  and  L  will 
establish  My  covenant  with  him  for  an  ever- 
lasting cove?iant,  and  with  his  seed  after  him. 
And  as  for  Lshmael,  behold,  L  have  heard  thee 
and  have  blessed  him,  and  7vill  multiply  him 
exceedingly ;  ttvelve  nations  shall  he  beget,  and 
L  7vill  make  him  a  great  nation  5.  Is  it  possible 
to  doubt  that  He  Who  was  previously  called 
the  Angel  of  God  is  here,  in  the  sequel,  spoken 
of  as  God?  In  both  instances  He  is  speaking 
of  lshmael ;  in  both  it  is  the  same  Person  Who 
shall  multiply  him.  To  save  us  from  sup- 
posing that  this  was  a  different  Speaker  from 
Him  who  had  addressed  Hagar,  the  Divine 
words  expressly  attest  the  identity,  saying,  And 
L  have  blessed  him,  and  zvill  multiply  him.  The 
blessing  is  repeated  from  a  former  occasion, 
for  Hagar  had  already  been  addressed ;  the 
multiplication  is  promised  for  a  future  day,  for 
this  is  God's  first  word  to  Abraham  concerning 
lshmael.  Now  it  is  God  Who  speaks  to  Abra- 
ham ;  to  Hagar  the  Angel  of  God  had  spoken. 
Thus  God  and  the  Angel  of  God  are  One  ;  He 
Who  is  the  Angel  of  God  is  also  God  the  Son 
of  God.  He  is  called  the  Angel  because  He 
is  the  Angel  of  great  counsel ;  but  afterwards  He 
is  spoken  of  as  God,  lest  we  should  suppos 
that  He  Who  is  God  is  only  an  angel.  Let  us 
now  repeat  the  facts  in  order.  The  Angel  of 
the  Lord  spoke  to  Hagar ;  He  spoke  also  to 
Abraham  as  God.  One  Speaker  addressed 
both.  The  blessing  was  given  to  lshmael,  and 
the  promise  that  he  should  grow  into  a  great 
people. 

25.  In  another  instance  the  Scripture  re- 
veals through  Abraham  that  it  was  God  Who 
spoke.  He  receives  the  further  promise  of 
a  son,  Isaac.  Afterwards  there  appear  to 
him  three  men.  Abraham,  though  he  sees 
three,  worships  One,  and  acknowledges  Him 
as  Lord.  Three  were  standing  before  him, 
Scripture  says,  but  he  knew  well  Which  it  was 
that  he  must  worship  and  confess.  There  was 
nothing  in  outward  appearance  to  distinguish 
them,  but  by  the  eye  of  faith,  the  vision  of 
the  soul,  he  knew  his  Lord.  Then  the  Scrip- 
ture goes  on,  And  He  said  unto  him,  I  wih 

5  Gen.  xvii.  ig,  10. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    IV. 


79 


certainly  return  unto  thee  at  this  time  hereafter, 
and  Sarah  thy  wife  shall  have  a  son 6 ;  and 
afterwards  the  Lord  said  to  Him,  /  will  not 
conceal  from  Abraham  My  servant  the  things 
that  I  will  do  i ;  and  again,  Moreover  the  Lord 
said,  The  cry  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  is  filed 
up,  and  their  sins  are  exceeding  great*.  Then 
after  long  discourse,  which  for  the  sake  of 
brevity  shall  be  omitted,  Abraham,  distressed 
at  the  destruction  which  awaited  the  innocent 
as  well  as  the  guilty,  said,  ///  no  wise  wilt 
Thou,  Who  judgest  the  earth,  execute  this  judg- 
ment. And  the  Lord  said,  If  I  find  in  Sodom 
fifty  riglifeous  within  the  city,  then  L  will  spare 
all  the  place  for  their  sokes'*.  Afterwards, 
when  the  warning  to  Lot,  Abraham's  brother, 
was  ended,  the  Scripture  says,  And  the  Lord 
rained  upon  Sodom  and  upon  Gomorrah  brim- 
stone and  fire  from  the  L.ord  out  of  heaven'1 ;  and, 
after  a  while,  And  the  Lord  visited  Sarah  as 
He  had  said,  and  did  unto  Sarah  as  He  had 
spoken,  and  Sarah  conceived  and  bare  Abraham 
a  son  in  his  old  age,  at  the  set  time  of  which 
God  had  spoken  to  him 2.  And  afterwards, 
when  the  handmaid  with  her  son  had  been 
driven  from  Abraham's  house,  and  was  dread- 
ing lest  her  child  should  die  in  the  wilderness 
for  want  of  water,  the  same  Scripture  says, 
And  the  Lord  God  heard  the  voice  of  the  lad, 
where  he  was,  and  the  Angel  of  God  called  to 
Hagar  out  of  heaven,  and  said  u?ito  her,  What 
is  it,  Hagar  ?  Fear  not,  for  God  hath  heard 
the  voice  of  the  lad  from  the  place  where  he  is. 
Arise,  and  take  the  lad,  and  hold  his  hand, 
for  L  will  make  him  a  great  nation  3. 

26.  What  blind  faithlessness  it  is,  what  dul- 
ness  of  an  unbelieving  heart,  what  headstrong 
impiety,  to  abide  in  ignorance  of  all  this,  or 
else  to  know  and  yet  neglect  it!  Assuredly 
it  is  written  for  the  very  purpose  that  error 
or  oblivion  may  not  hinder  the  recognition 
of  the  truth.  If,  as  we  shall  prove,  it  is  im- 
possible to  escape  knowledge  of  the  facts, 
then  it  must  be  nothing  less  than  blasphemy 
to  deny  them.  This  record  begins  with  the 
speech  of  the  Angel  to  Hagar,  His  promise 
to  multiply  Ishmael  into  a  great  nation  and 
to  give  him  a  countless  offspring.  She  listens, 
and  by  her  confession  reveals  that  He  is  Lord 
and  God.  The  story  begins  with  His  appear- 
ance as  the  Angel  of  God;  at  its  termination 
He  stands  confessed  as  God  Himself.  Thus 
He  Who,  while  He  executes  the  ministry  of 
declaring  the  great  counsel  is  God's  Angel,  is 
Himself  in  name  and  nature  God.  The  name 
corresponds  to  the  nature;  the  nature  is  not 
falsified   to   make   it   conform   to   the   name. 


6  Gen.  xviii.  10. 
1  lb.  xix.  24. 


7  lb.  17.  8  lb.  ao. 

2  lb.  xxi.  1,  2. 


9  lb.  25,  26. 
3  lb.  17,  18. 


Again,  God  speaks  to  Abraham  of  this  same 
matter;  he  is  told  that  Ishmael  has  already 
received  a  blessing,  and  shall  be  increased 
into  a  nation;  /  have  blessed  him,  God  says. 
This  is  no  change  from  the  Person  indicated 
before;  He  shews  that  it  was  He  Who  had 
already  given  the  blessing.  The  Scripture  has 
obviously  been  consistent  throughout  in  its 
progress  from  mystery  to  clear  revelation  ;  it 
began  with  the  Angel  of  God,  and  proceeds 
to  reveal  that  it  was  God  Himself  Who  hail 
spoken  in  this  same  matter. 

27.  The  course  of  the  Divine  narrative  is 
accompanied  by  a  progressive  development 
of  doctrine.  In  the  passage  which  we  have 
discussed  God  speaks  to  Abraham,  and  pro- 
mises that  Sarah  shall  bear  a  son.  Afterwards 
three  men  stand  by  him;  he  worships  One 
and  acknowledges  Him  as  Lord.  After  this 
worship  and  acknowledgment  by  Abraham, 
the  One  promises  that  He  will  return  hereafter 
at  the  same  season,  and  that  then  Sarah  shall 
have  her  son.  This  One  again  is  seen  by 
Abraham  in  the  guise  of  a  man,  and  salutes 
him  with  the  same  promise.  The  change  is 
one  of  name  only ;  Abraham's  acknowledgment 
in  each  case  is  the  same.  It  was  a  Man  whom 
he  saw,  yet  Abraham  worshipped  Him  as 
Lord ;  he  beheld,  no  doubt,  in  a  mystery  the 
coming  Incarnation.  Faith  so  strong  has  not 
missed  its  recognition;  the  Lord  says  in  the 
Gospel,  Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see 
My  day  ;  and  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad*.  To 
continue  the  history;  the  Man  Whom  he  saw 
promised  that  He  would  return  at  the  same 
season.  Mark  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise, 
remembering  meanwhile  that  it  was  a  Man 
Who  made  it.  What  says  the  Scripture  ?  And 
the  Lord  visited  Sarah.  So  this  Man  is  the 
Lord,  fulfilling  His  own  promise.  What  follows 
next?  And  God  did  unto  Sarah  as  He  had 
said.  The  narrative  calls  His  words  those 
of  a  Man,  relates  that  Sarah  was  visited  by 
the  Lord,  proclaims  that  the  result  was  the 
work  of  God.  You  are  sure  that  it  was  a  Man 
who  spoke,  for  Abraham  not  only  heard,  but 
saw  Him.  Can  you  be  less  certain  that  He 
was  God,  when  the  same  Scripture,  which  had 
called  Him  Man,  confesses  Him  God?  For 
its  words  are,  And  Sarah  conceived,  and  bare 
Abraham  a  son  in  his  old  age,  and  at  the  set 
time  of  which  God  had  spoken  to  him.  But 
it  was  the  Man  who  had  promised  that  He 
would  come.  Believe  that  He  was  nothing 
more  than  man  ;  unless,  in  fact,  He  Who  came 
was  God  and  Lord.  Connect  the  incidents. 
It  was,  confessedly,  the  Man  who  promised 
that  He  would  come  that  Sarah  might  con- 

*  St.  John  viii.  s6. 


8o 


DE   TRINITATE. 


ceive  and  bear  a  son.     And  now  accept  in- 
struction, and  confess  the  faith ;    it  was  the 
Lord  God  Who  came  that  she  might  conceive 
and  bear.     The  Man  made  the  promise  in  the 
power  of  God ;  by  the  same  power  God  fulfilled 
the  promise.     Thus  God  reveals  Himself  both 
in  word  and  deed.     Next,  two  of  the  three 
men  whom  Abraham  saw  depart;    He  Who 
remains  behind  is  Lord  and  God.     And  not 
only  Lord  and  God,  but  also  Judge,  for  Abra- 
ham stood  before  the  Lord  and  said,  In  no 
wise  shalt  Thou  do  this  thing,  to  slay  the  righ- 
teous with  the  wicked,  for  then  the  righteous 
shall  be  as  the  wicked.     In  no  wise  wilt  Thou, 
Who  judges  t  the  whole  earth,  execute  this  judg- 
ment*.    Thus  by  all  his  words  Abraham  in- 
structs us   in   that   faith,    for   which   he    was 
justified ;  he  recognises  the  Lord  from  among 
the  three,  he  worships   Him  only,  and  con- 
fesses that  He  is  Lord  and  Judge. 

28.  Lest  you  fall  into  the  error  of  supposing 
that  this  acknowledgment  of  the  One  was 
a  payment  of  honour  to  all  the  three  whom 
Abraham  saw  in  company,  mark  the  words 
of  Lot  when  he  saw  the  two  who  had  departed ; 
And  when  Lot  saw  them,  he  rose  up  to  meet 
them,  and  he  bowed  himself  with  his  face  toward 
the  ground ;  and  he  said,  Behold,  my  lords, 
turn  in  to  your  servant' 's  house6.  Here  the 
plural  lords  shews  that  this  was  nothing  more 
than  a  vision  of  angels ;  in  the  other  case  the 
faithful  patriarch  pays  the  honour  due  to  One 
only.  Thus  the  sacred  narrative  makes  it 
clear  that  two  of  the  three  were  mere  angels ; 
it  had  previously  proclaimed  the  One  as  Lord 
and  God  by  the  words,  And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Abraham,  Wherefore  did  Sarah  laugh,  saying, 
Shall  I  then  bear  a  child  1  But  L  am  grown 
old.  Is  anything  from  God  impossible  ?  At 
this  season  I  will  return  to  thee  hereafter,  and 
Sarah  shall  have  a  son  7.  The  Scripture  is 
accurate  and  consistent;  we  detect  no  such 
confusion  as  the  plural  used  of  the  One  God 
and  Lord,  no  Divine  honours  paid  to  the  two 
angels.  Lot,  no  doubt,  calls  them  lords,  while 
the  Scripture  calls  them  angels.  The  one 
is  human  reverence,  the  other  literal  truth. 

29.  And  now  there  falls  on  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  the  vengeance  of  a  righteous  judg- 
ment. What  can  we  learn  from  it  for  the 
purposes  of  our  enquiry  ?  The  Lord  rained 
brimstone  and  fire  from  the  Lord.  It  is  The 
Lord  from  the  Lord ;  Scripture  makes  no  dis- 
tinction, by  difference  of  name,  between  Their 
natures,  but  discriminates  between  Themselves. 
For  we  read  in  the  Gospel,  The  Father  judgeth 
no  man,  but  hath  given  all  judgment  to  the 


»  Gen.  xviii.  25.  «  lb.  xix.  i,  a.  7  lb.  xviil.  13,  14. 


Son8.     Thus  what  the  Lord  gave,  the  Lord 
had  received  from  the  Lord. 

30.  You  have  now  had  evidence  of  God  the 
Judge   as  Lord   and   Lord;   learn   next   that 
there   is  the   same  joint  ownership  of  name 
in  the  case  of  God  and  God.     Jacob,  when 
he  fled  through  fear  of  his  brother,  saw  in  his 
dream  a  ladder  resting  upon  the  earth  and 
reaching  to  heaven,  and  the  angels  of  God 
ascending  and  descending  upon  it,  and  the 
Lord  resting  above  it,  Who  gave  him  all  the 
blessings  which  He  had  bestowed  upon  Abra- 
ham and  Isaac.     At  a  later  time  God  spoke 
to  him  thus  :  And  God  said  unto  Jacob,  Arise, 
go  up  to  the  place  Bethel,  and  dwell  there,  and 
make  there  an  altar  unto   God,  that  appeared 
7inio  thee  when  thou  fleddest  from  the  face  of  thy 
brother*.     God  demands  honour  for  God,  and 
makes  it  clear  that  that  demand  is  on  behalf 
of  Another  than  Himself.     He  who  appeared 
to  thee  when  thou  fleddest  are  His  words  :  He 
guards  carefully  against  any  confusion  of  the 
Persons.     It  is  God  Who   speaks,  and  God 
of  Whom  He   speaks.     Their  majesty  is  as- 
serted  by   the    combination    of   Both    under 
Their  true   Name  of  God,  while  the  words 
plainly  declare  Their  several  existence. 

31.  Here  again  there  occur  to  me  consider- 
ations which  must  be  taken  into  account  in 
a  complete  treatment  of  the  subject.  But  the 
order  of  defence  must  adapt  itself  to  the  order 
of  attack,  and  I  reserve  these  outstanding 
questions  for  discussion  in  the  next  book. 
For  the  present,  in  regard  to  God  Who  de- 
manded honour  for  God,  it  will  suffice  for  me 
to  point  out  that  He  Who  was  the  Angel  of 
God,  when  He  spoke  with  Hagar,  was  God 
and  Lord  when  He  spoke  of  the  same  matter 
with  Abraham  ;  that  the  Man  Who  spoke  with 
Abraham  was  also  God  and  Lord,  while  the 
two  angels,  who  were  seen  with  the  Lord  and 
whom  He  sent  to  Lot,  are  described  by  the 
prophet  as  angels,  and  nothing  more.  Nor 
was  it  to  Abraham  only  that  God  appeared 
in  human  guise ;  He  appeared  as  Man  to 
Jacob  also.  And  not  only  did  He  appear, 
but,  so  we  are  told,  He  wrestled ;  and  not 
only  did  He  wrestle,  but  He  was  vanquished 
by  His  adversary.  Neither  the  time  at  my 
disposal,  nor  the  subject,  will  allow  me  to 
discuss  the  typical  meaning  of  this  wrestling. 
It  was  certainly  God  Who  wrestled,  for  Jacob 
prevailed  against  God,  and  Israel  saw  God. 

32.  And  now  let  us  enquire  whether  else- 
where than  in  the  case  of  Hagar  the  Angel 
of  God  has  been  discovered  to  be  God  Him- 
self. He  has  been  so  discovered,  and  found  to 
be  not  only  God,  but  the  God  of  Abraham 


8  St.  John  r.  22. 


9  Gen.  xxxv.  c. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK  IV. 


81 


and  of  Isaac  and  of  Jacob.  For  the  Angel 
of  the  Lord  appeared  to  Moses  from  the 
bush ;  and  Whose  voice,  think  you,  are  we 
to  suppose  was  heard  ?  The  voice  of  Him 
Who  was  seen,  or  of  Another  ?  There  is  no 
room  for  deception ;  the  words  of  Scripture 
are  clear  :  And  the  Angel  of  ike  Lord  appeared 
unto  him  in  a  flame  of  fire  from  a  bush,  and 
ngain,  The  Lord  called  unto  him  from  the  bush, 
Moses,  Moses,  and  he  answered,  What  is  it? 
And  the  Lord  said,  Draw  not  nigh  hither,  put 
off  thy  shoes  from  off  thy  feet,  for  the  place 
whereon  thou  standest  is  holy  ground.  And 
He  said  unto  him,  L  am  the  God  of  Abraham, 
and  the  God  of  Lsaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob  l. 
He  who  appeared  in  the  bush  speaks  from 
the  bush  ;  the  place  of  the  vision  and  of  the 
voice  is  one  ;  He  Who  speaks  is  none  other 
than  He  Who  was  seen.  He  Who  is  the 
Angel  of  God  when  the  eye  beholds  Him, 
is  the  Lord  when  the  ear  hears  Him,  and  the 
Lord  Whose  voice  is  heard  is  recognised  as  the 
God  of  Abraham,  and  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob. 
When  He  is  styled  the  Angel  of  God,  the  fact 
is  revealed  that  He  is  no  self-contained  and 
solitary  Being :  for  He  is  the  Angel  of  God. 
When  He  is  designated  Lord  and  God,  He 
receives  the  full  title  which  is  due  to  His 
nature  and  His  name.  You  have,  then,  in 
the  Angel  Who  appeared  from  the  bush,  Him 
Who  is  Lord  and  God. 

33.  Continue  your  study  of  the  witness 
borne  by  Moses;  mark  how  diligently  he 
seizes  every  opportunity  of  proclaiming  the 
Lord  and  God.  You  take  note  of  the  passage, 
Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  thy  God  is  One'2. 
Note  also  the  words  of  that  Divine  song  of 
his ;  See,  See,  that  L  am  the  Lord,  and  there 
is  no  God  beside  Me*.  While  God  has  been 
the  Speaker  throughout  the  poem,  he  ends 
with,  Rejoice,  ye  heavens,  together  with  Him, 
and  let  all  the  sons  of  God  praise  Him.  Re- 
joice, O  ye  nations,  with  His  people,  and  let 
all  the  Angels  of  God  do  Him  honour  ♦.  God 
is  to  be  glorified  by  the  Angels  of  God,  and 
He  says,  For  I  am  the  Lord,  and  there  is  no 
God  beside  Me.  For  He  is  God  the  Only- 
begotten,  and  the  title  '  Only-begotten '  ex- 
cludes all  partnership  in  that  character,  just 
as  the  title  '  Unoriginate '  denies  that  there 
is,  in  that  regard,  any  who  shares  the  character 
of  the  Unoriginate  Father.  The  Son  is  One 
from  One.  There  is  none  unoriginate  except 
God  the  Unoriginate,  and  so  likewise  there 
is  none  only-begotten  except  God  the  Only 
begotten.  They  stand  Each  single  and  alone, 
being  respectively  the  One  Unoriginate  and 


1  Exod.  iii.  2,  4 — 6. 


VOL.  IX. 


»  Deut.  vi.  4. 
4  lb.  43  (LXX.) 


3  lb.  xTxii.  39. 


the  One  Only-begotten.  And  so  They  Two 
are  One  God,  for  between  the  One,  and  the 
One  Who  is  His  offspring,  there  lies  no  gulf 
of  difference  of  nature  in  the  eternal  Godhead. 
Therefore  He  must  be  worshipped  by  the  sons 
of  God  and  glorified  by  the  angels  of  God. 
Honour  and  reverence  is  demanded  for  God 
from  the  sons  and  from  the  angels  of  God. 
Notice  Who  it  is  that  shall  receive  this  honour, 
and  by  whom  it  is  to  be  paid.  It  is  God,  and 
they  are  the  sons  and  angels  of  God.  And 
lest  you  should  imagine  that  honour  is  not 
demanded  for  God  Who  shares  our  nature  5, 
but  that  Moses  is  thinking  here  of  reverence 
due  to  God  the  Father, — though,  indeed,  it 
is  in  the  Son  that  the  Father  must  be  hon- 
oured—  examine  the  words  of  the  blessing 
bestowed  by  God  upon  Joseph,  at  the  end 
of  the  same  book.  They  are,  And  let  the 
things  that  are  well-pleasing  to  Him  that  ap- 
peared in  the  bush  come  upon  the  head  and 
crown  of  Joseph 6.  Thus  God  is  to  be  wor- 
shipped by  the  sons  of  God;  but  God  Who 
is  Himself  the  Son  of  God.  And  God  is  to 
be  reverenced  by  the  angels  of  God ;  but  God 
Who  is  Himself  the  Angel  of  God.  For  God 
appeared  from  the  bush  as  the  Angel  of  God, 
and  the  prayer  for  Joseph  is  that  he  may 
receive  such  blessings  as  He  shall  please. 
He  is  none  the  less  God  because  He  is  the 
Angel  of  God;  and  none  the  less  the  Angel 
of  God  because  He  is  God.  A  clear  indi- 
cation is  given  of  the  Divine  Persons ;  the 
line  is  definitely  drawn  between  the  Unbegot- 
ten  and  the  Begotten.  A  revelation  of  the 
mysteries  of  heaven  is  granted,  and  we  are 
taught  not  to  dream  of  God  as  dwelling  in 
solitude,  when  angels  and  sons  of  God  shall 
worship  Him  Who  is  God's  Angel  and  His 
Son. 

34.  Let  this  be  taken  as  our  answer  from 
the  books  of  Moses,  or  rather  as  the  answer 
of  Moses  himself.  The  heretics  imagine  that 
they  can  use  his  assertion  of  the  Unity  of  God 
in  disproof  of  the  Divinity  of  God  the  Son  ; 
a  blasphemy  in  defiance  of  the  clear  warning 
of  their  own  witness,  for  whenever  he  confesses 
that  God  is  One  he  never  fails  to  teach  the 
Son's  Divinity.  Our  next  step  must  be  to 
adduce  the  manifold  utterance  of  the  prophets 
concerning  the  same  Son. 

35.  You  know  the  words,  Hear,  O  Israel, 
the  Lord  thy  God  is  One;  would  that  you  knew 
them  aright !  As  you  interpret  them,  I  seek 
in  vain  for  their  sense.  It  is  said  in  the  Psalms, 
God,  Thy  God,  hath  anointed  Thee  ">.  Impress 
upon  the  reader's  mind  the  distinction  between 


5  Dei  naturalis  :  cf.  Book  ix.  §  39.  6  Dent  xxxiii.  16. 

7  Ps.  xlv.  7  (xliv.  8). 


82 


DE   TRINITATE. 


the  Anointer  and  the  Anointed;  discriminate 
between  the  Thee  and  the  Thy :  make  it  clear 
to  Whom  and  of  Whom  the  words  are  spoken. 
For  this  definite  confession  is  the  conclusion 
of  the  preceding  passage,  which  runs  thus ; 
Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever;  the 
sceptre  of  Thy  kingdom  is  a  right  sceptre.  Thou 
hast  loved  righteousness  and  hated  iniquity. 
And  then  he  continues,  Therefore  God,  Thy 
God,  hath  anointed  Thee.  Thus  the  God  of 
the  eternal  kingdom,  in  reward  for  His  love 
of  righteousness  and  hatred  of  iniquity,  is 
anointed  by  His  God.  Surely  some  broad 
difference  is  drawn,  some  gap  too  wide  for 
our  mental  span,  between  these  names  ?  No  ; 
the  distinction  of  Persons  is  indicated  by  Thee 
and  Thy,  but  nothing  suggests  a  difference  of 
nature.  Thy  points  to  the  Author,  Thee  to 
Him  Who  is  the  Author's  offspring.  For  He 
is  God  from  God,  as  these  same  words  of  the 
prophet  declare,  God,  Thy  God,  hath  anointed 
Thee.  And  His  own  words  bear  witness  that 
there  is  no  God  anterior  to  God  the  Un- 
originate; Be  ye  My  witnesses,  and  I  am  wit- 
ness, saith  the  Lord  God,  and  My  Servant 
Whom  I  have  chosen,  that  ye  may  know  and 
believe  and  understand  that  I  am,  and  before 
Me  there  is  no  other  God,  nor  shall  be  after  Me  8. 
Thus  the  majesty  of  Him  that  has  no  be- 
ginning is  declared,  and  the  glory  of  Him 
that  is  from  the  Unoriginate  is  safeguarded ; 
for  God,  Thy  God,  hath  anointed  Thee.  That 
word  Thy  declares  His  birth,  yet  does  not 
contradict  His  nature  9;  Thy  God  means  that 
the  Son  was  born  from  Him  to  share  the 
Godhead.  But  the  fact  that  the  Father  is 
God  is  no  obstacle  to  the  Son's  being  God 
also,  for  God,  Thy  God,  hath  anointed  Thee. 
Mention  is  made  both  of  Father  and  of  Son  ; 
the  one  title  of  God  conveys  the  assurance 
that  in  character  and  majesty  They  are  One. 

36.  But  lest  these  words,  For  I  am,  and 
before  Me  there  is  no  other  God,  nor  shall  be 
after  Ale,  be  made  a  handle  for  blasphemous 
presumption,  as  proving  that  the  Son  is  not 
God,  since  after  the  God,  Whom  no  God 
*  precedes,  there  follows  no  other  God,  the 
purpose  of  the  passage  must  be  considered. 
God  is  His  own  best  interpreter,  but  His 
chosen  Servant  joins  with  Him  to  assure  us 
that  there  is  no  God  before  Him,  nor  shall 
be  after  Him.  His  own  witness  concerning 
Himself  is,  indeed,  sufficient,  but  He  has 
added  the  witness  of  the  Servant  Whom  He 
has  chosen.  Thus  we  have  the  united  tes- 
timony of  the  Two,  that  there  is  no  God  before 
Him ;  we  accept  the  truth,  because  all  things 


8  Is.  xliii.  10. 

9  His  human  nature  also ;  cf.  next  f,  and  Book  xi.  §  18. 


are  from  Him.  We  have  Their  witness  also 
that  there  shall  be  no  God  after  Him ;  but 
They  do  not  deny  that  God  has  been  born 
from  Him  in  the  past.  Already  there  was 
the  Servant  speaking  thus,  and  bearing  witness 
to  the  Father ;  the  Servant  born  in  that  tribe 
from  which  God's  elect  was  to  spring.  He 
sets  forth  also  the  same  truth  in  the  Gospels : 
Behold,  My  Servant  Whom  I  have  chosen,  My 
Beloved  in  Whom  My  soul  is  well  pleased1. 
This  is  the  sense,  then,  in  which  God  says, 
There  is  no  other  God  before  Me,  nor  shall 
be  after  Me.  He  reveals  the  infinity  of  His 
eternal  and  unchanging  majesty  by  this  as- 
sertion that  there  is  no  God  before  or  after 
Himself.  But  He  gives  His  Servant  a  share 
both  in  the  bearing  of  witness  and  in  the 
possession  of  the  Name  of  God. 

37.  The  fact  is  obvious  from  His  own  words. 
For  He  says  to  Hosea  the  prophet,  I  will 
no  more  have  mercy  upon  the  house  of  Israel, 
but  will  altogether  be  their  enemy.  But  I  will 
have  mercy  upon  the  children  of  Judah,  and  will 
save  them  in  the  Lord  their  God2.  Here  God 
the  Father  gives  the  name  of  God,  without 
any  ambiguity,  to  the  Son,  in  Whom  also  He 
chose  us  before  countless  ages.  Their  God, 
He  says,  for  while  the  Father,  being  Unori- 
ginate, is  independent  of  all,  He  has  given 
us  for  an  inheritance  to  His  Son.  In  like 
manner  we  read,  Ask  of  Me,  and  I  will  give 
Thee  the  Gentiles  for  Thine  inheritance3.  None 
can  be  God  to  Him  from  Whom  are  all  things4, 
for  He  is  eternal  and  has  no  beginning ;  but 
the  Son  has  God,  from  Whom  He  was  born, 
for  His  Father.  Yet  to  us  the  Father  is  God 
and  the  Son  is  God;  the  Father  reveals  to 
us  that  the  Son  is  our  God,  and  the  Son 
teaches  that  the  Father  is  God  over  us.  The 
point  for  us  to  remember  is  that  in  this  passage 
the  Father  gives  to  the  Son  the  name  of  God, 
the  title  of  His  own  unoriginate  majesty.  But 
I  have  commented  sufficiently  on  these  words 
of  Hosea. 

38.  Again,  how  clear  is  the  declaration  made 
by  God  the  Father  through  Isaiah  concerning 
our  Lord  !  He  says,  For  thus  saith  the  Lord, 
the  holy  God  of  Israel,  Who  made  the  things 
to  come,  Ask  me  concerning  your  sons  and  your 
daughters,  and  concerning  the  zvorks  of  My 
hands  command  ye  Me.  I  have  made  the  earth 
and  man  upon  it,  I  have  commanded  all  the 
stars,  I  have  raised  up  a  King  with  righteous- 
ness, a?id  all  His  zvays  are  straight.  He  shall 
build  My  city,  and  shall  turn  back  the  captivity 
of  My  peopte,  not  for  price  nor  reward,  saith 
the   Lord  of  Sabaoth.      Fgypt   shall   labour, 


«  St.  Matt.  xii.  18.  0  Hos.  i.  6,  7.  3  Ps.  ii.  8. 

4  i.e.  We  cannot  say  Thy  Cod  of  the  Father. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   IV. 


*3 


and  the  merchandise  of  the  Ethiopians  and 
Sabeans.  Men  of  stature  shall  come  over  unto 
Thee  and  shall  be  Thy  servants,  and  shall 
follozv  after  Thee,  bound  in  chains,  and  shall 
worship  Thee  and  make  supplication  unto  Thee, 
for  God  is  in  Thee  and  there  is  no  God  beside 
Ihee.  For  Thou  art  God,  and  we  knew  it  not, 
O  God  of  Israel,  the  Saviour.  All  that  resist 
Him  shall  be  ashamed  and  confounded,  and  sha'l 
walk  in  confusion 5.  Is  any  opening  left  for 
gainsaying,  or  excuse  for  ignorance  ?  If  blas- 
phemy continue,  is  it  not  in  brazen  defiance  that 
it  survives?  God  from  Whom  are  all  things, 
Who  made  all  by  His  command,  asserts  that 
He  is  the  Author  of  the  universe,  for,  unless 
He  had  spoken,  nothing  had  been  created. 
He  asserts  that  He  has  raised  up  a  righteous 
King,  who  builds  for  Himself,  that  is,  for  God, 
a  city,  and  turns  back  the  captivity  of  His 
people,  for  no  gift  nor  reward,  for  freely  are 
we  all  saved.  Next,  He  tells  how  after  the 
labours  of  Egypt,  and  after  the  traffic  of  Ethio- 
pians and  Sabeans,  men  of  stature  shall  come 
over  to  Him.  How  shall  we  understand  these 
labours  in  Egypt,  this  traffic  of  Ethiopians  and 
Sabeans  ?  Let  us  call  to  mind  how  the  Magi 
of  the  East  worshipped  and  paid  tribute  to  the 
Lord ;  let  us  estimate  the  weariness  of  that 
long  pilgrimage  to  Bethlehem  of  Judah.  In 
the  toilsome  journey  of  the  Magian  princes 
we  see  the  labours  of  Egypt  to  which  the 
prophet  alludes.  For  when  the  Magi  exe- 
cuted, in  their  spurious,  material  way,  the  duty 
ordained  for  them  by  the  power  of  God,  the 
whole  heathen  world  was  offering  in  their 
person  the  deepest  reverence  of  which  its 
worship  was  capable.  And  these  same  Magi 
presented  gifts  of  gold  and  frankincense  and 
myrrh  from  6  the  merchandise  of  the  Ethio- 
pians and  Sabeans ;  a  thing  foretold  by  another 
prophet,  who  has  said,  The  Ethiopians  shall 
fall  down  before  His  face,  and  His  enemies 
shall  lick  the  dust.  The  Kings  of  Tharsis 
shall  offer  presents,  the  Kings  of  the  Arabians 
and  Sabeans  shall  bring  gifts,  and  there  shall 
be  given  to  Him  of  the  gold  of  Arabia  7.  The 
Magi  and  their  offerings  stand  for  the  labour 
of  Egypt  and  for  the  merchandise  of  Ethio- 
pians and  Sabeans;  the  adoring  Magi  repre- 
sent the  heathen  world,  and  offer  the  choicest 
gifts  of  the  Gentiles  to  the  Lord  Whom  they 
adore. 

39.  As  for  the  men  of  stature  who  shall 
come  over  to  Him  and  follow  Him  in  chains, 
there  is  no  doubt  who  they  are.  Turn  to  the 
Gospels ;  Peter,  when  he  is  to  follow  his 
Lord,   is    girded   up.      Read    the   Apostles: 


S  Is.  xlv.  h— 16.  6  Reading  ex  for  et. 

7  Ps.  Loci,  (lxxii.)  9,  ro. 


Paul,  the  servant  of  Christ,  boasts  of  his 
bonds.  Let  us  see  whether  this  '  prisoner 
of  Jesus  Christ'  conforms  in  his  teaching 
to  the  prophecies  uttered  by  God  concerning 
God  His  Son.  God  had  said,  They  shall  make 
supplication,  for  God  is  in  Thee.  Now  mark 
and  digest  these  words  of  the  Apostle  : — God 
was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  to  Him- 
self*. And  then  the  prophecy  continues,  And 
there  is  no  God  beside  Thee.  The  Apostle 
promptly  matches  this  with  For  there  is  one 
Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord,  through  Whom  are 
all  things').  Obviously  there  can  be  none 
other  but  He,  for  He  is  One.  The  third 
prophetic  statement  is,  Thou  art  God,  and  we 
knew  it  not.  But  Paul,  once  the  persecutor 
of  the  Church,  says,  Whose  are  the  fathers, 
from  Whom  is  Christ,  Who  is  God  over  all1. 
Such  is  to  be  the  message  of  these  men  in 
chains  ;  men  of  stature,  indeed,  they  will  be, 
and  shall  sit  on  twelve  thrones  to  judge  the 
tribes  of  Israel,  and  shall  follow  their  Lord, 
witnesses  to  Him  in  teaching  and  in  martyr- 
dom. 

40.  Thus  God  is  in  God,  and  it  is  God  in 
Whom  God  dwells.  But  how  is  Tliere  is  no 
God  beside  Thee  true,  if  God  be  within  Him  ? 
Heretic !  In  support  of  your  confession  of 
a  solitary  Father  you  employ  the  words,  There 
is  no  God  beside  Me;  what  sense  can  you 
assign  to  the  solemn  declaration  of  God  the 
Father,  There  is  no  God  beside  Thee,  if  your 
explanation  of  There  is  no  God  beside  Me  be 
a  denial  of  the  Godhead  of  the  Son?  To 
whom,  in  that  case,  can  God  have  said,  There 
is  no  God  beside  Thee  J  You  cannot  suggest 
that  this  solitary  Being  said  it  to  Himself. 
It  was  to  the  King  Whom  He  summoned  that 
the  Lord  said,  by  the  mouth  of  the  men  of 
stature  who  worshipped  and  made  suppli- 
cation, For  God  is  in  Thee.  The  facts  are 
inconsistent  with  solitude.  In  Thee  implies 
that  there  was  One  present  within  range,  if 
I  may  say  so,  of  the  Speaker's  voice.  The 
complete  sentence,  God  is  in  Thee,  reveals  not 
only  God  present,  but  also  God  abiding  in 
Him  Who  is  present.  The  words  distinguish 
the  Indweller  from  Him  in  Whom  He  dwells, 
but  it  is  a  distinction  of  Person  only,  not  of 
character.  God  is  in  Him,  and  He,  in  Whom 
God  is,  is  God.  The  residence  of  God  cannot 
be  within  a  nature  strange  and  alien  to  His 
own.  He  abides  in  One  Who  is  His  own, 
born  from  Himself.  God  is  in  God,  because 
God  is  from  God.  For  Thou  art  God,  and  we 
knew  it  not,  O  God  of  Israel,  the  Saviour. 

41.  My  next  book  is  devoted  to  the  refuta- 
tion of  your  denial  that  God  is  in  God ;  for  the 


3  Cor.  t.  19. 


9  i  Cor.  viii.  6. 


1  Rom.  ix.  s. 


G  2 


34 


DE   TRINITATE. 


prophet  continues,  All  that  resist  Him  shall 
be  ashamed  and  confounded  and  shall  walk  in 
confusion.  This  is  God's  sentence,  passed 
upon  your  unbelief.  You  set  yourself  in  op- 
position to  Christ,  and  it  is  on  His  account 
that  the  Father's  voice  is  raised  in  solemn 
reproof;  for  He,  Whose  Godhead  you  deny, 
is  God.  And  you  deny  it  under  cloak  of 
reverence  for  God,  because  He  says,  There  is 
no  other  God  ^beside  Me.  Submit  to  shame 
and  confusion  ;  the  Unoriginate  God  has  no 
need  of  the  dignity  you  offer;  He  has  never 
asked  for  this  majesty  of  isolation  which  you 
attribute  to  Him.  He  repudiates  your  officious 
interpretation  which  would  twist  His  words, 
There  is  no  other  God  beside  Me,  into  a  denial 
of  the  Godhead  of  the  Son  Whom  He  begat 
from  Himself.  To  frustrate  your  purpose  of 
demolishing  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  by  assign- 
ing the  Godhead  in  some  special  sense  to 
Himself,  He  rounds  off  the  glories  of  the 
Only-begotten  by  the  attribution  of  absolute 
Divinity : — And  there  is  no  God  beside  Thee. 
Why  make  distinctions  between  exact  equi- 
valents? Why  separate  what  is  perfectly 
matched  ?  It  is  the  peculiar  characteristic  of 
the  Son  of  God  that  there  is  no  God  beside 
Him  ;  the  peculiar  characteristic  of  God  the 
Father  that  there  is  no  God  apart  from  Him. 
Use  His  words  concerning  Himself;  confess 
Him  in  His  own  terms,  and  entreat  Him  as 
King ;  For  God  is  in  Thee,  and  there  is  no  God 
beside  2'hee.  For  Thou  art  God,  and  we  knew 
it  not,  O  God  of  Israel,  the  Saviour.  A  con- 
fession couched  in  words  so  reverent  is  free 
from  the  taint  of  presumption :  its  terms  can 
excite  no  repugnance.  Above  all,  we  must 
remember  that  to  refuse  it  means  shame  and 
ignominy.  Brood  in  thought  over  these  words 
God ;  employ  them  in  your  confession  of 
Him,  and  so  escape  the  threatened  shame. 
For  if  you  deny  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  of 
God,  you  will  not  be  augmenting  the  glory 
of  God  by  adoring  Him  in  lonely  majesty ; 
you  will  be  slighting  the  Father  by  refusing  to 
reverence  the  Son.  In  faith  and  veneration 
confess  of  the  Unoriginate  God  that  there 
is  no  God  beside  Him ;  claim  for  God  the 
Only-begotten  that  apart  from  Him  there  is 
no  God. 

42.  As  you  have  listened  already  to  Moses 
and  Isaiah,  so  listen  now  to  Jeremiah  in- 
culcating the  same  truth  as  they  : — This  is  out- 
God,  and  there  shall  be  none  other  likened  unto 
Him,  Who  hath  found  out  all  the  way  of 
knowledge,  and  hath  given  it  unto  Jacob  His 
servant  and  to  Israel  His  beloved.  Afterward 
did  He  shew  Himself  upon  earth  and  dwelt 
among  men2.      For   previously   he   had  said, 


a  Baruch  iii.  35—37. 


And  He  is  Man,  and  Who  shall  know  Him 3  ? 
Thus  you  have  God  seen  on  earth  and  dwelling 
among  men.  Now  I  ask  you  what  sense  you 
would  assign  to  No  one  hath  seen  God  at  any 
time,  save  the  Only-begotten  Son,  which  is  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father*,  when  Jeremiah  proclaims 
God  seen  on  earth  and  dwelling  among  men  ? 
The  Father  confessedly  cannot  be  seen  except 
by  the  Son ;  Who  then  is  This  who  was  seen 
and  dwelt  among  men  ?  He  must  be  our  God, 
for  He  is  God  visible  in  human  form,  Whom 
men  can  handle.  And  take  to  heart  the 
prophet's  words,  There  shall  be  none  other 
likened  to  Him.  If  you  ask  how  this  can 
be,  listen  to  the  remainder  of  the  sentence, 
lest  you  be  tempted  to  deny  to  the  Father 
His  share  of  the  confession,  Hear,  O  Israel, 
the  lord  thy  God  is  One.  The  whole  passage 
is,  There  shall  be  none  likened  unto  Him,  Who 
hath  found  out  all  the  way  of  knowledge,  and 
hath  given  it  unto  Jacob  His  servant  and  to 
Israel  His  beloved.  Afterward  did  He  shew 
Himself  upon  earth  and  dwelt  among  men. 
For  there  is  one  Mediator  between  God  and 
Men,  Who  is  both  God  and  Man ;  Mediator 
both  in  giving  of  the  Law  and  in  taking  of 
our  body.  Therefore  none  other  can  be 
likened  unto  Him,  for  He  is  One,  born  from 
God  into  God,  and  He  it  was  through  Whom 
all  things  were  created  in  heaven  and  earth, 
through  Whom  times  and  worlds  were  made. 
Everything,  in  fine,  that  exists  owes  its  exist- 
ence to  His  action.  He  it  is  that  instructs 
Abraham,  that  speaks  with  Moses,  that  testi- 
fies to  Israel,  that  abides  in  the  prophets,  that 
was  born  through  the  Virgin  from  the  Holy 
Ghost,  that  nails  to  the  cross  of  His  passion 
the  powers  that  are  our  foes,  that  slays  death 
in  hell,  that  strengthens  the  assurance  of  our 
hope  by  His  Resurrection,  that  destroys  the 
corruption  of  human  flesh  by  the  glory  of 
His  Body.  Therefore  none  shall  be  likened 
unto  Him.  For  these  are  the  peculiar  powers 
of  God  the  Only-begotten  ;  He  alone  was  born 
from  God,  the  blissful  Possessor  of  such  great 
prerogatives.  No  second  god  can  be  likened 
unto  Him,  for  He  is  God  from  God,  not  born 
from  any  alien  being.  There  is  nothing  new 
or  strange  or  modern  created  in  Him.  When 
Israel  hears  that  its  God  is  one,  and  that 
no  second  god  is  likened,  that  men  may  deem 
him  God,  to  God  Who  is  God's  Son,  the 
revelation  means  that  God  the  Father  and 
God  the  Son  are  One  altogether,  not  by  con- 
fusion of  Person  but  by  unity  of  substance. 
For  the  prophet  forbids  us,  because  God  the 
Son  is  God,  to  liken  Him  to  some  second 
deity. 


3  Jer.  xvii.  9  (LXX.). 


4  St.  John  i.  it. 


BOOK    V. 


i.  Our  reply,  in  the  previous  books,  to  the 
mad  and  blasphemous  doctrines  of  the  heretics 
has  led  us  with  open  eyes  into  the  difficulty 
that  our  readers  incur  an  equal  danger  whether 
we  refute  our  opponents,  or  whether  we.  for- 
bear. For  while  unbelief  with  boisterous  ir- 
reverence was  thrusting  upon  us  the  unity  of 
God,  a  unity  which  devout  and  reasonable 
faith  cannot  deny,  the  scrupulous  soul  was 
caught  in  the  dilemma  that,  whether  it  asserted 
or  denied  the  proposition,  the  danger  of  blas- 
phemy was  equally  incurred.  To  human  logic 
it  may  seem  ridiculous  and  irrational  to  say 
that  it  can  be  impious  to  assert,  and  impious 
to  deny,  the  same  doctrine,  since  what  it  is 
godly  to  maintain  it  must  be  godless  to  dis- 
pute ;  if  it  serve  a  good  purpose  to  demolish 
a  statement,  it  may  seem  folly  to  dream  that 
good  can  come  from  supporting  it.  But  human 
logic  is  fallacy  in  the  presence  of  the  counsels 
of  God,  and  folly  when  it  would  cope  with  the 
wisdom  of  heaven ;  its  thoughts  are  fettered 
by  its  limitations,  its  philosophy  confined  by 
the  feebleness  of  natural  reason.  It  must  be 
foolish  in  its  own  eyes  before  it  can  be  wise 
unto  God ;  that  is,  it  must  learn  the  poverty 
of  its  own  faculties  and  seek  after  Divine 
wisdom.  It  must  become  wise,  not  by  the 
standard  of  human  philosophy,  but  of  that 
which  mounts  to  God,  before  it  can  enter  into 
His  wisdom,  and  its  eyes  be  opened  to  the 
folly  of  the  world.  The  heretics  have  in- 
geniously contrived  that  this  folly,  which  passes 
for  wisdom,  shall  be  their  engine.  They  em- 
ploy the  confession  of  One  God,  for  which 
they  appeal  to  the  witness  of  the  Law  and 
the  Gospels  in  the  words,  Hear,  O  Israel,  the 
Lord  thy  God  is  One '.  They  are  well  aware 
of  the  risks  involved,  whether  their  assertion 
be  met  by  contradiction  or  passed  over  in 
silence ;  and,  whichever  happens,  they  see  an 
opening  to  promote  their  heresy.  If  sacred 
truth,  pressed  with  a  blasphemous  intent,  be 
met  by  silence,  that  silence  is  construed  as 
consent;  as  a  confession  that,  because  God 
is  One,  therefore  His  Son  is  not  God,  and 
God  abides  in  eternal  solitude.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  heresy  involved  in  their  bold 
argument  be  met  by  contradiction,  this  op- 
position is  branded  as  a  departure  from  the 


1  Deut.  vi.  4 ;  St.  Mark  xii.  ag. 


true  Gospel  faith,  which  states  in  precise 
terms  the  unity  of  God,  or  else  they  cast 
in  the  opponent's  teeth  that  he  has  fallen  into 
the  contrary  heresy,  which  allows  but  one 
Person  of  Father  and  of  Son  2.  Such  is  the 
deadly  artifice,  wearing  the  aspect  of  an  at- 
tractive innocence,  which  the  world's  wisdom, 
which  is  folly  with  God,  has  forged  to  beguile 
us  in  this  first  article  of  their  faith,  which 
we  can  neither  confess  nor  deny  without  risk 
of  blasphemy.  We  walk  between  dangers  on 
either  hand  ;  the  unity  of  God  may  force  us 
into  a  denial  of  the  Godhead  of  His  Son,  or, 
if  we  confess  that  the  Father  is  God  and  the 
Son  is  God,  we  may  be  driven  into  the  heresy 
of  interpreting  the  unity  of  Father  and  of  Son 
in  the  Sabellian  sense.  Thus  their  device 
of  insisting  upon  the  One  God  would  either 
shut  out  the  Second  Person  from  the  God- 
head, or  destroy  the  Unity  by  admitting  Him 
as  a  second  God,  or  else  make  the  unity 
merely  nominal.  For  unity,  they  would  plead, 
excludes  a  Second ;  the  existence  of  a  Second 
is  destructive  of  unity ;  and  Two  cannot  be 
One. 

2.  But  we  who  have  attained  this  wisdom 
of  God,  which  is  folly  to  the  world,  and 
purpose,  by  means  of  the  sound  and  saving 
profession  of  true  faith  in  the  Lord,  to  unmask 
the  snake-like  treachery  of  their  teaching; 
we  have  so  laid  out  the  plan  of  our  under- 
taking as  to  gain  a  vantage  ground  for  the 
display  of  the  truth  without  entangling  our- 
selves in  the  dangers  of  heretical  assertion. 
We  carefully  avoid  either  extreme ;  not  deny- 
ing that  God  is  One,  yet  setting  forth  dis- 
tinctly, on  the  evidence  of  the  Lawgiver  who 
proclaims  the  unity  of  God,  the  truth  that 
there  is  God  and  God.  We  teach  that  it  is 
by  no  confusion  of  the  Two  that  God  is  One ; 
we  do  not  rend  Him  in  pieces  by  preaching 
a  plurality  of  Gods,  nor  yet  do  we  profess 
a  distinction  only  in  name.  But  we  present 
Him  as  God  and  God,  postponing  at  present 
for  fuller  discussion  hereafter  the  question 
of  the  Divine  unity.  For  the  Gospels  tell  us 
that  Moses  taught  the  truth  when  he  pro- 
claimed that  God  is  One ;  and  Moses  by  his 
proclamation  of  One  God  confirms  the  lesson 
of  the  Gospels,  which  tell  of  God  and  God. 

■  Reading  recidtrttv*. 


86 


DE   TRINITATE. 


Thus  we  do  not  contradict  our  authorities, 
but  base  our  teaching  upon  them,  proving 
that  the  revelation  to  Israel  of  the  unity  of 
God  gives  no  sanction  to  the  refusal  of  Divinity 
to  the  Son  of  God ;  since  he  who  is  our 
authority  for  asserting  that  there  is  One  God 
is  our  authority  also  for  confessing  the  God- 
head of  His  Son. 

3.  And  so  the  arrangement  of  our  treatise 
follows  closely  the  order  of  the  objections 
raised.  Since  the  next  article  of  their  blas- 
phemous and  dishonest  confession  is,  We 
confess  One  true  God^,  the  whole  of  this  second  * 
book  is  devoted  to  the  question  whether  the 
Son  of  God  be  true  God.  For  it  is  clear  that 
the  heretics  have  ingeniously  contrived  this 
arrangement  of  first  naming  One  God  and  then 
One  true  God,  in  order  to  detach  the  Son 
from  the  name  and  nature  of  God ;  since  the 
thought  must  suggest  itself  that,  truth  being 
inherent  in  the  One  God,  it  must  be  strictly 
confined  to  Him.  And  therefore,  since  it  is 
clear  beyond  a  doubt  that  Moses,  when  he 
proclaimed  the  unity  of  God,  meant  therein  to 
assert  the  Divinity  of  the  Son,  let  us  return  to 
the  leading  passages  in  which  his  teaching  is 
conveyed,  and  enquire  whether  or  no  he  wishes 
us  to  believe  that  the  Son,  Who,  as  he  has 
taught  us,  is  God,  is  also  true  God.  It  is  clear 
that  the  truth,  or  genuineness,  of  a  thing  is 
a  question  of  its  nature  and  its  powers.  For 
instance,  true  wheat  is  that  which  grows  to 
a  head  with  the  beard  bristling  round  it,  which 
is  purged  from  the  chaff  and  ground  to  flour, 
compounded  into  a  loaf  and  taken  for  food, 
and  renders  the  nature  and  the  uses  of  bread. 
Thus  natural  powers  are  the  evidence  of  truth ; 
and  let  us  see,  by  this  test,  whether  He,  Whom 
Moses  calls  God,  be  true  God.  We  will  defer 
for  the  present  our  discourse  concerning  this 
One  God,  Who  is  also  true  God,  lest,  if  I  fail 
at  once  to  take  up  their  challenge  and  uphold 
the  One  True  God  in  the  two  Persons  of 
Father  and  of  Son,  eager  and  anxious  souls  be 
oppressed  by  dangerous  doubts. 

4.  And  now,  since  we  accept  as  common 
ground  the  fact  that  God  recognises  His  Son 
as  God,  I  ask  you :  how  does  the  creation  of 
the  world  disprove  our  assertion  that  the  Son 
is  true  God  ?  There  is  no  doubt  that  all  things 
are  through  the  Son,  for,  in  the  Apostle's 
words,  All  things  are  through  Him,  and  in 
Him*.  If  all  things  are  through  Him,  and  all 
were  made  out  of  nothing,  and  none  otherwise 
than  through  Him,  in  what  element  of  true 
Godhead  is  He  defective,  Who  possesses  both 


3  From  the  beginning  of  the  Arian  Creed,  Book  iv.  §  12. 

4  The  first  three   books  are   regarded   as   preliminary.     The 
direct  refutation  began  with  Book  iv. 

5  Col.  i.  16. 


the  nature  and  the  power  of  God  ?  He  had  at 
His  disposal  the  powers  of  the  Divine  nature, 
to  bring  into  being  the  non-existent  and  to 
create  at  His  pleasure.  For  God  saw  that  they 
were  good6. 

5.  When  the  Law  says,  And  God  said,  Let 
there  be  a  firmament,  and  then  adds,  And  God 
made  the  firmament,  it  introduces  no  other 
distinction  than  that  of  Person.  It  indicates 
no  difference  of  power  or  nature,  and  makes 
no  change  of  name.  Under  the  one  title  of 
God  it  reveals,  first,  the  thought  of  Him  Who 
spoke,  and  then  the  action  of  Him  Who 
created.  The  language  of  the  narrator  says 
nothing  to  deprive  Him  of  Divine  nature  and 
power;  nay  rather,  how  precisely  does  it  in- 
culcate His  true  Godhead.  The  power  to  give 
effect  to  the  word  of  creation  belongs  only 
to  that  Nature  with  Whom  to  speak  is  the 
same  as  to  fulfil.  How  then  is  He  not  true 
God,  Who  creates,  if  He  is  true  God,  Who 
commands?  If  the  word  spoken  was  truly 
Divine,  the  deed  done  was  truly  Divine  also. 
God  spake,  and  God  created;  if  it  was  true 
God  Who  spake,  He  Who  created  was  true 
God  also ;  unless  indeed,  while  the  presence  of 
true  Godhead  was  displayed  in  the  speech  of 
the  One,  its  absence  was  manifested  in  the 
action  of  the  Other.  Thus  in  the  Son  of  God 
we  behold  the  true  Divine  nature.  He  is  God, 
He  is  Creator,  He  is  Son  of  God,  He  is  omni- 
potent. It  is  not  merely  that  He  can  do 
whatever  He  will,  for  will  is  always  the  con- 
comitant of  power ;  but  He  can  do  also  what- 
ever is  commanded  Him.  Absolute  power  is 
this,  that  its  possessor  can  execute  as  Agent 
whatever  His  words  as  Speaker  can  express. 
When  unlimited  power  of  expression  is  com- 
bined with  unlimited  power  of  execution,  then 
this  creative  power,  commensurate  with  the 
commanding  word,  possesses  the  true  nature 
of  God.  Thus  the  Son  of  God  is  not  false 
God,  nor  God  by  adoption,  nor  God  by  gift  of 
the  name,  but  true  God.  Nothing  would  be 
gained  by  the  statement  of  the  arguments  by 
which  His  true  Godhead  is  opposed.  His 
possession  of  the  name  and  of  the  nature  of 
God  is  conclusive  proof.  He,  by  Whom  all 
things  were  made,  is  God.  So  much  the 
creation  of  the  world  tells  me  about  Him. 
He  is  God,  equal  with  God  in  name ;  true 
God,  equal  with  true  God  in  power.  The 
might  of  God  is  revealed  to  us  in  the  creative 
word ;  the  might  of  God  is  manifested  also 
in  the  creative  act.  And  now  again  I  ask  by 
what  authority  you  deny,  in  your  confession 
of  Father  and  Son,  the  true  Divine  nature  of 


6  i.e.  His  freedom  of  action  is  proved  by  His  satisfaction  with 
the  result. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK  V. 


87 


Him  Whose  name  reveals  His  power,  Whose 
power  proves  His  right  to  the  Name. 

6.  My  reader  must  bear  in  mind  that  I  am 
silent  about  the  current  objections  through  no 
forgetfulness,  and  no  distrust  of  my  cause. 
For  that  constantly  cited  text,  The  Father  is 
greater  than  I,  and  its  cognate  passages  are 
perfectly  familiar  to  me,  and  I  have  my  inter- 
pretation of  them  ready,  which  makes  them 
witness  to  the  true  Divine  nature  of  the  Son. 
But  it  serves  my  purpose  best  to  adhere  in 
reply  to  the  order  of  attack,  that  our  pious 
effort  may  follow  close  upon  the  progress  of 
their  impious  scheme,  and  when  we  see  them 
diverge  into  godless  heresy  we  may  at  once 
obliterate  the  track  of  error.  To  this  end  we 
postpone  to  the  end  of  our  work  the  testimony 
of  the  Evangelists  and  Apostles,  and  join 
battle  with  the  blasphemers  for  the  present  on 
the  ground  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets, 
silencing  their  crooked  argument,  based  on 
misinterpretation  and  deceit,  by  the  very  texts 
with  which  they  strive  to  delude  us.  The 
sound  method  of  demonstrating  a  truth  is  to 
expose  the  fallacy  of  the  objections  raised 
against  it ;  and  the  disgrace  of  the  deceiver  is 
complete  if  his  own  lie  be  converted  into  an 
evidence  for  the  truth.  And,  indeed,  the 
universal  experience  of  mankind  has  learned 
that  falsehood  and  truth  are  incompatible,  and 
cannot  be  reconciled  or  made  coherent ;  that 
by  their  very  nature  they  are  among  those 
opposites  which  are  eternally  repugnant,  and 
can  never  combine  or  agree. 

7.  This  being  the  case,  I  ask  how  a  dis- 
tinction can  be  made  in  the  words,  Let  Us 
make  man  after  Our  own  image  and  likeness, 
between  a  true  God  and  a  false.  The  words 
express  a  meaning,  the  meaning  is  the  out- 
come of  thought ;  the  thought  is  set  in  motion 
by  truth.  Let  us  follow  the  words  back  to 
their  meaning,  and  learn  from  the  meaning 
the  thought,  and  from  the  thought  attain  to 
the  underlying  truth.  Thy  enquiry  is,  whether 
He  to  Whom  the  words  Let  Us  make  man  after 
Our  own  image  and  likeness  were  spoken,  was 
not  thought  of  as  true  by  Him  Who  spoke ; 
for  they  undoubtedly  express  the  feeling  and 
thought  of  the  Speaker.  In  saying  Z<?/  Us 
make,  He  clearly  indicates  One  in  no  discord 
with  Himself,  no  alien  or  powerless  Being, 
but  One  endowed  with  power  to  do  the  thing 
of  which  He  speaks.  His  own  wo/ds  assure 
us  that  this  is  the  sense  in  which  we  must 
understand  that  they  were  spoken. 

8.  To  assure  us  still  more  fully  of  the  true 
Godhead  manifested  in  the  nature  and  work 
of  the  Son,  He,  Who  expressed  His  meaning 
in  the  words  I  have  cited,  shews  that  His 
thought  was    suggested   by  the  true  Divinity 


of  Him  to  Whom  He  said,  After  Our  own  image 
and  likeness.  How  is  He  falsely  called  God, 
to  Whom  the  true  God  says,  After  Our  own 
image  and  likeness  ?  Our  is  inconsistent  with 
isolation,  and  with  difference  either  in  purpose 
or  in  nature.  Man  is  created,  taking  the 
words  in  their  strict  sense,  in  Their  common 
image.  Now  there  can  be  nothing  common 
to  the  true  and  to  the  false.  God,  the  Speaker, 
is  speaking  to  God  ;  man  is  being  created  in 
the  image  of  Father  and  of  Son.  The  Two 
are  One  in  name  and  One  in  nature.  It  is 
only  one  image  after  which  man  is  made. 
The  time  has  not  yet  come  for  me  to  discuss 
this  matter;  hereafter  I  will  explain  what  is 
this  image  of  God  the  Father  and  of  God  the 
Son  into  which  man  was  created.  For  the 
present  we  will  stick  to  the  question,  was,  or 
was  not,  He  true  God,  to  Whom  the  true  God 
said,  Let  Us  make  man  after  Our  own  image  and 
likeness  ?  Separate,  if  you  can,  the  true  from 
the  false  elements  in  this  image  common  to 
Both ;  in  your  heretical  madness  divide  the 
indivisible.  For  They  Two  are  One,  of 
Whose  one  image  and  likeness  man  is  the 
one  copy. 

9.   But   now   let   us   continue   our   reading 
of  this  Scripture,  to  shew  how  the  consistency 
of  truth  is  unaffected  by  these  dishonest  ob- 
jections.    The  next  words  are,  And  God  tnade 
man;    after  the  image  of  God  ?nade  He  him. 
The  image  is  in  common ;    God  made  man 
after  the  image  of  God.     I  would  ask  him 
who  denies  that  God's  Son  is  true  God,   in 
what  God's  image  he  supposes  that  God  made 
man  ?    He  must  bear  constantly  in  mind  that 
all    things    are    through   the   Son;    heretical 
ingenuity   must    not,    for   its   own    purposes, 
twist  this   passage   into   action   on   the   part 
of  the  Father.     If,  therefore,  man  is  created 
through  God  the  Son  after  the  image  of  God 
the  Father,  he  is  created  also  after  the  image 
of  the  Son ;    for   all   admit    that   the   words 
After  Our  image  and  likeness  were  spoken  to 
the  Son.     Thus  His  true  Godhead  is  as  ex- 
plicitly asserted  by  the  Divine  words  as  mani- 
fested in  the  Divine  action ;  so  that  it  is  God 
Who  moulds  man  into  the  image  of  God,  Who 
reveals  Himself  as  God,  and,  moreover,  as  true 
God.     For  His  joint  possession  of  the  Divine 
image    proves    Him    true    God,    while    His 
creative  action  displays  Him  as  God  the  Son. 
10.  What  wild  insanity  of  abandoned  souls  ! 
What  blind  audacity  of  reckless  blasphemy! 
You   hear   of  God   and    God;    you    hear   of 
Our   image.     Why  suggest  that  One  is,   and 
One  is  not,  true  God  ?    Why  distinguish  be- 
tween   God   by   nature   and    God  in   name? 
Why,   under  pretext  of  defending   the   faith, 
do   you   destroy   the  faith  ?    Why  struggle  to 


oo 


DE   TRINITATE. 


pervert  the  revelation  of  One  God,  One  true 
God,  into  a  denial  that  God  is  One  and  true  ? 
Not  yet  will  I  stifle  your  insane  efforts  with 
the  clear  words  of  Evangelists  and  Prophets, 
in  which  Father  and  Son  appear  not  as  one 
Person,  but  as  One  in  nature,  and  Each  as 
true  God.  For  the  present  the  Law,  unaided, 
annihilates  you.  Does  the  Law  ever  speak 
of  One  true  God,  and  One  not  true?  Does 
it  ever  speak  of  Either,  except  by  the  name 
of  God,  which  is  the  true  expression  of  Their 
nature  ?  It  speaks  of  God  and  God  ;  it  speaks 
also  of  God  as  One.  Nay,  it  does  more  than 
so  describe  Them.  It  manifests  Them  as 
true  God  and  true  God,  by  the  sure  evidence 
of  Their  joint  image.  It  begins  by  speaking 
of  Them  first  by  their  strict  name  of  God ; 
then  it  attributes  true  Godhead  to  Both  in 
common.  For  when  man,  Their  creature,  is 
created  after  the  image  of  Both,  sound  reason 
forces  the  conclusion  that  Each  of  Them  is 
true  God. 

ii.  But  let  us  travel  once  more  in  our 
journey  of  instruction  over  the  lessons  taught 
in  the  holy  Law  of  God.  The  Angel  of  God 
speaks  to  Hagar ;  and  this  same  Angel  is  God. 
But  perhaps  His  being  the  Angel  of  God 
means  that  He  is  not  true  God.  For  this 
title  seems  to  indicate  a  lower  nature ;  where 
the  name  points  to  a  difference  in  kind,  it 
is  thought  that  true  equality  must  be  absent. 
The  last  book  has  already  exposed  the  hollow- 
ness  of  this  objection ;  the  title  of  Angel  in- 
forms us  of  His  office,  not  of  His  nature.  I 
have  prophetic  evidence  for  this  explanation ; 
Who  maketh  His  angels  spirits,  and  His 
ministers  a  flaming  firei.  That  flaming  fire 
is  His  ministers ;  that  spirit  which  comes, 
His  angels.  These  figures  shew  the  nature 
and  the  power  of  His  messengers,  or  angels, 
and  of  His  ministers.  This  spirit  is  an  angel, 
that  flaming  fire  a  minister,  of  God.  Their 
nature  adapts  them  for  the  function  of  mes- 
senger or  minister.  Thus  the  Law,  or  rather 
God  through  the  Law,  wishing  to  indicate 
God  the  Son  as  a  Person,  yet  as  bearing  the 
same  name  with  the  Father,  calls  Him  the 
Angel,  that  is,  the  Messenger,  of  God.  The 
title  Messenger  proves  that  He  has  an  office 
of  His  own  ;  that  His  nature  is  truly  Divine 
is  proved  when  He  is  called  God.  But  this 
sequence,  first  Angel,  then  God,  is  in  the  order 
of  revelation,  not  in  Himself.  For  we  confess 
Them  Father  and  Son  in  the  strictest  sense, 
in  such  equality  that  the  Only-begotten  Son, 
by  virtue  of  His  birth,  possesses  true  Divinity 
from  the  Unbegotten  Father.  This  revelation 
of  Them  as  Sender  and  as  Sent  is  but  another 

7  Psaliu  civ.  (tiii.)  4. 


expression  for  Father  and  Son  ;  not  contra- 
dicting the  true  Divine  nature  of  the  Son, 
nor  cancelling  His  possession  of  the  Godhead 
as  His  birthright.  For  none  can  doubt  that 
the  Son  by  His  birth  partakes  congenitally 
of  the  nature  of  His  Author,  in  such  wise  that 
from  the  One  there  comes  into  being  an  in- 
divisible Unity,  because  One  is  from  One. 

12.  Faith  burns  with  passionate  ardour ;  the 
burden  of  silence  is  intolerable,  and  my 
thoughts  imperiously  demand  an  utterance. 
Already,  in  the  preceding  book  I  have  de- 
parted from  the  intended  method  of  my  de- 
monstration. I  was  denouncing  that  blasphe- 
mous sense  in  which  the  heretics  speak  of 
One  God,  and  expounding  the  passages  in 
which  Moses  speaks  of  God  and  God.  I 
hastened  on  with  a  precipitate,  though  devout, 
zeal  to  the  true  sense  in  which  we  hold  the 
unity  of  God.  And  now  again,  wrapped  up 
in  the  pursuit  of  another  enquiry,  I  have 
suffered  myself  to  wander  from  the  course, 
and,  while  I  was  engaged  upon  the  true 
Divinity  of  the  Son,  the  ardour  of  my  soul 
has  hurried  me  on  before  the  time  to  make 
the  confession  of  true  God  as  Father  and  as 
Son.  But  our  own  faith  must  wait  its  proper 
place  in  the  treatise.  This  preliminary  state- 
ment of  it  has  been  made  as  a  safeguard  for 
the  reader;  it  shall  be  so  developed  and  ex- 
plained hereafter  as  to  frustrate  the  schemes 
of  the  gainsayer. 

13.  To  resume  the  argument ;  this  title  of 
office  indicates  no  -difference  of  nature,  for  He, 
Who  is  the  Angel  of  God,  is  God.  The  test 
of  His  true  Godhead  shall  be,  whether  or  no 
His  words  and  acts  were  those  of  God.  He 
increases  Ishmael  into  a  great  people,  and 
promises  that  many  nations  shall  bear  his 
name.  Is  this,  I  ask,  within  an  angel's  power  ? 
If  not,  and  this  is  the  power  of  God,  why 
do  you  refuse  true  Divinity  to  Him  Who.  on 
your  own  confession,  has  the  true  power  of 
God  ?  Thus  He  possesses  the  true  and  perfect 
powers  of  the  Divine  nature.  True  God,  in 
all  the  types  in  which  He  reveals  Himself  for 
the  world's  salvation,  is  not,  nor  ever  can  be, 
other  than  true  God. 

14.  Now  first,  I  ask,  what  is  the  meaning 
of  these  terms,  'true  God'  and  'not  true 
God  '  ?  If  any  one  says  to  me  '  This  is  fire,  but 
not  true  fire ;  water,  but  not  true  water,'  I  can 
attach  no  intelligible  meaning  to  his  words. 
What  difference  in  kind  can  there  be  between 
one  true  specimen,  and  another  true  specimen, 
of  the  same  class  ?  If  a  thing  be  fire,  it  must 
be  true  fire  ;  while  its  nature  remains  the  same 
it  cannot  lose  this  character  of  true  fire.  De- 
prive water  of  its  watery  nature,  and  by  so 
doing   you   destroy    it    as    true    water;    let    it 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK  V. 


89 


remain  water,  and  it  will  inevitably  still  be 
true  water.  The  only  way  in  which  an  object 
can  lose  its  nature  is  by  losing  its  existence ; 
if  it  continue  to  exist  it  must  be  truly  itself. 
If  the  Son  of  God  is  God,  then  He  is  true 
God;  if  He  is  not  true  God,  then  in  no 
possible  sense  is  He  God  at  all.  If  He  has 
not  the  nature,  then  He  has  no  right  to  the 
name ;  if,  on  the  contrary,  the  name  which 
indicates  the  nature  is  His  by  inherent  right, 
then  it  cannot  be  that  He  is  destitute  of  that 
nature  in  its  truest  sense. 

15.  But  perhaps  it  will  be  argued  that, 
when  the  Angel  of  God  is  called  God,  He 
receives  the  name  as  a  favour,  through  adop- 
tion, and  has  in  consequence  a  nominal,  not 
a  true,  Godhead.  If  He  gave  us  an  inade- 
quate revelation  of  His  Divine  nature  at  the 
time  when  He  was  styled  the  Angel  of  God, 
judge  whether  He  has  not  fully  manifested 
His  true  Godhead  under  the  name  of  a  nature 
lower  than  the  angelic.  For  a  Man  spoke 
to  Abraham,  and  Abraham  worshipped  Him 
as  God.  Pestilent  heretic !  Abraham  con- 
fessed Him,  you  deny  Him,  to  be  God. 
What  hope  is  there  for  you,  in  your  blas- 
phemy, of  the  blessings  promised  to  Abraham? 
He  is  Father  of  the  Gentiles,  but  not  for  you  ; 
you  cannot  go  forth  from  your  regeneration 
to  join  the  household  of  his  seed,  through 
the  blessings  given  to  his  faith.  You  are  no 
son,  raised  up  to  Abraham  from  the  stones ; 
you  are  a  generation  of  vipers,  an  adversary 
of  his  belief.  You  are  not  the  Israel  of  God, 
the  heir  of  Abraham,  justified  by  faith;  for 
you  have  disbelieved  God,  while  Abraham 
was  justified  and  appointed  to  be  the  Father 
of  the  Gentiles  through  that  faith  wherein  he 
worshipped  the  God  Whose  word  he  trusted. 
God  it  was  Whom  that  blessed  and  faithful 
Patriarch  worshipped  then  ;  and  mark  how 
truly  He  was  God,  to  Whom,  in  His  own 
words,  all  things  are  possible.  Is  there  any, 
but  God  alone,  to  Whom  nothing  is  impos- 
sible? And  He,  to  Whom  all  things  are 
possible,  does  He  fall  short  of  true  Divinity  ? 

16.  I  ask  further,  Who  is  this  God  Who 
overthrew  Sodom  and  Gomorrah?  For  the 
Lord  rained  f/om  the  Lord8/  was  it  not  the 
true  Lord  from  the  true  Lord  ?  Have  you 
any  alternative  to  this  Lord,  and  Lord?  Or 
any  other  meaning  for  the  terms,  except  that 
in  Lord,  and  Lord,  their  Persons  are  distin- 
guished ?  Bear  in  mind  that  Him  Whom  you 
have  confessed  as  Alone  true,  you  have  also 
confessed  as  Alone  the  righteous  Judge?.  Now 
mark  that  the  Lord  who  rains  from  the  Lord, 
and  slays  not  the  just  with  the  unjust,  and 


8  Gen.  xix.  24. 

9  Book  iv.  §  12.    The  latter  expression  is  cited  inaccurately. 


judges  the  whole  earth,  is  both  Lord  and  also 
righteous  Judge,  and  also  rains  from  the 
Lord.  In  the  face  of  all  this,  I  ask  you 
Which  it  is  that  you  describe  as  alone  the 
righteous  Judge.  The  Lord  rains  from  the 
Lord  ;  you  will  not  deny  that  He  Who  rains 
from  the  Lord  is  the  righteous  Judge,  for 
Abraham,  the  Father  of  the  Gentiles—  but 
not  of  the  unbelieving  Gentiles — speaks  thus  : 
In  no  wise  shalt  Thou  do  this  thing,  to  slay  the 
righteous  with  the  wicked,  for  then  shall  the 
righteous  be  as  the  tvicked.  In  no  wise  shalt 
Thou,  Who  judgest  the  earth,  execute  this  judg- 
ment1. This  God,  then,  the  righteous  Judge, 
is  clearly  also  the  true  God.  Blasphemer ! 
Your  own  falsehood  confutes  you.  Not  yet 
do  I  bring  forward  the  witness  of  the  Gospels 
concerning  God  the  Judge ;  the  Law  has  told 
me  that  He  is  the  Judge.  You  must  deprive 
the  Son  of  His  judgeship  before  you  can 
deprive  Him  of  His  true  Divinity.  You  have 
solemnly  confessed  that  He  Who  is  the  only 
righteous  Judge  is  also  the  only  true  God; 
your  own  statements  bind  you  to  the  ad- 
mission that  He  Who  is  the  righteous  Judge 
is  also  true  God.  This  Judge  is  the  Lord, 
to  Whom  all  things  are  possible,  the  Promiser 
of  eternal  blessings,  Judge  of  righteous  and 
of  wicked.  He  is  the  God  of  Abraham, 
worshipped  by  him.  Fool  and  blasphemer 
that  you  are,  your  shameless  readiness  of 
tongue  must  invent  some  new  fallacy,  if  you 
are  to  prove  that  He  is  not  true  God. 

17.  His  merciful  and  mysterious  self-revela- 
tions are  in  no  wise  inconsistent  with  His 
true  heavenly  nature ;  and  His  faithful  saints 
never  fail  to  penetrate  the  guise  He  has 
assumed  in  order  that  faith  may  see  Him. 
The  types  of  the  Law  foreshew  the  mysteries 
of  the  Gospel ;  they  enable  the  Patriarch 
to  see  and  to  believe  what  hereafter  the 
Apostle  is  to  gaze  on  and  publish.  For, 
since  the  Law  is  the  shadow  of  things  to 
come,  the  shadow  that  was  seen  was  a  true 
outline  of  the  reality  which  cast  it.  God 
was  seen  and  believed  and  worshipped  as 
Man,  Who  was  indeed  to  be  born  as  Man 
in  the  fulness  of  time.  He  takes  upon  Him, 
to  meet  the  Patriarch's  eye,  a  semblance 
which  foreshadows  the  future  truth.  In  that 
old  day  God  was  only  seen,  not  born,  as 
Man ;  in  due  time  He  was  born,  as  well 
as  seen.  Familiarity  with  the  human  ap- 
pearance, which  He  took  that  men  might 
behold  Him,  was  to  prepare  them  for  the 
time  when  He  should,  in  very  truth,  be  born 
as  Man.  Then  it  was  that  the  shadow  took 
substance,  the  semblance  reality,  the   vision 

1  Gen.  xviii.  25. 


90 


DE   TRINITATE. 


life.  But  God  remained  unchanged,  whether 
He  were  seen  in  the  appearance,  or  born  in 
the  reality,  of  manhood.  The  resemblance 
was  perfect  between  Himself,  after  His  birth, 
and  Himself,  as  He  had  been  seen  in  vision. 
As  He  was  born,  so  He  had  appeared  ;  as 
He  had  appeared,  so  was  He  born.  But, 
since  the  time  has  not  yet  come  for  us  to 
compare  the  Gospel  account  with  that  of  the 
prophet  Moses,  let  us  pursue  our  chosen 
course  through  the  pages  of  the  Law.  Here- 
after we  shall  prove  from  the  Gospels  that 
it  was  the  true  Son  of  God  Who  was  born 
as  Man;  for  the  present,  we  are  shewing 
from  the  Law  that  it  was  true  God,  the  Son 
of  God,  Who  appeared  to  the  Patriarchs  in 
human  form.  For  when  One  appeared  to 
Abraham  as  Man,  He  was  worshipped  as  God 
and  proclaimed  as  Judge  ;  and  when  the  Lord 
rained  from  the  Lord,  beyond  a  doubt  the 
Law  tells  us  that  the  Lord  rained  from  the 
Lord  in  order  to  reveal  to  us  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  Nor  can  we  for  a  moment 
suppose  that  when  the  Patriarch,  with  full 
knowledge,  worshipped  the  Son  as  God,  he 
was  blind  to  the  fact  that  it  was  true  God 
Whom  he  worshipped. 

1 8.  But  godless  unbelief  finds  it  very  hard 
to  apprehend  the  true  faith.  Their  capacity 
for  devotion  has  never  been  expanded  by 
belief,  and  is  too  narrow  to  receive  a  full 
presentment  of  the  truth.  Hence  the  un- 
believing soul  cannot  grasp  the  great  work 
done  by  God  in  being  born  as  Man  to  ac- 
complish the  salvation  of  mankind ;  in  the 
work  of  its  salvation  it  fails  to  see  the  power 
of  God.  They  think  of  the  travail  of  His 
birth,  the  feebleness  of  infancy,  the  growth 
of  childhood,  the  attainment  of  maturity,  of 
bodily  suffering  and  of  the  Cross  with  which 
it  ended,  and  of  the  death  upon  the  Cross  ; 
and  all  this  conceals  His  true  Godhead  from 
their  eyes.  Yet  He  had  called  into  being 
all  these  capacities  for  Himself,  as  additions 
to  His  nature  ;  capacities  which  in  His  true 
Divine  nature  He  had  not  possessed.  Thus 
He  acquired  them  without  loss  of  His  true 
Divinity,  and  ceased  not  to  be  God  when 
He  became  Man ;  when  He,  Who  is  God 
eternally,  became  Man  at  a  point  in  time. 
They  cannot  see  an  exercise  of  the  true  God's 
power  in  His  becoming  what  He  was  not 
before,  yet  never  ceasing  to  be  His  former 
Self.  And  yet  there  would  have  been  no 
acceptance  of  our  feeble  nature,  had  not  He 
by  the  strength  of  His  own  omnipotent  nature, 
while  remaining  what  He  was,  come  to  be 
what  previously  He  was  not.  VVhat  blindness 
of  heresy,  what  foolish  wisdom  of  the  world, 
which  cannot  see  that  the  reproach  of  Christ 


is  the  power  of  God,  the  folly  of  faith  the 
wisdom  of  God !  So  Christ  in  your  eyes  is 
not  God  because  He,  Who  was  from  eternity, 
was  born,  because  the  Unchangeable  grew 
with  years,  the  Impassible  suffered,  the  Living 
died,  the  Dead  lives ;  because  all  His  history 
contradicts  the  common  course  of  nature  !  Is 
not  all  this  simply  to  say  that  He,  being  God, 
was  omnipotent?  Not  yet,  ye  holy  and  vener- 
able Gospels,  do  I  turn  your  pages,  to  prove 
from  them  that  Christ  Jesus,  amid  these 
changes  and  sufferings,  is  G  )d.  For  the  Law 
is  the  forerunner  of  the  Gospels,  and  the  Law 
must  teach  us  that,  when  God  clothed  Himself 
in  infirmity,  Fie  lost  not  His  Godhead.  The 
types  of  the  Law  are  our  convincing  assurance 
of  the  mysteries  of  the  Gospel  faith. 

19.  Be  with  me  now  in  thy  faithful  spirit, 
holy  and  blessed  Patriarch  Jacob,  to  combat 
the  poisonous  hissings  of  the  serpent  of  un- 
belief. Prevail  once  more  in  thy  wrestling 
with  the  Man,  and,  being  the  stronger,  once 
more  entreat  His  blessing.  Why  pray  for  what 
thou  mightest  demand  from  thy  weaker  Oppo- 
nent? Thy  strong  arm  has  vanquished  Him 
Whose  blessing  thou  prayest.  Thy  bodily 
victory  is  in  broad  contrast  to  thy  soul's 
humility,  thy  deeds  to  thy  thoughts.  It  is 
a  Man  whom  thou  holdest  powerless  in  thy 
strong  grasp  ;  but  in  thine  eye  this  Man  is  true 
God,  and  Cod  not  in  name  only,  but  in  nature. 
It  is  not  the  blessing  of  a  God  by  adoption 
that  thou  dost  claim,  but  the  true  God's 
blessing.  With  Man  thou  strivest :  but  face  to 
face  thou  seest  God.  What  thou  seest  with 
the  bodily  eye  is  different  far  from  what  thou 
beholdest  with  the  vision  of  faith.  Thou  hast 
felt  Him  to  be  weak  Man;  but  thy  soul  has 
been  saved  because  it  saw  God  in  Him. 
When  thou  wast  wrestling  thou  wast  Jacob ; 
thou  art  Israel  now,  through  faith  in  the 
blessing  which  thou  didst  claim.  According  to 
the  flesh,  the  Man  is  thy  inferior,  for  a  type  of 
His  passion  in  the  flesh ;  but  thou  canst 
recognise  God  in  that  weak  flesh,  for  a  sign  of 
His  blessing  in  the  Spirit.  The  witness  of  the 
eye  does  not  disturb  thy  faith ;  His  feebleness 
does  not  mislead  thee  into  neglect  of  His 
blessing.  Though  He  is  Man,  His  humanity 
is  no  bar  to  His  being  God,  His  Godhead  no 
bar  to  His  being  true  God;  for,  being  God, 
He  must  indeed  be  true  2. 

20.  The  Law  in  its  progress  still  follows  the 
sequence  of  the  Gospel  mystery,  of  which  it  is 
the  shadow  ;  its  types  are  a  faithful  anticipation 
of  the  truths  taught  by  the  Apostles.  In  the 
vision  of  his  dream  the  blessed  Jacob  saw 
God;  this  was  the  revelation  ot  a  mystery,  not 

*  Omitting  et  btncdicendo  et  trans/erendo  et  nuncupando. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  —  BOOK  V. 


9i 


a  bodily  manifestation.  For  there  was  shown 
to  him  the  descent  of  angels  by  the  ladder, 
and  their  ascent  to  heaven,  and  God  resting 
above  the  ladder;  and  the  vision,  as  it  was 
interpreted,  foretold  that  his  dream  should 
some  day  become  a  revealed  truth.  The 
Patriarch's  words,  The  house  of  God  and  the  gate 
of  heaven,  shew  us  the  scene  of  his  vision  ;  and 
then,  after  a  long  account  of  what  he  did,  the 
narrative  proceeds  thus:  And  God  said  unto 
facob,  Arise,  and  go  up  to  the  place  Bethel,  and 
divell  there:  and  make  there  a  Sacrifice  unto 
God,  that  appeared  unto  thee  when  thou  fieddest 
from  the  face  of  Esau  3.  If  the  faith  of  the 
Gospel  has  access  through  God  the  Son  to 
God  the  Father,  and  if  it  is  only  through  God 
that  God  can  be  apprehended,  then  shew  us 
in  what  sense  This  is  not  true  God,  Who 
demands  reverence  for  God,  Who  rests  above 
the  heavenly  ladder.  What  difference  of  na- 
ture separates  the  Two,  when  Both  bear  the 
one  name  which  indicates  the  one  nature  ?  It 
is  God  Who  was  seen;  it  is  also  God  Who 
speaks  about  God  Who  was  seen.  God  cannot 
be  apprehended  except  through  God ;  even  as 
also  God  accepts  no  worship  from  us  except 
through  God.  We  could  not  understand  that 
the  One  must  be  reverenced,  unless  the  Other 
had  taught  us  reverence  for  Him ;  we  could 
not  have  known  that  the  One  is  God,  unless 
we  had  known  the  Godhead  of  the  Other. 
The  revelation  of  mysteries  holds  its  appointed 
course ;  it  is  by  God  that  we  are  initiated  into 
the  worship  of  God.  And  when  one  name, 
which  tells  of  one  nature,  combines  the  Father 
with  the  Son,  how  can  the  Son  so  fall  beneath 
Himself  as  to  be  other  than  true  God? 

31.  Human  judgment  must  not  pass  its 
sentence  upon  God.  Our  nature  is  not  such 
that  it  can  lift  itself  by  its  own  forces  to  the 
contemplation  of  heavenly  things.  We  must 
learn  from  God  what  we  are  to  think  of  God ; 
we  have  no  source  of  knowledge  but  Himself. 
You  may  be  as  carefully  trained  as  you  will  in 
secular  philosophy;  you  may  have  lived  a  life 
of  righteousness.  All  this  will  contribute  to 
your  mental  satisfaction,  but  it  will  not  help 
you  to  know  God.  Moses  was  adopted  as  the 
son  of  the  queen,  and  instructed  in  all  the 
wisdom  of  the  Egyptians ;  he  had,  moreover, 
out  of  loyalty  to  his  race  avenged  the  wrong  of 
the  Hebrew  by  slaying  the  Egyptian  4,  and 
yet  he  knew  not  the  God  Who  had  blessed 
his  fathers.  For  when  he  left  Egypt  through 
fear  of  the  discovery  of  his  deed,  and  was  living 
as  a  shepherd  in  the  land  of  Midian,  he  saw 
a  fire  in  the  bush,  and  the  bush  unconsumed. 


3  Gen.  xxxv.  i. 

4  This  act  is  used  as  the  evidence  of  Moses'  righteousness. 


Then  it  was  that  he  heard  the  voice  of  God, 
and  asked  His  name,  and  learned  His  nature. 
Of  all  this  he  could  have  known  nothing  except 
through  God  Himself.  And  we,  in  like  man- 
ner, must  confine  ourselves,  in  whatever  we 
say  of  God,  to  the  terms  in  which  He  has 
spoken  to  our  understanding  concerning  Him- 
self. 

22.  It  is  the  Angel  of  God  Who  appeared 
in  the  fire  from  the  bush  ;  and  it  is  God  Who 
spoke  from  the  bush  amid  the  fire.  He  is 
manifested  as  Angel ;  that  is  His  office,  not 
His  nature.  The  name  which  expresses  His 
nature  is  given  you  as  God  ;  for  the  Angel  of 
God  is  God.  But  perhaps  He  is  not  true  God. 
Is  the  God  of  Abraham,  then,  the  God  of 
Isaac,  the  God  of  Jacob,  not  true  God?  For 
the  Angel  Who  speaks  from  the  bush  is  their 
God  eternally.  And,  lest  you  insinuate  that 
the  name  is  His  only  by  adoption,  it  is  the 
absolute  God  Who  speaks  to  Moses.  These 
are  His  words : — And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses,  I  Am  that  I  Am  ;  and  He  said,  Thus 
shalt  thou  say  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  He 
that  is  hath  sent  me  unto  you5.  God's  dis- 
course began  as  the  speech  of  the  Angel,  in 
order  to  reveal  the  mystery  of  human  salvation 
in  the  Son.  Next  He  appears  as  the  God  of 
Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God 
of  Jacob,  that  we  may  know  the  name  which  is 
His  by  nature.  Finally  it  is  the  God  that  is 
Who  sends  Moses  to  Israel,  that  we  may  have 
full  assurance  that  in  the  absolute  sense  He  is 
God. 

23.  What  further  fictions  can  the  futile  folly 
of  insane  blasphemy  devise  ?  Do  you  still  per- 
sist in  your  nightly  sowing  of  tares,  predestined 
to  be  burnt,  among  the  pure  wheat,  when  the 
knowledge  of  all  the  Patriarchs  contradicts  you? 
Nay  more  :  if  you  believed  Moses,  you  would 
believe  also  in  God,  the  Son  of  God ;  unless 
perchance  you  deny  that  it  was  of  Him  that 
Moses  spoke.  If  you  propose  to  deny  that, 
you  must  listen  to  the  words  of  God  :  —For 
had  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  have  believed  Me 
also,  for  he  wrote  of  Me6.  Moses,  indeed,  will 
refute  you  with  the  whole  volume  of  the  Law, 
ordained  through  angels,  which  he  received 
by  the  hand  of  the  Mediator.  Enquire  whether 
He,  Who  gave  the  Law,  were  not  true  God ; 
for  the  Mediator  was  the  Giver.  And  was 
it  not  to  meet  God  that  Moses  led  out  the 
people  to  the  Mount?  Was  it  not  God  Who 
came  down  into  the  Mount?  Or  was  it, 
perhaps,  only  by  a  fiction  or  an  adoption,  and 
not  by  right  of  nature,  that  He,  Who  did  all 
this,  bore  the  name  of  God  ?  Mark  the  blare 
of  the  trumpets,  the  flashing  of  the  torches, 


5  Exod.  iii.  14. 


6  St.  John  v.  46. 


DE   TRINITATE. 


the  clouds  of  smoke,  as  from  a  furnace,  rolling 
over  the  mountain,  the  terror  of  conscious 
impotence  on  the  part  of  man  in  the  presence 
of  God,  the  confession  of  the  people,  when 
they  prayed  Moses  to  be  their  spokesman,  that 
at  the  voice  of  God  they  would  die.  Is  He,  in 
your  judgment,  not  true  God,  when  simple 
dread  lest  He  should  speak  filled  Israel  with 
the  fear  of  death  ?  He  Whose  voice  could  not 
be  borne  by  human  weakness  ?  In  your  eyes 
is  He  not  God,  because  He  addressed  you 
through  the  weak  faculties  of  a  man,  that  you 
might  hear,  and  live  ?  ?  Moses  entered  the 
Mount ;  in  forty  days  and  nights  he  gained 
the  knowledge  of  the  mysteries  of  heaven,  and 
set  it  all  in  order  according  to  the  vision  of  the 
truth  which  was  revealed  to  him  there.  From 
intercourse  with  God,  Who  spoke  with  him, 
he  received  the  reflected  splendour  of  that 
glory  on  which  none  may  gaze  ?  his  corruptible 
countenance  was  transfigured  into  the  likeness 
of  the  unapproachable  light  of  Him,  with 
Whom  he  was  dwelling.  Of  this  God  he  bears 
witness,  of  this  God  he  speaks ;  he  summons 
the  angels  of  God  to  come  and  worship  Him 
amid  the  gladness  of  the  Gentiles,  and  prays 
that  the  blessings  which  please  Him  may 
descend  upon  the  head  of  Joseph.  In  face  of 
such  evidence  as  this,  dare  any  man  say  that 
He  has  nothing  but  the  name  of  God,  and 
deny  His  true  Divinity? 

24.  This  long  discussion  has,  I  believe, 
brought  out  the  truth  that  no  sound  argument 
has  ever  been  adduced  in  favour  of  a  dis- 
tinction between  One  Who  is,  and  One  Who 
is  not,  true  God,  in  those  passages  where  the 
Law  speaks  of  God  and  God,  of  Lord  and 
Lord.  I  have  proved  that  these  terms  are 
inconsistent  with  difference  between  Them  in 
name  or  in  nature,  and  that  we  can  use  the 
name  as  a  test  of  the  nature,  and  the  nature  as 
a  clue  to  the  name.  Thus  I  have  shewn  that 
the  character,  the  power,  the  attributes,  the 
name  of  God  are  inherent  in  Him  Whom  the 
Law  has  called  God.  I  have  shewn  also  that 
the  Law,  gradually  unfolding  the  Gospel  mys- 
tery, reveals  the  Son  as  a  Person  by  mani- 
festing God  as  obedient,  in  the  creation  of 
the  world,  to  the  words  of  God,  and  in  the 
formation  of  man  making  what  is  the  joint 
image  of  God,  and  of  God  ;  and  again,  that  in 
the  judgment  of  the  men  of  Sodom  the  Lord 
is  Judge  from  the  Lord  ;  that,  in  the  giving  of 
blessings  and  ordaining  of  the  mysteries  of  the 
Law,  the  Angel  of  God  is  God.  Thus,  in 
support  of  the  saving  confession  of  God  as 
ever  manifested  in  the  Persons  of  Father  and 
of  Son,  we  have  shewn  how  the  Law  teaches 


7  Reading  viveres. 


the  true  Godhead  by  the  use  of  the  strict  name 
of  God ;  for,  while  the  Law  states  clearly  that 
They  are  Two,  it  casts  no  shadow  of  doubt 
upon  the  true  Godhead  of  either. 

25.  And  now  the  time  has  come  for  us  to 
put  a  stop  to  that  cunning  artifice  of  heresy, 
by  which  they  pervert  the  devout  and  godly 
teachings  of  the  Law  into  a  support  for  their 
own  godless  delusion.  They  preface  their 
denial  of  the  Son  of  God  with  the  words,  Hear, 
O  Israel,  the  Lord  thy  God  is  One  ;  and  then, 
because  their  blasphemy  would  be  refuted  by 
the  identity  of  name,  since  the  Law  speaks  of 
God  and  God,  they  invoke  the  authority  of  the 
prophetic  words,  They  shall  bless  Thee,  the  true 
God,  to  prove  that  the  name  is  not  used  in  the 
true  sense.  They  argue  that  these  words  teach 
that  God  is  One,  and  that  God,  the  Son  of 
God,  has  His  name  only  and  not  His  nature ; 
and  that  therefore  we  must  conclude  that  the 
true  God  is  one  Person  only.  But  perhaps 
you  imagine,  fool,  that  we  shall  contradict 
these  texts  of  yours,  and  so  deny  that  there  is 
one  true  God.  Assuredly  we  do  not  contradict 
them  by  a  confession  conceived  in  your  sense. 
Our  faith  receives  them,  our  reason  accepts 
them,  our  words  declare  them.  We  recognise 
One  God,  and  Him  true  God.  The  name 
of  God  has  no  dangers  for  our  confession, 
which  proclaims  that  in  the  nature  of  the 
Son  there  is  the  One  true  God.  Learn  the 
meaning  of  your  own  words,  recognise  the 
One  true  God,  and  then  you  will  be  able  to 
make  a  faithful  confession  of  God,  One  and  true. 
It  is  the  words  of  our  faith  which  you  are  turn- 
ing into  the  instrument  of  your  blasphemy,  pre- 
serving the  sound  and  perverting  the  sense. 
Masquerading  in  a  foolish  garb  of  imaginary  wis- 
dom, under  cover  of  loyalty  to  truth  you  are 
the  truth's  destroyer.  You  confess  that  God 
is  One  and  true,  on  purpose  to  deny  the  truth 
which  you  confess.  Your  language  claims 
a  reputation  for  piety  on  the  strength  of  its 
impiety,  for  truth  on  the  strength  of  its  false- 
hood. Your  preaching  of  One  true  God  leads 
up  to  a  denial  of  Him.  For  you  deny  that 
the  Son  is  true  God,  though  you  admit  that 
He  is  God,  but  God  in  name  only,  not  in 
nature.  If  His  birth  be  in  name,  not  in  nature, 
then  you  are  justified  in  denying  His  true  right 
to  the  name ;  but  if  He  be  truly  born  as  God, 
how  then  can  He  fail  to  be  true  God  by 
virtue  of  His  birth  ?  Deny  the  fact,  and  you 
may  deny  the  consequence;  if  you  admit  the 
fact,  how  can  He  be  other  than  Himself? 
No  being  can  alter  its  own  essential  nature. 
About  His  birth  I  shall  speak  presently; 
meantime  I  will  refute  your  blasphemous 
falsehoods  concerning  His  true  Divine  nature 
by  the  utterances  of  prophets.     But   I   shall 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK  V. 


93 


take  care  that  in  our  assertion  of  the  One 
true  God  I  give  no  cover  to  the  Sabellian 
heresy  that  the  Father  is  one  Person  with 
the  Son,  and  none  to  that  slander  against 
the  Son's  true  Godhead,  which  you  evolve 
out  of  the  unity  of  the  One  true  God. 

26.  Blasphemy  is  incompatible  with  wisdom ; 
where  the  fear  of  God,  which  is  the  beginning 
of  wisdom,  is  absent,  no  glimmer  of  intelligence 
survives.  An  instance  of  this  is  seen  in  the 
heretics'  citation  of  the  prophet's  words,  And 
they  shall  bless  Thee,  the  true  God,  as  evidence 
against  the  Godhead  of  the  Son.  First,  we 
see  here  the  folly,  which  clogs  unbelief  in  the 
misunderstanding  or  (if  it  were  understood) 
in  the  suppression  of  the  earlier  part  of  the 
prophecy  :  and  again  we  see  it  in  their  fraudu- 
lent interpolation  of  that  one  little  word,  not 
to  be  found  in  the  book  itself.  This  pro- 
ceeding is  as  stupid  as  it  is  dishonest,  since 
no  one  would  trust  them  so  far  as  to  accept  their 
reading  without  referring  for  corroboration  to 
the  prophetic  text.  For  that  text  does  not 
stand  thus :  They  shall  bless  Thee,  the  true 
God,  but  thus  :  They  shall  bless  the  true  Gods. 
There  is  no  slight  difference  between  Thee,  the 
true  God  and  The  true  God.  If  Thee  be  re- 
tained, the  pronoun  of  the  second  person 
implies  that  Another  is  being  addressed  ;  if 
T'hee  be  omitted,  True  God,  the  object  of  the 
sentence,  is  the  Speaker. 

27.  To  ensure  that  our  explanation  of  the 
passage  shall  be  complete  and  certain,  I  cite 
the  words  in  full  : — Therefore  thus  saith  the 
Lord,  Behold,  they  that  serve  Me  shall  eat,  but 
ye  shall  be  hungry,  behold,  they  that  serve  Me 
shall  drink,  but  ye  shall  be  thirsty,  behold,  they 
that  serve  Me  shall  rejoice  with  gladness,  but 
ye  shall  cry  for  sorrow  of  your  heart,  and  shall 
howl  for  vexation  of  spirit.  For  ye  shall  leave 
your  name  for  a  rejoicing  wito  My  chosen,  but 
the  Lord  shall  slay  you.  But  My  servants  shall 
be  called  by  a  new  name,  which  shall  be  blessed 
upon  earth  ;  and  they  shall  bless  the  true  God, 
and  they  that  swear  upon  the  earth  shall  swear 
by  the  true  God 9.  There  is  always  a  good 
reason  for  any  departure  from  the  accustomed 
modes  of  expression,  but  novelty  is  also  made 
an  opportunity  for  misinterpretation.  The 
question  here  is,  Why,  when  so  many  earlier 
prophecies  have  been  uttered  concerning  God, 
and  the  name  God,  alone  and  without  epithet, 
has  sufficed  hitherto  to  indicate  the  Divine 
majesty  and  nature,  the  Spirit  of  prophecy 
should  now  foretell  through  Isaiah  that  the 
true  God  was  to  be  blessed,  and  that  men 
should  swear  upon  earth  by  the  true  God. 
First,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  this  discourse 


was  spoken  concerning  times  to  come.  Now, 
I  ask,  was  not  He,  in  the  mind  of  the  Jews, 
true  God,  Whom  men  used  then  to  bless,  and 
by  whom  they  swore  ?  The  Jews,  unaware  of 
the  typical  meaning  of  their  mysteries,  and 
therefore  ignorant  of  God  the  Son,  worshipped 
God  simply  as  God,  and  not  as  Father r  ; 
for,  if  they  had  worshipped  Him  as  Father, 
they  would  have  worshipped  the  Son  also. 
It  was  God,  therefore,  Whom  they  blessed 
and  by  Whom  they  swore.  But  the  prophet 
testifies  that  it  is  true  God  Who  shall  be 
blessed  hereafter ;  calling  Him  true  God, 
because  the  mysteriousness  of  His  Incarnation 
was  to  blind  the  eyes  of  some  to  His  true 
Godhead.  When  falsehood  was  to  be  pub- 
lished abroad,  it  was  necessary  that  the  truth 
should  be  clearly  stated.  And  now  let  us 
review  this  passage,  clause  by  clause. 

28.  Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord,  Behold, 
they  that  serve  Me  shall  eat,  but  ye  shall  be 
hungry  ;  behold,  they  that  serve  Me  shall  drink, 
but  ye  shall  be  thirsty.  Note  that  one  clause 
contains  two  different  tenses,  in  order  to  teach 
truth  concerning  two  different  times;  They 
that  serve  Me  shall  eat.  Present  piety  is  re- 
warded with  a  future  prize,  and  similarly 
present  godlessness  shall  suffer  the  penalty 
of  future  thirst  and  hunger.  Then  He  adds, 
Behold,  they  that  serve  Me  shall  rejoice  with 
gladness,  but  ye  shall  cry  for  sorrow  of  your 
heart,  and  shall  howl  for  vexation  of  spirit. 
Here  again,  as  before,  there  is  a  revelation 
for  the  future  and  for  the  present.  They  who 
serve  now  shall  rejoice  with  gladness,  while 
they  who  do  not  serve  shall  abide  in  crying 
and  howling  through  sorrow  of  heart  and 
vexation  of  spirit.  He  proceeds,  For  ye  shall 
leave  your  name  for  a  rejoicing  unto  My  chosen, 
but  the  Lord  shall  slay  you.  These  words, 
dealing  with  a  future  time,  are  addressed  to 
the  carnal  Israel,  which  is  taunted  with  the 
prospect  of  having  to  surrender  its  name  to 
the  chosen  of  God.  What  is  this  name? 
Israel,  of  course ;  for  to  Israel  the  prophecy 
was  addressed.  And  now  I  ask,  What  is  Israel 
to-day  ?  The  Apostle  gives  the  answer  : — They 
who  are  in  the  spirit,  not  in  the  letter,  they 
who  walk  in  the  Law  of  Christ,  are  the  Israel 
of  God 2. 

29.  Furthermore,  we  must  form  a  con- 
clusion why  it  is  that  the  words  cited  above, 
Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord,  are  followed  by 
But  the  Lord  shall  slay  you,  and  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  next  sentence,  But  my 
servants  shall  be  called  by  a  new  name,  which 
shall  be  blessed  upon  earth.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  both    Therefore  thus  saith  the 


8  Isai.  Ixv.  16. 


9  lb.  13—16. 


1  Cf.  Book  iii.  §  i7. 


*  Cf.  Rom.  ii.  29. 


94 


DE   TRINITAiE. 


Lord,  and  afterwards  But  the  Lord  shall  slay 
you,  prove  that  it  was  the  Lord  Who  both 
spoke,  and  also  purposed  to  slay,  Who  meant 
to  reward  His  servants  with  that  new  name, 
Who  was  well  known  to  have  spoken  through 
the  prophets  and  was  to  be  the  judge  of 
the  righteous  and  of  the  wicked.  And  thus 
the  remainder  of  this  revelation  of  the  mystery 
of  the  Gospel  removes  all  doubt  concerning 
the  Lord  as  Speaker  and  as  Slayer.  It  con- 
tinues : — But  My  servants  shall  be  called  by 
a  new  name,  which  shall  be  blessed  tipon  earth. 
Here  everything  is  in  the  future.  What  then 
is  this  new  name  of  a  religion  ;  a  name  which 
shall  be  blessed  upon  earth  ?  If  ever  in  past 
ages  there  were  a  blessing  upon  the  name 
Christian,  it  is  not  a  new  name.  But  if  this 
hallowed  name  of  our  devotion  towards  God 
be  new,  then  this  new  title  of  Christian, 
awarded  to  our  faith,  is  that  heavenly  blessing 
which  is  our  reward  upon  earth. 

30.  And  now  come  words  in  perfect  har- 
mony with  the  inward  assurance  of  our  faith. 
He  says,  And  they  shall  bless  the  true  God, 
and  they  that  swear  upon  earth  shall  swear 
by  the  true  God.  And  indeed  they  who  in 
God's  service  have  received  the  new  name 
shall  bless  God ;  and  moreover  the  God  by 
Whom  they  shall  swear  is  the  true  God. 
What  doubt  is  there  as  to  Who  this  true  God 
is,  by  Whom  men  shall  swear  and  Whom  they 
shall  bless,  through  Whom  a  new  and  blessed 
name  shall  be  given  to  them  that  serve  Him  ? 
I  have  on  my  side,  in  opposition  to  the 
blasphemous  misrepresentations  of  heresy,  the 
clear  and  definite  evidence  of  the  Church's 
faith ;  the  witness  of  the  new  name  which 
Thou,  O  Christ,  hast  given,  of  the  blessed  title 
which  Thou  hast  bestowed  in  reward  of  loyal 
service.  It  swears  that  Thou  art  true  God. 
Every  mouth,  O  Christ,  of  them  that  believe 
tells  that  Thou  art  God.  The  faith  of  all 
believers  swears  that  Thou  art  God,  confesses, 
proclaims,  is  inwardly  assured,  that  Thou  art 
true  God. 

31.  And  thus  this  passage  of  prophecy, 
taken  with  its  whole  context,  clearly  describes 
as  God  both  Him  Whom  we  serve  for  the 
new  name's  sake,  and  Him  through  Whom 
the  new  name  is  blessed  upon  earth.  It  tells 
us  Who  it  is  that  is  blessed  as  true  God,  and 
Who  is  sworn  by  as  true  God.  And  this  is  the 
confession  of  faith  made,  in  the  fulness  of 
time,  by  the  Church  in  loyal  devotion  to 
Christ  her  Lord.  We  can  see  how  exactly 
the  words  of  prophecy  conform  to  the  truth, 
by  their  refraining  from  the  insertion  of  that 
pronoun  of  the  second  person.  Had  the 
words  been  Thee,  the  true  God,  then  they 
might    have   been    interpreted   as    spoken    to 


another.  The  true  God  can  refer  to  none 
but  the  Speaker.  The  passage,  taken  by  itself, 
shews  to  Whom  it  refers  ;  the  preceding  words, 
taken  in  connexion  with  it,  declare  Who  the 
Speaker  is  Who  makes  this  confession  of  God. 
They  are  these  : — L  have  appeared  openly  to  them 
that  asked  not  for  Me,  and  L  have  been  found 
of  them  that  sought  Me  not.  L  said,  LLere  am 
L,  unto  a  nation  that  called  not  on  My  name. 
L  have  spread  out  My  hands  all  the  day  to  an 
unbelieving  and  gainsaying  people  3.  Could 
a  dishonest  attempt  to  suppress  the  truth  be 
more  completely  exposed,  or  the  Speaker  be 
more  distinctly  revealed  as  true  God,  than 
here?  Who,  I  demand,  was  it  that  appeared 
to  them  that  asked  not  for  Him,  and  was  found 
of  them  that  sought  Him  not?  What  nation 
is  it  that  formerly  called  not  on  His  name? 
Who  is  it  that  spread  out  His  hands  all  the 
day  to  an  unbelieving  and  gainsaying  people? 
Compare  with  these  words  that  holy  and 
Divine  Song  of  Deuteronomy*,  in  which  God, 
in  His  wrath  against  them  that  are  no  Gods, 
moves  the  unbelievers  to  jealousy  against  those 
that  are  no  people  and  a  foolish  nation.  Con- 
clude for  yourself,  Who  it  is  that  makes  Him- 
self manifest  to  them  that  knew  Him  not ; 
Who,  though  one  people  is  His  own,  becomes 
the  possession  of  strangers;  Who  it  is  that 
spreads  out  His  hands  before  an  unbelieving 
and  gainsaying  people,  nailing  to  the  cross  the 
writing  of  the  former  sentence  against  us s. 
For  the  same  Spirit  in  the  prophet,  whom  we 
are  considering,  proceeds  thus  in  the  course 
of  this  one  prophecy,  which  is  connected  in 
argument  as  well  as  continous  in  utterance  : — 
But  My  servants  shall  be  called  by  a  new  name, 
ivhich  shall  be  blessed  upon  earth,  and  they  shall 
bless  the  true  God,  and  they  that  swear  upon 
the  earth  shall  sivear  by  the  true  God. 

32.  If  heresy,  in  its  folly  and  wickedness, 
shall  attempt  to  entice  the  simple-minded  and 
uninstructed  away  from  the  true  belief  that 
these  words  were  spoken  in  reference  to  God 
the  Son,  by  feigning  that  they  are  an  utterance 
of  God  the  Father  concerning  Himself,  it 
shall  hear  sentence  passed  upon  the  lie  by  the 
Apostle  and  Teacher  of  the  Gentiles.  He 
interprets  all  these  prophecies  as  allusions 
to  the  passion  of  the  Lord  and  to  the  times 
of  Gospel  faith,  when  he  is  reproving  the 
unbelief  of  Israel,  which  will  not  recognise 
that  the  Lord  is  come  in  the  flesh.  His 
words  are  : — For  whosoever  shall  have  called 
upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved. 
How  shall  they  call  on  Him  in  Whom  they 
have  not  believed 7    But  how  shall  they  believe 


3  Isai.  Ixv.  1,  2.         4  Deut.  xxxii.  ax.  5  Cf.  Col.  ii.  14 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK  V. 


in  Him  of  Whom  they  have  not  heard?    And 
how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher  ?    And 
how  shall  they  p teach,  except   they  hare  been 
sent?    As  it  is  written,  How  beautiful  are  the 
feet  of  them  that  proclaim  peace,  of  them  that 
proclaim  good  things.     But  all  do  not  obey  the 
Gospel.      For  Esaias   saith,   Lord,   who    hath 
believed  our  report  ?    So  then  faith  cometh   by 
hearing,  and  hearing  through  the  word.     But 
I  say,  Have  they  not  heard!     Yes  verily,  their 
sound  went  into  all  the  earth,  and  their  words 
unto  the  ends  of  the  world.     But  I  say,  Did 
not  Israel  know  ?    First  Moses   saith,  I  will 
provoke  you  to  jealousy  against  them  that  are 
no  people,  and  against  a  foolish  nation  I  will 
anger  you.     Moreover  Esaias  is  bold,  and  saith, 
I  appeared  unto  them  that  seek  Me  not,  I  was 
found  by  them  that  asked  not  after  Me.     But 
to  Israel  what  saith  He  ?    All  day  long  I  have 
stretched  forth   My   hands    to   a   people   that 
hearken  not6.   Who  art  thou  that  hast  mounted 
up  through  the  successive  heavens,  knowing 
not  whether  thou  wert  in  the  body  or  out  of 
the  body,  and  canst  explain  more  faithfully  than 
he  the  words  of  the  prophet  ?   Who  art  thou 
that  hast  heard,  and  mayst  not  tell,  the  ineffable 
mysteries  of  the  secret  things  of  heaven,  and 
hast   proclaimed   with   greater   assurance   the 
knowledge  granted  thee   by  God  for  revela- 
tion ?     Who   art   thou    that    hast   been    fore- 
ordained to  a  full  share  of  the  Lord's  suffer- 
ing on  the  Cross,  and  first  has  been  caught 
up  to   Paradise   and   drawn   nobler   teaching 
from  the  Scriptures  of  God  than  this  chosen 
vessel  ?    If  there  be  such  a  man,  has  he  been 
ignorant  that  these  are  the  deeds  and  words 
of  the  true  God,  proclaimed  to  us  by  His  own 
true  and  chosen  Apostle  that  we  may  recog- 
nise in  Him  their  Author? 

33.  But  it  may  be  argued  that  the  Apostle 
was  not  inspired  by  the  Spirit  of  prophecy 
when  he  borrowed  these  prophetic  words ; 
that  he  was  only  interpreting  at  random  the 
words  of  another  man,  and  though,  no  doubt, 
everything  the  Apostle  says  of  himself  comes 
to  him  by  revelation  from  Christ,  yet  his 
knowledge  of  the  words  of  Isaiah  is  only 
derived  from  the  book.  I  answer  that  in 
the  beginning  of  that  utterance  in  which  it 
is  said  that  the  servants  of  the  true  God  shall 
bless  Him  and  swear  by  Him,  we  read  this 
adoration  by  the  prophet : — From  everlasting 
we  have  not  heard,  nor  have  our  eyes  seen  God, 
except  Thee,  and  Thy  works  which  Thou  wilt 
do  for  them  that  await  Thy  mercy''.  Isaiah 
says  that  he  has  seen  no  God  but  Him.  For 
he  did  actually  see  the  glory  of  God,  the 
mystery  of  Whose  taking  flesh  from  the  Virgin 


he  foretold.  And  if  you,  in  your  heresy,  do 
not  know  that  it  was  God  the  Only-begotten 
Whom  the  prophet  saw  in  that  glory,  listen 
to  the  Evangelist: — These  things  said  Esaias, 
7vhen  he  saw  His  glory,  and  spake  of  Him  8. 
The  Apostle,  the  Evangelist,  the  Prophet 
combine  to  silence  your  objections.  Isaiah 
did  see  God ;  even  though  it  is  written,  No 
one  hath  seen  God  at  any  time,  save  the  Only- 
begotten  Son  Who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father; 
He  hath  declared  Him  9,  it  was  God  Whom 
the  prophet  saw.  He  gazed  upon  the  Divine 
glory,  and  men  were  filled  with  envy  at  such 
honour  vouchsafed  to  his  prophetic  greatness. 
For  this  was  the  reason  why  the  Jews  passed 
sentence  of  death  upon  him. 

34.  Thus  the  Only-begotten  Son,  Who  is 
in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  has  told  us  of 
God,  Whom  no  man  has  seen.  Either  dis- 
prove the  fact  that  the  Son  has  thus  informed 
us,  or  else  believe  Him  Who  has  been  seen, 
Who  appeared  to  them  who  knew  Him  not, 
and  became  the  God  of  the  Gentiles  who 
called  not  upon  Him  and  spread  out  His 
hands  before  a  gainsaying  people.  And  be- 
lieve this  also  concerning  Him,  that  they  who 
serve  Him  are  called  by  a  new  name,  and 
that  on  earth  men  bless  Him  and  swear  by 
Him  as  true  God.  Prophecy  tells,  the  Gospel 
confirms,  the  Apostle  explains,  the  Church 
confesses,  that  He  Who  was  seen  is  true  God  ; 
but  none  venture  to  say  that  God  the  Father 
was  seen.  And  yet  the  madness  of  heresy 
has  run  to  such  lengths  that,  while  they  pro- 
fess to  recognise  this  truth,  they  really  deny 
it.  They  deny  it  by  means  of  the  new- 
fangled and  godless  device  of  evading  the 
truth,  while  making  a  studied  pretence  of 
adhesion  to  it.  For  when  they  confess  one 
God,  alone  true  and  alone  righteous,  alone 
wise,  alone  unchangeable,  alone  immortal, 
alone  mighty,  they  attach  to  Him  a  Son 
different  in  substance,  not  born  from  God 
to  be  God,  but  adopted  through  creation 
to  be  a  Son,  having  the  name  of  God  not 
by  nature,  but  as  a  title  received  by  adoption ; 
and  thus  they  inevitably  deprive  the  Son  of 
all  those  attributes  which  they  accumulate 
upon  the  Father  in  His  lonely  majesty. 

35.  The  distorted  mind  of  heresy  is  in- 
capable of  knowing  and  confessing  the  One 
true  God  ;  the  sound  faith  and  reason  neces- 
sary for  such  confession  is  incompatible  with 
unbelief.  We  must  confess  Father  and  Son 
before  we  can  apprehend  God  as  One  and 
true.  When  we  have  known  the  mysteries 
of  man's  salvation,  accomplished  in  us  through 
the   power  of  regeneration   unto   life  in  the 


6  Rom.  x.  13 — 21. 


7  Isai.  lxiv.  4. 


8  St.  John  xii.  41. 


9  lb.  i.  18. 


96 


DE   TRINITATE. 


Father  and  the  Son,  then  we  may  hope  to 
penetrate  the  mysteries  of  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets.  Godless  ignorance  of  the  teaching 
of  Evangelists  and  Apostles  cannot  frame 
the  thought  of  One  true  God.  Out  of  the 
teaching  of  Evangelists  and  Apostles  we  shall 
present  the  sound  doctrine  concerning  Him, 
in  accurate  agreement  with  the  faith  of  true 
believers.  We  shall  present  Him  in  such 
wise  that  the  Only-begotten,  Who  is  of  the 
substance  of  the  Father,  shall  be  known  as 
indivisible  and  inseparable  in  nature,  not  in 
Person.  We  shall  set  forth  God  as  One, 
because  God  is  from  the  nature  of  God.  But 
we  shall  also  establish  this  doctrine  of  the 
perfect  unity  of  God  upon  the  words  of  the 
Prophets,  and  make  them  the  foundations 
of  the  Gospel  structure,  proving  that  there 
is  One  God,  with  one  Divine  nature,  by  the 
fact  that  God  the  Only-begotten  is  never 
classed  apart  as  a  second  God.  For  through- 
out this  book  of  our  treatise  we  have  followed 
the  same  course  as  in  its  predecessor ;  the 
same  methods  which  proved  there  that  the 
Son  is  God,  have  proved  here  that  He  is  true 
God.  I  trust  that  our  explanation  of  each 
passage  has  been  so  convincing  that  we  have 
now  manifested  Him  as  true  God  as  effectually 
as  we  formerly  demonstrated  His  Godhead. 
The  remainder  of  the  book  shall  be  devoted 
to  the  proof  that  He,  Who  is  now  recognised 
as  true  God,  must  not  be  regarded  as  a  second 
God.  Our  disproof  of  the  notion  of  a  second 
God  will  further  establish  the  unity ;  and  this 
truth  shall  be  displayed  as  not  inconsistent 
with  the  personal  existence  of  the  Son,  while 
yet  it  maintains  the  unity  of  nature  in  God 
and  God. 

36.  The  true  method  of  our  enquiry  de- 
mands that  we  should  begin  with  him,  through 
whom  God  first  manifested  Himself  to  the 
world,  that  is,  with  Moses,  by  whose  mouth 
God  the  Only-begotten  thus  declared  Him- 
self; See,  see  that  I  am  God,  and  there  is  no 
God  beside  Me  l.  That  godless  heresy  must 
not  assign  these  words  to  God,  the  unbegotten 
Father,  is  clear  by  the  sense  of  the  passage 
and  by  the  evidence  of  the  Apostle  who, 
as  we  have  already  stated 2,  has  taught  us 
to  understand  this  whole  discourse  as  spoken 
by  God  the  Only-begotten.  The  Apostle  also 
points  out  the  words,  Rejoice,  O  ye  nations, 
with  His  people^  as  those  of  the  Son,  and 
in  corroboration  further  cites  this  : — And  there 
shall  be  a  root  of  Jesse,  and  One  that  shall  arise 
to  rule  the  nations ;  in  Him  shall  tht  nations 
trust*.     Thus    Moses  by  the   words,   Rejoice, 

•  Deut.  xxxii.  39.  2  Book  iv.  f  33. 

3  Dent   xxxii.  43  (Rom  xv.  10). 

1  Isai.  xi.  10  (Rom.  xv.  12). 


O  ye  nations,  with  His  people  indicates  Hiui 
Who  said,  There  is  no  God  beside  Me;  and 
the  Apostle  refers  the  same  words  to  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  God  the  Only-begoiten,  in  Whose 
rising  as  a  king  from  the  root  of  Jesse,  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh,  the  hope  of  the  Gentiles 
rests.  And  therefore  we  must  now  consider 
the  meaning  of  these  words,  that  we,  who 
know  that  they  were  spoken  by  Him,  may 
ascertain  in  what  sense  He  spoke  them. 

37.  That  true  and  absolute  and  perfect 
doctrine,  which  forms  our  faith,  is  the  con- 
fession of  God  from  God  and  God  in  God, 
by  no  bodily  process  but  by  Divine  power, 
by  no  transfusion  from  nature  into  nature  but 
through  the  secret  and  mighty  working  of  the 
One  nature ;  God  from  God,  not  by  division 
or  extension  or  emanation,  but  by  the  opera- 
tion of  a  nature  which  brings  into  existence, 
by  means  of  birth,  a  nature  One  with  itself. 
The  facts  shall  receive  a  fuller  treatment  in 
the  next  book,  which  is  to  be  devoted  to  an 
exposition  of  the  teaching  of  the  Evangelists 
and  Apostles ;  for  the  present  we  must  main- 
tain our  assertion  and  belief  by  means  of  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets.  The  nature  with 
which  God  is  born  is  necessarily  the  same 
as  that  of  His  Source.  He  cannot  come  into 
existence  as  other  than  God,  since  His  origin 
is  from  none  other  than  God.  His  nature  is 
the  same,  not  in  the  sense  that  the  Begetter 
also  was  begotten — for  then  the  Unbegotten, 
having  been  begotten,  would  not  be  Himself — 
but  that  the  substance  of  the  Begotten  con- 
sists in  all  those  elements  which  are  summed 
up  in  the  substance  of  the  Begetter,  Who  is 
His  only  Origin.  Thus  it  is  due  to  no  ex- 
ternal cause  that  His  origin  is  from  the  One, 
and  that  His  existence  partakes  the  Unity  ; 
their  is  no  novel  element  in  Him,  because 
His  life  is  from  the  Living  :  no  element  absent, 
because  the  Living  begot  Him  to  partake  His 
own  life.  Hence,  in  the  generation  of  the 
Son,  the  incorporeal  and  unchangeable  God 
begets,  in  accordance  with  His  own  nature, 
God  incorporeal  and  unchangeable;  and  this 
perfect  birth  of  incorporeal  and  unchangeable 
God  from  incorporeal  and  unchangeable  God 
involves,  as  we  see  in  the  light  of  the  reve- 
lation of  God  from  God,  no  diminution  of 
the  Begetter's  substance.  And  so  God  the 
Only-begotten  bears  witness  through  the  holy 
Moses ;  See,  see  that  I  am  God,  and  there  is 
no  God  beside  Me.  For  there  is  no  second 
Divine  nature,  and  so  there  can  be  no  God 
beside  Him,  since  He  is  God,  yet  by  the 
powers  of  His  nature  God  is  also  in  Him. 
And  because  He  is  God  and  God  is  in  Him, 
there  is  no  God  beside  Him ;  for  God,  than 
Whom  there  is  no  other  Source  of  Deity,  is 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   V. 


97 


in  Him,  and  consequently  there  is  within  Him 
not  only  His  own  existence,  but  the  Author  of 
that  existence. 

38.  This  saving  faith  which  Ave  profess  is 
sustained  by  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  speaking 
with  one  voice  through  many  mouths,  and 
never,  through  long  and  changing  ages,  bearing 
an  uncertain  witness  to  the  truths  of  revelation. 
For  instance,  the  words  which,  as  we  are  told 
through  Moses,  were  spoken  by  God  the  Only- 
begotten,  are  confirmed  for  our  better  instruc- 
tion by  the  prophetic  spirit,  speaking  this  time 
through  those  men  of  stature, — For  God  is  in 
Thee,  and  there  is  no  God  beside  Thee.  For 
Thou  art  God,  and  we  knew  it  not,  O  God  of 
Israel,  the  Saviour.  Let  heresy  fling  itself 
with  its  utmost  effort  of  despair  and  rage 
against  this  declaration  of  a  name  and  nature 
inseparably  joined,  and  rend  in  twain,  if  its 
furious  struggles  can,  a  union  perfect  in  title 
and  in  fact.  God  is  in  God  and  beside  Him 
there  is  no  God.  Let  heresy,  if  it  can,  divide 
the  God  within  from  the  God  within  Whom 
He  is,  and  classify,  Each  after  His  kind,  the 
members  of  that  mystic  union.  For  when  He 
says  God  is  in  Thee,  He  teaches  that  the  true 
nature  of  God  the  Father  is  present  in  God 
the  Son ;  for  we  must  understand  that  it  is 
the  God  Who  is  s  that  is  in  Him.  And  when 
He  adds,  And  there  is  no  God  beside  Thee, 
He  shews  that  outside  Him  there  is  no  God, 
since  God's  dwelling  is  within  Himself.  And 
the  third  assertion,  Thou  art  God  and  we  knew 
it  not,  sets  forth  for  our  instruction  what  must 
be  the  confession  of  the  devout  and  believing 
soul.  When  it  has  learnt  the  mysteries  of  the 
Divine  birth,  and  the  name  Emmanuel  which 
the  angel  announced  to  Joseph,  it  must  cry, 
Thou  art  God,  and  we  knew  it  not,  0  God  of 
Israel,  the  Saviour.  It  must  recognise  the 
subsistence  of  the  Divine  nature  in  Him,  in- 


5  Exod.  iii.  14. 


asmuch  as  God  is  in  God,  and  the  non- 
existence of  any  other  God  except  the  true. 
For,  He  being  God  and  God  being  in  Him, 
the  delusion  of  another  God,  of  what  kind 
soever,  must  be  surrendered.  Such  is  the 
message  of  the  prophet  Isaiah ;  he  bears 
witness  to  the  indivisible  and  inseparable 
Godhead  of  Father  and  of  Son. 

39.  Jeremiah  also,  a  prophet  equally  in- 
spired, has  taught  that  God  the  Only-begotten 
is  of  a  nature  one  with  that  of  God  the  Father. 
His  words  are  : — This  is  our  God,  and  there 
shall  be  none  other  likened  unto  Him,  Who 
hath  found  out  all  the  way  of  knowledge,  and 
hath  given  it  unto  Jacob  His  servant,  and  to 
Israel  His  beloved.  Aftenvard  He  was  seen 
upon  earth,  and  dwelt  among  men 6.  Why  try 
to  transform  the  Son  of  God  into  a  second 
God  ?  Learn  to  recognise  and  to  confess  the 
One  True  God.  No  second  God  is  likened 
to  Christ,  and  so  can  claim  to  be  God.  He 
is  God  from  God  by  nature  and  by  birth, 
for  the  Source  of  His  Godhead  is  God.  And, 
again,  He  is  not  a  second  God,  for  no  other 
is  likened  unto  Him  ;  the  truth  that  is  in  Him 
is  nothing  else  than  the  truth  of  God.  Why 
link  together,  in  pretended  devotion  to  the 
unity  of  God,  true  and  false,  base  and  genuine, 
unlike  and  unlike?  The  Father  is  God  and 
the  Son  is  God.  God  is  in  God ;  beside 
Him  there  is  no  God,  and  none  other  is 
likened  unto  Him  so  as  to  be  God.  If  in 
these  Two  you  shall  recognise  the  Unity, 
instead  of  the  solitude,  of  God,  you  will  share 
the  Church's  faith,  which  confesses  the  Father 
in  the  Son.  But  if,  in  ignorance  of  the 
heavenly  mystery,  you  insist  that  God  is  One 
in  order  to  enforce  the  doctrine  of  His  isola- 
tion, then  you  are  a  stranger  to  the  knowledge 
of  God,  for  you  deny  that  God  is  in  God. 


•  Baruch  iii.  35—37* 


▼OL.  IX. 


BOOK    VI, 


i .  It  is  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  dangers 
and  passions  of  the  time  that  I  have  ventured 
to  attack  this  wild  and  godless  heresy,  which 
asserts  that  the  Son  of  God  is  a  creature. 
Multitudes  of  Churches,  in  almost  everv  pro- 
vince of  the  Roman  Empire,  have  already 
caught  the  plague  of  this  deadly  doctrine; 
error,  persistently  inculcated  and  falsely  claim- 
ing to  be  the  truth,  has  become  ingrained  in 
minds  which  vainly  imagine  that  they  are  loyal 
to  the  faith.  I  know  how  hardly  the  will  is 
moved  to  a  thorough  recantation,  when  zeal 
for  a  mistaken  cause  is  encouraged  by  the 
sense  of  numbers  and  confirmed  by  the 
sanction  of  general  approval.  A  multitude 
under  delusion  can  only  be  approached  with 
difficulty  and  danger.  When  the  crowd  has  gone 
astray,  even  though  it  know  that  it  is  in  the 
wrong,  it  is  ashamed  to  return.  It  claims  con- 
sideration for  its  numbers,  and  has  the  assur- 
ance to  command  that  its  folly  shall  be  ac- 
counted wisdom.  It  assumes  that  its  size  is 
evidence  of  the  correctness  of  its  opinions ; 
and  thus  a  falsehood  which  has  found  general 
credence  is  boldly  asserted  to  have  established 
its  truth. 

2.  For  my  own  part,  it  was  not  only  the 
claim  which  my  vocation  has  upon  me,  the 
duty  of  diligently  preaching  the  Gospel  which, 
as  a  bishop,  I  owe  to  the  Church,  that  has  led 
me  on.  My  eagerness  to  write  has  increased 
with  the  increasing  numbers  endangered  and 
enthralled  by  this  heretical  theory.  There  was 
a  rich  prospect  of  joy  in  the  thought  of  mul- 
titudes who  might  be  saved,  if  they  could  know 
the  mysteries  of  the  right  faith  in  God,  and 
abandon  the  blasphemous  principles  of  human 
folly,  desert  the  heretics  and  surrender  them- 
selves to  God ;  if  they  would  forsake  the  bait 
with  which  the  fowler  snares  his  prey,  and 
soar  aloft  in  freedom  and  safety,  following 
Christ  as  Leader,  prophets  as  instructors, 
apostles  as  guides,  and  accepting  the  perfect 
faith  and  sure  salvation  in  the  confession  of 
Father  and  of  Son.  So  would  they,  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  words  of  the  Lord,  He  that  ho7iour- 
eth  not  the  Son  honoureth  not  the  Father  ivhith 
hath  sent  Him  f,  be  setting  themselves  to  honour 
the  Father,  through  honour  paid  to  the  Son. 


»  St.  John  v.  aj 


3.  For  of  late  the  infection  of  a  mortal  evil 
has  gone  abroad  among  mankind,  whose  ra- 
vages have  dealt  destruction  and  death  on 
every  hand.  The  sudden  desolation  of  cities 
smitten,  with  their  people  in  them,  by  earth- 
quake to  the  ground,  the  terrible  slaughter 
of  recurring  wars,  the  widespread  mortality  of 
an  irresistible  pestilence,  have  never  wrought 
such  fatal  mischief  as  the  progress  of  this 
heresy  throughout  the  world.  For  God,  unto 
Whom  all  the  dead  live,  destroys  those  only 
who  are  self-destroyed.  From  Him  Who  is  to 
be  the  Judge  of  all,  Whose  Majesty  will 
temper  with  mercy  the  punishment  allotted 
to  the  mistakes  of  ignorance,  they  who  deny 
Him  can  expect  not  even  judgment,  but  only 
denial. 

4.  For  this  mad  heresy  does  deny ;  it  denies 
the  mystery  of  the  true  faith  by  means  of 
statements  borrowed  from  our  confession, 
which  it  employs  for  its  own  godless  ends. 
The  confession  of  their  misbelief,  which  I 
have  already  cited  in  an  earlier  book,  begins 
thus  : — "  We  confess  one  God,  alone  unmade, 
alone  eternal,  alone  unoriginate,  alone  true, 
alone  possessing  immortality,  alone  good, 
alone  mighty."  Thus  they  parade  the  opening 
words  of  our  own  confession,  which  runs, 
"One  God,  alone  unmade  and  alone  un- 
originate," that  this  semblance  of  truth  may 
serve  as  introduction  to  their  blasphemous 
additions.  For,  after  a  multitude  of  words 
in  which  an  equally  insincere  devotion  to 
the  Son  is  expressed,  their  confession  con- 
tinues, "  God's  perfect  creature,  but  not  as 
one  of  His  other  creatures,  His  Handiwork, 
but  not  as  His  other  works."  And  again, 
after  an  interval  in  which  true  statements 
are  occasionally  interspersed  in  order  to  veil 
their  impious  purpose  of  alleging,  as  by  so- 
phistry they  try  to  prove,  that  He  came  into 
existence  out  of  nothing,  they  add,  "  He, 
created  and  established  before  the  worlds, 
did  not  exist  before  He  was  born."  And 
lastly,  as  though  every  point  of  their  false 
doctrine,  that  He  is  to  be  regarded  neither 
as  Son  nor  as  God,  were  guarded  impregnably 
against  assault,  they  continue : — "  As  to  such 
phrases  as  from  Him,  and  from  the  womb,  and 
I  went  out  from  the  Father  and  am  come,  if  they 
be  understood  to  denote  that  the  Father  ex- 


ON   THE  TRINITY.  — BOOK   VI. 


99 


tends  a  part  and,  as  it  were,  a  development 
of  that  one  substance,  then  the  Father  will 
be  of  a  compound  nature  and  divisible  and 
changeable  and  corporeal,  according  to  them  ; 
and  thus,  as  far  as  their  words  go,  the  in- 
corporeal God  will  be  subjected  to  the  pro- 
perties of  matter."  But,  as  we  are  now  about 
to  cover  the  whole  ground  once  more,  em- 
ploying this  time  the  language  of  the  Gospels 
as  our  weapon  against  this  most  godless 
heresy,  it  has  seemed  best  to  repeat  here, 
in  the  sixth  book,  the  whole  heretical  docu- 
ment, though  we  have  already  given  a  full 
copy  of  it  in  the  fourth2,  in  order  that  our 
opponents  may  read  it  again,  and  compare  it, 
point  by  point,  with  our  reply,  and  so  be 
forced,  however  reluctant  and  argumentative, 
by  the  clear  teaching  of  the  Evangelists  and 
Apostles,  to  recognise  the  truth.  The  here- 
tical confession  is  as  follows  : — 

5.  "We  confess  one  God,  alone  unmade, 
alone  eternal,  alone  unoriginate,  alone  po- 
sessing  immortality,  alone  good,  alone  mighty, 
Creator,  Ordainer  and  Disposer  of  all  things, 
unchangeable  and  unalterable,  righteous  and 
good,  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  and  the 
New  Testament.  We  believe  that  this  God 
gave  birth  to  the  Only-begotten  Son  before 
all  worlds,  through  Whom  He  made  the  world 
and  all  things,  that  He  gave  birth  to  Him 
not  in  semblance,  but  in  truth,  following  His 
own  will,  so  that  He  is  unchangeable  and 
unalterable,  God's  perfect  Creature,  but  not 
as  one  of  His  other  creatures,  His  Handiwork, 
but  not  as  His  other  works  ;  not,  as  Valen- 
tinus  maintained,  that  the  Son  is  a  develop- 
ment of  the  Father,  nor,  as  Manichasus  has 
declared  of  the  Son,  a  consubstantial  part  of 
the  Father,  nor,  as  Sabellius,  who  makes  two 
out  of  One,  Son  and  Father  at  once,  nor, 
as  Hieracas,  a  light  from  a  light,  or  a  lamp 
with  two  flames,  nor,  as  if  He  was  previously 
in  being  and  afterwards  born,  or  created 
afresh,  to  be  a  Son,  a  notion  often  condemned 
by  thyself,  blessed  Pope,  publicly  in  the 
Church,  and  in  the  assembly  of  the  brethren. 
But,  as  we  have  affirmed,  we  believe  that  He 
was  created  by  the  will  of  God  before  times 
and  worlds,  and  has  His  life  and  existence 
from  the  Father,  Who  gave  Him  to  share  His 
own  glorious  perfections.  For,  when  the 
Father  gave  to  Him  the  inheritance  of  all 
things,  He  did  not  thereby  deprive  Himself 
of  attributes  which  are  His  without  origination, 
He  being  the  source  of  all  things. 

6.  "  So  there  are  three  Persons,  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  God,  for  His  part, 
is  the  Cause  of  all  things,  utterly  unoriginate 


2  Reading  quarto  instead  of  primo  ;  but  cf.  v.  §  3. 


and  separate  from  all ;  while  the  Son,  put 
forth  by  the  Father  outside  time,  and  created 
and  established  before  the  worlds,  did  not 
exist  before  He  was  born,  but,  being  born 
outside  time  before  the  worlds,  came  into 
being  as  the  Only  Son  of  the  Only  Father. 
For  He  is  neither  eternal,  nor  co-eternal,  nor 
co-uncreate  with  the  Father,  nor  has  He  an 
existence  collateral  with  the  Father,  as  some 
say  who  postulate  two  unborn  principles.  But 
God  is  before  all  things,  as  being  indivisible 
and  the  beginning  of  all.  Wherefore  He  is 
before  the  Son  also,  as  indeed  we  have  learnt 
from  thee  in  thy  public  preaching.  Inasmuch 
then  as  He  has  His  being  from  God,  and  His 
glorious  perfections,  and  His  life,  and  is  en- 
trusted with  all  things,  for  this  reason  God 
is  His  Source.  For  He  rules  over  Him,  as 
being  His  God,  since  He  is  before  Him.  As 
to  such  phrases  as  from  Hint,  and  from  the 
womb,  and  I  went  out  from  the  Father  and  am 
come,  if  they  be  understood  to  denote  that  the 
Father  extends  a  part  and,  as  it  were,  a  de- 
velopment of  that  one  Substance,  then  the 
Father  will  be  of  a  compound  nature  and 
divisible  and  changeable  and  corporeal,  ac- 
cording to  them ;  and  thus,  as  far  as  their 
words  go,  the  incorporeal  God  will  be  sub- 
jected to  the  properties  of  matters." 

7.  Who  can  fail  to  see  here  the  slimy  wind- 
ings of  the  serpent's  track  :  the  coiled  adder, 
with  forces  concentrated  for  the  spring,  con- 
cealing the  deadly  weapon  of  its  poisonous 
fangs  within  its  folds  ?  Presently  we  shall 
stretch  it  out  and  examine  it,  and  expose 
the  venom  of  this  hidden  head.  For  their 
plan  is  first  to  impress  with  certain  sound 
statements,  and  then  to  infuse  the  poison 
of  their  heresy.  They  speak  us  fair,  in 
order  to  work  us  secret  harm.  Yet,  amid 
all  their  specious  professions,  I  nowhere  hear 
God's  Son  entitled  God ;  I  never  hear  son- 
ship  attributed  to  the  Son.  They  say  much 
about  His  having  the  name  of  Son,  but  no- 
thing about  His  having  the  nature.  That 
is  kept  out  of  sight,  that  He  may  seem  to 
have  no  right  even  to  the  name.  They  make 
a  show  of  unmasking  other  heresies  to  conceal 
the  fact  that  they  are  heretics  themselves. 
They  strenuously  assert  that  there  is  One 
only,  One  true  God,  to  the  end  that  they 
may  strip  the  Son  of  God  of  His  true  and 
personal  Divinity. 

8.  And  therefore,  although  in  the  two  last 
books  I  have  proved  from  the  teaching  of 
the  Law  and  Prophets  that  God  and  God, 
true  God  and  true  God,  true  God  the  Father 


3  The  E pis tola  A  rii  ad  A  lexandrum ,  repeated  from  Book.  iv. 
§§  12,  13,  where  see  the  notes.  The  only  difference  in  the  text  i* 
that  this  copy  omits  atone  true,  at  the  beginning. 


H   2 


100 


DE   TRINITATE. 


and  true  God  the  Son,  must  be  confessed 
as  One  true  God,  by  unity  of  nature  and  not 
by  confusion  of  Persons,  yet,  for  the  complete 
presentation  of  the  faith,  I  must  also  adduce 
the  teaching  of  the  Evangelists  and  Apostles. 
I  must  show  from  them  that  true  God,  the 
Son  of  God,  is  not  of  a  different,  an  alien 
nature  from  that  of  the  Father,  but  possesses 
the  same  Divinity  while  having  a  distinct 
existence  through  a  true  birth.  And,  indeed, 
I  cannot  think  that  any  soul  exists  so  witless 
as  to  fancy  that,  although  we  know  God's  self- 
revelations,  yet  we  cannot  understand  them ; 
that,  if  they  can  be  understood,  would  not 
wish  to  understand,  or  would  dream  that 
human  reason  can  devise  improvements  upon 
them.  But  before  I  begin  to  discuss  the  facts 
contained  in  these  saving  mysteries,  I  must 
first  humble  the  pride  with  which  these  here- 
tics rebuke  the  names  of  other  heresies.  I 
shall  hold  up  to  the  light  this  ingenious  cloak 
for  their  own  impiety.  I  shall  shew  that 
this  very  means  of  concealing  the  deadliness 
of  their  teaching  serves  rather  to  reveal  and 
betray  it,  and  is  a  widely  effectual  warning 
of  the  true  character  of  this  honeyed  poison. 

9.  For  instance,  these  heretics  would  have 
it  that  the  Son  of  God  is  not  from  God ;  that 
God  was  not  born  from  God  out  of,  and  in, 
the  nature  of  God.  To  this  end,  when  they 
have  solemnly  borne  witness  to  "One  God, 
alone  true,"  they  refrain  from  adding  "The 
Father."  And  then,  in  order  to  escape  from 
confessing  one  true  Godhead  of  Father  and 
of  Son  by  a  denial  of  the  true  birth,  they 
proceed,  "  Not,  as  Valentinus  maintained,  that 
the  Son  is  a  development  of  the  Father." 
Thus  they  think  to  cast  discredit  upon  the 
birth  of  God  from  God  by  calling  it  a  "de- 
velopment," as  though  it  were  a  form  of  the 
Valentinian  heresy.  For  Valentinus  was  the 
author  of  foul  and  foolish  imaginations ;  be- 
side the  chief  God,  he  invented  a  whole  house- 
hold of  deities  and  countless  powers  called 
aeons,  and  taught  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
was  a  development  mysteriously  brought  about 
by  a  secret  action  of  will.  The  faith  of  the 
Church,  the  faith  of  the  Evangelists  and 
Apostles,  knows  nothing  of  this  imaginary 
development,  sprung  from  the  brain  of  a 
reckless  and  senseless  dreamer.  It  knows 
nothing  of  the  "Depth"  and  "Silence"  and 
the  thrice  ten  aeons  of  Valentinus.  It  knows 
none  but  One  God  the  Father,  from  Whom 
are  all  things,  and  One  Jesus  Christ,  our 
Lord,  through  Whom  are  all  things,  Who 
is  God  born  from  God.  But  it  occurred 
to  them  that  He,  in  being  born  as  God  from 
God,  neither  withdrew  anything  from  the 
Divinity  of  His  Author  nor  was  Himself  born 


other  than  God  ;  that  He  became  God  not 
by  a  new  beginning  of  Deity  but  by  birth 
from  the  existing  God ;  and  that  every  birth 
appears,  as  far  as  human  faculties  can  judge, 
to  be  a  development,  so  that  even  that  birth 
might  be  regarded  as  a  development.  And 
these  considerations  have  induced  them  to 
make  an  attack  upon  the  Valentinian  heresy 
of  development  as  a  means  of  destroying 
faith  in  the  true  birth  of  the  Son.  For  the 
experience  of  common  life  leads  worldly  wis- 
dom to  suppose  that  there  is  no  great  dif- 
ference between  a  birth  and  a  development. 
The  mind  of  man,  dull  and  slow  to  grasp 
the  things  of  God,  needs  to  be  constantly 
reminded  of  the  principle,  which  I  have 
stated  more  than  once  4,  that  analogies  drawn 
from  human  experience  are  not  of  perfect 
application  to  the  mysteries  of  Divine  power; 
that  their  only  value  is  that  this  comparison 
with  material  objects  imparts  to  the  spirit 
such  a  notion  of  heavenly  things  that  we  .may 
rise,  as  by  a  ladder  of  nature,  to  an  apprehen- 
sion of  the  majesty  of  God.  But  the  birth 
of  God  must  not  be  judged  by  such  develop- 
ment as  takes  place  in  human  births.  When 
One  is  born  from  One,  God  born  from  God, 
the  circumstances  of  human  birth  enable  us 
to  apprehend  the  fact ;  but  a  birth  which 
presupposes  intercourse  and  conception  and 
time  and  travail  can  give  us  no  clue  to  the 
Divine  method.  When  we  are  told  that  God 
was  born  from  God,  we  must  accept  it  as  true 
that  He  was  born,  and  be  content  with  that 
We  shall,  however,  in  the  proper  place  dis- 
course of  the  truth  of  the  Divine  birth,  as 
the  Gospels  and  the  Apostles  set  it  forth. 
Our  present  duty  has  been  to  expose  this 
device  of  heretical  ingenuity,  this  attack  upon 
the  true  birth  of  Christ,  concealed  under 
the  form  of  an  attack  upon  a  so-called  de- 
velopment. 

10.  And  then,  in  continuation  of  this  same 
fraudulent  assault  upon  the  faith,  their  con- 
fession proceeds  thus  : — "  Nor,  as  Manichaeus 
has  declared  of  the  Son,  a  consubstantial  part 
of  the  Father."  They  have  already  denied 
that  He  is  a  development,  in  order  to  escape 
from  the  admission  of  His  birth  ;  now  they 
introduce,  labelled  with  the  name  of  Mani- 
chaeus, the  doctrine  that  the  Son  is  a  portion 
of  the  one  Divine  substance,  and  deny  it, 
in  order  to  subvert  the  belief  in  God  from 
God.  For  Manichaeus,  the  furious  adversary 
of  the  Law  and  Prophets,  the  strenuous  cham- 
pion of  the  devil's  cause  and  blind  worshipper 
of  the  sun,  taught  that  That  which  was  in  the 
Virgin's  womb  was  a  portion  of  the  one  Divine 

*  E.g.  i.  S  10,  iv.  i  a ;  reading  turn  semel. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   VI. 


IOI 


substance,  and  that  by  the  Son  we  must 
understand  a  certain  piece  of  God's  substance, 
which  was  cut  off,  and  made  its  appearance 
in  the  flesh.  And  so  they  make  the  most 
of  this  heresy  that  in  the  birth  of  the  Son 
there  was  a  division  of  the  one  substance, 
and  use  it  as  a  means  of  evading  the  doctrine 
of  the  birth  of  the  Only-begotten,  and  the 
very  name  of  the  unity  of  substance.  Because 
it  is  sheer  blasphemy  to  speak  of  a  birth  re- 
sulting from  division  of  the  one  substance, 
they  deny  any  birth;  all  forms  of  birth  are 
joined  in  the  condemnation  which  they  pass 
upon  the  Manichasan  notion  of  birth  by  sever- 
ance. And  again,  they  abolish  the  unity  of 
substance,  both  name  and  thing,  because  the 
heretics  hold  that  the  unity  is  divisible ;  and 
deny  that  the  Son  is  God  from  God,  by  refus- 
ing to  believe  that  He  is  truly  possessed  of 
the  Divine  nature.  Why  does  this  mad  heresy 
profess  a  fictitious  reverence,  a  senseless  anxi- 
ety ?  The  faith  of  the  Church  does,  as  these 
insane  propounders  of  error  remind  us,  con- 
demn Manichaaus,  for  she  knows  nothing  of 
the  Son  as  a  portion.  She  knows  Him  as 
whole  God  from  whole  God,  as  One  from 
One,  not  severed  but  born.  She  is  assured 
that  the  birth  of  God  involves  neither  im- 
poverishment of  the  Begetter  nor  inferiority 
of  the  Begotten.  If  this  be  the  Church's  own 
imagining,  reproach  her  with  the  follies  of 
a  wisdom  falsely  claimed;  but  if  she  have 
learned  it  from  her  Lord,  confess  that  the 
Begotten  knows  the  manner  of  His  begetting. 
She  has  learnt  from  God  the  Only-begotten 
these  truths,  that  Father  and  Son  are  One, 
and  that  in  the  Son  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
head dwells.  And  therefore  she  loathes  this 
attribution  to  the  Son  of  a  portion  of  the  one 
substance ;  and,  because  she  knows  that  He 
was  truly  born  of  God,  she  worships  the  Son 
as  rightful  Possessor  of  true  Divinity.  But, 
for  the  present,  let  us  defer  our  full  answer  to 
these  several  allegations,  and  hasten  through 
the  rest  of  their  denunciations. 

ii.  What  follows  is  tnis  : — "  Nor,  as  Sabel- 
lius,  who  makes  two  out  of  One,  Son  and 
Fattier  at  once."  Sabellius  holds  this  in  wil- 
ful blindness  to  the  revelation  of  the  Evan- 
gelists and  Apostles.  But  what  we  see  here 
is  not  one  heretic  honestly  denouncing  an- 
other. It  is  the  wish  to  leave  no  point  of 
union  between  Father  and  Son  that  prompts 
them  to  reproach  Sabellius  with  his  division 
of  an  indivisible  Person;  a  division  which 
does  not  result  in  the  birth  of  a  second  Person, 
but  cuts  the  One  Person  into  two  parts,  one 
of  which  enters  the  Virgin's  womb  s.     But  we 

5  Reading  virginem. 


confess  a  birth ;  we  reject  this  confusion  of 
two  Persons  in  One,  while  yet  we  cleave  to 
the  Divine  unity.  That  is,  we  hold  that  God 
from  God  means  unity  of  nature ;  for  that 
Being,  Who,  by  a  true  birth  from  God,  be- 
came God,  can  draw  His  substance  from  no 
other  source  than  the  Divine.  And  since  He 
continues  to  draw  His  being,  as  He  drew  it 
at  first,  from  God,  He  must  remain  true  God 
for  ever ;  and  hence  They  Two  are  One, 
for  He,  Who  is  God  from  God,  has  no  other 
than  the  Divine  nature,  and  no  other  than 
the  Divine  origin.  But  the  reason  why  this 
blasphemous  Sabellian  confusion  of  two  Per- 
sons into  One  is  here  condemned  is  that  they 
wish  to  rob  the  Church  of  her  true  faith  in 
Two  Persons  in  One  God.  But  now  I  must 
examine  the  remaining  instances  of  this  per- 
verted ingenuity,  to  save  myself  from  the  repu- 
tation of  a  censorious  judge  of  sincere  en- 
quirers, moved  rather  by  dislike  than  genuine 
fear.  I  shall  shew,  by  the  terms  with  which 
they  wind  up  their  confession,  what  is  the 
deadly  conclusion  which  they  have  skilfully 
contrived  shall  be  its  inevitable  issue. 

12.  Their  next  clause  is: — "  Nor,  as  Hier- 
acas,  a  light  from  a  light,  or  a  lamp  with  two 
flames,  nor  as  if  He  was  previously  in  being, 
and  afterwards  born,  or  created  afresh,  to  be 
a  Son."  Hieracas  ignores  the  birth  of  the 
Only-begotten,  and,  in  complete  unconscious- 
ness of  the  meaning  of  the  Gospel  revelations, 
talks  of  two  flames  from  one  lamp.  This 
symmetrical  pair  of  flames,  fed  by  the  supply 
of  oil  contained  in  one  bowl,  is  His  illus- 
tration of  the  substance  of  Father  and  Son. 
It  is  as  though  that  substance  were  something 
separate  from  Either  Person,  like  the  oil  in 
the  lamp,  which  is  distinct  from  the  two 
flames,  though  they  depend  upon  it  for  their 
existence ;  or  like  the  wick,  of  one  material 
throughout  and  burning  at  both  ends,  which 
is  distinct  from  the  flames,  yet  provides  them 
and  connects  them  together.  All  this  is  a 
mere  delusion  of  human  folly,  which  has 
trusted  to  itself,  and  not  to  God,  for  know- 
ledge. But  the  true  faith  asserts  that  God 
is  born  from  God,  as  light  from  light,  which 
pours  itself  forth  without  self-diminution, 
giving  what  it  has  yet  having  what  it  gave. 
It  asserts  that  by  His  birth  He  was  what  He 
is,  for  as  He  is  so  was  He  born  ;  that  His 
birth  was  the  gift  of  the  existing  Life,  a  gift 
which  did  not  lessen  the  store  from  which 
it  was  taken  ;  and  that  They  Two  are  One, 
for  He,  from  Whom  He  is  born,  is  as  Himself, 
and  He  that  was  born  has  neither  another 
source  nor  another  nature,  for  He  is  Light 
from  Light.  It  is  in  order  to  draw  men's 
faith  away  from  this,  the  true  doctrine,  that 


102 


DE   TRINITATE. 


this  lantern  or  lamp  of  Hieracas  is  cast  in 
the  teeth  of  those  who  confess  Light  from 
Light.  Because  the  phrase  has  been  used 
in  an  heretical  sense,  and  condemned  both 
now  and  in  earlier  days,  they  want  to  persuade 
us  that  there  is  no  true  sense  in  which  it  can 
be  employed.  Let  heresy  forthwith  abandon 
these  groundless  fears,  and  refrain  from  claim- 
ing to  be  the  protector  of  the  Church's  faith 
on  the  score  of  a  reputation  for  zeal  earned 
so  dishonestly.  For  we  allow  nothing  bodily, 
nothing  lifeless,  to  have  a  place  among  the 
attributes  of  God  ;  whatever  is  God  is  perfect 
God.  In  Him  is  nothing  but  power,  life, 
light,  blessedness,  Spirit.  That  nature  con- 
tains no  dull,  material  elements ;  being  im- 
mutable, it  has  no  incongruities  within  it. 
God,  because  He  is  God,  is  unchangeable ; 
and  the  unchangeable  God  begat  God.  Their 
bond  of  union  is  not,  like  that  of  two  flames, 
two  wicks  of  one  lamp,  something  outside 
Themselves.  The  birth  of  the  Only-begotten 
Son  from  God  is  not  a  prolongation  in  space, 
but  a  begetting ;  not  an  extension  6,  but  Light 
from  Light.  For  the  unity  of  light  with  light 
is  a  unity  of  nature,  not  unbroken  continua- 
tion. 

13.  And  again,  what  a  wonderful  example 
of  heretical  ingenuity  is  this  : — "  Nor  as  if  He 
were  previously  in  being,  and  afterwards  born, 
or  created  afresh,  to  be  a  Son."  God,  since 
He  was  born  from  God,  was  assuredly  not 
born  from  nothing,  nor  from  things  non-ex- 
istent. His  birth  was  that  of  the  eternally 
living  nature.  Yet,  though  He  is  God,  He 
is  not  identical  with  the  pre-existing  God ; 
God  was  born  from  God  Who  existed  before 
Him ;  in,  and  by,  His  birth  He  partook  of 
the  nature  of  His  Source.  If  we  are  speaking 
words  of  our  own,  all  this  is  mere  irreverence ; 
but  if,  as  we  shall  prove,  God  Himself  has 
taught  us  how  to  speak,  then  the  necessity 
is  laid  upon  us  of  confessing  the  Divine  birth 
in  the  sense  revealed  by  God.  And  it  is  this 
unity  of  nature  in  Father  and  in  Son,  this 
ineffable  mystery  of  the  living  birth,  which 
the  madness  of  heresy  is  struggling  to  banish 
from  belief,  when  it  says,  "  Nor  as  if  He 
were  previously  in  being,  and  afterwards  born, 
or  created  afresh,  to  be  a  Son."  Now  who 
is  senseless  enough  to  suppose  that  the  Father 
ceased  to  be  Himself;  that  the  same  Person 
Who  had  previously  existed  was  afterwards 
born,  or  created  afresh,  to  be  the  Son  ?  That 
God  disappeared,  and  that  His  disappearance 
was  followed  by  an  emergence  in  birth,  when, 
in  fact,  that  birth  is  evidence  of  the  continuous 
existence  of  its  Author  ?    Or  who  is  so  insane 

6  I.e.  aline  of  lights 


as  to  suppose  that  a  Son  can  come  into  ex- 
istence otherwise  than  through  birth?  Who 
so  void  of  reason  as  to  say  that  the  birth  of 
God  resulted  in  anything  else  than  in  God 
being  born?  The  abiding  God  was  not  born, 
but  God  was  born  from  the  abiding  God;  the 
nature  bestowed  .in  that  birth  was  the  very 
nature  of  the  Begetter.  And  God  by  His 
birth,  which  was  from  God  into  God,  received, 
because  His  was  a  true  birth,  not  things  new- 
created  but  things  which  were  and  are  the 
permanent  possession  of  God.  Thus  it  is 
not  the  pre-existent  God  that  was  born;  yet 
God  was  born,  and  began  to  exist,  out  of  and 
with  the  properties  of  God.  And  thus  we  see 
how  heresy,  throughout  this  long  prelude,  has 
been  treacherously  leading  up  to  this  most 
blasphemous  doctrine.  Its  object  being  to 
deny  God  the  Only-begotten,  it  starts  with 
what  purports  to  be  a  defence  of  truth,  to 
go  on  to  the  assertion  that  Christ  is  born 
not  from  God  but  out  of  nothing,  and  that 
His  birth  is  due  to  the  Divine  counsel  of 
creation  from  the  non-existent. 

14.  And  then  again,  after  an  interval  de- 
signed to  prepare  us  for  what  is  coming,  their 
heresy  delivers  this  assault ; — "  While  the  Son, 
put  forth  outside  time,  and  created  and  es- 
tablished before  the  worlds,  did  not  exist  be- 
fore He  was  born."  This  "  He  did  not  exist 
before  He  was  born  "  is  a  form  of  words  by 
which  the  heresy  flatters  itself  that  it  gains 
two  ends ;  support  for  its  blasphemy,  and 
a  screen  for  itself  if  its  doctrine  be  arraigned. 
A  support  for  its  blasphemy,  because,  if  He 
did  not  exist  before  He  was  born,  He  cannot 
be  of  one  nature  with  His  eternal  Origin. 
He  must  have  His  beginning  out  of  nothing, 
if  He  have  no  powers  but  such  as  are  coeval 
with  His  birth.  And  a  screen  for  its  heresy, 
for  if  this  statement  be  condemned,  it  fur- 
nishes a  ready  answer.  He  that  did  exist, 
it  will  be  said,  could  not  be  born;  being  in 
existence  already,  He  could  not  possibly  come 
into  being  by  passing  through  the  process  of 
birth,  for  the  very  meaning  of  birth  is  the 
entry  into  existence  of  the  being  that  is  born. 
Fool  and  blasphemer !  Who  dreams  of  birth 
in  the  case  of  Him  Who  is  the  unborn  and 
eternal  ?  How  can  we  think  of  God,  Who  is  % 
being  born,  when  being  born  implies  the  pro- 
cess of  birth?  It  is  the  birth  of  God  the 
Only-begotten  from  God  His  Father  that  you 
are  striving  to  disprove,  and  it  was  your  pur- 
pose to  escape  the  confession  of  that  truth 
by  means  of  this  "  He  did  not  exist  before 
He  was  born;"  the  confession  that  God, 
from   Whom  the  Son  of  God  was  born,  did 


7  Exod.  iii.  14. 


ON   THE    TRINITY.  —  BOOK   VI. 


103 


exist  eternally,  and  that  it  is  from  His  abiding 
nature  that  God  the  Son  draws  His  existence 
through  birth.  If,  then,  the  Son  is  born  from 
God,  you  must  confess  that  His  is  a  birth 
of  that  abiding  nature;  not  a  birth  of  the 
pre-existing  God,  but  a  birth  of  Goil  from 
God  the  pre-existent. 

15.  But  the  fiery  zeal  of  this  heresy  is  such 
that  it  cannot  restrain  itself  from  passionate 
outbreak.  In  its  effort  to  prove,  in  conformity 
with  its  assertion  that  He  did  not  exist  before 
He  was  born,  that  the  Son  was  born  from 
the  non-existent,  that  is,  that  He  was  not 
born  from  God  the  Father  to  be  God  the 
Son  by  a  true  and  perfect  birth,  it  winds 
up  its  confession  by  rising  in  rage  and  hatred 
to  the  highest  pitch  of  possible  blasphemy  : — 
"  As  to  such  phrases  as  from  Him,  and  from 
the  womb,  and  /  went  out  from  the  Father  and 
am  come,  if  they  be  understood  to  denote  that 
the  Father  extends  a  part,  and,  as  it  were, 
a  development  of  that  one  substance,  then 
the  Father  will  be  of  a  compound  nature  and 
divisible  and  changeable  and  corporeal,  ac- 
cording to  them ;  and  thus,  as  far  as  their 
words  go,  the  incorporeal  God  will  be  sub- 
jected to  the  properties  of  matter."  The  de- 
fence of  the  true  faith  against  the  falsehoods 
of  heresy  would  indeed  be  a  task  of  toil  and 
difficulty,  if  it  were  needful  for  us  to  follow 
the  processes  of  thought  as  far  as  they  have 
plunged  into  the  depths  of  godlessness.  Hap- 
pily for  our  purpose  it  is  shallowness  of  thought 
that  has  engendered  their  eagerness  to  blas- 
pheme. And  hence,  while  it  is  easy  to  refute 
the  folly,  it  is  difficult  to  amend  the  fool, 
for  he  will  neither  think  out  right  conclusions 
for  himself,  nor  accept  them  when  offered  by 
another.  Yet  I  trust  that  they  who  in  pious 
ignorance,  not  in  wilful  folly  bred  of  self- 
conceit,  are  enchained  by  error,  will  welcome 
correction.  For  our  demonstration  of  the 
truth  will  afford  convincing  proof  that  heresy 
is  nothing  else  than  folly. 

1 6.  You  said  in  your  unreason,  and  you 
are  still  repeating  to-day,  ignorant  that  your 
wisdom  is  a  defiance  of  God,  "As  to  such 
phrases  as  from  Him,  and  from  the  womb,  and 
I  went  out  from  the  Father  and  am  come,1'  I  ask 
you,  Are  these  phrases,  or  are  they  not,  words 
of  God  ?  They  certainly  are  His  ;  and,  since 
they  are  spoken  by  God  about  Himself,  we 
are  bound  to  accept  them  exactly  as  they  were 
spoken.  Concerning  the  phrases  themselves, 
and  the  precise  force  of  each,  we  shall  speak 
in  the  proper  place  For  the  present  I  will 
only  put  this  question  to  the  intelligence  of 
every  reader ;  When  we  see  From  Himself, 
are  we  to  take  it  as  equivalent  to  "  From 
some  one  else,"  or  to  "From  nothing,"  or  are 


we  to  accept  it  as  the  truth  ?  It  is  not  "  From 
some  one  else,"  for  it  is  From  Himself;  that  is, 
His  Godhead  has  no  other  source  than  God. 
It  is  not  "  From  nothing,"  for  it  is  From  Him- 
self;  a  declaration  of  the  nature  from  which 
His  birth  is.  It  is  not  "  Himself,"  but  From 
Himself ;  a  statement  that  They  are  related 
as  Father  and  Son.  And  next,  when  the 
revelation  From  the  womb  is  made,  I  ask 
whether  we  can  possibly  believe  that  He  is 
born  from  nothing,  when  the  truth  of  His 
birth  is  clearly  indicated  in  terms  borrowed 
from  bodily  functions.  It  is  not  because  He 
has  bodily  members,  that  God  records  the 
generation  of  the  Son  in  the  words,  I  bore 
Thee  from  the  womb  before  the  morning  star 8. 
He  uses  language  which  assists  our  under- 
standing to  assure  us  that  His  Only-begotten 
Son  was  ineffably  born  of  His  own  true  God- 
head. His  purpose  is  to  educate  the  faculties 
of  men  up  to  the  knowledge  of  the  faith,  by 
clothing  Divine  verities  in  words  descriptive 
of  human  circumstances.  Thus,  when  He  says, 
From  the  womb,  He  is  teaching  us  that  His 
Only-begotten  was,  in  the  Divine  sense,  born, 
and  did  not  come  into  existence  by  means 
of  creation  out  of  nothing.  And  lastly,  when 
the  Son  said,  /  went  forth  from  the  Father 
and  am  come,  did  He  leave  it  doubtful  whe- 
ther His  Divinity  were,  or  were  not,  derived 
from  the  Father?  He  went  out  from  the 
Father;  that  is,  He  had  a  birth,  and  the 
Father,  and  no  other,  gave  Him  that  birth. 
He  bears  witness  that  He,  from  Whom  He 
declares  that  He  came  forth,  is  the  Author 
of  His  being.  The  proof  and  interpretation 
of  all  this  shall  be  given  hereafter. 

17.  But  meanwhile  let  us  see  what  ground 
these  men  have  for  the  confidence  with  which 
they  forbid  us  to  accept  as  true  the  utterances 
of  God  concerning  Himself;  utterances,  the 
authenticity  of  which  they  do  not  deny.  What 
more  grievous  insult  could  be  flung  by  human 
folly  and  insolence  at  God's  self-revelation, 
than  a  condemnation  of  it,  shewn  in  cor- 
rection ?  For  not  even  doubt  and  criticism  will 
satisfy  them.  What  more  grievous  than  this 
profane  handling  and  disputing  of  the  nature 
and  power  of  God  ?  Than  the  presumption  of 
saying  that,  if  the  Son  is  from  God,  then  God 
is  changeable  and  corporeal,  since  He  has 
extended  or  developed  a  part  of  Himself  to  be 
His  Son  ?  Whence  this  anxiety  to  prove  the 
immutability  of  God  ?  We  confess  the  birth, 
we  proclaim  the  Only-begotten,  for  so  God 
has  taught  us.  You,  in  order  to  banish  the 
birth  and  the  Only-begotten  from  the  faith  of 
the  Church,  confront  us  with  an  unchangeable 


8  Psalm  cue.  (ex.)  3. 


104 


DE   TRINITATE. 


God,  incapable,  by  His  nature,  of  extension  or 
development.  I  could  bring  forward  instances 
of  birth,  even  in  natures  belonging  to  this 
world,  which  would  refute  this  wretched  de- 
lusion that  every  birth  must  be  an  extension. 
And  I  could  save  you  from  the  error  that 
a  being  can  come  into  existence  only  at  the 
cost  of  loss  to  that  which  begets  it,  for  there 
are  many  examples  of  life  transmitted,  without 
bodily  intercourse,  from  one  living  creature  to 
another.  But  it  would  be  impious  to  deal  in 
evidences,  when  God  has  spoken ;  and  the 
utmost  excess  of  madness  to  deny  His  au- 
thority to  give  us  a  faith,  when  our  worship  is 
a  confession  that  He  alone  can  give  us  life. 
For  if  life  comes  through  Him  alone,  must  not 
He  be  the  Author  of  the  faith  which  is  the 
condition  of  that  life  ?  And  if  we  hold  Him  an 
untrustworthy  witness  concerning  Himself,  how 
can  we  be  sure  of  the  life  which  is  His  gift  ? 

1 8.  For  you  attribute,  most  godless  of  here- 
tics, the  birth  of  the  Son  to  an  act  of  creative 
will ;  you  say  that  He  is  not  born  from  God, 
but  that  He  was  created  and  came  into  ex- 
istence by  the  choice  of  the  Creator.  And  the 
unity  of  the  Godhead,  as  you  interpret  it,  will 
not  allow  Him  to  be  God,  for,  since  God 
remains  One,  the  Son  cannot  retain  His  ori- 
ginal nature  in  that  state  into  which  He  has 
been  born.  He  has  been  endowed,  through 
creation,  you  say,  with  a  substance  different 
from  the  Divine,  although,  being  in  a  sense  the 
Only-begotten,  He  is  superior  to  God's  other 
creatures  and  works.  You  say  that  He  was 
raised  up,  that  He  in  His  turn  might  perform 
the  task  committed  to  Him  of  raising  up  the 
created  world ;  but  that  His  birth  did  not 
confer  upon  Him  the  Divine  nature.  He  was 
born,  according  to  you,  in  the  sense  that  He 
came  into  existence  out  of  nothing.  You  call 
Him  a  Son,  not  because  He  was  born  from 
God,  but  because  He  was  created  by  God. 
For  you  call  to  mind  that  God  has  deemed 
even  holy  men  worthy  of  this  title,  and  you 
consider  that  it  is  assigned  to  the  Son  in 
exactly  the  same  sense  in  which  the  words, 
/  have  said,  Ye  are  Gods,  and  all  of  you  sons 
oj  the  Most  High  9,  were  spoken  ;  that  is,  that 
He  bears  the  name  through  the  Giver's  con- 
descension, and  not  by  right  of  nature.  Thus, 
in  your  eyes,  He  is  Son  by  adoption,  God  by 
gift  of  the  title,  Only-begotten  by  favour,  First- 
born in  date,  in  every  sense  a  creature,  in  no 
sense  God.  For  you  hold  that  His  generation 
was  not  a  birth  from  God,  in  the  natural  sense, 
but  the  beginning  of  the  life  of  a  created  sub- 
stance. 

19.  And  now,  Almighty  God,  I  first  must 

9  Psalm  lxxxi.  (lxxxii.)  6. 


pray  Thee  to  forgive  my  excess  of  indignation, 
and  permit  me  to  address  Thee ;  and  next  to 
grant  me,  dust  and  ashes  as  I  am,  yet  bound  in 
loyal  devotion  to  Thyself,  freedom  of  utter- 
ance in  this  debate.  There  was  a  time  when 
I,  poor  wretch,  was  not;  before  my  life  and 
consciousness  and  personality  began  to  exist. 
It  is  to  Thy  mercy  that  I  owe  my  life ;  and 
I  doubt  not  that  Thou,  in  Thy  goodness,  didst 
give  me  my  birth  for  my  good,  for  Thou,  Who 
hast  no  need  of  me,  wouldst  never  have  mrde 
the  beginning  of  my  life  the  beginning  of  evil. 
And  then,  when  Thou  hadst  breathed  into  me 
the  breath  of  life  and  endowed  me  with  the 
power  of  thought,  Thou  didst  instruct  me  in 
the  knowledge  of  Thyself,  by  means  of  the 
sacred  volumes  given  us  through  Thy  servants 
Moses  and  the  prophets.  From  them  I  learnt 
Thy  revelation,  that  we  must  not  worship  Thee 
as  a  lonely  God.  For  their  pages  taught  me 
of  God,  not  different  from  Thee  in  nature  but 
One  with  Thee  in  mysterious  unity  of  sub- 
stance. I  learnt  that  Thou  art  God  in  God, 
by  no  mingling  or  confusion  but  by  Thy  very 
nature,  since  the  Divinity  which  is  Thyself 
dwells  in  Him  Who  is  from  Thee.  But  the 
true  doctrine  of  the  perfect  birth  revealed  that 
Thou,  the  Indwelt,  and  Thou,  the  Indweller, 
are  not  One  Person,  yet  that  Thou  dost  dwell 
in  Him  Who  is  from  Thee.  And  the  voices  of 
Evangelists  and  Apostles  repeat  the  lesson, 
and  the  very  words  which  fell  from  the  holy 
mouth  of  Thy  Only-begotten  are  recorded, 
telling  how  Thy  Son,  God  the  Only-begotten 
from  Thee  the  Unbegotten  God,  was  born  of 
the  Virgin  as  man  to  fulfil  the  mystery  of  my 
salvation ;  how  Thou  dwellest  in  Him,  by 
virtue  of  His  true  generation  from  Thyself, 
and  He  in  Thee,  because  of  the  nature  given 
in  His  abiding  birth  from  Thee. 

20.  What  is  this  hopeless  quagmire  of  error 
into  which  Thou  hast  plunged  me  ?  For  I 
have  learnt  all  this  and  have  come  to  believe 
it ;  this  faith  is  so  ingrained  into  my  mind  that 
I  have  neither  the  power  nor  the  wish  to 
change  it.  Why  this  deception  of  an  unhappy 
man,  this  ruin  of  a  poor  wretch  in  body  and 
soul,  by  deluding  him  with  falsehoods  con- 
cerning Thyself?  After  the  Red  Sea  had  been 
divided,  the  splendour  on  the  face  of  Moses, 
descending  from  the  Mount,  deceived  me. 
He  had  gazed,  in  Thy  presence,  upon  all  the 
mysteries  of  heaven,  and  I  believed  his  vv<.  rds, 
dictated  by  Thee,  concerning  Thyself.  And 
David,  the  man  that  was  found  after  Thine 
own  heart,  has  betrayed  me  to  destruction,  and 
Solomon,  who  was  thought  worthy  of  the  gift  of 
Divine  Wisdom,  and  Isaiah,  who  saw  the  Lord 
of  Sabaoth  and  prophesied,  and  Jeremiah  con- 
secrated in  the  womb,  before  he  was  fashioned, 


ON    THE   TRINITY.— BOOK    VI. 


105 


to  be  the  prophet  of  nations  to  be  rooted  out 
and  planted  in,  and  Ezekiel,  the  witness  of  the 
mystery  of  the  Resurrection,  and  Daniel,  the 
man  beloved,  who  had  knowledge  of  times, 
and  all  the  hallowed  band  of  the  Prophets  ; 
and  Matthew  also,  chosen  to  proclaim  the 
whole  mystery  •  of  the  Gospel,  first  a  publican, 
then  an  Apostle,  and  John,  the  Lord's  familiar 
friend,  and  therefore  worthy  to  reveal  the 
deepest  secrets  of  heaven,  and  blessed  Simon, 
who  after  his  confession  of  the  mystery  was 
set  to  be  the  foundation-stone  of  the  Church, 
and  received  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  and  all  his  companions  who  spoke  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  Paul,  the  chosen  vessel, 
changed  from  persecutor  into  Apostle,  who,  as 
a  living  man,  abode  under  the  deep  sea2  and 
ascended  into  the  third  heaven,  who  was  in 
Paradise  before  his  martyrdom,  whose  martyr- 
dom was  the  perfect  offering  of  a  flawless  faith; 
all  have  deceived  me. 

2i.  These  are  the  men  who  have  taught 
me  the  doctrines  which  I  hold,  and  so  deeply 
am  I  impregnated  with  their  teaching  that  no 
antidote  can  release  me  from  their  influence. 
Forgive  me,  O  God  Almighty,  my  powerless- 
ness  to  change,  my  willingness  to  die  in  this 
belief.  These  propagators  of  blasphemy,  for 
so  they  seem  to  me,  are  a  product  of  these 
last  times,  too  modern  to  avail  me.  It  is  too 
late  for  them  to  correct  the  faith  which  I  re- 
ceived from  Thee.  Before  I  had  ever  heard 
«lheir  names,  I  had  put  my  trust  in  Thee, 
had  received  regeneration  from  Thee  and  be- 
come Thine,  as  still  I  am.  I  know  that  Thou 
art  omnipotent ;  I  look  not  that  Thou 
shouldst  reveal  to  me  the  mystery  of  that 
ineffable  birth  which  is  secret  between  Thyself 
and  Thy  Only-begotten.  Nothing  is  impos- 
sible with  Thee,  and  I  doubt  not  that  in 
begetting  Thy  Son  Thou  didst  exert  Thy 
full  omnipotence.  To  doubt  it  would  be  to 
deny  that  Thou  art  omnipotent.  For  my  own 
birth  teaches'  me  that  Thou  art  good,  and 
therefore  I  am  sure  that  in  the  birth  of  Thine 
Only-begotten  Thou  didst  grudge  Him  no 
good  gift.  I  believe  that  all  that  is  Thine 
is  His,  and  all  that  is  His  is  Thine.  The 
creation  of  the  world  is  sufficient  evidence 
to  me  that  Thou  art  wise ;  and  I  am  sure 
that  Thy  Wisdom,  Who  is  like  Thee,  must 
have  been  begotten  from  Thyself.  And  Thou 
art  One  God,  in  very  truth,  in  my  eyes ;  I 
will  never  believe  that  in  Him,  Who  is  God 
from  Thee,  there  is  ought  that  is  not  Thine. 
Judge  me  in  Him,  if  it  be  sin  in  me  that, 
through  Thy  Son,  I  have  trusted  too  well  in 
Law  and  Prophets  and  Apostles. 


1  Reading  et  adomnc. 


2  Cf.  2  Cor.  xi.  25. 


22.  But  this  wild  talk  must  cease;  the 
rhetoric  of  exposing  heretical  folly  must  give 
place  to  the  drudgery  of  framing  arguments. 
So,  I  trust,  those  among  them  who  are  cap- 
able of  being  saved  will  set  their  faces  towards 
the  true  faith  taught  by  the  Evangelists  and 
Apostles,  and  recognise  Him  Who  is  the  true 
Son  of  God,  not  by  adoption  but  by  nature. 
For  the  plan  of  our  reply  must  be  that  of 
first  proving  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God, 
and  therefore  fully  endowed  with  that  Divine 
nature  in  the  possession  of  which  His  Sonship 
consists.  For  the  chief  aim  of  the  heresy, 
which  we  are  considering,  is  to  deny  that  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  true  God  and  truly  the 
Son  of  God.  Many  evidences  assure  us  that 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is,  and  is  revealed  to 
be,  God  the  Only-begotten,  truly  the  Son  of 
God.  His  Father  bears  witness  to  it,  He 
Himself  asserts  it,  the  Apostles  proclaim  it, 
the  faithful  believe  it,  devils  confess  it,  Jews 
deny  it,  the  heathen  at  His  passion  recognised 
it.  The  name  of  God  is  given  Him  in  the 
right  of  absolute  ownership,  not  because  He 
has  been  admitted  to  joint  use  with  others 
of  the  title.  Every  work  and  word  of  Christ 
transcends  the  power  of  those  who  bear  the 
title  of  sons ;  the  foremost  lesson  that  we 
learn  from  all  that  is  most  prominent  in  His 
life  is  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  that 
He  does  not  hold  the  name  of  Son  as  a  title 
shared  with  a  widespread  company  of  friends. 

23.  I  will  not  weaken  the  evidence  for  this 
truth  by  intermixing  words  of  my  own.  Let 
us  hear  the  Father,  when  the  baptism  of  Jesus 
Christ  was  accomplished,  speaking,  as  often, 
concerning  His  Only-begotten,  in  order  to 
save  us  from  being  misled  by  His  visible  body 
into  a  failure  to  recognise  Him  as  the  Son. 
His  words  are  : —  This  is  My  beloved  Son,  in 
Whom  I  am  well  pleased*.  Is  the  truth  pre- 
sented here  with  dim  outlines?  Is  the  pro- 
clamation made  in  uncertain  tones  ?  The 
promise  of  the  Virgin  birth  brought  by  the 
angel  from  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  guiding  star 
of  the  Magi,  the  reverence  paid  Him  in  His 
cradle,  the  majesty,  attested  by  the  Baptist, 
of  Him  Who  condescended  to  be  baptized; 
all  these  are  deemed  an  insufficient  witness 
to  His  glory.  The  Father  Himself  speaks 
from  heaven,  and  His  words  are,  This  is  My 
Son.  What  means  this  evidence,  not  of  titles, 
but  of  pronouns?  Titles  may  be  appended  to 
names  at  will ;  pronouns  are  a  sure  indication 
of  the  persons  to  whom  they  refer.  And 
here  we  have,  in  This  and  My,  the  clearest 
of  indications.  Mark  the  true  meaning  and 
the  purpose  of  the  words.     You   have   lead, 

3  St.  Matt.  iii.  17. 


io6 


DE   TRINITATE. 


I  have  begotten  sons,  and  have  raised  them 
up*;  but  you  did  not  read  there  My  sons, 
for  He  had  begotten  Himself  those  sons  by 
division  among  the  Gentiles,  and  from  the 
people  of  His  inheritance.  And  lest  we  should 
suppose  that  the  name  Son  was  given  as 
an  additional  title  to  God  the  Only-begotten, 
to  signify  His  share  by  adoption  in  some  joint 
heritage,  His  true  nature  is  expressed  by  the 
pronoun  which  gives  the  indubitable  sense 
of  ownership.  I  will  allow  you  to  interpret  the 
word  Son,  if  you  will,  as  signifying  that  Christ 
is  one  of  a  number,  if  you  can  furnish  an 
instance  where  it  is  said  of  another  of  that 
number,  This  is  My  Son.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  This  is  My  Son  be  His  peculiar  de- 
signation, why  accuse  the  Father,  when  He 
asserts  His  ownership,  of  making  an  unfounded 
claim  ?  When  He  says  This  is  My  Son,  may 
we  not  paraphrase  His  meaning  thus  : — "  He 
has  given  to  others  the  title  of  sons,  but 
He  Himself  is  My  own  Son ;  I  have  given 
the  name  to  multitudes  by  adoption,  but  this 
Son  is  My  very  own.  Seek  not  for  another, 
lest  you  lose  your  faith  that  This  is  He. 
By  gesture  and  by  voice,  by  This,  and  My, 
and  Son,  I  declare  Him  to  you."  And  now 
what  reasonable  excuse  remains  for  lack  of 
faith  ?  This,  and  nothing  less  than  this,  it 
was  that  the  Father's  voice  proclaimed.  He 
willed  that  we  should  not  be  left  in  ignorance 
of  the  nature  of  Him  Who  came  to  be 
baptized,  that  He  might  fulfil  all  righteous- 
ness ;  that  by  the  voice  of  God  we  might 
recognise  as  the  Son  of  God  Him  Who  was 
visible  as  Man,  to  accomplish  the  mystery  of 
our  salvation. 

24.  And  again,  because  the  life  of  believers 
was  involved  in  the  confession  of  this  faith, — 
for  there  is  no  other  way  to  eternal  life  than 
the  assurance  that  Jesus  Christ,  God  the  Only- 
begotten,  is  the  Son  of  God — the  Apostles 
heard  once  more  the  voice  from  heaven  repeat- 
ing the  same  message,  in  order  to  strengthen 
this  life-giving  belief,  in  negation  of  which  is 
death.  When  the  Lord,  apparelled  in  splen- 
dour, was  sianding  upon  the  Mountain,  with 
Moses  and  Elias  at  His  side,  and  the  three 
Pillars  of  the  churches  who  had  been  chosen 
as  witnesses  to  the  truth  of  the  vision  and  the 
voice,  the  Father  spoke  thus  from  heaven  : — 
This  is  My  beloved  Son  in  Whom  I  am  well 
pleased ;  hear  Him  s.  The  glory  which  they 
saw  was  not  sufficient  attestation  of  His 
majesty  ;  the  voice  proclaims,  This  is  My  Son. 
The  Apostles  cannot  face  the  glory  of  God ; 
mortal  eyes  grow  dim  in  its  presence.  The 
trust  of  Beter  and  James  and  John  fails  them, 


4  Isai.  1.  2. 


5  St.  Matt.  xvii.  5. 


and  they  are  prostrate  in  fear.  But  this  solemn 
declaration,  spoken  from  the  Father's  know- 
ledge, comes  to  their  relief;  He  is  revealed 
as  His  Father's  own  true  Son.  And  over  and 
above  the  witness  of  This  and  My  to  His 
true  Sonship,  the  words  are  uttered,  Hear 
Him.  It  is  the  witness  of  the  Father  from 
heaven,  in  confirmation  of  the  witness  borne 
by  the  Son  on  earth  ;  for  we  are  bidden  to 
hear  Him.  Though  this  recognition  by  the 
Father  of  the  Son  removes  all  doubt,  yet  we 
are  bidden  also  to  accept  the  Son's  self- 
revelation.  When  the  Father's  voice  com- 
mands us  to  shew  our  obedience  by  hearing 
Him,  we  are  ordered  to  repose  an  absolute 
confidence  in  the  words  of  the  Son.  Since, 
therefore,  the  Father  has  manifested  His  will 
in  this  message  to  us  to  hear  the  Son,  let 
us  hear  what  it  is  that  the  Son  has  told  us 
concerning  Himself. 

25.  I  can  conceive  of  no  man  so  destitute 
of  ordinary  reason  as  to  recognise  in  each  of 
the  Gospels  confessions   by   the   Son    of  the 
humiliation    to   which    He   has    submitted    in 
taking  a  body  upon  Him, — as  for  instance  His 
words,  often  repeated,  Father, glorify  Me6,  and 
Ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  ?,  and  The  Father 
is  greater  than  78,  and,  more  strongly,   Now 
is  Aly  soul  troubled  exceedingly  9,  and  even  this, 
My  God,  My  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me^  ? 
and  many  more,  of  which  I  shall  speak  in  due 
time, — and  yet,  in  the  face  of  these  constant 
expressions  of  His  humility,  to   charge  Him 
with  presumption  because  He  calls  God  His 
Father,  as  when  He  says,  Every  plant,  which 
my  heavenly  Father  hath  not  planted,  shall  be 
rooted  up  1,  or,   Ye  have  made  my  Father's  house 
an  house  of  merchandise 2.     I  can  conceive  of 
no  one  foolish  enough  to  regard  His  assertion, 
consistently  made,   that    God  is    His   Father, 
not  as  the  simple  truth  sincerely  stated  from 
certain  knowledge,  but  as  a  bold  and  baseless 
claim.     We  cannot  denounce  this  constantly 
professed  humility  as  an  insolent  demand  for 
the  rights  of  another,  a  laying  of  hands  on  what 
is   not  His  own,  an  appropriation  of  powers 
which  only  God  can  wield.     Nor,  when   He 
calls  Himself  the  Son,  as  in,  For  God  sent  not 
His  Son  into  this  world  to  condemn  the  zvorld, 
but  that  the  world  through  Him  might  be  saved '3, 
and  in,  Dost  thou  believe  on  the  Son  of  God*? 
can  we  accuse  Him  of  what  would  be  an  equal 
presumption    with    that    of   calling    God     His 
Father.     But    what   else   is   it   than    such   an 
accusation,   if  we  allow   to   Jesus    Christ    the 
name  of  Son  by  adoption  only  ?    Do  we  not 


6  St.  John  xvii.  5  ;  cf.  xiii.  32,  xvi.  14,  xvii.  1. 

7  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  64.  8  St.  John  xiv.  28.  9  lb.  xii  27. 
9*  St.  Matt,  xxvii.  46.  »  lb.  xv.  13.  ■  St.  John  ii.  16. 
3  lb.  iii.  17.  4  lb.  ix.  35. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    VI. 


107 


charge  Him,  when  He  calls  God  His  Father, 
with  daring  to  make  a  baseless  claim?  The 
Father's  voice  from  heaven  says  Hear  Him. 
I  hear  Him  saying,  Father,  I  thank  Thee*,  and 
Say  ye  that  I  blasphemed,  because  I  said,  I  am 
the  Son  of  God6?  If  I  may  not  believe  these 
names,  and  assume  that  they  mean  what  they 
assert,  how  am  I  to  trust  and  to  understand  ? 
No  hint  is  given  of  an  alternative  meaning. 
The  Father  bears  witness  from  heaven,  This 
is  My  Son;  the  Son  on  His  part  speaks  of 
My  Father's  house,  and  My  Father.  The 
confession  of  that  name  gives  salvation, 
when  faith  is  demanded  in  the  question, 
Dost  thou  believe  on  the  Son  of  God?  The 
pronoun  My  indicates  that  the  noun  which 
follows  belongs  to  the  speaker.  What  right, 
I  demand,  have  you  heretics  to  suppose  it 
otherwise  ?  You  contradict  the  Father's  word, 
the  Son's  assertion  ;  you  empty  language  of 
its  meaning,  and  distort  the  words  of  God  into 
a  sense  they  cannot  bear.  On  you  alone  rests 
the  guilt  of  this  shameless  blasphemy,  that 
God  has  lied  concerning  Himself. 

26.  And  thus,  although  nothing  but  a  sin- 
cere belief  that  these  names  are  truly  sig- 
nificant,— that,  when  we  read,  This  is  My  Son 
and  My  Father,  the  words  really  indicate 
Persons  of  Whom,  and  to  Whom,  they  were 
spoken — can  make  them  intelligible,  yet,  lest 
it  be  supposed  that  Son  and  Father  are  titles, 
the  one  merely  of  adoption,  the  other  merely 
of  dignity,  let  us  see  what  are  the  attributes 
attached,  by  the  Son  Himself,  to  His  name 
of  Son.  He  says,  All  things  are  delivered  Me 
of  My  Father,  and  no  one  knoweth  the  Son 
but  the  Father,  neither  knoweth  any  the  Father 
save  the  Son,  and  he  to  Whom  the  Son  zvill 
reveal  Him  ?.  Are  the  words  of  which  we  are 
speaking,  This  is  My  Son  and  My  Father, 
consistent,  or  are  they  not,  with  No  one  knoiv- 
eth  the  Son  but  the  Father,  neither  knoweth 
any  the  F~ather  save  the  Son  ?  For  it  is  only 
by  witness  mutually  borne  that  the  Son  can 
be  known  through  the  Father,  and  the  Father 
through  the  Son.  We  hear  the  voice  from 
heaven  ;  we  hear  also  the  words  of  the  Son. 
We  have  as  little  excuse  for  not  knowing  the 
Son,  as  we  have  for  not  knowing  the  Father. 
All  things  are  delivered  unto  Him  ;  from  this 
All  there  is  no  exception.  If  They  possess 
ar.  equal  might ;  if  They  share  an  equal 
mutual  knowledge,  hidden  from  us  ;  if  these 
names  of  Father  and  Son  express  the  relation 
between  Them,  then,  I  demand,  are  They  not 
in  truth  what  They  are  in  name,  wielders  of 
the  same  omnipotence,  shrouded  in  the  same 


S  St.  John  xi.  41.  «  lb.  x.  36. 

7  St.  Matt.  xi.  27. 


impenetrable  mystery?  God  does  not  speak 
in  order  to  deceive.  The  Fatherhood  of  the 
Father,  the  Sonship  of  the  Son,  are  literal 
truths.  And  now  learn  how  facts  bear  out 
the  verities  which  these  names  reveal. 

27.  The  Son  speaks  thus: — For  the  works 
which  the  Father  hath  given  Me  to  finish,  the 
same  works  which  J  do,  bear  witness  of  Me 
that  the  Father  hath  sent  Me ;  and  the  Father 
Himself  which  hath  sent  Me  hath  borne  witness 
of  Me%.  God  the  Only-begotten  proves  His 
Sonship  by  an  appeal  not  only  to  the  name, 
but  to  the  power  ;  the  works  which  He  does 
are  evidence  that  He  has  been  sent  by  the 
Father.  What,  I  ask,  is  the  fact  which  these 
works  prove?  That  He  was  sent.  That  He 
was  sent,  is  used  as  a  proof  of  His  sonlike 
obedience  and  of  His  Father's  authority : 
for  the  works  which  He  does  could  not 
possibly  be  done  by  any  other  than  Him 
Who  is  sent  by  the  Father.  Yet  the  evidence 
of  His  works  fails  to  convince  the  unbelieving 
that  the  Father  sent  Him.  For  He  proceeds, 
And  the  Father  Himself  which  hath  sent  Me 
hath  borne  witness  of  Ale  ;  and  ye  have  neither 
heard  His  voice  nor  seen  His  shape*.  What 
was  this  witness  of  the  Father  concerning 
Him  ?  Turn  over  the  pages  of  the  Gospels 
and  review  their  contents.  Read  us  other  of 
the  attestations  given  by  the  Father  beside 
those  which  we  have  heard  already ;  This  is 
My  beloved  Son,  in  Whom  I  am  well  pleased, 
and  Thou  art  My  Son.  John,  who  heard 
these  words,  needed  them  not,  for  He  knew 
the  truth  already.  It  was  for  our  instruction 
that  the  Father  spoke.  But  this  is  not  all. 
John  in  the  wilderness  was  honoured  with 
this  revelation ;  the  Apostles  were  not  to  be 
denied  the  same  assurance.  It  came  to  them 
in  the  very  same  words,  but  with  an  addition 
which  John  did  not  receive.  He  had  been 
a  prophet  from  the  womb,  and  needed  not 
the  commandment,  Hear  Him.  Yes ;  I  will 
hear  Him,  and  will  hear  none  but  Him  and 
His  Apostle,  who  heard  for  my  instruction. 
Even  though  the  books  contained  no  further 
witness,  borne  by  the  Father  to  the  Son,  than 
that  He  is  the  Son,  I  have,  for  confirmation  of 
the  truth,  the  evidence  of  His  Father's  works 
which  He  does.  What  is  this  modern  slander 
that  His  name  is  a  gift  by  adoption,  His 
Godhead  a  lie,  His  titles  a  pretence?  We 
have  the  Father's  witness  to  His  Sonship ; 
by  works,  equal  to  the  Father's,  the  Son  bears 
witness  to  His  own  equality  with  the  Father. 
Why  such  blindness  to  His  obvious  possession 
of  the  true  Sonship  which  He  both  claims  and 
displays.     It   is    not    through    condescending 


8  St.  John  v.  36,  37. 


9  lb.  v.  37. 


io8 


DE   TRINITATE. 


kindness  on  the  part  of  God  the  Father  that 
Christ  bears  the  name  of  Son  ;  not  by  holiness 
that  He  has  earned  the  title,  as  many  have  won 
it  by  enduring  hardness  in  confession  of  the 
faith.  Such  sonship  is  not  of  right ;  it  is 
by  a  favour,  worthy  of  Himself,  that  God 
bestows  the  title.  But  that  which  is  indicated 
by  This,  and  My,  and  Hear  Him,  is  different 
in  kind  from  the  other.  It  is  the  true  and 
real  and  genuine  Sonship. 

28.  And  indeed  the  Son  never  makes  for 
Himself  a  lower  claim  than  is  contained   in 
this  designation,  given   Him  by  His  Father. 
The   Father's  words,   This  is  My  Son,  reveal 
His  nature ;   those  which  follow,  Hear  Him, 
are  a  summons  to  us  to  listen  to  the  mystery 
and   the   faith   which    He   came   down    from 
heaven  to  bring  ;   to  learn  that,  if  we  would 
be  saved,  our  confession  must  be  a  copy  of 
His  teaching.     And  in  like   manner  the  Son 
Himself  teaches    us,   in  words   of  His  own, 
that   He  was  truly  born  and  truly  came  ; — 
Ye  neither  knozv  Me,  nor  knozu  ye  whence  I 
am,  for  I  am  not  come  of  Myself  but  He  that 
sent  Me  is  true,  Whom  ye  know  not,  but  I  know 
Him,  for  I  am  from  Him,  and  He  hath  sent 
Me^.     No  man  knows  the  Father;  the  Son 
often    assures    us    of  this.     The   reason   why 
He  says  that  none  knows  Him  but  Himself, 
is  that  He  is  from  the  Father.     Is  it,  I  ask, 
as  the  result  of  an  act  of  creation,  or  of  a 
genuine  birth,  that  He  is  from   Him?    If  it 
be  an  act  of  creation,  then  all  created  things 
are   from   God.     How    then   is  it  that   none 
of  them  know  the  Father,  when  the  Son  says 
that  the  reason  why  He  has  this  knowledge 
is  that  He  is  from  Him  ?     If  He  be  created, 
not  born,  we  shall  observe  in  Him  a  resem- 
blance to  other   beings  who  are    from   God. 
Since  all,  on  this  supposition,  are  from  God, 
why  is  He  not  as  ignorant  of  the  Father  as 
are  the  others?    But  if  this  knowledge  of  the 
Father  be  peculiar  to  Him,  Who  is  from  the 
Father,  must  not  this  circumstance  also,  that 
He  is  from  the  Father,  be  peculiar  to  Him  ? 
That  is,  must  He  not  be  the  true  Son  born 
from  the  nature  of  God  ?     For  the  reason  why 
He   alone   knows   God   is  that  He  alone  is 
from  God.     You  observe,  then,  a  knowledge, 
which  is  peculiar  to   Himself,  resulting  from 
a    birth    which    also    is    peculiar    to    Himself. 
You   recognise    that  it   is   not  by  an    act    of 
creative  power,  but  through  a  true  birth,  that 
He  is  from  the   Father ;  and  that  this  is  why 
He  alone  knows  the  Father,  Who  is  unknown 
to  all  other  beings  which  are  from  Him. 

29.  But  He   immediately  adds,    For  I  am 
from  Him,   and  He  hath  sent  Me,   to  debar 

9»  St.  John  vii.  28,  29 


heresy  from  the  violent  assumption  that  His 
being  from  God  dates  from  the  time  of  His 
Advent.    The  Gospel  revelation  of  the  my  stery 
proceeds  in  a  logical  sequence ;    first   He  is 
born,    then    He    is   sent.      Similarly,    in    the 
previous  declaration,  we  were  told   of  ignor- 
ance T,  first  as  to  Who   He  is,   and   then  as 
to  whence  He  is.     For  the  words,  I  am  from 
Him,    and   He    hath    sent   Me,    contain    two 
separate    statements,   as   also    do    the    words, 
Ye  neither  know  Me,  nor  knozv  ye  whence  I  am. 
Every  man  is  born  in  the  flesh ;  yet  does  not 
universal  consciousness  make  every  man  spring 
from  God  ?    How  then  can  Christ  assert  that 
either    He,   or   the   source   of  His    being,   is 
unknown  ?    He  can  only  do  so  by  assigning 
His    immediate    parentage    to    the    ultimate 
Author  of  existence;  and,  when  He  has  done 
this,  He  can  demonstrate  their  ignorance  of 
God  by  their  ignorance  of  the  fact  that  He 
is  the  Son  of  God.     Let  the  victims  of  this 
wretched    delusion    reflect   upon    the    words, 
Ye  neither  know  Me,  nor  know  ye  whence  I  am. 
All  things,  they  argue,  are  from  nothing ;  they 
allow  of  no  exception.     They  even    dare  to 
misrepresent  God  the  Only-begotten  as  sprung 
from  nothing.     How  can  we  explain  this  ig- 
norance of  Christ,  and  of  the  origin  of  Christ, 
on  the  part  of  the  blasphemers  ?    The  very 
fact  that,  as  the  Scripture  says,  they  know  not 
whence   He   is,  is  an  indication   of  that  un- 
knowable origin  from  which  He  springs.     If 
we  can  say  of  a  thing  that  it  came  into  ex- 
istence out  of  nothing,  then  we  are  not  ignor- 
ant of  its  origin ;  we  know  that  it  was  made 
out  of  nothing,  and  this  is  a  piece  of  definite 
knowledge.     Now  He  Who  came  is  not  the 
Author  of  His  own  being;  but  He  Who  sent 
Him  is   true,  Whom    the   blasphemers   know 
not.     He  it  was  Who  sent   Him  ;   and  they 
know  not  that  He  was  the  Sender.     Thus  the 
Sent  is  from  the  Sender ;    from  Him  Whom 
they  know  not  as   His  Author.     The  reason 
why   they  know   not  Who    Christ  is,   is    that 
they  know  not  from  Whom  He  is.     None  can 
confess  the  Son  who  denies  that  He  was  born  ; 
none  can  understand  that  He  was  born  who 
has  formed  the  opinion  that  He  is  from  no- 
thing.    And  indeed  He  is  so  far  from  being 
made  out  of  nothing,  that  the  heretics  cannot 
tell  whence  He  is. 

30.  They  are  blankly  ignorant  who  separate 
the  Divine  name  from  the  Divine  nature;' 
ignorant,  and  content  to  be  ignorant.  But 
let  them  listen  to  the  reproof  which  the  Son 
inflicts  upon  unbelievers  for  their  want  of  this 
knowledge,  when  the  Jews  said  that  God  was 
their  Father : — Jf  God  were  your  Father,  ye 


1  Reading  nesciretur ;  cf.  St.  John  vii.  28  in  §  28. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   VI. 


109 


would  surely  love  Me;  for  I  went  forth  from 
God,  and  am  come ;  neither  am  I  come  of 
Myself  but  He  sent  Me2.  The  Son  of  God 
has  here  no  word  of  blame  for  the  devout 
confidence  of  those  who  combine  the  confes- 
sion that  He  is  true  God,  the  Son  of  God, 
with  their  own  claim  to  be  God's  sons.  What 
He  is  blaming  is  the  insolence  of  the  Jews 
in  daring  to  claim  God  as  their  Father,  when 
meanwhile  they  did  not  love  Him,  the  Son  : — 
If  God  were  your  Father,  ye  would  surely  love 
Me;  for  I  went  forth  from  God.  All,  who 
have  God  for  their  Father  through  faith,  have 
Him  for  Father  through  that  same  faith  where- 
by we  confess  that  Jesus  Ghrist  is  the  Son 
of  God.  But  to  confess  that  He  is  the  Son 
in  a  sense  which  covers  the  whole  company 
of  saints;  to  say,  in  effect,  that  He  is  one 
of  the  sons  of  God ; — what  faith  is  there  in 
that?  Are  not  all  the  rest,  feeble  created 
beings  though  they  be,  in  that  sense  sons? 
In  what  does  the  eminence  of  a  faith,  which 
has  confessed  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son 
of  God,  consist,  if  He,  as  one  of  a  multitude 
of  sons,  have  the  name  only,  and  not  the 
nature,  of  the  Son?  This  unbelief  has  no 
love  for  Christ ;  it  is  a  mockery  of  the  faith 
for  these  perverters  of  the  truth  to  claim  God 
as  their  Father.  If  He  were  their  Father, 
they  would  love  Christ  because  He  had  gone 
forth  from  God.  And  now  I  must  enquire 
the  meaning  of  this  going  forth  from  God. 
His  going  forth  is  obviously  different  from 
His  coming,  for  the  two  are  mentioned  side 
by  side  in  this  passage,  /  went  forth  from  God 
and  am  come.  In  order  to  elucidate  the 
separate  meanings  of  I  went  forth  from  God 
and  /  am  come,  He  immediately  subjoins, 
Neither  am  J  come  of  Myself,  but  He  sent  Me. 
He  tells  us  that  He  is  not  the  source  of  His 
own  existence  in  the  words,  Neither  am  I  come 
of  Myself.  In  them  He  tells  us  that  He  has 
proceeded  forth  a  second  time  from  God 3, 
and  has  been  sent  by  Him.  But  when  He 
tells  us  that  they  who  call  God  their  Father 
must  love  Himself  because  He  has  gone  fordi 
from  God,  He  makes  His  birth  the  reason 
for  their  love.  Went  forth  carries  back  our 
thoughts  to  the  incorporeal  birth,  for  it  is 
by  love  of  Christ,  Who  was  born  from  Him, 
that  we  must  gain  the  right  of  devoutly  claim- 
ing God  for  our  Father.  For  when  the  Son 
says,  He  that  hateth  Ale  hateth  My  Father  also*, 
this  My  is  the  assertion  of  a  relation  to  the 
Father  which  is  shared  by  none.  On  the 
other  hand,  He  condemns  the  man  who 
claims  God  as  his  Father,  and  loves  not  the 


3  St.  John  viii.  4a.  3  i.e.  in  the  Incarnation. 

•>  St.  John  xv.  23. 


Son,  as  using  a  wrongful  liberty  with  the 
Father's  name ;  since  he  who  hates  Him, 
the  Son,  must  hate  the  Father  also,  and  none 
can  be  devoted  to  the  Father  save  those  who 
love  the  Son.  For  the  one  and  only  reason 
which  He  gives  for  loving  the  Son  is  His  ori- 
gin from  the  Father.  The  Son,  therefore,  is 
from  the  Father,  not  by  His  Advent,  but  by 
His  birth  s ;  and  love  for  the  Father  is  only 
possible  to  those  who  believe  that  the  Son 
is  from  Him. 

31.  To  this  the  Lord's  words  bear  wit- 
ness ; — /  will  not  say  unto  you  that  I  will 
pray  the  Father  for  you,  for  the  Father  Himself 
loveth  you,  because  ye  have  loved  Me,  and  be- 
lieve that  I  went  forth  from  God,  and  am  come 
from  the  Father  into  this  world6.  A  complete 
faith  concerning  the  Son,  which  accepts  and 
loves  the  truth  that  He  went  forth  from  God, 
has  access  to  the  Father  without  need  of  His 
intervention.  The  confession  that  the  Son 
was  born  and  sent  from  God  wins  for  it  direct 
audience  and  love  from  Him.  Thus  the  nar- 
rative of  His  birth  and  coming  must  be  taken 
in  the  strictest  and  most  literal  sense.  /  went 
forth  from  God,  He  says,  conveying  that  His 
nature  is  exactly  that  which  was  given  Him 
by  His  birth ;  for  what  being  but  God  could 
go  forth  from  God,  that  is,  could  enter  upon 
existence  by  birth  from  Him?  Then  He  con- 
tinues, And  am  come  from  the  Father  into  this 
world.  To  assure  us  that  this  going  forth 
from  God  means  birth  from  the  Father,  He 
tells  us  that  He  came  from  the  Father  into 
this  world.  The  latter  statement  refers  to 
His  incarnation,  the  former  to  His  nature. 
And  again,  His  putting  on  record  first  the 
fact  of  His  going  forth  from  God,  and  then 
His  coming  from  the  Father,  forbids  us  to 
identify  the  going  with  the  coming.  Coming 
from  the  Father,  and  going  forth  from  God, 
are  not  synonymous ;  they  might  be  para- 
phrased as  '  Birth '  and  '  Presence,'  and  are 
as  different  in  meaning  as  these.  It  is  one 
thing  to  have  gone  forth  from  God,  and  en- 
tered by  birth  upon  a  substantial  existence; 
another  to  have  come  from  the  Father  into 
this  world  to  accomplish  the  mysteries  of  our 
salvation. 

32.  In  the  order  of  our  defence,  as  I  have 
arranged  it  in  my  mind,  this  has  seemed  the 
most  convenient  place  for  proving  that,  thirdly  ?, 
the  Apostles  believed  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
to  be  the  Son  of  God,  not  merely  in  name 
but  in  nature,  not  by  adoption  but  by  birth. 


5  Nativitas  here,  as  normally  in  Hilary,  means  the  eternal 
generation. 

6  St.  John  xvi.  26—28. 

7  Firstly,  the  Father's  witness  is  given  in  §§  23 — 27;  secondly, 
he  Son's,  §§  28 — 31  ;  thirdly,  that  of  the  Apostles,  §§  32 — 46. 


no 


DE   TRINITATE. 


It  is  true  that  there  remain  unmentioned  many 
and  most  weighty  words  of  God  the  Only- 
begotten  concerning  Himself,  in  which  the 
truth  of  His  Divine  birth  is  set  so  clearly 
forth  as  to  silence  any  whisper  of  objection. 
Yet  since  it  would  be  unwise  to  burden  the 
reader's  mind  with  an  accumulation  of  evi- 
dence, and  ample  proof  has  been  already 
given  of  the  genuineness  of  His  birth,  I  will 
hold  back  the  remainder  of  His  utterances 
till  later  stages  of  our  enquiry.  For  we  have 
so  arranged  the  course  of  our  argument  that 
now,  after  hearing  the  Father's  witness  and 
the  Son's  self-revelation,  we  are  to  be  in- 
structed by  the  Apostles'  faith  in  the  true 
and,  as  we  must  confess,  the  truly  born  Son 
of  God.  We  must  see  whether  they  could 
find  in  the  words  of  the  Lord,  /  went  forth 
front  God,  any  other  meaning  than  this,  that 
there  was  in  Him  a  birth  of  the  Divine  nature. 
33.  After  many  dark  sayings,  spoken  in 
parables  by  Him  Whom  they  already  knew 
as  the  Christ  foretold  by  Moses  and  the  Pro- 
phets, Whom  Nathanael  had  confessed  as  the 
Son  of  God  and  King  of  Israel,  Who  had 
Himself  reproached  Philip,  in  his  question 
about  the  Father,  for  not  perceiving,  by  the 
works  which  He  did,  that  the  Father  was  in 
Him  and  He  in  the  Father;  after  He  had 
already  often  taught  them  that  He  was  sent 
from  the  Father ;  still,  it  was  not  till  they  had 
heard  Him  assert  that  He  had  gone  forth 
from  God  that  they  confessed,  in  the  words 
which  immediately  follow  in  the  Gospel;— 
His  disciples  say  unto  Him,  Notv  speakest  Thou 
plainly,  and  speakest  no  proverb.  Now  there- 
fore we  are  sure  that  Thou  knoivest  all  things, 
and  needest  not  that  any  man  should  ask  Thee  ; 
by  this  we  believe  that  Thou  wentest  forth  from 
God8.  What  was  there  so  marvellous  in  this 
form  of  words,  Went  forth  from  God,  which 
He  had  used?  Had  ye  seen,  O  holy  and 
blessed  men,  who  for  the  reward  of  your  faith 
have  received  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  and  power  to  bind  and  to  loose  in 
heaven  and  earth,  works  so  great,  so  truly 
Divine,  wrought  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God  ;  and  do  ye  yet  profess  that 
it  was  not  until  He  had  first  told  you  that 
He  had  gone  forth  from  God  that  ye  attained 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth  ?  And  yet  ye  had 
seen  water  at  the  marriage  turned  into  the 
marriage  wine ;  one  nature  becoming  another 
nature,  whether  it  were  by  change,  or  by  de- 
velopment, or  by  creation.  And  your  hands 
had  broken  up  the  five  loaves  into  a  meal 
for  that  great  multitude,  and  when  all  were 
satisfied   ye   had   found    that    twelve    baskets 

8  St.  John  xvi.  29,  30. 


were  needed  to  contain  the  fragments  of  the 
loaves ;  a  small  quantity  of  matter,  in  the 
process  of  relieving  hunger,  had  multiplied 
into  a  great  quantity  of  matter  of  the  same 
nature.  And  ye  had  seen  withered  hands 
recover  their  suppleness,  the  tongues  of  dumb 
men  loosened  into  speech,  the  feet  of  the 
lame  made  swift  to  run,  the  eyes  of  the  blind 
endowed  with  vision,  and  life  restored  to  the 
dead.  Lazarus,  who  stank  already,  had  risen 
to  his  feet  at  a  word.  He  was  summoned 
from  the  tomb  and  instantly  came  forth, 
without  a  pause  between  the  word  and  its 
fulfilment.  He  was  standing  before  you,  a 
living  man,  while  yet  the  air  was  carrying  the 
odour  of  death  to  your  nostrils.  I  speak  not 
of  other  exertions  of  His  mighty,  His  Divine 
powers.  And  is  it,  in  spite  of  all  this,  only 
after  ye  heard  Him  say,  I  went  forth  from  God, 
that  ye  understood  Who  He  is  that  had  been 
sent  from  heaven  ?  Is  this  the  first  time  that 
the  truth  had  been  told  you  without  a  proverb  ? 
The  first  time  that  the  powers  of  His  nature 
made  it  manifest  to  you  that  He  went  forth 
from  God?  And  this  in  spite  of  His  silent 
scrutiny  of  the  purposes  of  your  will,  of  His 
needing  not  to  ask  you  concerning  anything 
as  though  He  were  ignorant,  of  His  universal 
knowledge  ?  For  all  these  things,  done  in  the 
power  and  in  the  nature  of  God,  are  evidence 
that  He  must  have  gone  forth  from  God. 

34.  By  this  the  holy  Apostles  did  not  un- 
derstand that  He  had  gone  forth,  in  the  sense 
of  having  been  sent,  from  God.  For  they  had 
often  heard  Him  confess,  in  His  earlier  dis- 
courses, that  He  was  sent ;  but  what  they  hear 
now  is  the  express  statement  that  He  had 
gone  forth  from  God.  This  opens  their  eyes 
to  perceive  from  His  works  His  Divine  nature. 
The  fact  that  He  had  gone  forth  from  God 
makes  clear  to  them  His  true  Divinity,  and 
so  they  say,  Now  therefore  we  are  sure  that 
Thou  knoivest  all  things,  and  needest  not  that 
any  man  should  ask  Thee ;  by  this  we  believe 
that  Thou  wentest  forth  from  God.  The  reason 
why  they  believe  that  He  went  forth  from 
God  is  that  He  both  can,  and  does,  perform 
the  works  of  God.  Their  perfect  assurance 
of  His  Divine  nature  is  the  result  of  their 
knowledge,  not  that  He  is  come  from  God, 
but  that  He  did  go  forth  from  God.  Accord- 
ingly we  find  that  it  is  this  truth,  now  heard 
for  the  first  time,  which  clenches  their  faith. 
The  Lord  had  made  two  statements;  I  went 
forth  from  God,  and  /am  come  from  the  Father 
into  this  world.  One  of  these,  /  am  come 
from  the  Father  into  this  world,  they  had  often 
heard,  and  it  awakens  no  surprise.  But  their 
reply  makes  it  manifest  that  they  now  believe 
and  understand  the  other,  that  is,  /  went  forth 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   VI. 


in 


from  God.  Their  answer,  By  this  we  believe 
that  Thou  iventcst  forth  from  God,  is  a  response 
to  it,  and  to  it  only  ;  they  do  not  add,  '  And 
art  come  from  the  Father  into  this  world.' 
The  one  statement  is  welcomed  with  a  de- 
claration of  faith ;  the  other  is  passed  over 
in  silence.  The  confession  was  wrung  from 
them  by  the  sudden  presentation  of  a  new 
truth,  which  convinced  their  reason  and  con- 
strained them  to  avow  their  certainty.  They 
knew  already  that  He,  like  God,  could  do  all 
things ;  but  His  birth,  which  accounted  for 
that  omnipotence,  had  not  been  revealed. 
They  knew  that  He  had  been  sent  from  God, 
but  they  knew  not  that  He  had  gone  forth 
from  God.  Now  at  last,  taught  by  this  utter- 
ance to  understand  the  ineffable  and  perfect 
birth  of  the  Son,  they  confess  that  He  had 
spoken  to  them  without  a  proverb. 

35.  For  God  is  not  born  from  God  by  the 
ordinary  process  of  a  human  childbirth  ;  this 
is  no  case  of  one  being  issuing  from  another 
by  the  exertion  of  natural  forces.  That  birth 
is  pure  and  perfect  and  stainless ;  indeed,  we 
must  call  it  rather  a  proceeding  forth  than 
a  birth.  For  it  is  One  from  One;  no  par- 
tition, or  withdrawing,  or  lessening,  or  efflux, 
or  extension,  or  suffering  of  change,  but  the 
birth  of  living  nature  from  living  nature.  It 
is  God  going  forth  from  God,  not  a  creature 
picked  out  to  bear  the  name  of  God.  His 
existence  did  not  take  its  beginning  out  of 
nothing,  but  went  forth  from  the  Eternal ;  and 
this  going  forth  is  rightly  entitled  a  birth, 
though  it  would  be  false  to  call  it  a  beginning. 
For  the  proceeding  forth  of  God  from  God 
is  a  thing  entirely  different  from  the  coming 
into  existence  of  a  new  substance.  And  though 
our  apprehension  of  this  truth,  which  is  in- 
effable, cannot  be  defined  in  words,  yet  the 
teaching  of  the  Son,  as  He  reveals  to  us  that 
He  went  forth  from  God,  imparts  to  it  the 
certainty  of  an  assured  faith. 

36.  A  belief  that  the  Son  of  God  is  Son 
in  name  only,  and  not  in  nature,  is  not  the 
faith  of  the  Gospels  and  of  the  Apostles. 
If  this  be  a  mere  title,  to  which  adoption 
is  His  only  claim  ;  if  He  be  not  the  Son 
in  virtue  of  having  proceeded  forth  from  God, 
whence,  I  ask,  was  it  that  the  blessed  Simon 
Bar-Jona  confessed  to  Him,  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God 9?  Because 
He  shared  with  all  mankind  the  power  of 
being  born  as  one  of  the  sons  of  God  through 
the  sacrament  of  regeneration  ?  If  Christ  be 
the  Son  of  God  only  in  this  titular  way,  what 
was  the  revelation  made  to  Peter,  not  by  flesh 
and    blood,    but   by   the    Father    in    heaven  ? 


9  St.  Matt.  xvi.  16. 


What    praise    could    he    deserve    for    making 
a   declaration    which    was    universally  applic- 
able?    What  credit  was  due  to  Him  for  stat- 
ing a  fact  of  general  knowledge?     If  He  be 
Son  by  adoption,  wherein  lay  the  blessedness 
of  Peter's  confession,  which  offered  a  tribute 
to  the  Son  to  which,   in  that  case,   He  had 
no  more  title  than  any  member  of  the  com- 
pany of  saints?     The    Apostle's   faith    pene- 
trates into  a  region  closed  to  human  reason- 
ing.    He  had,  no  doubt,  often  heard,  He  that 
receive th  you  receiveth  Me,  and  He  that  receive th 
Me  receiveth  Him  that  sent  Me '.     Hence  he 
knew  well  that  Christ  had  been  sent ;  he  had 
heard    Him,  Whom  he  knew   to    have    been 
sent,   making  the   declaration,  All  things  are 
delivered  unto  Ale  of  the  Father,  and  no  one 
knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father,  neither  knoweth 
any  one  the  Father  save  the  Son  2.     What  then 
is   this   truth,   which   the   Father    now  reveals 
to  Peter,  which  receives  the  praise  of  a  blessed 
confession  ?     It  cannot    have    been    that    the 
names  of  '  Father '  and  '  Son '  were  novel  to 
him;  he  had  heard  them  often.     Yet  he  speaks 
words  which   the  tongue  of  man    had    never 
framed  before: — Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  living  God.     For  though  Christ,  while 
dwelling   in    the   body,   had  avowed   Himself 
to  be  the  Son  of  God,  yet  now  for  the  first 
time    the   Apostle's   faith    had    recognised    in 
Him    the    presence    of    the    Divine    nature. 
Peter  is    praised    not    merely   for  his  tribute 
of  adoration,   but   for  his  recognition  of  the 
mysterious    truth ;    for    confessing    not    Christ 
only,  but  Christ  the  Son  of  God.     It  would 
clearly  have  sufficed  for  a  payment  of  reverence, 
had  he  said,  Thou  art  the  Christ,  and  nothing 
more.     But  it  would  have  been  a  hollow  con- 
fession, had  Peter  only  hailed  Him  as  Christ, 
without    confessing    Him    the    Son    of  God. 
And   so   his    words    Thou    art  3    declare   that 
what  is  asserted  of  Him  is  strictly  and  exactly 
true  to  His  nature.     Next,  the  Father's  utter- 
ance, This  is  My  Son,  had  revealed  to  Peter 
that  he  must  confess  Thou  art  the  Sou  of  God, 
for  in  the  words    This  is,  God   the   Revealer 
points  Him  out,  and  the  response,  Thou  art, 
is  the  believer's  welcome  to  the  truth.     And 
this   is   the    rock    of  confession    whereon    the 
Church  is  built.     But  the  perceptive  faculties 
of  flesh  and  blood  cannot  attain  to  the  recog- 
nition   and    confession    of   this    truth.      It    is 
a  mystery,  Divinely  revealed,  that  Christ  must 
be    not    only  named,   but    believed,   the    Son 
of  God.     Was  it  only  the  Divine  name  ;  was 
it  not  rather  the   Divine   nature  that  was   re- 
vealed to  Peter  ?    If  it  were  the  name,  he  had 


«  St.  Matt.  x.  40.  2  lb.  xi.  27. 

3  St.'  Hilary  takes  them  as  an  allusion  to  tiie  /  am  (qui est)  of 
Exodus  iii.  14. 


I  12 


DE   TRINITATE. 


heard  it  often  from  the  Lord,  proclaiming 
Himself  the  Son  of  God.  What  honour,  then, 
did  he  deserve  for  announcing  the  name  ? 
No;  it  was  not  the  name;  it  was  the  nature, 
for  the  name  had  been  repeatedly  proclaimed. 

37.     This  faith  it  is  which  is  the  foundation 
of  the  Church  ;   through  this  faith  the  gates 
of  hell   cannot  prevail   against  her.     This  is 
the  faith  which  has  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.     Whatsoever  this  faith  shall  have 
loosed  or  bound  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  or 
bound  in  heaven.     This  faith  is  the  Father's 
gift  by  revelation  ;    even  the  knowledge  that 
we  must  not  imagine  a  false  Christ,  a  creature 
made  out  of  nothing,  but  must  confess  Him 
the  Son  of  God,  truly  possessed  of  the  Divine 
nature.     What  blasphemous  madness  and  piti- 
ful folly  is  it,  that  will  not  heed  the  venerable 
age  and   faith  of  that   blessed  martyr,    Peter 
himself,  for  whom  the  Father  was  prayed  that 
his  faith   might  not  fail  in  temptation ;    who 
twice  repeated  the  declaration  of  love  for  God 
that  was  demanded  of  him,  and  was  grieved 
that  he  was  tested  by  a  third  renewal  of  the 
question,  as  though  it  were  a  doubtful   and 
wavering   devotion,    and    then,    because    this 
third  trial  had  cleansed  him  of  his  infirmities, 
had  the  reward   of  hearing  the  Lord's  com- 
mission, Feed  My  sheep,  a  third  time  repeated  ; 
who,  when  all  the  Apostles  were  silent,  alone 
recognised  by  the  Father's  revelation  the  Son 
of  God,  and  won  the  pre-eminence  of  a  glory 
beyond  the  reach  of  human  frailty  by  his  con- 
fession   of  his    blissful   faith !     What  are   the 
conclusions  forced  upon   us  by  the  study  of 
his  words?     He  confessed   that  Christ  is  the 
Son   of  God ;   you,  lying  bishop  of  the   new 
apostolate,  thrust  upon  us  your  modern  notion 
that  Christ  is  a  creature,  made  out  of  nothing. 
What   violence   is   this,   that   so   distorts    the 
glorious  words?     The  very  reason  why  he  is 
blessed  is  that  he  confessed  the  Son  of  God. 
This  is  the  Father's  revelation,  this  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Church,  this  the  assurance  of 
her   permanence.     Hence   has    she   the   keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,   hence  judgment 
in  heaven  and  judgment  on  earth.     Through 
revelation    Peter   learnt   the    mystery   hidden 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  proclaimed 
the  faith,  published   the   Divine  nature,  con- 
fessed the  Son  of  God.    He  who  would  deny  all 
this  truth  and  confess  Christ  a  creature,  must 
first  deny  the  apostleship  of  Peter,  his  faith, 
his  blessedness,  his  episcopate,  his  martyrdom. 
And  when  he  has  done  all  this,  he  must  learn 
that  he  has  severed  himself  from  Christ ;  for 
it  was  by  confessing  Him  that  Peter  won  these 
glories. 

38.  Do  you  think,  wretched  heretic  of  to- 
day, that  Peter  would   have   been  the  more 


blessed  now,  if  he  had  said,  'Thou  art  Christ, 
God's  perfect  creature,  His  handiwork,  though 
excelling  all  His  other  works.  Thy  beginning 
was  from  nothing,  and  through  the  goodness 
of  God,  Who  alone  is  good,  the  name  of  Son 
has  been  given  Thee  by  adoption,  although 
in  fact  Thou  wast  not  born  from  God  ? '  What 
answer,  think  you,  would  have  been  given  to 
such  words  as  these,  when  this  same  Peter's 
reply  to  the  announcement  of  the  Passion, 
Be  it  far  from  Thee,  Lord ;  this  shall  not  be, 
was  rebuked  with,  Get  thee  behind  Me,  Satan, 
thou  art  an  offence  utito  Me*?  Yets  Peter 
could  plead  his  human  ignorance  in  extenu- 
ation of  his  guilt,  for  as  yet  the  Father  had 
not  revealed  all  the  mystery  of  the  Passion ; 
still,  mere  defect  of  faith  was  visited  with  this 
stern  condemnation.  Now,  why  was  it  that 
the  Father  did  not  reveal  to  Peter  your  true 
confession,  this  faith  in  an  adopted  creature? 
I  fancy  that  God  must  have  grudged  him  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth  ;  that  He  wanted  to 
postpone  it  to  a  later  age,  and  keep  it  as  a 
novelty  for  your  modern  preachers.  Yes ; 
you  may  have  a  change  of  faith,  if  the  keys 
of  heaven  are  changed.  You  may  have  a 
change  of  faith,  if  there  is  a  change  in  that 
Church  against  which  the  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail.  You  may  have  a  change  of  faith, 
if  there  shall  be  a  fresh  apostolate,  binding 
and  loosing  in  heaven  what  it  has  bound  and 
loosed  on  earth.  You  may  have  a  change 
of  faith,  if  another  Christ  the  Son  of  God, 
beside  the  true  Christ,  shall  be  preached. 
But  if  that  faith  which  confesses  Christ  as  the 
Son  of  God,  and  that  faith  only,  received 
in  Peter's  person  every  accumulated  blessing, 
then  perforce  the  faith  which  proclaims  Him 
a  creature,  made  out  of  nothing,  holds  not 
the  keys  of  the  Church  and  is  a  stranger  to 
the  apostolic  faith  and  power.  It  is  neither 
the  Church's6  faith,  nor  is  it  Christ's. 

39.  Let  us  therefore  cite  every  example  of 
a  statement  of  the  faith  made  by  an  Apostle. 
All  of  them,  when  they  confess  the  Son  of 
God,  confess  Him  not  as  a  nominal  and  adop- 
tive Son,  but  as  Son  by  possession  of  the 
Divine  nature.  They  never  degrade  Him 
to  the  level  of  a  creature,  but  assign  Him  the 
splendour  of  a  true  birth  from  God.  Let 
John  speak  to  us,  while  he  is  waiting,  just 
as  he  is,  for  the  coming  of  the  Lord ;  John, 
who  was  left  behind  and  appointed  to  a  des- 
tiny hidden  in  the  counsel  of  God,  for  he 
is  not  told  that  he  shall  not  die,  but  only  that 
he  shall  tarry.  Let  him  speak  to  us  in  his 
own  familiar  voice  : — No  one  hath  seen  God  at 


4  St.  Matt.  xvi.  22,  23.  S  Omitting  nee. 

6  Reading  ecclesiet. 


ON   THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK    VI. 


113 


any  time,  except  the  Only-begotten  Son,  Which 
is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father"!.  It  seemed 
to  him  that  the  name  of  Son  did  not  set  forth 
with  sufficient  distinctness  His  true  Divinity, 
unless  he  gave  an  external  support  to  the 
peculiar  majesty  of  Christ  by  indicating  the 
difference  between  Him  and  all  others.  Hence 
he  not  only  calls  Him  the  Son,  but  adds  the 
further  designation  of  the  Only-begotten^  and 
so  cuts  away  the  last  prop  from  under  this 
imaginary  adoption.  For  the  fact  that  He 
is  Only-begotten  is  proof  positive  of  His  right 
to  the  name  of  Son. 

40.  I  defer  the  consideration  of  the  words, 
which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  to  a  more 
appropriate  place.  My  present  enquiry  is  into 
the  sense  of  Only-begotten,  and  the  claim  upon 
us  which  that  sense  may  make.  And  first  let 
us  see  whether  the  word  mean,  as  you  assert, 
a  perfect  creature  of  God  ;  Only-begotten  being 
equivalent  to  perfect,  and  Son  a  synonym  for 
creature.  But  John  described  the  Only-be- 
gotten Son  as  God,  not  as  a  perfect  creature. 
His  words,  Which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father, 
shew  that  he  anticipated  these  blasphemous 
designations ;  and,  indeed,  he  had  heard  his 
Lord  say,  For  God  so  loved  the  world  that  He 
gave  His  Only-begotten  Son,  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish  but  have 
everlasting  life8.  God,  Who  loved  the  world, 
gave  His  Only-begotten  Son  as  a  manifest 
token  of  His  love.  If  the  evidence  of  His 
love  be  this,  that  He  bestowed  a  creature  upon 
creatures,  gave  a  worldly  being  on  the  world's 
behalf,  granted  one  raised  up  from  nothing 
for  the  redemption  of  objects  equally  raised  up 
from  nothing,  this  cheap  and  petty  sacrifice  is 
a  poor  assurance  of  His  favour  towards  us. 
Gifts  of  price  are  the  evidence  of  affection : 
the  greatness  of  the  surrender  of  the  greatness 
of  the  love.  God,  Who  loved  the  world,  gave 
not  an  adopted  Son,  but  His  own,  His  Only- 
begotten.  Here  is  personal  interest,  true  Son- 
ship,  sincerity ;  not  creation,  or  adoption,  or 
pretence.  Herein  is  the  proof  of  His  love  and 
affection,  that  He  gave  His  own,  His  Only- 
begotten  Son. 

41.  I  appeal  not  now  to  any  of  the  titles 
which  are  given  to  the  Son ;  there  is  no  loss 
in  delay  when  it  is  the  result  of  an  embarrass- 
ing abundance  of  choice.  My  present  argu- 
ment is  that  a  successful  result  implies  a  suffi- 
cient cause ;  some  clear  and  cogent  motive 
must  underlie  every  effectual  performance. 
And  so  the  Evangelist  has  been  obliged  to 
reveal  his  motive  in  writing.  Let  us  see  what 
is  the  purpose  which  he  confesses  ; — But  these 
things  are  writte?i  that  ye  may  believe  that  Jesus 


is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God**.  The  one 
reason  which  he  alleges  for  writing  his  Gospel 
is  that  all  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God.  If  it  be  sufficient  for  salva- 
!  tion  to  believe  that  He  is  the  Christ,  why  does 
he  add  The  Son  of  God  1  But  if  the  true  faith  be 
nothing  less  than  the  belief  that  Christ  is  not 
merely  Christ,  but  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  then 
assuredly  the  name  of  Son  is  not  attached  to 
Christ  as  a  customary  appendage  due  to  adop- 
tion, seeing  that  it  is  essential  to  salvation.  If 
then  salvation  consists  in  the  confession  of  the 
name,  must  not  the  name  express  the  truth  ? 
If  the  name  express  the  truth,  by  what  au- 
thority can  He  be  called  a  creature  ?  It  is  not 
the  confession  of  a  creature,  but  the  confession 
of  the  Son,  which  shall  give  us  salvation. 

42.  To  believe,  therefore,  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  Son  of  God  is  true  salvation,  is  the 
acceptable  service  of  an  unfeigned  faith.  For 
we  have  no  love  within  us  towards  God  the 
Father  except  through  faith  in  the  Son.  Let 
us  hear  Him  speaking  to  us  in  the  words  of  the 
Epistle; — Every  one  that  loveth  the  Father loveth 
Him  that  is  born  from  Him  x.  What,  I  ask,  is 
the  meaning  of  being  born  from  Him  ?  Can  it 
mean,  perchance,  being  created  by  Him?  Does 
the  Evangelist  lie  in  saying  that  He  was  born 
from  God,  while  the  heretic  more  correctly 
teaches  that  He  was  created  ?  Let  us  all  listen 
to  the  true  character  of  this  teacher  of  heresy. 
It  is  written,  He  is  antichrist,  that  denieth  the 
Father  and  the  Son 2.  What  will  you  do  now, 
champion  of  the  creature,  conjurer  up  of  a 
novel  Christ  out  of  nothing?  Hear  the  title 
which  awaits  you,  if  you  persist  in  your  asser- 
tion. Or  do  you  think  that  perhaps  you  may 
still  describe  the  Father  and  the  Son  as  Creator 
and  Creature,  and  yet  by  an  ingenious  am- 
biguity of  language  escape  being  recognised 
as  antichrist?  If  your  confession  embraces 
a  Father  in  the  true  sense,  and  a  Son  in  the 
true  sense,  then  I  am  a  slanderer,  assailing  you 
with  a  title  of  infamy  which  you  have  not 
deserved.  But  if  in  your  confession  all  Christ's 
attributes  are  spurious  and  nominal,  and  not 
His  own,  then  learn  from  the  Apostle  the  right 
description  of  such  a  faith  as  yours ;  and  hear 
what  is  the  true  faith  which  believes  in  the 
Son.  The  words  which  follow  are  these; — He 
that  denieth  the  Son,  the  same  hath  not  the 
Father :  he  that  confesseth  the  Son  hath  both  the 
Son  and  the  Father*.  He  that  denies  the  Son 
is  destitute  of  the  Father ;  he  that  confesses 
and  has  the  Son  has  the  Father  also.  What 
room  is  there  here  for  adoptive  names  ?  Does 
not  every  word  tell  of  the  Divine  nature  ? 
Learn  how  completely  that  nature  is  present. 


7  St.  John  i.  18. 
VOL.  IX. 


8  lb.  iii.  16. 


9  St.  John  xx.  31. 


'  1  John  v   x. 
3  lb.  23. 


3  lb.  ii.  23. 


114 


DE    TRINITATE. 


43.  John  speaks  thus; — For  we  knoiv  that  the 
Son  of  God  is  come,  and  was  incarnate  for  us, 
and  suffered,  and  rose  again  from  the  dead  and 
took  us  for  Himself  and  gave  us  a  good  under- 
standing that  we  may  know  Him  that  is  true, 
and  may  be  in  His  true  Son  Jesus  Christ.  He 
is  true  and  is  life  eternal  and  our  resurrection  +. 
Wisdom  doomed  to  an  evil  end,  void  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  destined  to  possess  the  spirit 
and  the  name  of  Antichrist,  blind  to  the  truth 
that  the  Son' of  God  came  to  fulfil  the  mystery 
of  our  salvation,  and  unworthy  in  that  blindness 
to  perceive  the  light  of  that  sovereign  know- 
ledge !  For  this  wisdom  asserts  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  no  true  Son  of  God,  but  a  creature  of 
His,  Who  bears  the  Divine  name  by  adoption. 
In  what  dark  oracle  of  hidden  knowledge  was 
the  secret  learnt?  To  whose  research  do  we 
owe  this,  the  great  discovery  of  the  day? 
Were  you  he  that  lay  upon  the  bosom  of  the 
Lord  ?  You  he  to  whom  in  the  familiar  inter- 
course of  love  He  revealed  the  mystery  ?  Was 
it  you  that  alone  followed  Him  to  the  foot 
of  the  Cross?  And  while  He  was  charging 
you  to  receive  Mary  as  your  Mother,  did  He 
teach  you  this  secret,  as  the  token  of  His 
peculiar  love  for  yourself?  Or  did  you  run 
to  the  Sepulchre,  and  reach  it  sooner  even 
than  Peter,  and  so  gain  this  knowledge  there  ? 
Or  was  it  amid  the  throngs  of  angels,  and 
sealed  books  whose  clasps  none  can  open, 
and  manifold  influences  of  the  signs  of  heaven, 
and  unknown  songs  of  the  eternal  choirs,  that 
the  Lamb,  your  Guide,  revealed  to  you  this 
godly  doctrine,  that  the  Father  is  no  Father, 
the  Son  no  Son,  nor  nature  nature,  nor  truth 
truth?  For  you  transform  all  these  into  lies. 
The  Apostle,  by  that  most  excellent  knowledge 
that  was  granted  him,  speaks  of  the  Son  of 
God  as  true.  You  assert  His  creation,  pro- 
claim His  adoption,  deny  His  birth.  While 
the  true  Son  of  God  is  eternal  life  and  resur- 
rection to  us,  for  him,  in  whose  eyes  He  is  not 
true,  there  is  neither  eternal  life  nor  resurrec- 
tion. And  this  is  the  lesson  taught  by  John, 
the  disciple  beloved  of  the  Lord. 

44.  And  the  persecutor,  who  was  converted 
to  be  an  Apostle  and  a  chosen  vessel,  de- 
livers the  very  same  message.  What  discourse 
is  there  of  his  which  does  not  presuppose  the 
confession  of  the  Son  ?  What  Epistle  of  his 
that  does  not  begin  with  a  confession  of  that 
mysterious  truth  ?  When  he  says,  We  were 
reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  His  Son  s, 
and,  God  sent  His  Son  to  be  the  likeness  of  the 


*  1  John  v.  20.  The  long  interpolation,  which  resembles  a 
creed,  is  only  found  twice  elsewhere  (Codex  Toletanus  and 
the  so-called  Speculum  of  Augustine),  and,  though  evidently  from 
the  Greek,  never  in  that  language. 

5  Rom.  v.  10. 


flesh  of  sin 6,  and  again,  God  is  faithful,  by 
Whom  ye  were  called  tmto  the  fello7cship  of 
His  Som,  is  any  loophole  left  for  heretical 
misrepresentation?  His  Son,  Son  of  God; 
so  we  read,  but  nothing  is  said  of  His  adop- 
tion, or  of  God's  creature.  The  name  ex- 
presses the  nature;  He  is  God's  Son,  and 
therefore  the  Sonship  is  true.  The  Apostle's 
confession  asserts  the  genuineness  of  the  re- 
lation. I  see  not  how  the  Divine  nature  of 
the  Son  could  have  been  more  completely 
stated.  That  Chosen  Vessel  has  proclaimed 
in  no  weak  or  wavering  voice  that  Christ  is 
the  Son  of  Him  Who,  as  we  believe,  is  the 
Father.  The  Teacher  of  the  Gentiles,  the 
Apostle  of  Christ,  has  left  us  no  uncertainty, 
no  opening  for  error  in  his  presentation  of  the 
doctrine.  He  is  quite  clear  upon  the  subject 
of  children  by  adoption;  of  those  who  by 
faith  attain  so  to  be  and  so  to  be  named. 
In  his  own  words,  For  as  many  as  are  led  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of  God. 
For  ye  have  not  received  the  spirit  of  bondage 
again  unto  fear,  but  ye  have  received  the  Spirit 
of  adoption,  whereby  we  cry,  Abba,  Father 8. 
This  is  the  name  granted  to  us,  who  believe, 
through  the  sacrament  of  regeneration ;  our 
confession  of  the  faith  wins  us  this  adoption. 
For  our  work  done  in  obedience  to  the  Spirit 
of  God  gives  us  the  title  of  sons  of  God. 
Abba,  Father,  is  the  cry  which  we  raise,  not 
the  expression  of  our  essential  nature.  For 
that  essential  nature  of  ours  is  untouched  by 
that  tribute  of  the  voice.  It  is  one  thing  for 
God  to  be  addressed  as  Father ;  another  thing 
for  Him  to  be  the  Father  of  His  Son. 

45.  But  now  let  us  learn  what  is  this  faith 
concerning  the  Son  of  God,  which  the  Apostle 
holds.  For  though  there  is  no  single  dis- 
course, among  the  many  which  he  delivered 
concerning  the  Church's  doctrine,  in  which 
he  mentions  the  Father  without  also  making 
confession  of  the  Son,  yet,  in  order  to  display 
the  truth  of  the  relation  which  that  name 
conveys  with  the  utmost  definiteness  of  which 
human  language  is  capable,  he  speaks  thus  : — 
What  then  ?  If  God  be  for  us,  who  can  be 
against  us  ?  Who  spared  not  His  own  Son, 
but  delivered  Him  up  for  us  9.  Can  Son,  by 
any  remaining  possibility,  be  a  title  received 
through  adoption,  when  He  is  expressly  called 
God's  own  Son?  For  the  Apostle,  wishing 
to  make  manifest  the  love  of  God  towards  us, 
uses  a  kind  of  comparison,  to  enable  us  to 
estimate  how  great  that  love  is,  when  He  says 
that  it  was  His  own  Son  Whom  God  did  not 


6  1  John  viii.  3. 


7  1  Cor.  i.  9. 
9  lb.  31,  3a. 


•  Rom.  viii.  14,  15. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   VI. 


ii5 


spare.  He  suggests  the  thought  that  this  was 
no  sacrifice  of  an  adopted  Son,  on  behalf  of 
those  whom  He  purposed  to  adopt,  of  a  crea- 
ture for  creatures,  but  of  Mis  Son  for  strangers, 
His  own  Son  for  those  to  whom  He  had 
willed  to  give  a  share  in  the  name  of  sons. 
Seek  out  the  full  import  of  the  term,  that  you 
may  understand  the  extent  of  the  love.  Con- 
sider the  meaning  of  oivn  ;  mark  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Sonship  which  it  implies.  For  the 
Apostle  now  describes  Him  as  God's  own 
Son  ;  previously  he  had  often  spoken  of  Him 
as  God's  Son,  or  Son  of  God.  And  though 
many  manuscripts,  through  a  want  of  appre- 
hension on  the  part  of  the  translators,  read 
in  this  passage  His  Son,  instead  of  His  own 
Son,  yet  the  original  Greek,  the  tongue  in 
which  the  Apostle  wrote,  is  more  exactly  ren- 
dered by  His  own  than  by  His x.  And  though 
the  casual  reader  may  discern  no  great  differ- 
ence between  His  own  and  His,  yet  the 
Apostle,  who  in  all  his  other  statements  had 
spoken  of  His  Son,  which  is,  in  the  Greek, 
t6v  iavrov  vlov,  in  this  passage  uses  the  words 

oj    ye  tov   ISlov   vlov   ovk   e(f)eio-aTo,    that   IS,    Who 

spared  not  His  own  Son,  expressly  and  em- 
phatically indicating  His  true  Divine  nature. 
Previously  he  had  declared  that  through  the 
Spirit  of  adoption  there  are  many  sons ;  now 
his  object  is  to  point  to  God's  own  Son,  God 
the  Only-begotten. 

46.  This  is  no  universal  and  inevitable 
error ;  they  who  deny  the  Son  cannot  lay  the 
fault  upon  their  ignorance,  for  ignorance  of 
the  truth  which  they  deny  is  impossible.  They 
describe  the  Son  of  God  as  a  creature  who 
came  into  being  out  of  nothing.  If  the  Father 
has  never  asserted  this,  nor  the  Son  confirmed 
it,  nor  the  Apostles  proclaimed  it,  then  the 
daring  which  prompts  their  allegation  is  bred 
not  of  ignorance,  but  of  hatred  for  Christ. 
When  the  Father  says  of  His  Son,  This  is2, 
and  the  Son  of  Himself,  It  is  He  that  talketh 
with  Thee^,  and  when  Peter  confesses  Thou 
art'',  and  John  assures  us,  This  is  the  true 
God5,  and  Paul  is  never  weary  of  proclaiming 
Him  as  God's  own  Son,  I  can  conceive  of  no 
other  motive  for  this  denial  than  hatred.  The 
plea  of  want  of  familiarity  with  the  subject 
cannot  be  urged  in  extenuation  of  their  guilt. 
It  is  the  suggestion  of  that  Evil  One,  uttered 
now  through  these  prophets  and  forerunners 
of  his  coming ;  he  will  utter  it  himself  here- 
after when   he  comes   as   Antichrist.      He  is 


1  Yet  His  own  (proprius)  is  on  the  whole  characteristic  of  the 
Old  Latin  MSS.  still  in  existence.  This  passage  is  important 
as  indicating  the  independence  of  scribes.  Hilary  seems  to  take 
it  for  granted  that  ench  will  modify  at  his  discretion  the  text 
from  which  he  is  cop)  ing. 

2  St.  Matt.  iii.  17,  again  an  allusion  to  Exod.  iii.  14. 

3  St.  John  ix.  37.  4  St.  Matt.  xvi.  16  ;  cf.  Exod.  iii.  14. 
5  1  John  v.  so. 


using  this  novel  engine  of  assault  to  shake 
us  in  our  saving  confession  of  the  faith.  His 
first  object  is  to  pluck  from  our  hearts  the 
confident  assurance  of  the  Divine  nature  of 
the  Son  ;  next,  he  would  fill  our  minds  with 
the  notion  of  Christ's  adoption,  and  leave 
no  room  for  the  memory  of  Mis  other  claims. 
For  they  who  hold  that  Christ  is  but  a  crea- 
ture, must  regard  Christ  as  Antichrist,  since 
a  creature  cannot  be  God's  own  Son,  and 
therefore  He  must  lie  in  calling  Himself  the 
Son  of  God.  Hence  also  they  who  deny  that 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  must  have  Anti- 
christ for  their  Christ. 

47.  What  is  the  hope  of  which  this  futile 
passion  of  yours  is  in  pursuit  ?  What  is  the 
assurance  of  your  salvation  which  emboldens 
you  with  blasphemous  licence  of  tongue  to 
maintain  that  Christ  is  a  creature,  and  not 
a  Son?  It  was  your  duty  to  know  this  mys- 
tery from  the  Gospels,  and  to  hold  the  know- 
ledge fast.  For  though  the  Lord  can  do  all 
things,  yet  He  resolved  that  every  one  who 
prays  for  His  effectual  help  must  earn  it  by 
a  true  confession  of  Himself.  Not,  indeed, 
that  the  suppliant's  confession  could  augment 
the  power  of  Him,  Who  is  the  Power  of 
God ;  but  the  earning  was  to  be  the  reward 
of  faith.  So,  when  He  asked  Martha,  who 
was  entreating  Him  for  Lazarus,  whether  she 
believed  that  they  who  had  believed  in  Him 
should  not  die  eternally,  her  answer  expressed 
the  trust  of  her  soul ; —  Yea,  Lord,  I  believe 
that  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  Who 
art  come  into  this  world6.  This  confession 
is  eternal  life ;  this  faith  has  immortality. 
Martha,  praying  for  her  brother's  life,  was 
asked  whether  she  believed  this.  She  did  so 
believe.  What  life  does  the  denier  expect, 
from  whom  does  he  hope  to  receive  it,  when 
this  belief,  and  this  only,  is  eternal  life  ?  For 
great  is  the  mystery  of  this  faith,  and  perfect 
the  blessedness  which  is  the  fruit  of  this  con- 
fession. 

48.  The  Lord  had  given  sight  to  a  man 
blind  from  his  birth  ;  the  Lord  of  nature  had 
removed  a  defect  of  nature.  Because  this 
blind  man  had  been  born  for  the  glory  of 
God,  'that  God's  work  might  be  made  mani- 
fest in  the  work  of  Christ,  the  Lord  did  not 
delay  till  the  man  had  given  evidence  of  his 
faith  by  a  confession  of  it.  But  though  he 
knew  not  at  the  time  Who  it  was  that  had 
bestowed  the  great  gift  of  eyesight,  yet  after- 
wards he  earned  a  knowledge  of  the  faith. 
For  it  was  not  the  dispelling  of  his  blindness 
that  won  him  eternal  life.  And  so,  when  the 
man    was    already   healed   and   had   suffered 


6  St.  John  xi.  J7. 


I  2 


u6 


DE   TRINITATE. 


ejection  from  the  synagogue,  the  Lord  put  to 
him  the  question,  Dost  thou  believe  on  the  Son 
of  GodT?     This   was   to  save  him   from   the 
thought  of  loss,   in   exclusion  from  the  syna- 
gogue, by  the  certainty  that  confession  of  the 
true  faith  had  restored    him    to    immortality. 
When  the  man,  his  soul   still  unenlightened, 
made  answer,  Who  is  He,  Lord,   that  I  may 
believe  on  Him 8  ?    The  Lord's  reply  was,  Thou 
hast  both  seen  Him,  and  it  is  He  that  talketh 
with  thee.     For  He  was  minded  to  remove  the 
ignorance    of  the    man   whose   sight   he    had 
restored,  and  whom  He   was   now   enriching 
with   the  knowledge    of  so   glorious   a   faith. 
Does   the   Lord   demand  from   this   man,   as 
from  others,  who  prayed  Him  to  heal  them, 
a  confession    of  faith   as   the   price   of  their 
recovery?    Emphatically  not.     For  the  blind 
man    could    already   see   when   he   was   thus 
addressed.     The  Lord  asked  the  question  in 
order  to  receive  the  answer,   Lord,  I  believe?. 
The  faith  which  spoke  in  that  answer  was  to 
receive  not  sight,  but  life  x.     And  now  let  us 
examine    carefully   the   force    of    the   words. 
The  Lord  asks  of  the  man,  Dost  thou  believe 
on  the  Son  of  God?    Surely,  if  a  simple   con- 
fession of  Christ,  leaving  His  nature  in  ob- 
scurity,   were   a   complete   expression    of  the 
faith,  the   terms  of  the  question  would  have 
been,    'Dost   thou   believe   in   Christ?'     But 
in  days  to  come  almost  every  heretic  was  to 
make  a  parade  of  that  name,  confessing  Christ 
and    yet   denying  that   He  is  the  Son  ;    and 
therefore    He    demands,  as   the  condition  of 
faith,  that  we  should  believe  in  what  is  pe- 
culiar   to    Himself,    that   is,    in    His    Divine 
Sonship.     What  is  the  profit  of  faith   in  the 
Son    of   God,    if  it   be    faith   in    a   creature, 
when  He  requires  of  us  faith  in  Christ,  not 
the  creature,  but  the  Son,  of  God. 

49.  Did  devils  fail  to  understand  the  full 
meaning  of  this  name  of  Son  ?  For  we  are 
valuing  the  heretics  at  their  true  worth  if  we 
refute  them  no  longer  by  the  teaching  of 
Apostles,  but  out  of  the  mouth  of  devils. 
They  cry,  and  cry  often,  What  have  L  to  do 
with  Thee,  Jesus,  Thou  Son  of  God  most 
High 2  ?  Truth  wrung  this  confession  from 
them  against  their  will;  their  reluctant 
obedience  is  a  witness  to  the  force  of  the 
Divine  nature  within  Him.  When  they  fly 
from  the  bodies  they  have  long  possessed, 
it  is  His  might  that  conquers  them  ;  their 
confession  of  His  nature  is  an  act  of  rever- 
ence. These  transactions  display  Christ  as 
the  Son  of  God  both  in  power  and  in  name. 
Can  you  hear,  amid  all  these  cries  of  devils 
confessing  Him,  Christ  once  styled  a  creature, 


or  God's  condescension  in  adopting  Him  once 
named  ? 

50.  If  you  will  not  learn  Who  Christ  is  from 
those  that  know  Him,  learn  it  at  least  from 
those  that  know  Him  not.     So  shall  the  con- 
fession,   which   their    ignorance   is   forced   to 
make,  rebuke  your  blasphemy.     The  Jews  did 
not    recognise    Christ,    come    in    the    body, 
though  they  knew  that  the  true  Christ  must 
be  the  Son  of  God.     And  so,  when  they  were 
employing  false  witnesses,  without  one  word  of 
truth    in  their  testimony,   against   Him,   their 
priest  asked  Him,   Art   Thou  the   Christ,  the 
Son  of  the  Blessed '3  ?     They  knew   not   that 
in  Him  the  mystery  was  fulfilled  ;  they  knew 
that  the  Divine  nature  was  the  condition  of 
its    fulfilment.     They   did    not    ask    whether 
Christ  be  the  Son  of  God ;  they  asked  whether 
He  were  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.     They  were 
wrong  as  to  the  Person,  not  as  to  the  Sonship, 
of  Christ.     They  did   not  doubt  that  Christ 
is  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  thus,  while  they  asked 
whether    He    were    the   Christ,    they    asked 
without  denying   that  the  Christ  is  the  Son 
of  God.     What,    then,    of  your   faith,    which 
leads  you  to  deny  what  even  they,  in  their 
blindness,  confessed?    The  perfect  knowledge 
is  this,  to  be  assured  that  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  Who  existed  before  the  worlds,  was  also 
born  of  the  Virgin.     Even  they,   who  know 
nothing  of  His  birth  from    Mary,   know  that 
He  is  the  Son  of  God.     Mark  the  fellowship 
with  Jewish  wickedness  in  which  your  denial 
of  the  Divine  Sonship  has  involved  you  !    For 
they  have  put  on  record  the  reason  of  their 
condemnation  : — And  by  our  Law  He  ought  to 
die,  because  He  made  Himself  the  Son  of  God  *. 
Is  not  this  the  same  charge  which  you  are 
blasphemously   bringing    against    Him,    that, 
while   you   pronounce    Him   a   creature,    He 
calls  Himself  the  Son  ?    He  confesses  Himself 
the   Son,    and   they   declare    Him    guilty   of 
death ;    you  too  deny    that    He    is    the    Son 
of  God.     What  sentence  do  you  pass   upon 
Him  ?     You   have   the   same   repugnance    to 
His  claim  as  had  the  Jews.     You  agree  with 
their  verdict;    I   want   to   know  whether  you 
will  quarrel  about  the  sentence.     Your  offence, 
in    denying  that  He  is  the    Son    of  God,   is 
exactly  the  same  as  theirs,  though  their  guilt 
is   less,  for  they  sinned  in  ignorance.     They 
knew  not  that  Christ  was  born  of  Mary,  yet 
they  never  doubted  that  Christ  must  be  the 
Son  of  God.     You  are  perfectly  aware  of  the 
fact  that  Christ  was  born  of  Mary,  yet  you 
refuse  Him  the  name  of  Son  of  God.     If  they 
come  to  the  faith,  there  awaits  them  an  un- 
imperilled    salvation,    because    of    their   past 


7  St.  John  Ix.  35. 
•  Reading  vitam. 


36.  v  lb.  38. 

St.  Luke  viii.  28. 


3  St.  Mark  xiv.  61. 


4  St.  John  xix.  7. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    VI. 


1 1 


ignorance.  Every  gate  of  safety  is  shut  to 
you,  because  you  persist  in  denying  a  truth 
which  is  obvious  to  you.  For  you  are  not 
ignorant  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God ;  you 
know  it  so  well  that  you  allow  Him  the  name 
as  a  title  of  adoption,  and  feign  that  He  is 
a  creature  adorned,  like  others,  with  the  right 
to  call  Himself  a  Son.  You  rob  Him,  as  far 
as  you  can,  of  the  Divine  nature  ;  if  you  could, 
you  would  rob  Him  of  the  Divine  name  as 
well.  But,  because  you  cannot,  you  divorce 
the  name  from  the  nature ;  He  is  called  a  Son, 
but  He  shall  not  be  the  true  Son  of  God. 

51.  The  confession  of  the  Apostles,  for 
whom  by  a  word  of  command  the  raging  wind 
and  troubled  sea  were  restored  to  calm,  was' 
an  opportunity  for  you.  You  might  have  con- 
fessed, as  they  did,  that  He  is  God's  true  Son ; 
you  might  have  borrowed  their  very  words, 
Of  a  truth,  this  is  the  Son  of  God*.  But  an 
evil  spirit  of  madness  is  driving  you  on  to 
shipwreck  of  your  life ;  your  reason  is  dis- 
tracted and  overwhelmed,  like  the  ocean  tor- 
nj.ented  by  the  fury  of  the  storm. 

52.  If  this  witness  of  the  voyagers  seem  in- 


S  St.  Matt.  xiv.  33. 


conclusive  to  you  because  they  were  Apostles, 
— though  to  me  it  comes  with  the  greater 
weight  for  the  same  reason,  though  it  sur- 
prises me  the  less, — accept  at  any  rate  a  cor- 
roboration given  by  the  Gentiles.  Hear  how 
the  soldier  of  the  Roman  cohort,  one  of  the 
stern  guard  around  the  Cross,  was  humbled 
to  the  faith.  The  centurion  sees  the  mighty 
workings  of  Christ's  power;  and  this  is  the 
witness  borne  by  him  : — Truly  this  tvas  the  Son 
of  God6.  The  truth  was  forced  upon  him, 
after  Christ  had  given  up  the  ghost,  by  the 
torn  veil  of  the  Temple,  and  the  earth  that 
shook,  and  the  rocks  that  were  rent,  and  the 
sepulchres  that  were  opened,  and  the  dead 
that  rose.  And  it  was  the  confession  of  an 
unbeliever.  The  deeds  that  were  done  con- 
vinced him  that  Christ's  nature  was  omni- 
potent; he  names  Him  the  Son  of  God,  being 
assured  of  His  true  Divinity.  So  cogent  was 
the  proof,  so  strong  the  man's  conviction,  that 
the  force  of  truth  conquered  his  will,  and  even 
he  who  had  nailed  Christ  to  the  Cross  was 
driven  to  confess  that  He  is  the  Lord  of 
eternal  glory,  truly  the  Son  of  God. 

*  St.  Matt,  xxvii.  54. 


BOOK   VII, 


i.  This  is  the  seventh  book  of  our  treatise 
against  the  wild  extravagance  of  modern  heresy. 
In  order  of  place  it  must  follow  its  predeces- 
sors ;  in  order  of  importance,  as  an  exposition 
of  the  mysteries  of  the  right  faith,  it  precedes 
and  excels  them   all.     I  am  well  aware  how 
hard   and   steep    is    the    path    of    evangelical 
instruction  up  which  we  are  mounting.     The 
fears   inspired   by  consciousness  of  my  own 
incapacity    are    plucking    me    back,    but   the 
warmth  of  faith  urges  me   on  ;    the  assaults 
of  heresy  heat  my  blood,   and    the    dangers 
of  the  ignorant  excite  my  compassion.     I  fear 
to  speak,  and  yet  I  cannot  be  silent.    A  double 
dread  subdues  my  spirit ;  it  may  be  that  speech, 
it  may  be  that  silence,  will  render  me  guilty 
of  a  desertion  of  the  truth.     For  this  cunning 
heresy  has  hedged  itself  round  with  marvellous 
devices  of  perverted  ingenuity.     First   there 
is  the  semblance  of  devotion  ;   then  the  lan- 
guage carefully  chosen  to  lull  the  suspicions 
of  a  candid  listener;  and  again,  the  accommo- 
dation of  their  views  to  secular  philosophy ; 
and  finally,  their  withdrawing  of  attention  from 
manifest  truth  by  a  pretended  explanation  of 
Divine   methods.     Their   loud   profession    of 
the   unity  of  God   is  a  fraudulent   imitation 
of  the  faith ;  their  assertion  that  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  God  a  play  upon  words   for  the  de- 
lusion of  their  hearers ;  their  saying  that  He 
did  not  exist  before  He  was  born  a  bid  for 
the  support  of  the  world's  philosophers  ;  their 
confession  of  God  as  incorporeal  and  immut- 
able leads,  by  a  display  of  fallacious  logic, 
up  to  a  denial  of  the  birth  of  God  from  God. 
They  turn  our  arguments  against  ourselves ; 
the  Church's  faith  is  made  the  engine  of  its 
own   destruction.      They   have    contrived   to 
involve  us  in   the  perplexing  position  of  an 
equal  danger,  whether  we  reason  with  them 
or  whether  we  refrain.     For  they  use  the  fact 
that  we  allow  certain  of  their  assumptions  to 
pass  unchallenged  as  an  argument  on  behalf 
of  those  which  we  do  contradict. 

2.  We  call  to  mind  that  in  the  preceding 
books  the  reader  has  been  urged  to  study  the 
whole  of  that  blasphemous  manifesto ',  and 
mark  how  it  is  animated  throughout  by  the 
one   aim   of  propagating  the  belief  that  our 

•  The  Epistola  Arii ad  Altxandrum ;  see  Books  iv.  12,  vi.  5. 


Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  neither  God,  nor  Son  of 
God.     Its  authors  argue  that  He  is  permitted 
to  use  the  names  of  God  and  of  Son  by  virtue 
of  a  certain  adoption,   though    neither  God- 
head  nor  Sonship  be  His  by  nature.     They 
use  the  fact,  true  in  itself,  that  God  is  immut- 
able and  incorporeal,  as  an  argument  against 
the  birth  of  the  Son  from  Him.     They  value 
the  truth,  that  God  the  Father  is  One,  only 
as  a  weapon  against  our  faith  in  the  Godhead 
of  Christ ;  pleading  that  an  incorporeal  nature 
cannot  be  rationally  conceived  as  generating 
another,   and  that  our  faith  in   One  God  is 
inconsistent  with  the  confession  of  God  from 
God.      But   our   earlier   books    have   already 
refuted    and    foiled    this    argument    of  theirs 
by  an  appeal  to  the  Law  and  the  Prophets. 
Our  defence  has  followed,  step  by  step,  the 
course   of  their   attack      We  have   set  forth 
God  from  God,  and  at  the   same  time  con- 
fessed One  true  God ;  shewing  that  this  pre- 
sentation of  the  faith  neither  falls  short  of  the 
truth  by  ascribing  singleness  of  Person  to  the 
One  true  God,  nor  adds  to  the  faith  by  asserting 
the  existence  of  a  second  Deity.     For  we  con- 
fess neither  an  isolated  God,  nor  yet  two  Gods. 
Thus,  neither  denying  that  God  is   One  nor 
maintaining  that   He  is  alone,   we   hold  the 
straight  road  of  truth.     Each  Divine  Person 
is  in  the  Unity,  yet  no  Person  is  the  One  God. 
Next,  our  purpose  being  to  demonstrate  the 
irrefragable  truth  of  this  mystery  by  the  evi- 
dence of  the   Evangelists  and  Apostles,  our 
first  duty  has  been  to  make  our  readers  ac- 
quainted with  the  nature,  truly  subsisting  and 
truly  born,  of  the  Son  of  God  ;  to  demonstrate 
that  He  has  no  origin  external  to  God,  and 
was  not  created  out  of  nothing,  but  is  the  Son, 
born   from   God.     This  is  a  truth  which   the 
evidence  adduced  in  the  last  book  has  placed 
beyond    all   doubt.     The   assertion    that    He 
bears  the  name  of  Son  by  virtue  of  adoption 
has  been  put  to  silence,  and  He  stands  forth 
as  a  true  Son  by  a  true  birth.     Our  present 
task  is  to  prove  from  the  Gospels  that,  because 
He  is  true  Son,  He  is  true  God  also.     For 
unless  He  be   true   Son  He  cannot  be  true 
God,  nor  true  God  unless  He  be  true  Son. 

3.  Nothing  is  more  harassing  to  human 
nature  than  the  sense  of  impending  danger. 
If  calamities  unknown  or  unanticipated  befall 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK  VII. 


119 


us,  we  may  need  pity,  yet  we  have  been  free 
from  care ;  no  load  of  anxiety  has  oppressed 
us.  But  he  whose  mind  is  full  of  possibilities 
of  trouble  suffers  already  a  torment  in  his 
fear.  I,  who  now  am  venturing  out  to  sea, 
am  a  mariner  not  unused  to  shipwreck,  a 
traveller  who  knows  by  experience  how  bri- 
gands lurk  in  the  forests,  an  explorer  of 
African  deserts  aware  of  the  danger  from 
scorpions  and  asps  and  basilisks2.  I  enjoy 
no  instant  of  relief  from  the  knowledge  and 
fear  of  present  danger.  Every  heretic  is  on 
the  watch,  noting  every  word  as  it  drops  from 
my  mouth.  The  whole  progress  of  my  argu- 
ment is  infested  with  ambuscades  and  pitfalls 
and  snares.  It  is  not  of  the  road,  of  its  hard- 
ness or  steepness,  that  I  complain ;  I  am 
following  in  the  footsteps  of  the  Apostles,  not 
choosing  my  own  path.  My  trouble  is  the 
constant  peril,  the  constant  dread,  of  wander- 
ing into  some  ambush,  of  stumbling  into  some 
pit,  of  being  entangled  in  some  net.  My 
purpose  is  to  proclaim  the  unity  of  God, 
in  the  sense  of  the  Law  and  Prophets  and 
Apostles.  Sabellius  is  at  hand,  eager  with 
cruel  kindness  to  welcome  me,  on  the  strength 
of  this  unity,  and  swallow  me  up  in  his  own 
destruction.  If  I  withstand  him,  and  deny 
that,  in  the  Sabellian  sense,  God  is  One, 
a  fresh  heresy  is  ready  to  receive  me,  pointing 
out  that  I  teach  the  existence  of  two  Gods. 
Again,  if  I  undertake  to  tell  how  the  Son 
of  God  was  born  from  Mary,  Photinus,  the 
Ebion  of  our  day,  will  be  prompt  to  twist  this 
assertion  of  the  truth  into  a  confirmation  of 
his  lie.  I  need  mention  no  other  heresies, 
save  one ;  all  the  world  knows  that  they  are 
alien  from  the  Church.  It  is  one  that  has 
been  often  denounced,  often  rejected,  yet 
it  preys  upon  our  vitals  still.  Galatia3  has 
reared  a  large  brood  of  godless  assertors  of 
the  unity  of  God.  Alexandria «  has  sown 
broadcast,  over  almost  the  whole  world,  her 
denial,  which  is  an  affirmation,  of  the  doctrine 
of  two  Gods.  Pannonia  s  upholds  her  pes- 
tilent doctrine  that  the  only  birth  of  Jesus 
Christ  was  from  the  Virgin.  And  the  Church, 
distracted  by  these  rival  faiths,  is  in  danger 
of  being  led  by  means  of  truth  into  a  rejection 
of  truth.  Doctrines  are  being  forced  upon 
her  for  godless  ends,  which,  according  to 
the  use  that  is  made  of  them,  will  either 
support  or  overthrow  the  faith.  For  instance, 
we  cannot,  as  true  believers,  assert  that  God 
is  One,  if  we  mean  by  it  that  He  is  alone  ; 
for  faith  in  a  lonely  God  denies  the  Godhead 
of  the  Son.     If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  assert, 


as  we  truly  can,  that  the  Son  is  God,  we  are 
in  danger,  so  they  fondly  imagine,  of  deserting 
the  truth  that  God  is  One.  We  are  in  peril 
on  either  hand  ;  we  may  deny  the  unity  or 
we  may  maintain  the  isolation.  But  it  is 
a  danger  which  has  no  terrors  for  the  foolish 
things  of  the  7vor/d6.  Our  adversaries  are 
blind  to  the  fact  that  His  assertion  that  He 
is  not  alone  is  consistent  with  unity;  that 
though  He  is  One  He  is  not  solitary. 

4.  But  I  trust  that  the  Church,  by  the  light 
of  her  doctrine,  will  so  enlighten  the  world's 
vain  wisdom,  that,  even  though  it  accept  not 
the  mystery  of  the  faith,  it  will  recognise  that 
in  our  conflict  with  heretics  we,  and  not  they, 
are  the  true  representatives  of  that  mystery. 
For  great  is  the  force  of  truth ;  not  only  is 
it  its  own  sufficient  witness,  but  the  more 
it  is  assailed  the  more  evident  it  becomes ; 
the  daily  shocks  which  it  receives  only  in- 
crease its  inherent  stability.  It  is  the  pe- 
culiar property  of  the  Church  that  when  she 
is  buffeted  she  is  triumphant,  when  she  is 
assaulted  with  argument  she  proves  herself 
in  the  right,  when  she  is  deserted  by  her 
supporters  she  holds  the  field.  It  is  her  wish 
that  all  men  should  remain  at  her  side  and 
in  her  bosom  ;  if  it  lay  with  her,  none  would 
become  unworthy  to  abide  under  the  shelter 
of  that  august  mother,  none  would  be  cast 
out  or  suffered  to  depart  from  her  calm  re- 
treat. But  when  heretics  desert  her  or  she 
expels  them,  the  loss  she  endures,  in  that  she 
cannot  save  them,  is  compensated  by  an  in- 
creased assurance  that  she  alone  can  offer 
bliss.  This  is  a  truth  which  the  passionate 
zeal  of  rival  heresies  brings  into  the  clearest 
prominence.  The  Church,  ordained  by  the 
Lord  and  established  -by  His  Apostles,  is  one 
for  all;  but  the  frantic  folly  of  discordant 
sects  has  severed  them  from  her.  And  it 
is  obvious  that  these  dissensions  concerning 
the  faith  result  from  a  distorted  mind,  which 
twists  the  words  of  Scripture  into  confor- 
mity with  its  opinion,  instead  of  adjusting 
that  opinion  to  the  words  of  Scripture.  And 
thus,  amid  the  clash  of  mutually  destructive 
errors,  the  Church  stands  revealed  not  only 
by  her  own  teaching,  but  by  that  of  her  rivals. 
They  are  ranged,  all  of  them,  against  her ; 
and  the  very  fact  that  she  stands  single  and 
alone  is  her  sufficient  answer  to  their  godless 
delusions.  The  hosts  of  heresy  assemble  them- 
selves against  her  ;  each  of  them  can  defeat 
all  the  others,  but  not  one  can  win  a  victory  for 
itself.  The  only  victory  is  the  triumph  which 
the  Church  celebrates  over  them  all.  Each 
heresy  wields  against  its  adversary  some  weapon 


2  Cf.  Lucan.  IX.  696  ff.  3  Marcellus  of  Ancyra. 

*  Arius.  5  Photinus  of  Sirmium. 


6  z  Cor.  L  97. 


120 


DE    TR1N1TATE. 


already  shattered,  in  another  instance,  by  the 
Church's  condemnation.  There  is  no  point 
of  union  between  them,  and  the  outcome  of 
their  internecine  struggles  is  the  confirmation 
of  the  faith. 

5.  Sabellius  sweeps  away  the  birth  of  the 
Son,  and  then  preaches  the  unity  of  God  ; 
but  he  does  not  doubt  that  the  mighty  Nature, 
which  acted  in  the  human  Christ,  was  God. 
He  shuts  his  eyes  to  the  revealed  mystery  of 
the  Sonship ;  the  works  done  seem  to  him 
so  marvellous  that  he  cannot  believe  that  He 
who  performed  them  could  undergo  a  true 
generation.  When  he  hears  the  words,  He  that 
hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the  Father  alsoi,  he 
jumps  to  the  blasphemous  conclusion  of  an 
inseparable  and  indistinguishable  identity  of 
nature  in  Father  and  Son,  because  he  fails 
to  see  that  the  revelation  of  the  birth  is  the 
mode  in  which  Their  unity  of  nature  is  mani- 
fested to  us.  For  the  fact  that  the  Father 
is  seen  in  the  Son  is  a  proof  of  the  Son's 
Divinity,  not  a  disproof  of  His  birth.  Thus 
our  knowledge  of  Each  of  Them  is  condi- 
tioned by  our  knowledge  of  the  Other,  for 
there  is  no  difference  of  nature  between  them  ; 
and,  since  in  this  respect  they  are  One,  a 
reverent  study  of  the  character  of  Either  will 
give  us  a  true  insight  into  the  nature  of  Both 
For,  indeed,  it  is  certain  that  He,  Who  was 
in  the  form  of  God,  must  in  His  self-reve- 
lation present  Himself  to  us  in  the  exact 
aspect  of  the  form  of  God8.  Again,  this 
perverse  and  insane  delusion  derives  a  further 
encouragement  from  the  words,  /  and  the 
Father  are  One^.  From  the  fact  of  unity 
in  the  same  nature  they  have  impiously  de- 
duced a  confusion  of  Persons;  their  inter- 
pretation, that  the  words  signify  a  single 
Power,  contradicts  the  tenour  of  the  passage. 
For  /  and  the  Father  are  One  does  not  indi- 
cate a  solitary  God.  The  use  of  the  conjunc- 
tion and  shews  clearly  that  more  than  one 
Person  is  signified  ;  and  are  requires  a  plu- 
rality of  subject.  Moreover,  the  One  is  not 
incompatible  with  a  birth.  Its  sense  is,  that 
the  Two  Persons  have  the  one  nature  in  com- 
mon. The  One  is  inconsistent  with  difference  ; 
the  are  with  identity. 

6.  Set  our  modern  heresy  in  array  against  the 
delusion,  equally  wild,  of  Sabellius ;  let  them 
make  the  best  of  their  case.  The  new  heretics 
will  advance  the  passage.  The  Father  is 
greater  than  I1.  Neglecting  the  mystery  of 
the  Divine  birth,  and  the  mystery  of  God's 
emptying  Himself  and  taking  flesh,  they  will 
argue  the  inferiority  of  His  nature  from   His 


7  St.  John  xiv.  9. 


8  Cf.  Phil.  ii.  6. 
1  lb.  xiv.  28. 


9  St.  John  x   30. 


assertion  that  the  Father  is  the  greater.  They 
will  plead  against  Sabellius  that  Christ  is 
a  Son,  in  so  far  as  One  can  be  a  Son  who 
is  inferior  to  the  Father  and  needs  to  ask 
for  restoration  to  His  glory,  and  fears  to  die 
and  indeed  did  die.  In  reply  Sabellius  will 
adduce  His  deeds  in  evidence  of  Flis  Divine 
nature ;  and  while  our  novel  heresy,  to  escape 
the  admission  of  Christ's  true  Sonship,  will 
heartily  agree  with  him  that  God  is  One, 
Sabellius  will  emphatically  assert  the  same 
article  of  the  faith,  in  the  sense  that  no  Son 
exists.  The  one  side  lays  stress  upon  the 
action  of  the  Son  ;  the  other  urges  that  in 
that  action  God  is  manifest.  The  one  will 
demonstrate  the  unity,  the  other  disprove  the 
identity.  Sabellius  will  defend  his  position 
thus: — "The  works  that  were  done  could 
have  been  done  by  no  other  nature  than  the 
Divine.  Sins  were  remitted,  the  sick  were 
healed,  the  lame  ran,  the  blind  saw,  the  dead 
lived.  God  alone  has  power  for  this.  The 
words  /  and  the  Father  are  One  could  only 
have  been  spoken  from  self-knowledge ;  no 
nature,  outside  the  Father's,  could  have 
uttered  them.  Why  then  suggest  a  second 
substance,  and  urge  me  to  believe  in  a  second 
God  ?  These  works  are  peculiar  to  God ; 
the  One  God  wrought  them."  His  adversaries, 
animated  by  a  hatred,  equally  venomous,  for 
the  faith,  will  argue  that  the  Son  is  unlike 
in  nature  to  God  the  Father : — "  You  are 
ignorant  of  the  mystery  of  your  salvation. 
You  must  believe  in  a  Son  through  Whom 
the  worlds  were  made,  through  Whom  man 
was  fashioned,  Who  gave  the  Law  through 
Angels,  Who  was  born  of  Mary,  Who  was 
sent  by  the  Father,  was  crucified,  dead  and 
buried,  Who  rose  again  from  the  dead  and 
is  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  Who  is  the  Judge 
of  quick  and  dead.  Unto  Him  we  must  rise 
again,  we  must  confess  Him,  we  must  earn 
our  place  in  His  kingdom."  Each  of  the  two 
enemies  of  the  Church  is  fighting  the  Church's 
battle.  Sabellius  displays  Christ  as  God  by 
the  witness  of  the  Divine  nature  manifested 
in  His  works;  Sabellius'  antagonists  confess 
Christ,  on  the  evidence  of  the  revealed  faith, 
to  be  the  Son  of  God. 

7.  Again,  how  glorious  a  victory  for  our 
faith  is  that  in  which  Ebion — in  other  words, 
Photinus — both  wins  the  day  and  loses  it ! 
He  castigates  Sabellius  for  denying  that  the 
Son  of  God  is  Man,  and  in  his  turn  has  to 
submit  to  the  reproaches  of  Arian  fanatics  for 
tailing  to  see  that  this  Man  is  the  Son  of  God. 
Against  Sabellius  he  calls  the  Gospels  to  his 
aid,  with  their  evidence  concerning  the  Son 
of  Mary  ;  Arius  deprives  him  of  this  ally  by 
proving  that  the  Gospels  make  Christ  some- 


ON    THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK    VII. 


121 


thing  more  than  the  Son  of  Mary.     Sabellius 
denies  that  there  is  a  Son  of  God  ;    against 
him    Photinus   elevates  man   to  the  place  of 
Son.     Photinus   will   hear  nothing  of  a   Son 
born  before  the  worlds ;    against  him,   Arius 
denies  that  the  only  birth  of  the  Son  of  God 
was  His  human  birth.     Let  them  defeat  one 
another    to    their   hearts'   content,    for   every 
victory  which  each  of  them  wins  is  balanced 
by   a   defeat.     Our    present    adversaries    are 
routed    in    the  matter  of  the    Divine   nature 
of  the  Son  ;    Sabellius  in   the  matter  of  the 
Son's   revealed    existence ;    Photinus   is    con- 
victed of  ignorance,  or  else  of  falsehood,   in 
his  denial  of  the  Son's  birth  before  the  worlds. 
Meanwhile  the  Church,  whose  faith  is  based 
upon  the  teaching  of  Evangelists  and  Apostles, 
holds  fast,  against  Sabellius,  her  assertion  that 
the  Son  exists ;  against  Arius,  that  He  is  God 
by  nature ;   against  Photinus,  that  He  created 
the  universe.     And  she  is  the  more  convinced 
of  her  faith,  in  that  they  cannot  combine  to 
contradict    it.     For    Sabellius    points   to    the 
works   of  Christ   in   proof  of  the   Divinity   of 
Him  Who   wrought   them,   though   he   knows 
not    that   the   Son    was    their    Author.     The 
Arians  grant  Him  the  name  of  Son,  though 
they  confess  not  that  the  true  nature  of  God 
dwelt  in   Him.     Photinus  maintains  His  man- 
hood, though  in  maintaining  it  he  forgets  that 
Christ  was  born  as   God  before    the    worlds. 
Thus,  in  their  several  assertions  and  denials, 
there  are  points  in  which   each  heresy  is  in 
the  right  in  defence  or  attack ;   and  the  result 
of  their  conflicts  is  that  the  truth  of  our  con- 
fession is  brought  into  clearer  light. 

8.  I  felt  that   I   must   spare  a  little  space 

to  point  this  out.     It  has  been  from  no  love 

for  amplification,  but  that  it  might  serve   as 

a   warning.     First,    I    wished   to    expose   the 

vague  and   confused  character  of  this  crowd 

of  heresies,  whose  mutual  feuds  turn,  as   we 

have   seen,  to    our  advantage,     Secondly,    in 

my  warfare  against  the  blasphemous  doctrines 

of   modern   heresy ;    that    is,  in  my   task    of 

proclaiming  that   both    God    the    Father  and 

God  the  Son  are  God, — in  other  words,  that 

Father   and   Son  are  One  in  name,   One  in 

nature,   One    in    the   kind   of  Divinity  which 

they  possess, — I  wished  to  shield  myself  from 

any   charge  which  might  be  brought  against 

me,  either  as  an  advocate  of  two  Gods  or  of 

one  lonely  and  isolated  Deity.     For  in   God 

the  Father  and   God  the  Son,  as  I  have  set 

them  forth,  no  confusion  of  Persons  can   be 

detected ;    nor    in    my   exposition    of    Their 

common   nature  can  any  difference    between 

the  Godhead  of  the   One   and   of  the  Other 

be  discerned.     In  the  preceding  book  I  have 

sufficiently    refuted,    by    the    witness    of    the 


Gospels,  those  who  deny  the  subsistence  of 
God  the  Son  by  a  true  birth  from  God;  my 
present  duty  is  to  shew  that  He,  Who  in  the 
truth  of  His  nature  is  Son  of  God,  is  also 
in  the  truth  of  His  nature  God.  But  this 
proof  must  not  degenerate  into  the  fatal 
profession  of  a  solitary  God,  or  of  a  second 
God.  It  shall  manifest  God  as  One  yet  not 
alone  ;  but  in  its  care  to  avoid  the  error  of 
making  Him  lonely  it  shall  not  fall  into  the 
error  of  denying  His  unity. 

9.  Thus   we  have  all  these  different  assur- 
ances   of    the    Divinity    of    our    Lord    Jesus 
Christ:— His    name,    His   birth,    His   nature, 
His   power,    His   own  assertion.     As   to    the 
name,  I   conceive  that  no  doubt  is  possible. 
It  is  written,  In  the  beginning  was  the   Word, 
and  the    Word  was  with  God,  and  the    Word 
was    God*.     What   reason    can    there  be  for 
suspecting    that    He    is   not   what    His    name 
indicates?    And   does  not   this   name  clearly 
describe  His  nature  ?    If  a  statement  be  con- 
tradicted, it  must  be  for  some  reason.     What 
reason,    I    demand,  is   there  in   this   instance 
for  denying  that   He   is  God?    The  name  is 
given    Him,    plainly   and    distinctly,    and    un- 
qualified  by  any  incongruous   addition   which 
might   raise    a   doubt.     The  Word,   we  read, 
which   was  made  flesh,  was  none  other  than 
God.     Here   is    no    loophole    for    any    such 
conjecture  as  that  He  has  received  this  name 
as    a    favour    or    taken    it    upon    Himself,    so 
possessing   a   titular   Godhead    which   is   not 
His  by  nature. 

10.  Consider  the  other  recorded  instances 
in  which  this  name  was  given  by  favour  or 
assumed.  To  Moses  it  was  said,  /  have  made 
thee  a  god  to  Pharaoh*.  Does  not  this  ad- 
dition, to  Pharaoh,  account  for  the  title  ?  Did 
God  impart  to  Moses  the  Divine  nature?  Did 
He  not  rather  make  Moses  a  god  in  the  sight 
of  Pharaoh,  who  was  to  be  smitten  with  terror 
when  Moses'  serpent  swallowed  the  magic 
serpents  and  returned  into  a  rod,  when  he 
drove  back  the  venomous  flies  which  he  had 
called  forth,  when  he  stayed  the  hail  by  the 
same  power  wherewith  he  had  summoned  it, 
and  made  the  locusts  depart  by  the  same 
might  which  had  brought  them;  when  in  the 
wonders  that  he  wrought  the  magicians  saw 
the  finger  of  God?  That  was  the  sense  in 
which  Moses  was  appointed  to  be  god  to 
Pharaoh ;  he  was  feared  and  entreated,  he 
chastised  and  healed.  It  is  one  thing  to  be 
appointed  a  god;  it  is  another  thing  to  be 
God.  He  was  made  a  god  to  Pharaoh;  he 
had  not  that  nature  and  that  name  wherein 
God  consists.     I  call  to  mind  another  instance 


3  St.  John  i.  i. 


3  Exod.  vii.  1. 


122 


DE   TRINITATE. 


of  the  name  being  given  as  a  title ;  that  where 
it  is  written,  /  have  said,  Ye  are  gods  +.  But 
this  is  obviously  the  granting  of  a  favour. 
/  have  said  proves  that  it  is  no  definition,  but 
only  a  description  by  One  Who  chooses  to 
speak  thus.  A  definition  gives  us  knowledge 
of  the  object  defined;  a  description  depends 
on  the  arbitrary  will  of  the  speaker.  When 
a  speaker  is  manifestly  conferring  a  title,  that 
title  has  its  origin  only  in  the  speaker's  words, 
not  in  the  thing  itself.  The  title  is  not  the 
name  which  expresses  its  nature  and  kind. 

1 1.  But  in  this  case  the  Word  in  very  truth 
is  God ;  the  essence  of  the  Godhead  exists  in 
the  Word,  and  that  essence  is  expressed  in  the 
Word's  name.  For  the  name  Word  is  in- 
herent in  the  Son  of  God  as  a  consequence 
of  His  mysterious  birth,  as  are  also  the  names 
Wisdom  and  Power.  These,  together  with  the 
substance  which  is  His  by  a  true  birth,  were 
called  into  existence  to  be  the  Son  of  God 5 ; 
yet,  since  they  are  the  elements  of  God's 
nature,  they  are  still  immanent  in  Him  in 
undiminished  extent,  although  they  were  born 
from  Him  to  be  His  Son.  For,  as  we  have 
said  so  often,  the  mystery  which  we  preach 
is  that  of  a  Son  Who  owes  His  existence  not 
to  division  but  to  birth.  He  is  not  a  segment 
cut  off,  and  so  incomplete,  but  an  Offspring 
born,  and  therefore  perfect ;  for  birth  involves 
no  diminution  of  the  Begetter,  and  has  the 
possibility  of  perfection  for  the  Begotten.  And 
therefore  the  titles  of  those  substantive  pro- 
perties 6  are  applied  to  God  the  Only-begotten, 
for  when  He  came  into  existence  by  birth  it 
was  they  which  constituted  His  perfection ; 
and  this  although  they  did  not  thereby  desert 
the  Father,  in  Whom,  by  the  immutability 
of  His  nature,  they  are  eternally  present.  For 
instance,  the  Word  is  God  the  Only-begotten, 
and  yet  the  Unbegotten  Father  is  never  with- 
out His  Word.  Not  that  the  nature  of  the 
Son  is  that  of  a  sound  which  is  uttered.  He 
is  God  from  God,  subsisting  through  a  true 
birth;  God's  own  Son,  born  from  the  Father, 
indistinguishable  from  Him  in  nature,  and 
therefore  inseparable.  This  is  the  lesson  which 
His  title  of  the  Word  is  meant  to  teach  us. 
And  in  the  same  way  Christ  is  the  Wisdom 
and  the  Power  of  God ;  not  that  He  is,  as  He 
is  often  regarded  ?,  the  inward  activity  of  the 
Father's  might  or  thought,  but  that  His  nature, 
possessing  through  birth  a  true  substantial  ex- 
istence, is  indicated  by  these  names  of  inward 
forces.  For  an  object,  which  has  by  birth 
an  existence  of  its  own,  cannot  be  regarded 


4  Psalm  lxxxi.  (lxxxii.)  6. 

5  I.e.  These  are  the  elements  of  which  His  Person  is  composed 
by  the  eternal  generation. 

6  Word.  Wisdom.  Power.  7  By  the  Sabellians. 


as  a  property;  a  property  is  necessarily  in- 
herent in  some  being  and  can  have  no  in- 
dependent existence.  But  it  was  to  save  us 
from  concluding  that  the  Son  is  alien  from 
the  Divine  nature  of  His  Father  that  He,  the 
Only-begotten  from  the  eternal  God  His 
Father,  born  as  God  into  a  substantial  ex- 
istence of  His  own,  has  had  Himself  revealed 
to  us  under  these  names  of  properties,  of 
which  the  Father,  out  of  Whom  He  came 
into  existence,  has  suffered  no  diminution. 
Thus  He,  being  God,  is  nothing  else  than 
God.  For  when  I  hear  the  words,  And  the 
Word  was  God,  they  do  not  merely  tell  me 
that  the  Son  was  called  God ;  they  reveal 
to  my  understanding  that  He  is  God.  In 
those  previous  instances,  where  Moses  was 
called  god  and  others  were  styled  gods,  there 
was  the  mere  addition  of  a  name  by  way  of 
title.  Here  a  solid  essential  truth  is  stated ; 
The  Word  was  God.  That  was  indicates  no 
accidental  title,  but  an  eternal  reality,  a  per- 
manent element  of  His  existence,  an  inherent 
character  of  His  nature. 

12.  And  now  let  us  see  whether  the  con- 
fession of  Thomas  the  Apostle,  when  he  cried, 
My  Loi-d  and  My  God,  corresponds  with  this 
assertion  of  the  Evangelist.  We  see  that  he 
speaks  of  Him,  Whom  he  confesses  to  be 
God,  as  My  God.  Now  Thomas  was  un- 
doubtedly familiar  with  those  words  of  the 
Lord,  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  thy  God  is 
One.  How  then  could  the  faith  of  an  Apostle 
become  so  oblivious  of  that  primary  command 
as  to  confess  Christ  as  God,  when  life  is  con- 
ditional upon  the  confession  of  the  Divine 
unity?  It  was  because,  in  the  light  of  the 
Resurrection,  the  whole  mystery  of  the  faith 
had  become  visible  to  the  Apostle.  He  had 
often  heard  such  words  as,  /  and  the  Father 
are  One,  and,  All  things  that  the  Father  hath 
are  Mine,  and,  /  in  the  Father  and  the  Father 
in  Me% ;  and  now  he  can  confess  that  the 
name  of  God  expresses  the  nature  of  Christ, 
without  peril  to  the  faith.  Without  breach 
of  loyalty  to  the  One  God,  the  Father,  his 
devotion  could  now  regard  the  Son  of  God 
as  God,  since  he  believed  that  everything  con- 
tained in  the  nature  of  the  Son  was  truly  of 
the  same  nature  with  the  Father.  No  longer 
need  he  fear  that  such  a  confession  as  his  was 
the  proclamation  of  a  second  God,  a  treason 
against  the  unity  of  the  Divine  nature;  for 
it  was  not  a  second  God  Whom  that  perfect 
birth  of  the  Godhead  had  brought  into  being. 
Thus  it  was  with  full  knowledge  of  the  mystery 
of  the  Gospel  that  Thomas  confessed  his  Lord 
and  his  God.     It  was  not  a  title  of  honour; 

8  St.  John  x.  30,  xvi.  is,  xiv.  11. 


ON    THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK  VII. 


12 


it  was  a  confession   of  nature.     He  believed 
that   Christ   was   God    in    substance    and    in 
power.     And  the   Lord,   in   turn,   shews   that 
this  act  of  worship    was   the    expression   not 
of  mere  reverence,  but  of  faith,  when  He  says, 
Because   thou    hast  seen,    thou    hast    believed ; 
blessed  are  they  which  have  not  seen,  and  have 
believed.      For   Thomas   had    seen   before    he 
believed.      But,  you   ask,   What   was   it    that 
Thomas   believed?     That,    beyond   a   doubt, 
which  is  expressed  in  his  words,  My  Lord  and 
my  God.     No  nature  but  that  of  God  could 
have  risen   by  its  own   might  from  death  to 
life;    and  it  is  this  fact,  that  Christ  is  God, 
which    was   confessed    by   Thomas    with    the 
confidence   of  an    assured   faith.      Shall    we, 
then,  dream   that    His    name   of  God   is  not 
a  substantial  reality,  when  that  name  has  been 
proclaimed    by   a   faith    based    upon    certain 
evidence?     Surely    a    Son    devoted    to    His 
Father,  One  Who  did  not  His  own  will  but 
the  will  of  Him  that  sent  Him,  Who  sought 
not  His  own  glory  but  the  glory  of  Him  from 
Whom    He   came,    would    have   rejected   the 
adoration   involved   in   such   a   name  as    de- 
structive of  that  unity  of  God  which  had  been 
the  burden  of  His  teaching.     Yet,  in  fact,  He 
confirms  this  assertion  of  the  mysterious  truth, 
made  by  the  believing  Apostle;    He  accepts 
as  His  own  the  name  which   belongs  to  the 
nature  of  the  Father.     And   He  teaches  that 
they  are  blessed  who,  though  they  have  not 
seen   Him  rise  from   the  dead,  yet  have  be- 
lieved, on  the  assurance  of  the  Resurrection, 
that  He  is  God. 

13.  Thus  the  name  which  expresses  His 
nature  proves  the  truth  of  our  confession  of 
the  faith.  For  the  name,  which  indicates  any 
single  substance,  points  out  also  any  other 
substance  of  the  same  kind;  and,  in  this  in- 
stance, there  are  not  two  substances  but  one 
substance,  of  the  one  kind.  For  the  Son 
of  God  is  God;  this  is  the  truth  expressed 
in  His  name.  The  one  name  does  not  em- 
brace two  Gods  ;  for  the  one  name  God  is  the 
name  of  one  indivisible  nature.  For  since  the 
Father  is  God  and  the  Son  is  God,  and  that 
name  which  is  peculiar  to  the  Divine  nature 
is  inherent  in  Each,  therefore  the  Two  are 
One.  For  the  Son,  though  He  subsists  through 
a  birth  from  the  Divine  nature,  yet  preserves 
the  unity  in  His  name ;  and  this  birth  of  the 
Son  does  not  compel  loyal  believers  to  ac- 
knowledge two  Gods,  since  our  confession 
declares  that  Father  and  Son  are  One,  both 
in  nature  and  in  name.  Thus  the  Son  of  God 
has  the  Divine  name  as  the  result  of  His  birth. 
Now  the  second  step  in  our  demonstration 
was  to  be  that  of  shewing  that  it  is  by  virtue 
of  His  birth  that   He   is  God.     I   have   still 


to  bring  forward  the  evidence  of  the  Apostles 
that  the  Divine  name  is  used  of  Him  in  an 
exact  sense;  but  for  the  present  I  purpose 
to  continue  our  enquiry  into  the  language 
of  the  Gospels. 

14.  And    first    I    ask   what    new    element, 
destructive  of  His  Godhead,  can   have  been 
imported  by  birth  into  the  nature  of  the  Son  ? 
Universal  reason  rejects  the  supposition  that 
a    being    can    become    different    in    nature, 
by   the    process    of  birth,   from   the  being   to 
which  its  birth  is  due ;  although  we  recognise 
the  possibility  that  from  parents,  different  in 
kind,  an  offspring  sharing  the  nature  of  both, 
yet  diverse   from   either,  may  be  propagated. 
The  fact   is   familiar  in    the   case   of  beasts, 
both  tame  and  wild.     But  even  in  this  case 
there  is   no   real   novelty;    the  new  qualities 
already  exist,  concealed  in  the  two  different 
parental  natures,  and  are  only  developed  by 
the  connexion.     The  birth  of  their  joint  off- 
spring  is    not    the   cause   of  that   offspring's 
difference   from   its   parents.     The   difference 
is   a   gift   from    them    of  various    diversities, 
which    are    received   and    combined    in    one 
frame.     When    this    is    the    case    as    to    the 
transmission    and    reception    even    of 'bodily 
differences,   is  it  not   a  form   of  madness  to 
assert  that  the  birth  of  God  the  Only-begotten 
was  the  birth  from   God   of  a  nature  inferior 
to    Himself?     For   the   giving   of  birth   is   a 
function  of  the  true  nature  of  the  transmitter 
of  life ;  and  without  the  presence  and  action 
of  that    true   nature  there  can   be   no    birth. 
The  object  of  all   this  heat   and   passion    is 
to    prove   that    there    was    no    birth,    but    a 
creation,  of  the  Son  of  God ;  that  the  Divine 
nature  is  not  His  origin  and  that   He  does 
not  possess  that  nature  in  His  personal  sub- 
sistence, but  draws,  from  what  was  non-existent, 
a   nature   different  in  kind  from  the   Divine. 
They  are  angry  because  He  says,  That  which 
is  bom  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is 
born  of  the  Spirit  is  Spirit  9.     For,  since  God 
is  a  Spirit,  it  is  clear  that  in  One  born  from 
Him  there  can  be  nothing  alien   or  different 
from    that    Spirit    from    which    He   was    bom. 
Thus  the  birth  of  God  constitutes  Him  perfect 
God.     And  hence    also    it   is    clear    that    we 
must    not   say  that    He  began    to    exist,    but 
only  that  He  was  born.     For  there  is  a  sense 
in    which    beginning    is    different    from    birth. 
A   thing   which   begins  to   exist  either  comes 
into   existence  out    of   nothing,   or  developes 
out  of  one  state  into  another,  ceasing  to  be 
what  it  was  before;   so,  for  instance,  gold  is 
formed  out  of  earth,  solids  melt  into  liquids, 
cold  changes  to  warmth,  white  to  red,  water 


9  St.  John  iii.  6. 


DE   TRINITATE. 


breeds  moving  creatures,  lifeless  objects  turn 
into  living.  In  contrast  to  all  this,  the  Son 
of  God  did  not  begin,  out  of  nothing,  to  be 
God,  but  was  born  as  God ;  nor  had  He 
an  existence  of  another  kind  before  the 
Divine.  Thus  He  Who  was  born  to  be  God 
had  neither  a  beginning  of  His  Godhead,  nor 
yet  a  development  up  to  it.  His  birth  re- 
tained for  Him  that  nature  out  of  which 
He  came  into  being ;  the  Son  of  God,  in 
His  distinct  existence,  is  what  God  is,  and 
is  nothing  else. 

15.  Again,  any  one  who  is  in  doubt  con- 
cerning this  matter  may  gain  from  the  Jews 
an  accurate  knowledge  of  Christ's  nature ;  or 
rather  learn  that  He  was  truly  born  from  the 
Gospel,  where  it  is  written,  Therefore  the  Jews 
sought  the  more  to  kill  Him  because  He  not 
only  broke  the  Sabbath,  but  said  also  that  God 
7t>as  His  own  Father,  making  Himself  equal 
with  God1.  This  passage  is  unlike  most 
others  in  not  giving  us  the  words  spoken  by 
the  Jews,  but  the  Apostle's  explanation  of 
their  motive  in  wishing  to  kill  the  Lord.  We 
see  that  no  plea  of  misapprehension  can 
excuse  the  wickedness  of  these  blasphemers ; 
for  we  have  the  Apostle's  evidence  that  the 
true  nature  of  Christ  was  fully  revealed  to 
them.  They  could  speak  of  His  birth  : — He 
said  that  God  was  His  Father,  making  Himself 
equal  with  God.  Was  not  His  clearly  a  birth 
of  nature  from  nature,  when  He  published 
the  equality  of  His  nature  by  speaking  of 
God,  by  name,  as  His  own  Father?  Now  it 
is  manifest  that  equality  consists  in  the 
absence  of  difference  between  those  who  are 
equal.  Is  it  not  also  manifest  that  the  result 
of  birth  must  be  a  nature  in  which  there  is 
an  absence  of  difference  between  Son  and 
Father  ?  And  this  is  the  only  possible  origin 
of  true  equality ;  birth  can  only  bring  into 
existence  a  nature  equal  to  its  origin.  But 
again,  we  can  no  more  hold  that  there  is 
equality  where  there  is  confusion,  than  we  can 
where  there  is  difference.  Thus  equality,  as 
of  the  image2,  is  incompatible  with  isolation 
and  with  diversity  ;  for  equality  cannot  dwell 
with  difference,  nor  yet  in  solitude. 

16.  And  now,  although  we  have  found  the 
sense  of  Scripture,  as  we  understand  it,  in 
harmony  with  the  conclusions  of  ordinary 
reason,  the  two  agreeing  that  equality  is  in- 
compatible either  with  diversity  or  with  iso- 
lation, yet  we  must  seek  a  fresh  support  for 
our  contention  from  actual  words  of  our  Lord. 
For  only  so  can  we  check  that  licence  of 
arbitrary  interpretation  whereby  these  bold 
traducers   of   the    faith   would    even   venture 


1  St.  John  v   18. 


a  Heb.  i.  3. 


to  cavil  at  the  Lord's  solemn  self  revelation. 
His  answer  to  the  Jews  was  this  :  —  The  Son 
can  do  nothing  of  Himself  but  what  He  seeih 
the  Father  do;  for  what  things  soever  He 
doeth,  these  also  doeth  the  Son  likewise.  For 
the  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  sheweth  Him 
all  things  that  Himself  doeth ;  and  He  will 
shew  Him  greater  works  than  these,  that  ye 
may  marvel.  For  as  the  Father  raiseth  up  the 
dead  and  quickeneth  them,  even  so  the  Son  quick- 
eneth  whom  He  will.  For  the  Father  judgeth 
no  man,  but  hath  given  all  judgment  to  the  Son, 
that  all  may  ho?iour  the  Son  even  as  they  honour 
the  Father.  He  that  honoureth  ?wt  the  Son 
lionoureth  not  the  Father  which  hath  sent  Him  3. 
The  course  of  our  argument,  as  I  had  shaped 
it  in  my  mind,  required  that  each  several 
point  of  the  debate  should  be  handled  singly  ; 
that,  since  we  had  been  taught  that  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  God  in  name, 
in  birth,  in  nature,  in  power,  in  self-revelation, 
our  demonstration  of  the  faith  should  establish 
each  successive  point  in  that  order.  But  His 
birth  is  a  barrier  to  such  a  treatment  of  the 
question  ;  for  a  consideration  of  it  includes 
a  consideration  of  His  name  and  nature  and 
power  and  self-revelation.  For  His  birth  in- 
volves all  these,  and  they  are  His  by  the  fact 
that  He  is  born.  And  thus  our  argument  con- 
cerning His  birth  has  taken  such  a  course  that 
it  is  impossible  for  us  to  keep  these  other 
matters  back  for  separate  discussion  in  their 
turn. 

17.  The  chief  reason  why  the  Jews  wished 
to  kill  the  Lord  was  that,  in  calling  God  His 
Father,  He  had  made  Himself  equal  with 
God ;  and  therefore  He  put  His  answer, 
in  which  He  reproved  their  evil  passion,  into 
the  form  of  an  exposition  of  the  whole  mystery 
of  our  faith.  For  just  before  this,  when  He 
had  healed  the  paralytic  and  they  had  passed 
their  judgment  upon  Him  that  He  was  worthy 
of  death  for  breaking  the  Sabbath,  He  had 
said,  My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  1 
7c>ork*.  Their  jealousy  had  been  inflamed 
to  the  utmost  by  the  raising  of  Himself  to 
the  level  of  God  which  was  involved  in  this 
use  of  the  name  of  Father.  And  now  He 
wishes  to  assert  His  birth  and  to  reveal  the 
powers  of  His  nature,  and  so  He  says,  I  say 
unto  you,  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  Himstlj, 
but  what  He  seeih  the  Father  do.  These 
opening  words  of  His  reply  are  aimed  at  that 
wicked  zeal  of  the  Jews,  which  hurried  them 
on  even  to  the  desire  of  slaying  Him.  It 
is  in  reference  to  the  charge  of  breaking  the 
Sabbath  that  He  says,  My  Father  worketh 
hitherto,    and  I  work.     He    wished   them    to 


3  St.  John  v.  19 — 22. 


4  lb.  v.  17. 


ON    THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK    VII. 


125 


understand  that  His  practice  was  justified 
by  Divine  authority ;  and  He  taught  them 
by  the  same  words  that  His  work  must  be 
regarded  as  the  work  of  the  Father,  Who  was 
working  in  Him  all  that  He  wrought.  And 
again,  it  was  to  subdue  the  jealousy  awakened 
by  His  speaking  of  God  as  His  Father  that 
He  uttered  those  words,  Verily,  verify,  I  say 
unio  you,  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  Himself, 
but  what  He  seeth  the  Father  do.  Lest  this 
making  of  Himself  equal  to  God,  as  having 
the  name  and  nature  of  God's  Son,  should 
withdraw  men's  faith  from  the  truth  that  He 
had  been  born,  He  says  that  the  Son  can 
do  nothing  but  what  He  sees  the  Father  do. 
Next,  in  confirmation  of  the  saving  harmony 
of  truths  in  our  confession  of  Father  and  of 
Son,  He  displays  this  nature  which  is  His 
by  birth ;  a  nature  which  derives  its  power 
of  action  not  from  successive  gifts  of  strength 
to  do  particular  deeds,  but  from  knowledge. 
He  shews  that  this  knowledge  is  not  imparted 
by  the  Father's  performance  of  any  bodily 
work,  as  a  pattern,  that  the  Son  may  imitate 
what  the  Father  has  previously  done ;  but 
that,  by  the  action  of  the  Divine  nature, 
He  had  come  to  share  the  subsistence  of 
the  Divine  nature,  or,  in  other  words,  had 
been  born  as  Son  from  the  Father.  He  told 
them  that,  because  the  power  and  the  nature 
of  God  dwelt  consciously  within  Him,  it  was 
impossible  for  Him  to  do  anything  which 
He  had  not  seen  the  Father  doing  •  that, 
since  it  is  in  the  might  of  the  Father  that 
God  the  Only-begotten  performs  His  works, 
His  liberty  of  action  coincides  in  its  range 
with  His  knowledge  of  the  powers  of  the 
nature  of  God  the  Father;  a  nature  insepar- 
able from  Himself,  and  lawfully  owned  by 
Him  in  virtue  of  His  birth.  For  God  sees 
not  after  a  bodily  fashion,  but  possesses,  by 
His  nature,  the  vision  of  Omnipotence. 

18.  The  next  words  are,  For  what  things 
soever  He — the  Father — doeth,  these  also  doeth 
the  Son  likewise.  This  likewise  is  added  to  indi- 
cate His  birth ;  whatsoever  and  same  to  indicate 
the  true  Divinity  of  His  nature.  Whatsoever 
and  same  make  it  impossible  that  there  should 
be  any  actions  of  His  that  are  different  from, 
or  outside,  the  actions  of  the  Father.  Thus 
He,  Whose  nature  has  power  to  do  all  the  same 
things  as  the  Father,  is  included  in  the  same 
nature  with  the  Father.  But  when,  in  contrast 
with  this,  we  read  that  all  these  same  things 
are  done  by  the  Son  likewise,  the  fact  that  the 
works  are  like  those  of  Another  is  fatal  to  the 
supposition  that  He  Who  does  them  works 
in  isolation.  Thus  the  same  things  that  the 
Father  does  are  all  done  likewise  by  the  Son. 
Here  we  have  clear  proof  of  His  true  birth, 


and  at  the  same  time  a  convincing  attestation 
of  the  Mystery  of  our  faith,  which,  with  its 
foundation  in  the  Unity  of  the  nature  of  God, 
confesses  that  there  resides  in  Father  and 
Son  an  indivisible  Divinity.  For  the  Son 
does  the  same  things  as  the  Father,  and  does 
them  likewise  ;  while  acting  in  like  manner 
He  does  the  same  things.  Two  truths  are 
combined  in  one  proposition  ;  that  His  works 
are  done  likewise  proves  His  birth;  that  they 
are  the  same  works  proves  His  nature. 

19.  Thus  the  progressive  revelation  con- 
tained in  our  Lord's  reply  is  at  one  with  the 
progressive  statement  of  truth  in  the  Church's 
confession  of  faith.  Neither  of  them  divides 
the  nature,  and  both  declare  the  birth.  For 
the  next  words  of  Christ  are,  For  the  Father 
loveth  the  Son,  and  sheweth  Him  all  things 
that  Himself  doeth  ;  and  He  will  shew  Him 
greater  works  than  these,  that  ye  may  mangel. 
For  as  the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead,  and 
quickeneth  them,  even  so  the  Son  quickeneth 
whom  He  will.  Can  there  be  any  other 
purpose  in  this  revelation  of  the  manner  in 
which  God  works,  except  that  of  inculcating 
the  true  birth ;  the  faith  in  a  subsisting  Son 
born  from  the  subsisting  God,  His  Father? 
The  only  other  explanation  is  that  God  the 
Only-begotten  was  so  ignorant  that  He  needed 
the  instruction  conveyed  in  this  shewing ;  but 
the  reckless  blasphemy  of  the  suggestion  makes 
this  alternative  impossible.  For  He,  knowing, 
as  He  does,  everything  that  He  is  taught,  has 
no  need  of  the  teaching.  And  accordingly, 
after  the  words,  The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and 
sheweth  Him  all  things  that  Himself  doeth,  we 
are  next  informed  that  all  this  shewing  is  for 
our  instruction  in  the  faith  ;  that  the  Father 
and  the  Son  may  have  their  equal  share  in 
our  confession,  and  we  be  saved,  by  this  state- 
ment that  the  Father  shews  all  that  He  does 
to  the  Son,  from  the  delusion  that  the  Son's 
knowledge  is  imperfect.  With  this  object  He 
goes  on  to  say,  And  He  will  shew  Him  greater 
works  than  these,  that  ye  may  marvel.  For  as 
the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead  and  quickeneth 
them,  even  so  the  Son  quickeneth  7c<hom  He  will. 
We  see  that  the  Son  has  full  knowledge  of 
the  future  works  which  the  Father  will  shew 
Him  hereafter.  He  knows  that  He  will  be 
shewn  how,  after  His  Father's  example,  He 
is  to  give  life  to  the  dead.  For  He  says  that 
the  Father  will  shew  to  the  Son  things  at 
which  they  shall  marvel;  and  at  once  pro- 
ceeds to  tell  them  what  these  things  are ; — 
For  as  the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead  and 
quickeneth  them,  even  so  the  Son  quickeneth 
whom  He  will.  The  power  is  equal  because 
the  nature  is  one  and  the  same.  The  shewing 
of  the  works  is  an  aid,  not  to  ignorance  in 


126 


DE   TRINITATE. 


Him,  but  to  faith  in  us.  It  conveys  to  the 
Son  no  knowledge  of  things  unknown,  but 
it  imparts  to  us  the  confidence  to  proclaim 
His  birth,  by  assuring  us  that  the  Father  has 
shewn  to  Him  all  the  works  that  He  Himself 
can  do.  The  terms  used  in  this  Divine  dis- 
course have  been  chosen  with  the  utmost 
deliberation,  lest  any  vagueness  of  language 
should  suggest  a  difference  of  nature  between 
the  Two.  Christ  says  that  the  Father's  works 
were  shewn  Him,  instead  of  saying  that,  to 
enable  Him  to  perform  them,  a  mighty  nature 
was  given  Him.  Hereby  He  wishes  to  reveal 
to  us  that  this  shewing  was  a  substantive  part 
of  the  process  of  His  birth,  since,  simul- 
taneously with  that  birth,  there  was  imparted 
to  Him  by  the  Father's  love  a  knowledge 
of  the  works  which  the  Father  willed  that 
He  should  do.  And  again,  to  save  us  from 
being  led,  by  this  declaration  of  the  shewing, 
to  suppose  that  the  Son's  nature  is  ignorant 
and  therefore  different  from  the  Father's,  He 
makes  it  clear  that  He  already  knows  the 
things  that  are  to  be  shewn  Him.  So  far, 
indeed,  is  He  from  needing  the  authority  of 
precedent  to  enable  Him  to  act,  that  He 
is  to  give  life  to  whom  He  will.  To  will 
implies  a  free  nature,  subsisting  with  power 
to  choose  in  the  blissful  exercise  of  omni- 
potence. 

20.  And  next,  lest  it  should  seem  that  to 
give  life  to  whom  He  will  is  not  within  the 
power  of  One  Who  has  been  truly  born,  but 
is  only  the  prerogative  of  ingenerate  Omni- 
potence, He  hastens  to  add,  For  the  Father 
judgelh  no  man,  but  hath  given  all  judgment  to 
the  Son.  The  statement  that  all  judgment 
is  given  teaches  both  His  birth  and  His  Son- 
ship  ;  for  only  a  nature  which  is  altogether 
one  with  the  Father's  could  possess  all  things ; 
and  a  Son  can  possess  nothing,  except  by 
gift.  But  all  judgment  has  been  given  Him, 
for  He  quickens  whom  He  will.  Now  we 
cannot  suppose  that  judgment  is  taken  away 
from  the  Father,  although  He  does  not  exer- 
cise it ;  for  the  Son's  whole  power  of  judg- 
ment proceeds  from  the  Father's,  being  a  gift 
from  Him.  And  there  is  no  concealment  of 
the  reason  why  judgment  has  been  given  to 
the  Son,  for  the  words  which  follow  are,  But 
He  hath  given  all  judgment  to  the  Son,  that 
till  men  may  honour  the  Son  even  as  they 
honour  the  Father.  He  that  honoureth  not 
the  Son  honoureth  not  the  Father  Which  hath 
sent  Him.  What  possible  excuse  remains  for 
doubt,  or  for  the  irreverence  of  denial  ?  The 
reason  for  the  gift  of  judgment  is  that  the  Son 
may  receive  an  honour  equal  to  that  which 
is  paid  to  the  Father;  and  thus  he  who  dis- 
honours the  Son  is  guilty  of  dishonouring  the 


Father  also.  How,  after  this  proof,  can  we 
imagine  that  the  nature  given  Him  by  birth 
is  different  from  the  Father's,  when  He  is  the 
Father's  equal  in  work,  in  power,  in  honour, 
in  the  punishment  awarded  to  gainsayers  ? 
Thus  this  whole  Divine  reply  is  nothing  else 
than  an  unfolding  of  the  mystery  of  His  birth. 
And  the  only  distinction  that  it  is  right  or 
possible  to  make  between  Father  and  Son 
is  that  the  Latter  was  born  ;  yet  born  in  such 
a  sense  as  to  be  One  with  His  Father. 

21.  Thus  the  Father  works  hitherto  and  the 
Son  works.  In  Father  and  Son  you  have  the 
names  which  express  Their  nature  in  relation 
to  Each  other.  Note  also  that  it  is  the  Divine 
nature,  that  through  which  God  works,  that 
is  working  here.  And  remember,  lest  you 
fall  into  the  error  of  imagining  that  the  oper- 
ation of  two  unlike  natures  is  here  described, 
how  it  was  said  concerning  the  blind  man, 
But  that  the  works  of  God  may  be  made  mani- 
fest in  him,  I  must  work  the  works  of  Him  that 
sent  Afe5.  You  see  that  in  his  case  the  work 
wrought  by  the  Son  is  the  Father's  work  ;  and 
the  Son's  work  is  God's  work.  The  remainder 
of  the  discourse  which  we  are  considering  also 
deals  with  works ;  but  my  defence  is  at  pre- 
sent only  concerned  with  assigning  the  whole 
work  to  Both,  and  pointing  out  that  They  are 
at  one  in  Their  method  of  working,  since  the 
Son  is  employed  upon  that  work  which  the 
Father  does  hitherto.  The  sanction  contained 
in  this  fact  that,  by  virtue  of  His  Divine  birth, 
the  Father  is  working  with  Him  in  all  that 
He  does,  will  save  us  from  supposing  that 
the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  was  doing  wrong 
in  working  on  the  Sabbath.  His  Sonship 
is  not  affected,  for  there  is  no  confusion  of 
His  Divinity  with  the  Father's,  and  no  nega- 
tion of  it ;  His  Godhead  is  not  affected,  for 
His  Divine  nature  is  untouched.  Their  unity 
is  not  affected,  for  no  difference  is  revealed 
to  sever  Them  ;  and  Their  unity  is  not  pre- 
sented in  such  a  light  as  to  contradict  Their 
distinct  existence.  First  recognise  the  Son- 
ship  of  the  Son  ;  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of 
Himself,  but  what  He  seeth  the  Father  do 
Here  His  birth  is  manifest;  because  of  i. 
He  can  do  nothing  of  Himself  till  He  sees 
it  being  clone.  He  cannot  be  unbegotten, 
because  He  can  do  nothing  of  Himself;  He 
has  no  power  of  initiation,  and  therefore  He 
must  have  been  born.  But  the  fact  that  He 
can  see  the  Father's  works  proves  that  He 
has  the  comprehension  which  belongs  to  the 
conscious  Possessor  of  Divinity.  Next,  mark 
that  He  does  possess  this  true  Divine  nature; — 
For  what  things  soever  He  doeth,  these  also  doeth 


5  St.  John  ix.  3. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   VII. 


127 


the  Son  likewise.     And  now  that  we  have  seen 
Him  endowed  with  the  powers  of  that  nature, 
note  how  this  results  in  unity,  how  one  nature 
dwells  in  the  Two  ; —  That  all  men  may  honour 
the  Son,  even  as  they  honour  the  Father.     And 
then,   lest   reflection   on    this    unity   entangle 
you   in   the    delusion    of  a   solitary   and    self- 
contained  God,  take  to  heart  the  mystery  of 
the  faith  manifested  in  these  words,  He  that 
honourcth  not  the  Son  honoureth  not  the  Father 
Which  hath  sent  Him.     The  rage  and  cunning 
of  heresy  may  do  their  worst ;   our  position 
is  impregnable.     He  is  the  Son,  because  He 
can  do  nothing  of  Himself;   He  is  God,  be- 
cause, whatever  the  Father  does,  He  does  the 
same ;   They  Two  are   One,  because    He    is 
equal  in  honour  to  the  Father  and  does  the 
very  same  works;   He  is  not  the  Father,  be- 
cause He  is  sent.     So  great  is  the  wealth  of 
mysterious  truth  contained  in  this   one  doc- 
trine of  the  birth !     It  embraces  His  name, 
His  nature,   His  power,   His   self-revelation  ; 
for  everything  conveyed  to  Him  in  His  birth 
must  be  contained  in  that  nature  from  which 
His    birth   is    derived.     Into    His  nature  no 
element  of  any  substance   different  in   kind 
from   that  of  His  Author  is  introduced,  for 
a  nature  which  springs  from  one  nature  only 
must  be  entirely  one  with  that  nature  which 
is  its  parent.     An  unity  is  that  which,  contain- 
ing no  discordant  elements,   is  one  in  kind 
with  itself;  an  unity  constituted  through  birth 
cannot  be  solitary ;  for  solitude  can  have  but 
a  single  occupant,  while  an  unity  constituted 
through  birth  implies  the  conjunction  of  Two. 
22.  And  furthermore,  let  His  own  Divine 
words   bear   witness   to    Himself.     He    says, 
They  that  are  of  My  sheep  hear  My  voice,  and 
J  know  them,  and  they  follow  Me  ;  and  I  give 
unto   them   eternal  life,   and  they  shall  never 
perish,  neither  shall  any  man  pluck  them  out 
of  My    hand.     That   which  My  Father  hath 
given  Me  is  greater  than  all,  and  no  man  shall 
be  able  to  pluck  them  out  of  My  Father's  hand. 
J  and  the  Father  are  one6.     What  lethargy  can 
blunt  so  utterly  the  edge  of  our  understanding 
as  to  render  so  precise  a  statement  for  one 
moment  obscure  to  us?    What  proud  sophistry 
can    play    such    pranks    with    human    docility 
as  to  persuade  those,  who   have   learnt  from 
these  words  the  knowledge  of  what  God   is, 
that  they  must  not   recognise   God  in   Him, 
Whose  Godhead  was  here  revealed  to  them  ? 
Heresy   ought   either    to   bring   forward   other 
Gospels  in  support   of  its  doctrine ;    or   else, 
if  our  existing  Gospels  are  the  only  documents 
which  teach  of  God,  why  do  they  not  believe 
the   lessons    taught?     If    they   are   the   only 

6  St.  John  x.  27 — 30. 


source    of    knowledge,    why   not    draw    faith, 
as  well  as  knowledge,  from  them?    Yet  now 
we  find  that  their  faith    is   held  in    defiance 
of  their  knowledge;    and  hence  it  is  a  faith 
rooted  not  in  knowledge,  but  in  sin  ;    a  faith 
of  bold    irreverence,   instead  of  reverent  hu- 
mility, towards  the  truth  confessedly  known. 
God  the  Only-begotten,  as  we  have  seen,  fully 
assured  of  His  own   nature,  reveals  with  the 
utmost  precision  of  language  the  mystery  of 
His    birth.     He   reveals   it,   ineffable    though 
it  is,  in  such   wise  that  we  can  believe  and 
confess  it;    that  we  can  understand  that  He 
was  born  and  believe  that  He  has  the  nature 
of  God  and  is  One  with  the  Father,  and  One 
with   Him  in   such  a  sense  that  God  is  not 
alone  nor  Son  another  name  for  Father,  but 
that  in  very  truth  He  is  the  Son.     For,  firstly, 
He  assures  us  of  the  powers  of  His  Divine 
nature,  saying  of  His  sheep,  and  no  man  shall 
pluck  them  out  of  My  hand.    It  is  the  utterance 
of  conscious  power,  this  confession  of  free  and 
irresistible  energy,  that  will  allow  no  man  to 
pluck  His  sheep  from  His  hand.     But  more 
than    this;    not  only  has   He  the    nature  of 
God,  but  He  would  have  us  know  that  that 
nature  is  His  by  birth  from  God,  and  hence 
He  adds,    That  which   the   Father  has  given 
Me  is  greater  than  all.     He  makes  no  secret 
of  His  birth  from  the  Father,   for  what  He 
received  from  the  Father  He  says  is  greater 
than  all.     And  He  Who  received  it,  received 
it  at  His  birth,  not  after  His  birth,  and  yet 
it    came  to   Him   from   Another,  for   He  re- 
ceived it?.     But  He,  Who  received  this  gift 
from  Another,  forbids  us  to  suppose  that  He 
Himself  is  different  in  kind  from  That  Other, 
and  does  not  eternally  subsist  with  the  same 
nature   as   that   of   Him  Who  gave  the  gift, 
by  saying,  No  man  shall  be  able  to  pluck  them 
out  of  My  Father's  hand.     None    can   pluck 
them  out  of  His  hand,  for  He  has  received 
from   His  Father  that  which  is   greater   than 
all    things.     What,    then,   means    this   contra- 
dictory   assertion   that   none   can   pluck  them 
from  His  Father's  hand  ?     It  is  the  Son's  hand 
which   received    them    from    the    Father,    the 
Father's  hand  which  gave  them  to   the  Son: 
in  what   sense   is   it   said    that   what   cannot 
be  plucked  from   the   Son's   hand  cannot  be 
plucked  from  the  Father's  hand?    Hear,  it  you 
wish    to    know:—/  and  the  Father  are  one. 
The   Son's  hand  is  the  Father's   hand.     For 
the    Divine    nature    does    not   deteriorate    or 
cease  to  be  the  same  in  passing  through  birth  • 
nor  yet   is   this  sameness  a  bar  to  our  faith 
in  the  birth,  for  in  that  birth  no  alien  element 
was  admitted  into  His  nature.     And  here  He 

7  I.e.  He  is  not  Unbegotten. 


128 


DE   TRINITATE. 


speaks  of  the  Son's  hand,  which  is  the  hand 
of  the  Father,  that  by  a  bodily  similitude  you 
may  learn  the  power  of  the  one  Divine  nature 
which  is  in  Both  ;  for  the  nature  and  the 
power  of  the  Father  is  in  the  Son.  And 
lastly,  that  in  this  mysterious  truth  of  the 
birth  you  may  discern  the  true  and  indis- 
tinguishable unity  of  the  nature  of  God,  the 
words  were  spoken,  I  and  the  Father  are  One. 
They  were  spoken  that  in  this  unity  we  might 
see  neither  difference  nor  solitude ;  for  They 
are  Two,  and  yet  no  second  nature  came 
into  being  through  that  true  birth  and  gene- 
ration. 

23.  There  still  remains,  if  I  read  them 
aright,  the  same  desire  in  these  maddened 
souls,  though  their  opportunity  for  fulfilling 
it  is  lost.  Their  bitter  hearts  still  cherish  a 
longing  for  mischief  which  they  can  no  longer 
hope  to  satisfy.  The  Lord  is  on  His  throne 
in  heaven,  and  the  furious  hatred  of  heresy 
cannot  drag  Him,  as  the  Jews  did,  to  the 
Cross.  But  the  spirit  of  unbelief  is  the  same, 
though  now  it  takes  the  form  of  rejecting  His 
Godhead.  They  bid  defiance  to  His  words, 
though  they  cannot  deny  that  He  spoke  them. 
They  vent  their  hatred  in  blasphemy;  instead 
of  stones  they  shower  abuse.  If  they  could 
they  would  bring  Him  down  from  His  throne 
to  a  second  crucifixion.  When  the  Jews  were 
moved  to  wrath  by  the  novelty  of  Christ's 
teaching  we  read,  The  Jews  therefore  took  up 
stones  to  stone  Him.  He  answered  them, 
Many  good  works  have  I  shewed  you  from 
the  Father ;  for  which  of  those  works  do  ye 
stone  Me?  The  Jews  answered  Him,  For 
a  good  work  we  stone  Thee  not,  but  for 
blasphemy ;  and  because  Thou,  being  a  man, 
makest  Thyself  Gods.  I  bid  you,  heretic,  to 
recognise  herein  your  own  deeds,  your  own 
words.  Be  sure  that  you  are  their  partner, 
for  you  have  made  their  unbelief  your  pattern. 
It  was  at  the  words,  I  and  the  Father  are  One, 
that  the  Jews  took  up  stones.  Their  godless 
irritation  at  the  revelation  of  that  savins; 
mystery  hurried  them  on  even  to  an  attempt 
to  slay.  There  is  no  one  whom  you  can 
stone ;  but  is  your  guilt  in  denying  Him  less 
than  theirs  ?  The  will  is  the  same,  though 
it  is  frustrated  by  His  throne  in  heaven. 
Nay,  it  is  you  that  are  more  impious  than 
the  Jew.  He  lifted  his  stone  against  the 
Body,  you  lift  yours  against  the  Spirit ;  he 
as  he  thought,  against  man,  you  against  God  ; 
he  against  a  sojourner  on  earth,  you  against 
Him  that  sits  upon  the  throne  of  majesty ; 
he  against  One  Whom  he  knew  not,  you 
against  Him  Whom  you  confess;   he  against 

*  St.  John  x.  31—33- 


the  mortal  Christ,  you  against  the  Judge  of 
the  universe.  The  Jew  says,  Being  Man  ;  you 
say,  '  Being  a  creature.'  You  and  he  join  in 
the  cry,  Makest  Thyself  God,  with  the  same 
insolence  of  blasphemy.  You  deny  that  He 
is  God  begotten  of  God ;  you  deny  that  He 
is  the  Son  by  a  true  birth  ;  you  deny  that  His 
words,  /  and  the  Father  are  One,  contain  the 
assertion  of  one  and  the  same  nature  in  Both. 
You  foist  upon  us  in  His  stead  a  modern, 
a  strange,  an  alien  god  ;  you  make  Him  God 
of  another  kind  from  the  Father,  or  else  not 
God  at  all,  as  not  subsisting  by  a  birth 
from  God. 

24.  The  mystery  contained  in  those  words, 
/  and  the  Father  are  One,  moves  you  to  wrath. 
The  Jew  answered,  Thou,  being  a  man  makest 
Thyself  God ;    your  blasphemy  is  a  match  for 
his  : — '  Thou,  being  a  creature,  makest  Thyself 
God.'     You  say,   in  effect,   '  Thou  art  not  a 
Son   by  birth,  Thou  art   not    God    in   truth ; 
Thou     art    a    creature,    excelling    all    other 
creatures.     But    Thou  wast  not  born    to    be 
God,   for  I  refuse  to  believe  that  the  incor- 
poreal God  gave  birth  to  Thy  nature.     Thou 
and    the    Father   are   not  One.     Nay    more. 
Thou   art   not   the   Son,    Thou   art    not    like 
God,  Thou  art  not  God.'     The  Lord  had  His 
answer  for  the  Jews;    an  answer  that  meets 
the  case  of  your  blasphemy  even  better  than 
it  met  theirs : — Is  it  not  written  in  the  Law, 
I  said,    Ye  are  gods  ?    If,  therefore,  He  called 
them  gods,  unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came, 
and  the  Scripture  cannot  be  broken,  say  ye  of 
Me,  Whom  the  Father  hath  sanctified  and  sent 
into  this  world,  that  I  have  blasphemed,  because 
I  said  I  am  the  Son  of  God  ?     If  I  do  not  the 
works  of  the   Father,  believe   Me  not ;    but  if 
I  do,  a?id  ye  ivill  not  believe  Me,  believe  the 
works,    that  ye   may   know    and  be  sure   that 
the  Father  is  in   Me,  and  I  in  Him  9.     The 
matter    of    this    reply   was   dictated    by    that 
of  the  blasphemous  attack  upon  Him.     The 
accusation  was  that  He,  being  a  man,  made 
Himself  God.     Their  proof  of  this  allegation 
was  His  own  statement,  /  and  the  Father  are 
One.     He  therefore  sets  Himself  to  prove  that 
the    Divine    nature,    which    is    His    by    birth, 
gives   Him  the   right  to  assert  that   He  and 
the  Father  are  One.     He  begins  by  exposing 
the  absurdity,  as  well  as  the  insolence,  of  such 
a    charge   as    that    of   making    Himself   God,. 
though  He  was  a  man.     The  Law  had  con- 
ferred  the    title   upon    holy   men ;    the   word 
of  God,  from  which  there  is  no  appeal,  had 
given  its  sanction   to  the  public    use    of   the 
name.     What    blasphemy,    then,    could    there 
be  in  the  assumption  of  the  title  of  Son  of 

9  St.  John  x.  34—38. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   VII. 


129 


God  by  Him  Whom  the  Father  had  sancti- 
fied and  sent  into  the  world  ?  The  unalter- 
able record  of  the  Word  of  God  has  confirmed 
the  title  to  those  to  whom  the  Law  assigned 
it.  There  is  an  end,  therefore,  of  the  charge 
that  He,  being  a  man,  makes  Himself  God, 
when  the  Law  gives  the  name  of  gods  to 
those  who  are  confessedly  men.  And  further, 
it*  other  men  may  use  this  name  without 
blasphemy,  there  can  obviously  be  no  blas- 
phemy in  its  use  by  the  Man  Whom  the 
Father  has  sanctified, — and  note  here  that 
throughout  this  argument  He  calls  Himself 
Man,  for  the  Son  of  God  is  also  Son  of  Man — 
since  He  excels  the  rest,  who  yet  are  guilty 
of  no  irreverence  in  styling  themselves  gods. 
He  excels  them,  in  that  He  has  been  hallowed 
to  be  the  Son,  as  the  blessed  Paul  says,  who 
teaches  us  of  this  sanctification  : —  Which  He 
had  promised  afore  by  His  prophets  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  concerning  His  Son,  Which 
was  made  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to 
the  flesh,  and  was  appointed  to  be  the  Son  of 
God  with  power,  according  to  the  spirit  of 
sanctif  cation  x.  Thus  the  accusation  of  blas- 
phemy on  His  part,  in  making  Himself  God, 
falls  to  the  ground.  For  the  Word  of  God 
has  conferred  this  name  upon  many  men ; 
and  He,  Who  was  sanctified  and  sent  by 
the  Father,  did  no  more  than  proclaim  Him- 
self the  Son  of  God. 

25.  There  remains,  I  conceive,  no  possi- 
bility of  doubt  but  that  the  words,  /  and  the 
Father  are  One,  were  spoken  with  regard  to 
the  nature  which  is  His  by  birth.  The  Jews 
had  rebuked  Him  because  by  these  words 
He,  being  a  man,  made  Himself  God.  The 
course  of  His  answer  proves  that,  in  this 
/  and  the  Father  are  One,  He  did  profess 
Himself  the  Son  of  God,  first  in  name,  then 
in  nature,  and  lastly  by  birth.  For  /  and 
Father  are  the  names  of  substantive  Beings ; 
One  is  a  declaration  of  Their  nature,  namely, 
that  it  is  essentially  the  same  in  Both  ;  are 
forbids  us  to  confound  Them  together  ;  are 
one,  while  forbidding  confusion,  teaches  that 
the  unity  of  the  Two  is  the  result  of  a  birth. 
Now  all  this  truth  is  drawn  out  from  that 
name,  the  Son  of  God,  which  He  being  sancti- 
fied by  the  Father,  bestows  upon  Himself; 
a  name,  His  right  to  which  is  confirmed  by 
His  assertion,  /  and  the  Father  are  One.  For 
birth  cannot  confer  any  nature  upon  the  off- 
spring other  than  that  of  the  parent  from 
whom  that  offspring  is  born. 

26.  Once  more,  God  the  Only-begotten  has 
summed  up  for  us,  in  words  of  His  own,  the 
whole  revealed  mystery  of  the  faith.     When 


1  Rom.  i.  1 


He  had  given  His  answer  to  the  charge  that 
He,  being  a  man,  made  Himself  God,  He 
determined  to  shew  that  His  words,  I  and  the 
Father  are  One,  are  a  clear  and  necessary 
conclusion  ;  and  therefore  He  thus  pursued 
His  argument ; —  Ye  say  that  I  have  blasphemed, 
because  I  said,  I  am  the  Son  of  God.  If  I  do 
not  the  works  of  the  Father,  believe  Me  not ; 
but  if  I  do,  and  ye  will  not  believe  Me,  believe 
the  works,  that  ye  may  know  and  be  sure  that 
the  Father  is  in  Me,  and  I  in  the  Father. 
After  this,  heresy  that  still  persists  in  its 
course  perpetrates  a  wilful  outrage  in  con- 
scious despair;  the  assertion  of  unbelief  is 
deliberate  shamelessness.  They  who  make 
it  take  pride  in  folly  and  are  dead  to  the  faith, 
for  it  is  not  ignorance,  but  madness,  to  con- 
tradict this  saying.  The  Lord  had  said,  /  and 
the  Father  are  One ;  and  the  mystery  of  His 
birth,  which  He  revealed,  was  the  unity  in 
nature  of  Father  and  Son.  Again,  when  He 
was  accused  for  claiming  the  Divine  nature, 
He  justified  His  claim  by  advancing  a  reason; 
— If  I  do  not  the  works  of  the  Father,  believe 
Me  not.  We  are  not  to  believe  His  assertion 
that  He  is  the  Son  of  God,  unless  He  does 
His  Father's  works.  Hence  we  see  that  His 
birth  has  given  Him  no  new  or  alien  nature, 
for  His  doing  of  the  Father's  works  is  to  be 
the  reason  why  we  must  believe  that  He  is 
the  Son.  What  room  is  there  here  for  adop- 
tion, or  for  leave  to  use  the  name,  or  for 
denial  that  He  was  born  from  the  nature  of 
God,  when  the  proof  that  He  is  God's  Son 
is  that  He  does  the  works  which  belong  to 
the  Father's  nature?  No  creature  is  equal 
or  like  to  God,  no  nature  external  to  His 
is  comparable  in  might  to  Him  ;  it  is  only 
the  Son,  born  from  Himself,  Whom  we  can 
without  blasphemy  liken  and  equal  to  Him. 
Nothing  outside  Himself  can  be  compared 
to  God  without  insult  to  His  august  majesty. 
If  any  being,  not  born  from  God's  self,  can 
be  discovered  that  is  like  Him  and  equal  to 
Him  in  power,  then  God,  in  admitting  a  part- 
ner to  share  His  throne,  forfeits  His  pre- 
eminence. No  longer  is  God  One,  for  a 
second,  indistinguishable  from  Himself,  has 
arisen.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  insult 
in  making  His  own  true  Son  His  equal.  For 
then  that  which  is  like  Him  is  His  own  ;  that 
which  is  compared  with  Him  is  born  from 
Himself;  the  Power  that  can  do  His  own 
works  is  not  external  to  Him.  Nay  more, 
it  is  an  actual  heightening  of  His  glory,  that 
He  has  begotten  Omnipotence,  and  yet  not 
severed  that  Omnipotent  nature  from  Him- 
self. The  Son  performs  the  Father's  works, 
and  on  that  ground  demands  that  we  should 
believe  that   He  is  God's  Son.     This  is  no 


VOL.  IX. 


K 


i-30 


DE   TRINITATE. 


claim  of  mere  arrogance ;  for  He  bases  it 
upon  His  works,  and  bids  us  examine  them. 
And  He  bears  witness  that  these  works  are 
not  His  own,  but  His  Father's.  He  would 
not  have  our  thoughts  distracted  by  the  splen- 
dour of  the  deeds  from  the  evidence  for  His 
birth.  And  because  the  Jews  could  not  pene- 
trate the  mystery  of  the  Body  which  He  had 
taken,  the  Humanity  born  of  Mary,  and  recog- 
nise the  Son  of  God,  He  appeals  to  His  deeds 
for  confirmation  of  His  right  to  the  name ; — 
But  if  I  do  them,  and  ye  will  not  believe  Me, 
believe  the  works.  First,  He  would  not  have 
them  believe  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God,  ex- 
cept on  the  evidence  of  God's  works  which 
He  does.  Next,  if  He  does  the  works,  yet 
seems  unworthy,  in  His  bodily  humility,  to 
bear  the  Divine  name,  He  demands  that 
they  shall  believe  the  works.  Why  should 
the  mystery  of  His  human  birth  hinder  our 
recognition  of  His  birth  as  God,  when  He 
that  is  Divinely  born  fulfils  every  Divine  task 
by  the  agency  of  that  Manhood  which  He  has 
assumed  ?  If  we  believe  not  the  Man,  for  the 
works'  sake,  when  He  tells  us  that  He  is  the 
Son  of  God,  let  us  believe  the  works  when 
they,  which  are  beyond  a  doubt  the.  works 
of  God,  are  manifestly  wrought  by  the  Son 
of  God.  For  the  Son  of  God  possesses,  in 
virtue  of  His  birth,  everything  that  is  God's  ; 
and  therefore  the  Son's  work  is  the  Father's 
work  because  His  birth  has  not  excluded  Him 
from  that  nature  which  is  His  source  and 
wherein  He  abides,  and  because  He  has  in 
Himself  that  nature  to  which  He  owes  it  that 
He  exists  eternally. 

27.  And  so  the  Son,  Who  does  the  Father's 
works  and  demands  of  us  that,  if  we  believe 
not  Him,  at  least  we  believe  His  works,  is 
bound  to  tell  us  what  the  point  is  as  to  which 
we  are  to  believe  the  works.  And  He  does 
tell  us  in  the  words  which  follow : — But  if 
I  do,  and  ye  will  not  believe  Me,  believe  the 
ivorks,  that  ye  may  knozv  and  be  sure  that  the 
Father  is  in  Me,  and  I  in  Him.  It  is  the 
same  truth  as  is  contained  in  I  am  the  Son  of 
God,  and  /  and  the  Father  are  One.  This  is 
the  nature  which  is  His  by  birth;  this  the 
mystery  of  the  saving  faith,  that  we  must  not 
divide  the  unity,  nor  separate  the  nature  from 
the  birth,  but  must  confess  that  the  living  God 
was  in  truth  born  from  the  living  God.  God, 
Who  is  Life,  is  not  a  Being  built  up  of  various 
and  lifeless  portions;  He  is  Power,  and  not 
compact  of  feeble  elements,  Light,  inter- 
mingled with  no  shades  of  darkness,  Spirit, 
that  can  harmonise  with  no  incongruities.  All 
that  is  within  Him  is  One;  what  is  Spirit  is 
Light  and  Power  and  Life,  and  what  is  Life 
is  Light  and  Power  and  Spirit.     He  Who  says, 


/  am,  and  I  change  not2,  can  suffer  neither 
change  in  detail  nor  transformation  in  kind.  , 
For  these  attributes,  which  I  have  named,  are 
not  attached  to  different  portions  of  Him,  but 
meet  and  unite,  entirely  and  perfectly,  in  the 
whole  being  of  the  living  God.  He  is  the 
living  God,  the  eternal  Power  of  the  living 
Divine  nature;  and  that  which  is  born  from 
Him,  according  to  the  mysterious  truth  which 
He  reveals,  could  not  be  other  than  living. 
For  when  He  said,  As  the  living  Father  hath 
sent  Me,  and  I  live  through  the  Father*,  He 
taught  that  it  is  through  the  living  Father  that 
He  has  life  in  Himself.  And,  moreover,  when 
He  said,  For  as  the  Father  hath  life  in  Himself, 
so  hath  He  given  to  the  Son  also  to  have  life  in 
Himself*,  He  bore  witness  that  life,  to  the 
fullest  extent,  is  His  gift  from  the  living  God. 
Now  if  the  living  Son  was  born  from  the 
living  Father,  that  birth  took  place  without 
a  new  nature  coming  into  existence.  Nothing 
new  comes  into  existence  when  the  Living  is 
begotten  by  the  Living ;  for  life  was  not  sought 
out  from  the  non-existent  to  receive  birth ; 
and  Life,  which  receives  its  birth  from  Life, 
must  needs,  because  of  that  unity  of  nature 
and  because  of  the  mysterious  event  of  that 
perfect  and  ineffable  birth,  live  always  in  Him 
that  lives  and  have  the  life  of  the  Living  in 
Himself. 

28.  I  call  to  mind  that,  at  the  beginning 
of  our  treatise5,  I  gave  the  warning  that  human 
analogies  correspond  imperfectly  to  their  Di- 
vine counterparts,  yet  that  our  understanding 
receives  a  real,  if  incomplete,  enlightenment 
by  comparing  the  latter  with  visible  types. 
And  now  I  appeal  to  human  experience  in 
the  matter  of  birth,  whether  the  source  of 
their  children's  being  remain  not  within  the 
parents.  For  though  the  lifeless  and  ignoble 
matter,  which  sets  in  motion  the  beginnings 
of  life,  pass  from  one  parent  into  the  other, 
yet  these  retain  their  respective  natural  forces. 
They  have  brought  into  existence  a  nature 
one  with  their  own,  and  therefore  the  begetter 
is  bound  up  with  the  existence  of  the  begot- 
ten ;  and  the  begotten,  receiving  birth  through 
a  force  transmitted,  yet  not  lost,  by  the  be- 
getter, abides  in  that  begetter.  This  may  suf- 
fice as  a  statement  of  what  happens  in  a 
human  birth.  It  is  inadequate  as  a  parallel 
to  the  perfect  birth  of  God  the  Only-begotten  ; 
for  humanity  is  born  in  weakness  and  from 
the  union  of  two  unlike  natures,  and  main- 
tained in  life  by  a  combination  of  lifeless  sub- 
stances. Again,  humanity  does  not  enter  at 
once  into  the  exercise  of  its  appointed  life, 


•  Mai.  iii.  6.  3  St.  John  vi.  57.  4  lb.  r.  16. 

S  Book  i.  I  19,  iv.  g  2,  vi.  |  9. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   VII. 


131 


and  never  fully  lives  that  life,  being  always 
encumbered  with  a  multitude  of  members 
which  decay  and  are  insensibly  discarded. 
In  God,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Divine  life 
is  lived  in  the  fullest  sense,  for  God  is  Life  ; 
and  from  Life  nothing  that  is  not  truly  living 
can  be  born.  And  His  birth  is  not  by  way 
of  emanation  but  results  from  an  act  of  power. 
Thus,  since  God's  life  is  perfect  in  its  inten- 
sity, and  since  that  which  is  born  from  Him 
is  perfect  in  power,  God  has  the  power  of 
giving  birth  but  not  of  suffering  change.  His 
nature  is  capable  of  increase6,  not  of  diminu- 
tion, for  He  continues  in,  and  shares  the  life 
of,  that  Son  to  Whom  He  gave  in  birth  a 
nature  like  to,  and  inseparable  from,  His  own. 
And  that  Son,  the  Living  born  from  the  Living, 
is  not  separated  by  the  event  of  His  birth  from 
the  nature  that  begat  Him. 

29.  Another  analogy  which  casts  some  light 
upon  the  meaning  of  the  faith  is  that  of  fire, 
as  containing  fire  in  itself  and  as  abiding  in 
fire.  Fire  contains  the  brightness  of  light, 
the  heat  which  is  its  essential  nature,  the 
property  of  destroying  by  combustion  the 
flickering  inconstancy  of  flame.  Yet  all  the 
while  it  is  fire,  and  in  all  these  manifestations 
there  is  but  one  nature.  Its  weakness  is  that 
it  is  dependent  for  its  existence  upon  inflam- 
mable matter,  and  that  it  perishes  with  the 
matter  on  which  it  has  lived.  A  comparison 
with  fire  gives  us,  in  some  measure,  an  insight 
into  the  incomparable  nature  of  God  ;  it  helps 
us  to  believe  in  the  properties  of  God  that 
we  find  them,  to  a  certain  extent,  present  in 
an  earthly  element.  I  ask,  then,  whether  in 
fire  derived  from  fire  there  is  any  division  or 
separation.  When  one  flame  is  kindled  from 
another,  is  the  original  nature  cut  off  from  the 
derived,  so  as  not  to  abide  in  it  ?  Does  it 
not  rather  follow  on,  and  dwell  in  the  second 
flame  by  a  kind  of  increase,  as  it  were  by 
birth  ?  For  no  portion  has  been  cut  off  from 
the  nature  of  the  lirst  flame,  and  yet  there 
is  light  from  light.  Does  not  the  first  flame 
live  on  in  the  second,  which  owes  its  exist- 
ence, though  not  by  division,  to  the  first  ? 
Does  not  the  second  still  dwell  in  the  first, 
from  which  it  was  not  cut  off;  from  which 
it  went  forth,  retaining  its  unity  with  the  sub- 
stance to  which  its  nature  belongs  ?  Are  not 
the  two  one,  when  it  is  physically  impossible 
to  derive  light  from  light  by  division,  and 
logically  impossible  to  distinguish  between 
them  in  nature. 

30.  These  illustrations,  I  repeat,  must  only 
be  used  as  aids  to  apprehension  of  the  faith, 
not  as  standards  of  comparison  for  the  Divine 


'  Cf.  the  next  section. 


majesty.  Our  method  is  that  of  using  bodily 
instances  as  a  clue  to  the  invisible.  Reverence 
and  reason  justify  us  in  using  such  help,  which 
we  find  used  in  God's  witness  to  Himself, 
while  yet  we  do  not  aspire  to  find  a  parallel 
to  the  nature  of  God.  But  the  minds  of 
simple  believers  have  been  distressed  by  the 
mad  heretical  objection  that  it  is  wrong  to 
accept  a  doctrine  concerning  God  which  needs, 
in  order  to  become  intelligible,  the  help  of 
bodily  analogies.  And  therefore,  in  accord- 
ance with  that  word  of  our  Lord  which  we 
have  already  cited,  That  which  is  born  of  the 
flesh  is  flesh,  bat  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit 
is  Spirit  t,  we  have  thought  it  expedient,  since 
God  is  Spirit,  to  give  to  these  comparisons 
a  certain  place  in  our  argument.  By  so  doing 
we  shall  avert  from  God  the  charge  that  He 
has  deceived  us  in  using  these  analogies ; 
shewing,  as  we  have  done,  that  such  illus- 
trations from  the  nature  of  His  creatures  en- 
able us  to  grasp  the  meaning  of  God's  self- 
revelation  to  us. 

31.  We  see  how  the  living  Son  of  the  living 
Father,  He  Who  is  God  from  God,  reveals 
the  unity  of  the  Divine  nature,  indissolubly 
One  and  the  same,  and  the  mystery  of  His 
birth  in  these  words,  I  and  the  Father  are  One. 
Because  the  seeming  arrogance  of  them  en- 
gendered a  prejudice  against  Him,  He  made 
it  more  clear  that  He  had  spoken  in  the  con- 
scious possession  of  Divinity  by  saying,  Ye  say 
that  I  have  blasphemed  because  I  said,  I  am  the 
Son  of  God;  thus  shewing  that  the  oneness 
of  His  nature  with  that  of  God  was  due  to 
birth  from  God.  And  then,  to  clench  their 
faith  in  His  birth  by  a  positive  assertion,  and 
to  guard  them,  at  the  same  time,  from  imagin- 
ing that  the  birth  involves  a  difference  of 
nature,  He  crowns  His  argument  with  the 
words,  Believe  the  works,  that  the  Father  is  in 
Me,  and  I  in  the  Father.  Does  His  birth, 
as  here  revealed,  display  His  Divinity  as  not 
His  by  nature,  as  not  His  own  by  right? 
Each  is  in  the  Other ;  the  birth  of  the  Son 
is  from  the  Father  only;  no  alien  or  unlike 
nature  has  been  raised  to  Godhead  and  sub- 
sists as  God.  God  from  God,  eternally  abiding, 
owes  His  Godhead  to  none  other  than  God. 
Import,  if  you  see  your  opportunity,  two  gods 
into  the  Church's  faith  ;  separate  Son  from 
Father  as  far  as  you  can,  consistently  with  the 
birth  which  you  admit;  yet  still  the  Father 
is  in  the  Son,  and  the  Son  is  in  the  Father, 
and  this  by  no  interchange  of  emanations  but 
by  the  perfect  birth  of  the  living  nature.  Thus 
you  cannot  add  together  God  the  Father  and 
God  the  Son,  and  count  Them  as  two  Gods, 


7  St.  John  ii.  6. 


K  2 


132 


DE   TRINITATE. 


for  They  Two  are  One  God.  You  cannot 
confuse  Them  together,  for  They  Two  are  not 
One  Person.  And  so  the  Apostolic  faith  re- 
jects two  gods  ;  for  it  knows  nothing  of  two 
Fathers  or  two  Sons.  In  confessing  the  Father 
it  confesses  the  Son  ;  it  believes  in  the  Son 
in  believing  in  the  Father.  For  the  name  of 
Father  involves  that  of  Son,  since  without 
having  a  son  none  can  be  a  father.  Evidence 
of  the  existence  of  a  son  is  proof  that  there 
has  been  a  father,  for  a  son  cannot  exist 
except  from  a  father.  When  we  confess  that 
God  is  One  we  deny  that  He  is  single;  for 
the  Son  is  the  complement  of  the  Father,  and 
to  the  Father  the  Son's  existence  is  due.  But 
birth  works  no  change  in  the  Divine  nature  ; 
both  in  Father  and  in  Son  that  nature  is  true 
to  its  kind.  And  the  right  expression  for  us 
of  this  unity  of  nature  is  the  confession  that 
They,  being  Two  by  birth  and  generation,  are 
One  God,  not  one  Person. 

32.   We  will  leave  it  to  him  to  preach  two 
Gods,  who  can  preach  One  God  without  con- 
fessing the  unity  :  he  shall  proclaim  that  God 
is  solitary,  who  can  deny  that  there  are  two 
Persons,   Each  dwelling  in  the  Other  by  the 
power  of  Their   nature  and    the  mystery   of 
birth  given  and  received.     And  that  man  may 
assign  a  different  nature  to  Each  of  the  Two, 
who  is  ignorant  that  the  unity  of  Father  and 
of  Son  is  a  revealed  truth.     Let  the  heretics 
blot  out  this  record  of  the  Son's  self-revelation, 
7"  in  the  Father  and  the  Father  in  Me ;  then, 
and  not  till  then,  shall  they  assert  that  there 
are  two  Gods,  or  one  God  in  loneliness.    There 
is  no  hint  of  more  natures  than  one  in  what 
we  are  told  of  Their  possession   of  the   one 
Divine  nature.     The  truth  that  God  is  from 
God  does  not  multiply  God  by  two ;   the  birth 
destroys    the    supposition   of  a   lonely   God. 
And  again,  because  They  are  interdependent 
They  form  an  unity ;  and  that  They  are  inter- 
dependent is  proved  by  Their  being  One  from 
One.     For   the   One,   in   begetting  the   One, 
conferred    upon    Him    nothing    that   was   not 
His  own ;   and  the   One,  in  being  begotten, 
received   from    the    One    only    what    belongs 
to  one.      Thus   the   apostolic   faith,   in   pro- 
claiming  the    Father,   will   proclaim    Him   as 
One   God,    and    in    confessing    the  Son    will 
confess    Him    as   One   God ;    since   one  and 
the  same  Divine  nature  exists   in   Both,  and 
because,  the  Father  being  God  and  the  Son 
being  God,  and  the  one  name  of  God  expressing 
the  nature  of  Both,  the  term  '  One  God  '  signi- 
fies the  Two.    God  from  God,  or  God  in  God, 
does   not  mean  that  there  are  two  Gods,  for 
God  abides,    One   from    One,   eternally  with 
the  one    Divine  nature  and  the  one   Divine 
name;  nor  does  God  dwindle  down  to  a  single 


Person,   for  One  and   One  can   never  be  in 

solitude. 

33.  The   Lord    has    not    left    in    doubt   or 
obscurity  the  teaching  conveyed  in  this  great 
mystery;    He  has  not  abandoned  us  to  lose 
our  way  in   dim   uncertainty.      Listen  to  Him 
as  He  reveals  the  full  knowledge  of  this  faith 
to  His  Apostles; — I  am  the  Way  and  the  Truth 
and  the  Life  ;  no  man  comcth  unto  the  FatJier 
but  through  Me.     If  ye  knoiv  Me,  ye  know  My 
Father  also  ;   and  from  henceforth  ye  shall  know 
Him,  afid  have  seen  Him.     Philip  saith  unto 
Him,  Lord,  shew  us  the  Father,  and  it  sufficeth 
us.    Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Have  I  been  so  Ions 
time  with  you,   and  ye  have  not  known  Me, 
Philip  ?    He  that  hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the 
Father  also.     Hoiv  say  est  thou,  Shew  us   tic 
Father  ?  Dost  thou  not  believe  Me,  that  L  am 
in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  is  in  Me  ?     The 
words  tha+  L  speak  unto  you  L speak  not  of  My- 
self, but  the  Father  that  dwelleth  in  Me,  He 
doeth  His  works.     Believe  Me,  that  L  am  in 
the  Father,   and  the  Father   in   Me;   or   else 
believe  for  the  very  works'  sakes.     He   WTho 
is  the  Way   leads    us    not   into   by-paths    or 
trackless  wastes  :   He  Who  is  the  Truth  mocks 
us  not  with  lies  ;  He  Who  is  the  Life  betrays 
us  not  into  delusions  which  are  death.     He 
Himself  has  chosen  these  winning  names  to 
indicate  the  methods  which  He  has  appointed 
for  our  salvation.     As  the  Way,  He  will  guide 
us  to  the  Truth  ;  the  Truth  will  establish  us 
in  the  Life.     And  therefore  it  is  all-important 
for  us  to  know  what  is  the  mysterious  mode, 
which  He  reveals,  of  attaining  this  life.     No 
man    cometh   to   the   Father  but  through  Me. 
The  way  to  the   Father  is  through   the  Son. 
And    now  we  must   enquire   whether   this   is 
to  be  by  a  course  of  obedience  to  His  teach- 
ing, or  by  faith  in  His  Godhead.     For  it  is 
conceivable  that  our  way  to  the  Father  may 
be  through  adherence  to  the  Son's  teaching, 
rather  than  through   believing  that  the  God- 
head of  the  Father  dwells  in  the  Son.     And 
therefore  let  us,  in  the   next  place,  seek  out 
the  true  meaning  of  the  instruction  given  us 
here.     For  it  is  not  by  cleaving  to  a  precon- 
ceived opinion,  but  by  studying  the  force  cf 
the  words,  that  we  shall  enter  into  possession 
of  this  faith. 

34.  The  words  which  follow  those  last  cited 
are,  Lf  ye  know  Me,  ye  know  My  Father  also. 
It  is  the  Man,  Jesus  Christ,  Whom  they  be- 
hold. How  can  a  knowledge  of  Him  be 
a  knowledge  of  the  Father?  For  the  Apostles 
see  Him  wearing  the  aspect  of  that  human 
nature  which  belongs  to  Him ;  but  God  is 
not   encumbered   with   body  and   flesh,   and 

*  St.  John  xiv.  6 — 11. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   VII. 


132 


is  incognisable  by  those  who  dwell  in  our 
weak  and  fleshly  body.  The  answer  is  given 
by  the  Lord,  Who  asserts  that  under  the  flesh, 
which,  in  a  mystery,  He  had  taken,  His 
Father's  nature  dwells  within  Him.  He  sets 
the  facts  in  their  due  order  thus  ; — If  ye  know 
Me,  ye  know  My  Father  also  ;  and  from  hence- 
forth ye  shall  know  Him,  and  have  seen  Him. 
He  makes  a  distinction  between  the  time  of 
sight,  and  the  time  of  knowledge.  He  says 
that  from  henceforth  they  shall  know  Him, 
Whom  they  had  already  seen;  and  so  shall 
possess,  from  the  time  of  this  revelation  on- 
ward, the  knowledge  of  that  nature,  on  which, 
in  Him,  they  long  had  gazed. 

35.  But  the   novel    sound  of  these  words 
disturbed  the  Apostle  Philip.     A  Man  is  be- 
fore their  eyes ;  this  Man  avows  Himself  the 
Son  of  God,  and  declares  that  when  they  have 
known  Him  they  will  know  the  Father.     He 
tells  them  that  they  have  seen  the  Father,  and 
that,  because  they  have  seen  Him,  they  shall 
know  Him  hereafter.     This  truth  is  too  broad 
for  the  grasp   of  weak  humanity;  their  faith 
fails    in    the    presence    of   these    paradoxes. 
Christ   says   that   the  Father  has  been  seen 
already  and   shall  now  be  known ;   and  this, 
although  sight,  is  knowledge.     He  says   that 
if  the  Son  has  been  known,  the  Father  has 
been  known  also ;  and  this  though  the  Son 
has  imparted  knowledge  of  Himself  through 
the  bodily  senses  of  sight  and  sound,  while 
the  Father's  nature,  different  altogether  from 
that  9  of  the  visible  Man,  which  they  know, 
could  not  be  learnt  from  their  knowledge  of 
the   nature  of  Him  Whom   they  have  seen. 
He  has  also  often  borne  witness  that  no  man 
has  seen  the  Father.     And  so  Philip  broke 
forth,  with  the  loyalty  and  confidence  of  an 
Apostle,  with  the  request,  Lord,  shew  us  the 
Father,  and  it  sufficeth  us.     He  was  not  tam- 
pering with  the  faith  ;   it  was  but  a  mistake 
made  in  ignorance.     For  the  Lord  had  said 
that  the  Father  had  been  seen  already  and 
henceforth  should  be  known ;  but  the  Apostle 
had  not  understood  that  He  had  been  seen. 
Accordingly  he  did  not  deny  that  the  Father 
had  been   seen,  but  asked  to  see  Him.     He 
did  not  ask  that  the  Father  should  be  unveiled 
to  his  bodily  gaze,  but  that  he  might  have 
such   an   indication   as  should  enlighten  him 
concerning  the  Father  Who  had  been   seen. 
For  he  had  seen  the  Son  under  the  aspect 
of  Man,  but  cannot  understand  how  he  could 
thereby  have  seen   the   Father.     His  adding, 
And  it  sufficeth  us,  to  the  prayer,  Lord,  shew  us 
the  Father,  reveals  clearly  that  it  was  a  mental, 
not  a  bodily  vision  of  the  Father  which  he 

9  Reading  ai  ea. 


desired.  He  did  not  refuse  faith  to  the  Lord's 
words,  but  asked  for  such  enlightenment  to 
his  mind  as  should  enable  him  to  believe ; 
for  the  fact  that  the  Lord  had  spoken  was 
conclusive  evidence  to  the  Apostle  that  faith 
was  his  duty.  The  consideration  which  moved 
him  to  ask  that  the  Father  might  be  shewn, 
was  that  the  Son  had  said  that  He  had  been 
seen,  and  should  be  known  because  He  had 
been  seen.  There  was  no  presumption  in 
this  prayer  that  He,  Who  had  already  been 
seen,  should  now  be  made  manifest. 

36.  And  therefore  the  Lord  answered  Philip 
thus  ; — Have  I  been  so  long  time  with  you,  and 
ye  have  not  known  Me,  Philip  ?  He  rebukes 
the  Apostle  for  defective  knowledge  of  Him- 
self; for  previously  He  had  said  that  when 
He  was  known  the  Father  was  known  also. 
But  what  is  the  meaning  of  this  complaint 
that  for  so  long  they  had  not  known  Him  ? 
It  means  this ;  that  if  they  had  known  Him, 
they  must  have  recognised  in  Him  the  God- 
head which  belongs  to  His  Father's  nature. 
For  His  works  were  the  peculiar  works  of 
God.  He  walked  upon  the  waves,  com- 
manded the  winds,  manifestly,  though  none 
could  tell  how,  changed  the  water  into  wine 
and  multiplied  the  loaves,  put  devils  to  flight, 
healed  diseases,  restored  injured  limbs  and 
repaired  the  defects  of  nature,  forgave  sins 
and  raised  the  dead  to  life.  And  all  this  He 
did  while  wearing  flesh  ;  and  He  accompanied 
the  works  with  the  assertion  that  He  was  the 
Son  of  God.  Hence  it  is  that  He  justly  com- 
plains that  they  did  not  recognise  in  His 
mysterious  human  birth  and  life  the  action 
of  the  nature  of  God,  performing  these  deeds 
through  the  Manhood  which  He  had  assumed. 

37.  And  therefore  the  Lord  reproached 
them  that  they  had  not  known  Him,  though 
He  had  so  long  been  doing  these  works,  and 
answered  their  prayer  that  He  would  shew 
them  the  Father  by  saying,  He  that  hath  seen 
Me  hath  seen  the  Father  also.  He  was  not 
speaking  of  a  bodily  manifestation,  of  percep- 
tion by  the  eye  of  flesh,  but  by  that  eye  of 
which  He  had  once  spoken; — Say  not  ye, 
There  are  yet  four  months,  and  then  cometh 
harvest  ?  Behold,  I  say  unto  you,  Lift  up  your 
eyes  and  look  on  the  fields ;  for  they  are  white 
to  harvest1-.  The  season  of  the  year,  the  fields 
white  to  harvest  are  allusions  equally  incom- 
patible with  an  earthly  and  visible  prospect. 
He  was  bidding  them  lift  the  eyes  of  their 
understanding  to  contemplate  the  bliss  of  the 
final  harvest.  And  so  it  is  with  His  present 
words,  He  that  hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the 
Father  also.      It   was   not   the   carnal    body, 

*  St.  John  iv.  35. 


134 


DE   TRINITATE. 


which  He  had  received  by  birth  from  the 
Virgin,  that  could  manifest  to  them  the  image 
and  likeness  of  God.  The  human  aspect  which 
He  wore  could  be  no  aid  towards  the  mental 
vision  of  the  incorporeal  God.  But  God  was 
recognised  in  Christ,  by  such  as  recognised 
Christ  as  the  Son  on  the  evidence  of  the 
powers  of  His  Divine  nature;  and  a  recog- 
nition of  God  the  Son  produces  a  recognition 
of  God  the  Father.  For  the  Son  is  in  such 
a  sense  the  Image,  as  to  be  One  in  kind  with 
the  Father,  and  yet  to  indicate  that  the  Father 
is  His  Origin.  Other  images,  made  of  metals 
or  colours  or  other  materials  by  various  arts, 
reproduce  the  appearance  of  the  objects  which 
they  represent.  Yet  can  lifeless  copies  be  put 
on  a  level  with  their  living  originals  ?  Painted 
or  carved  or  molten  effigies  with  the  nature 
which  they  imitate  ?  The  Son  is  not  the 
Image  of  the  Father  after  such  a  fashion  as 
this ;  He  is  the  living  Image  of  the  Living. 
The  Son  that  is  born  of  the  Father  has  a 
nature  in  no  wise  different  from  His ;  and, 
because  His  nature  is  not  different,  He  pos- 
sesses the  power  of  that  nature  which  is  the 
same  as  His  own.  The  fact  that  He  is  the 
Image  proves  that  God  the  Father  is  the 
Author  of  the  birth  of  the  Only-begotten, 
Who  is  Himself  revealed  as  the  Likeness  and 
Image  of  the  invisible  God.  And  hence  the 
likeness,  which  is  joined  in  union  with  the 
Divine  nature,  is  indelibly  His,  because  the 
powers  of  that  nature  are  inalienably  His 
own. 

38.  Such  is  the  meaning  of  this  passage, 
Have  I  been  so  long  time  with  you,  and  ye  have 
not  known  Me,  Philip  1  He  that  hath  seen  Me 
hath  seen  the  Father  also.  How  sayest  thou, 
Shew  us  the  Father?  Dost  thou  ?iot  believe 
Me,  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father 
is  in  Mel  It  is  only  the  Word  of  God,  of 
Whom  we  men  are  enabled,  in  our  discourse 
concerning  Divine  things,  to  reason.  All  else 
that  belongs  to  the  Godhead  is  dark  and  diffi- 
cult, dangerous  and  obscure.  If  any  man 
propose  to  express  what  is  known  in  other 
words  than  those  supplied  by  God,  he  must 
inevitably  either  display  his  own  ignorance, 
or  else  leave  his  readers'  minds  in  utter  per- 
plexity. The  Lord,  when  He  was  asked  to 
shew  the  Father,  said,  He  that  hath  seen  Me 
hath  seen  the  Father  also.  He  that  would  alter 
this  is  an  antichrist,  he  that  would  deny  it 
is  a  Jew,  he  that  is  ignorant  a  Pagan.  If  we 
find  ourselves  in  difficulty,  let  us  lay  the  fault 
to  our  own  reason  ;  if  God's  declaration  seem 
involved  in  obscurity,  let  us  assume  that  our 
want  of  faith  is  the  cause.  These  words  state 
with  precision  that  God  is  not  solitary,  and 
yet  that  there  are  no  differences  within   the 


Divine  nature.  For  the  Father  is  seen  in  the 
Son,  and  this  could  be  the  case  neither  if  He 
were  a  lonely  Being,  nor  yet  if  He  were  unlike 
the  Son.  It  is  through  the  Son  that  the 
Father  is  seen :  and  this  mystery  which  the 
Son  reveals  is  that  They  are  One  God,  but 
not  one  Person.  What  other  meaning  can 
you  attach  to  this  saying  of  the  Lord's,  He 
that  hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the  Father  also  ? 
This  is  no  case  of  identity ;  the  use  of  the 
conjunction  also  shews  that  the  Father  is 
named  in  addition  to  the  Son.  These  words, 
The  Father  also,  are  incompatible  with  the 
notion  of  an  isolated  and  single  Person.  No 
conclusion  is  possible  but  that  the  Father  was 
made  visible  through  the  Son,  because  They 
are  One  and  are  alike  in  nature.  And,  lest 
our  faith  in  this  regard  should  be  left  in  any 
doubt,  the  Lord  proceeded,  Hoiv  sayest  thou, 
Shew  us  the  Father?  The  Father  had  been 
seen  in  the  Son;  how  then  could  men  be 
ignorant  of  the  Father?  What  need  could 
there  be  for  Him  to  be  shewn? 

39.  Again,  the  unity  of  Begetter  and  Be- 
gotten, manifested  in  sameness  of  nature  and 
true  oneness  of  kind,  proves  that  the  Father 
was  seen  in  His  true  nature.  And  this  is 
shewn  by  the  Lord's  next  words,  Believe  ye  tiot 
that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in 
Me?  In  no  other  words  than  these,  which 
the  Son  has  used,  can  the  fact  be  stated  that 
Father  and  Son,  being  alike  in  nature,  are 
inseparable.  The  Son,  Who  is  the  Way  and 
the  Truth  and  the  Life,  is  not  deceiving  us 
by  some  theatrical  transformation  of  names 
and  aspects,  when  He,  while  wearing  Manhood, 
styles  Himself  the  Son  of  God.  He  is  not 
falsely  concealing  the  fact  that  He  is  God  the 
Father 2 ;  He  is  not  a  single  Person  3  Who 
hides  His  features  under  a  mask,  that  we  may 
imagine  that  Two  are  present.  He  is  not 
a  solitary  Being,  now  posing  as  His  own  Son, 
and  again  calling  Himself  the  Father;  trick- 
ing out  one  unchanging  nature  with  varying 
names.  Far  removed  from  this  is  the  plain 
honesty  of  the  words.  The  Father  is  the 
Father,  and  the  Son  is  the  Son.  But  these 
names,  and  the  realities  which  they  represent, 
contain  no  innovation  upon  the  Divine  nature, 
nothing  inconsistent,  nothing  alien.  For  the 
Divine  nature,  being  true  to  itself,  persists  in 
being  itself;  that  which  is  from  God  is  God. 
The  Divine  birth  imports  neither  diminution 
nor  difference  into  the  Godhead,  for  the  Son 
is  born  into,  and  subsists  with,  a  nature  that 
is  within  the  Divine  nature  and  is  like  to  it, 
and  the  Father  sought  out  no  alien  element 


2  Subellianism. 

3  Personalis  occurs  here  lor  the  first  time  ;  persona  is  found  ia 
iii.  23,  v.  26. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   VII. 


135 


to  be  mingled  in  the  nature  of  His  Only- 
begotten  Son,  but  endowed  Him  with  all 
things  that  are  His  own,  and  this  without  loss 
to  the  Giver.  And  thus  the  Son  is  not  desti- 
tute of  the  Divine  nature,  for,  being  God,  He 
is  from  God  and  from  none  other ;  and  He 
is  not  different  from  God,  but  is  indeed  no- 
thing else  than  God,  for  that  which  is  begotten 
from  God  is  the  Son,  and  the  Son  only,  and 
the  Divine  nature,  in  receiving  birth  as  a  Son, 
has  not  forfeited  its  Divinity.  Thus  the  Father 
is  in  the  Son,  the  Son  is  in  the  Father,  God 
is  in  God.  And  this  is  not  by  the  combination 
of  two  harmonious,  though  different,  kinds  of 
being,  nor  by  the  incorporating  power  of  an 
ampler  substance  exercised  upon  a  lesser ;  for 
the  properties  of  matter  make  it  impossible 
that  things  which  enclose  others  should  also 
be  enclosed  by  them.  It  is  by  the  birth  of 
living  nature  from  living  nature.  The  sub- 
stance remains  the  same,  birth  causes  no  de- 
terioration in  the  Divine  nature ;  God  is  not 
born  from  God  to  be  ought  else  than  God. 
Herein  is  no  innovation,  no  estrangement,  no 
division.  It  is  sin  to  believe  that  Father  and 
Son  are  two  Gods,  sacrilege  to  assert  that 
Father  and  Son  are  one  solitary  God,  blas- 
phemy to  deny  the  unity,  consisting  in  same- 
ness of  kind,  of  God  from  God. 

40.  Lest  they,  whose  faith  conforms  to  the 
Gospel,  should  regard  this  mystery  as  some- 
thing vague  and  obscure,  the  Lord  has  ex- 
pounded it  in  this  order ; — Dost  thou  not 
believe  Me,  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the 
Father  is  in  Me  ?  The  words  that  I  speak  unto 
you  I  speak  not  of  Myself,  but  the  Father  that 
dioelleth  in  Me,  He  doeth  His  works.  In  what 
other  words  than  these  could,  or  can,  the  pos- 
session of  the  Divine  nature  by  Father  and 
Son  be  declared,  consistently  with  prominence 
for  the  Son's  birth?  When  He  says,  The 
words  that  I  speak  unto  you  I  speak  not  of 
Myself,  He  neither  suppresses  His  personality, 
nor  denies  His  Sonship,  nor  conceals  the 
presence  in  Himself  of  His  Father's  Divine 
nature.  While  speaking  of  Himself — and  that 
He  does  so  speak  is  proved  by  the  pronoun 
/ — He  speaks  as  abiding  in  the  Divine  sub- 
stance; while  speaking  not  of  Himself,  He 
bears  witness  to  the  birth  which  took  place 
in  Him  of  God  from  God  His  Father.  And 
He  is  inseparable  and  indistinguishable  in 
unity  of  nature  from  the  Father;  for  He 
speaks,  though  He  speaks  not  of  Himself. 
He  Who  speaks,  though  He  speak  not  of 
Himself,  necessarily  exists,  inasmuch  as  He 
speaks ;  and,  inasmuch  as  He  speaks  not  of 
Himself,  He  makes  it  manifest  that  His  words 
are  not  His  own.  For  He  has  added,  But 
the  Father  that  dwelleth  in  Me,  He  doeth  His 


works.  That  the  Father  dwells  in  the  Son 
proves  that  the  Father  is  not  isolated  and 
alone ;  that  the  Father  works  through  the 
Son  proves  that  the  Son  is  not  an  alien  or 
a  stranger.  There  cannot  be  one  Person  only, 
for  He  speaks  not  of  Himself;  and,  con- 
versely, They  cannot  be  separate  and  divided 
when  the  One  speaks  through  the  voice  of  the 
Other.  These  words  are  the  revelation  of 
the  mystery  of  Their  unity.  And  again,  They 
Two  are  not  different  One  from  the  Other, 
seeing  that  by  Their  inherent  nature  Each 
is  in  the  Other;  and  They  are  One,  seeing 
that  He,  Who  speaks,  speaks  not  of  Himself, 
and  He,  Who  speaks  not  of  Himself,  yet  does 
speak.  And  then,  having  taught  that  the 
Father  both  spoke  and  wrought  in  Him,  the 
Son  establishes  this  perfect  unity  as  the  rule 
of  our  faith  ; — But  the  Father  that  dwelleth  in 
Me,  He  doeth  His  works.  Believe  Me,  that 
J  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  Me  ;  or 
else  believe  for  the  very  works'  sake.  The 
Father  works  in  the  Son ;  but  the  Son  also 
works  the  works  of  His  Father. 

41.  And  so,  lest  we  should  believe  and  say 
that  the  Father  works  in  the  Son  through  His 
own  omnipotent  energy,  and  not  through  the 
Son's  possession,  as  His  birthright,  of  the 
Divine  nature,  Christ  says,  Believe  Me,  that 
I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  Me. 
What  means  this,  Believe  Mel  Clearly  it  refers 
back  to  the  previous,  Shew  us  the  Father. 
Their  faith— that  faith  which  had  demanded 
that  the  Father  should  be  shewn — is  confirmed 
by  this  command  to  believe.  He  was  not 
satisfied  with  saying,  He  that  hath  seen  Me 
hath  seen  the  Father  also.  He  goes  further, 
and  expands  our  knowledge,  so  that  we  can 
contemplate  the  Father  in  the  Son,  remember- 
ing meanwhile  that  the  Son  is  in  the  Father. 
Thus  He  would  save  us  from  the  error  of 
imagining  a  reciprocal  emanation  of  the  One 
into  the  Other,  by  teaching  Their  unity  in  the 
One  nature  through  birth  given  and  received. 
The  Lord  would  have  us  take  Him  at  His 
word,  lest  our  hold  upon  the  faith  be  shaken 
by  His  condescension  in  assuming  Humanity. 
If  His  flesh,  His  body,  His  passion  seem  to 
make  His  Godhead  doubtful,  let  us  at  least 
believe,  on  the  evidence  of  the  works,  that 
God  is  in  God  and  God  is  from  God,  and  that 
They  are  One.  For  by  the  power  of  Their 
nature  Each  is  in  the  Other.  The  Father 
loses  nothing  that  is  His  because  it  is  in  the 
Son,  and  the  Son  receives  His  whole  Sonship 
from  the  Father.  Bodily  natures  are  not 
created  after  such  a  fashion  that  they  mu- 
tually contain  each  other,  or  possess  the  per- 
fect unity  of  one  abiding  nature.  In  their 
case   it  would    be   impossible   that  an  Only- 


136 


DE   TRINITATE. 


begotten  Son  could  exist  eternally,  inseparable 
from  the  true  Divine  nature  of  His  Father. 
Yet  this  is  the  peculiar  property  of  God  the 
Only-begotten,  this  the  faith  revealed  in  the 
mystery  of  His  true  birth,  this  the  work  of  the 
Spirit's  power,  that  to  be,  and  to  be  in  God, 
is  for  Christ  the  same  thing ;  and  that  this 
being  in  God  is  not  the  presence  of  one  thing 
within  another,  as  a  body  inside  another  body, 
but  that  the  life  and  subsistence  of  Christ 
is  such  that  He  is  within  the  subsisting  God, 
and  within  Him,  yet  having  a  subsistence  of 
His  own.  For  Each  subsists  in  such  wise 
as  not  to  exist  apart  from  the  Other,  since 
They  are  Two  through  birth  given  and  re- 
ceived, and  therefore  only  one  Divine  nature 


exists.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  words, 
I  and  the  Father  are  One,  and  He  that  hath 
seen  Me  hath  seen  the  Father  also,  and  /  in  the 
Father  and  the  Father  in  Me.  They  tell  us 
that  the  Son  Who  is  born  is  not  different  or 
inferior  to  the  Father ;  that  His  possession, 
by  right  of  birth,  of  the  Divine  nature  as  Son 
of  God,  and  therefore  nothing  else  than  God, 
is  the  supreme  truth  conveyed  in  the  mysterious 
revelation  of  the  One  Godhead  in  Father  and 
Son.  And  therefore  the  doctrine  of  the  gener- 
ation of  the  Only-begotten  is  guiltless  of  di- 
theism, for  the  Son  of  God,  in  being  born  into 
the  Godhead,  manifested  in  Himself  the  nature 
of  God  His  Begetter. 


BOOK    VIII. 


i.     The    Blessed  Apostle   Paul   in   laying 
down  the  form  for  appointing  a  bishop  and 
creating  by  his  instructions  an    entirely  new 
type  of  member  of  the  Church,  has  taught  us 
in  the  following  words  the  sum  total   of  all 
the  virtues  perfected  in  him  : — Holding  fast 
the   word  according  to   the   doctrine   of  faith 
that  he  may   be  able  to  exhort  to  sound  doc- 
trine and  to  convict  gainsayers.     For  there  are 
many  unruly  men,  vain  talkers  and  deceivers z. 
For    in    this    way   he    points    out    that   the 
essentials  of  orderliness  and  morals  are  only 
profitable  for  good  service  in   the  priesthood 
if  at   the    same    time    the    qualities    needful 
for  knowing  how  to  teach   and  preserve  the 
faith  are  not  lacking,  for  a  man  is  not  straight- 
way made   a   good  and   useful  priest !  by  a 
merely  innocent  life  or  by  a  mere  knowledge 
of  preaching.     For  an  innocent  minister  is  pro- 
fitable to  himself  alone  unless  he  be  instructed 
also ;  while  he  that  is  instructed  has  nothing 
to  support  his  teaching  unless  he  be  innocent. 
For  the  words  of  the  Apostle  do  not  merely 
fit  a  man  »fo?  his   life  in  this  world  by  pre- 
cepts of  honesty  and  uprightness,  nor  on  the 
other    hand    do   they   educate   in    expertness 
of  teaching  a  mere  Scribe  of  the  Synagogue 
for   the    expounding    of  the   Law :    but    the 
Apostle  is  training  a  leader  of  the   Church, 
perfected  by  the  perfect   accomplishment   of 
the  greatest  virtues,  so  that  his  life  may  be 
adorned  by  his  teaching,  and  his  teaching  by 
his  life.     Accordingly  he  has  provided  Titus, 
the  person  to  whom  his  words  were  addressed, 
with  an  injunction  as  to  the  perfect  practice 
of  religion  to  this  effect : — In  all  things  shewing 
thyself  an    ensample   of  good  works,    teaching 
with  gravity  sound  words  that  cannot  be  con- 
demned, that  the  adversary  may  be  ashamed, 
having  nothing  disgraceful  or  evil  to  say  of  us*. 
This  teacher  of  the  Gentiles  and  elect  doctor 
of  the  Church,  from  his  consciousness  of  Christ 
who  spoke  and  dwelt  within  him,  knew  well 
that    the    infection    of   tainted    speech    would 
spread    abroad,    and    that    the    corruption    of 
pestilent  doctrine  would  furiously  rage  against 
the  sound  form  of  faithful  words,  and  infusing 
the   poison    of  its   own    evil    tenets   into  the 
inmost  soul,  would  creep  on  with  deep-seated 

>  Tit.  i.  9,  i a.  *  i.e.  bishop. 

3  Tit.  ii.  7,  8. 


mischief.     For   it   is    of  these  that  he   says, 
Whose  word  spreadeth  like  a  ca?icer*,  tainting 
the  health  of  the  mind,  invaded   by  it  with 
a   secret   and    stealthy   contagion.     For    this 
reason,   he  wished   that   there   should   be    in 
the   bishop    the    teaching    of    sound    words, 
a  good  conscience  in  the   faith   and  expert- 
ness in  exhortation  to  withstand  wicked  and 
false   and   wild    gainsayings.     For   there   are 
many  who  pretend  to  the  faith,  but  are  not 
subject  to  the  faith,  and  rather  set  up  a  faith 
for  themselves  than  receive  that  which  is  given, 
being  puffed  up  with  the  thoughts  of  human 
vanity,  knowing  the  things  they  wish  to  know 
and  unwilling  to  know  the  things  that  are  true  ; 
since  it  is  a  mark  of  true  wisdom  sometimes  to 
know  what  we  do  not   like.     However,   this 
will-wisdom  is  followed  by  foolish  preaching, 
for   what   is    foolishly  learnt  must    needs    be 
foolishly  preached.     Yet  how  great  an  evil  to 
those    who   hear   is   foolish   preaching,   when 
they   are    misled    into    foolish    opinions    by 
conceit  of  wisdom  !    And  for  this  cause  the 
Apostle  described  them  thus  :   There  are  many 
jinruly,   vain   talkers   and  deceivers s.     Hence 
we   must   utter   our    voice    against    arrogant 
wickedness  and  boastful  arrogance  and  seduc- 
tive boastfulness, — yes,  we  must  speak  against 
such   things    through   the    soundness    of    our 
doctrine,  the  truth  of  our  faith,  the  sincerity 
of  our  preaching,  so  that  we  may  have  the 
purity  of  truth  and  the   truth  of  sound  doc- 
trine. 

2.  The  reason  why  I  have  just  mentioned 
this  utterance  of  the  Apostle  is  this ;  men 
of  crooked  minds  and  false  professions,  void 
of  hope  and  venomous  of  speech,  lay  upon 
me  the  necessity  of  inveighing  against  them, 
because  under  the  guise  of  religion  they  instil 
deadly  doctrines,  infectious  thoughts  and  cor- 
rupt desires  into  the  simple  minds  of  their  hear- 
ers. And  this  they  do  with  an  utter  disregard 
of  the  true  sense  of  the  apostolic  teaching,  so 
that  the  Father  is  not  a  Father,  nor  the  Son, 
Son,  nor  the  Faith,  the  Faith.  In  resisting  their 
wild  falsehoods,  we  have  extended  the  course 
of  our  reply  so  far,  that  after  proving  from 
the  Law  that  God  and  God  were  distinct  and 
that  very  God  was  in  very  God,  we  then 
shewed  from  the  teaching  of  evangelists  and 


a  Tim.  ii.  17. 


S  Tit.  i.  9. 


138 


DE   TRINITATE. 


apostles  the  perfect  and  true  birth  of  the  Only- 
begotten  God ;  and  lastly,  we  pointed  out 
in  the  due  course  of  our  argument  that  the 
Son  of  God  is  very  God,  and  of  a  nature 
identical  with  the  Father's,  so  that  the  faith 
of  the  Church  should  neither  confess  that 
God  is  single  nor  that  there  are  two  Gods. 
For  neither  would  the  birth  of  God  allow  God 
to  be  solitary,  nor  would  a  perfect  birth  allow 
different  natures  to  be  ascribed  to  two  Gods. 
Now  in  refuting  their  vain  speaking  we  have 
a  twofold  object,  first  that  we  may  teach  what 
is  holy  and  perfect  and  sound,  and,  that  our 
discourse  should  not  by  straying  through  any 
by-paths  and  crooked  ways,  and  struggling  out 
of  devious  and  winding  tunnels,  seem  rather 
to  search  for  the  truth  than  declare  it.  Our 
second  object  is  that  we  should  reveal 
to  the  conviction  of  all  men  the  folly  and 
absurdity  of  those  crafty  arguments  of  their 
vain  and  deceitful  opinions  which  are  adapted 
to  a  plausible  show  of  seductive  truth.  For  it 
is  not  enough  for  us  to  have  pointed  out  what 
things  are  good,  unless  they  are  understood 
to  be  absolutely  good  by  our  refutation  of 
their  opposites. 

3.  But  as  it  is  the  nature  and  endeavour  of 
the  good  and  wise  to  prepare  themselves 
wholly  for  securing  either  the  reality  or  the 
opportunity  of  some  precious  hope  lest  their 
preparedness  should  in  some  respects  fall 
short  of  that  which  they  look  for, — so  in  like 
manner  those  who  ar,e  filled  with  the  madness 
of  heretical  frenzy  make  it  their  chiefest 
anxiety  to  labour  with  all  the  ingenuity  of 
their  impiety  against  the  truth  of  pious  faith, 
in  order  that  against  those  who  are  religious 
they  may  establish  their  own  irreligion  ;  that 
they  may  surpass  the  hope  of  our  life  in  the 
hopelessness  of  their  own,  and  that  they  may 
spend  more  thought  over  false  than  we  spend 
over  true  teaching.  For  against  the  pious  as- 
sertions of  our  faith  they  have  carefully  de- 
vised such  objections  of  their  impious  mis- 
belief, as  first  to  ask  whether  we  believe  in 
one  God,  next,  whether  Christ  also  be  God, 
lastly,  whether  the  Father  is  greater  than 
the  Son,  in  order  that  when  they  hear  us 
confess  that  God  is  one  they  may  use  our 
reply  to  shew  that  Christ  cannot  be  God. 
For  they  do  not  enquire  concerning  the  Son 
whether  He  be  God ;  all  they  wish  for  in 
asking  questions  about  Christ  is  to  prove 
that  He  is  not  a  Son,  that  by  entrapping 
men  of  simple  faith  they  may  through  the 
belief  in  one  God  divert  them  from  the  belief 
in  Christ  as  God,  on  the  ground  that  God  is 
no  longer  one  if  Christ  also  must  be  acknow- 
ledged as  God.  Again  with  what  subtlety  of 
worldly  wisdom  do  they  contend  when   they 


say,  If  God  is  one,  whosoever  that  other  shall 
be  shewn  to  be,  he  will  not  be  God.  For  if 
there  be  another  God  He  can  no  longer  be  one, 
since  nature  does  not  permit  that  where  there  is 
another  there  should  be  one  only,  or  that  where 
there  is  only  one  there  should  be  another. 
Afterwards,  when  by  the  crafty  cunning  of  this 
insidious  argument  they  have  misled  those 
who  are  ready  to  believe  and  listen,  they  then 
apply  this  proposition  (as  if  they  could  now 
establish  it  by  an  easier  method),  that  Christ 
is  God  rather  in  name  than  in  nature,  because 
this  generic  name  in  Him  can  destroy  in  none 
that  only  true  belief  in  one  God  :  and  they 
contend  that  through  this  the  Father  is  greater 
than  the  Son,  because,  the  natures  being  dif- 
ferent, as  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father  is 
greater  from  the  essential  character  of  His 
nature  ;  and  that  the  Other  is  only  called  Son 
while  He  is  really  a  creature  subsisting  by  the 
will  of  the  Father,  because  He  is  less  than 
the  Father ;  and  also  that  He  is  not  God,  be- 
cause God  being  one  does  not  admit  of  an- 
other God,  since  he  who  is  less  must  neces- 
sarily be  of  a  nature  alien  from  that  of  the 
person  who  is  greater.  Again,  how  foolish 
they  are  in  their  attempts  to  lay  down  a  law 
for  God  when  they  maintain  that  no  birth  can 
take  place  from  one  single  being,  because 
throughout  the  universe  birth  arises  from  the 
union  of  two  ;  moreover,  that  the  unchange- 
able God  cannot  accord  from  Himself  birth  to 
one  who  is  born,  because  that  which  is  change- 
less is  incapable  of  addition,  nor  can  the 
nature  of  a  solitary  and  single  being  contain 
within  itself  the  property  of  generation. 

4.  We,  on  the  contrary,  having  by  spiritual 
teaching  arrived  at  the  faith  of  the  evangelists 
and  apostles,  and  following  after  the  hope  of 
eternal  blessedness  by  our  confession  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  and  having  proved  out  of 
the  Law  the  mystery  of  God  and  God,  with- 
out overstepping  the  limits  of  our  faith  in  one 
God,  or  failing  to  proclaim  that  Christ  is  God, 
have  adopted  this  method  of  reply  from  the 
Gospels,  that  we  declare  the  true  nativity  of 
Only-begotten  God  from  God  the  Father,  be- 
cause that  through  this  He  was  both  very  God 
and  not  alien  from  the  nature  of  the  One  very 
God,  and  thus  neither  could  His  Godhead  be 
denied  nor  Himself  be  described  as  another 
God,  because  while  the  birth  made  Him  God, 
the  nature  within  him  of  one  God  of  God  did 
not  separate  Him  off  as  another  God.  And 
although  our  human  reason  led  us  to  this  con- 
clusion, that  the  names  of  distinct  natures 
could  not  meet  together  in  the  same  nature, 
and  not  be  one,  where  the  essence  of  each  did 
not  differ  in  kind  ;  nevertheless,  it  seemed 
good  that  we  should  prove  this  from  the  ex- 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   VIII. 


139 


press  sayings  of  our  Lord,  Who  after  frequently 
making  knowr  that  the  God  of  our  faith  and 
hope  was  One,  in  order  to  affirm  the  mystery 
of  the  One  God,  while  declaring  and  proving 
His  own  Godhead,  said,  /  and  the  Father  are 
one ;  and,  If  ye  had  knoivn  Me,  ye  would  have 
known  My  Father  also;  and,  He  that  hath 
seen  Me  hath  seen  the  Father  also;  and,  Be- 
lieve Me,  that  the  Father  is  in  Me,  and  I  in  the 
Father :  or  else  believe  for  the  very  works'  sake  6. 
He  has  signified  His  own  birth  in  the  name 
Fa/her,  and  declares  that  in  the  knowledge  of 
Himself  the  Father  is  known.  He  avows  the 
unity  of  nature,  when  those  who  see  Him  see 
the  Father.  He  bears  witness  that  He  is  in- 
divisible from  the  Father,  when  He  dwells  in 
the  Father  Who  dwells  in  Him.  He  possesses 
the  confidence  of  self-knowledge  when  He 
demands  credit  for  His  words  from  the  opera- 
tions of  His  power.  And  thus  in  this  most 
blessed  faith  of  the  perfect  birth,  every  error, 
as  well  that  of  two  Gods  as  of  a  single  God,  is 
abolished,  since  They  Who  are  one  in  essence 
are  not  one  person,  and  He  Who  is  not  one 
person  with  Him  Who  is,  is  yet  so  free  from 
difference  from  Him  that  They  Two  are  One 
God. 

5.  Now  seeing  that  heretics  cannot  deny 
these  things  because  they  are  so  clearly  stated 
and  understood,  they  nevertheless  pervert 
them  by  the  most  foolish  and  wicked  lies  so 
as  afterwards  to  deny  them.  For  the  words  of 
Christ,  /  and  the  Father  are  oneT,  they  en- 
deavour to  refer  to  a  mere  concord  of  unan- 
imity, so  that  there  may  be  in  them  a  unity  of 
will  not  of  nature,  that  is,  that  they  may  be 
one  not  by  essence  of  being,  but  by  identity 
of  will.  And  they  apply  to  the  support  of 
their  case  the  passage  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  Now  of  the  multitude  of  them  that 
believed  the  heart  and  soul  were  one8,  in  order 
to  prove  that  a  diversity  of  souls  and  hearts 
maybe  united  into  one  heart  and  soul  through 
a  mere  conformity  of  will.  Or  else  they  cite 
those  words  to  the  Corinthians,  Now  he  that 
planteth  and  he  that  ivatereth  are  one  9,  to  shew 
that,  since  They  are  one  in  Their  work  for 
our  salvation,  and  in  the  revelation  of  one 
mystery,  Their  unity  is  an  unity  of  wills. 
Or  again,  they  quote  the  prayer  of  our  Lord 
for  the  salvation  of  the  nations  who  should  be- 
lieve in  Him  :  Neither  for  these  only  do  1  pray, 
but  for  them  also  that  shall  believe  on  Ale 
through  tlieir  Word  ;  that  they  all  may  be  one  ; 
even  as  T/iou,  lather,  art  in  Me,  and  I  in 
Tiiee,  that  they  also  may  be  in  Us  l,  to  shew  that 
since  men  cannot,  so  to  speak,  be  fused  back 


into  God  or  themselves  coalesce  into  one  un- 
distinguished mass,  this  oneness  must  arise 
from  unity  of  will,  while  all  perform  actions 
pleasing  to  God,  and  unite  one  with  another  in 
the  harmonious  accord  of  their  thoughts,  and 
that  thus  it  is  not  nature  which  makes  them 
one,  but  will. 

6.  He  clearly  knows  not  wisdom  who  knows 
not  God.  And  since  Christ  is  Wisdom  he 
must  needs  be  beyond  the  pale  of  wisdom 
who  knows  not  Christ  or  hates  Him  2.  As, 
for  instance,  they  do  who  will  have  it  that  the 
Lord  of  Glory,  and  King  of  the  Universe,  and 
Only-begotten  God  is  a  creature  of  God  and 
not  His  Son,  and  in  addition  to  such  foolish 
lies  shew  a  still  more  foolish  cleverness  in 
the  defence  of  their  falsehood.  For  even 
putting  aside  for  a  little  that  essential  char- 
acter of  unity  which  exists  in  God  the  Father 
and  God  the  Son,  they  can  be  refuted  out  of 
the  very  passages  which  they  adduce. 

7.  For  as  to  those  whose  soul  and  heart  were 
one,  I  ask  whether  they  were  one  through 
faith  in  God?  Yes,  assuredly,  through  faith, 
for  through  this  the  soul  and  heart  of  all  were 
one.  Again  I  ask,  is  the  faith  one  or  is  there 
a  second  faith  ?  One  undoubtedly,  and  that  on 
the  authority  of  the  Apostle  himself,  who  pro- 
claims one  faith  even  as  one  Lord,  and  one 
baptism,  and  one  hope,  and  one  God  3.  If 
then  it  is  through  faith,  that  is,  through  the 
nature  of  one  faith,  that  all  are  one,  how  is  it 
that  thou  dost  not  understand  a  natural  unity 
in  the  case  of  those  who  through  the  nature 
of  one  faith  are  one  ?  For  all  were  born  a«;ain 
to  innocence,  to  immortality,  to  the  knowledge 
of  God,  to  the  faith  of  hope.  And  if  these 
things  cannot  differ  within  themselves  because 
there  is  both  one  hope  and  one  God,  as  also 
there  is  one  Lord  and  one  baptism  of  re- 
generation ;  if  these  things  are  one  rather  by 
agreement  than  by  nature,  ascribe  a  unity  of 
will  to  those  also  who  have  been  born  again 
into  them.  If,  however,  they  have  been  be- 
gotten again  into  the  nature  of  one  life  and 
eternity,  then,  inasmuch  as  their  soul  and 
heart  are  one,  the  unity  of  will  fails  to  ac- 
count for  their  case  who  are  one  by  regene- 
ration into  the  same  nature. 

8.  These  are  not  our  own  conjectures  which 
we  offer,  nor  do  we  falsely  put  together  any  of 
these  things  in  order  to  deceive  the  ears  of 
our  hearers  by  perverting  the  meaning  of 
words  ;  but  holding  fast  the  form  of  sound 
teaching  we  know  and  preach  the  things 
which  are  true.  For  the  Apostle  shews  that 
this  unity  of  the  faithful  arises  from  the  nature 
of  the  sacraments  when  he  writes  to  the  Ga- 


6  St.  John  x.  30 ;  xiv.  7,  9,  10,  n.  7  lb.  x.  30. 

»  Acts  iv.  32.  9  1  Cor.  iii.  8.  »  St.  John  xvii.  20,  21. 


2  Reading  odit. 


3  Eph.  iv.  4,  5. 


140 


DE   TRINITATE. 


latians,  For  as  many  of  you  as  were  baptized 
into  Christ  did  put  on  Christ.  There  is  neither 
Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free, 
there  is  neither  male  nor  female  ;  for  ye  are  all 
one  in  Christ  Jesus*.  That  these  are  one  amid 
so  great  diversities  of  race,  condition,  sex, — is 
it  from  an  agreement  of  will  or  from  the  unity 
of  the  sacrament,  since  these  have  one  baptism 
and  have  all  put  on  one  Christ  ?  What,  there- 
fore, will  a  concord  of  minds  avail  here  when 
they  are  one  in  that  they  have  put  on  one 
Christ  through  the  nature  of  one  baptism  ? 

9.  Or,  again,  since  he  who  plants  and  he 
who  waters  are  one,  are  they  not  one  because, 
being  themselves  born  again  in  one  baptism 
they  form  a  ministry  of  one  regenerating  bap- 
tism ?  Do  not  they  do  the  same  thing?  Are 
they  not  one  in  One  ?  So  they  who  are  one 
through  the  same  thing  are  one  also  by  nature, 
not  only  by  will,  inasmuch  as  they  themselves 
have  been  made  the  same  thing  and  are  mini- 
sters of  the  same  thing  and  the  same  power. 

10.  Now  the  contradiction  of  fools  always 
serves  to  prove  their  folly,  because  with  regard 
to  the  faults  which  they  contrive  by  the  de- 
vices of  an  unwise  or  crooked  understanding 
against  the  truth,  while  the  latter  remains  un- 
shaken and  immovable  the  things  which  are 
opposed  to  it  must  needs  be  regarded  as  false 
and  foolish.  For  heretics  in  their  attempt  to 
deceive  others  by  the  words,  I  and  the  Father 
are  one5,  that  there  might  not  be  acknow- 
ledged in  them  the  unity  and  like  essence 
of  deity,  but  only  a  oneness  arising  from 
mutual  love  and  an  agreement  of  wills — these 
heretics,  I  say,  have  brought  forward  an  in- 
stance of  that  unity,  as  we  have  shewn  above, 
even  from  the  words  of  our  Lord,  That  they 
all  may  be  one,  as  Thou  Father  art  in  Ale,  and 
1  in  Thee,  that  they  also  may  be  in  Us  6.  Every 
man  is  outside  the  promises  of  the  Gospel 
who  is  outside  the  faith  in  them,  and  by  the 
guilt  of  an  evil  understanding  has  lost  all 
simple  hope.  For  to  know  not  what  thou 
believest  demands  not  so  much  excuse  as 
a  reward,  for  the  greatest  service  of  faith  is 
to  hope  for  that  which  thou  knowest  not. 
But  it  is  the  madness  of  most  consummate 
wickedness  either  not  to  believe  things  which 
are  understood  or  to  have  corrupted  the 
sense  in  which  one  believes. 

11.  But  although  the  wickedness  of  man 
can  pervert  his  intellectual  powers,  never- 
theless the  words  retain  their  meaning.  Our 
Lord  prays  to  His  Father  that  those  who 
shall  believe  in  Him  may  be  one,  and  as 
He  is  in  the  Father  and  the  Father  in 
Him,  so    all    may   be   one   in   Them.     Why 


*  Gal.  iii.  27,  28. 


S  St.  John  x.  30. 


6  lb.  xvii.  21. 


dost  thou  bring  in  here  an  identity  of  mind, 
why  a  unity  ot  soul  and  heart  through 
agreement  of  will?  For  there  would  have 
been  no  lack  of  suitable  words  for  our  Lord, 
if  it  were  will  that  made  them  one,  to  have 
prayed  in  this  fashion, — Father,  as  We  are 
one  in  will,  so  may  they  also  be  one  in  will, 
that  we  may  all  be  one  through  agreement. 
Or  could  it  be  that  He  Who  is  the  Word  was 
unacquainted  with  the  meaning  of  words? 
and  that  He  Who  is  Truth  knew  not  how 
to  speak  the  truth  ?  and  He  Who  is  Wisdom 
went  astray  in  foolish  talk?  and  He  Who 
is  Power  was  compassed  about  with  such 
weakness  that  He  could  not  speak  what  He 
wished  to  be  understood?  He  has  clear] v 
spoken  the  true  and  sincere  mysteries  of  the 
faith  of  the  Gospel.  And  He  has  not  only 
spoken  that  we  may  comprehend,  He  has  also 
taught  that  we  may  believe,  saying,  That  thev 
all  may  be  one,  as  Thou  Father  art  in  Ale,  a?id 
I  in  Thee,  that  they  also  may  be  in  Us.  For 
those  first  of  all  is  the  prayer  of  whom  it  is 
said,  That  they  all  may  be  one.  Then  the 
promotion  of  unity  is  set  forth  by  a  pattern 
of  unity,  when  He  says,  as  Thou,  Father,  a>  t 
in  Ale,  and  I  in  Thee,  that  they  also  may  be 
in  Us,  so  that  as  the  Father  is  in  the  Son 
and  the  Son  in  the  Father,  so  through  the 
pattern  of  this  unity  all  might  be  one  in  the 
Father  and  the  Son. 

12.  But  because  it  is  proper  to  the  Father 
alone  and  the  Son  that  They  should  be  one 
by  nature  because  God  is  from  God,  and  the 
Only-begotten  from  the  Unbegotten  can  sub- 
sist in  no  other  nature  than  that  of  His  origin  ; 
so  that  He  Who  was  begotten  should  exist 
in  the  substance  of  His  birth,  and  the  birth 
should  possess  no  other  and  different  truth 
of  deity  than  that  from  which  it  issued;  for 
our  Lord  has  left  us  in  no  doubt  as  to  our 
belief  by  asserting  throughout  the  whole  of  the 
discourse  which  follows  the  nature  of  this  com- 
plete unity.  For  the  next  words  are  these,  That 
the  world  may  believe  that  Thou  didst  send  Ale 7. 
Thus  the  world  is  to  believe  that  the  Son  has 
been  sent  by  the  Father  because  all  who  shall 
believe  in  Him  will  be  one  in  the  Father  and 
the  Son.  And  how  they  will  be  so  we  are 
soon  told, — And  the  glory  which  Thou  hast 
given  Me  I  have  given  unto  thems.  Now 
I  ask  whether  glory  is  identical  with  will, 
since  will  is  an  emotion  of  the  mind  while 
glory  is  an  ornament  or  embellishment  of  na- 
ture. So  then  it  is  the  glory  received  from  the 
Father  that  the  Son  hath  given  to  all  who 
shall  believe  in  Him,  and  certainly  not  will. 
Had  this  been  given,  faith  would  carry  with 


7  St.  John  xvii.  21. 


8  lb.  22. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK  VIII. 


141 


it  no  reward,  for  a  necessity  of  will  attached 
to  us  would  also  impose  faith  upon  us.  How- 
ever He  has  shewn  what  is  effected  by  the 
bestowal  of  the  glory  received,  That  they  may 
be  one,  even  as  We  are  one 9.  It  is  then  with 
this  object  that  the  received  glory  was  be- 
stowed, that  all  might  be  one.  So  now  all 
are  one  in  glory,  because  the  glory  given  is 
none  other  than  that  which  was  received  :  nor 
has  it  been  given  for  any  other  cause  than 
that  all  should  be  one.  And  since  all  are  one 
through  the  glory  given  to  the  Son  and  by 
the  Son  bestowed  upon  believers,  I  ask  how 
can  the  Son  be  of  a  different  glory  from  the 
Father's,  since  the  glory  of  the  Son  brings 
all  that  believe  into  the  unity  of  the  Father's 
glory.  Now  it  may  be  that  the  utterance 
of  human  hope  in  this  case  may  be  somewhat 
immoderate,  yet  it  will  not  be  contrary  to 
faith  ;  for  though  to  hope  for  this  were  pre- 
sumptuous, yet  not  to  have  believed  it  is 
sinful,  for  we  have  one  and  the  same  Author 
both  of  our  hope  and  of  our  faith.  We  will 
treat  of  this  matter  more  clearly  and  at  greater 
length  in  its  own  place,  as  is  fitting.  Yet 
in  the  meantime  it  is  easily  seen  from  our 
present  argument  that  this  hope  of  ours  is 
neither  vain  nor  presumptuous.  So  then 
through  the  glory  received  and  given  all  are 
one.  I  hold  the  faith  and  recognise  the 
cause  of  the  unity,  but  I  do  not  yet  under- 
stand how  it  is  that  the  glory  given  makes 
all  one. 

13.  Now  our  Lord  has  not  left  the  minds 
of  His  faithful  followers  in  doubt,  but  has 
explained  the  manner  in  which  His  nature 
operates,  saying,  That  they  may  be  one,  as 
We  are  one:  I  in  them  and  Thou  in  Me, 
that  they  may  be  perfected  in  one1.  Now 
I  ask  those  who  bring  forward  a  unity  of 
will  between  Father  and  Son,  whether  Christ 
is  in  us  to-day  through  verity  of  nature  or 
through  agreement  of  will.  For  if  in  truth 
the  Word  has  been  made  flesh  and  we  in  very 
truth  receive  the  Word  made  flesh  as  food 
from  the  Lord,  are  we  not  bound  to  believe 
that  He  abides  in  us  naturally,  Who,  born  as 
a  man,  has  assumed  the  nature  of  our  flesh 
now  inseparable  from  Himself,  and  has  con- 
joined the  nature  of  His  own  flesh  to  the 
nature  of  the  eternal  Godhead  in  the  sacra- 
ment by  which  His  flesh  is  communicated 
to  us  ?  For  so  are  we  all  one,  because  the 
Father  is  in  Christ  and  Christ  in  us.  Who- 
soever then  shall  deny  that  the  Father  is 
in  Christ  naturally  must  first  deny  that  either 
he  is  himself  in  Christ  naturally,  or  Christ 
in   him,   because   the   Father  in   Christ   and 


•  St.  John  xvii.  22. 


1  lb.  22,  23. 


Christ  in  us  make  us  one  in  Them.  Hence, 
if  indeed  Christ  has  taken  to  Himself  the 
flesh  of  our  body,  and  that  Man  Who  was 
born  from  Mary  was  indeed  Christ,  and  we 
indeed  receive  in  a  mystery  the  flesh  of  His 
body — (and  for  this  cause  we  shall  be  one, 
because  the  Father  is  in  Him  and  He  in 
us), — how  can  a  unity  of  will  be  maintained, 
seeing  that  the  special  property  of  nature 
received  through  the  sacrament  is  the  sacra- 
ment of  a  perfect  unity2? 

14.  The  words  in  which  we  speak  of  the 
things  of  God  must  be  used  in  no  mere  human 
and  worldly  sense,  nor  must  the  perverseness 
of  an  alien  and  impious  interpretation  be 
extorted  from  the  soundness  of  heavenly  words 
by  any  violent  and  headstrong  preaching.  Let 
us  read  what  is  written,  let  us  understand  what 
we  read,  and  then  fulfil  the  demands  of  a 
perfect  faith.  For  as  to  what  we  say  con- 
cerning the  reality  of  Christ's  nature  within 
us,  unless  we  have  been  taught  by  Him,  our 
words  are  foolish  and  impious.  For  He  says 
Himself,  My  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  My  blood 
is  drink  indeed.  He  that  eateth  My  flesh  and 
drinkeih  My  blood  abideth  in  Ale,  and  I  in 
him*.  As  to  the  verity  of  the  flesh  and  blood 
there  is  no  room  left  for  doubt.  For  now 
both  fromthe  declaration  of  the  Lord  Himself 
and  our  own  faith,  it  is  verily  flesh  and  verily 
blood.  And  these  when  eaten  and  drunk, 
bring  it  to  pass  that  both  we  are  in  Christ 
and  Christ  in  us.  Is  not  this  true  ?  Yet  they 
who  affirm  that  Christ  Jesus  is  not  truly  God 
are  welcome  to  find  it  false.  He  therefore 
Himself  is  in  us  through  the  flesh  and  we 
in  Him,  whilst  together  with  Him  our  own 
selves  are  in  God. 

15.  Now  how  it  is  that  we  are  in  Him 
through  the  sacrament  of  the  flesh  and  blood 
bestowed  upon  us,  He  Himself  testifies,  saying, 
And  the  world  will  no  longer  see  Me,  but  ye 
shall  see  Me  ;  because  I  live  ye  shall  live  also ; 
because  I  am  in  My  Father,  and  ye  in  Me,  and 
I  in  you*.  If  He  wished  to  indicate  a  mere 
unity  of  will,  why  did  He  set  forth  a  kind 
of  gradation  and  sequence  in  the  completion 
of  the  unity,  unless  it  were  that,  since  He  was 
in  the  Father  through  the  nature  of  Deity, 
and  we  on  the  contrary  in  Him  through 
His  birth  in  the  body,  He  would  have  us 
believe  that  He  is  in  us  through  the  mystery 
of  the  sacraments?  and  thus  there  might  be 
taught  a  perfect  unity  through  a  Mediator, 
whilst,  we  abiding  in  Him,  He  abode  in  the 
Father,  and  as  abiding  in  the  Father  abode 


»  If  in  the  Sacrament  we  hold  real  communion  with  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  the  union  of  Father  and  Sou  on  which  it  is  based 
must  be  also  real,  and  not  a  mere  concord  of  will. 

3  St.  John  vi.  55,  56.  *  lb.  xiv.  19,  -*o. 


142 


DE   TRINITATE. 


also  in  us ;  and  so  we  might  arrive  at  unity 
with  the  Father,  since  in  Him  Who  dwells 
naturally  in  the  Father  by  birth,  we  also  dwell 
naturally,  while  He  Himself  abides  naturally 
in  us  also. 

1 6.  Again,  how  natural  this  unity  is  in  us 
He  has  Himself  testified  on  this  wise, — He 
w ho  eatelh  My  flesh  and  drinketh  My  blood 
abideth  in  Me,  and  I  in  him  5.  For  no  man 
shall  dwell  in  Him,  save  him  in  whom  He 
dwells  Himself,  for  the  only  flesh  which  He 
lias  taken  to  Himself  is  the  flesh  of  those  who 
have  taken  His.  Now  He  had  already  taught 
before  the  sacrament  of  this  perfect  unit)', 
saying,  As  the  living  Father  sent  Ale,  and 
I  live  through  the  Father,  so  he  that  eateth  My 
flesh  shall  himself  also  live  through  Me  6.  So 
then  He  lives  through  the  Father,  and  as  He 
lives  through  the  Father  in  like  manner  we 
live  through  His  flesh.  For  all  comparison 
is  chosen  to  shape  our  understanding,  so  that 
we  may  grasp  the  subject  of  which  we  treat 
by  help  of  the  analogy  set  before  us.  This 
is  the  cause  of  our  life  that  we  have  Christ 
dwelling  within  our  carnal  selves  through  the 
flesh,  and  we  shall  live  through  Him  in  the 
same  manner  as  He  lives  through  the  Father. 
If,  then,  we  live  naturally  through  Him  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh,  that  is,  have  partaken 
of  the  nature  of  His  flesh,  must  He  not 
naturally  have  the  Father  within  Himself 
according  to  the  Spirit  since  He  Himself  lives 
through  the  Father?  And  He  lives  through 
the  Father  because  His  birth  has  not  im- 
planted in  Him  an  alien  and  different  nature, 
inasmuch  as  His  very  being  is  from  Him  yet 
is  not  divided  from  Him  by  any  barrier  of  an 
unlikeness  of  nature,  for  within  Himself  He 
has  the  Father  through  the  birth  in  the 
power  of  the  nature. 

17.  I  have  dwelt  upon  these  facts  because 
the  heretics  falsely  maintain  that  the  union 
between  Father  and  Son  is  one  of  will  only, 
and  make  use  of  the  example  of  our  own 
union  with  God,  as  though  we  were  united 
to  the  Son  and  through  the  Son  to  the  Father 
by  mere  obedience  and  a  devout  will,  and 
none  of  the  natural  verity  of  communion  were 
vouchsafed  us  through  the  sacrament  of  the 
Body  and  Blood  ;  although  the  glory  of  the 
Son  bestowed  upon  us  through  the  Son  abiding 
in  us  after  the  flesh,  while  we  are  united  in 
Him  corporeally  and  inseparably,  bids  us 
preach  the  mystery  of  the  true  and  natural 
unity. 

18  So  we  have  made  our  reply  to  the  folly 
of  our  violent  opponents,  merely  to  prove  the 
emptiness  of  their  falsehoods  and  so  prevent 


I  St.  John  vi.  56. 


6  lb.  57- 


them  from  misleading  the  unwary  by  the  error 
of  their  vain  and  foolish  statements.  But  the 
faith  of  the  Gospel  did  not  of  necessity  require 
our  answer.  The  Lord  prayed  on  our  behalf 
for  our  union  with  God,  but  God  keeps  His 
own  unity  and  abides  in  it.  It  is  not  through 
any  mysterious  appointment  of  God  that  they 
are  one,  but  through  a  birth  of  nature,  for 
God  loses  nothing  in  begetting  Him  from 
Himself.  They  are  one,  for  the  things 
which  are  not  plucked  out  of  His  hand  are 
not  plucked  out  of  the  hand  of  the  Father  ?, 
for,  when  He  is  known,  the  Father  is  known, 
for,  when  He  is  seen,  the  Father  is  seen, 
for  what  He  speaks  the  Father  speaks  as 
abiding  in  Him,  for  in  His  works  the 
Father  works,  for  He  is  in  the  Father  and 
the  Father  in  Him8.  This  proceeds  from 
no  creation  but  from  birth ;  it  is  not  brought 
about  by  will  but  by  power;  it  is  no  agree- 
ment of  mind  that  speaks,  it  is  nature;  be- 
cause to  be  created  and  to  be  born  are  not 
one  and  the  same,  any  more  than  to  will  and 
to  be  able ;  neither  is  it  the  same  thing  to 
agree  and  to  abide. 

19.  Thus  we  do  not  deny  a  unanimity 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son, — for  heretics 
are  accustomed  to  utter  this  falsehood,  that 
since  we  do  not  accept  concord  by  itself  as 
the  bond  of  unity  we  declare  Them  to  be  at 
variance.  But  let  them  listen  how  it  is  that 
we  do  not  deny  such  a  unanimity.  The  Father 
and  the  Son  are  one  in  nature,  honour,  power, 
and  the  same  nature  cannot  will  things  that 
are  contrary.  Moreover,  let  them  listen  to 
the  testimony  of  the  Son  as  touching  the 
unity  of  nature  between  Himself  and  the 
Father,  for  He  says,  When  that  advocate  is 
come,  Whom  I  shall  send  to  you  from  the 
Father,  the  Spirit  of  truth  Who  proceedeth 
from  the  Father,  He  shall  testify  of  Me*.  The 
Advocate  shall  come  and  the  Son  shall  send 
Him  from  the  Father,  and  He  is  the  Spirit 
of  truth  Who  proceedeth  from  the  Father. 
Let  the  whole  following  of  heretics  arouse  the 
keenest  powers  of  their  wit ;  let  them  now 
seek  for  what  lies  they  can  tell  to  the  un- 
learned, and  declare  what  that  is  which  the 
Son  sends  from  the  Father.  He  Who  sends 
manifests  His  power  in  that  which  He  sends. 
But  as  to  that  which  He  sends  from  the  Father, 
how  shall  we  regard  it,  as  received  or  sent  forth 
or  begotten  ?  For  His  words  that  He  will 
send  from  the  Father  must  imply  one  or  other 
of  these  modes  of  sending.  And  He  will  send 
from  the  Father  that  Spirit  of  truth  which 
proceedeth  from    the    Father;    He  therefore 


7  St.  John  x.  28,  29.  3  lb.  zir.  j,  g,  10,  1a. 

9  lb.  xr.  26. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   VIII. 


143 


cannot  be  the  Recipient,  since  He  is  revealed 
as  the  Sender.  It  only  remains  to  make  sure 
of  our  conviction  on  the  point,  whether  we 
are  to  believe  an  egress  of  a  co-existent  Being, 
or  a  piocession  of  a  Being  begotten. 

20.    For   the  present    I    forbear  to   expose 
their    licence  of   speculation,    some    of  them 
holding    that    the     Paraclete     Spirit     comes 
from    the    Father    or    from    the    Son.      For 
our  Lord  has  not  left  this  in  uncertainty,  for 
after    these    same    words    He   spoke   thus, — 
/  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but 
ye  cannot  bear  them  nozv.      J  J 'hen  He,  the  Spirit 
of  truth,  is  come,  He  shall  guide  you  into  all 
truth :  for  He  shall  not  speak  from  Himself: 
lut  what  things  soever  He  shall  hear,  these  shall 
He  sfeak ;  and  He  shall  declare  unto  you  the 
things  that  are  to  come.     He  shall  glorify  Me  : 
for  He  shall  receive  of  Mine  and  shall  declai-e 
it  unto  you.     All  things  whatsoever  the  Father 
hath  are  Mine:  therefore  said  I,  He  shall  re- 
ceive of  Mine  and  shall  declare  it  unto  you  \ 
Accordingly  He  receives  from  the  Son,  Who 
is  both  sent  by  Him,  and  proceeds  from  the 
Father.     Now  I  ask  whether  to  receive  from 
the  Son  is  the  same  thing  as  to  proceed  from 
the    Father.     But  if  one   believes   that   there 
is  a  difference  between  receiving  from  the  Son 
and    proceeding    from    the    Father,   surely  to 
receive  from  the  Son  and  to  receive  from  the 
Father  will  be  regarded  as  one  and  the  same 
thing.      For  our   Lord   Himself  says,  Because 
He   shall  receive  of  Mine   and    shall  declare 
it  unto  you.     All  things  whatsoever  the  Father 
hath    are   Mine:    therefore   said  I,   He  shall 
receive  of  Mine  and  shall  declare  it  unto  you. 
That  which  He  will  receive, — whether  it  will 
be    power,    or   excellence,    or    teaching, --the 
Son 
and 


has  said  must  be  received  from  Him, 
again  He  indicates  that  this  same  thing 
must  be  received  from  the  Father.  For  when 
He  says  that  all  things  whatsoever  the  Father 
hath  are  His,  and  that  for  this  cause  He 
declared  that  it  must  be  received  from  His 
own,  He  teaches  also  that  what  is  received 
from  the  Father  is  yet  received  from  Himself, 
because  all  things  that  the  Father  hath  are 
His.  Such  a  unity  admits  no  difference,  nor 
does  it  make  any  difference  from  whom  that 
is  received,  which  given  by  the  Father  is 
described  as  given  by  the  Son.  Is  a  mere 
unity  of  will  brought  forward  here  also  ?  All 
things  which  the  Father  hath  are  the  Son's, 
and  all  things  which  the  Son  hath  are  the 
Father's.  For  He  Himself  saith,  And  all 
Mine  are  Thine,  and  Thine  are  Mine'2.  It 
is  not  yet  the  place  to  shew  why  He  spoke 
thus,  For  He  shall  receive  oj  Aline :    for  this 


points   to   some   subsequent  time,  when  it  is 
revealed  that  He  shall  receive.     Now  at  any 
rate  He  says  that  He  will  receive  of  Himself, 
because  all  things  that  the  Father  had  were 
His.     Dissever  if  thou  canst  the  unity  of  the 
nature,  and  introduce  some  necessary  unlike- 
ness   through   which   the  Son    may   not  exist 
in   unity  of  nature.     For  the    Spirit   of  truth 
proceedeth  from  the  Father  and  is  sent  from 
the  Father  by  the  Son.     All  things  that  the 
Father  hath  are  the  Son's ;  and  for  this  cause 
whatever  He  Who  is  to  be  sent  shall  receive, 
He  shall  receive    from  the  Son,   because  all 
things   that   the    Father   hath    are   the  Son's. 
The  nature  in  all  respects   maintains  its  law, 
and  because  Both  are  One  that  same  Godhead 
is  signified  as  existing  in  Both  through  gener- 
ation and  nativity  ;  since  the  Son  affirms  that 
that  which   the  Spirit  of  truth   shall  receive 
from   the   Father  is  to  be  given  by  Himself. 
So  the  frowardness  of  heretics  must  not  be 
allowed    an    unchecked    licence    of    impious 
beliefs,  in  refusing   to  acknowledge  that  this 
saying  of  the  Lord, — that  because  all  things 
which  the  Father  hath  are  His,  therefore  the 
Spirit  of  truth  shall   receive  of  Him, — is   to 
be  referred  to  unity  of  nature. 

21.  Let  us  listen  to  that  chosen  vessel  and 
teacher  of  the  Gentiles,  when  he  had  already 
commended  the  faith  of  the  people  of  Rome 
because  of  their  understanding  of  the  truth. 
For  wishing   to   teach   the  unity  of  nature  in 
the  case  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  he  speaks 
thus,   But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh  but  in  tlie 
Spirit,  if  indeed  the  Spirit  of  God  is  in  you. 
But  if  any  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he 
is  none  of  His.     But  if  Christ  is  in  you,  the 
body  indeed  is  dead  through  sin,  but  the  Spirit 
is  life  through  righteousness.     But  if  the  Spirit 
of  Him    Who  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead 
dwelleth  in  you;    He    Who  raised  up    Christ 
from  the  dead  shall  also  quicken  your  mortal 
bodies,  because  of  His  Spirit  Who  dwelleth   in 
you  3.     We  are  all  spiritual  if  the  Spirit  of  God 
dwells  in  us.     But  this  Spirit  of  God  is  also 
the  Spirit  of  Christ,  and  though  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  is  in  us,  yet  His  Spirit  is  also   in   us 
Who   raised    Christ   from    the   dead,   and    He 
Who  raised  Christ  from  the  dead  shall  quicken 
our   mortal   bodies   also    on    account  of   His 
Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  us.     We  are  quickened 
therefore   on   account   of  the   Spirit  of  Christ 
that  dwelleth  in  us,  through  Him  Who  raised 
Christ  from  the  dead.     And  since  the  Spirit 
of   Him    Who    raised    Christ    from    the    <lea  1 
dwells  in   us,  and  yet  the  Spirit  of  Christ  is 
in    us,    neveilheless    the    Spirit    Which    is    in 
us  cannot  but  be  the  Spirit  of  God.     Separate, 


1  St.  John  xvi.  12 — 15. 


»  lb.  xvii.  10. 


3  Rom.  viii.  9 — 11  • 


144 


DE   TRINITATE. 


then,  O  heretic,  the  Spirit  of  Christ  from  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  the  Spirit  of  Christ  raised 
from  the  dead  from  the  Spirit  of  God  Which 
raises  Christ  from  the  dead ;  when  the  Spirit 
of  Christ  that  dwelleth  in  us  is  the  Spirit  of 
God,  and  when  the  Spirit  of  Christ  Who  was 
raised  from  the  dead  is  yet  the  Spirit  of  God 
Who  raises  Christ  from  the  dead. 

22.  And  now  I  ask  whether  thou  thinkest 
that  in  the  Spirit  of  God  is  signified  a  nature 
or  a  property  belonging  to  a  nature.  For 
a  nature  is  not  identical  with  a  thing  belonging 
to  it,  just  as  neither  is  a  man  identical  with 
what  belongs  to  a  man,  nor  fire  with  what 
belongs  to  fire  itself,  and  in  like  manner 
God  is  not  the  same  as  that  which  belongs 
to  God. 

23.  For  I  am  aware  that  the  Son  of  God 
is  revealed  under  the  title  Spirit  of  God  in 
order  that  we  may  understand  the  presence 
of  the  Father  in  Him,  and  that  the  term 
Spirit  of  God  may  be  employed  to  indicate 
Either,  and  that  this  is  shewn  not  only  on 
the  authority  of  prophets  but  of  evangelists 
also,  when  it  is  said,  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
is  upon  Me ;  therefore  He  hath  anointed  Me  4. 
And  again,  Behold  My  Servant  Whom  I  have 
chosen,  My  beloved  in  Whom  My  soul  is  well 
pleased,  I  will  put  My  Spirit  upon  Him  s. 
And  when  the  Lord  Himself  bears  witness  of 
Himself,  But  if  I  in  the  Spirit  of  God  cast 
out  devils,  then  has  the  kingdom  of  God  come 
upon  you6.  For  the  passages  seem  without 
any  doubt  to  denote  either  Father  or  Son, 
while  they  yet  manifest  the  excellence  of 
nature. 

24.  For  I  think  that  the  expression  *  Spirit 
of  God '  was  used  with  respect  to  Each,  lest 
we  should  believe  that  the  Son  was  present 
in  the  Father  or  the  Father  in  the  Son  in 
a  merely  corporeal  manner,  that  is,  lest  God 
might  be  thought  to  abide  in  one  position  and 
exist  nowhere  else  apart  from  Himself.  For 
a  man  or  any  other  thing  like  him,  when  he 
is  in  one  place,  cannot  be  in  another,  because 
what  is  in  one  place  is  confined  to  the  place 
where  it  is  :  his  nature  cannot  allow  him  to 
be  everywhere  when  he  exists  in  some  one 
position.  But  God  is  a  living  Force,  of  in- 
finite power,  present  everywhere  and  nowhere 
absent,  and  manifests  His  whole  self  through 
His  own,  and  signifies  that  His  own  are 
nought  else  than  Himself,  so  that  where  they 
are  He  may  be  understood  to  be  Himself. 
Yet  we  must  not  think  that,  after  a  corporeal 
fashion,  when  He  is  in  one  place  He  ceases  to 
be  everywhere,  for  through  His  own  things  He 
is  still  present  in  all  places,  while  the  things 


4  Si.  Luke  iv.  18. 


S  St.  Matt.  xii.  18. 


«  lb.  28. 


which  are  His  are  none  other  than  His  own 
self.  Now  these  things  have  been  said  to 
make  us  understand  what  is  meant  by 
1  nature.' 

25.  Now  I  think  that  it  ought  to  be  clearly 
understood  that  God  the  Father  is  denoted  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  because  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  declared  that  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
was  upon  Him  since  He  anoints  Him  and 
sends  Him  to  preach  the  Gospel.  For  in 
Him  is  made  manifest  the  excellence  of  the 
Father's  nature,  disclosing  that  the  Son  par- 
takes of  His  nature  even  when  born  in  the 
flesh  through  the  mystery  of  this  spiritual 
unction,  since  after  the  birth  ratified  in  His 
baptism  this  intimation  of  His  inherent  Son- 
ship  was  heard  as  a  voice  bore  witness  from 
Heaven  : — Thou  art  My  Son  ;  this  day  have 
I  begotten  TheeT.  For  not  even  He  Himself 
can  be  understood  as  resting  upon  Himself 
or  coming  to  Himself  from  Heaven,  or  as 
bestowing  on  Himself  the  title  of  Son  :  but 
all  this  demonstration  was  for  our  faith,  in 
order  that  under  the  mystery  of  a  complete 
and  true  birth  we  should  recognise  that  the 
unity  of  the  nature  dwells  in  the  Son  Who 
had  begun  to  be  also  man.  We  have  thus 
found  that  in  the  Spirit  of  God  the  Father  is 
designated ;  but  we  understand  that  the  Son 
is  indicated  in  the  same  way,  when  He  says  : 
But  if  I  in  the  Spirit  of  God  cast  out  devils, 
then  has  the  kingdom  of  God  come  upon  you. 
That  is,  He  shews  clearly  that  He,  by  the 
power  of  His  nature,  casts  out  devils,  which 
cannot  be  cast  out  save  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 
The  phrase  '  Spirit  of  God '  denotes  also  the 
Paraclete  Spirit,  and  that  not  only  on  the 
testimony  of  prophets  but  also  of  apostles, 
when  it  is  said  : —  This  is  that  which  was  spoken 
through  the  Prophet,  It  shall  come  to  pass  on 
the  last  day,  saith  the  Lord,  1  will  pour  out  of 
My  Spirit  upon  all  flesh,  and  their  sons  and 
their  daughters  shall  prophesy*.  And  we  learn 
that  all  this  prophecy  was  fulfilled  in  the  case 
of  the  Apostles,  when,  after  the  sending  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  they  all  spake  with  the  tongues 
of  the  Gentiles. 

26.  Now  we  have  of  necessity  set  these 
things  forth  with  this  object,  that  in  whatever 
direction  the  deception  of  heretics  betakes 
itself,  it  might  yet  be  kept  in  check  by  the 
boundaries  and  limits  of  the  gospel  truth. 
For  Christ  dwells  in  us,  and  where  Christ 
dwells  God  dwells.  And  when  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  dwells  in  us,  this  indwelling  means 
not  that  any  other  Spirit  dwells  in  us  than 
the  Spirit  of  God.  But  if  it  is  understood 
that  Christ   dwells   in   us   through   the  Holy 


7  Ps.  iL  8,  cf.  St.  Matt.  iii.  17,  &c.  •  Act!  ii.  »6,  17. 


ON   THE  TRINITY.  — BOOK   VIII. 


M5 


Spirit,  we  must  yet  recognise  this  Spirit  of 
God  as  also  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  And  since 
the  nature  dwells  in  us  as  the  nature  of  one 
substantive  Being,  we  must  regard  the  na- 
ture of  the  Son  as  identical  with  that  of 
the  Father,  since  the  Holy  Spirit  Who  is  both 
the  Spirit  of  Christ  and  the  Spirit  of  God 
is  proved  to  be  a  Being  of  one  nature.  I  ask 
now,  therefore,  how  can  They  fail  to  be  one 
by  nature  ?  The  Spirit  of  Truth  proceeds  from 
the  Father,  He  is  sent  by  the  Son  and  receives 
from  the  Son.  But  all  things  that  the  Father 
hath  are  the  Son's,  and  for  this  cause  He 
Who  receives  from  Him  is  the  Spirit  of  God, 
but  at  the  same  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ. 
The  Spirit  is  a  Being  of  the  nature  of  the  Son, 
but  the  same  Being  is  of  the  nature  of  the 
Father.  He  is  the  Spirit  of  Him  Who  raised 
Christ  from  the  dead ;  but  this  is  no  other 
than  the  Spirit  of  Christ  Who  was  so  raised. 
The  nature  of  Christ  and  of  God  must  differ 
in  some  respect  so  as  not  to  be  the  same, 
if  it  can  be  shewn  that  the  Spirit  which  is 
of  God  is  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ  also. 

27.  But  you,  heretic,  as  you  wildly  rave 
and  are  driven  about  by  the  Spirit  of  your 
deadly  doctrine  the  Apostle  seizes  and 
constrains,  establishing  Christ  for  us  as  the 
foundation  of  our  faith,  being  well  aware  also 
of  that  saying  of  our  Lord,  If  a  man  love  Me, 
he  will  also  keep  My  word;  and  My  Father 
will  love  him,  and  We  will  come  unto  him,  and 
make  Our  abode  with  him  9.  For  by  this  He 
testified  that  while  the  Spirit  of  Christ  abides 
in  us  the  Spirit  of  God  abides  in  us,  and  that 
the  Spirit  of  Him  that  was  raised  from  the 
dead  differs  not  from  the  Spirit  of  Him  that 
raised  Him  from  the  dead.  For  they  come 
and  dwell  in  us  :  and  I  ask  whether  they  will 
come  as  aliens  associated  together  and  make 
Their  abode,  or  in  unity  of  nature?  Nay, 
the  teacher  of  the  Gentiles  contends  that  it 
is  not  two  Spirits — the  Spirits  of  God  and  of 
Christ — that  are  present  in  those  who  believe, 
but  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  is  also  the 
Spirit  of  God.  This  is  no  joint  indwelling,  it 
is  one  indwelling  :  yet  an  indwelling  under  the 
mysterious  semblance  of  a  joint  indwelling,  for 
it  is  not  the  case  that  two  Spirits  indwell,  nor 
is  one  that  indwells  different  from  the  other. 
For  there  is  in  us  the  Spirit  of  God  and  there 
is  also  in  us  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  and  when 
the  Spirit  of  Christ  is  in  us  there  is  also  in 
us  the  Spirit  of  God.  And  so  since  what  is 
of  God  is  also  of  Christ,  and  what  is  of  Christ 
is  also  of  God,  Christ  cannot  be  anything 
different  from  what  God  is.  Christ,  therefore, 
is  God,  one  Spirit  with  God. 


28.  Now  the  Apostle  asserts  that  those 
words  in  the  Gospel,  /  and  the  Father  are 
one$\  imply  unity  of  nature  and  not  a  solitary 
single  Being,  as  he  writes  to  the  Corinthians, 
Wherefore  I  give  you  to  understand,  that  no 
man  in  the  Spirit  of  God  calleth  Jesus  ana- 
thema \  Perceivest  thou  now,  O  heretic,  in 
what  spirit  thou  callest  Christ  a  creature  ?  For 
since  they  are  under  a  curse  who  have  served 
the  creature  more  than  the  Creator — in  affirm- 
ing Christ  to  be  a  creature,  learn  what  thou 
art,  since  thou  knowest  full  well  that  the 
worship  of  the  creature  is  accursed.  And 
observe  what  follows,  And  no  one  can  call 
Jesus  Lord,  but  in  the  Holy  Spirit2.  Dost 
thou  perceive  what  is  lacking  to  thee,  when 
thou  deniest  Christ  what  is  His  own  ?  If 
thou  holdest  that  Christ  is  Lord  through  His 
Divine  nature,  thou  hast  the  Holy  Spirit. 
But  if  He  be  Lord  merely  by  a  name  of  adop- 
tion thou  lackest  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  art 
animated  by  a  spirit  of  error  :  because  no  one 
can  call  Jesus  Lord,  but  in  the  Holy  Spirit. 
But  when  thou  sayest  that  He  is  a  creature 
rather  than  God,  although  thou  stylest  Him 
Lord,  still  thou  dost  not  say  that  He  is  the 
Lord.  For  to  thee  He  is  Lord  as  one  of  a  com- 
mon class  and  by  a  familiar  name,  rather  than 
by  nature.     Yet  learn  from  Paul  His  nature. 

29.  For  the  Apostle  goes  on  to  say,  Now 
there  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  there  is  the  same 
Spirit ;  and  there  are  diversities  of  ministrations 
but  one  and  the  same  Lord ;  and  there  are  di- 
versities of  workings  but  the  same  God,  Who 
worketh  all  things  in  all.  But  to  each  one  is 
given  the  manifestation  of  the  Spirit  for  that 
which  profiteth  3.  In  this  passage  before  us  we 
perceive  a  fourfold  statement :  in  the  diversity 
of  gifts  it  is  the  same  Spirit,  in  the  diversity  of 
ministrations  it  is  the  very  same  Lord,  in  the 
diversity  of  workings  it  is  the  same  God,  and 
in  the  bestowal  of  that  which  is  profitable  there 
is  a  manifestation  of  the  Spirit.  And  in  order 
that  the  bestowal  of  what  is  profitable  might 
be  recognised  in  the  manifestation  of  the 
Spirit,  he  continues  :  To  one  indeed  is  given 
through  the  Spirit  the  word  of  wisdom  ;  and  to 
another  the  word  of  knowledge  according  to  the 
same  Spirit ;  to  another  faith  in  the  same  Spirit,; 
to  another  the  gift  of  healing  in  the  same  Spirit ; 
to  another  the  working  of  miracles  ;  to  another 
prophecy  ;  to  another  discerning  of  spirits  ;  to 
another  kinds  of  tongues  ;  to  a?iother  the  inter- 
pretation of  tongues  4. 

30.  And  indeed  that  which  we  called  the 
fourth  statement,  that  is  the  manifestation  of 
the  Spirit  in  the  bestowal  of  what  is  profitable, 


9  St.  John  xiv.  33. 


9*  St.  John  x.  30. 
3  lb.  4-7- 


»  i  Cor.  xii.  3.  *  Ibid. 

4  lb.  8—10. 


VOL.  IX. 


146 


DE   TRINITATE. 


has  a  clear  meaning.    For  the  Apostle  has  enu- 
merated the  profitable  gifts  through  which  this 
manifestation  of  the  Spirit  took  place.    Now  in 
these  diverse  activities  that  Gift  is  set  forth  in 
no   uncertain    light   of  which    our  Lord   had 
spoken  to  the  apostles  when  He  taught  them 
not  to  depart  from  Jerusalem  ;   but  wait,  said 
He,  for  the  promise  of  the  Father  which  ye  heard 
from  My  lips  :  for  John  indeed  baptized  with 
water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  ye  shall  also  receive  not  many  days 
hence5.    And  again  :  But  ye  shall  receive  poiver 
when  the  Holy  Ghost  cometh  upon  you  ;  and  ye 
shall  be  My  witnesses  in  Jerusalem,  and  in  all 
Judata,  and  in  Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost 
part  of  the  earth  6.     He  bids  them  wait  for  the 
promise   of    the   Father   of  which   they   had 
heard  from  His  lips.      We  may  be  sure  that 
here  ?  we  have  a  reference  to  the  Father's  same 
promise.     Hence   it   is   by  these   miraculous 
workings  that  the  manifestation  of  the  Spirit 
takes  place.      For   the   gift    of  the  Spirit  is 
manifest,    where    wisdom    makes     utterance 
and  the  words  of  life  are  heard,  and  where 
there  is  the  knowledge  that  comes  of  God- 
given  insight,  lest  after  the  fashion  of  beasts 
through    ignorance    of   God   we   should   fail 
to    know   the   Author    of    our   life ;     or   by 
faith  in  God,  lest  by  not  believing  the  Gospel 
of  God,  we  should  be  outside  His  Gospel ; 
or  by  the  gift  of  healings,  that  by  the  cure 
of  diseases  we   should    bear  witness   to  His 
grace  Who  bestoweth  these  things ;  or  by  the 
working  of  miracles,  that  what  we  do  may  be 
understood  to  be  the  power  of  God  ,   or  by 
prophesy,  that  through  our  understanding  of 
doctrine  we  might  be  known  to  be  taught  of 
God ;    or   by  discerning   of    spirits,    that   we 
should  not  be  unable  to  tell  whether  any  one 
speaks  with  a  holy  or  a  perverted  spirit ;  or  by 
kinds  of  tongues,  that  the  speaking  in  tongues 
may  be  bestowed  as  a  sign  of  the  gift  of  the 
Holy   Spirit ;     or    by    the    interpretation    of 
tongues,  that  the  faith  of  those  that  hear  may 
not  be  imperilled  through  ignorance,  since  the 
interpreter  of  a  tongue  explains  the  tongue 
to  those  who  are  ignorant  of  it.     Thus  in  all 
these  things  distributed  to  each  one  to  profit 
withal  there  is  the  manifestation  of  the  Spirit, 
the  gift  of  the  Spirit  being  apparent  through 
these  marvellous   advantages  bestowed   upon 
each. 

31.  Now  the  blessed  Apostle  Paul  in  re- 
vealing the  secret  of  these  heavenly  mysteries, 
most  difficult  to  human  comprehension,  has 
preserved  a  clear  enunciation  and  a  carefully 
worded  caution  in  order  to  shew  that  these 
diverse  gifts  are  given  through  the  Spirit  and 


5  Acts  i.  4,  5, 


«  lb.  8. 


1  i.e.  in  1  Cor.  xii.  8f. 


in  the  Spirit  (for  to  be  given  through  the  Spirit 
and  in  the  Spirit  is  not  the  same  thing),  be- 
cause the  granting  of  a  gift  which  is  exercised 
in  the  Spirit  is  yet  bestowed  througn  the  Spirit. 
But  he  sums  up  these  diversities  of  gifts  thus : 
Now   all  these    things    worketh   one   and  the 
same  Spirit,  dividing  to  each  one  as  He  will8. 
Now,  therefore,  I  ask  what  Spirit  works  these 
things,  dividing  to  each  one  according  as  He 
wills  :    is  it  He  by  Whom  or   He  in  Whom 
there  is  this  distribution  of  gifts  9?    But  if  any 
one  shall  dare  to  say  that  it  is  the  same  Person 
which  is  indicated,  the  Apostle  will  refute  so 
faulty  an   opinion,   for   he   says   above,   And 
there  are  diversities  of  workings,  but  the  same 
God  Who  worketh  all  things  in  all.     So  there 
is  one  Who  distributes  and  another  in  Whom 
the  distribution  is  vouchsafed.     Yet  know  that 
it  is  always  God  Who  worketh  all  these  things, 
but  in  such  a  way  that  Christ  works,  and  the 
Son  in  His  working  performs  the  Father's  work. 
And   if  in    the    Holy    Spirit   thou   confessest 
Jesus  to  be  Lord,  understand  the  force  of  that 
threefold  indication  in  the  Apostle's  letter  ;  for- 
asmuch as  in  the  diversities  of  gifts,  it  is  the 
same  Spirit,  and  in  the  diversities  of  ministra- 
tions it  is  the  same  Lord,  and  in  the  diversities 
of  workings  it  is  the  same  God ;    and  again, 
one  Spirit  that  worketh  all  things  distributing 
to  each  according  as  He  will.     And  grasp  the 
idea  if  thou  canst  that  the  Lord  in  the  dis- 
tribution   of  ministrations,   and    God    in    the 
distribution  of  workings,  are  this  one  and  the 
same  Spirit  Who  both  works  and  distributes 
as  He  will ;  because  in  the  distribution  of  gifts 
there  is  one  Spirit,  and  the  same  Spirit  works 
and  distributes. 

32.  But  if  this  one  Spirit  of  one  Divinity, 
one  in  both  God  and  Lord  through  the  mystery 
of  the  birth,  does  not  please  thee,  then  point  out 
to  me  what  Spirit  both  works  and  distributes 
these  diverse  gifts  to  us,  and  in  what  Spirit  He 
does  this.  But,  thou  must  shew  me  nothing 
but  what  accords  with  our  faith,  because  the 
Apostle  shews  us  Who  is  to  be  understood, 
saying,  For  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many 
members,  and  all  the  members  of  the  body,  being 
many,  are  one  body,  so  also  is  Christ'**.  He 
affirms  that  diversities  of  gifts  come  from  one 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  Who  is  the  body  of  all. 
Because  after  he  had  made  known  the  Lord 
in  ministration,  and  made  known  also  God 
in  workings,  he  yet  shews  that  one  Spirit  both 
works  and  distributes  all  these  things,  distri- 


8  1  Cor.  xii    11. 

9  Hilary's  interpretation  of  this  passage  is  not  strictly  Trini- 
tarian. His  view  is  that  there  are  two  Divine  Persons  at  work, 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  that  Both  are  embraced  under  the 
common  name  of  '  Spirit.'  Compare  ii.  30,  and  the  exegesis  of 
St.  John  iv.  24,  which  follows. 

9»  1  Cor.  xii.  12. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    VIII. 


'47 


buting  these  varieties  of  His  gracious  gifts  for 
the  perfecting  of  one  body. 

33.   Unless    perchance    we    think    that    the 

Apostle  did  not  keep  to  the  principle  of  unity 

in  that   he  said,  And  there  are  diversities  of 

ministrations,  and  the  same  Lord,  and  there  are 

diversities  of  workings,  but  the  same  God1.     So 

that  because  he  referred  ministrations  to  the 

Lord  and  workings  to  God,  he  does  not  appear 

to  have  understood  one  and  the  same  Being 

in  ministrations  and  operations.     Learn   how 

these  members  which  minister  are  also  members 

which  work,  when  he  says,  Ye  are  the  body  of 

Christ,  and  of  Him  members  indeed.     For  God 

hath  set  some  in    the    Church,  first  apostles, 

in   whom   is    the   word   of  wisdom ;    secondly 

prophets,  in  whom  is  the  gift  of  knowledge  ; 

thirdly  teachers,   in   whom  is  the   doctrine   of 

faith ;    next  mighty  works,   among   which   are 

the    healing   of  diseases,    the  poiver    to    help, 

governments  by  the  prophets,  and  gifts  of  either 

speaking  or  interpreting  divers  kinds  of  tongues. 

Clearly    these    are    the    Church's    agents    of 

ministry   and   work   of    whom    the    body    of 

Christ  consists ;  and  God  has  ordained  them. 

But  perhaps  thou  maintainest  that  they  have 

not  been  ordained  by  Christ,  because  it  was 

God  Who  ordained  them.    But  thou  shalt  hear 

what  the  Apostle  says  himself:    Now  to  each 

one  of  us  was  the  grace  given  according  to  the 

measure  of  the  gift  of  Christ.     And  again,  He 

that  descended  is  the  same  also  that  ascended 

far  above  all  the  heavens  that  He  might  fill  all 

things.     And  he  gave  same  to  be  apostles ;   and 

some,  prophets ;    and  some,    evangelists ;    and 

some,  pastors  and  teachers  ;   for  the  perfecting 

of  the   saints,  for  the   work  of  ministering'1. 

Are  not  then  the  gifts  of  ministration  Christ's, 

while  they  are  also  the  gifts  of  God  ? 

34.  But  if  impiety  has  assumed  to  itself 
that  because  he  says,  The  same  Lord  and  the 
same  God?,  they  are  not  in  unity  of  nature, 
I  will  support  this  interpretation  with  what 
you  deem  still  stronger  arguments.  For  the 
same  Apostle  says,  But  for  us  there  is  one 
God,  the  Father,  of  Whom  are  all  things,  and 
we  in  Him,  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through 
Whom  are  all  things,  and  we  through  Him  4. 
And  again,  One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism, 
one  God  and  Father  of  all,  Who  is  both  through 
all,  and  in  us  alls.  By  these  words  one  God 
and  one  Lord  it  would  seem  that  to  God  only 
is  attributed,  as  to  one  God,  the  property  of 
being  God ;  since  the  property  of  oneness 
does  not  admit  of  partnership  with  another. 
Verily  how  rare  and  hard  to  attain  are  such 
spiritual  gifts  !    How  truly  is  the  manifestation 


1  1  Cor.  xii.  s,  6. 
3  1  Cor.  xii.  5,  6. 


2  Eph.  iv.  7,  io — 12. 
4  lb.  viii.  6.  S  Eph.  iv.  5,  6. 


of  the  Spirit  seen    in   the   bestowal    of  such 
useful  gifts  !    And  with  reason  has  this  order 
in  the  distribution  of  graces  been  appointed, 
that  the  foremost  should  be  the  word  of  wis- 
dom ;  for  true  it  is,  And  no  one  can  call  Jesus 
Lord  but  in    the   Holy    Spirit6,    because  but 
through  this  word  of  wisdom  Christ  could  not 
be  understood  to  be  Lord ;    that  then  there 
should  follow  next  the  word  of  understanding, 
that  we  might  speak  with  understanding  what 
we  know,  and  might  know  the  word  of  wisdom  ; 
and  that  the  third  gift  should  consist  of  faith, 
seeing  that  those  leading  and  higher  graces 
would  be  unprofitable  gifts  did  we  not  believe 
that    He   is  God.     So  that  in  the  true  sense 
of  this    greatest   and    most    noble   utterance 
of    the    Apostle   no    heretics    possess    either 
the  word  of  wisdom  or  the  word  of  knowledge 
or   the   faith  of  religion,   inasmuch  as   wilful 
wickedness,    being   incapable   of  understand- 
ing,  is  void  of  knowledge   of  the  word  and 
of  genuineness  of  faith.     For  no  one  utters 
what   he   does   not   know;    nor   can   he   be- 
lieve that  which  he  cannot  utter;    and  thus 
when  the  Apostle  preached  one  God,  a  pro- 
selyte as  He  was  from  the  Law,  and  called  to 
the  gospel  of  Christ,  he  has  attained  to  the 
confession  of  a  perfect  faith.     And  lest  the 
simplicity  of  a  seemingly  unguarded  statement 
might    afford    heretics    any    opportunity   for 
denying  through  the  preaching  of  one    God 
the  birth  of  the  Son,  the  Apostle  has  set  forth 
one  God  while  indicating  His  peculiar  attri- 
bute in  these  words,   One  God  the  Father,  of 
Whom  are  all  things,  and  we   in  Him  7,    in 
order   that  He  Who  is  God   might   also   be 
acknowledged    as    Father.     Afterwards,   inas- 
much  as   this   bare   belief  in   one   God   the 
Father   would   not    suffice   for   salvation,    he 
added,    And    one,    our    Lord  Jesus    Christ, 
through  Whom  are  all  things,  and  we  through 
Him,  shewing  that  the  purity  of  saving  faith 
consists  in  the  preaching  of  one  God  and  one 
Lord,  so  that  we  might  believe  in  one  God 
the  Father  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ.     For 
he  knew  full  well  how  our  Lord   had   said, 
For  this  is  the  will  of  My  Father,  that  every 
one  that  sceth  the  Son  and  believeth  on  Him 
should  have  eternal  life8.     But   in   fixing  the 
order  of  the   Church's  faith,   and  basing  our 
faith   upon  the  Father  and  the  Son,  he  has 
uttered  the   mystery   of  that  indivisible   and 
indissoluble  unity  and  faith  in  the  words  one 
God  and  one  Lord. 

35.  First  of  all,  then,  O  heretic  that  hast  no 
part  in  the  Spirit  which  spake  by  the  Apostle, 
learn  thy  folly.  If  thou  wrongly  employest  the 
confession  of  one  God  to  deny  the  Godhead  of 


6  x  Cor.  xii.  3. 


7  lb.  viii.  6. 


8  St.  John  vi.  40. 


L  2 


[45 


DE   TRINITATE. 


Christ,  on  the  ground  that  where  one  God 
exists  He  must  be  regarded  as  solitary,  and 
that  to  be  One  is  characteristic  and  peculiar 
to  Him  Who  is  One, — what  sense  wilt  thou 
assign  to  the  statement  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
one  Lord?  For  if,  as  thou  assertest,  the  fact 
that  the  Father  alone  is  God  has  not  left  to 
Christ  the  possibility  of  Godhead,  it  must 
needs  be  also  according  to  thee  that  the  fact 
of  Christ  being  one  Lord  does  not  leave  God 
the  possibility  of  being  Lord,  seeing  that  thou 
wilt  have  it  that  to  be  One  must  be  the  essen- 
tial property  of  Him  Who  is  One.  Hence 
if  thou  deniest  that  the  one  Lord  Christ  is 
also  God,  thou  must  needs  deny  that  the 
one  God  the  Father  is  also  Lord.  And  what 
will  the  greatness  of  God  amount  to  if  He 
be  not  Lord,  and  the  power  of  the  Lord  if 
He  be  not  God  :  since  it  (viz.,  the  greatness 
or  power)  causes  that  to  be  God  which  is 
Lord,  and  makes  that  Lord  which  is  God  ? 

36.  Now  the  Apostle,  maintaining  the  true 
sense  of  the  Lord's  saying,  I  and  the  Father  are 
one?,  whilst  He  asserts  that  Both  are  One,  sig- 
nifies that  Both  are  One  not  after  the  manner 
of  the  soleness  of  a  single  being,  but  in  the 
unity  of  the  Spirit ;  for  one  God  the  Father 
and  one  Christ  the  Lord,  since  Each  is.  both 
Lord  and  God,  do  not  yet  admit  in  our  creed 
either  two  Gods  or  two  Lords.  So  then 
Each  is  one,  and  though  one,  neither  is  sole. 
We  shall  not  be  able  to  express  the  mystery 
of  the  faith  except  in  the  words  of  the  Apostle. 
For  there  is  one  God  and  one  Lord,  and 
the  fact  that  there  is  one  God  and  one  Lord 
proves  that  there  is  at  once  Lordship  in  God, 
and  Godhead  in  the  Lord.  Thou  canst  not 
maintain  a  union  of  person,  so  making  God 
single  ;  nor  yet  canst  thou  divide  the  Spirit, 
so  preventing  the  Two  from  being  One  \ 
Nor  in  the  one  God  and  one  Lord  wilt  thou 
be  able  to  separate  the  power,  so  that  He 
Who  is  Lord  should  not  also  be  God,  and 
He  Who  is  God  should  not  also  be  Lord. 
For  the  Apostle  in  the  enunciation  of  the 
Names  has  taken  care  not  to  preach  either 
two  Gods  or  two  Lords.  And  for  this  reason 
he  has  employed  such  a  method  of  teaching 
as  in  the  one  Lord  Christ  to  set  forth  also 
one  God,  and  in  the  one  God  the  Father  to 
set  forth  also  one  Lord.  And,  not  to  misguide 
us  into  the  blasphemy  that  God  is  solitary, 
which  would  destroy  the  birth  of  the  Only- 
begotten  God,  he  has  confessed  both  Father 
and  Christ. 

37.  Unless  perchance  the  frenzy  of  utter 
desperation  will  venture  to  rush  to  such 
lengths    that,    inasmuch   as   the    Apostle    has 


9  St.  John  x.  30. 


1  See  $  31,  su/r.,  and  note. 


called  Christ  Lord,  no  one  ought  to  acknow- 
ledge Him  as  aught  else  save  Lord,  and  that 
because  He  has  the  property  of  Lord  He  has 
not  the  true  Godhead.  But  Paul  knows  full 
well  that  Christ  is  God,  for  he  says,  Whose 
are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom  is  Christ,  Who 
is  God  over  all2.  It  is  no  creature  here  who 
is  reckoned  as  God;  nay,  it  is  the  God  of 
things  created  Who  is  God  over  all. 

38.  Now  that  He  Who  is  God  over  all  is 
also  Spirit  inseparable  from  the  Father,  learn 
also  from  that  very  utterance  of  the  Apostle, 
of  which  we  are  now  speaking.  For  when  he 
confessed  one  God  the  Father  from  Whom 
are  all  things,  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
through  Whom  are  all  things  ;  what  difference, 
I  ask,  did  he  intend  by  saying  that  all  things 
are  from  God  and  that  all  things  are  through 
Christ?  Can  He  possibly  be  regarded  as  of 
a  nature  and  spirit  separable  from  Himself, 
He  from  Whom  and  through  Whom  are  all 
things  ?  For  all  things  have  come  into  being 
through  the  Son  out  of  nothing,  and  the 
Apostle  has  referred  them  to  God  the  Father, 
From  Whom  are  all  things,  but  also  to  the  Son, 
through  Whom  are  all  things.  And  I  find  here 
no  difference,  since  by  Each  is  exercised  the 
same  power.  For  if  with  regard  to  the  sub- 
sistence of  the  universe  it  was  an  exact  suffi- 
cient statement  that  things  created  are  from 
God,  what  need  was  there  to  state  that  the 
things  which  are  from  God  are  through  Christ, 
unless  it  be  one  and  the  same  thing  to  be 
through  Christ  and  from  God?  But  as  it 
has  been  ascribed  to  Each  of  Them  that  They 
are  Lord  and  God  in  such  wise  that  each 
title  belongs  to  Both,  so  too  from  Whom  and 
through  Whom  is  here  referred  to  Both ; 
and  this  to  shew  the  unity  of  Both,  not  to 
make  known  God's  singleness.  The  lan- 
guage of  the  Apostle  affords  no  opening  for 
wicked  error,  nor  is  his  faith  too  exalted  for 
careful  statement.  For  he  has  guarded  him- 
self by  those  specially  appropriate  words 
from  being  understood  to  mean  two  Gods 
or  a  solitary  God:  for  while  he  rejects  one- 
ness of  person  he  yet  does  not  divide  the 
unity  of  Godhead.  For  this  from  Whom  are 
all  things  and  through  Whom  are  all  things, 
although  it  did  not  posit  a  solitary  Deity 
in  the  sole  posses-sion  of  majesty,  must  yet 
set  forth  One  not  different  in  efficiency,  since 
from  Whom  are  all  things  and  through  Whom 
are  all  things  must  signify  an  Author  of  the 
same  nature  engaged  in  the  same  work. 
He  affirms,  moreover,  that  Each  is  properly 
of  the  same  nature.  For  after  announcing 
the   depth   of   the    riches    and   wisdom    £.nd 


2  Rom.  ix.  5. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.— BOOK   VIII. 


149 


knowledge  of  God,  and  after  asserting  the 
mystery  of  His  inscrutable  judgments  and 
avowing  our  ignorance  of  His  ways  past  find- 
ing out,  he  has  yet  made  use  of  the  exercise 
of  human  faith,  and  rendered  this  homage 
to  the  depth  of  the  unsearchable  and  in- 
scrutable mysteries  of  heaven,  For  of  Him 
and  through  Him  and  in  Him  are  all  things  : 
to  Him  be  glory  for  ever.  Amen  3.  He  em- 
ploys to  indicate  the  one  nature,  that  which 
cannot  but  be  the  work  of  one  nature. 

39.  For  whereas  he  has  specially  ascribed 
to  God  that  all  things  are  from  Him,  and 
he  has  assigned  as  a  peculiar  property  to 
Christ,  that  all  things  are  through  Him,  and 
it  is  now  the  glory  of  God  that  from  Him  and 
through  Him  and  in  Him  are  all  things ;  and 
whereas  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the  same  as  the 
Spirit  of  Christ,  or  whereas  in  the  ministration 
of  the  Lord  and  in  the  working  of  God,  one 
Spirit  both  works  and  divides,  They  cannot 
but  be  one  Whose  properties  are  those  of 
one;  since  in  the  same  Lord  the  Son,  and 
in  the  same  God  the  Father,  one  and  the 
same  Spirit  distributing  in  the  same  Holy 
Spirit  accomplishes  all  things.  How  worthy  is 
this  saint  of  the  knowledge  of  exalted  and 
heavenly  mysteries,  adopted  and  chosen  to 
share  in  the  secret  things  of  God,  preserving 
a  due  silence  over  things  which  may  not  be 
uttered,  true  apostle  of  Christ !  How  by 
the  announcement  of  his  clear  teaching  has 
he  restrained  the  imaginations  of  human  wil- 
fulness, confessing,  as  he  does,  one  God  the 
Father  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  so  that 
meanwhile  no  one  can  either  preach  two  Gods 
or  one  solitary  God ;  although  He  Who  is  not 
one  person  cannot  multiply  into  two  Gods, 
nor  on  the  other  hand  can  They  Who  are  not 
two  Gods  be  understood  to  be  one  single  per- 
son ;  while  meantime  the  revelation  of  God  as 
Father  demonstrates  the  true  nativity  of  Christ. 

40.  Thrust  out  now  your  quivering  and 
hissing  tongues,  ye  vipers  of  heresy,  whether 
it  be  thou  Sabellius  or  thou  Photinus,  or  ye 
who  now  preach  that  the  Only-begotten  God 
is  a  creature.  Whosoever  denies  the  Son 
shall  hear  of  one  God  the  Father,  because 
inasmuch  as  a  father  becomes  a  father  only 
by  having  a  son,  this  name  Father  neces- 
sarily connotes  the  existence  of  the  Son. 
And  again,  let  him  who  takes  away  from 
the  Son  the  unity  of  an  identical  nature, 
acknowledge  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  For 
unless  through  unity  of  the  Spirit  He  is  one 
Lord,  room  will  not  be  left  for  God  the  Father 
to  be  Lord.  Again,  let  him  who  holds  the 
Son  to  have  become  Son  in  time  and  by  His 

3  Rom.  xi.  36. 


Incarnation,  learn  that  through  Him  are  all 
things  and  we  through  Him,  and  that  His 
timeless  Infinity  was  creating  all  things  before 
time  was.  And  meanwhile  let  him  read  again 
that  there  is  one  hope  of  our  calling,  and  one 
baptism,  and  one  faith  ;  if,  after  that,  he  op- 
pose himself  to  the  preaching  of  the  Apostle, 
he,  being  accursed  because  he  framed  strange 
doctrines  of  his  own  device,  is  neither  called 
nor  baptized  nor  believing;  because  in  one 
God  the  Father  and  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
there  lies  the  one  faith  of  one  hope  and  bap- 
tism. And  no  alien  doctrine  can  boast  that 
it  has  a  place  among  the  truths  which  belong 
to  one  God  and  Lord  and  hope  and  baptism 
and  faith. 

41.  So  then  the  one  faith  is,  to  confess 
the  Father  in  the  Son  and  the  Son  in  the 
Father  through  the  unity  of  an  indivisible  na- 
ture, not  confused  but  inseparable,  not  inter- 
mingled but  identical,  not  conjoined  but  co- 
existing, not  incomplete  but  perfect.  For 
there  is  birth  not  separation,  there  is  a  Son 
not  an  adoption ;  and  He  is  God,  not  a  crea- 
ture. Neither  is  He  a  God  of  a  different 
kind,  but  the  Father  and  Son  are  one :  for 
the  nature  was  not  altered  by  birth  so  as  to 
be  alien  from  the  property  of  its  original.  So 
the  Apostle  holds  the  faith  of  the  Son  abiding 
in  the  Father  and  the  Father  in  the  Son  when 
he  proclaims  that  for  him  there  is  one  God 
the  Father  and  one  Lord  Christ,  since  in 
Christ  the  Lord  there  was  also  God,  and  in 
God  the  Father  there  was  also  Lord,  and 
They  Two  are  that  unity  which  is  God,  and 
They  Two  are  also  that  unity  which  is  the 
Lord,  for  reason  indicates  that  there  must 
be  something  imperfect  in  God  unless  He  be 
Lord,  and  in  the  Lord  unless  He  were  God. 
And  so  since  Both  are  one,  and  Both  are 
implied  under  either  name,  and  neither  exists 
apart  from  the  unity,  the  Apostle  has  not  gone 
beyond  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  in  his 
teaching,  nor  does  Christ  when  He  speaks  in 
Paul  differ  from  the  words  which  He  spake 
while  abiding  in  the  world  in  bodily  form. 

42.  For  the  Lord  had  said  in  the  gospels, 
Work  not  for  the  meat  which  perisheth,  but  for 
the  meat  which  abideth  unto  life  eternal,  which 
the  Son  of  Man  shall  give  unto  you :  for  Him 
the  Father,  even  God,  hath  sealed.  They  said 
therefore  unto  Him,  What  must  we  do  that  we 
may  work  the  works  of  God  ?  And  He  said 
unto  them,  This  is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye 
believe  on  Him  Whom  He  hath  sent*.  In 
setting  forth  the  mystery  of  His  Incarnation 
and  His  Godhead  our  Lord  has  also  uttered 
the  teaching  of  our  faith  and  hope  that  we 

4  St.  John  vi.  27 — 29. 


i5o 


DE   TRINITATE. 


should  work  for  food,  not  that  which  perisheth 
but  that  which  abideth  for  ever;  that  we 
should  remember  that  this  food  of  eternity  is 
given  us  by  the  Son  of  Man  ;  that  we  should 
know  the  Son  of  Man  as  sealed  by  God  the 
Father;  that  we  should  know  that  this  is  the 
work  of  God,  even  faith  in  Him  Whom  He 
has  sent.  And  Who  is  it  Whom  the  Father 
has  sent  ?  Fven  He  Whom  the  Father  has 
sealed.  And  Who  is  He  Whom  the  Father 
has  sealed  ?  In  truth,  the  Son  of  Man,  even 
He  who  gives  the  food  of  eternal  life.  And 
further  who  are  they  to  whom  He  gives  it  ? 
They  who  shall  work  for  the  food  that  does 
not  perish.  Thus,  then,  the  work  for  this  food 
is  at  the  same  time  the  work  of  God,  namely,  to 
believe  on  Him  Whom  He  has  sent.  But  these 
words  are  uttered  by  the  Son  of  Man.  And 
how  shall  the  Son  of  Man  give  the  food  of  life 
eternal  ?  Why,  he  knows  not  the  mystery  of  his 
own  salvation,  who  knows  not  that  the  Son  of 
Man,  bestowing  food  unto  life  eternal,  has  been 
sealed  by  God  the  Father.  At  this  point  I 
now  ask  in  what  sense  are  we  to  understand 
that  the  Son  of  Man  has  been  sealed  by  God 
the  Father  ? 

43.  Now  we  ought  to  recognise  first  of  all 
that  God  has  spoken  not  for  Himself  but  for 
us,  and  that  He  has  so  far  tempered  the  lan- 
guage of  His  utterance  as  to  enable  the  weak- 
ness of  our  nature  to  grasp  and  understand  it. 
For  after  being  rebuked  by  the  Jews  for  hav- 
ing made  Himself  the  equal  of  God  by  pro- 
fessing to  be  the  Son  of  God,  He  had  an- 
swered that  He  Himself  did  all  things  that  the 
Father  did,  and  that  He  had  received  all  judg- 
ment from  the  Father;  moreover  that  He 
must  be  honoured  even  as  the  Father.  And 
in  all  these  things  having  before  declared  Him- 
self Son,  He  had  made  Himself  equal  to  the 
Father  in  honour,  power  and  nature.  After- 
wards He  had  said  that  as  the  Father  had  life 
in  Himself,  so  He  had  given  the  Son  to  have 
life  in  Himself,  wherein  He  signified  that  by 
virtue  of  the  mystery  of  the  birth  He  possessed 
the  unity  of  the  same  nature.  For  when  He 
says  that  He  has  what  the  Father  has,  He 
means  that  He  has  the  Father's  self.  For 
that  God  is  not  after  human  fashion  of  a  com- 
posite being,  so  that  in  Him  there  is  a  dif- 
ference of  kind  between  Possessor  and  Pos- 
sessed ;  but  all  that  He  is  is  life,  a  nature, 
that  is,  complete,  absolute  and  infinite,  not 
composed  of  dissimilar  elements  but  with  one 
life  permeating  the  whole.  And  since  this 
life  was  in  such  wise  given  as  it  was  possessed, 
although  the  fact  that  it  was  given  manifestly 
reveals  the  birth  of  the  Recipient,  it  yet  does 
not  involve  a  difference  of  kind  since  the  life 
given  was  such  as  was  possessed. 


44.  Therefore  after  this  manifold  and  pre- 
cise revelation  of  the  presence  of  the  Father's 
nature  in  Himself,  He  goes  on  to  say,  For 
Him  hath  the  Father  sealed,  even  God5.  It 
is  the  nature  of  a  seal  to  exhibit  the  whole 
form  of  the  figure  graven  upon  it,  and  that 
an  impression  taken  from  it  reproduces  it  in 
every  respect;  and  since  it  receives  the 
whole  of  that  which  is  impressed,  it  dis- 
plays also  in  itself  wholly  whatever  has  been 
impressed  upon  it.  Yet  this  comparison 
is  not  adequate  to  exemplify  the  Divine 
birth,  because  in  seals  there  is  a  matter, 
difference  of  nature,  and  an  act  of  impres- 
sion, whereby  the  likeness  of  stronger  na- 
tures is  impressed  upon  things  of  a  more 
yielding  nature.  But  the  Only-begotten  God, 
Who  was  also  through  the  Mystery  of  our 
salvation  the  Son  of  Man,  desiring  to  point 
out  to  us  the  likeness  of  His  Father's  proper 
nature  in  Himself,  said  that  He  was  sealed 
by  God ;  because  the  Son  of  Man  was  about 
to  give  the  food  of  eternal  life,  and  that  we 
thereby  might  perceive  in  Him  the  power  of 
giving  food  unto  eternity,  in  that  He  pos- 
sessed within  Himself  all  the  fulness  of  His 
Father's  form,  even  of  the  God  Who  sealed 
Him  :  so  that  what  God  had  sealed  should 
display  in  itself  none  other  than  the  form  of 
the  God  Who  sealed  it.  These  things  indeed 
the  Lord  spake  to  the  Jews,  who  could  not  re- 
ceive His  saying  because  of  unbelief. 

45.  But  in  us  the  preacher  of  the  Gospel 
by  the  Spirit  of  Christ  Who  spake  through 
him,  instils  the  knowledge  of  this  His  proper 
nature  when  he  says,  Who,  being  in  the 
form  of  God,  thought  it  not  a  thing  to  grasp 
at  that  He  was  equal  with  God,  but  e?nptied 
Himself,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant 6.  For 
He,  Whom  God  had  sealed,  could  be  nought 
else  than  the  form  of  God,  and  that  which 
has  been  sealed  in  the  form  of  God  must 
needs  present  at  the  same  time  imaged  forth 
within  itself  all  that  God  possesses.  And  for 
this  cause  the  Apostle  taught  that  He  Whom 
God  sealed  is  God  abiding  in  the  form  of  God. 
For  when  about  to  speak  of  the  Mystery  of 
the  body  assumed  and  born  in  Him,  he  says, 
He  thought  it  not  a  thing  to  grasp  at  that  He 
was  equal  with  God,  but  emptied  Himself, 
taking  the  form  of  a  servant  7.  As  regards 
His  being  in  the  form  of  God,  by  virtue  of 
God's  seal  upon  Him,  he  still  remained  God. 
But  inasmuch  as  He  was  to  take  the  form  of  a 


S  St.  John  vi.  v}. 

«  Phil.  ii.  6,  7.  The  sense  in  which  Hilary  understands  no* 
rapinam  arbitratus  est,  is  to  be  seen  in  his  explanation,  no*  sibi 
rap i ens  esse  se  aqualem  Deo  (see  just  below). 

7  Ibid. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   VIII. 


I5i 


servant  and  become  obedient  unto  death,  not 
_,rasping  at  His  equality  with  God,  He  emptied 
Himself  through  obedience  to  take  the  form 
of  a  slave.  And  He  emptied  Himself  of  the 
form  of  God,  that  is,  of  that  wherein  He  was 
equal  with  God — not  that  He  regarded  His 
equality  with  God  as  any  encroachment, — al- 
though He  was  in  the  form  of  God  and  equal 
with  God  and  sealed  by  God  as  God. 

46.  At  this  point  I  ask  whether  He  Who 
abides  as  God  in  the  form  of  God  is  a  God 
of  another  kind,  as  we  perceive  in  the  case  of 
seals  in  respect  of  the  likenesses  which  stamp 
and  those  which  are  stamped,  since  a  steel 
die  impressed  upon  lead  or  a  gem  upon  wax 
shapes  the  figure  cut  in  it  or  imprints  that 
which  stands  in  relief  upon  it.  But  if  there 
be  any  one  so  foolish  and  senseless  as  to 
think  that  that,  pertaining  to  Himself,  which 
God  fashions  to  be  God,  is  aught  but  God, 
and  that  He  Who  is  in  the  form  of  God  is  in 
any  respect  anything  else  save  God  after  the 
mystery  of  His  Incarnation  and  of  His  humi- 
lity, made  perfect  through  obedience  even  unto 
the  death  of  the  cross,  he  shall  hear,  by  the 
confession  of  things  in  heaven  and  things  on 
earth  and  things  under  the  earth  and  of  every 
tongue,  that  Jesus  is  in  the  glory  of  God  the 
Father.  If  then,  when  His  form  had  become 
that  of  a  slave  He  abides  in  such  glory,  how, 
I  ask,  did  He  abide  when  in  the  form  of 
God  ?  Must  not  Christ  the  Spirit  have  been 
in  the  nature  of  God — for  this  is  what  is 
meant  by  '  in  the  glory  of  God ' — when  Christ 
as  Jesus,  that  is,  born  as  man,  exists  in  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father? 

47.  In  all  things  the  blessed  Apostle  pre- 
serves the  unchangeable  teaching  of  the  Gos- 
pel faith.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  pro- 
claimed as  God  in  such  wise  that  neither  does 
the  Apostle's  faith,  by  calling  Him  a  God  of 
a  different  order,  fall  away  to  the  confession 
of  two  Gods,  nor  by  making  God  the  Son  in- 
separable from  the  Father  does  it  leave  an 
opening  for  the  unholy  doctrine  of  a  single 
and  solitary  God.  For  when  he  says,  in  the 
form  of  God  and  in  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
the  Apostle  neither  teaches  that  They  differ  one 
from  another,  nor  allows  us  to  think  of  Him 
as  not  existing.  For  He  Who  is  in  the  form 
of  God  neither  ends  by  becoming  another 
God  nor  Himself  loses  His  Godhead :  for  He 
cannot  be  severed  from  the  form  of  God  since 
He  exists  in  it,  nor  is  He,  Who  is  in  the  form 
of  God,  not  God  Just  as  He  Who  is  in  the 
glory  of  God  cannot  be  aught  else  than  God, 
and,  since  He  is  God  in  the  glory  of  God, 
cannot  be  proclaimed  as  another  god  and  one 
different  from  the  true  God,  seeing  that  by 
reason  of  the  fact  that  He  is  in  the  glory  of 


God    He    possesses    naturally   from    Him   in 
Whose  glory  He  is,  the  property  of  divinity. 

48.  But  there  is  no  danger  that  the  one 
faith  will  cease  to  be  such  through  diversity 
in  its  preaching.     The  Evangelist  had  taught 
that  our  Lord  said,  He  that  hath  seen  Me,  hath 
seen    the   Father  a/so3.     But    has    Paul,    the 
teacher  of  the  Gentiles,  forgotten  or  kept  back 
the  meaning  of  the  Lord's  words,   when  he 
says,  Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God?  t 
I  ask  whether  He  is  the  visible  likeness  oi" 
the   invisible  God,  and   whether   the   infinite 
God  can  also  be  presented  to  view  under  the 
likeness  of  a  finite  form  ?  For  a  likeness  must 
needs  repeat  the  form  of  that  of  which  it  is 
the   likeness.     Let   those,  however,  who  will 
have  a  nature  of  a  different  sort  in  the  Son 
determine  what  sort  of  likeness  of  the  invisible 
God  they  wish  the  Son  to  be.     Is  it  a  bodily 
likeness  exposed  to  the  gaze,  and  moving  from 
place  to  place  with  human  gait  and  motion? 
Nay,  but  let  them  remember  that  according  to 
the  Gospels  and  the  Prophets  both  Christ  is 
a  Spirit  and  God  is  a  Spirit.    If  they  confine  this 
Christ  the  Spirit  within  the  bounds  of  shape 
and   body,   such  a  corporeal  Christ  will   not 
be  the  likeness  of  the  invisible  God,  nor  will 
a   finite    limitation    represent    that   which    is 
infinite. 

49.  But,  as  it  is,  neither  did  the  Lord  leave 
us  in  doubt :  He  who  hath  seen  Me,  hath  seen 
the  Father  also  ;  nor  was  the  Apostle  silent  as 
to  His  nature,  Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible 
God.  For  the  Lord  had  said,  If  I  do  not  the 
works  of  My  Father,  believe  Me  not x,  teaching 
them  to  see  the  Father  in  Himself  in  that  He 
did  the  works  of  the  Father;  that  through 
perceiving  the  power  of  His  nature  they  might 
understand  the  nature  of  that  power  which 
they  perceived.  Wherefore  the  Apostle  pro- 
claiming that  this  is  the  image  of  God,  says, 

Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  first- 
born of  all  creation;  for  in  Him  were  all  things 
made  in  the  heavens  and  upon  the  earth,  things 
visible  and  things  invisible,  whether  thrones  or 
dominions  or  principalities  or  powers  ;  all  things 
have  been  created  through  Him  and  in  Him, 
and  He  is  before  all,  and  for  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  might  have 
the  pre-eminence.  For  it  was  the  good  pleasure 
of  the  Father  that  in  Hitn  should  all  the  fulness 
dwell,  and  through  Him  all  things  should  be 
reconciled  to  Hitn 2.  So  through  the  power  of 
these  works  He  is  the  image  of  God.  For 
assuredly  the  Creator  of  things  invisible  is  not 


8  St.  John  xiv.  9. 


9  Col.  i.  15. 
2  Col.  i.  15 — 20. 


«  St.  John  k.  37. 


152 


DE   TRINITATE. 


compelled  by  any  necessity  inherent  in  His 
nature  to  be  the  visible  image  of  the  invisible 
God.  And  lest  He  should  be  regarded  as 
the  likeness  of  the  form  and  not  of  the  nature, 
He  is  styled  the  likeness  of  the  invisible  God 
in  order  that  we  may  understand  by  His  ex- 
ercise of  the  powers  (not  the  invisible  attri- 
butes) of  the  Divine  nature,  that  that  nature 
is  in  Him. 

50.  He  is  accordingly  the  first-born  of  every 
creature  because  in  Him  all  things  were  cre- 
ated. And  lest  any  one  should  dare  to  refer 
to  any  other  than  Him  the  creation  of  all 
things  in  Himself,  he  says,  All  things  have 
been  created  through  Him  and  in  Him,  and  He 
is  before  all,  and  for  Him  all  things  consist. 
All  things  then  consist  for  Him  Who  is  before 
all  things,  and  in  Whom  are  all  things.  Now 
this  indeed  describes  the  origin  of  created 
things.  But  concerning  the  dispensation  by 
which  He  assumed  our  body,  he  adds,  And 
He  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  Church  : 
Who  is  the  beginning,  the  first-born  from  the 

dead:  that  in  all  things  He  might  have  the 
pre-eminetice.  For  it  7vas  the  good  pleasure  of 
the  Father  that  in  Him  should  all  the  fulness 
dwell,  and  that  through  Him  all  things  should 
be  reconciled  to  Him.  The  Apostle  has  assigned 
to  the  spiritual  mysteries  their  material  ef- 
fects. For  He  Who  is  the  image  of  the  in- 
visible God  is  Himself  the  head  of  His  body, 
the  Church,  and  He  Who  is  the  first-born  of 
every  creature  is  at  the  same  time  the  begin- 
ning, the  first  born  from  the  dead  :  that  in  all 
things  He  might  have  the  pre-eminence,  being 
for  us  the  Body,  while  He  is  also  the  image 
of  God,  since  He,  Who  is  the  first-born  of 
created  things,  is  at  the  same  time  the  first- 
born for  eternity;  so  that  as  to  Him  things 
spiritual,  being  created  in  the  First-born,  owe  it 
that  they  abide,  even  so  all  things  human  also 
owe  it  to  Him  that  in  the  First-born  from  the 
dead  they  are  born  again  into  eternity.  For  He 
is  Himself  the  beginning,  Who  as  Son  is  there- 
fore the  image,  and  because  the  image,  is  of 
God.  Further  He  is  the  first-born  of  every 
created  thing,  possessing  in  Himself  the  origin 
of  the  universe :  and  again  He  is  the  head  of 
His  body,  the  Church,  and  the  first-born  from 
the  dead,  so  that  in  all  things  He  has  the  pre- 
eminence. And  because  all  things  consist  for 
Him,  in  Him  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  is 
pleased  to  dwell,  for  in  Him  all  things  are 
reconciled  through  Him  to  Him,  through 
Whom  all  things  were  created  in  Himself. 

51.  Do  you  now  perceive  what  it  is  to  be 
the  image  of  God?  It  means  that  all  things 
are  created  in  Him  through  Him.  Whereas  all 
things  are  created  in  Him,  understand  that  He, 
Whose  image  He  is,  also  creates  all  things  in 


Him.  And  since  all  things  which  are  create  1 
in  Him  are  also  created  through  Him,  recog- 
nise that  in  Him  Who  is  the  image  there  is 
present  the  nature  of  Him,  Whose  image  He  is. 
For  through  Himself  He  creates  the  things 
which  are  created  in  Him,  just  as  through 
Himself  all  things  are  reconciled  in  Him. 
Inasmuch  as  they  are  reconciled  in  Him,  re- 
cognise in  Him  the  nature  of  the  Father's 
unity,  reconciling  all  things  to  Himself  in  Him. 
Inasmuch  as  all  things  are  reconciled  through 
Him,  perceive  Him  reconciling  to  the  Father 
in  Himself  all  things  which  He  reconciled 
through  Himself.  For  the  same  Apostle  says, 
But  all  things  are  from  God,  Who  reconciled 
us  to  Himself  through  Christ,  and  gave  unto  us 
the  ministry  of  reconciliation :  to  ivit,  that  God 
was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  tmto  Him- 
self3.  Compare  with  this  the  whole  mystery 
of  the  faith  of  the  Gospel.  For  He  Who  is 
seen  when  Jesus  is  seen,  Who  works  in  His 
works,  and  speaks  in  His  words,  also  recon- 
ciles in  His  reconciliation.  And  for  this  cause, 
in  Him  and  through  Him  there  is  recon- 
ciliation, because  the  Father  abiding  in  Him 
through  a  like  nature  restored  the  world  to 
Himself  by  reconciliation  through  and  in  Him. 
52.  Thus  God  out  of  regard  for  human 
weakness  has  not  set  forth  the  faith  in  bare 
and  uncertain  statements.  For  although  the 
authority  of  our  Lord's  mere  words  of  itself 
compelled  their  acceptance,  He  nevertheless 
has  informed  our  reason  by  a  revelation  which 
explains  their  meaning,  that  we  might  learn 
to  know  His  words,  /  and  the  Father  are  o?ie  4, 
by  means  of  that  which  was  itself  the  cause 
of  the  unity  in  question.  For  in  saying  that 
the  Father  speaks  in  His  words,  and  works 
through  His  working,  and  judges  through  His 
judgment,  and  is  seen  in  His  manifestation, 
and  reconciles  through  His  reconciliation, 
and  abides  in  Him,  while  He  in  turn  abides 
in  the  Father, — what  more  fitting  words,  I 
ask,  could  He  have  employed  in  His  teaching 
to  suit  the  faculties  of  our  reason,  that  we 
might  believe  in  Their  unity,  than  those  by 
which,  through  the  truth  of  the  birth  and  the 
unity  of  the  nature,  it  is  declared  that  whatever 
the  Son  did  and  said,  the  Father  said  and  did 
in  the  Son  ?  This  says  nothing  of  a  nature 
foreign  to  Himself,  or  added  by  creation 
to  God,  or  born  into  Godhead  by  a  parti- 
tion of  God,  but  it  betokens  the  divinity  of 
One  Who  by  a  perfect  birth  is  begotten  per- 
fect God,  Who  has  so  confident  an  assurance 
of  His  nature  that  He  says,  I  in  the  Father  and 
the  Father  in  Me  s,  and  again,  All  things  what- 
soever the  Father  hath  are  Aline  6.     For  nought 


3  3  Cor.  v.  18,  19. 
5  lb.  xiv.  11. 


*  St.  John  x.  30. 
0  lb.  xvi.  15. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   VIII 


15. 


of  the  Godhead  is  lacking  in  Him,  in  Whose 
working  and  speaking  and  manifestation  God 
works  and  speaks  and  is  beheld.  They  are  not 
two  Gods,  Who  in  their  working  and  words 
and  manifestation  put  on  a  semblance  of  unity. 
Neither  is  He  a  solitary  God,  Who  in  the 
works  and  words  and  sight  of  God,  Himself 
worked  and  spoke  and  was  seen  as  God.  The 
Church  understands  this.  The  Synagogue 
does  not  believe,  philosophy  does  not  know, 
that  being  One  of  One,  Whole  of  Whole,  God 
and  Son,  He  has  neither  by  His  birth  de- 
prived the  Father  of  His  completeness,  nor 
failed  to  possess  the  same  completeness  in 
Himself  by  right  of  His  birth.  And  whosoever 
is  caught  in  this  folly  of  unbelief  is  a  disciple 
either  of  the  Jews  or  of  the  heathen. 

53.  Now  that  you  may  understand  the  say- 
ing of  the  Lord,  when  He  said,  All  things 
zvhatsoever  the  Father  hath  are  Minei,  learn 
the  teaching  and  faith  of  the  Apostle  who  said, 
Take  heed  lest  any  lead  you  astray  through 
philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after  the  tradition  of 
men,  after  the  elements  of  the  world  and  not 
after  Christ ;  for  in  Him  dwelleth  the  fulness 
of  Godhead  bodily  8.  That  man  is  of  the  world 
and  savours  of  the  teaching  of  men  and  is  the 
victim  of  philosophy,  who  does  not  know 
Christ  to  be  the  true  God,  who  does  not 
recognise  in  Him  the  fulness  of  Godhead. 
The  mind  of  man  knows  only  that  which  it 
understands,  and  the  world's  powers  of  be- 
lief are  limited,  since  it  judges  according  to 
the  laws  of  the  material  elements  that  that 
alone  is  possible  which  it  can  see  or  do.  For 
the  elements  of  the  world  have  come  into 
being  out  of  nothing,  but  Christ's  continuity  of 
existence  did  not  begin  in  the  non-existent,  nor 
did  He  ever  begin  to  exist,  but  He  took  from 
the  beginning  a  beginning  which  is  eternal. 
The  elements  of  the  world  are  either  without 
life,  or  have  issued  out  of  this  stage  into  life, 
but  Christ  is  life,  born  to  be  living  God  from 
the  living  God.  The  elements  of  the  world 
have  been  established  by  God,  but  they  are 
not  God  :  Christ  as  God  of  God  is  Himself 
wholly  all  that  God  is.  The  elements  of  the 
world,  since  they  are  within  it,  cannot  pos- 
sibly rise  out  of  their  condition  and  cease  to 
be  within  it,  but  Christ,  while  having  God 
within  Himself  through  the  Mystery,  is  Him- 
self in  God.  The  elements  of  the  universe, 
generating  from  themselves  creatures  with  a 
life  like  their  own,  do  indeed  through  the  ex- 
ercise of  their  bodily  functions  bestow  upon 
them  from  their  own  bodies  the  beginnings  of 
life,  but  they  are  not  themselves  present  as 
living   beings  in  their   offspring,   whereas   in 


7  St.  John  xvi.  15. 


8  Col.  ii.  8,  9. 


Christ  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  is  pre- 
sent in  bodily  shape. 

54.  Now  I  ask,  whose  Godhead  is  it  where- 
of the  fulness  dwells  in  Him  ?  If  it  be  not 
that  of  the  Father,  what  other  God  do  you, 
misleading  preacher  of  one  God,  thrust  upon 
me  as  Him  Whose  Godhead  dwells  fully  in 
Christ  ?  But  if  it  be  that  of  the  Father,  inform 
me  how  this  fulness  dwells  in  Him  in  bodily 
fashion.  If  you  hold  that  the  Father  abides 
in  the  Son  in  bodily  fashion,  the  Father,  while 
dwelling  in  the  Son,  will  not  exist  in  Him- 
self. If  on  the  other  hand,  and  this  is  more 
true,  the  Godhead  abiding  in  Him  in  bodily 
shape  displays  within  Him  the  verity  of  the 
nature  of  God  from  God,  inasmuch  as  God  is 
in  Him,  abiding  neither  through  condescension 
nor  through  will  but  by  birth,  true  and  wholly 
in  bodily  fulness  according  as  He  is ;  and 
inasmuch  as,  in  the  whole  compass  of  His 
being,  He  was  born  by  His  divine  birth  to 
be  God,  and  within  the  Godhead  there  is 
no  difference  or  dissimilarity,  except  that  in 
Christ  He  dwells  in  bodily  form,  and  yet  what- 
ever dwells  in  Him  bodily  is  according  to  the 
fulness  of  Godhead;  why  follow  after  the  doc- 
trines of  men  ?  Why  cleave  to  the  teaching  of 
empty  falsehoods  ?  Why  talk  of  '  agreement ' 
or  'harmony  of  will'  or  'a  creature?'  The 
fulness  of  Godhead  dwells  in  Christ  bodily. 

55.  The  Apostle  has  herein  held  fast  to  the 
canon  of  his  faith,  by  teaching  that  the  fulness 
of  the  Godhead  dwelt  in  Christ  bodily ;  and 
this,  in  order  that  the  teaching  of  the  faith 
might  not  degenerate  into  an  unholy  profes- 
sion of  a  oneness  of  Persons  or  sinful  frenzy 
break  forth  into  the  belief  of  two  different 
natures.  For  the  fulness  of  Godhead  which 
dwells  in  Christ  in  bodily  fashion  is  neither 
solitary  nor  separable ;  for  the  fulness  in 
bodily  form  does  not  admit  any  partition 
from  the  other  bodily  fulness,  and  the  indwell- 
ing Godhead  cannot  be  regarded  as  also  the 
dwelling-place  of  the  Godhead.  And  Christ 
is  so  constituted  that  the  fulness  of  Godhead 
dwells  in  Him  in  bodily  fashion,  and  that 
this  fulness  must  be  held  one  in  nature  with 
Christ.  Lay  hands  on  every  chance  that 
offers  for  your  quibbles,  sharpen  the  points 
of  your  blasphemous  wit.  Name,  at  least, 
the  imaginary  being  whose  fulness  of  Godhead 
it  is  which  dwells  in  Christ  in  bodily  fashion. 
For  He  is  Christ,  and  there  is  dwelling  in  Him 
in  bodily  fashion  the  fulness  of  Godhead. 

56.  And  if  you  would  know  what  it  is 
to  'dwell  in  bodily  fashion,'  understand  what 
it  is  to  speak  in  one  that  speaks,  to  be  seen  in 
one  who  is  seen,  to  work  in  one  who  works, 
to  be  God  in  God,  whole  of  whole,  one  of 
one;   and   thus  learn   what  is   meant  by  the 


154 


DE    TRINITATE. 


fulness  of  God  in  bodily  shape.  Remember, 
too,  that  the  Apostle  does  not  keep  silence 
on  the  question,  whose  Godhead  it  is,  which 
dwells  fully  in  Christ  in  bodily  fashion,  for 
he  says,  For  the  invisible  things  of  Him  since 
the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being 
perceived  through  the  things  that  are  made,  even 
His  everlasting  power  and  divinity  $.      So   it 

9  Rom.  i.  a*. 


is  His  Godhead  that  dwells  in  Christ  in  bodily 
fashion,  not  partially  but  wholly,  not  parcelwise 
but  in  fulness ;  and  so  dwelling  that  the  Twa 
are  one,  and  so  one,  that  the  One  Who  is  God 
does  not  differ  from  the  Other  Who  is  God : 
Both  so  equally  divine,  as  a  perfect  birth 
engendered  perfect  God.  And  the  birth  exists 
thus  in  its  perfection,  because  the  fulness  of 
the  Godhead  dwells  bodily  in  God  born  of 
God. 


BOOK    IX. 


i.  In  the  last  book  we  treated  of  the  in- 
distinguishable nature  of  God  the  Father  and 
God  the  Son,  and  demonstrated  that  the 
words,  /  and  the  Father  are  One1,  go  to 
prove  not  a  solitary  God,  but  a  unity  of  the 
Godhead  unbroken  by  the  birth  of  the  Son  : 
for  God  can  be  born  only  of  God,  and  He 
that  is  born  God  of  God  must  be  all  that 
God  is.  We  reviewed,  although  not  exhaust- 
ively, yet  enough  to  make  our  meaning  clear, 
the  sayings  of  our  Lord  and  the  Apostles, 
which  teach  the  inseparable  nature  and  power 
of  the  Father  and  the  Son ;  and  we  came 
to  the  passage  in  the  teaching  of  the  Apostle, 
where  he  says,  Take  heed  lest  there  shall  be 
an}'  one  that  leadeth  you  astray  through  philo- 
sophy and  vain  deceit,  after  the  tradition  of 
men,  after  the  rudiments  of  the  world,  and  not 
after  Christ ;  for  in  Him  dwelleih  all  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Godhead  bodily 2.  We  pointed 
out  that  here  the  words,  in  Him  dwelleth 
all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,  prove 
Him  true  and  perfect  God  of  His  Father's 
nature,  neither  severing  Him  from,  nor  iden- 
tifying Him  with,  the  Father.  On  the  one 
hand  we  are  taught  that,  since  the  incorporeal 
God  dwelt  in  Him  bodily,  the  Son  as  God 
begotten  of  God  is  in  natural  unity  with  the 
Father :  and  on  the  other  hand,  if  God  dwelt 
in  Christ,  this  proves  the  birth  of  the  personal 
Christ  in  Whom  He  dwelt  3.  We  have  thus, 
it  seems  to  me,  more  than  answered  the 
irreverence  of  those  who  refer  to  a  unity 
or  agreement  of  will  such  words  of  the  Lord 
as,  He  that  hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the  Father*, 
or,  The  Father  is  in  Me  and  I  in  the  Father  s, 
or,  /  and  the  Father  are  One 6,  or,  All  things 
7V  hat  soever  the  Father  hath  are  Mi  tie  t.  Not 
daring  to  deny  the  words  themselves,  these 
false  teachers,  in  the  mask  of  religion,  corrupt 
the  sense  of  the  words.  For  instance,  it  is 
true  that  where  the  unity  of  nature  is  pro- 
claimed, the  agreement  of  will  cannot  be 
denied ;  but  in  order  to  set  aside  that  unity 
which   follows   from   the    birth,    they   profess 


»  St.  John  x.  30.  a  Col.  ii.  8,  9. 

3  Subsistentis  Christi  =  subsistentia  distincti  Christ:  (see  foot- 
note in  the  Benedictine  Edition).  God  the  Father  dwelt  in 
Christ.  But  the  Dweller  must  be  personally  distinct  from  Christ, 
in  Whom  He  dwelt:  and  as  the  only  distinction  between  the 
Father  and  Christ  is  that  of  Begetter  and  Begotten,  therefore 
the  words  'God  dwelt  in  Christ'  prove  the  generation  of  Christ. 

*  St.  John  xiv.  9.        5  lb.  x.  38.        6  lb.  30.        7  lb.  xvi.  15. 


merely  a  relationship  of  mutual  harmony. 
But  the  blessed  Apostle,  after  many  indubit- 
able statements  of  the  real  truth,  cuts  short 
their  rash  and  profane  assertions,  by  saying, 
in  Christ  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
head bodily,  for  by  the  bodily  indwelling  of 
the  incorporeal  God  in  Christ  is  taught 
the  strict  unity  of  Their  nature.  It  is,  there- 
fore, not  a  matter  of  words,  but  a  real  truth 
that  the  Son  was  not  alone,  but  the  Father 
abode  in  Him :  and  not  only  abode,  but  also 
worked  and  spoke :  not  only  worked  and 
spoke,  but  also  manifested  Himself  in  Him. 
Through  the  Mystery  of  the  birth  the  Son's 
power  is  the  power  of  the  Father,  His  au- 
thority the  Father's  authority,  His  nature  the 
Father's  nature.  By  His  birth  the  Son  pos- 
sesses the  nature  of  the  Father :  as  the  Father's 
image,  He  reproduces  from  the  Father  all  that 
is  in  the  Father,  because  He  is  the  reality  as 
well  as  the  image  of  the  Father,  for  a  perfect 
birth  produces  a  perfect  image,  and  the  fulness 
of  the  Godhead  divelling  bodily  in  Him  indi- 
cates the  truth  of  His  nature. 

2.  All  this  is  indeed  as  it  is :  He,  Who 
is  by  nature  God  of  God,  must  possess  the 
nature  of  His  origin,  which  God  possesses, 
and  the  indistinguishable  unity  of  a  living 
nature  cannot  be  divided  by  the  birth  of 
a  living  nature.  Yet  nevertheless  the  heretics, 
under  cover  of  the  saving  confession  of  the 
Gospel  faith,  are  stealing  on  to  the  subversion 
of  the  truth  :  for  by  forcing  their  own  inter- 
pretations on  words  uttered  with  other  mean- 
ings and  intentions,  they  are  robbing  the  Son 
of  His  natural  unity.  Thus  to  deny  the  Son  of 
God,  they  quote  the  authority  of  His  own  words, 
Why  callest  thou  Me  good!  None  is  good,  save 
one,  God%.  These  words,  they  say,  proclaim 
the  Oneness  of  God :  anything  else,  therefore, 
which  shares  the  name  of  God,  cannot  possess 
the  nature  of  God,  for  God  is  One.  And 
from  His  words,  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they 
should  know  Thee  the  only  true  God9,  they 
attempt  to  establish  the  theory  that  Christ 
is  called  God  by  a  mere  title,  not  as  being 
very  God.     Further,  to  exclude  Him  from  the 


8  St.  Mark  x.  18  (cf.  St.  Matt.  xix.  17,  St.  Luke  xviii.  19). 
The  Greek  is  oi/Seis  ayaObs,  et  nrj  tis  6  fleoy,  'save  one,  even  God' 
(R.V.)._  The  application  of  this  teat  by  the  Arians  depends  upon 
the  omission  of  the  article  6. 

9  St.  John  xvii.  3. 


i56 


DE   TRINITATE. 


proper  nature  of  the  true  God,  they  quote, 
The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  Himself  except  that 
which  He  hath  seen  the  Father  do  l.  They  use 
also  the  text,  The  Father  is  greater  than  I2. 
Finally,  when  they  repeat  the  words,  Of  that 
day  and  that  hour  kitoweth  no  one,  neither  the 
angels  in  heaven,  nor  the  Son,  but  the  Father 
only  3,  as  though  they  were  the  absolute  renun- 
ciation of  His  claim  to  divinity,  they  boast 
that  they  have  overthrown  the  faith  of  the 
Church.  The  birth,  they  say,  cannot  raise 
to  equality  the  nature  which  the  limitation 
of  ignorance  degrades.  The  Father's  omnis- 
cience and  the  Son's  ignorance  reveal  un- 
likeness  in  the  Divinity,  for  God  must  be 
ignorant  of  nothing,  and  the  ignorant  cannot 
be  compared  with  the  omniscient.  All  these 
passages  they  neither  understand  rationally, 
nor  distinguish  as  to  their  occasions,  nor 
apprehend  in  the  light  of  the  Gospel  mysteries, 
nor  realize  in  the  strict  meaning  of  the  words  ; 
and  so  they  impugn  the  divine  nature  of  Christ 
with  crude  and  insensate  rashness,  quoting 
single  detached  utterances  to  catch  the  ears 
of  the  unwary,  and  keeping  back  either  the 
sequel  which  explains  or  the  incidents  which 
prompted  them,  though  the  meaning  of  words 
must  be  sought  in  the  context  before  or  after 
them. 

3.  We  will  offer  later  an  explanation  of 
these  texts  in  the  words  of  the  Gospels  and 
Epistles  themselves.  But  first  we  hold  it  right 
to  remind  the  members  of  our  common  faith, 
that  the  knowledge  of  the  Eternal  is  presented 
in  the  same  confession  which  gives  eternal 
life  ♦.  He  does  not,  he  cannot  know  his  own 
life,  who  is  ignorant  that  Christ  Jesus  was 
very  God,  as  He  was  very  man.  It  is  equally 
perilous,  whether  we  deny  that  Christ  Jesus 
was  God  the  Spirit,  or  that  He  was  flesh  of 
our  body  :  Every  one  therefore  who  shall  con- 
fess Me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  confess 
before  My  Father  which  is  in  Heaven.  But 
whosoever  shall  deny  Me  before  men,  him  will 
I  also  deny  before  My  Father  which  is  in  heaven  5. 
So  said  the  Word  made  flesh;  so  taught  the 
man  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lord  of  majesty,  con- 
stituted Mediator  in  His  own  person  for  the 
salvation  of  the  Church,  and  being  in  that 
very  mystery  of  Mediatorship  between  men 
and  God,  Himself  one  Person,  both  man  and 
God.  For  He,  being  of  two  natures  united 
for  that  Mediatorship,  is  the  full  reality  of  each 
nature;  while  abiding  in  each,  He  is  wanting 
in  neither;  He  does  not  cease  to  be  God 
because  He  becomes  man,  nor  fail  to  be  man 


1  St.  John  v.  19.  a  lb.  xiv.  •&. 

3  St.  Mark  xiii.  32  ;  cf.  St.  Matt.  xxiv.  36. 

4  Alluding  to  St.  John  xvii.  3,  quoted  in  c.  2. 

5  St.  Matt.  x.  32,  33. 


because  He  remains  for  ever  God.  This  is 
the  true  faith  for  human  blessedness,  to  preach 
at  once  the  Godhead  and  the  manhood,  to 
confess  the  Word  and  the  flesh,  neither  for- 
getting  the  God,  because  He  is  man,  nor 
ignoring  the  flesh,  because  He  is  the  Word. 

4.  It  is  contrary  to  our  experience  of  nature, 
that  He  should  be  born  man  and  still  remain 
God  ;  but  it  accords  with  the  tenor  of  our 
expectation,  that  being  born  man,  He  still 
remained  God,  for  when  the  higher  nature 
is  born  into  the  lower,  it  is  credible  that  the 
lower  should  also  be  born  into  the  higher. 
And,  indeed,  according  to  the  laws  and  habits 
of  nature,  the  working  of  our  expectation  even 
anticipates  the  divine  mystery.  For  in  every 
thing  that  is  born,  nature  has  the  capacity 
for  increase,  but  has  no  power  of  decrease. 
Look  at  the  trees,  the  crops,  the  cattle.  Re- 
gard man  himself,  the  possessor  of  reason. 
He  always  expands  by  growth,  he  does  not 
contract  by  decrease ;  nor  does  he  ever  lose 
the  self  into  which  he  has  grown.  He  wastes 
indeed  with  age,  or  is  cut  off  by  death ;  he 
undergoes  change  by  lapse  of  time,  or  reaches 
the  end  allotted  to  the  constitution  of  life, 
yet  it  is  not  in  his  power  to  cease  to  be  what 
he  is ;  I  mean  that  he  cannot  make  a  new 
self  by  decrease  from  his  old  self,  that  is, 
become  a  child  again  from  an  old  man.  So 
the  necessity  of  perpetual  increase,  which  is 
imposed  on  our  nature  by  natural  law,  leads 
us  on  good  grounds  to  expect  its  promotion 
into  a  higher  nature,  since  its  increase  is  ac- 
cording to,  and  its  decrease  contrary  to,  nature. 
It  was  God  alone  Who  could  become  some- 
thing other  than  before,  and  yet  not  cease  to 
be  what  He  had  ever  been  ;  Who  could  shrink 
within  the  limits  of  womb,  cradle,  and  infancy, 
yet  not  depart  from  the  power  of  Gqd.  This 
is  a  mystery,  not  for  Himself,  but  for  us. 
The  assumption  of  our  nature  was  no  ad- 
vancement for  God,  but  His  willingness  to 
lower  Himself  is  our  promotion,  for  He  did 
not  resign  His  divinity  but  conferred  divinity 
on  man. 

5.  The  Only-begotten  God,  therefore,  when 
He  was  born  man  of  the  Virgin,  and  in  the 
fulness  of  time  was  about  in  His  own  person 
to  raise  humanity  to  divinity,  always  main- 
tained this  form  of  the  Gospel  teaching.  He 
taught,  namely,  to  believe  Him  the  Son  of 
God,  and  exhorted  to  preach  Him  the  Son 
of  Man  ;  man  saying  and  doing  all  that  belongs 
to  God  ;  God  saying  and  doing  all  that  belongs 
to  man.  Vet  never  did  He  speak  without 
signifying  by  the  twofold  aspect  of  these  very 
utterances  both  His  manhood  and  His  di- 
vinity. Though  He  proclaimed  one  God  the 
Father,    He    declared    Himself  to  be   in  the 


ON    THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK    IX. 


157 


nature  of  the  one  God,  by  the  truth  of  His 
generation.  Yet  in  His  office  as  Son  and  His 
condition  as  man,  He  subjected  Himself  to 
God  the  Father,  since  everything  that  is  born 
must  refer  itself  back  to  its  author,  and  all  flesh 
must  confess  itself  weak  before  God.  Here, 
accordingly,  the  heretics  find  opportunity  to 
deceive  the  simple  and  ignorant.  These 
words,  uttered  in  His  human  character,  they 
falsely  refer  to  the  weakness  of  His  divine 
nature ;  and  because  He  was  one  and  the 
same  Person  in  all  His  utterances,  they  claim 
that  He  spake  always  of  His  entire  self. 

6.  We  do  not  deny  that  all  the  sayings 
which  are  preserved  of  His,  refer  to  His 
nature.  But,  if  Jesus  Christ  be  man  and 
God,  neither  God  for  the  first  time,  when  He 
became  man,  nor  then  ceasing  to  be  God,  nor 
after  He  became  Man  in  God  less  than  perfect 
man  and  perfect  God,  then  the  mystery  of  His 
words  must  be  one  and  the  same  with  that  of 
His  nature.  When  according  to  the  time  in- 
dicated, we  disconnect  His  divinity  from 
humanity,  then  let  us  also  disconnect  His 
language  as  God  from  the  language  of  man ; 
when  we  confess  Him  God  and  man  at  the 
same  time,  let  us  distinguish  at  the  same  time 
His  words  as  God  and  His  words  as  man ; 
when  after  His  manhood  and  Godhead,  we 
recognise  again  the  time  when  His  whole 
manhood  is  wholly  God,  let  us  refer  to  that 
time  all  that  is  revealed  concerning  it6.  It  is 
one  thing,  that  He  was  God  before  He  was 
man,  another,  that  He  was  man  and  God, 
and  another,  that  after  being  man  and  God, 
He  was  perfect  man  and  perfect  God.  Do 
not  then  confuse  the  times  and  natures  in 
the  mystery  of  the  dispensation,  for  according 
to  the  attributes  of  His  different  natures,  He 
must  speak  of  Himself  in  relation  to  the  mys- 
tery of  His  humanity,  in  one  way  before  His 
birth,  in  another  while  He  was  yet  to  die, 
and  in  another  as  eternal. 

7.  For  our  sake,  therefore,  Jesus  Christ, 
retaining  all  these  attributes,  and  being  born 
man  in  our  body,  spoke  after  the  fashion  of 
our  nature  without  concealing  that  divinity  be- 
longed to  His  own  nature.  In  His  birth,  His 
passion,  and  His  death,  He  passed  through 
all  the  circumstances  of  our  nature,  but  He 
bore  them  all  by  the  power  of  His  own.  He 
was  Himself  the  cause  of  His  birth,  He  willed 
to  suffer  what  He  could  not  suffer,  He  died 
though  He  lives  for  ever.     Yet  God  did  all 


6  The  three  periods  referred  to  in  these  three  sentences  are 
(1)  before  the  Incarnation  :  we  can  assign  only  to  His  Godhead 
the  words  Christ  uses  in  reference  to  this  period,  because  He  was 
not  yet  man.  (2)  The  Incarnation  :  we  must  distinguish  whether 
He  is  speaking  of  Himself  as  man  or  as  God.  (3)  After  the  Re- 
surrection, when  His  manhood  remains,  but  is  perfected  in  the 
Godhead. 


this,  not  merely  through  man,  for  He  was  born 
of  Himself,  He  suffered  of  His  own  free  will, 
and  died  of  Himself.  He  did  it  also  as  man, 
for  He  was  really  born,  suffered  and  died. 
These  were  the  mysteries  of  the  secret  counsels 
of  heaven,  determined  before  the  world  was 
made.  The  Only-begotten  God  was  to  be- 
come man  of  His  own  will,  and  man  was  to 
abide  eternally  in  God.  God  was  to  suffer  of 
His  own  will,  that  the  malice  of  the  devil, 
working  in  the  weakness  of  human  infirmity, 
might  not  confirm  the  law  of  sin  in  us,  since 
God  had  assumed  our  weakness.  God  was 
to  die  of  His  own  will,  that  no  power,  after 
that  the  immortal  God  had  constrained  Him- 
self within  the  law  of  death,  might  raise  up 
its  head  against  Him,  or  put  forth  the  natural 
strength  which  He  had  created  in  it.  Thus 
God  was  born  to  take  us  into  Himself,  suf- 
fered to  justify  us,  and  died  to  avenge  us ; 
for  our  manhood  abides  for  ever  in  Him, 
the  weakness  of  our  infirmity  is  united  with 
His  strength,  and  the  spiritual  powers  of 
iniquity  and  wickedness  are  subdued  in  the 
triumph  of  our  flesh,  since  God  died  through 
the  flesh. 

8.  The  Apostle,  who  knew  this  mystery, 
and  had  received  the  knowledge  of  the  faith 
through  the  Lord  Himself,  was  not  unmindful, 
that  neither  the  world,  nor  mankind,  nor  phi- 
losophy could  contain  Him,  for  he  writes, 
Take  heed,  lest  there  shall  be  any  one  that 
leadeth  you  astray  through  philosophy  and  vain 
deceit,  after  the  tradition  of  men,  after  the 
rudiments  of  the  world,  and  not  after  Jesus 
Christ,  for  in  Him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of 
the  Godhead  bodily,  and  in  Him  ye  are  made  fully 
Who  is  the  head  of  all  principalities  and  powers*. 
After  the  announcement  that  in  Christ  dwelleth 
all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,  follows 
immediately  the  mystery  of  our  assumption, 
in  the  words,  in  Him  ye  are  made  full.  As 
the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  is  in  Him,  so  we 
are  made  full  in  Him.  The  Apostle  says  not 
merely  ye  are  made  full,  but,  in  Him  ye 
are  made  full ;  for  all  who  are,  or  shall  be, 
regenerated  through  the  hope  of  faith  to  life 
eternal,  abide  even  now  in  the  body  of  Christ ; 
and  afterwards  they  shall  be  made  full  no 
longer  in  Him,  but  in  themselves,  at  the  time 
of  which  the  Apostle  says,  Who  shall  fashion 
anew  the  body  of  our  humiliation,  that  it  may 
be  conformed  to  the  body  of  His  glory 8.  Now, 
therefore,  we  are  made  full  in  Him,  that  is, 
by  the  assumption  of  His  flesh,  for  in  Him 
dwelleth  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily. 
Nor  has  this  our  hope  a  light  authonty 
in  Him.     Our  fulness  in  Him  constitutes  His 


7  Col.  ii.  8—10. 


8  Phil.  tii.  21. 


i58 


DE   TRINITATE. 


headship  and  principality  over  all  power,  as  it 
is  written,  That  in  His  name  every  knee  should 
bo7i>,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  on  earth, 
and  things  below,  and  every  tongue  confess  that 
Jesus  is  Lord  in  the  glory  of  God  the  Father*. 
Jesus  shall  be  confessed  in  the  glory  of  God 
the  Father,  born  in  man,  yet  now  no  longer 
abiding  in  the  infirmity  of  our  body,  but  in 
the  glory  of  God.  Every  tongue  shall  confess 
this.  But  though  all  things  in  heaven  and 
earth  shall  bow  the  knee  to  Him,  yet  herein 
He  is  head  of  all  principalities  and  powers, 
that  to  Him  the  whole  universe  shall  bow  the 
knee  in  submission,  in  Whom  we  are  made 
full,  Who  through  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
dwelling  in  Him  bodily,  shall  be  confessed  in 
the  glory  of  God  the  Father. 

9.  But  after  the  announcement  of  the  mys- 
tery of  Christ's  nature,  and  our  assumption, 
that  is,  the  fulness  of  Godhead  abiding  in 
Christ,  and  ourselves  made  full  in  Him  by 
His  birth  as  man,  the  Apostle  continues  the 
dispensation  of  human  salvation  in  the  words, 
Jn  whom  ye  were  also  circumcised  with  a  cir- 
cumcison  not  made  with  hands,  in  the  stripping 
off  of  the  body  of  the  flesh,  but  with  the  cir- 
cumcision of  Christ,  having  been  buried  with 
Him  in  baptism,  wherein  ye  were  also  raised 
with  Him  through  faith  in  the  working  of  God, 
who  raised  Him  from  the  dead2.  We  are  cir- 
cumcised not  with  a  fleshly  circumcision  but 
with  the  circumcision  of  Christ,  that  is,  we  are 
born  again  into  a  new  man  ;  for,  being  buried 
with  Him  in  His  baptism,  we  must  die  to 
the  old  man,  because  the  regeneration  of 
baptism  has  the  force  of  resurrection.  The 
circumcision  of  Christ  does  not  mean  the 
putting  off  of  foreskins,  but  to  die  entirely 
with  Him,  and  by  that  death  to  live  henceforth 
entirely  to  Him.  For  we  rise  again  in  Him 
through  faith  in  God,  Who  raised  Him  from 
the  dead  ;  wherefore  we  must  believe  in  God, 
by  Whose  Working  Christ  was  raised  from  the 
dead,  for  our  faith  rises  again  in  and  with 
Christ. 

10.  Then  is  completed  the  entire  mystery 
of  the  assumed  manhood,  And  you  being  dead 
through  your  trespasses  and  the  uncircumcision 
of  your  flesh,  you  I  say,  did  He  quicken  together 
with  Him,  having  forgiven  you  all  your  tres- 
passes, blotting  out  the  bond  written  in  ordin- 
ances, that  was  against  us,  which  7vas  contrary 
to  us;  and  He  hath  taken  it  out  of  the  zvay, 
?iailing  it  to  the  cross,  and  having  put  off  from 
Himself  His  flesh,  He  hath  made  a  shew  of 
powers,   triumphing    over    than   in   Himself "3. 

»  Phil.  ii.  10,  11.  The  Greek  is  tis  &6£ai>,  k.t.K.  'to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father'  (R.V.).  There  is  also  another  reading 
4n  Hilary's  text  in  this  place,  '  in  gloriam  '  instead  of  '  in  gloria  ; ' 
but  the  latter  is  demanded  by  the  context.     See  c.  42. 

*  Col.  ii.  ii,  12.  3  lb.  13—15. 


The  worldly  man  cannot  receive  the  faith 
of  the  Apostle,  nor  can  any  language  but  that 
of  the  Apostle  explain  his  meaning.  God 
raised  Christ  from  the  dead  ;  Christ  in  Whom 
the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwelt  bodily.  But 
He  quickened  us  also  together  with  Him, 
forgiving  us  our  sins,  blotting  out  the  bond 
of  the  law  of  sin,  which  through  the  ordinances 
made  aforetime  was  against  us,  taking  it  out 
of  the  way,  and  fixing  it  to  His  cross,  stripping 
Himself  of  His  flesh  by  the  law  of  death, 
holding  up  the  powers  to  shew,  and  triumphing 
over  them  in  Himself.  Concerning  the  powers 
and  how  He  triumphed  over  them  in  Himself, 
and  held  them  up  to  shew,  and  the  bond 
which  he  blotted  out,  and  the  life  which  He 
gave  us,  we  have  already  spoken  4.  But  who 
can  understand  or  express  this  mystery  ?  The 
working  of  God  raises  Christ  from  the  dead ; 
the  same  working  of  God  quickens  us  together 
with  Christ,  forgives  our  sins,  blots  out  the 
bond,  and  fixes  it  to  the  cross ;  He  puts  off 
from  Himself  His  flesh,  holds  up  the  powers 
to  shew,  and  triumphs  over  them  in  Himself. 
We  have  the  working  of  God  raising  Christ 
from  the  dead,  and  we  have  Christ  working 
in  Himself  the  very  things  which  God  works 
in  Him,  for  it  was  Christ  who  died,  stripping 
from  Himself  His  flesh.  Hold  fast  then  to 
Christ  the  man,  raised  from  the  dead  by  God, 
and  hold  fast  to  Christ  the  God,  working  out 
our  salvation  when  He  was  yet  to  die.  God 
works  in  Christ,  but  it  is  Christ  Who  strips 
from  Himself  His  flesh  and  dies.  It  was 
Christ  who  died,  and  Christ  Who  worked  with 
the  power  of  God  before  His  death,  yet  it  was 
the  working  of  God  which  raised  the  dead 
Christ,  and  it  was  none  other  who  raised 
Christ  from  the  dead  but  Christ  Himself,  Who 
worked  before  His  death,  and  put  off  His 
flesh  to  die. 

ii.  Do  you  understand  already  the  Mys- 
teries of  the  Apostle's  Faith  ?  Do  you  think  to 
know  Christ  already?  Tell  me,  then,  Who  is  it 
Who  strips  from  Himself  His  flesh,  and  what 
is  that  flesh  stripped  off?  I  see  two  thoughts 
expressed  by  the  Apostle,  the  flesh  stripped  off, 
and  Him  Who  strips  it  off:  and  then  I  hear  of 
Christ  raised  from  the  dead  by  the  working  of 
God.  If  it  is  Christ  Who  is  raised  from  the 
dead,  and  God  Who  raises  Him  ;  Who,  pray, 
strips  from  Himself  the  flesh?  Who  raises 
Christ  from  the  dead,  and  quickens  us  with 
Him  ?  If  the  dead  Christ  be  not  the  same  as 
the  flesh  stripped  off,  tell  me  the  name  of  the 
flesh  stripped  off,  and  expound  me  the  nature 
of  Him  Who  strips  it  off.  I  find  that  Christ 
the  God,  Who  was  raised  from  the  dead,  is  the 

4  See  I.  13. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   IX. 


159 


same  as  He  Who  stripped  from  Himself  His 
flesh,  and  that  flesh,  the  same  as  Christ  Who 
was  raised  from  the  dead;  then  I  see  Him 
holding  principalities  and  powers  up  to  shew, 
and  triumphing  in  Himself.  Do  you  under- 
stand this  triumphing  in  Himself?  Do  you 
perceive  that  the  flesh  stripped  off,  and  He 
Who  strips  it  off,  are  not  different  from  one 
another?  He  triumphs  in  Himself,  that  is  in 
that  flesh  which  He  stripped  from  Himself. 
Do  you  see  that  thus  are  proclaimed  His 
humanity  and  His  divinity,  that  death  is  attri- 
buted to  the  man,  and  the  quickening  of  the 
flesh  to  the  God,  though  He  Who  dies  and 
He  Who  raises  the  dead  to  life  are  not  two, 
but  one  Person  ?  The  flesh  stripped  off  is  the 
dead  Christ :  He  Who  raises  Christ  from  the 
dead  is  the  same  Christ  Who  stripped  from 
Himself  the  flesh.  See  His  divine  nature  in 
the  power  to  raise  again,  and  recognise  in  His 
death  the  dispensation  of  His  manhood.  And 
though  either  function  is  performed  by  its 
proper  nature,  yet  remember  that  He  Who 
died,  and  raised  to  life,  was  one,  Christ  Jesus. 

12.  I  remember  that  the  Apostle  often  refers 
to  God  the  Father  as  raising  Christ  from  the 
dead  ;  but  he  is  not  inconsistent  with  himself 
or  at  variance  with  the  Gospel  faith,  for  the 
Lord  Himself  says  : — Therefore  doth  the  Father 
love  Me,  because  I  lay  down  My  life,  that  I  may 
take  it  again.  No  one  shall  take  it  from  Me, 
but  I  lay  it  down  of  Myself.  J  have  power  to 
lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again. 
This  command  have  I  received  from  the  Father  $  : 
and  again,  when  asked  to  shew  a  sign  con- 
cerning Himself,  that  they  might  believe  in 
Him,  He  says  of  the  Temple  of  His  body, 
Detroy  this  Temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will 
raise  it  up  6.  By  the  power  to  take  His  soul 
again  and  to  raise  the  Temple  up,  He  declares 
Himself  God,  and  the  Resurrection  His  own 
work  :  yet  He  refers  all  to  the  authority  of  His 
Father's  command.  This  is  not  contrary  to 
the  meaning  of  the  Apostle,  when  He  pro- 
claims Christ,  the  power  of  God  and  the  zvisdom 
of  God  7,  thus  referring  all  the  magnificence  of 
His  work  to  the  glory  of  the  Father  :  for  what- 
ever Christ  does,  the  power  and  the  wisdom  of 
God  does :  and  whatever  the  power  and  the 
wisdom  of  God  does,  without  doubt  God  Him- 
self does,  Whose  power  and  wisdom  Christ 
is.  So  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  by  the 
working  of  God;  for  He  Himself  worked  the 
works  of  God  the  Father  with  a  nature  indistin- 
guishable from  God's.  And  our  faith  in  the 
Resurrection  rests  on  the  God  Who  raised 
Christ  from  the  dead. 

13.  It  is  this  preaching  of  the  double  aspect 
of  Christ's  Person  which  the  blessed  Apostle 


emphasises.  He  points  out  in  Christ  His 
human  infirmity,  and  His  divine  power  and 
nature.  Thus  to  the  Corinthians  he  writes, 
For  though  He  was  crucified  through  weakness, 
yet  He  liveth  through  the  power  of  God8,  attri- 
buting His  death  to  human  infirmity,  but  His 
life  to  divine  power  :  and  again  to  the  Romans, 
For  the  death,  that  He  died  unto  sin,  He  died 
once  :  but  the  life,  that  He  liveth,  He  liveth  unto 
God.  Even  so  reckon  ye  yourselves  also  to  be 
dead  ufito  sin,  but  alive  unto  God  in  Christ 
fesus^,  ascribing  His  death  to  sin,  that  is,  to 
our  body,  but  His  life  to  God,  Whose  nature  it 
is  to  live.  We  ought,  therefore,  he  says,  to  die 
to  our  body,  that  we  may  live  to  God  in  Christ 
Jesus,  Who  after  the  assumption  of  our  body 
of  sin,  lives  now  wholly  unto  God,  uniting  the 
nature  He  shared  with  us  with  the  participa- 
tion of  divine  immortality. 

14.  I  have  been  compelled  to  dwell  briefly 
on  this,  lest  we  should  forget  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  is  being  treated  of  as  a  Person  of  two 
natures,  since  -He,  Who  was  abiding  in  the 
form  of  God,  took  the  form  of  a  servant,  in 
which  He  was  obedient  even  unto  death.  The 
obedience  of  death  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
form  of  God,  just  as  the  form  of  God  is  not 
inherent  in  the  form  of  a  servant.  Yet  through 
the  Mystery  of  the  Gospel  Dispensation  the 
same  Person  is  in  the  form  of  a  servant  and  in 
the  form  of  God,  though  it  is  not  the  same 
thing  to  take  the  form  of  a  servant  and  to  be 
abiding  in  the  form  of  God;  nor  could  He 
Who  was  abiding  in  the  form  of  God,  take  the 
form  of  a  servant  without  emptying  Himself, 
since  the  combination  of  the  two  forms  would 
be  incongruous.  Yet  it  was  not  another  and 
a  different  Person  Who  emptied  Himself  and 
Who  took  the  form  of  a  servant.  To  take 
anything  cannot  be  predicated  of  some  one 
who  is  not,  for  he  only  can  take  who  exists. 
The  emptying  of  the  form  does  not  then  imply 
the  abolition  of  the  nature  :  He  emptied  Him- 
self, but  did  not  lose  His  self:  He  took  a  new 
form,  but  remained  what  He  was.  Again, 
whether  emptying  or  taking,  He  was  the  same 
Person  :  there  is,  therefore,  a  mystery,  in  that 
He  emptied  Himself,  and  took  the  form  of 
a  servant,  but  He  does  not  come  to  an  end,  so 
as  to  cease  to  exist  in  emptying  Himself, 
and  to  be  non-existent  when  He  took.  Thf 
emptying  availed  to  bring  about  the  taking  of 
the  servant's  form,  but  not  to  prevent  Christ, 
Who  was  in  the  form  of  God,  from  continuing 
to  be  Christ,  for  it  was  in  very  deed  Christ 
Who  took  the  form  of  a  servant.  When  He 
emptied  Himself  to  become  Christ  the  man, 
while  continuing  to  be  Christ  the  Spirit,  the 


5  St.  John  x.  17,  18. 


6  lb.  ii.  19. 


7  1  Cor.  i.  34. 


8  2  Cor.  xiii.  4. 


9  Rom.  vi.  10,  11 


i6o 


DE    TRIN1TATE. 


changing  of  His  bodily  fashion,  and  the  as- 
sumption of  another  nature  in  His  body,  did 
not  put  an  end  to  the  nature  of  His  eternal 
divinity,  for  He  was  one  and  the  same  Christ 
when  He  changed  His  fashion,  and  when  He 
assumed  our  nature. 

15.  We  have  now  expounded  the  Dispen- 
sation of  the  Mysteries,  through  which  the 
heretics  deceive  certain  of  the  unlearned  into 
ascribing  to  infirmity  in  the  divinity,  what 
Christ  said  and  did  through  His  assumed 
human  nature,  and  attributing  to  the  form  of 
God  what  is  appropriate  only  to  the  form  of 
the  servant.  Let  us  pass  on,  then,  to  answer 
their  statements  in  detail.  We  can  always 
safely  distinguish  the  two  kinds  of  utterances, 
since  the  only  true  faith  lies  in  the  confession 
of  Jesus  Christ  as  Word  and  flesh,  that  is, 
God  and  Man.  The  heretics  consider  it  ne- 
cessary to  deny  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  by 
virtue  of  His  nature  was  divine,  because  He 
said,  Why  callest  thou  Me  good?  None  is  good 
save  one,  God1.  Now  a  satisfactory  answer 
mjist  stand  in  direct  relation  to  the  matter 
of  enquiry,  for  only  in  that  case  will  it  fur- 
nish a  reply  to  the  question  put.  At  the 
outset,  then,  I  would  ask  these  misinter- 
preted, "  Do  you  think  that  the  Lord  re- 
sented being  called  good?"  Would  He  rather 
have  been  called  bad,  as  seems  to  be  sig- 
nified by  the  words,  Why  callest  thou  Me 
good?  I  do  not  think  any  one  is  so  unreason- 
able as  to  ascribe  to  Him  a  confession  of 
wickedness,  when  it  was  He  Who  said,  Come 
unto  Me,  all  ye  that  labour,  and  are  heavy 
laden,  and  I  will  refresh  you.  Take  My  yoke 
upon  you,  and  learn  of  Me  :  for  I  am  meek  and 
lowly  of  heart,  and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto  your 
souls.  For  My  yoke  is  easy  and  My  burden  is 
light3.  He  says  He  is  meek  and  lowly  :  can  we 
believe  that  He  was  angry  because  He  was 
called  good  ?  The  two  propositions  are  incon- 
sistent. He  Who  witnesses  to  His  own  good- 
ness would  not  repudiate  the  name  of  Good. 
Plainly,  then,  He  was  not  angry  because  He 
was  called  good :  and  if  we  cannot  believe 
that  He  resented  being  called  good,  we  must 
ask  what  was  said  of  Him  which  He  did 
resent. 

16.  Let  us  see,  then,  how  the  questioner 
styled  Him,  beside  calling  Him  good.  He  said, 
Good  Master,  what  good  thing  shall  I  do*) 
adding  to  the  title  of  "  good"  that  of  master. 
If  Christ  then  did  not  chide  because  He  was 
called  good,  it  must  have  been  because  He 
was  called  "good  Master."  Further  the  man- 
ner  of    His   reproof  shews    that   it   was   the 


1  St.  Mark  x.  18  ;   cf.  St.  Matt.  xix.  17  ;   St.  Luke  xviii.  if, 
and  note  on  c.  2  of  this  book. 

*  S;.  Matt.  xi.  28,  30.  3  lb.  xix.  16. 


disbelief  of  the  questioner,  rather  than  the 
name  of  master,  or  of  good,  which  He  resented, 
A  youth,  who  prides  himself  upon  the  ob- 
servance of  the  law,  but  did  not  know  the  end 
of  the  law  4,  which  is  Christ,  who  thought 
himself  justified  by  works,  without  perceiving 
that  Christ  came  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house 
of  Israel5,  and  to  those  who  believe  that  the 
law  cannot  save  through  the  faith  of  justifi- 
cation 6,  questioned  the  Lord  of  the  law,  the 
Only-begotten  God,  as  though  He  were  a 
teacher  of  the  common  precepts  and  the 
writings  of  the  law.  But  the  Lord,  abhorring 
this  declaration  of  irreverent  unbelief,  which 
addresses  Him  as  a  teacher  of  the  law, 
answered,  Why  callest  thou  Me  good?  and 
to  shew  how  we  may  know,  and  call  Him 
good,  He  added,  None  is  good,  save  one, 
God,  not  repudiating  the  name  of  good,  if 
it  be  given  to  Him  as  God. 

17.  Then,  as  a  proof  that  He  resents  the 
name  "good  master,"  on  the  ground  of  the 
unbelief,  which  addresses  Him  as  a  man, 
He  replies  to  the  vain-glorious  youth,  and  his 
boast  that  he  had  fulfilled  the  law,  One  t/u.g 
thou  lackest ;  go,  sell  whatsoever  thou  hast, 
and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shall  have 
treasure  in  heaven;  and  come,  follow  Me. 
There  is  no  shrinking  from  the  title  of  "good" 
in  the  promise  of  heavenly  treasures,  no  re- 
luctance to  be  regarded  as  "  master "  in  the 
offer  to  lead  the  way  to  perfect  blessedness. 
But  there  is  reproof  of  the  unbelief  which  draws 
an  earthly  opinion  of  Him  from  the  teaching, 
that  goodness  belongs  to  God  alone,  lo 
signify  that  He  is  both  good  and  God,  He 
exercises  the  functions  of  goodness,  opening 
the  heavenly  treasures,  and  offering  Himself 
as  guide  to  them.  All  the  homage  offered  to 
Him  as  man  He  repudiates,  but  he  does  not 
disown  that  which  He  paid  to  God ;  for  at  the 
moment  when  He  confesses  that  the  one  God 
is  good,  His  words  and  actions  are  those  of 
the  power  and  the  goodness  and  the  nature 
of  the  one  God. 

18.  That  He  did  not  shrink  from  the  title 
of  good,  or  decline  the  office  of  master,  but 
resented  the  unbelief  which  perceived  no  more 
in  Him  than  body  and  flesh,  may  be  proved 
from  the  difference  of  His  language,  when  the 
apostles  confessed  Him  their  Master,  Ye  call 
Me  Master,  and  Lord,  and  ye  say  well,  for  so 
I  am  7  /  and  on  another  occasion,  Be  ye  not 
called  masters,  for  Christ  is  your  Master6. 
From  the  faithful,  to  whom  He  is  master,  He 
accepts  the  title  with  words  of  praise,  but  here 

4  Rom.  x.  4.  5  St.  Matt.  xv.  24;    cf.  x.  6. 

6  Cf.  Kom.  viii.  3,  "  What  the  law  could  not  do  ;"  and  GaL 
iii.  n  ff.,  "  No  man  is  justified  by  the  law  in  the  sight  of  God  ...» 
the  law  is  not  of  faith." 

7  St.  John  xiii.  13.  8  St.  Matt,  xxiii.  to. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    IX. 


161 


He  rejects  the  name  "  good  master,"  when  He 
is  not  acknowledged  to  be  the  Lord  and  the 
Christ,  and  pronounces  the  one  God  alone 
good,  but  without  distinguishing  Himself  from 
God,  for  He  calls  Himself  Lord,  and  Christ, 
and  guide  to  the  heavenly  treasures. 

19.  The  Lord  always  maintained  this  de- 
finition of  the  faith  of  the  Church,  which 
consists  in  teaching  that  there  is  one  God  the 
Father,  but  without  separating  Himself  from 
the  mystery  of  the  one  God,  for  He  declared 
Himself,  by  the  nature  which  is  His  by  birth, 
neither  a  second  God,  nor  the  sole  God. 
Since  the  nature  of  the  One  God  is  in  Him, 
He  cannot  be  God  of  a  different  kind  from 
Him  ;  His  birth  requires  that,  being  Son,  it 
should  be  with  a  perfect  Sonship  9.  So  He  can 
neither  be  separated  from  God  nor  merged  in 
God.  Hence  He  speaks  in  words  deliberately 
chosen,  so  that  whatever  He  claims  for  the 
Father,  He  signifies  in  modest  language  to 
be  appropriate  to  Himself  also.  Take  as  an 
instance  the  command,  Believe  in  God,  and 
believe  also  in  Me1.  He  is  identified  with  God 
in  honour;  how,  pray,  can  He  be  separated 
from  His  nature?  He  says,  Believe  in  Me 
also,  just  as  He  said  Believe  in  God.  Do 
not  the  words  in  Me  signify  His  nature? 
Separate  the  two  natures,  but  you  must 
separate  also  the  two  beliefs.  If  it  be  life, 
that  we  should  believe  in  God  without  Christ, 
strip  Christ  of  the  name  and  qualities  of  God. 
But  if  perfect  life  is  given  to  those  who  believe 
in  God,  only  when  they  believe  in  Christ  also, 
let  the  careful  reader  ponder  the  meaning  of 
the  saying,  Believe  in  God,  and  believe  in 
Me  also,  for  these  words,  uniting  faith  in 
Him  with  faith  in  God,  unite  His  nature  to 
God's.  He  enjoins  first  of  all  the  duty  of 
belief  in  God,  but  adds  to  it  the  command 
that  we  should  believe  in  Himself  also;  which 
implies  that  He  is  God,  since  they  who  believe 
in  God  must  also  believe  in  Him.  Yet  He 
excludes  the  suggestion  of  a  unity  contrary 
to  religion2,  for  the  exhortation  Believe  in 
God,  believe  in  Me  also,  forbids  us  to  think  of 
Him  as  alone  in  solitude. 

20.  In  many,  nay  almost  all  His  discourses, 
He  offers  the  explanation  of  this  mystery,  never 
separating  Himself  from  the  divine  unity,  when 
He  confesses  God  the  Father,  and  never  cha- 
racterising God  as  single  and  solitary,  when 
He  places  Himself  in  unity  with  Him.  But 
nowhere  does  He  more  plainly  teach  the 
mystery  of  His  unity  and  His  birth  than  when 

9  i.e.  including  personal  distinction  from  the  Father,  cf.  c,  I, 
and  note. 

1  St.  John  xiv.  1. 

a  i.e.  such  as  Sabellius  had  taught  by  extending  the  unity 
of  nature  into  a  unity  of  person.  There  is  a  unity  of  nature  in 
the  Godhead,  but  a  union  of  Persons. 

VOL.   IX.  M 


He  says,  But  the  witness  which  I  have  is 
greater  than  that  of  John,  for  the  works  which 
the  Father  hath  given  Me  to  accomplish,  the  very 
works  that  I  do,  bear  witness  of  Me,  that  the 
Father  hath  sent  Me,  and  the  F.ither  which  sent 
Me,  He  hath  borne  witness  of  Me.  Ye  have 
neither  heard  His  voice  at  any  time  nor  seen 
His  form.  And  ye  have  not  His  word  abiding 
in  you,  for  Whom  He  sent,  Him  ye  believe  not 3. 
How  can  the  Father  be  truly  said  to  have 
borne  witness  of  the  Son,  when  neither  He 
Himself  was  seen,  nor  His  voice  heard?  Yet 
I  remember  that  a  voice  was  heard  from 
Heaven,  which  said,  This  is  My  beloved  Son, 
in  Whom  I  have  been  well  pleased ;  hear  ye 
Him'-.  How  can  it  be  said  that  they  did 
not  hear  the  voice  of  God,  when  the  voice 
which  they  heard  itself  asserted  that  it  was 
the  Father's  voice  ?  But  perhaps  the  dwellers 
in  Jerusalem  had  not  heard  what  John  had 
heard  in  the  solitude  of  the  desert.  We  must 
ask,  then,  "  How  did  the  Father  bear  witness 
in  Jerusalem?"  It  is  no  longer  the  witness 
given  to  John,  who  heard  the  voice  from 
heaven,  but  a  witness  greater  than  that  of 
John.  What  that  witness  is  He  goes  on  to 
say,  The  works  which  the  Father  hath  given 
me  to  accomplish,  the  very  works  which  I  do, 
bear  witness  of  Me,  that  the  Father  hath  sent 
Me.  We  must  admit  the  authority  of  the 
testimony,  for  no  one,  except  the  Son  sent 
of  the  Father,  could  do  such  works.  His 
works  are  therefore  His  testimony.  But  what 
follows?  And  the  Father,  which  sent  Me, 
He  hath  borne  witness  of  Me.  Ye  have 
neither  heard  His  voice  at  any  time,  nor  seen 
His  form,  and  ye  have  not  His  word  abiding 
in  you.  Are  they  blameless,  in  that  they 
did  not  know  the  testimony  of  the  Father, 
Who  was  never  heard  or  seen  amongst  them, 
and  Whose  word  was  not  abiding  in  them  ? 
No,  for  they  cannot  plead  that  His  testimony 
was  hidden  from  them ;  as  Christ  says,  the 
testimony  of  His  works  is  the  testimony  of 
the  Father  concerning  Him.  His  works  testify 
of  Him  that  He  was  sent  of  the  Father;  but 
the  testimony  of  these  works  is  the  Father's 
testimony ;  since,  therefore,  the  working  of  the 
Son  is  the  Father's  testimony,  it  follows  of 
necessity  that  the  same  nature  was  operative 
in  Christ,  by  which  the  Father  testifies  of 
Him.  So  Christ,  Who  works  the  works,  and 
the  Father  Who  testifies  through  them,  are 
revealed  as  possessing  one  inseparable  nature 
through  the  birth,  for  the  operation  of  Christ 


3  St.  John  v.  36—38. 

4  St.  Matt.  xvii.  5,  the  occasion  of  the  Transfiguration.  But 
the  context  shews  that  Hilary  is  referring  to  the  voice  heard 
at  the  baptism,  where  all  the  three  Evangelists  (St.  Matt.  iii.  17, 
St.  Mark  i.  n,  St.  Luke  iii.  22),  according  to  the  commonly 
received  text   agree  in  omitting  the  words,  "  Hear  ye  Him." 


l62 


DE   TRINITATE. 


is  signified  to  be  itself  the  testimony  of  God 
concerning  Him. 

21.  They  are  not,  therefore,  acquitted  of 
blame  for  not  recognising  the  testimony ; 
for  the  works  of  Christ  are  the  Father's  tes- 
timony concerning  Him.  Nor  can  they  plead 
ignorance  of  the  testimony  on  the  ground 
that  they  had  not  heard  the  voice  of  the  Tes- 
tifier, nor  seen  His  form,  nor  had  His  word 
abiding  in  them.  For  immediately  after  the 
words,  Ye  have  neither  heard  His  voice  at  any 
time,  nor  seen  His  form,  a?id  ye  have  not  His 
word  abiding  in  you,  He  points  out  why  the 
voice  was  not  heard,  nor  the  form  seen,  and 
the  word  did  not  abide  in  them,  though  the 
Father  had  testified  concerning  Him :  For 
Whom  He  sent,  Him  ye  believe  not ;  that  is, 
if  they  had  believed  Him,  they  would  have 
heard  the  voice  of  God,  and  seen  the  form 
of  God,  and  His  word  would  have  been  in 
them,  since  through  the  unity  of  Their  nature 
the  Father  is  heard  and  manifested  and  pos- 
sessed in  the  Son.  Is  He  not  also  the  ex- 
pression of  the  Father,  since  He  was  sent 
from  Him?  Does  He  distinguish  Himself 
by  any  difference  of  nature  from  the  Father, 
when  He  says  that  the  Father,  testifying 
of  Him,  was  neither  heard,  nor  seen,  nor 
understood,  because  they  did  not  believe 
in  Him,  Whom  the  Father  sent?  The  Only- 
begotten  God  does  not,  therefore,  separate 
Himself  from  God  when  He  confesses  God 
the  Father;  but,  proclaiming  by  the  word 
"  Father "  His  relationship  to  God,  He  in- 
cludes Himself  in  the  honour  due  to  God. 

22.  For,  in  this  very  same  discourse  in 
which  He  pronounces  that  His  works  testify 
of  Him  that  He  was  sent  of  the  Father,  and 
asserts  that  the  Father  testifies  of  Him,  that 
He  was  sent  from  Him,  He  says,  The  honour 
of  Him,  Who  alone  is  God,  ye  seek  nots.  This 
is  not,  however,  a  bare  statement,  without  any 
previous  preparation  for  the  belief  in  His 
unity  with  the  Father.  Hear  what  precedes 
it,  Ye  will  not  come  to  Me  that  ye  may  have 
life.  I  receive  not  glory  from  men.  But  I  know 
you,  that  ye  have  not  the  love  of  God  in  your- 
selves. 1  am  come  in  My  Father's  name,  and 
ye  receive  Me  not;  if  another  shall  come  in 
His  name6,  him  ye  will  receive.  How  can 
ye  believe,  which  receive  glory  from  men,  and 
the  glory  of  Him,  Who  alone  is  God,  ye  seek 
not  i  /   He  disdains  the  glory  of  men,  for  glory 

S  St.  John  ▼.  44.  The  usual  text  of  the  Greek  is  rr/v  Sofa* 
■n}v  irapa.  toC  povov  $toi,  "  the  glory  that  cometh  from  the  only 
God"(R.V.). 

'  At  the  close  of  this  chapter,  Hilary  speaks  as  if  these  words 
were,  "  if  another  shall  come  in  His  (i  e.  the  Father's)  name," 
though  the  Latin  "  si  alius  venerit  in  nomine  suo,"  is  ambiguous 
and  the  Greek,  " tav  aAAot  cAOjj  iv  r«p  6y6/*aTi  r<j>  iiiai,"  quite 
excludes  this  translation. 

7  St.  John  v.  40 — 44. 


should  rather  be  sought  of  God.  It  is  the 
mark  of  unbelievers  to  receive  glory  of  one 
another  :  for  what  glory  can  man  give  to  man  ? 
He  says  He  knows  that  the  love  of  God  is 
not  in  them,  and  pronounces,  as  the  cause, 
that  they  do  not  receive  Him  coming  in  His 
Father's  name.  "Coming  in  His  Father's 
name:"  what  does  that  mean  but  "coming  in 
the  name  of  God?"  Is  it  not  because  they 
rejected  Him  Who  came  in  the  name  of  God, 
that  the  love  of  God  is  not  in  them  ?  Is  it 
not  implied  that  He  has  the  nature  of  God, 
when  He  says,  Ye  will  not  come  to  Me  that 
ye  may  have  life.  Hear  what  He  said  of  Him- 
self in  the  same  discourse,  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  the  hour  cometh,  and  nozv  is,  7vhen 
the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Sou  of  God  ; 
and  they  that  hear  shall  lives.  He  comes 
in  the  name  of  the  Father :  that  is,  He  is  not 
Himself  the  Father,  yet  is  in  the  same  divine 
nature  as  the  Father:  for  as  Son  and  God 
it  is  natural  for  Him  to  come  in  the  name  of 
the  Father.  Then,  another  coming  in  the 
same  name  they  will  receive :  but  he  is  one 
from  whom  men  will  expect  glory,  and  to  whom 
they  will  give  glory  in  return,  though  he  will 
feign  to  have  come  in  the  name  of  the  Father. 
By  this,  doubtless,  is  signified  the  Antichrist, 
glorying  in  his  false  use  of  the  Father's  name. 
Him  they  will  glorify,  and  will  be  glorified 
of  him  :  but  the  glory  of  Him,  Who  alone  is 
God,  they  will  not  seek. 

23.  They  have  not  the  love  of  God  in  them, 
He  says,  because  they  rejected  Him  coming 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  but  accepted  an- 
other, who  came  in  the  same  name,  and  re- 
ceived glory  of  one  another,  but  neglected  the 
glory  of  Him,  Who  is  the  only  true  God.  Is 
it  possible  to  think  that  He  separates  Himself 
from  the  glory  of  the  only  God,  when  He 
gives  as  the  reason  why  they  seek  not  the 
glory  of  the  only  God,  that  they  receive  Anti- 
christ, and  Himself  they  will  not  receive? 
To  reject  Him  is  to  neglect  the  glory  of  the 
only  God;  is  not,  then,  His  glory  the  glory  of 
the  only  God,  if  to  receive  Him  stedfastly  was 
to  seek  the  glory  of  the  only  God?  This  very 
discourse  is  our  witness  :  for  at  its  beginning 
we  read,  That  all  may  honour  the  Son,  even  as 
they  honour  the  Father.  He  that  honoureth  *:ot 
the  Son,  honoureth  not  the  Father  which  sent 
Him  °.  It  is  only  things  of  the  same  nature 
that  are  equal  in  honour ;  equality  of  honour 
denotes  that  there  is  no  separation  between 
the  honoured.  But  with  the  revelation  of  the 
birth  is  combined,  the  demand  for  equality  of 
honour.     Since  the  Son  is  to  be  honoured  as 


•  St.  John  ▼.  15. 


•  lb.  t.  13. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    IX. 


10 


the  Father1,  and  since  they  seek  not  the 
honour  of  Him,  Who  is  the  only  God,  He  is 
not  excluded  from  the  honour  of  the  only  God, 
for  His  honour  is  one  and  the  same  as  that  of 
God  :  just  as  He  that  honoureth  not  the  Son, 
honoureth  not  the  Father  also,  so  he  who  seeks 
not  the  honour  of  the  only  God,  seeks  not  the 
honour  of -Christ  also.  Accordingly  the  honour 
of  Christ  is  inseparahle  from  the  honour  of  God. 
By  His  words,  when  the  news  of  Lazarus'  sick- 
ness was  brought  to  Him,  He  illustrates  the 
complete  identification  of  Father  and  Son  in 
honour  :  This  sickness  is  not  unto  death,  but  for 
the  glory  of  God,  that  the  Son  of  Man  may  be 
glorified  through  him 2.  Lazarus  dies  for  the 
glory  of  God,  that  the  Son  of  God  may  be 
glorified  through  him.  Is  there  any  doubt 
that  the  glory  of  the  Son  of  God  is  the  glory 
of  God,  when  the  death  of  Lazarus,  which  is 
glorious  to  God,  glorifies  the  Son  of  God? 
Thus  Christ  is  declared  to  be  one  in  nature 
with  God  the  Father  through  His  birth,  since 
the  sickness  of  Lazarus  is  for  the  glory  of  God, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  Mystery  of  the  faith 
is  not  violated,  for  the  Son  of  God  is  to  be 
glorified  through  Lazarus.  The  Son  of  God 
is  to  be  regarded  as  God,  yet  He  is  none  the 
less  to  be  confessed  also  Son  of  God :  for  by 
glorifying  God  through  Lazarus,  the  Son  of 
God  is  glorified. 

24.  By  the  mystery  of  the  divine  nature  we 
are  forbidden  to  separate  the  birth  of  the  living 
Son  from  His  living  Father.  The  Son  of  God 
suffers  no  such  change  of  kind,  that  the  truth 
of  His  Father's  nature  does  not  abide  in  Him. 
For  even  where,  by  the  confession  of  One 
God  only,  He  seems  to  disclaim  for  Himself 
the  nature  of  God  by  the  term  "  only,"  never- 
theless, without  destroying  the  belief  in  one 
God,  He  places  Himself  in  the  unity  of  the 
Father's  nature.  Thus,  when  the  Scribe  asked 
Him,  which  is  the  chief  commandment  of  the 
law,  He  answered,  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord 
our  God  is  one  Lord :  thou  shall  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy 
soul,  and  with  all  thy  spirit,  and  with  all  thy 
strength.  This  is  the  first  commandment.  And 
the  second  is  like  unto  it,  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbour  as  thyself.  There  is  none  other  com- 
mandment greater  than  these  3.  They  think  that 
He  severs  Himself  from  the  nature  and  worship 
of  the  One  God  when  He  pronounces  as  the 
chief  commandment,  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord 
our  God  is  one  Lord,  and  does  not  even  make 
Himself  the  object  of  worship  in  the  second 


•  Following  the  punctuation  of  the  older  Editions,  and  placing 
the  full  stop  after,  instead  of  before,  the  sentence  "  cum  Filius  ita 
bonorandus  ut  Pater  sit." 

9  St.  John  xi.  4,  "through  him"  =  through  Lazarus.  The 
Greek  is  6*'  avng,  "  thereby  "  (R.V.). 

3  St.  Mark  xii.  29 — 31 ;  cf.  Matt.  xxii.  36 — 40. 


commandment,  since  the  law  bids  us  to  love 
our  neighbour,  as  it  bids  us  to  believe  in  one 
God.  Nor  must  we  pass  over  the  answer  of 
the  Scribe,  Of  a  truth  thou  hast  well  said,  that 
God  is  one,  and  there  is  none  other  but  He: 
and  to  love  Him  with  all  the  heart,  and  all  the 
strength  and  all  the  soul,  and  to  love  his  neigh- 
bour as  himself,  this  is  greater  than  all  whole 
burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices  *.  The  answer  of 
the  Scribe  seems  to  accord  with  the  words  of 
the  Lord,  for  He  too  proclaims  the  innermost 
and  inmost  love  of  one  God,  and  professes  the 
love  of  one's  neighbour  as  real  as  the  love  of 
self,  and  places  love  of  God  and  love  of  one's 
neighbour  above  all  the  burnt  offerings  of 
sacrifices.     But  let  us  see  what  follows. 

25.  And  when  Jesus  saw  that  he  answered 
discreetly,  He  said  unto  him,  Thou  art  not 
far  from  the  kingdom  of  God5.  What  is  the 
meaning  of  such  moderate  praise?  Believe  in 
one  God,  and  love  Him  with  all  thy  soul,  and 
with  all  thy  strength,  and  with  all  thy  heart, 
and  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself;  if  this  be  the 
faith  which  makes  man  perfect  for  the  Kingdom 
of  God,  why  is  not  the  Scribe  already  within, 
instead  of  not  far  from  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  ?  It  is  in  another  strain  that  He 
grants  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  to  those  who 
clothe  the  naked,  feed  the  hungry,  give  drink 
to  the  thirsty,  and  visit  the  sick  and  the 
prisoner,  Come,  ye  blessed  of  My  Father,  inherit 
the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world6;  or  rewards  the  poor  in 
spirit,  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit :  for  theirs 
is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven^.  Their  gain  is 
perfect,  their  possession  complete,  their  in- 
heritance of  the  kingdom  prepared  for  them 
is  secured.  But  was  this  young  man's  con- 
fession short  of  theirs?  His  ideal  of  duty 
raises  love  of  neighbour  to  the  level  of  love 
of  self;  what  more  did  he  want  to  attain  to 
the  perfection  of  good  conduct?  To  be  oc- 
casionally charitable,  and  ready  to  help,  is  not 
perfect  love  ;  but  perfect  love  has  fulfilled  the 
whole  duty  of  charity,  when  a  man  leaves  no 
debt  to  his  neighbour  unpaid,  but  gives  him 
as  much  as  he  gives  himself.  But  the  Scribe 
was  debarred  from  perfection,  because  he 
did  not  know  the  mystery  which  had  been 
accomplished.  He  received,  indeed,  the  praise 
of  the  Lord  for  his  profession  of  faith,  he  heard 
the  reply  that  he  was  not  far  from  the  king- 
dom, but  he  was  not  put  in  actual  possession 
of  the  blessed  hope.  His  course,  though  ig- 
norant, was  favourable ;  he  put  the  love  of 
God  before  all  things,  and  charity  towards  his 
neighbour  on  a  level  with  love  of  self.     And 


4  St.  Mark  xii.  53,  33. 
6  St.  Matt.  xxv.  34. 


S  lb.  34. 

7  lb.  v.  3  ;  cf.  Luke  vi.  20. 


M   2 


164 


DE   TRINITATE. 


when  he  ranked  the  love  of  God  even  higher 
than  charity  towards  his  neighbour,  he  broke 
through  the  law  of  burnt  offerings  and  sacri- 
fices ;  and  that  was  not  far  from  the  mystery 
of  the  Gospel. 

26.  We  may  perceive  also,  from  the  words 
of  our  Lord  Himself,  why  He  said,  Thou  art 
not  far  from  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  rather 
than,  Thou  sha/t  be  in  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven.  Then  follows :  And  no  man  after 
/hat  durst  ask  Him  any  question.  And  Jesus 
answered  and  said,  as  He  taught  in  the  Temple, 
How  say  the  Scribes  that  the  Christ  is  the  Son 
of  David  1  David  himself  saith  in  the  Holy 
Spirit,  The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord,  Sit  Thou 
on  My  right  hand,  till  I  make  Thine  enemies  the 
footstool  of  Thy  feet  (Ps.  ex.  1).  David  himself 
calleth  Him  Lord,  and  whence  is  He  his  Son  8  ? 
The  Scribe  is  not  far  from  the  Kingdom  of 
God  when  he  confesses  one  God,  Who  is  to 
be  loved  above  all  things.  But  his  own  state- 
ment of  the  law  is  a  reproach  to  him  that  the 
mystery  of  the  law  has  escaped  him,  that  he 
does  not  know  Christ  the  Lord,  the  Son  of 
God,  by  the  nature  of  His  birth  to  be  in- 
cluded in  the  confession  of  the  one  God. 
The  confession  of  one  God  according  to  the 
law  seemed  to  leave  no  room  for  the  Son  of 
God  in  the  mystery  of  the  one  Lord ;  so  He 
asks  the  Scribe,  how  he  can  call  Christ  the 
Son  of  David,  when  David  calls  Him  his  Lord, 
since  it  is  against  the  order  of  nature  that  the 
son  of  so  great  a  Patriarch  should  be  also  his 
Lord.  He  would  bid  the  Scribe,  who  regards 
Him  only  in  respect  of  His  flesh,  and  His 
birth  from  Mary,  the  daughter  of  David,  to 
remember  that,  in  respect  of  His  Spirit,  He 
is  David's  Lord  rather  than  his  son ;  that  the 
words,  Hear,  O  Lsrael,  the  Lord  our  God  is 
one  Lord,  do  not  sever  Christ  from  the 
mystery  of  the  One  Lord,  since  so  great 
a  Patriarch  and  Prophet  calls  Him  his  Lord, 
as  the  Son  begotten  of  the  Lord  before  the 
morning  star.  He  does  not  pass  over  the  law, 
or  forget  that  none  other  is  to  be  confessed 
Lord,  but  without  violating  the  faith  of  the 
law,  He  teaches  that  He  is  Lord,  in  that 
He  had  His  being  by  the  mystery  of  a  natural 
birth  from  the  substance  of  the  incorporeal 
God.  He  is  one,  born  of  one,  and  the  nature 
of  the  one  Lord  has  made  Him  by  nature 
Lord. 

27.  What  room  is  any  longer  left  for  doubt  ? 
The  Lord  Himself  proclaiming  that  the  chief 
commandment  of  the  law  is  to  confess  and 
love  the  one  Lord,  proves  Himself  to  be  Lord 
not  by  words  of  His  own,  but  by  the  Prophet's 
testimony,  always  signifying,  however,  that  He 


8  St.  Mark  xii.  34 — 37. 


is  Lord,  because  He  is  the  Son  of  God. 
By  virtue  of  His  birth  He  abides  in  the 
mystery  of  the  one  God,  for  the  birth  trans- 
mitting with  it,  as  it  did,  the  nature  of  God 
is  not  the  issuing  forth  of  another  God  with 
a  different  nature  ;  and,  because  the  generation 
is  real,  neither  is  the  Father  degraded  from 
being  Lord,  nor  is  the  Son  born  less  than 
Lord.  The  Father  retains  His  authority,  the 
Son  obtains  His  nature.  God  the  Father  is 
one  Lord,  but  the  Only-begotten  God  the 
Lord  is  not  separated  from  the  One,  since 
He  derives  His  nature  as  Lord  from  the  one 
Lord.  Thus  by  the  law  Christ  teaches  that 
there  is  one  Lord ;  by  the  witness  of  the 
prophets  He  proves  Himself  Lord  also. 

28.  May  the  faith  of  the  Gospel  ever  profit 
thus  by  the  rash  contentions  of  the  ungodly 
to  defend  itself  with  the  weapons  of  their 
attack,  and  conquering  with  the  arms  pre- 
pared for  its  destruction,  prove  that  the  words 
of  the  one  Spirit  are  the  doctrine  of  the  one 
faith  !  For  Christ  is  none  other  than  He  is 
preached,  namely  the  true  God,  and  abiding 
in  the  glory  of  the  one"  true  God.  Just  as  He 
proclaims  Himself  Lord  out  of  the  law,  even 
when  He  seems  to  deny  the  fact,  so  in  the 
Gospels  He  proves  Himself  the  true  God,  even 
when  He  appears  to  confess  the  opposite. 
To  escape  the  acknowledgment  that  He  is  the 
true  God,  the  heretics  plead  that  He  said, 
And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  should  know 
Thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Him  Whom  Thou 
didst  send,  even  Jesus  Christ^.  When  He  says, 
Thee,  the  only  true  God,  they  think  He  excludes 
Himself  from  the  reality  of  God  by  the  re- 
striction of  solitariness ;  for  the  only  true  God 
cannot  be  understood  except  as  a  solitary  God. 
It  is  true  the  Apostolic  faith  does  not  suffer 
us  to  believe  in  two  true  Gods,  for  nothing 
which  is  foreign  to  the  nature  of  the  one  God 
can  be  put  on  equality  with  the  truth  of  that 
nature;  and  there  is  more  than  one  God  in 
the  reality  of  the  one  God,  if  there  exists 
outside  the  nature  of  the  only  true  God 
a  true  God  of  another  kind,  not  possessing 
by  virtue  of  His  birth  the  same  nature  with 
Him. 

29.  But  by  these  very  words  He  proclaims 
Himself  plainly  to  be  true  God  in  the  nature 
of  the  only  true  God.  To  understand  this, 
let  our  answer  proceed  from  statements  which 
He  made  previously,  though  the  connection 
is  unbroken  right  down  to  these  words.  We 
can  then  establish  the  faith  step  by  step,  and 
let  the  confidence  of  our  freedom  rest  at  last 
on  the  summit  of  our  argument,  the  true  God- 
head of  Christ.    There  comes  first  the  mystery 

9  St.  John  xvii.  3. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    IX. 


165 


of  His  words,  He  that  hath  seen  Me>  hath  seen 
the  Father  ;  and,  Do  ye  not  believe  Me  that  I  am 
in  the  Father  and  the  Father  in  Mel  The 
words  that  I  say  unto  you,  I  speak  not  from 
Myself;  but  the  Father  abiding  in  Me,  Himself 
doeth  His  works.  Believe  Me  that  J  am  in 
the  Father  and  the  Father  in  Me :  or  else  believe 
Me  for  the  very  works1  sake1.  At  the  close  of 
this  discourse,  teeming  with  deep  mysteries, 
follows  the  reply  of  the  disciples,  Now  know 
we  that  Thou  knowest  all  things,  and  needest 
not  that  any  man  should  ask  thee:  by  this  we 
believe  that  Thou  earnest  forth  from  God11. 
They  perceived  in  Him  the  nature  of  God 
by  the  divine  powers  which  He  exercised ; 
for  to  know  all  things,  and  to  read  the  thoughts 
of  the  heart  belongs  to  the  Son,  not  to  the 
mere  messenger  of  God.  They  confessed, 
therefore,  that  He  was  come  from  God, 
because  the  power  of  the  divine  nature  was 
in  Him. 

30.  The  Lord  praised  their  understanding, 
and  answered  not  that  He  was  sent  from, 
but  that  He  was  come  out  from,  God,  sig- 
nifying by  the  words  "  come  out  from "  the 
great  fact  of  His  birth  from  the  incorporeal  God. 
He  had  already  proclaimed  the  birth  in  the 
same  language,  when  He  said,  Ye  love  Me,  and 
believe  that  I  came  out  from  the  Father,  and 
came  from  the  Father  into  this  worlds.  He 
had  come  from  the  Father  into  this  world, 
because  He  had  come  out  from  God.  To 
shew  that  He  signifies  His  birth  by  the  coming 
out,  He  adds  that  He  has  come  from  the 
Father ;  and  since  He  had  come  out  from  God, 
because  He  had  come  from  the  Father,  that 
"  coming  out,"  followed,  as  it  is,  by  the  con- 
fession of  the  Father's  name,  is  simply  and 
solely  the  birth.  To  the  Apostles,  then,  as 
understanding  this  mystery  of  His  coming  out, 
He  continues,  Ye  believe  now,  Behold  the  hour 
cometh,  yea  is  come,  that  ye  shall  be  scattered, 
every  man  to  his  own,  and  shall  leave  Me  alone  : 
yet  I  am  not  alone,  because  the  Father  is  with 
Me*.  He  would  shew  that  the  "coming  out" 
is  not  a  separation  from  God  the  Father,  but 
a  birth,  which  by  His  being  born  continues  in 
Him  the  nature  of  God  the  Father,  and  there- 
fore He  adds  that  He  is  not  alone,  but  the 
Father  is  with  Him  ;  in  power,  that  is,  and 
unity  of  nature,  for  the  Father  was  abiding 
in  Him,  speaking  in  His  words,  and  working 
in  His  works.  Lastly  to  shew  the  reason  of 
this  whole  discourse,  He  adds,  These  things 
I  have  spoken  to  you,  that  in  Me  ye  may  have 
peace.  In  this  world  ye  shall  have  tribulation : 
but  be  of  good  cheer,  for  I  have  overcome  the 


1  St.  John  xiv.  9 — 11. 
3  lb.  27,  28. 


3  lb.  xvi.  30. 
*  lb.  31,  32. 


ivorld*.  He  has  spoken  these  things  unto 
them,  that  in  Him  they  may  abide  in  peace, 
not  torn  asunder  by  the  passion  of  dissension 
over  debates  about  the  faith.  He  was  left 
alone,  but  was  not  alone,  for  He  had  come 
out  from  God,  and  there  abode  still  in  Him 
the  God,  from  Whom  He  had  come  out. 
Therefore  he  bade  them,  when  they  were 
harassed  in  the  world,  to  wait  for  His 
promises,  for  since  He  had  come  out  from 
God,  and  God  was  still  in  Him,  He  had 
conquered  the  world. 

31.  Then,  finally,  to  express  in  words  the 
whole  Mystery,  He  raised  His  eyes  to  heaven, 
and  said,  Father,  the  hour  is  come :  glorify  Thy 
Son,  that  Thy  Son  may  glorify  Thee.  Even 
as  Thou  gavest  Him  authority  over  all  flesh, 
that,  whatsoever  Thou  hast  given  Him,  to  them 
He  should  give  eternal  life6.  Do  you  call  Him 
weak  because  He  asks  to  be  glorified  ?  So 
be  it,  if  He  does  not  ask  to  be  glorified  in 
order  that  He  may  Himself  glorify  Him  by 
Whom  He  is  glorified.  Of  the  receiving  and 
giving  of  glory  we  have  spoken  in  another 
book  7,  and  it  would  be  superfluous  to  go  over 
the  question  again.  But  of  this  at  least  we 
are  certain,  that  He  prays  for  glory  in  order 
that  the  Father  may  be  glorified  by  granting 
it.  But  perhaps  He  is  weak  in  that  He 
receives  power  over  all  flesh.  And  indeed  the 
receiving  of  power  might  be  a  sign  of  weakness 
if  He  were  not  able  to  give  to  those  whom 
He  receives  life  eternal.  Yet  the  very  fact 
of  receiving  is  used  to  prove  inferiority  of 
nature.  It  might,  if  Christ  were  not  true 
God  by  birth  as  truly  as  is  the  Unbegotten. 
But  if  the  receiving  of  power  signifies  neither 
more  nor  less  than  the  Birth,  by  which  He 
received  all  that  He  has,  that  gift  does  not 
degrade  the  Begotten,  because  it  makes  Him 
perfectly  and  entirely  what  God  is.  God 
Unbegotten  brought  God  Only-begotten  to 
a  perfect  birth  of  divine  blessedness :  it  is, 
then,  the  mystery  of  the  Father  to  be  the 
Author  of  the  Birth,  but  it  is  no  degradation 
to  the  Son  to  be  made  the  perfect  image  of 
His  Author  by  a  real  birth.  The  giving  of 
power  over  all  flesh,  and  this,  in  order  that 
to  all  flesh  might  be  given  eternal  life,  postu- 
lates the  Fatherhood  of  the  Giver  and  the 
Divinity  of  the  Receiver :  for  by  giving  is  sig- 
nified that  the  One  is  the  Father,  and  in 
receiving  the  power  to  give  eternal  life,  th* 
Other  remains  God  the  Son.  All  power  is 
therefore  natural  and  congenital  to  the  Son 
of  God;  and  though  it  is  given,  that  does 
not  separate  Him  Irom  His  Author,  for  that 
which  is  given  is  the  property  of  His  Author, 


5  St.  John  xvi.  33. 


6  lb.  xvii.  1,  2. 


7  See  iii.  13. 


1 66 


DE   TRINITATE. 


power  to  bestow  eternal  life,  to  change  the 
corruptible  into  the  incorruptible.  The  Father 
gave  all,  the  Son  received  all ;  as  is  plain 
from  His  words,  All  things,  whatsoever  the 
Father  hath,  are  Mine*.  He  is  not  speaking 
here  of  species  of  created  things,  and  pro- 
cesses of  material  change  *,  but  He  unfolds 
to  us  the  glory  of  the  blessed  and  perfect 
Divinity,  and  teaches  us  that  God  is  here 
manifested  as  the  sum  of  His  attributes,  His 
power,  His  eternity,  His  providence,  His 
authority;  not  that  we  should  think  that  He 
possesses  these  as  something  extraneous  to 
Himself,  but  that  by  these  His  qualities  He 
Himself  has  been  expressed  in  terms  partly 
comprehensible  by  our  sense.  The  Only-be- 
gotten, therefore,  taught  that  He  had  all  that 
the  Father  has,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should 
receive  of  Him  :  as  He  says,  All  things,  what- 
soever the  Father  hath,  are  Mine;  therefore 
I  said,  He  shall  take  of  Mine1.  All  that 
the  Father  hath  are  His,  delivered  and  re- 
ceived :  but  these  gifts  do  not  degrade  His 
divinity,  since  they  give  Him  the  same  attri- 
butes as  the  Father. 

32.  These  are  the  steps  by  which  He  ad- 
vances the  knowledge  of  Himself.  He  teaches 
that  He  is  come  out  <  from  the  Father,  pro- 
claims that  the  Father  is  with  Him,  and  testi- 
fies that  He  has  conquered  the  world.  He 
is  to  be  glorified  of  the  Father,  and  will  glorify 
Him  :  He  will  use  the  power  He  has  received, 
to  give  to  all  flesh  eternal  life.  Then  hear 
the  crowning  point,  which  concludes  the  whole 
series,  And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  should 
know  Thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Hint  Whom 
Thou  didst  send,  even  Jesus  Christ  *.  Learn, 
heretic,  to  confess,  if  you  cannot  believe, 
the  faith  which  gives  eternal  life.  Separate, 
if  you  can,  Christ  from  God,  the  Son  from 
the  Father,  God  over  all  from  the  true  God, 
the  One  from  the  Only :  if,  as  you  say, 
eternal  life  is  to  believe  in  one  only  true  God 
without  Jesus  Christ.  But  if  there  is  no 
eternal  life  in  a  confession  of  the  only  true 
God,  which  separates  Christ  from  Him,  how, 
pray,  can  Christ  be  separated  from  the  true 
God  for  our  faith,  when  He  is  not  separable 
for  our  salvation  ? 

33.  I  know  that  laboured  solutions  of  diffi- 
cult questions  do  not  find  favour  with  the 
reader,  but  it  will  perhaps  be  to  the  advan- 
tage of  the  faith  if  I  permit  myself  to  postpone 
for  a  time  the  exposition  of  the  full  truth,  and 


8  St.  John  xvi.  15. 

1  i.e.  He  does  not  mean  by  whatsoever  the  Father  hath  the 
created  world :  nor  is  the  giving  and  receiving  to  be  understood 
in  a  material  sense,  cf.  c.  72. 

1  it.  John  xvi.  15.  The  '  He'  is  the  Holy  Ghost;  see  the 
context. 

3  lb.  xvii.  3. 


wrestle  against  the  heretics  with  these  wor1-. 
of  the  Gospel.  You  hear  the  statement  of 
the  Lord,  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  should 
know  Thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Him  Whom 
Thou  didst  send,  even  Jesus  Christ.  What  is 
it,  pray,  which  suggests  to  you  that  Christ 
is  not  the  true  God?  No  further  indication 
is  given  to  shew  you  what  you  should 
think  of  Christ.  There  is  nothing  but  Jesus 
Christ:  not  Son  of  Afan,  as  He  generally 
called  Himself:  not  Son  of  God,  as  He 
often  declared  Himself:  not  the  living  bread 
which  cometh  down  from  Heaven*,  as  He 
repeated  to  the  scandal  of  many.  He  says, 
Thee,  the  only  trite  God,  and  Him  Whom  Thou 
didst  send,  even  Jesus  Christ,  omitting  all  His 
usual  names  and  titles,  natural  and  assumed. 
Hence,  if  the  confession  of  the  only  true  God, 
and  of  Jesus  Christ,  gives  us  eternal  life,  with- 
out doubt  the  name  Jesus  Christ  has  here 
the  full  sense  of  that  of  God. 

34.  But  perhaps  by  saying,  Thee  the  only, 
Christ  severs  Himself  from  communion  and 
unity  with  God.  Yes,  but  after  the  words, 
Thee  the  only  true  God,  does  He  not  imme- 
diately continue,  and  Him  Whom  Tho?t  didst 
send,  even  Jesus  Christ?  I  appeal  to  the  sense 
of  the  reader  :  what  must  we  believe  Christ  to 
be,  when  we  are  commanded  to  believe  in  Him 
also,  as  well  as  the  Father  the  only  true  God  ? 
Or,  perhaps,  if  the  Father  is  the  only  true 
God,  there  is  no  room  for  Christ  to  be  God. 
It  might  be  so,  if,  because  there  is  one  God 
the  Father,  Christ  were  not  the  one  Lord5. 
The  fact  that  God  the  Father  is  one,  leaves 
Christ  none  the  less  the  one  Lord  :  and 
similarly  the  Father's  one  true  Godhead  makes 
Christ  none  the  less  true  God  :  for  we  can 
only  obtain  eternal  life  if  we  believe  in  Christ, 
as  well  as  in  the  only  true  God. 

35.  Come,  heretic,  what  will  your  fatuous 
doctrine  instruct  us  to  believe  of  Christ; 
Christ,  Who  dispenses  eternal  life,  Who  is 
glorified  of,  and  glorifies,  the  Father,  Who 
overcame  the  world,  Who,  deserted,  is  not 
alone,  but  has  the  Father  with  Him,  Who 
came  out  from  God,  and  came  from  the 
Father  ?  He  is  born  with  such  divine  powers ; 
what  of  the  nature  and  reality  of  God  will  you 
allow  Him?  It  is  in  vain  that  we  believe  in 
the  only  true  God  the  Father,  unless  we 
believe  also  in  Him,  Whom  He  sent,  even 
Jesus  Christ.  Why  do  you  hesitate  ?  Tell  us, 
what  is  Christ  to  be  confessed  ?  You  deny 
what  has  been  written  :  what  is  left,  but  to 
believe  what  has  not  been  written  ?  O  un- 
happy wilfulness  !  O  falsehood  striving  against 
the  truth  !  Christ  is  united  in  belief  and  con- 


*  St.  John  tL  $t. 


5  1  Cor.  viii.  6 :  see  above,  c  3*. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   IX. 


167 


fession  with  the  only  true  God  the  Father : 
what  faith  is  it,  pray,  to  deny  Him  to  be  true 
God,  and  to  call  Him  a  creature,  when  it  is  no 
faith  to  believe  in  the  only  true  God  without 
Christ?  But  you  are  narrow,  heretic,  and  un- 
able to  receive  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  sense  of 
the  heavenly  words  escapes  you ;  stung  with 
the  asp's  poison  of  error,  you  forget  that  Christ 
is  to  be  confessed  true  God  in  the  faith  of  the 
only  true  God,  if  we  would  obtain  eternal  life. 

36.  But  the  faith  of  the  Church,  while  con- 
fessing the  only  true  God  the  Father,  confesses 
Christ  also.  It  does  not  confess  Christ  true 
God  without  the  Father  the  only  true  God  ; 
nor  the  Father  the  only  true  God  without 
Christ.  It  confesses  Christ  true  God,  because 
it  confesses  the  Father  the  only  true  God. 
Thus  the  fact  that  God  the  Father  is  the  only 
true  God  constitutes  Christ  also  true  God. 
The  Only-begotten  God  suffered  no  change  of 
nature  by  His  natural  birth  :  and  He  Who, 
according  to  the  nature  of  His  divine  origin 
was  born  God  from  the  living  God,  is,  by  the 
truth  of  that  nature,  inalienable  from  the  only 
true  God.  Thus  there  follows  from  the  true 
divine  nature  its  necessary  result,  that  the 
outcome  of  true  divinity  must  be  a  true 
birth,  and  that  the  one  God  could  not  pro- 
duce from  Himself  a  God  of  a  second  kind. 
The  mystery  of  God  consists  neither  in  sim- 
plicity, nor  in  multiplicity  :  for  neither  is  there 
another  God,  Who  springs  from  God  with 
qualities  of  His  own  nature,  nor  does  God 
remain  as  a  single  Person,  for  the  true  birth 
of  the  Son  teaches  us  to  confess  Him  as 
Father.  The  begotten  God  did  not,  therefore, 
lose  the  qualities  of  His  nature  :  He  possesses 
the  natural  power  of  Him,  Whose  nature  He 
retains  in  Himself  by  a  natural  birth.  The 
divinity  in  Him  is  not  changed,  or  degenerate, 
for  if  His  birth  had  brought  with  it  any  defect, 
it  would  more  justly  cast  upon  the  Nature, 
through  which  He  came  into  being,  the  reflec- 
tion of  having  failed  to  implant  in  its  offspring 
the  properties  of  itself.  The  change  would 
not  degrade  the  Son,  Who  had  passed  into 
a  new  substance  by  birth,  but  the  Father, 
Who  had  been  unable  to  maintain  the  con- 
stancy of  His  nature  in  the  birth  of  the  Son, 
and  had  brought  forth  something  external  and 
foreign  to  Himself. 

37.  But,  as  we  have  often  said,  the  in- 
adequacy of  human  ideas  has  no  correspond- 
ing inadequacy  in  the  unity  of  God  the  Father 
and  God  the  Son  :  as  though  there  were  ex- 
tension, or  series,  or  flux,  like  a  spring  pour- 
ing forth  its  stream  from  the  source,  or  a  tree 
supporting  its  branch  on  the  stem,  or  fire  giv- 
ing out  its  heat  into  space.  In  these  cases 
we   have   expansion   without   any  separation  : 


the  parts  are  bound  together  and  do  not  exist 
of  themselves,  but  the  heat  is  in  the  fire,  the 
branch  in  the  tree,  the  stream  in  the  sprir.g. 
So  the  thing  itself  alone  has  an  independent 
existence ;  the  one  does  not  pass  into  the 
other,  for  the  tree  and  the  branch  are  one  and 
the  same,  as  also  the  fire  and  the  heat,  the 
spring  and  the  stream.  But  the  Only-begotten 
God  is  God,  subsisting  by  virtue  of  a  perfect 
and  ineffable  birth,  true  Scion  of  the  Un- 
begotten  God,  incorporeal  offspring  of  an 
incorporeal  nature,  living  and  true  God  of 
living  and  true  God,  God  of  a  nature  inse- 
parable from  God.  The  fact  of  birth  does 
not  make  Him  God  with  a  different  nature, 
nor  did  the  generation,  which  produced  His 
substance,  change  its  nature  in  kind. 

38.  But  in  the  dispensation  of  the  flesh 
which  He  assumed,  and  through  the  obedience 
whereby  He  emptied  Himself  of  the  form  of 
God,  Christ,  born  man,  took  to  Himself  a 
new  nature,  not  by  loss  of  virtue  or  nature 
but  by  change  of  fashion.  He  emptied  Him- 
self of  the  form  of  God  and  took  the  form 
of  a  servant,  when  He  was  born.  But  the 
Father's  nature,  with  which  He  was  in  natural 
unity,  was  not  affected  by  this  assumption  of 
flesh  ;  while  Christ,  though  abiding  in  the  virtue 
of  His  nature,  yet  in  respect  of  the  humanity 
assumed  in  this  temporal  change,  lo.^t  to- 
gether with  the  form  of  God  the  unity  with 
the  divine  nature  also.  But  the  Incarnation 
is  summed  up  in  this,  that  the  whole  Son, 
that  is,  His  manhood  as  well  as  His  divinity, 
was  permitted  by  the  Father's  gracious  favour 
to  continue  in  the  unity  of  the  Father's 
nature,  and  retained  not  only  the  powers 
of  the  divine  nature,  but  also  that  nature's 
self.  For  the  object  to  be  gained  was 
that  man  might  become  God.  But  the  as- 
sumed manhood  could  not  in  any  wise  abide 
in  the  unity  of  God,  unless,  through  unity 
with  God,  it  attained  to  unity  with  the  nature 
of  God.  Then,  since  God  the  Word  was  in 
the  nature  of  God,  the  Word  made  flesh  would 
in  its  turn  also  be  in  the  nature  of  God. 
Thus,  if  the  flesh  were  united  to  the  glory 
of  the  Word,  the  man  Jesus  Christ  could 
abide  in  the  glory  of  God  the  Father,  and 
the  Word  made  flesh  could  be  restored  to  the 
unity  of  the  Father's  nature,  even  as  regards 
His  manhood,  since  the  assumed  flesh  had 
obtained  the  glory  of  the  Word.  Therefore 
the  Father  must  reinstate  the  Word  in  His 
unity,  that  the  offspring  of  His  nature  might 
again  return  to  be  glorified  in  Himself:  for 
the  unity  had  been  infringed  by  the  new 
dispensation,  and  could  only  be  restored  per- 
fect as  before  if  the  Father  glorified  with 
Himself  the  flesh  assumed  by  the  Son. 


1 68 


DE    TRINITATE. 


39.  For  this  reason,  having  already  so  well 
prepared  their  minds  for  the  understanding 
of  this  belief,  the  Lord  follows  up  the  words, 
And  this  is  eternal  life,  that  they  should  know 
Thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Him  Whom  Thou 
didst  send,  even  Jesus  Christ,  with  a  reference 
to  the  obedience  displayed  in  His  incarnation, 
I  have  glorified  Thee  on  the  earth,  I  have  ac- 
complished the  work  which  Thou  gavcst  Me  to 
do6.  And  then,  that  we  might  know  the  re- 
ward of  His  obedience,  and  the  secret  purpose 
of  the  whole  divine  plan,  He  continued,  And 
now,  O  Father,  glorify  Thou  Me  with  Thine 
own  self,  with  the  glory  which  I  had  7aith  Thee 
before  the  world  wasi.  Does  any  one  deny 
that  Christ  remained  in  the  nature  of  God, 
or  believe  Him  separable  and  distinct  from 
the  only  true  God?  Let  him  tell  us  what 
is  the  meaning  of  this  prayer,  And  now,  O 
Father,  glorify  Thou  Me  with  Thine  own  self. 
For  what  purpose  should  the  Father  glorify 
Him  with  His  own  self?  What  is  the  signi- 
fication of  these  words?  What  follows  from 
their  signification  ?  The  Father  neither  stood 
in  need  of  glory,  nor  had  He  emptied  Himself 
of  the  form  of  His  glory.  How  should  He 
glorify  the  Son  with  His  own  self,  and  with 
that  glory  which  He  had  with  Him  before  the 
world  was  made?  And  what  is  the  sense  of 
which  He  had  with  Him  ?  Christ  does  not 
say,  "  The  glory  which  I  had  before  the  world 
was  made,  when  I  was  with  Thee,"  but,  The 
glory  which  I  had  with  Thee.  When  I  was 
with  Thee  would  signify,  "  when  I  dwelt  by 
Thy  side  : "  but  which  I  had  with  Thee  teaches 
the  Mystery  of  His  nature.  Further,  Glorify 
Me  with  Thyself  \s  not  the  same  as  "Glorify 
Me."  He  does  not  ask  merely  that  He  may 
be  glorified,  that  He  may  have  some  special 
glory  of  His  own,  but  prays  that  He  may 
be  glorified  of  the  Father  with  Himself.  The 
Father  was  to  glorify  Him  with  Himself,  that 
He  might  abide  in  unity  with  Him  as  before, 
since  the  unity  with  the  Father's  glory  had 
left  Him  through  the  obedience  of  the  Incar- 
nation. And  this  means  that  the  glorifying 
should  reinstate  Him  in  that  nature,  with 
which  He  was  united  by  the  Mystery  of  His 
divine  birth  ;  that  He  might  be  glorified  of 
the  Father  with  Himself;  that  He  should 
resume  all  that  He  had  had  with  the  Father 
before  ;  that  the  assumption  of  the  servant's 
form  should  not  estrange  from  Him  the  nature 
of  the  form  of  God,  but  that  God  should 
glorify  in  Himself  the  form  of  the  servant,  that 
it  might  become  for  ever  the  form  of  God, 
since  He,  Who  had  before  abode  in  the  form 
of  God,  was  now  in  the  form  of  a  servant. 


6  St.  John  xvii.  3,  4. 


7  lb.  S. 


And  since  the  form  of  a  servant  was  to  be 
glorified  in  the  form  of  God,  it  was  to  be 
glorified  in  Him  in  Whose  form  the  fashion 
of  the  servant's  form  was  to  be  honoured. 

40.  But  these  words  of  the  Lord  are  not 
new,  or  attested  now  for  the  first  time  in  the 
teaching  of  the  Gospels,  for  He  testified  to 
this  very  mystery  of  God  the  Father  glorify- 
ing the  Son  with  Himself  by  the  noble  joy 
at  the  fulfilment  of  His  hope,  with  which 
He  rejoiced  at  the  very  moment  when  Judas 
went  forth  to  betray  Him.  Filled  with  joy 
that  His  purpose  was  now  to  be  fully  accom- 
plished, He  said,  Now  is  the  Son  of  Man 
glorified  and  God  is  glorified  in  Him.  If  God 
is  glorified  in  Him,  He  hath  glorified  Him 
in  Himself,  and  straightway  hath  He  glorified 
Him  8.  How  can  we  whose  souls  are  burdened 
with  bodies  of  clay,  whose  minds  are  polluted 
and  stained  with  foul  consciousness  of  sin, 
be  so  puffed  up  as  to  judge  of  His  divine 
claim?  How  can  we  set  up  ourselves  to 
criticise  His  heavenly  nature,  rebelling  against 
God  with  our  unhallowed  and  blasphemous 
disputations  ?  The  Lord  enunciated  the  faith 
of  the  Gospel  in  the  simplest  words  that  could 
be  found,  and  fitted  His  discourses  to  our 
understanding,  so  far  as  the  weakness  of  our 
nature  allowed  Him,  without  saying  anything 
unworthy  of  the  majesty  of  His  own  nature. 
The  signification  of  His  opening  words  can- 
not, I  think,  be  doubted,  Now  is  the  Son 
of  Man  glorified ;  that  is,  all  the  glory  which 
He  obtains  is  not  for  the  Word  but  for  His 
flesh :  not  for  the  birth  of  His  Godhead,  but 
for  the  dispensation  of  His  manhood  born 
into  the  world.  What  then,  may  I  ask,  is  the 
meaning  of  what  follows.  And  God  is  glorified 
in  Him  ?  I  hear  that  God  is  glorified  in  Him  ; 
but  what  that  can  be  according  to  your  inter- 
pretation, heretic,  I  do  not  know.  God  is 
glorified  in  Him,  in  the  Son  of  Man,  that  is : 
tell  me,  then,  is  the  Son  of  Man  the  same 
as  the  Son  of  God?  And  since  the  Son  of 
Man  is  not  one  and  the  Son  of  God  another, 
but  He  Who  is  Son  of  God  is  Himself  also 
Son  of  Man,  Who,  pray,  is  the  God  Who  is 
glorified  in  this  Son  of  Man,  Who  is  also  Son 
of  God  ? 

41.  So  God  is  glorified  in  the  Son  of  Man, 
Who  is  also  Son  of  God.  Let  us  see,  then, 
what  is  this  third  clause  which  is  added,  If 
God  is  glorified  in  Him,  God  hath  also  glori- 
fied Him  in  Himself.  What,  pray,  is  this 
secret  mystery?  God,  in  the  glorified  Son  of 
Man,  glorifies  a  glorified  God  in  Himself! 
The  glory  of  God  is  in  the  Son  of  Man,  and 
the  glory  of  God  is  in  the  glory  of  the  Son 

8  St.  John  xiii.  31,  32. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    IX. 


1G9 


of  Man.     God  glorifies  in  Himself,  but  man 
is  not   glorified   through    himself.     Again  the 
God    Who    is   glorified    in    the    man,    though 
He   receives  the  glory,   yet  is  Himself  none 
other  than  God.     But  since  in  the  glorifying 
of  the  Son  of  Man,  the  God,  Who  glorifies, 
glorifies    God    in    Himself,    I    recognise    that 
the    glory    of   Christ's    nature   is   taken    into 
the  glory  of  that  nature  which    glorifies   His 
nature.    God  does  not  glorify  Himself,  but  He 
glorifies   in    Himself  God    glorified   in    man. 
And  this  "glorifies  in  Himself,"  though  it  is 
not  a  glorifying  of  Himself,   yet  means  that 
He  took  the  nature,  which  He  glorified,  into 
the  glory  of  His  own  nature      Since  the  God, 
Who  glorifies  the  God  glorified  in  man,  glori- 
fies Him  in  Himself,  He  proves  that  the  God 
Whom    He   glorifies    is    in   Himself,    for   He 
glorifies    Him    in    Himself.     Come,    heretic, 
whoever    you    be,    produce    the    inextricable 
objections  of  your  tortuous  doctrine  ;   though 
they  bind  themselves  in  their  own  tangles,  yet, 
marshal   them  as   you   will,  we  shall   not   be 
in  danger  of  sticking  in  their  snares.    The  Son 
of  Man  is  glorified  ;  God  is  glorified  in  Him ; 
God  glorifies  in  Himself  Him,  Who  is  glorified 
in  the  man.     It  is  not  the  same  that  the  Son 
of  Man  is  glorified,  as  that  God  is  glorified  in 
the   Son   of  Man,    or   that   God   glorifies   in 
Himself  Him,  Who  is  glorified   in  the  man. 
Express  in  the  terms  of  your  unholy  belief, 
what  you  mean  by  God  being  glorified  in  the 
Son    of    Man.     It   must   certainly   be   either 
Christ  Who  is  glorified  in  the  flesh,   or  the 
Father  Who  is  glorified  in  Christ.     If  it   is 
Christ  Christ  is  manifestly  God,  Who  is  glori- 
fied in  the  flesh.     If  it  is  the  Father,  we  are 
face  to  face  with  the  mystery  of  the  unity, 
since  the  Father  is  glorified  in  the  Son.    Thus, 
if  you  allow  it  to  be  Christ,  despite  yourself 
you  confess  Him  God ;  if  you  understand  it  of 
God  the  Father,  you  cannot  deny  the  nature 
of  God  the   Father  in   Christ.     Let   this   be 
enough  concerning  the  glorified  Son  of  Man 
and    God   glorified   in    Him.     But   when    we 
consider  that  God  glorifies  in   Himself  God, 
Who  is  glorified  in  the  Son  of  Man,  by  what 
loophole,    pray,    can    your    profane    doctrine 
escape  from  the  confession  that  Christ  is  very 
God  according  to  the  verity  of  His  nature  ? 
God  glorifies  in  Himself  Christ,  Who  was  born 
a  man;  is  Christ  then  outside  Him,  when  He 
glorifies    Him    in    Himself?    He    restores   to 
Christ  in   Himself  the  glory  which   He  had 
with  Himself,  and  now  that  the  servant's  form, 
which  He  assumed,  is  in  turn  assumed  into 
the  form  of  God,  God  Who  is  glorified  in  man 
is  glorified  in  Himself;  He  was  in  God's  self 
before  the  dispensation,  by  which  He  emptied 
Himself,  and  now  He  is  united  with  God's  self 


both  in  the  form  of  the  servant,  and  in  the 
nature  belonging  to  His  birth.  For  His  birth 
did  not  make  Him  God  of  a  new  and  foreign 
nature,  but  by  generation  He  was  made 
natural  Son  of  a  natural  Father.  After  His 
human  birth,  when  He  is  glorified  in  His 
manhood,  He  shines  again  with  the  glory 
of  His  own  nature ;  the  Father  glorifies  Him 
in  Himself,  when  He  is  assumed  into  the 
glory  of  His  Father's  nature,  of  which  He 
had  emptied  Himself  in  the  dispensation. 

42.  The  words  of  the  Apostle's  faith  are 
a  barrier  against  your  reckless  and  frenzied 
profanity,  which  forbids  you  to  turn  the 
freedom  of  speculation  into  licence,  and 
wander  into  error.  Every  tongue,  he  says, 
shall  confess  that  Jesus  is  Lord  in  the  glory 
of  God  the  Fat  her  9.  The  Father  has  glorified 
Him  in  Himself,  therefore  He  must  be  con- 
fessed in  the  glory  of  the  Father.  And  if  He 
is  to  be  confessed  in  the  Father's  glory,  and 
the  Father  has  glorified  Him  in  Himself, 
is  He  not  plainly  all  that  His  Father  is,  since 
the  Father  has  glorified  Him  in  Himself  and 
He  is  to  be  confessed  in  the  Father's  glory  ? 
He  is  now  not  merely  in  the  glory  of  God, 
but  in  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.  The 
Father  glorifies  Him,  not  with  a  glory  from 
without,  but  in  Himself.  By  taking  Him  back 
into  that  glory,  which  belongs  to  Himself,  and 
which  He  had  with  Him  before,  the  Father 
glorifies  Him  with  Himself  and  in  Himself. 
Therefore  this  confession  is  inseparable  from 
Christ  even  in  the  humiliation  of  His  man- 
hood, as  He  says,  And  this  is  eternal  life,  that 
they  should  know  Thee,  the  only  true  God,  and 
Him,  Whom  Thou  didst  send,  even  Jesus 
Christ1;  for  firstly  there  is  no  life  eternal 
in  the  confession  of  God  the  Father  without 
Jesus  Christ,  and  secondly  Christ  is  glorified 
in  the  Father.  Eternal  life  is  precisely  this, 
to  know  the  only  true  God  and  Him,  Whom 
He  sent,  even  Jesus  Christ;  deny  that  Christ 
is  true  God,  if  you  can  have  life  by  believ- 
ing in  God  without  Him.  As  for  the  truth 
that  God  the  Father  is  the  only  true  God; 
let  this  be  untrue  of  the  God  Christ,  un- 
less Christ's  glory  is  wholly  in  the  only 
true  God  the  Father.  For  if  the  Father 
glorifies  Him  in  Himself,  and  the  Father 
is  the  only  true  God,  Christ  is  not  outside 
the  only  true  God,  since  the  Father,  Who  is 
the  only  true  God,  glorifies  in  Himself  Christ, 
Who  is  raised  into  the  glory  of  God.  And 
in  that  He  is  glorified  by  the  only  true  God 
in  Himself,  He  is  not  estranged  from  the  only 


9  Phil.  ii.  11.     The  Greek  is  eU  Sonant  fleov  n-arpos,  to  the  glory 
of  God  the  Father  (R.V.)  :  see  note  on  c.  8. 
x  St.  John  xvii.  3. 


i  ;o 


DE   TRINITATE. 


true  God,  for  He  is  glorified  by  the  true  God 
vn  Himself,  the  only  God. 

43.  But  perhaps  the  godless  unbeliever 
meets  the  pious  believer  with  the  assertion 
that  we  cannot  understand  of  the  true  God 
a  confession  of  powerlessness,  such  as,  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  The  Son  can  do  nothing 
of  Himself,  but  7i>hat  He  hath  seen  the  Father 
doing*.  If  the  twofold  angers  of  the  Jews 
had  not  demanded  a  twofold  answer,  it  would 
indeed  have  been  a  confession  of  weakness, 
that  the  Son  could  do  nothing  of  Himself, 
except  what  He  had  seen  the  Father  doing. 
But  Christ  was  answering  in  the  same  sentence 
the  double  charge  of  the  Jews,  who  accused 
Him  of  violating  the  Sabbath,  and  of  making 
Himself  equal  with  God  by  calling  God  His 
Father.  Do  you  think,  then,  that  by  fixing 
attention  upon  the  form  of  His  reply  you 
can  withdraw  it  for  the  substance?  We  have 
already  treated  of  this  passage  in  another 
book* ;  yet  as  the  exposition  of  the  faith  gains 
rather  than  loses  by  repetition,  let  us  ponder 
once  more  on  the  words,  since  the  occasion 
demands  it  of  us. 

44.  Hear  how  the  necessity  for  the  reply 
arose : — And  for  this  cause  did  the  Jews  per- 
secute Jesus,  and  sought  to  kill  Him,  because 
He  did  these  things  on  the  Sabbath*.  Their 
anger  was  so  kindled  against  Him,  that  they 
desired  to  kill  Him,  because  He  did  His 
works  on  the  Sabbath.  But  let  us  see  also, 
what  the  Lord  answered,  My  Father  worketh 
even  until  now,  and  I  work  6.  Tell  us,  heretic, 
what  is  that  work  of  the  Father ;  since  through 
the  Son,  and  in  the  Son,  are  all  things,  visible 
and  invisible  ?  You,  who  are  wise  beyond  the 
Gospels,  have  doubtless  obtained  from  some 
other  secret  source  of  learning  the  knowledge 
of  the  Father's  work,  to  reveal  Him  to  us. 
But  the  Father  works  in  the  Son,  as  the  Son 
Himself  says,  The  words  that  I  say  unto  you, 
J  speak  not  from  Myself,  but  the  Father  ivho 
abideth  in  Me,  He  doeth  His  works  ?.  Do  you 
grasp  the  meaning  of  the  words,  My  Father 
worketh  even  until  now  ?  He  speaks  that  we 
may  recognise  in  Him  the  power  of  the  Father's 
nature  employing  the  nature,  which  has  that 
power,  to  work  on  the  Sabbath.  The  Father 
works  in  Him  while  He  works ;  without 
doubt,  then,  He  works  along  with  the  working 
of  the  Father,  and  therefore  He  says,  My 
Father  worketh  even  until  now,  that  this 
present  work  of  His  words  and  actions  may 
be  regarded  as  the  working  of  the  Father's 


»  St.  John  v.  19. 

3  lb.  18.  The  Jews  sought  the  more  to  kill  Him,  because 
He  not  only  broke  the  Sabbath,  but  also  called  God  His  own 
Father,  making  Himself  equal  with  God. 

«  Rock  vii.  158".  5  St.  John  v.  16.  6  lb.  17. 

7  lb.  xiv.  10. 


nature  in  Himself.  This  worketh  even  until 
now  identifies  the  time  with  the  moment  of 
speaking,  and  therefore  we  must  regard  Him 
as  referring  to  that  very  work  of  the  Father's 
which  He  was  then  doing,  for  it  implies  the 
working  of  the  Father  at  the  very  time  of  His 
words.  And  lest  the  Faith,  being  restricted  to 
a  knowledge  of  the  Father  only,  should  fail 
of  the  hope  of  eternal  life,  He  adds  at  once, 
And  I  work  ;  that  is,  what  the  Father  worketh 
even  until  now,  the  Son  also  worketh.  Thus 
He  expounds  the  whole  of  the  faith  ;  for  the 
work  which  is  now,  belongs  to  the  present 
time  ;  and  if  the  Father  works,  and  the  Son 
works,  no  union  exists  between  them,  which 
merges  them  into  a  single  Person  8.  But  the 
wrath  of  the  bystanders  is  now  redoubled. 
Hear  what  follows,  For  this  cause,  therefore, 
the  Jews  sought  the  more  to  kill  Him,  because 
He  not  only  broke  the  Sabbath,  but  because  He 
called  God  His  own  Father,  making  Himself 
equal  with  God s.  Allow  me  here  to  repeat  that, 
by  the  judgment  of  the  Evangelist  and  by  com- 
mon consent  of  mankind,  the  Son  is  in  equality 
with  the  Father's  nature;  and  that  equality 
cannot  exist  except  by  identity  of  nature. 
The  begotten  cannot  derive  what  it  is  save 
from  its  source  and  the  thing  generated  cannot 
be  foreign  to  that  which  generates  it,  since 
from  that  alone  has  it  come  to  be  what  it  is. 
Let  us  see,  then,  what  the  Lord  replied  to 
this  double  outburst  of  wrath,  Verily,  verily, 
I  say  unto  you,  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of 
Himself,  but  zvhat  He  hath  seen  the  Father 
doing:  for  what  things  soe?>er  He  doeth,  these 
the  Son  also  doeth  in  like  manner  2. 

45.  Unless  we  regard  these  words  as  an  in- 
tegral part  of  His  statement,  we  do  them  vio- 
lence by  forcing  upon  them  an  arbitrary  and 
unbelieving  interpretation.  But  if  His  answer 
refers  to  the  grounds  of  their  anger,  our  faith 
expresses  rightly  what  He  meant  to  teach,  and 
the  perversity  of  the  ungodly  is  left  without 
support  for  its  profane  delusion.  Let  us  see 
then  whether  this  reply  is  suitable  to  an 
accusation  of  working  on  the  Sabbath.  The 
Son  can  do  nothing  of  Himself  but  what  He 
hath  seen  the  Father  doing.  He  has  said  just 
above,  My  Father  worketh  even  until  now,  and 
I  work.  If  by  virtue  of  the  authority  of  the 
Father's  nature  within  Him,  all  that  He  works, 
He  works  with  the  Father  in  Him,  and  the 
Father  works  even  until  now  on  the  Sabbath, 
then  the  Son,  Who  pleads  the  authority  of 
the  Father's  working,   is  acquitted  of  blame. 


8  That  both  Father  and  Son  work  implies  that  They  are  two 
distinct  Persons,  and  forbids  us  to  suppese  a  union  of  Father  and 
Son,  which  merges  them  into  one  Person. 

'  St.  John  v.  18.  2  lb.  19. 


ON    THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK    IX. 


171 


For  the  words,  can  do  nothing,  refer  not  to 
strength  but  to  authority ;  He  can  do  nothing 
of  Himself,  except  what  He  has  seen  Now, 
to  have  seen  does  not  confer  the  power  to  do, 
and  therefore  He  is  not  weak,  if  He  can  do 
nothing  without  having  seen,  but  His  autho- 
rity is  shewn  to  depend  on  seeing.  Again  the 
words,  unless  He  hath  seen,  signify  the  con- 
sciousness derived  from  seeing,  as  when  He 
says  to  the  Apostles,  Behold  I  say  unto  you, 
Lift  up  your  eyes,  and  look  on  the  fields,  that 
they  are  white  already  unto  harvest*.  With 
the  consciousness  that  the  Father's  nature  is 
abiding  in  Him,  and  working  in  Him  when 
He  works,  to  forestall  the  idea  that  the  Lord 
of  the  Sabbath  has  violated  the  Sabbath,  He 
pronounces  that,  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of 
Himself,  but  what  He  hath  seen  the  Father 
doing.  And  thus  He  demonstrates  that  His 
every  action  springs  from  His  consciousness 
of  the  nature  working  within  Him  ;  when  He 
works  on  the  Sabbath,  the  Father  worketh 
even  until  now  on  the  Sabbath.  In  what 
follows,  however,  He  refers  to  the  second 
cause  of  their  indignation,  For  what  things 
soever  He  doeth,  the  Son  doeth  in  like  manner. 
Is  it  false  that,  what  things  soever  the  Father 
doeth,  the  Son  doeth  in  like  manner  ?  Does  the 
Son  of  God  admit  a  distinction  between  the 
Father's  power  and  working  and  His  own  ? 
Does  He  shrink  from  claiming  the  equality  of 
homage  befitting  an  equal  in  power  and  nature? 
If  He  does,  disdain  His  weakness,  and  degrade 
Him  from  equality  of  nature  with  the  Father. 
But  He  Himself  says  only  a  little  later,  That 
all  may  honour  the  Son,  even  as  they  honour  the 
Father.  He  that  honoureth  not  the  Son,  hon- 
oureth  not  the  Father  which  sent  Him  *.  Dis- 
cover, if  you  can,  the  inferiority,  when  Both 
are  equal  in  honour ;  make  out  the  weakness, 
when  Both  work  with  the  same  power. 

46.  Why  do  you  misrepresent  the  occa- 
sion of  the  reply  in  order  to  detract  from 
His  divinity  ?  To  the  working  on  the  Sabbath 
He  answers  that  He  can  do  nothing  of  Him- 
self, but  what  He  hath  seen  the  Father  doing : 
to  demonstrate  His  equality,  He  professes  to 
do  what  things  soever  the  Father  doeth. 
Enforce  your  charge  of  weakness,  by  His 
answer  concerning  the  Sabbath,  if  you  can 
disprove  that  what  things  soever  the  Father 
doeth,  the  Son  doeth  in  like  manner.  But  if 
what  things  soever  includes  all  things  without 
exception ;  in  what  is  He  found  weak,  when 
there  is  nothing  that  the  Father  doeth,  which 
He  cannot  also  do?  Where  is  His  claim  to 
equality  refuted  by  any  episode  of  weakness, 
when  one  and  the  same  honour  is  demanded 


3  St.  John  iv.  35. 


4  lb.  cf.  23. 


for  Him  and  for  the  Father?  If  Both  have 
the  same  power  in  operation,  and  both  claim 
the  same  reverence  in  worship,  I  cannot  under- 
stand what  dishonour  of  inferiority  can  exist, 
since  Father  and  Son  possess  the  same  power 
of  operation,  and  equality  of  honour. 

47.  Although  we  have  treated  this  passage 
as  the  facts  themselves  explain  it,  yet  to  prove 
that  the  Lord's  words,  The  Son  can  do  nothing 
of  Himself,  but  what  He  hath  seen  the  Fattier 
doing,  so  far  from  supporting  this  unholy 
degradation  of  His  nature,  testify  to  His 
conscious  possession  of  the  nature  of  the 
Father,  by  Whose  authority  He  worked  on 
the  Sabbath,  let  us  shew  them  that  we  can 
produce  another  saying  of  the  Lord,  which  bears 
upon  the  question,  /  do  nothing  of  Myself,  bu* 
as  the  Father  taught  Me,  L  speak  these  things. 
And  He  that  sent  Me  is  with  Me:  He  hath 
not  left  Me  alone,  for  L  do  always  the  things 
that  are  pleasing  to  Him  s.  Do  you  feel  what 
is  implied  in  the  words,  The  Son  can  do 
nothing,  but  what  He  hath  seen  the  Father 
doing?  Or  what  a  mystery  is  contained  in  the 
saying,  /  can  do  nothing  of  myself  and  He 
hath  not  left  me  alone,  for  I  do  always  the 
things  that  are  pleasing  to  Him  ?  He  does 
nothing  of  Himself,  because  the  Father  abides 
in  Him  ;  can  you  reconcile  with  this  the  fact 
that  the  Father  does  not  leave  Him,  because 
He  does  the  things  which  are  pleasing  to 
Him?  Your  interpretation,  heretic,  sets  up  a 
contradiction  between  these  two  statements, 
that  He  does  nothing  of  Himself,  unless 
taught  of  the  Father  abiding  in  Him,  and 
that  the  Father  abides  in  Him,  because  He 
does  always  the  things  which  are  pleasing  to 
Him.  For  if  the  Father's  abiding  in  Him 
means  that  He  does  nothing  of  Himself,  how 
could  He  have  deserved  that  the  Father 
should  abide  in  Him,  by  doing  always  the 
things  which  are  pleasing  to  the  Father.  It 
is  no  merit,  not  to  do  of  oneself  what  one 
does.  Conversely,  how  are  the  Son's  deeds 
pleasing  to  the  Father,  if  the  Father  Himself, 
abiding  in  the  Son,  be  their  Author?  Impiety, 
thou  art  in  a  sore  strait ;  the  well-armed  piety 
of  the  faith  hath  hemmed  thee  in.  The  Son 
is  either  an  Agent,  or  He  is  not.  If  He  is 
not  an  Agent,  how  does  He  please  by  his  acts  ? 
If  He  is  an  Agent,  in  what  sense  are  deeds, 
done  not  of  Himself,  His  own  ?  On  the  one 
hand,  He  must  have  done  the  things  which 
are  pleasing;  on  the  other,  it  is  no  merit 
to  have  done,  yet  not  of  oneself,  what  one 
does. 

48.  But,  my  opponent,  the  unity  of  Their 
nature   is   such,    that    the    several   action    of 

5  St.  John  viii.  a8,  29. 


172 


DE   TRINITATE. 


Each  implies  the  corv'oint  action  of  Both, 
and  Their  joint  activity  a  several  activity 
of  Each.  Conceive  the  Son  acting,  and  the 
Father  acting  through  Him.  He  acts  not 
of  Himself,  for  we  have  to  explain  how 
the  Father  abides  in  Him.  He  acts  in  His 
own  Person,  for  in  accordance  with  His  birth 
as  the  Son,  He  does  Himself  what  is  pleasing. 
His  acting  not  of  Himself  would  prove  Him 
weak,  were  it  not  the  case  that  He  so  acts 
that  what  He  does  is  pleasing  to  the  Father. 
But  He  would  not  be  in  the  unity  of  the 
divine  nature,  if  the  deeds  which  He  does, 
and  wherein  He  pleases,  were  not  His  own, 
and  He  were  merely  prompted  to  action  by  the 
Father  abiding  in  Him.  The  Father  then  in 
abiding  in  Him,  teaches  Him.  and  the  Son 
in  acting,  acts  not  of  Himself;  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  Son,  though  not  acting  of 
Himself,  acts  Himself,  for  what  He  does  is 
pleasing.  Thus  is  the  unity  of  Their  nature 
retained  in  Their  action,  for  the  One,  though 
He  acts  Himself,  does  not  act  of  Himself, 
while  the  Other,  Who  has  abstained  from 
action,  is  yet  active. 

49.  Connect  with  this  that  saying,  which 
you  lay  hold  of  to  support  the  imputation 
of  infirmity,  All  that  the  Father  giveth  Me  shall 
come  unto  Me,  and  him  that  cometh  to  Me 
I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out ;  for  I  am  come  down 
from  heaven  not  to  do  Mine  own  7oill,  but  the 
will  of  the  Father  tikat  sent  Me  6.  But,  perhaps 
you  say,  the  Son  has  no  freedom  of  will  : 
the  weakness  of  His  nature  subjects  Him 
to  necessity,  and  He  is  denied  free-will,  and 
subjected  to  necessity  that  He  may  not  reject 
those  who  are  given  to  Him  and  come  from 
the  Father.  Nor  was  the  Lord  content  to 
demonstrate  the  mystery  of  the  Unity  by 
His  action  in  not  rejecting  those  who  are 
given  to  Him,  nor  seeking  to  do  His  own 
will  instead  of  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  Him, 
but  when  the  Jews,  after  the  repetition  of  the 
words,  Him  that  sent  Me,  began  to  murmur, 
He  confirms  our  interpretation  by  saying, 
Every  one  who  heareth  from  the  Father  and 
learneth,  cometh  unto  Me.  Not  that  any  man 
hath  seen  the  Father,  save  He  which  is  from 
God,  He  hath  seen  the  Father.  Verily,  verily, 
J  say  unto  you,  he  that  believeth  in  Me  hath 
eternal  life  ?.  Now,  tell  me  first,  where  has  the 
Father  been  heard,  and  where  has  He  taught 
His  hearers?  No  one  hath  seen  the  Father, 
save  Him  Who  is  from  God  :  has  any  one 
ever  heard  Him  Whom  no  one  has  ever  seen? 
He  that  has  heard  from  the  Father,  comes 
to  the  Son  :  and  he  that  has  heard  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Son,  has  heard  the  teaching  of  the 


6  St.  John  vi.  37,  38. 


7  lb.  45—47. 


Father's  nature,  for  its  properties  are  revealed 
in  the  Son.  When,  therefore,  we  hear  the 
Son  teaching,  we  must  understand  that  we  are 
hearing  the  teaching  of  the  Father.  No  one 
hath  seen  the  Father,  yet  he  who  comes  to 
the  Son,  hears  and  learns  from  the  Father 
to  come  :  it  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  the 
Father  teaches  through  the  words  of  the  Son, 
and,  though  seen  of  none,  speaks  to  us  in 
the  manifestation  of  the  Son,  because  the  Son, 
by  virtue  of  His  perfect  birth,  possesses  all  the 
properties  of  His  Father's  nature.  The  Only- 
begotten  God  desiring,  therefore,  to  testify 
of  the  Father's  authority,  yet  inculcating  His 
own  unity  with  the  Father's  nature,  does  not 
cast  out  those  who  are  given  to  Him  of  the 
Father,  or  work  His  own  will  instead  of  the 
will  of  Him  that  sent  Him  :  not  that  He  does 
not  will  what  He  does,  or  is  not  Himself 
heard  when  He  teaches  ;  but  in  order  that 
He  may  reveal  Him  Who  sent  Him,  and 
Himself  the  Sent,  under  the  aspect  of  one 
indistinguishable  nature,  He  shews  all  that 
He  wills,  and  says,  and  does,  to  be  the  will  and 
works  of  the  Father. 

50.  But  He  proves  abundantly  that  His 
will  is  free  by  the  words,  As  the  Father  raiseth 
the  dead  and  quickeneth  them,  even  so  the  Son 
also  quickeneth  whom  He  will3.  When  the 
equality  of  Father  and  Son  in  power  and 
honour  is  indicated,  then  the  freedom  of  the 
Son's  will  is  made  manifest :  when  Their 
unity  is  demonstrated,  His  conformity  to 
the  Father's  will  is  signified,  for  what  the 
Father  wills,  the  Son  does.  But  to  do  is 
something  more  than  to  obey  a  will  :  the 
latter  would  imply  external  necessity,  while 
to  do  another's  will  requires  unity  with  him, 
being  an  act  of  volition.  In  doing  the  will  of 
the  Father  the  Son  teaches  that  through  the 
identity  of  Their  nature  His  will  is  the  same 
in  nature  with  the  Father's,  since  all  that  He 
does  is  the  Father's  will.  The  Son  plainly 
wills  all  that  the  Father  wills,  for  wills  of  the 
same  nature  cannot  dissent  from  one  another. 
It  is  the  will  of  the  Father  which  is  revealed 
in  the  words,  For  this  is  the  will  of  My  Father, 
that  every  one  that  beholdeth  the  Son  and  be- 
lieveth in  Him,  should  have  eternal  life,  and 
that  I  should  raise  Him  up  at  the  last  day  9. 
Hear  now,  whether  the  will  of  the  Son  is  dis- 
cordant with  the  Father's,  when  He  says, 
Father,  those  whom  Thou  hast  given  Me,  I 
will  that  where  I  am  they  also  may  be  with 
Me1.  Here  is  no  doubt  that  the  Son  wills: 
for  while  the  Father  wills  that  those  who 
believe  in  the  Son  should  have  eternal  life, 
the   Son    wills   that   the   believer   should   be 


8  St.  John  v.  31. 


9  lb.  vi.  40. 


1  lb.  xvii.  24. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    IX 


i/3 


where  He  is.  For  is  it  not  eternal  life  to 
dwell  together  with  Christ  ?  And  does  He  not 
grant  to  the  believer  in  Him  all  perfection 
of  blessing  when  He  says,  No  one  hath  known 
the  Son  save  the  Father,  neither  hath  any  ktioxvn 
the  Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever 
the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  Him  2  ?  Has  He  not 
freedom  of  will,  when  He  wills  to  impart  to 
us  the  knowledge  of  the  Father's  mystery? 
Is  not  His  will  so  free  that  He  can  be- 
stow on  whom  He  will  the  knowledge  of 
Himself  and  His  Father?  Thus  Father  and 
Son  are  manifestly  joint  Possessors  of  a  na- 
ture common  to  Both  through  birth  and 
common  through  unity  :  for  the  Son  is  free 
of  will,  but  what  He  does  willingly  is  an 
act  of  the  Father's  will. 

51.  He  who  has  not  grasped  the  manifest 
truths  of  the  faith,  obviously  cannot  have  an 
understanding  of  its  mysteries  ;  because  he  has 
not  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  he  is  an  alien 
to  the  hope  of  the  Gospel.     We  must  confess 
the  Father  to  be  in  the  Son  and  the  Son  in 
the  Father,  by  unity  of  nature,  by  might  of 
power,   as  equal  in  honour  as  Begetter  and 
Begotten.     But,  perhaps  you  say,  the  witness 
of  our  Lord   Himself  is  contrary  to  this  de- 
claration, for  He  says,  The  Father  is  greater 
than  /3.     Is  this,  heretic,  the  weapon  of  your 
profanity  ?  Are  these  the  arms  of  your  frenzy  ? 
Has  it  escaped  you.  that  the  Church  does  not 
admit  two  Unbegotten,  or  confess  two  Fathers? 
Have   you  forgotten   the   Incarnation   of  the 
Mediator,  with  the  birth,  the  cradle,  the  child- 
hood, the  passion,  the  cross  and  the  death  be- 
longing to  it?  When  you  were  born  again,  did 
you  not  confess  the  Son  of  God,  born  of  Mary  ? 
If  the  Son  of  God,  of  Whom  these  things  are 
true,  says,   The  Father  is  greater  than  I,  can 
you  be  ignorant  that  the  Incarnation  for  your 
salvation  was  an  emptying  of  the  form  of  God, 
and  that  the  Father,  unaffected  by  this   as- 
sumption of  human  conditions,  abode  in  the 
blessed  eternity  of  His  own  incorrupt  nature 
without  taking  our  flesh  ?  We  confess  that  the 
Only-begotten  God,  while   He  abode  in   the 
form  of  God,  abode  in  the  nature  of  God,  but 
we  do  not  at  once  reabsorb  into  the  substance  of 
the  divine  unity  His  unity  bearing  the  form  of 
a  servant.     Nor  do  we  teach  that  the  Father 
is   in   the  Son,   as  if  He  entered   into    Him 
bodily;    but  that   the  nature  which   was   be- 
gotten by  the  Father  of  the  same  kind  as  His 
own,   possessed   by  nature  the  nature   which 
begot  it  <:  and  that  this  nature,  abiding  in  the 


form  of  the  nature  which  begot  it,  took  the 
form  of  human  nature  and  weakness.  Christ 
possessed  all  that  was  proper  to  His  nature  : 
but  the  form  of  God  had  departed  from  Him, 
for  by  emptying  Himself  of  it.  He  had  taken 
the  form  of  a  servant.  The  divine  nature  had 
not  ceased  to  be,  but  still  abiding  in  Him,  it 
had  taken  upon  itself  the  humility  of  earthly 
birth,  and  was  exercising  its  proper  power  in 
the  fashion  of  the  humility  it  assumed.  So 
God,  born  of  God,  being  found  as  man  in  the 
form  of  a  servant,  but  acting  as  God  in  His 
miracles,  was  at  once  God  as  His  deeds 
proved,  and  yet  man,  for  He  was  found  in 
the  fashion  of  man 

52.  Therefore,  in   the   discourse   we   have 

expounded  above,  He  had  borne  witness  to 

the  unity  of  His  nature  with  the  Father's : 

He  that  hath   seen  Me,  hath  seen  the  Father 

also  s  „■    The  Father  is  in   Ale,    and  I  in    the 

Father6.     These  two  passages  perfectly  agree, 

since   Both  Persons  are  of  equal  nature ;  to 

behold  the  Son  is  the  same  as  to  behold  the 

Father;    that   the    One    abides    in   the    One 

shows  that  They  are  inseparable      And,  lest 

they  should   misunderstand   Him,   as   though 

when  they  beheld  His  body,  they  beheld  the 

Father  in   Him,  He  had  added,  Beliei>e  Me, 

that  I  am  in  the  Father  and  the  Father  in  Me : 

or  else  believe  Me  for  the  very  works'  sake  7. 

His  power  belonged  to  His  nature,  and  His 

working  was   the  exercise  of  that  power;   in 

the  exercise  of  that  power,  then,  they  might 

recognise  in  Him  the  unity  with  the  Father's 

nature.     In  proportion  as  any  one  recognised 

Him  to  be  God  in  the  power  of  His  nature, 


2  St.  Matt.  xi.  27.  3  St.  John  xiv.  28. 

4  The  unity  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  does  not  mean  that 
the  Son's  body  was  derived  from  the  Father,  as  in  human  con- 
ception the  father  is  in  the  son  :  but  the  Son  Who  derived  His 
incorporeal  nature  from  the  Father  at  the  generation,  afterwards 


he  would  come  to  know  God  the  Father,  pre- 
sent in  that  mighty  nature.  The  Son,  Who  is 
equal  with  the  Father,  shewed  by  His  works 
that  the  Father  could  be  seen  in  Him :  in 
order  that  we,  perceiving  in  the  Son  a  nature 
like  the  Father's  in  its  power,  might  know  that 
in  Father  and  Son  there  is  no  distinction  of 
nature. 

53.  So  the  Only-begotten  God,  just  before  He 
finished  His  work  in  the  flesh,  and  completed 
the  mystery  of  taking  the  servant's  form,  in 
order  to  establish  our  faith,  thus  speaks,  Ye 
heard  hoiv  I  said  unto  you,  I  go  away,  and  I 
come  unto  you.  If  ye  loved  Me,  ye  would 
rejoice,  because  I  go  unto  the  Father;  for  the 
Father  is  greater  than  I8.  He  has  already 
in  an  earlier  part  of  this  very  discourse  un- 
folded in  all  its  aspects  the  teaching  of  His 
divine  nature  :  can  we,  then,  on  the  strength 

assumed  a  human  body  for  the  Incarnation.  Thus  Hilary  clears 
himself  of  any  Patripassian  or  Marcellian  construction  which 
might  be  put  on  his  words. 

5  St.  John  xiv.  9.  6  lb.  x.  38:  cf.  xiv.  10,  11. 

7  lb.  xiv.  11.  8  lb.  28. 


174 


DE    TRINITATE. 


of  this  confession  deprive  the  Son  of  that 
equality,  which  His  true  birth  has  perfected 
in  Him?  Or  is  it  an  indignity  to  the  Only- 
begotten  God,  that  the  Unbegotten  God  is 
His  Father,  seeing  that  His  Only-begotten 
birth  from  the  Unbegotten  gives  Him  the 
Only-begotten  nature?  He  is  not  the  source 
of  His  own  being,  nor  did  He,  being  Him- 
self non-existent,  bring  to  pass  His  own 
birth  out  of  nothing ;  but,  existing  as  a  living 
nature  and  from  a  living  nature,  He  pos- 
sesses the  power  of  that  nature,  and  de- 
clares the  authority  of  that  nature,  by  bearing 
witness  to  His  honour,  and  in  His  honour 
to  the  grace  belonging  to  the  birth  He  re- 
ceived. He  pays  to  the  Father  the  tribute 
of  obedience  to  the  will  of  Him  Who  sent 
Him,  but  the  obedience  of  humility  does  not 
dissolve  the  unity  of  His  nature :  He  be- 
comes obedient  unto  death,  but,  after  death, 
He  is  above  every  name  9. 

54.  But  if  His  equality  is  doubted  because 
the  Name  is  given  Him  after  He  put  off  the 
form  of  God,  we  dishonour  Him  by  ignoring 
the  mystery  of  the  humility  which  He  as- 
sumed. The  birth  of  His  humanity  brought 
to  Him  a  new  nature,  and  His  form  was 
changed  in  His  humility,  by  the  assumption 
of  a  servant's  form,  but  now  the  giving  of 
the  Name  restores  to  Him  equality  of  form. 
Ask  yourself  what  it  is,' which  is  given.  If 
the  gift  be  something  pertaining  to  God,  the 
grant  to  the  receiving  nature  does  not  impair 
the  divinity  of  the  giving  nature.  Again,  the 
words,  And  gave  Him  the  Name,  involve  a  mys- 
tery in  the  giving,  but  the  giving  of  the  Name 
does  not  make  it  another  name.  To  Jesus  is 
given,  that  to  Him,  Every  knee  shall  bow  of 
things  in  heaven,  and  things  on  earth,  and  things 
under  the  earth,  and  every  tongue  confess  that 
Jesus  is  Lord  in  the  glory  of  God  the  Father x. 
The  honour  is  given  Him  that  He  should  be 
confessed  in  the  glory  of  God  the  Father. 
Do  you  hear  Him  say,  The  Father  is  greater 
than  I?  Know  Him  also,  of  Whom  it  is  said 
in  reward  of  His  obedience,  And  gave  unto 
Him  the  Name  which  is  above  every  name 2  ; 
hear  Him  Who  said,  I  and  the  Father  are  one ; 
He  that  hath  seen  Me,  hath  seen  the  Father 
also ;  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in 
Me.  Consider  the  honour  of  the  confession 
which  is  granted  Him,  that  Jesus  is  Lord  in 
the  glory  of  God  the  Father.  When,  then, 
is  the  Father  greater  than  the  Son  ?  Surely, 
when  He  gives  Him  the  Name  above  every 
name.  And  on  the  other  hand,  when  is  it 
that  the  Son  and  the  Father  are  one  ?  Surely, 
when   every   tongue   confesses   that   Jesus   is 


»  Phil.  ii.  8,  9. 


*  lb.  10,  zi. 


lb.  g. 


Lord  in  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.  If, 
then,  the  Father  is  greater  through  His  au- 
thority to  give,  is  the  Son  less  through  the 
confession  of  receiving?  The  Giver  is  greater  : 
but  the  Receiver  is  not  less,  for  to  Him  it  is 
given  to  be  one  with  the  Giver.  If  it  is  not 
given  to  Jesus  to  be  confessed  in  the  glory 
of  God  the  Father,  He  is  less  than  the  Father. 
But  if  it  is  given  Him  to  be  in  that  glory,  in 
which  the  Father  is,  we  see  in  the  prerogative 
of  giving,  that  the  Giver  is  greater,  and  in  the 
confession  of  the  gift,  that  the  Two  are  One. 
The  Father  is,  therefore,  greater  than  the  Son: 
for  manifestly  He  is  greater,  Who  makes  an- 
other to  be  all  that  He  Himself  is,  Who 
imparts  to  the  Son  by  the  mystery  of  the 
birth  the  image  of  His  own  unbegotten  nature, 
Who  begets  Him  from  Himself  into  His  own 
form,  and  restores  Him  again  from  the  form 
of  a  servant  to  the  form  of  God,  Whose  work 
it  is  that  Christ,  born  God  according  to  the 
Spirit  in  the  glory  of  the  Father,  but  now 
Jesus  Christ  dead  in  the  flesh,  should  be 
once  more  God  in  the  glory  of  the  Father. 
When,  therefore,  Christ  says  that  He  is  going 
to  the  Father,  He  reveals  the  reason  why 
they  should  rejoice  if  they  loved  Him,  be- 
cause the  Father  is  greater  than  He. 

55.  After  the  explanation  that  love  is  the 
source  of  this  joy,  because  love  rejoices  that 
Jesus  is  to  be  confessed  in  the  glory  of  God 
the  Father,  He  next  expresses  His  claim  to 
receive  back  that  glory,  in  the  words,  For 
the  prince  of  this  world  cometh,  and  he  hath 
nothing  in  Me*.  The  prince  of  this  world 
hath  nothing  in  Him :  for  being  found  in 
fashion  as  a  man,  He  dwelt  in  the  likeness 
of  the  flesh  of  sin,  yet  apart  from  the  sin 
of  the  flesh,  and  in  the  flesh  condemned 
sin  by  sin  4.  Then,  giving  obedience  to  the 
Father's  command  as  His  only  motive,  He 
adds,  But  that  the  world  may  knoiv  that  I 
love  the  Father,  even  as  the  Father  gave  Me 
commandment,  so  I  do.  Arise,  let  us  go  hence*. 
In  His  zeal  to  do  the  Father's  command- 
ment, He  rises  and  hastens  to  complete 
the  mystery  of  His  bodily  passion.  But  the 
next  moment  He  unfolds  the  mystery  of  His 
assumption  of  flesh.  Through  this  assump- 
tion we  are  in  Him,  as  the  branches  in  the 
vinestock6;   and  unless   He  had  become  the 


3  St.  John  xiv.  30. 

4  Rom.  viii.  3.  Here  Hilary's  de  feecato  peccatum  .  .  .  con- 
dcmnans  must  mean  '  by  means  of  sin.'  In  Latin  of  this  date 
de  is  often  instrumental. 

5  St.  John  xiv.  31.  The  words  'but  that  the  world  ....  even 
so  I  do,'  are  generally  connected  with  the  previous  sentence,  and 
the  last  sentence,  'Arise,  let  us  go  hence,'  is  regarded  as  the 
breaking  off  of  the  discourse.  But  the  words,  '  But  that  the 
world,'  &c,  do  not  stand  in  very  clear  connection  with  the 
previous  sentence,  and  the  view  here  suggested  has  much  to  be 
said  for  it. 

6  St.  John  xv.  1,  a. 


ON   THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK    IX. 


175 


Vine,    we   could   have   borne    no   good   fruit. 
He  exhorts  us   to  abide  in   Himself,  through 
faith    in    His   assumed   body,   that,   since   the 
Word   has  been  made    flesh,  we   may   be    in 
the  nature  of  His  flesh,  as  the  branches  are 
in  the  Vine.     He  separates  the  form  of  the 
Father's  majesty  from  the  humiliation  of  the 
assumed  flesh   by  calling  Himself  the  Vine, 
the  source  of  unity  for  all  the  branches,  and 
the    Father    the    careful    Husbandman, '  Who 
prunes  away  its  useless  and  barren  branches 
to  be  burnt  in   the  fire.     In  the  words,  He 
that  hath  seen  Me,  hath  seen  the  Father  also, 
and   The  words  that  I  say  unto  you,  I  speak 
not  of  Myself,  but  the  Father  abiding  in  Me, 
He  dodh  His  works,  and  Believe  Me,  that  I 
am   in    the   Father,    and  the   Father   in    Me, 
He   reveals   the  truth   of  His  birth  and   the 
mystery  of  His  Incarnation.      He  then  con- 
tinues the  thread  of  His  discourse,  until  He 
comes   to  the    saying,    The  Father  is  greater 
than  I ;  and  after  this,  to  complete  the  mean- 
ing of  these  words,   He  hastens  to  add  the% 
illustration  of  the  husbandman,  the  vine,  and 
the  branches,  which  directs  our  notice  to  His 
submission   to   bodily  humiliation.     He   says 
that,  because  the  Father  is  greater  than  Him- 
self,   He   is  going   to   the    Father,    and   that 
love  should  rejoice,  that  He  is  going  to  the 
Father,    that-  is,    to   receive   back    His  glory 
from    the   Father:    with    Him,   and   in    Him, 
to  be  glorified  not  with  a  brand-new  honour, 
but  with  the  old,  not  with  some  strange  honour 
but  with  that  which   He  had  with   Him  be- 
fore.    If  then  Christ  shall  not  enter  into  Him 
with  glory,  to  abide  in  the  glory  of  God,  you 
may  disparage   His  nature:   but  if  the  glory 
which  He  receives  is  the  proof  of  His  God- 
head, recognise  that  it  as  Giver  of  this  proof 
that  the  Father  is  the  greater. 

56.  Why  do  you  distort  the  Incarnation 
into  a  blasphemy?  Why  pervert  the  mystery 
of  salvation  into  a  weapon  of  destruction? 
The  Father,  Who  glorifies  the  Son,  is  greater : 
The  Son,  Who  is  glorified  in  the  Father,  is 
not  less.  How  can  He  be  less,  when  He 
is  in  the  glory  of  God  the  Father?  And  how 
can  the  Father  not  be  greater?  The  Father 
therefore  is  greater,  because  He  is  Father : 
but  the  Son,  because  He  is  Son,  is  not  less. 
By  the  birth  of  the  Son  the  Father  is  con- 
stituted greater :  the  nature  that  is  His  by 
birth,  does  not  suffer  the  Son  to  be  less. 
The  Father  is  greater,  for  the  Son  prays  Him 
to  render  glory  to  manhood  He  has  as- 
sumed. The  Son  is  not  less,  for  He  re- 
ceives back  His  glory  with  the  Father. 
Thus  are  consummated  at  once  the  mystery 
•of  the  Birth,  and  the  dispensation  of  the 
Incarnation.     The  Father,  as  Father,  and  as 


glorifying  Him  Who  now  is  Son  of  Man,  is 
greater :  Father  and  Son  are  one,  in  that 
the  Son,  born  of  the  Father,  after  assuming 
an  earthly  body  is  taken  back  to  the  glory 
of  the  Father. 

57.  The  birth,  therefore,  does  not  constitute 
His  nature  inferior,  for  He  is  in  the  form  of 
God,  as  being  born  of  God.  And  though  by 
their  very  signification, '  Unbegotten  '  and  '  Be- 
gotten '  seem  to  be  opposed,  yet  the  Begotten 
cannot  be  excluded  from  the  nature  of  the 
Unbegotten,  for  there  is  none  other  from 
whom  He  could  derive  His  substance.  He 
does  not  indeed  share  in  the  supreme  majesty 
of  being  unbegotten  :  but  He  has  received  from 
the  Unbegotten  God  the  nature  of  divinity. 
Thus  faith  confesses  the  eternity  of  the  Only- 
begotten  God,  though  it  can  give  no  meaning 
to  begetting  or  beginning  in  His  case.  His 
nature  forbids  us  to  say  that  He  ever  began 
to  be,  for  His  birth  lies  beyond  the  beginnings 
of  time.  But  while  we  confess  Him  existent 
before  all  ages,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  pro- 
nounce Him  born  in  timeless  eternity,  for 
we  believe  His  birth,  though  we  know  it 
never  had  a  beginning. 

58.  Seeking  to  disparage  His  nature,  the 
heretics  lay  hold  of  such  sayings  as,  The 
Father  is  greater  than  I,  or,  But  of  that  day 
and  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels 
in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father  onlyi . 
It  is  turned  to  a  reproach  against  the  Only- 

]  begotten  God  that  He  did  not  know  the  day 
;  and  the  hour :  that,  though  God,  born  of 
God,  He  is  not  in  the  perfection  of  divine 
nature,  since  He  is  subjected  to  the  limita- 
tion of  ignorance ;  that  is,  an  external  force 
stronger  than  Himself,  triumphing,  as  it  were, 
over  His  weakness,  makes  Him  captive  to  this 
infirmity.  And,  indeed,  it  is  with  an  apparent 
right  to  claim  that  this  confession  is  inevitable, 
that  the  heretics,  in  their  frenzy,  would  drive 
us  to  such  a  blasphemous  interpretation.  The 
words  are  those  of  the  Lord  Himself,  and 
what,  it  may  be  asked,  could  be  more  unholy 
than  to  corrupt  His  express  assertion  by  our 
attempt  to  explain  it  away. 

59.  But,  before  we  investigate  the  meaning 
and  occasion  of  these  words,  let  us  first  appeal 
to  the  judgment  of  common  sense.  Is  it  cre- 
dible, that  He,  Who  stands  to  all  things  as 
the  Author  of  their  present  and  future,  should 
not  know  all  things  ?  If  all  things  are  through 
and  in  Christ,  and  in  such  a  way  through 
Christ  that  they  are  also  in  Him,  must  not 
that,  which  is  both  in  Him  and  through  Him. 
be  also  in  His  knowledge,  when  that  know- 
ledge, by  virtue  of  a  nature  which  cannot  be 

7  St.  Matt.  xxiv.  36  ;  St.  Mark  xiii.  33. 


ij6 


DE    TRINITATE. 


nescient,  habitually  apprehends  what  is  neither 
in,  nor  through  Him  8  ?  But  that  which  derives 
from  Him  alone  its  origin,  and  has  in  Him 
alone  the  efficient  cause  of  its  present  state 
and  future  development,  can  that  be  beyond 
the  ken  of  His  nature,  through  which  is  ef- 
fected, and  in  which  is  contained,  all  that  it 
is  and  shall  be?  Jesus  Christ  knows  the 
thoughts  of  the  mind,  as  it  is  now,  stirred 
by  present  motives,  and  as  it  will  be  to-morrow, 
aroused  by  the  impulse  of  future  desires. 
Hear  the  witness  of  the  Evangelist,  For  Jesus 
knew  from  the  beginning  ivho  they  were  that 
believed  not,  and  who  it  zoas  that  should  betray 
Him?.  By  its  virtue  His  nature  could  per- 
ceive the  unborn  future,  and  foresee  the  awaken- 
ing of  passions  yet  dormant  in  the  mind  :  do 
you  believe  that  it  did  not  know  what  is 
through  itself,  and  within  itself?  He  is  Lord  of 
all  that  belongs  to  others,  is  He  not  Lord 
of  His  own  ?  Remember  what  is  written  of 
Him,  All  things  have  been  created  through 
Him,  and  in  Him:  and  He  is  before  all 
things  9a .-  or  again,  For  it  was  the  good  pleasure 
of  the  Father,  that  in  Him  should  all  the 
fulness  dwell,  and  through  Him  to  reconcile 
all  things  7into  Himself1,  all  fulness  is  in  Him, 
all  things  were  made  through  Him,  and  are 
reconciled  in  Him,  and  for  that  day  of  re- 
conciliation we  wait  expectant;  did  He  not, 
then,  know  it,  when  its  time  was  in  His  hands, 
and  fixed  by  His  mystery,  for  it  is  the  day 
of  His  coming,  of  which  the  Apostle  wrote, 
When  Christ,  Who  is  your  life,  shall  be  mani- 
fested, then  shall  ye  also  with  Him  be  mani- 
fested in  glory 2.  No  one  is  ignorant  of  that 
which  is  through  himself  and  within  himself: 
shall  Christ  come,  and  does  He  not  know  the 
day  of  His  coming?  It  is  His  day,  for  the  same 
Apostle  says,  The  day  of  the  Lord  shall  come 
as  a  thief  in  the  night  3  ;  can  we  believe,  then, 
that  He  did  not  know  it?  Human  natures,  so 
far  as  in  them  lies,  foresee  what  they  deter- 
mine to  do  :  knowledge  of  the  end  desired  ac- 
companies the  desire  to  act :  does  not  He  Who 
is  born  God,  know  what  is  in,  and  through, 
Himself?  The  times  are  through  Him,  the 
day  is  in  His  hand,  for  the  future  is  consti- 
tuted through  Him,  and  the  Dispensation  of 
His  coming  is  in  His  power:  is  His  under- 
standing so  dull,  that  the  sense  of  His  torpid 
nature  does  not  tell  Him  what  He  has  Him- 
self determined?  Is  He  like  the  brute  and 
the  beast,  which,  animated  by  no  reason  or 
foresight,  not  even  conscious  of  acting  but 
driven  to  and  fro  by  the  impulse  of  irrational 


*  Christ  was  conscious,  e.g.»  of  the  sinfulness  of  men. 
9  St.  John  vi.  64.  9«  Col.  i.  16.  '  lb.  19. 

2  lb.  iii.  4.  3  1  Thess.  v.  2. 


desire,   proceed    to  their  end   with  fortuitous 
and  uncertain  course? 

60.  But,  again,  how  can  we  believe  that 
the  Lord  of  glory,  because  He  was  able  not 
to  know  the  day  of  His  own  coming,  was 
of  a  discordant  and  imperfect  nature,  subject 
to  the  necessity  of  coming,  but  ignorant  of 
the  day  of  His  coming?  This  would  make 
God  weaker  than  the  power  of  ignorance, 
which  took  from  Him  the  prerogative  of  know- 
ledge. Then,  too,  how  we  redouble  occasions 
of  blasphemy,  if  we  impute  not  only  infirmity 
to  Christ,  but  also  defect  to  God  the  Father, 
saying  that  He  defrauded  of  foreknowledge 
of  this  day  the  Only-begotten  God,  the  Son  of 
His  love,  and  in  malice  denied  Him  certainty 
concerning  the  future  consummation  :  suffered 
Him  to  know  the  day  and  hour  of  His  pas- 
sion, but  witheld  from  Him  the  day  of  His 
power,  and  the  hour  of  His  glory  among 
His  Saints :  took  from  Him  the  knowledge 
of  His  blessedness,  while  He  granted  Him 
prescience  of  His  death?  The  trembling  con- 
science of  man  dare  not  presume  to  think 
thus  of  God,  or  ascribe  to  Him  such  taint 
of  human  fickleness,  that  the  Father  should 
deny  anything  to  the  Son,  or  the  Son,  Who 
was  born  as  God,  should  possess  an  imper- 
fect knowledge. 

61.  But  God  can   never   be  anything   but 
love,  or  anything  but  the  Father :  and  He,  Who 
loves,  does  not  envy ;    He  Who  is  Father,  is 
wholly  and  entirely  Father.    This  name  admits 
of  no  compromise  :  no  one  can  be  partly  father, 
and  partly  not.     A  father  is  father  in  respect 
of  his  whole  personality ;  all  that  he  is  is  pre- 
sent in  the  child,  for  paternity  by  piecemeal 
is  impossible  :    not  that  paternity  extends  to 
self-generation,  but  that  a  father  is  altogether 
father   in   all   his    qualities,   to   the    offprings 
born    of    him.     According    to    the    constitu- 
tion   of  human   bodies,  which   are   made   of 
dissimilar  elements,  and  composed  of  various 
parts,  the  father  must  be  father  of  the  whole, 
since  a  perfect  birth  hands  on  to  the  child 
all   the   different    elements   and   parts,  which 
are  in   the   father.     The  father  is,   therefore, 
father  of  all  that  is  his;    the  birth  proceeds 
from   the   whole   of  himself,   and    constitutes 
the  whole  of  the  child.     God,  however,  has 
no  body,  but  simple  essence :    no  parts,  but 
an   all-embracing  whole :    nothing  quickened, 
but  everything    living.     God    is  therefore  all 
life,  and  all  one,  not  compounded  of  parts, 
but    perfect   in    His    simplicity,    and,    as    the 
Father,  must  be  Father  to   His   begotten   in 
all  that  He  Himself  is,  for  the  perfect  birth 
of  the  Son  makes  Him  perfect  Father  in  all 
that    He   has.     So,   if  He   is   proper   Father 
to   the   Son    the   Son   must   possess   all   the 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK  IX. 


177 


properties  of  the  Father.  Yet  how  can  this  1 
be,  if  the  Son  has  not  the  quality  of  pre- 
science, if  there  is  anything  from  His  Author, 
which  is  wanting  in  His  birth?  To  say  that 
there  is  one  of  God's  properties  which  He  has 
not,  is  almost  equivalent  to  saying  that  He 
has  none  of  them.  And  what  is  proper  to 
God,  if  not  the  knowledge  of  the  future,  a 
vision,  which  embraces  the  invisible  and  un- 
born world,  and  has  within  its  scope  that 
which  is  not  yet,  but  is  to  be  ? 

62.  Moreover  Paul,  the  teacher  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, forestalls  the  impious  falsehood,  that 
the  Only-begotten  God  was  partially  nescient. 
Listen  to  his  words,  Being  instructed  in  love, 
unto  all  riches  of  the  fulness  of  understanding, 
unto  knowledge  of  the  mystery  of  God,  even 
Christ,  in  Whom  are  all  the  treasures  of  wis- 
dom and  knowledge  hidden  4.  God,  even  Christ, 
is  the  mystery,  and  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom 
and  knowledge  are  hidden  in  Him.  But  a 
portion  is  one  thing,  the  whole  another :  a 
part  is  not  the  same  as  all,  nor  can  all  be 
called  a  part.  If  the  Son  does  not  know 
the  day,  all  the  treasures  of  knowledge  are 
not  in  Him;  but  He  has  all  the  treasures 
of  knowledge  in  Him,  therefore  He  is  not 
ignorant  of  the  day.  But  we  must  remember 
that  those  treasures  of  knowledge  were  hidden 
in  Him,  though  not,  because  hidden,  therefore 
wanting.  As  in  God,  they  are  in  Him :  as  in 
the  mystery,  they  are  hidden.  But  Christ,  the 
mystery  of  God,  in  Whom  are  all  the  trea- 
sures of  knowledge  hidden,  is  not  Himself 
hidden  from  our  eyes  and  minds.  Since  then 
He  is  Himself  the  mystery,  let  us  see  whether 
He  is  ignorant  when  He  does  not  know.  If 
elsewhere  His  profession  of  ignorance  does 
not  imply  that  He  does  not  know,  here  also 
it  will  be  wrong  to  call  Him  ignorant,  if  He 
does  not  know.  In  Him  are  hidden  all  the 
treasures  of  knowledge,  and  so  His  ignorance 
is  an  economy  rather  than  ignorance.  Thus 
we  can  assign  a  reason  for  His  ignorance, 
without  the  assumption  that  He  did  not  know. 

63.  Whenever  God  says  that  He  does  not 
know,  He  professes  ignorance  indeed,  but  is 
not  under  the  defect  of  ignorance.  It  is  not 
because  of  the  infirmity  of  ignorance  that  He 
does  not  know,  but  because  it  is  not  yet  the 
time  to  speak,  or  the  divine  Plan  to  act. 
Thus  He  says  to  Abraham,  The  cry  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah  is  full,  and  their  sin  is  very 
grievous.  Therefore  I  zvill  go  down  now,  and 
see  if  they  have  done  altogether  according  to  the 
cry  of  it:  and  if  not,  I  will  know5.  Here 
we  perceive  God  not  knowing  that  which  not- 
withstanding He  knows.     He  knows  that  their 


sins  are  very  grievous,  but  He  comes  down 
again  to  see  whether  they  have  done  alto- 
gether, and  to  know  if  they  have  not  We 
observe,  then,  that  He  is  not  ignorant,  although 
He  does  not  know,  but  that,  when  the  time 
comes  for  action,  He  knows.  This  know- 
ledge is  not,  therefore,  a  change  from  ignor- 
ance, but  the  coming  of  the  fulness  of  time. 
He  waits  still  to  know,  but  we  cannot  suppose 
that  He  does  not  know  :  therefore  His  not 
knowing  what  He  knows,  and  His  knowing 
what  He  does  not  know,  is  nothing  else  than 
a  divine  economy  in  word  and  deed. 

64.  We  cannot,  then,  doubt  that  the  know- 
ledge of  God  depends  on  the  occasion  and 
not  on  any  change  on  His  part :  by  the 
occasion  being  meant  the  occasion,  not  of 
obtaining  but  of  declaring  knowledge,  as  we 
learn  from  His  words  to  Abraham,  Lay  not 
thine  hand  upon  the  lad,  neither  do  thou  any- 
thing unto  him,  for  now  I  know  that  thou 
fearest  thy    God,    and  hast   not  withheld  thy 

beloved  son,  for  My  sake  6.  God  knows  now, 
but  that  now  I  know  is  a  profession  of 
previous  ignorance  :  yet  it  is  not  true,  that 
until  now  God  did  not  know  the  faith  of 
Abraham,  for  it  is  written,  Abraham  believed 
in  God,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  right- 
eousness 7,  and  therefore  this  now  I  know  marks 
the  time  when  Abraham  received  this  testi- 
mony, not  when  God  began  to  know.  Abra- 
ham had  proved,  by  the  sacrifice  of  his  son, 
the  love  he  bore  to  God,  and  God  knew 
it  at  the  time  He  spoke :  but  as  we  cannot 
suppose  that  He  did  not  know  before,  we 
must  for  this  reason  suppose  that  He  took 
knowledge  of  it  then  because  He  spoke. 

By  way  of  example,  we  have  chosen  for 
our  consideration  this  passage  out  of  many 
in  the  Old  Testament,  which  treat  of  the 
knowledge  of  God,  in  order  to  shew  that 
when  God  does  not  know,  the  cause  lies, 
not  in  His  ignorance,  but  in  the  occasion. 

65.  We  find  our  Lord  in  the  Gospels  know- 
ing, yet  not  knowing,  many  things.  Thus 
He  does  not  know  the  workers  of  iniquity, 
who  glory  in  their  mighty  works  and  in  His 
name,  for  He  says  to  them,  Then  will  I 
swear,  I  never  knew  you ;  depart  from  Me, 
all  ye  that  work  iniquity  z.  He  declares  with 
an  oath  even,  that  He  does  not  know  them, 
but  nevertheless  He  knows  them  to  be  workers 
of  iniquity.  He  does  not  know  them,  not 
because  He  does  not  know,  but  because  by 
the  iniquity  of  their  deeds  they  are  unworthy 
of  His  knowledge,  and  He  even  confirms 
His  denial  with  the  sanctity  of  an  oath.  By 
the  virtue  of  His   nature   He  could   not  be 


4  Col.  ii.  2,  3. 
VOL.   IX. 


5  Gen.  xviii.  20,  21. 


6  G 


en.  xxn.  12. 


7  lb.  xv.  6. 


8  St.  Matt.  vii.  23. 


i;8 


DE    TRINITATE. 


ignorant,  by  the  mystery  of  His  will  He  re- 
fused to  know.  Again  the  Unbegotten  God 
does  not  know  the  foolish  virgins ;  He  is 
ignorant  of  those  who  were  too  careless  to 
have  their  oil  ready,  when  He  entered  the 
chamber  of  His  glorious  coming.  They  come 
and  implore,  and  so  far  from  not  knowing 
them,  He  cries,  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  I  know 
you  not?.  Their  coming  and  their  prayer  com- 
pel Him  to  recognise  them,  but  His  profession 
of  ignorance  refers  to  His  will,  not  to  His 
nature :  they  are  unworthy  to  be  known  of 
Him  to  Whom  nothing  is  unknown.  Hence, 
in  order  that  we  should  not  impute  His  ignor- 
ance to  infirmity,  He  says  immediately  to  the 
Apostles,  Watch  therefore,  for  ye  know  not 
the  day  nor  the  hour1.  When  He  bids  them 
watch,  for  they  know  not  the  day  or  the  hour, 
He  points  out  that  He  knew  not  the  virgins, 
because  through  sleep  and  neglect  they  had 
no  oil,  and  therefore  were  unworthy  to  enter 
into  His  chamber. 

66.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  then,  Who 
searcheth  the  heart  and  the  reins'2,  has  no 
weakness  in  His  nature,  that  He  should  not 
know,  for,  as  we  perceive,  even  the  fact  of 
His  ignorance  proceeds  from  the  omniscience 
of  His  nature.  Yet  if  any  there  be,  who 
impute  to  Him  ignorance,  let  them  tremble, 
lest  He  Who  knows  their  thoughts  should 
say  to  them,  Wherefore  think  ye  evil  in  your 
hearts*?  The  All-knowing,  though  not  ig- 
norant of  thoughts  and  deeds,  sometimes  en- 
quires as  if  He  were,  as  for  instance  when 
He  asks  the  woman  who  it  was  that  touched 
the  hem  of  His  garment,  or  the  Apostles, 
why  they  quarrelled  among  themselves,  or  the 
mourners,  where  the  sepulchre  of  Lazarus  was  : 
but  His  ignorance  was  not  ignorance,  except 
in  words.  It  is  against  reason  that  He  should 
know  from  afar  the  death  and  burial  of  Lazarus, 
but  not  the  place  of  his  sepulchre :  that  He 
should  read  the  thoughts  of  the  mind,  and  not 
recognise  the  faith  of  the  woman  :  that  He 
should  not  need  to  ask  concerning  anything  4, 
yet  be  ignorant  of  the  dissension  of  the 
Apostles.  But  He,  Who  knows  all  things, 
sometimes  by  a  practice  of  economy  professes 
ignorance,  even  though  He  is  not  ignorant. 
Thus,  in  the  case  of  Abraham,  God  concealed 
His  knowledge  for  a  time :  in  that  of  the 
foolish  virgins  and  the  workers  of  iniquity, 
He  refused  to  recognise  the  unworthy  :  in  the 
mystery  of  the  Son  of  Man,  His  asking,  as  if 
ignorant,  expressed  His  humanity.  He  accom- 
modated Himself  to  the  reality  of  His  birth 


9  St.  Matt.  xxv.  it.  x  lb.  xxv.  13. 

'  Rev.  ii.  23.  3  St.  Matt.  ix.  4. 

*  St.  John  xvi.  30.     The  Greek  is  'iva  ti's  <re  epii>T<f,  '  that  any 
one  should  ask  thee  '  (R.V.). 


in  the  flesh  in  everything  to  which  the  weak- 
ness of  our  nature  is  subject,  not  in  such  wise 
that  He  became  weak  in  His  divine  nature, 
but  that  God,  born  man,  assumed  the  weak- 
nesses of  humanity,  yet  without  thereby  re- 
ducing His  unchangeable  nature  to  a  weak 
nature,  for  the  unchangeable  nature  was  that 
wherein  He  mysteriously  assumed  flesh.  He, 
Who  was  God  is  man,  but,  being  man,  has  not 
ceased  to  remain  God.  Conducting  Himself 
then  as  one  born  man,  and  proving  Himself 
such,  though  remaining  God  the  Word,  He 
often  uses  the  language  of  man  (though 
God,  speaking  as  God,  makes  frequent  use  of 
human  terms),  and  does  not  know  that  which 
it  is  not  yet  time  to  declare,  or  which  is  not 
deserving  of  His  recognition. 

67.  We  can  now  understand  why  He  said 
that  He  knew  not  the  day.  If  we  believe 
Him  to  have  been  really  ignorant,  we  con- 
tradict the  Apostle,  who  says,  In  Whom  are 
all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge 
hidden  s.  There  is  knowledge  which  is  hidden 
in  Him,  and  because  it  has  to  be  hidden,  it 
must  sometimes  for  this  purpose  be  professed 
as  ignorance,  for  once  declared,  it  will  no  longer 
be  secret.  In  order,  therefore,  that  the  know- 
ledge may  remain  hidden,  He  declares  that 
He  does  not  know.  But  if  He  does  not  know, 
in  order  that  the  knowledge  may  remain 
hidden,  this  ignorance  is  not  due  to  His 
nature,  which  is  omniscient,  for  He  is  igno- 
rant solely  in  order  that  it  may  be  hidden. 
Nor  is  it  hard  to  see  why  the  knowledge  of 
the  day  is  hidden.  He  exhorts  us  to  watch 
continually  with  unrelaxing  faith,  and  with- 
holds from  us  the  security  of  certain  know- 
ledge, that  our  minds  may  be  kept  on  the 
stretch  by  the  uncertainty  of  suspense,  and 
while  they  hasten  towards  and  continually  look 
for  the  day  of  His  coming,  may  always  watch  in 
hope  ;  and  that,  though  we  know  the  time  must 
come,  its  very  uncertainty  may  make  us  careful 
and  vigilant.  Thus  the  Lord  says,  Therefore 
be  ye  also  ready,  for  ye  know  not  what  hour 
the  Son  of  Man  shall  come6;  and  again,  Blessed 
is  that  servant  whom  His  lord,  when  He  cometh, 
shall  find  so  doing  t.  The  ignorance  is,  there- 
fore, a  means  not  to  delude,  but  to  encourage 
in  perseverance.  It  is  no  loss  to  be  denied 
a  knowledge  which  it  is  an  advantage  not  to 
have,  for  the  security  of  knowledge  might  breed 
negligence  of  the  faith,  which  now  is  concealed, 
while  the  uncertainty  of  expectation  keeps  us 
continually  prepared,  even  as  the  master  of  the 
house,  with  the  fear  of  loss  before  his  eyes, 
watches  and  guards  against  the  dreaded  com- 


5  Col.  ii.  3. 


6  St.  Matt.  xxiv.  44. 


7  lb,  46. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    IX. 


179 


ing  of  the  thief,  who  chooses  the  time  of  sleep 
for  his  work. 

68.  Manifestly,  therefore,  the  ignorance  of 
God  is  not  ignorance  but  a  mystery  :  in  the 
economy  of  His  actions  and  words  and  mani- 
festations, He  does  not  know  and  at  the  same 
time  He  knows,  or  knows  and  at  the  same 
time  does  not  know.  But  we  must  ask,  whe- 
ther it  may  not  be  through  the  Son's  infirmity 
that  He  knows  not  what  the  Father  knows.  He 
could  perhaps  read  the  thoughts  of  the  human 
heart,  because  His  stronger  nature  can  unite 
itself  with  a  weaker  in  all  its  movements,  and 
by  the  force  of  its  power,  as  it  were,  pass 
through  and  through  the  feeble  nature.  But 
a  weaker  nature  is  powerless  to  penetrate 
a  stronger :  light  things  may  be  penetrated 
by  heavy,  rare  by  dense,  liquid  by  solid,  but 
the  heavy  are  impenetrable  to  the  light,  the 
dense  to  the  rare,  and  the  solid  to  the  liquid  : 
the  strong  are  not  exposed  to  the  weak,  but 
the  weak  are  penetrated  by  the  strong.  There- 
fore, the  heretics  say,  the  Son  knew  not  the 
thoughts  of  the  Father,  because,  being  Himself 
weak,  He  could  not  approach  the  more  power- 
ful and  enter  into  Him,  or  pass  through  Him. 

69.  Should  any  one  presume,  not  merely 
to  speak  thus  of  the  Only-begotten  God  in  the 
rashness  of  his  tongue,  but  even  to  think  so 
in  the  wickedness  of  his  heart,  let  him  hear 
what  the  Apostle  thought  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
from  the  words  he  wrote  to  the  Corinthians, 
But  unto  us  God  revealed  them  through  the 
Spirit :  for  the  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea 
the  deep  things  of  God.  For  who  among  men 
knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  which  are  in  him, 
save  the  spirit  of  the  man  which  is  in  him  ? 
Even  so  the  things  which  are  in  God,  none 
knoweth,  save  the  Spirit  of  God8.  But  let 
us  cast  aside  these  empty  illustrations  of  ma- 
terial things,  and  measure  God  born  of  God, 
Spirit  of  Spirit,  by  His  own  powers  and  not 
by  earthly  conditions.  Let  us  measure  Him 
not  by  our  own  senses,  but  by  His  divine 
claims.  Let  us  believe  Him  Who  said,  He 
that  hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the  Father  also  °. 
Let  us  not  forget  that  He  said,  Believe,  if  only 
by  My  works,  that  the  Father  is  in  Ale,  and  I 
in  the  Father1-,  and  again,  I  and  the  Father 
aie  one2.  If  the  names  which  correspond  to 
realities,  when  intelligibly  used,  impart  to  us 
any  true  information,  then  He  Who  is  seen 
in  Another  by  the  eye  of  understanding  is 
not  different  in  nature  from  that  Other;  not 
different  in  kind,  since  He  abides  in  the 
Father,  and  the  Father  in  Him  ;  not  separate, 
since  Both  are  One.     Perceive  their  unity  in 


8  1  Cor.  ii.  io,  li.  •  St.  John  xiv.  9. 

1  St.  John  x.  38  ;  cf.  xiv.  xi.  2  lb.  x.  30. 


the  indivisibility  of  their  nature,  and  appre- 
hend the  mystery  of  that  indivisible  nature 
by  regarding  the  One  as  the  mirror  of  the 
Other.  But  remember  that  He  is  the  mirror, 
not  as  the  image  reflected  by  the  splendour 
of  a  nature  outside  Himself,  but  as  being 
a  living  nature,  indistinguishable  from  the 
Father's  living  nature,  derived  wholly  from 
the  whole  of  His  Father's,  having  the  Father's 
in  Him  because  He  is  the  Only  begotten,  and 
abiding  in  the  Father,  because  He  is  God. 

70.  The  heretics  cannot  deny  that  the  Lord 
used  these  words  to  signify  the  mystery  of 
His  birth,  but  they  attempt  to  escape  from 
them  by  referring  them  to  a  harmony  of  will. 
They  make  the  unity  of  God  the  Father  and 
God  the  Son  not  one  of  divinity,  but  merely 
of  will  :  as  if  the  divine  teaching  were  poor 
in  expression  and  the  Lord  could  not  have 
said,  /  and  the  Father  are  one  in  will ;  or  as  if 
those  words  could  have  the  same  meaning  as 
/  and  the  Father  are  one ;  or  as  if  He  meant, 
He  that  hath  seen  My  will,  hath  seen  the  will 
of  My  Father  also,  but,  being  unskilled  in 
statement,  tried  to  express  that  idea  in  the 
words,  He  that  hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the 
Father  also:  or  as  if  the  divine  vocabulary 
did  not  contain  the  terms,  The  will  of  My 
Father  is  in  Ale,  and  My  will  is  in  the  Father, 
but  this  thought  could  be  expressed  by  /  in 
the  Father  and  the  Father  in  Me.  All  this 
is  nauseous  and  irreverent  nonsense ;  common 
sense  condemns  the  judgment  of  such  silly 
fancies,  as  that  the  Lord  could  not  say  what 
He  wanted,  or  did  not  say  what  He  said. 
True,  we  find  Him  speaking  in  parables  and  al- 
legories, but  it  is  a  different  thing  to  strengthen 
one's  words  with  illustrations,  or  satisfy  the 
dignity  of  the  subject  with  the  help  of  sug- 
gestive proverbs,  or  adapt  one's  language  to 
the  needs  of  the  moment.  But  this  passage 
concerning  the  unity,  of  which  we  are  speak- 
ing, does  not  allow  us  to  look  for  the  meaning 
outside  the  plain  sound  of  the  words.  If 
Father  and  Son  are  one,  in  the  sense  that 
They  are  one  in  will,  and  if  separable  natures 
cannot  be  one  in  will,  because  their  diversity 
of  kind  and  nature  must  draw  them  into  di- 
versities of  will  and  judgment,  how  can  They 
be  one  in  will,  not  being  one  in  knowledge  ? 
There  can  be  no  unity  of  will  between  ignor- 
ance and  knowledge.  Omniscience  and  nesci- 
ence are  opposites,  and  opposites  cannot  be 
of  the  same  will. 

71.  But  perhaps  it  may  be  held  to  con- 
firm the  Son  in  His  confession  of  igno- 
rance that  He  says  the  Father  alone  knows. 
But  unless  He  had  plainly  said  that  the 
Father  alone  knows,  it  would  have  been  a 
matter  of  the  greatest  danger  for  our  under- 


N  2 


I  bo 


DE    TR1NITATE, 


standing,  since  we  might  have  thought  that 
He  Himself  did  not  know.  For,  since  His 
ignorance  is  due  to  the  economy  of  hidden 
knowledge,  and  not  to  a  nature  capable  of 
ignorance,  now  that  He  says  the  Father 
alone  knows,  we  cannot  believe  that  He  does 
not  know ;  for,  as  we  said  above,  God's  know- 
ledge is  not  the  discovery  of  what  He  did  not 
know,  but  its  declaration.  The  fact  that  the 
Father  alone  knows,  is  no  proof  that  the  Son  is 
ignorant :  He  says  that  He  does  not  know,  that 
others  may  not  know :  that  the  Father  alone 
knows,  to  shew  that  He  Himself  also  knows. 
If  we  say  that  God  came  to  know  the  love  of 
Abraham  3,  when  He  ceased  to  conceal  His 
knowledge,  it  follows  that  only  because  He  did 
not  conceal  it  from  the  Son,  can  the  Father  be 
said  to  know  the  day,  for  God  does  not  learn 
by  sudden  perception,  but  declares  His  know- 
ledge with  the  occasion.  If,  then,  the  Son 
according  to  the  mystery  does  not  know  the 
day,  that  He  may  not  reveal  it :  on  the  other 
hand,  only  by  the  fact  that  He  has  revealed  it 
can  the  Father  be  proved  to  know  the  day. 

72.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  imagine  vicis- 
situdes of  bodily  change  in  the  Father  and 
Son,  as  though  the  Father  sometimes  spoke  to 
the  Son,  and  sometimes  was  silent.  We  re- 
member, indeed,  that  a  voice  was  sometimes 
uttered  from  heaven  for  us,  that  the  power  of 
the  Father's  words  might  confirm  for  us  the 
mystery  of  the  Son,  as  the  Lord  says,  This 
voice  hath  not  come  from  Heaven  for  My  sake 
but  for  your  sakes*.  But  the  divine  nature  can 
dispense  with  the  various  combinations  neces- 
sary for  human  functions,  the  motion  of  the 
tongue,  the  adjustment  of  the  mouth,  the 
forcing  of  the  breath,  and  the  vibration  of  the 
air.  God  is  a  simple  Being :  we  must  under- 
stand Him  by  devotion,  and  confess  Him  by 
reverence.  He  is  to  be  worshipped,  not  pur- 
sued by  our  senses,  for  a  conditioned  and  weak 
nature  cannot  grasp  with  the  guesses  of  its 
imagination  the  mystery  of  an  infinite  and 
omnipotent  nature.  In  God  is  no  variability, 
no  parts,  as  of  a  composite  divinity,  that  in 
Him  will  should  follow  inaction,  speech  si- 
lence, or  work  rest,  or  that  He  should  not 
will,  without  passing  from  some  other  mental 
state  to  volition,  or  speak,  without  breaking 
the  silence  with  His  voice,  or  act,  without 
going  forth  to  labour.  He  is  not  subject  to 
the  laws  of  nature,  for  nature  has  received  its 
law  from  Him  :  He  never  suffers  weakness  or 
change  when  He  acts,  for  His  power  is  bound- 
less, as  the  Lord  said,  Father,  all  things  are 
possible  unto   Thee*.     He  can  do  more  than 


3  Gen.  xxii.  la  :  see  c.  64.  *  St.  John  xii.  30. 

5  St.  Mark  xiv.  36. 


human  sense  can  conceive.  The  Lord  doe:? 
not  deprive  even  Himself  of  the  quality  of 
omnipotence,  for  He  says,  What  things  soever 
the  Father  doeth,  these  the  Son  also  doeth  in  like 
manner6.  Nothing  is  difficult,  when  there  is 
no  weakness  ;  for  only  a  power  which  is  weak 
to  effect,  knows  the  need  of  effort  The  cause 
of  difficulty  is  the  weakness  of  the  motive 
force ;  a  force  of  limitless  power  rises  above 
the  conditions  of  impotence. 

73.  We  have  established  this  point  to  ex- 
clude the  idea  that  after  silence  God  spoke 
to  the  Son,  or  after  ignorance  the  Son  began 
to  know.  To  reach  our  intelligence  terms 
must  be  used  applicable  to  our  own  nature  : 
thus  we  do  not  understand  communication 
except  by  word  of  mouth,  or  comprehend  the 
opposite  of  nescience  except  as  knowledge. 
Thus  the  Son  does  not  know  the  day  for  the 
reason  that  He  does  not  reveal  it :  the  Father, 
He  says,  alone  knows  it  for  the  reason  that  He 
reveals  it  to  the  Son  alone.  But,  as  we  have 
said,  Christ  is  conscious  of  no  such  natural 
impediments  as  an  ignorance  which  must  be 
removed  before  He  can  come  to  know,  or 
a  knowledge  which  is  not  His  before  the  Fa- 
ther begins  to  speak.  .  He  declares  the  unity 
of  His  nature,  as  the  only-begotten,  with  the 
Father,  by  the  unmistakeable  words,  All  things 
tvhatsoever  the  Father  hath,  are  Mine  ?.  There 
is  no  mention  here  of  coming  into  posses- 
sion :  it  is  one  thing,  to  be  the  Possessor  of 
things  external  to  Him;  another,  to  be  self- 
contained  and  self-existent.  The  former  is 
to  possess  heaven  and  earth  and  the  universe, 
the  latter  to  be  able  to  describe  Himself  by 
His  own  properties,  which  are  His,  not  as 
something  external  and  subject,  but  as  some- 
thing of  which  He  Himself  subsists.  When 
He  says,  therefore,  that  all  things  which  the 
Father  has,  are  His,  He  alludes  to  the  divine 
nature,  and  not  to  a  joint  ownership  of  gifts 
bestowed.  For  referring  to  His  words  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  should  take  of  His  8,  Fie  says, 
All  things  zahatsoever  the  Father  hath  are  Mine, 
therefore  said  I,  He  shall  take  of  Aline  :  that  is, 
the  Holy  Spirit  takes  of  His,  but  takes  also 
of  the  Father's  :  and  if  He  receives  of  the 
Father's,  He  receives  also  of  His.  The  Holy 
Spirit  is  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  does  not  re- 
ceive of  a  creature,  but  teaches  us  that  He 
receives  all  these  gifts,  because  they  are  all 
God's.  All  things  that  belong  to  the  Father 
are  the  Spirit's ;  but  we  must  not  think  that 
whatever  He  received  of  the  Son,  He  did  not 
receive  of  the  Father  also  ;  for  all  that  the 
Father  hath  belongs  equally  to  the  Son. 

*  St.  John  v.  19.  7  lb.  xvi.  15. 

8  lb.  14.  "  He  shall  glorify  Me,  for  He  shall  take  of  Mia* 
and  shall  declare  it  unto  you." 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   IX. 


181 


74.  So  the  nature  of  Christ  needed  no 
change,  or  question,  or  answer,  that  it  should 
advance  from  ignorance  to  knowledge,  or  ask 
of  One  Who  had  continued  in  silence,  and  wait 
to  receive  His  answer :  but,  abiding  perfectly 
in  mysterious  unity  with  Him,  it  received  of 
God  its  whole  being  as  it  derived  from 
Him  its  origin.  And,  further,  it  received 
all  that  belonged  to  the  whole  being  of 
God,  namely,  His  knowledge  and  His  will. 
What  the  Father  knows,  the  Son  does  not 
learn  by  question  and  answer;  what  the  Father 
■wills,  the  Son  does  not  will  by  command. 
Since  all  that  the  Father  has,  is  His,  it  is 
the  property  of  His  nature  to  will  and  know, 
exactly  as  the  Father  wills  and  knows.  But 
to  prove  His  birth  He  often  expounds  the 
doctrine  of  His  Person,  as  when  He  says, 
I  came  not  to  do  Mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of 
Him  that  sent  Me<*.  He  does  the  Father's 
will,  not  His  own,  and  by  the  will  of  Him  that 
sent  Me,  He  means  His  Father.  But  that  He 
Himself  wills  the  same,  is  unmistakeably  de- 
clared in  the  words,  Father,  those  whom  Thou 
hast  given  Me,  I  will,  that,  where  I  am,  they 
also  may  be  with  Me1.  The  Father  wills  that 
we  should  be  with  Christ,  in  Whom,  according 
to  the  Apostle,  He  chose  us  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world2,  and  the  Son  wills  the 
same,  namely  that  we  should  be  with  Him. 
His  will  is,  therefore,  the  same  in  nature  as 
the  Father's  will,  though  to  make  plain  the 
fact  of  the  birth  it  is  distinguished  from  the 
Father's. 

75.  The  Son  is  ignorant,  then,  of  nothing 
which  the  Father  knows,  nor  does  it  follow, 
because  the  Father  alone  knows,  that  the  Son 
does  not  know.  Father  and  Son  abide  in 
unity  of  nature,  and  the  ignorance  of  the 
Son  belongs  to  the  divine  Plan  of  silence, 
seeing  that  in  Him  are  hidden  all  the  treasures 
of  wisdom  and  knowledge.  This  the  Lord 
Himself  testified,  when  He  answered  the  ques- 
tion of  the  Apostles  concerning  the  times, 
It  is  not  yours  to  knoiv  times  or  moments, 
which  the  Father  hath  set  within  His  own 
authority*.  The  knowledge  is  denied  them, 
and  not  only  that,  but  the  anxiety  to  learn 
is  forbidden,  because  it  is  not  theirs  to  know 
these  times.     Yet  now  that  He  is  risen,  they 


9  St.  John  vi.  38.  Hilary  means  that  by  the  mention  of  two 
wills,  our  Lord  teaches  the  personal  distinction  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son :  cf.  cc.  49,  50. 

1  St.  John  xvii.  24.  *  Epb-  i.  4.  3  Acts  i.  7. 


ask  again,  though  their  question  on  the  former 
occasion  had  been  met  with  the  reply,  that 
not  even  the  Son  knew.  They  cannot  possi- 
bly have  understood  literally  that  the  Son  did 
not  know,  for  they  ask  Him  again  as  though 
He  did  know.  They  perceived  in  the  mystery 
of  His  ignorance  a  divine  Plan  of  silence,  and 
now,  after  His  resurrection,  they  renew  the 
question,  thinking  that  the  time  has  come  to 
speak.  And  the  Son  no  longer  denies  that 
He  knows,  but  tells  them  that  it  is  not  theirs 
to  know,  because  the  Father  has  set  it  within 
His  own  authority.  If,  then,  the  Apostles  at- 
tributed it  to  the  divine  Plan,  and  not  to 
weakness,  that  the  Son  did  not  know  the 
day,  shall  we  say  that  the  Son  knew  not  the 
day  for  the  simple  reason  that  He  was  not 
God  ?  Remember,  God  the  Father  set  the  day 
within  His  authority,  that  it  might  not  come 
to  the  knowledge  of  man,  and  the  Son,  when 
asked  before,  replied  that  He  did  not  know, 
but  now,  no  longer  denying  His  knowledge, 
replies  that  it  is  theirs  not  to  know,  for  the 
Father  has  set  the  times  not  in  His  own 
knowledge,  but  in  His  own  authority.  The 
day  and  the  moment  are  included  in  the  word 
'  times ' :  can  it  be,  then,  that  He,  Who  was 
to  restore  Israel  to  its  kingdom,  did  not 
Himself  know  the  day  and  the  moment  of 
that  restoration  ?  He  instructs  us  to  see  an 
evidence  of  His  birth  in  this  exclusive  pre- 
rogative of  the  Father,  yet  He  does  not  deny 
that  He  knows  :  and  while  He  proclaims  that 
the  possession  of  this  knowledge  is  withheld 
from  ourselves,  He  asserts  that  it  belongs  to 
the  mystery  of  the  Father's  authority. 

*  We  must  not  therefore  think,  because  He 
said  He  did  not  know  the  day  and  the  mo- 
ment, that  the  Son  did  not  know.  As  man 
He  wept,  and  slept,  and  sorrowed,  but  God 
is  incapable  of  tears,  or  fear,  or  sleep.  Ac- 
cording to  the  weakness  of  His  flesh  He  shed 
tears,  slept,  hungered,  thirsted,  was  weary,  and 
feared,  yet  without  impairing  the  reality  of  His 
Only-begotten  nature ;  equally  so  must  we 
refer  to  His  human  nature,  the  words  that 
He  knew  not  the  day  or  the  hour. 


4  This  last  paragraph  is  omitted  from  many  MSS.,  though 
contained  in  several  of  high  authority.  It  offers  a  different  ex- 
planation from  that  which  Hilary  has  adopted  in  the  rest  of  the 
book  (see  especially  c.  59),  where  he  maintains  that  Christ  avoided 
revealing  what  He  really  knew,  by  saying  that  He  did  not  know. 
The  line  adopted  here  is  the  same  as  that  in  the  passage  found 
by  Erasmus  and  inserted  by  him  in  Book  x.  c.  8.  This  is  one 
of  several  interpolations  made  in  later,  though  still  early,  times 
to  correct  or  supplement  Hilary's  teaching  ;  cf.  x.  8,  with  the  note, 


BOOK    X. 


1.  It  is  manifest  that  there  is  nothing  which 
men  have  ever  said  which  is  not  liable  to 
opposition.  Where  the  will  dissents  the  mind 
also  dissents  :  under  the  bias  of  opposing  judg- 
ment it  joins  battle,  and  denies  the  assertions 
to  which  it  objects.  Though  every  word  we 
say  be  incontrovertible  if  gauged  by  the  stan- 
dard of  truth,  yet  so  long  as  men  think  or 
feel  differently,  the  truth  is  always  exposed  to 
the  cavils  of  opponents,  because  they  attack, 
under  the  delusion  of  error  or  prejudice,  the 
truth  they  misunderstand  or  dislike.  For  de- 
cisions once  formed  cling  with  excessive  ob- 
stinacy :  and  the  passion  of  controversy  cannot 
be  driven  from  the  course  it  has  taken,  when 
the  will  is  not  subject  to  the  reason.  Enquiry 
after  truth  gives  way  to  the  search  for  proofs  of 
what  we  wish  to  believe  ;  desire  is  paramount 
over  truth.  Then  the  theories  we  concoct 
build  themselves  on  names  rather  than  things  : 
the  logic  of  truth  gives  place  to  the  logic  of 
prejudice :  a  logic  which  the  will  adjusts  to 
defend  its  fancies,  not  one  which  stimulates 
the  will  through  the  understanding  of  truth 
by  the  reason.  From  these  defects  of  partisan 
spirit  arise  all  controversies  between  opposing 
theories.  Then  follows  an  obstinate  battle 
between  truth  asserting  itself,  and  prejudice 
defending  itself:  truth  maintains  its  ground 
and  prejudice  resists.  But  if  desire  had  not 
forestalled  reason :  if  the  understanding  of 
the  truth  had  moved  us  to  desire  what  was 
true :  instead  of  trying  to  set  up  our  desires 
as  doctrines,  we  should  let  our  doctrines  dic- 
tate our  desires ;  there  would  be  no  contra- 
diction of  the  truth,  for  every  one  would  begin 
by  desiring  what  was  true,  not  by  defending 
the  truth  of  that  which  he  desired. 

2.  Not  unmindful  of  this  sin  of  wilfulness, 
the  Apostle,  writing  to  Timothy,  after  many 
injunctions  to  bear  witness  to  the  faith  and 
to  preach  the  word,  adds,  For  the  time  will 
come  when  they  7vill  not  endure  sound  doctrine, 
but  having  itching  ears  will  heap  up  teachers 
to  themselves  after  their  own  lusts,  and  will 
turn  away  their  ears  from  the  truth,  and  turn 
aside  unto  fables1 .  For  when  their  unhallowed 
zeal  shall  drive  them  beyond  the  endurance 
of  sound  doctrine,  they  will  heap  up  teachers 

1  a  Tim.  iv.  3,  4. 


for  their  lusts,  that  is,  construct  schemes  of 
doctrine  to  suit  their  own  desires,  not  wishing 
to  be  taught,  but  getting  together  teachers 
who  will  tell  them  what  they  wish  :  that  the 
crowd  of  teachers  whom  they  have  ferreted 
out  and  gathered  together,  may  satisfy  them 
with  the  doctrines  of  their  own  tumultuous 
desires.  And  if  these  madmen  in  their 
godless  folly  do  not  know  with  what  spirit 
they  reject  the  sound,  and  yearn  after  the 
corrupt  doctrine,  let  them  hear  the  words  of 
the  same  Apostle  to  the  same  Timothy,  But 
the  Spirit  saith  expressly  that  in  the  last  days 
some  shall  fall  away  from  the  faith,  giving  heed 
to  seducing  spirits,  and  doctrines  of  devils  through 
the  hypocrisy  of  lying  talk  2.  What  advance- 
ment of  doctrine  is  it  to  discover  what  one 
fancies,  and  not  what  one  ought  to  learn  ? 
Or  what  piety  in  doctrine  is  it  not  to  desire 
what  one  ought  to  learn,  but  to  heap  up  doc- 
trine after  our  desires?  But  this  is  what  the 
promptings  of  seducing  spirits  supply.  They 
confirm  the  falsehoods  of  pretended  godliness, 
for  a  canting  hypocrisy  always  succeeds  to 
defection  from  the  faith :  so  that  at  least  in 
word  the  reverence  is  retained,  which  the 
conscience  has  lost.  Even  that  pretended 
piety  they  make  impious  by  all  manner  of 
lies,  violating  by  schemes  of  false  doctrine 
the  sacredness  of  the  faith  :  for  they  pile  up 
doctrines  to  suit  their  desires,  and  not  accord- 
ing to  the  faith  of  the  Gospel.  They  delight, 
with  an  uncontrollable  pleasure,  to  have  their 
itching  ears  tickled  by  the  novelty  of  their  fa- 
vourite preaching;  they  estrange  themselves 
utterly  from  the  hearing  of  the  truth,  and  sur- 
render themselves  entirely  to  fables :  so  that 
their  incapacity  for  either  speaking  or  under- 
standing the  truth  invests  their  discourse  with 
what  is,  to  them,  a  semblance  of  truth. 

3.  We  have  clearly  fallen  on  the  evil  times 
prophesied  by  the  Apostle  ;  for  nowadays 
teachers  are  sought  after  who  preach  not  God 
but  a  creature  3.  And  men  are  more  zealous 
for  what  they  themselves  desire,  than  for  what 
the  sound  faith  teaches.  So  far  have  their 
itching  ears  stirred  them  to  listen  to  what  they 
desire,   that  for  the  moment  that   preaching 


2  i  Tim.  iv.  i,  2. 

3  i.e.    the   Arians,   who    maintained  that  Jesus 
(creaturd)  and  not  God. 


created 


ON    THE   TRINITY.— BOOK    X. 


183 


alone  rules  among  their  crowd  of  doctors 
which  estranges  the  Only-begotten  God  from 
the  power  and  nature  of  God  the  Father,  and 
makes  Him  in  our  faith  either  a  God  of  the 
second  order,  or  not  a  God  at  all ;  in  either 
case  a  damning  profession  of  impiety,  whether 
one  profess  two  Gods  by  making  different 
grades  of  divinity ;  or  else  deny  divinity  al- 
together to  Him  Who  drew  His  nature  by 
birth  from  God.  Such  doctrines  please  those 
whose  ears  are  estranged  from  the  hearing  of 
the  truth  and  turned  to  fables,  while  the  hear- 
ing of  this  our  sound  faith  is  not  endured,  and 
is  driven  bodily  into  exile  with  its  preachers. 

4.  But  though  many  may  heap  up  teachers 
according  to  their  desires,  and  banish  sound 
doctrine,  yet  from  the  company  of  the  Saints 
the  preaching  of  truth  can  never  be  exiled. 
From  our  exile  we  shall  speak  by  these  our 
writings,  and  the  Word  of  God  which  cannot 
be  bound  will  run  unhindered,  warning  us  of 
this  time  which  the  Apostle  prophesied.  For 
when  men  shew  themselves  impatient  of  the 
true  message,  and  heap  up  teachers  according 
to  their  own  human  desires,  we  can  no  longer 
doubt  about  the  times,  but  know  that  while 
the  preachers  of  sound  doctrine  are  banished 4, 
truth  is  banished  too.  We  do  not  complain 
of  the  times  :  we  rejoice  rather,  that  iniquity 
has  revealed  itself  in  this  our  exile,  when, 
unable  to  endure  the  truth,  it  banishes  the 
preachers  of  sound  doctrine,  that  it  may  heap 
up  for  itself  teachers  after  its  own  desires. 
We  glory  in  our  exile,  and  rejoice  in  the  Lord, 
that  in  our  person  the  Apostle's  prophecy 
should  be  fulfilled. 

5.  In  the  earlier  books,  then,  while  main- 
taining the  profession  of  a  faith,  I  trust,  sin- 
cere, and  a  truth  uncorrupted,  we  arranged 
the  method  of  our  answer  throughout,  so  that 
(though  such  are  our  limitations,  that  human 
language  can  never  be  safe  from  exception)  no 
one  could  contradict  us  without  an  open  profes- 
sion of  godlessness.  For  so  completely  have  we 
demonstrated  the  true  meaning  of  those  texts 
which  they  cunningly  filch  from  the  Gospels 
and  appropriate  for  their  own  teaching,  that  if 
any  one  denies  it,  he  cannot  escape  on  the 
plea  of  ignorance,  but  is  condemned  out  of 
his  own  mouth  of  godlessness.  Further,  we 
have,  according  to  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
so  cautiously  proceeded  throughout  in  our 
proof  of  the  faith,  that  no  charge  could  pos- 
sibly be  trumped  up  against  us.  For  it  is 
their  way  to  fill  the  ears  of  the  unwary  with 
declarations  that  we  deny  the  birth  of  Christ5, 


4  Reading  '  exsulantibus'  with  the  Benedictine  Edition  (Paris, 
1693);  Migne  (Paris,  1844),  '  exultantibus.' 

5  i.e.  The  generation  of  the  second  P'rson  from  the  first  Person 
of  the  Trinity. 


when  we  preach  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  ; 
and  they  say  that  by  the  text,  I  and  the  Father 
are  one6,  we  confess  that  God  is  solitary: 
thus,  according  to  them,  we  say  that  the  Un- 
begotten  God  descended  into  the  Virgin,  and 
was  born  man,  and  that  He  refers  i  the  open- 
ing word  '  I '  to  the  dispensation  of  His  flesh, 
but  adds  to  it  the  proof  of  His  divinity,  And 
the  Father,  as  being  the  Father  of  Himself  as 
man ;  and  further,  that,  consisting  of  two  Per- 
sons, human  and  divine,  He  said  of  Himself, 
We  are  one  8. 

6.  But  we  have  always  maintained  the  birth 
existing  out  of  time  :  we  have  taught  that  God 
the  Son  is  God  of  the  same  nature  with  God 
the  Father,  not  co-equal  with  the  Unbegotten, 
for  He  was  not  Himself  Unbegotten,  but, 
as  the  Only-begotten,  not  unequal  because 
begotten ;  that  the  Two  are  One,  not  by  the 
giving  of  a  double  name  to  one  Person,  but 
by  a  true  begetting  and  being  begotten ;  that 
neither  are  there  two  Gods,  different  in  kind, 
in  our  faith,  nor  is  God  solitary  because  He 
is  one,  in  the  sense  in  which  we  confess  the 
mystery  of  the  Only-begotten  God  :  but  that 
the  Son  is  both  indicated  in  the  name  of,  and 
exists  in,  the  Father,  Whose  name  and  Whose 
nature  are  in  Him,  while  the  Father  by  His 
name  implies,  and  abides  in,  the  Son,  since 
a  son  cannot  be  spoken  of,  or  exist,  except 
as  born  of  a  father.  Further,  we  say  that  He 
is  the  living  copy  of  the  living  nature,  the 
impression  of  the  divine  seal  upon  the  divine 
nature,  so  undistinguished  from  God  in  power 
and  kind,  that  neither  His  works  nor  His 
words  nor  His  form  are  other  than  the  Fa- 
ther's :  but  that,  since  the  image  by  nature 
possesses  the  nature  of  its  author,  the  Author 
also  has  worked  and  spoken  and  appeared 
through  His  natural  image. 

7.  But  by  the  side  of  this  timeless  and 
ineffable  generation  of  the  Only-begotten, 
which  transcends  the  perception  of  human 
understanding,  we  taught  as  well  the  mystery 
of  God  born  to  be  man  from  the  womb  of  the 
Virgin,  shewing  how  according  to  the  plan 
of  the  Incarnation,  when  He  emptied  Himself 
of  the  form  of  God  and  took  the  form  of 
a  servant,  the  weakness  of  the  assumed  hu- 
manity did  not  weaken  the  divine  nature, 
but  that  Divine  power  was  imparted  to  hu- 
manity without  the  virtue  of  divinity  being 
lost  in  the  human  form.  For  when  God  was 
born  to  be  man  the  purpose  was  not  that 
the  Godhead  should  be  lost,  but  that,  the 
Godhead  remaining,  man  should  be  born  to 


6  St.  John  x.  30.  7  Supply,  '  referat.' 

8  The  Arians  accused  the  Catholics  of  a  Sabellian  denial  of 

the  Trinity  and  a  Patripassian  view  of  the  Incarnation,  i.e.  that 

:ne  unborn  God  beca.ne  man. 


1 34 


DE   TRINITATE. 


be  God.  Thus  Emmanuel  is  His  name",  which 
is  God  with  us**,  that  God  might  not  be 
lowered  to  the  level  of  man,  but  man  raised 
to  that  of  God.  Nor,  when  He  asks  that 
He  may  be  glorified r,  is  it  in  any  way  a 
glorifying  of  His  divine  nature,  but  of  the 
lower  nature  He  assumed  :  for  He  asks  for 
that  glory  which  He  had  with  God  before 
the  world  was  made. 

8.  As  we  are  answering  all,  even  their 
most  insensate  statements,  we  come  now  to 
the  discussion  of  the  unknown  hour2.  Now, 
even  if,  as  they  say,  the  Son  had  not  known 
it,  this  could  give  no  ground  for  an  attack 
upon  His  Godhead  as  the  Only- begotten. 
It  was  not  in  the  nature  of  things  that  His 
birth  should  avail  to  put  His  beginning  back, 
until  it  was  equivalent  to  the  existence  which 
is  unbegotten,  and  had  no  beginning  ;  and  the 
Father  reserves  as  His  prerogative,  to  demon- 
strate His  authority  as  the  Unbegotten,  the  fix- 
ing of  this  still  undetermined  day.  Nor  may  we 
conclude  that  in  His  Person  there  is  any  defect 
in  that  nature  which  contained  by  right  of  birth 
all  the  fulness  of  that  nature  which  a  perfect 
birth  could  impart.  Nor  again  could  the  ig- 
norance of  day  and  hour  be  imputed  in  the 
Only-begotten  God  to  a  lower  degree  of  Di- 
vinity. It  is  to  demonstrate  against  the  Sa- 
bellian  heretics  that  the  Father's  authority  is 
without  birth  or  beginning,  that  this  prerog- 
ative of  unbegotten  authority  is  not  granted 
to  the  Son  3.  But  if,  as  we  have  maintained, 
when  He  said  that  He  knew  not  the  day,  He 
kept  silence  not  from  ignorance,  but  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Divine  Plan,  all  occasion 
for  irreverent  declarations  must  be  removed, 
and  the  blasphemous  teachings  of  heresy 
thwarted,   that  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  may 


9  St.  Matt.  i.  23.  '  St.  John  xvii.  5. 

8  "Of  that  day  and  that  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the 
Angels  of  Heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father  only." 
St.  Matt.  xxiv.  36  ;  cf.  St.  Mark  xiii.  32. 

3  Hilary  is  granting  for  the  moment  that  the  Son  really  was 
ignorant  of  the  day  and  hour ;  this,  he  says,  could  be  no  argu- 
ment for  the  inequality  of  the  Son  :  it  would  serve,  however,  to 
disprove  the  Sabellian  identification  of  the  Son  and  the  Father 
by  shewing  that  this  knowledge  was  the  possession  of  the  Father 
only.  Erasmus  inserted  here  a  passage  which  he  found  in  a 
Mb. ; — "  and  tins  shews  us  that  the  saying  of  the  Word  referred 
to  the  mystery  of  human  perfection  :  that  He,  Who  bore  our  in- 
firmities, should  take  upon  Himself  also  the  infirmity  of  human 
ignorance,  and  that  He  should  say  He  knew  not  the  day,  just 
as  He  knew  not  where  they  had  laid  Lazarus,  or  who  it  was  when 
the  woman  touched  the  hem  of  His  garment:  being  infirm  in 
knowledge  as  He  was  infirm  in  weeping,  in  the  endurance  of 
weariness,  hunger,  and  thirst.  He  did  1101  disdain  even  the  error 
of  ignorance:  especially  when  we  consider  how,  when  He  rose 
from  the  dead,  and  was  about  to  ascend  up  to,  and  above,  the 
heavens,  the  Apostles  approached  Him  as  no  longer  ignorant, 
but  knowing,  and  determining  this  His  day,  and  put  exactly 
the  same  question  to  Him  of  which  He  was  silent  during  the 
dispensation  of  His  humanity  :  that  it  might  be  made  plain  by 
their  repeated  question,  that  they  understood  His  statement, 
'1  know  not,'  of  an  ignorance  which  He  took  upon  Himself,  not 
essential  to  His  nature."  The  passage  is  utterly  inconsistent 
with  Hilary's  teaching  both  here  and  in  ix.  58  (.,  and  is  an 
obvious  and  clumsy  interpolation. 


be  illustrated  by  the  very  words  which  seem 
to  obscure  it. 

9.  Thus  the  greater  number  of  them  will 
not  allow  Him  to  have  the  impassible  nature 
of  God  because  He  feared  His  Passion  and 
shewed  Himself  weak  by  submitting  to  suffer- 
ing *.  They  assert  that  He  Who  feared  and  felt 
pain  could  not  enjoy  that  confidence  of  power 
which  is  above  fear,  or  that  incorruption  of 
spirit  which  is  not  conscious  of  suffering  :  but, 
being  of  a  nature  lower  than  God  the  Father, 
He  trembled  with  fear  at  human  suffering,  and 
groaned  before  the  violence  of  bodily  pain. 
These  impious  assertions  are  based  on  the 
words,  My  soul  is  sorroivfiil  even  unto  death  s, 
and  Father  if  it  be  possible  let  this  cup  pass 
away  from  He6,  and  also,  My  God,  My  God, 
why  hast  Thou  forsaken  He  ?  ?  to  which  they 
also  add,  Father,  into  Thy  hands  I  commend 
My  Spirit*.  All  these  words  of  our  holy  faith 
they  appropriate  to  the  use  of  their  unholy 
blasphemy:  that  He  feared,  Who  was  sorrow- 
ful, and  even  prayed  that  the  cup  might 
be  taken  away  from  Him ;  that  He  felt  pain, 
because  He  complained  that  God  had  deserted 
Him  in  His  suffering ;  that  He  was  infirm, 
because  He  commended  His  Spirit  to  the 
Father.  His  doubts  and  anxieties  preclude 
us,  they  say,  from  assigning  to  Him  that  like- 
ness to  God  which  would  belong  to  a  nature 
equal  to  God  as  being  born  His  Only- be- 
gotten. He  proclaims  His  own  weakness  and 
inferiority  by  the  prayer  to  remove  the  cup, 
by  the  complaint  of  desertion  and  the  com- 
mending of  His  Spirit. 

10.  Now  first  of  all,  before  we  shew  from 
these  very  texts,  that  He  was  subject  to  no 
infirmity  of  fear  or  sorrow  on  His  own  ac- 
count, let  us  ask,  "What  can  we  find  for  Him 
to  fear,  that  the  dread  of  an  unendurable  pain 
should  have  seized  Him?"  The  objects  of 
His  fear,  which  they  allege,  are,  I  suppose, 
suffering  and  death.  Now  I  ask  those  who 
are  of  this  opinion,  "  Can  we  reasonably  sup- 
pose that  He  feared  death,  Who  drove  away 
the  terrors  of  death  from  His  Apostles, 
exhorting  them  to  the  glory  of  martyrdom 
with  the  words,  He  that  doth  not  take  his 
cross  and  follow  after  Me  is  not  worthy  of  Me  ; 
and,  He  that  findeth  his  life  shall  lose  it, 
and  he  that  hath  lost  his  life  for  My  sake 
shall  find  it1 1  If  to  die  for  Him  is  life,  what 
pain  can  we  think  He  had  to  suffer  in  the 
mystery  of  death,  Who  rewards  with  life  those 


4  Throughout  the  whole  of  this  discussion  of  Christ's  sufferings. 
Hilary  distinguishes  the  leeling  of  pain  (dolere,  dolor)  from  the 
physical  cause  of  pain,  i.e.  the  cutting  and  piercing  ot  the  body 
(/>ati,  ptissio).  Christ's  body  suffered  (pati)  but  He  could  not 
feel  pain  (dolere) '.  see  c.  23. 

5  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  38.     '         *  lb.  39.  7  lb.  xxvii.  46. 
8  St.  Luke  xxiii.  46.             T  St   Matt.  *.  38,  39. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    X. 


185 


who  die  for  Him?  Could  death  make  Him 
fear  what  could  be  done  to  the  body,  when 
He  exhorted  the  disciples,  Fear  not  those 
which  kill  the  body  2  ? 

11.  Further,  what  terror  had  the  pain  of 
death  for  Him,  to  Whom  death  was  an  act 
of  His  own  free  will  ?  In  the  human  race, 
death  is  brought  on  either  by  an  attack  upon 
the  body  of  an  external  enemy,  such  as  fever, 
wound,  accident  or  fall :  or  our  bodily  nature 
is  overcome  by  age,  and  yields  to  death.  But 
the  Only-begotten  God,  Who  had  the  power 
of  laying  down  His  life,  and  of  taking  it  up 
again  3,  after  the  draught  of  vinegar,  having 
borne  witness  that  His  work  of  human  suf- 
fering was  finished,  in  order  to  accomplish 
in  Himself  the  mystery  of  death,  bowed  His 
head  and  gave  up  His  Spirit  4.  If  it  has 
been  granted  to  our  mortal  nature  of  its  own 
will  to  breathe  its  last  breath,  and  seek  rest 
in  death ;  if  the  buffeted  soul  may  depart, 
without  the  breaking  up  of  the  body,  and  the 
spirit  burst  forth  and  flee  away,  without  being 
as  it  were  violated  in  its  own  home  by  the 
breaking  and  piercing  and  crushing  of  limbs  ; 
then  fear  of  death  might  seize  the  Lord  of 
life ;  if,  that  is,  when  He  gave  up  the  ghost 
and  died,  His  death  were  not  an  exercise  of 
His  own  free  will.  But  if  He  died  of  His 
own  will,  and  through  His  own  will  gave 
back  His  Spirit,  death  had  no  terror,  be- 
cause it  was  in  His  own  power. 

12.  But  perchance  with  the  fearfulness  of 
human  ignorance,  He  feared  the  very  power 
of  death,  which  He  possessed  ;  so,  though  He 
died  of  His  own  accord,  He  feared  because 
He  was  to  die.  If  any  think  so,  let  them  ask 
"To  which  was  death  terrible,  to  His  Spirit 
or  to  His  body?"  If  to  His  body,  are  they 
ignorant  that  the  Holy  One  should  not  see 
corruption  s}  that  within  three  days  He  was 
to  revive  the  temple  of  His  body6?  But  iff 
death  was  terrible  to  His  Spirit,  should  Christ 
fear  the  abyss  of  hell,  while  Lazarus  was 
rejoicing  in  Abraham's  bosom  ?  It  is  foolish 
and  absurd,  that  He  should  fear  death,  Who 
could  lay  down  His  soul,  and  take  it  up 
again,  Who,  to  fulfil  the  mystery  of  human 
life,  was  about  to  die  of  His  own  free  will. 
He  cannot  fear  death  Whose  power  and  pur- ! 
pose  in  dying  is  to  die  but  for  a  moment : 
fear  is  incompatible  with  willingness  to  die, 
and  the  power  to  live  again,  for  both  of  these 
rob  death  of  his  terrors. 

13.  But  was  it   perhaps  the  physical  pain 
of  hanging  on  the  cross,  or  the  rough  cords 


a  St.  Matt.  x.  a8.  3  St.  John  x.  18.  *  lb.  xix.  30. 

5  Ps.  xv.  10. 

6  St.  John  ii.  19;    St.  Matt.  xxvi.  16,  xxvii.  40;    St.  Mark 
*iv.  58. 


with  which  He  was  bound,  or  the  cruel 
wounds,  where  the  nails  were  driven  in,  that 
dismayed  Him?  Let  us  see  of  what  body  the 
Man  Jesus  was,  that  pain  should  dwell  in  His 
crucified,  bound,  and  pierced  body. 

14.  The  nature  of  our  bodies  is  such,  that 
when  endued  with  life  and  feeling  by  con- 
junction with  a  sentient  soul,  they  become 
something  more  than  inert,  insensate  matter. 
They  feel  when  touched,  suffer  when  pricked, 
shiver  with  cold,  feel  pleasure  in  warmth, 
waste  with  hunger,  and  grow  fat  with  food. 
By  a  certain  transfusion  of  the  soul,  which 
supports  and  penetrates  them,  they  feel 
pleasure  or  pain  according  to  the  surround- 
ing circumstances.  When  the  body  is  pricked 
or  pierced,  it  is  the  soul  which  pervades 
it  that  is  conscious,  and  suffers  pain.  For 
instance  a  flesh-wound  is  felt  even  to  the 
bone,  while  the  fingers  feel  nothing  when 
we  cut  the  nails  which  protrude  from  the 
flesh.  And  if  through  some  disease  a  limb 
becomes  withered,  it  loses  the  feeling  of  living 
flesh :  it  can  be  cut  or  burnt,  it  feels  no 
pain  whatever,  because  the  soul  is  no  longer 
mingled  with  it.  Also  when  through  some 
grave  necessity  part  of  the  body  must  be 
cut  away,  the  soul  can  be  lulled  to  sleep 
by  drugs,  which  overcome  the  pain,  and 
produce  in  the  mind  a  death-like  forgetfulness 
of  its  power  of  sense.  Then  limbs  can  be  cut 
off  without  pain :  the  flesh  is  dead  to  all 
feeling,  and  does  not  heed  the  deep  thrust  of 
the  knife,  because  the  soul  within  it  is  asleep. 
It  is,  therefore,  because  the  body  lives  by 
admixture  with  a  weak  soul,  that  it  is  subject 
to  the  weakness  of  pain. 

15.  If  the  Man  Jesus  Christ  began  His  bodily 
life  with  the  same  beginning  as  our  body  and 
soul,  if  He  were  not,  as  God,  the  immediate  Au- 
thor of  His  own  body  and  soul  alike,  when  He 
was  fashioned  in  the  likeness  and  form  of  man, 
and  born  as  man,  then  we  may  suppose  that  He 
felt  the  pain  of  our  body ;  since  by  His  begin- 
ning, a  conception  like  ours,  He  had  a  body 
animated  with  a  soul  like  our  own.  But  if 
through  His  own  act  He  took  to  Himself 
flesh  from  the  Virgin,  and  likewise  by  His 
own  act  joined  a  soul  to  the  body  thus  con- 
ceived, then  the  nature  of  His  suffering  must 
have  corresponded  with  the  nature  of  His 
body  and  soul.  For  when  He  emptied  Him- 
self of  the  form  of  God  and  received  the 
form  of  a  servant  when  the  Son  of  God  was 
born  also  Son  of  Man,  without  losing  His 
own  self  and  power,  God  the  Word  formed 
the  perfect  living  Man.  For  how  was  the  Son 
of  God  born  Son  of  Man,  how  did  He  receive 
the  form  of  a  servant,  still  remaining  in  the 
form  of  God,  unless  (God  the   Word   being 


1 86 


DE   TRINITATE. 


able  of  Himself  to  take  flesh  from  the  Virgin 
and  to  give  that  flesh  a  soul,  for  the  redemption 
of  our  soul  and  body),  the  Man  Christ  Jesus 
was  born  perfect,  and  made  in  the  form  of 
a  servant  by  the  assumption  of  the  body, 
which  the  Virgin  conceived  ?  For  the  Virgin 
conceived,  what  she  conceived,  from  the  Holy 
Ghost  alone  ?,  and  though  for  His  birth  in  the 
flesh  she  supplied  from  herself  that  element, 
which  women  always  contribute  to  the  seed 
planted  in  them,  still  Jesus  Christ  was  not 
formed  by  an  ordinary  human  conception. 
In  His  birth,  the  cause  of  which  was  trans- 
mitted solely  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  His  mother 
performed  the  same  part  as  in  all  human 
conceptions  :  but  by  virtue  of  His  origin  He 
never  ceased  to  be  God. 

1 6.  This  deep  and  beautiful  mystery  of  His 
assumption  of  manhood  the  Lord  Himself  re- 
veals in  the  words,  No  man  hath  ascended  into 
heaven,  but  He  that  descended  from  heaven, 
even  the  Son  of  Man  which  is  in  heaven*. 
'Descended  from  heaven'  refers  to  His  origin 
from  the  Spirit :  for  though  Mary  contributed 
to  His  growth  in  the  womb  and  birth  all  that 
is  natural  to  her  sex,  His  body  did  not  owe 
to  her  its  origin.  The  'Son  of  Man'  refers 
to  the  birth  of  the  flesh  conceived  in  the 
Virgin  ;  'Who  is  in  heaven'  implies  the  power 
of  His  eternal  nature:  an  infinite  nature, 
which  could  not  restrict  itself  to  the  limits 
of  the  body,  of  which  it  was  itself  the  source 
and  base.  By  the  virtue  of  the  Spirit  and 
the  power  of  God  the  Word,  though  He  abode 
in  the  form  of  a  servant,  He  was  ever  present 
as  Lord  of  all,  within  and  beyond  the  circle 
of  heaven  and  earth.  So  He  descended  from 
heaven  and  is  the  Son  of  Man,  yet  is  in 
heaven :  for  the  Word  made  flesh  did  not 
cease  to  be  the  Word.  As  the  Word,  He  is 
in  heaven,  as  flesh  He  is  the  Son  of  Man. 
As  Word  made  flesh,  He  is  at  once  from 
heaven,  and  Son  of  Man,  and  in  heaven,  for 
the  power  of  the  Word,  abiding  eternally 
without  body,  was  present  still  in  the  heaven 
He  had  left :  to  Him  and  to  none  other  the 
flesh  owed  its  origin.  So  the  Word  made 
flesh,  though  He  was  flesh,  yet  never  ceased 
to  be  the  Word. 

17.  The  blessed  Apostle  also  perfectly  de- 
scribes this  mystery  of  the  ineffable  birth  of 
Christ's  body  in  the  words,  The  first  man  was 

from  the  soil  of  the  ground,  the  second  man  from 
heaven1.  Calling  Him  'Man'  he  expresses 
His  birth  from  the  Virgin,  who  in  the  exercise 


of  her  office  as  mother,  performed  the  duties 
of  her  sex  in  the  conception  and  birth  of  man. 
And  when  he  says,  The  second  man  from  heaven 
he  testifies  His  origin  from  the  Holy  Ghost, 
Who  came  upon  the  Virgin  2.  As  He  is  then 
man,  and  from  heaven,  this  Man  was  born  of 
the  Virgin,  and  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
So  speaks  the  Apostle. 

18.  Again  the  Lord  Himself  revealing  this 
mystery  of  His  birth,  speaks  thus  :  /  am  the 
living  bread  Who  have  descended  from  Heaven  : 
if  any  one  shall  eat  of  My  bread  he  shall  live 
for  ever 3.-    calling   Himself  the   Bread    since 

He  is  the  origin  of  His  own  body.  Further, 
that  it  may  not  be  thought  the  Word  left  His 
own  virtue  and  nature  for  the  flesh,  He  says 
again  that  it  is  His  bread ;  since  He  is  the 
bread  which  descends  from  heaven,  His  body 
cannot  be  regarded  as  sprung  from  human 
conception,  because  it  is  shewn  to  be  from 
heaven.  And  His  language  concerning  His 
bread  is  an  assertion  that  the  Word  took  a 
body,  for  He  adds,  Unless  ye  eat  the  flesh  of 
the  Son  of  Alan  and  drink  His  blood,  ye  have 
not  life  in  you  •*.  Hence,  inasmuch  as  the  Being 
Who  is  Son  of  Man  descended  also  as  bread 
from  heaven,  by  the  '  Bread  descending  from 
heaven '  and  by  the  '  Flesh  and  Blood  of  the 
Son  of  Man '  must  be  understood  His  assump- 
tion of  the  flesh,  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  born  of  the  Virgin. 

19.  Being,  then,  Man  with  this  body,  Jesus 
Christ  is  both  the  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  Man, 
Who  emptied  Himself  of  the  form  of  God, 
and  received  the  form  of  a  servant.  There  is 
not  one  Son  of  Man  and  another  Son  of  God  ; 
nor  one  in  the  form  of  God,  and  another  born 
perfect  man  in  the  form  of  a  servant :  so  that, 
as  by  the  nature  determined  for  us  by  God, 
the  Author  of  our  being,,  man  is  born  with 
body  and  soul,  so  likewise  Jesus  Christ,  by 
His  own  power,  is  God  and  Man  with  flesh 
and  soul,  possessing  in  Himself  whole  and 
perfect  manhood,  and  whole  and  perfect  God- 
head. 

20.  Yet  many,  with  the  art  by  which  they 
seek  to  prove  their  heresy,  are  wont  to  delude 
the  ears  of  the  unlearned  with  the  error,  that 
as  the  body  and  soul  of  Adam  both  sinned,  so 
the  Lord  must  have  taken  the  soul  and  body 
of  Adam  from  the  Virgin,  and  that  it  was  not 
the  whole  Man  that  she  conceived  from  the 
Holy  Ghost5.     If  they  had    understood    the 


7  Omitting  '  suo : '  or  retaining  it  '  His  (i.e.  the  Word's)  Holy 
Spirit.' 

8  St.  John  iii.  13. 

•  1  Cor.  xv.  47.     One  copy  reads  de  terra  ttrrenus,  of  the 
earth,  earth 


2  Luke  i.  35.  "  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the 
power  of  the  Most  High  shall  overshadow  thee." 

3  St.  John  vi.  51.  4  lb.  vi.  54. 

5  Apollinaris  argued  that  if  Christ  were  perfect  God  and 
perfect  man,  there  would  be  two  Christs,  the  Son  of  God  by 
nature  and  the  Son  of  God  by  adoption.  Hence  He  taught  that 
Christ  was  partly  God  and  partly  man  ;  that  He  received  from 
the  Virgin  His  body  and  the  lower,  irrational  soul  which  is  the 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    X. 


187 


mystery  of  the  Incarnation,  these  men  would 
have  understood  at  the  same  time  the  mystery 
that  the  Son  of  Man  is  also  Son  of  God.  As 
if  in  receiving  so  much  from  the  Virgin,  He 
received  from  her  His  soul  also ;  whereas 
though  flesh  is  always  born  of  flesh,  every  soul 
is  the  direct  work  of  God. 

21.  With  a  view  to  deprive  of  substantive 
divinity  the  Only-begotten  God,  Who  was 
God  the  Word  with  God  in  the  beginning, 
they  make  Him  merely  the  utterance  of  the 
voice  of  God.  The  Son  is  related  to  God  His 
Father,  they  say,  as  the  words  to  the  speaker. 
They  are  trying  to  creep  into  the  position,  that 
it  was  not  God  the  eternal  Word,  abiding  in 
the  form  of  God,  Who  was  born  as  Christ  the 
Man,  Whose  life  therefore  springs  from  a  hu- 
man origin,  not  from  the  mystery  of  a  spiritual 
conception ;  that  He  was  not  God  the  Word, 
making  Himself  man  by  birth  from  the  Virgin, 
but  the  Word  of  God  dwelling  in  Jesus  as 
the  spirit  of  prophecy  dwelt  in  the  prophets. 
They  accuse  us  of  saying  that  Christ  was 
born  man  with  body  and  soul  different  from 
ours.  But  we  preach  the  Word  made  flesh, 
Christ  emptying  Himself  of  the  form  of  God 
and  taking  the  form  of  a  servant,  perfect  ac- 
cording to  the  fashion  of  human  form,  born 
a  man  after  the  likeness  of  ourselves :  that, 
being  true  Son  of  God,  He  is  indeed  true  Son 
of  Man,  neither  the  less  Man  because  born 
of  God,  nor  the  less  God  because  Man  born 
of  God. 

22.  But  as  He  by  His  own  act  assumed 
a  body  from  the  Virgin,  so  He  assumed  from 
Himself  a  soul  \  though  even  in  ordinary  human 
birth  the  soul  is  never  derived  from  the  parents. 
If,  then,  the  Virgin  received  from  God  alone 
the  flesh  which  she  conceived,  far  more  certain 
is  it  that  the  soul  of  that  body  can  have  come 
from  God  alone.  If,  too,  the  same  Christ  be 
the  Son  of  Man,  Who  is  also  the  Son  of  God 
(for  the  whole  Son  of  Man  is  the  whole  Son 
of  God),  how  ridiculous  is  it  to  preach  besides 
the  Son  of  God,  the  Word  made  flesh,  another, 
I  know  not  whom,  inspired,  like  a  prophet, 
by  God  the  Word ;  whereas  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  is  both  Son  of  Man  and  Son  of  God. 
Yet  because  His  soul  was  sorrowful  unto  death, 
and  because  He  had  the  power  to  lay  down 
His  soul  and  the  power  to  take  it  up  again, 
they  want  to  derive  it  from  some  alien  source, 
and  not  from  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Author 
of  His  body's  conception  :  for  God  the  Word 
became  man  without  departing  from  the  mys- 


condition  of  bodily  life  ;  while  His  rational  Spirit  was  Divine. 
On  this  theory  the  '  whole  man,'  as  Hilary  says,  was  not  born 
of  the  Virgin.  Hilary  denies  the  threefold  division.  The  soul 
in  every  case,  Christ's  included,  is,  he  says,  the  immediate  work 
of  God. 


tery  of  His  own  nature.  He  was  born 
also  not  to  be  at  one  time  two  separate 
beings,  but  that  it  might  be  made  plain, 
that  He  Who  was  God  before  He  was  Man, 
now  that  He  has  taken  humanity,  is  God  and 
Man.  How  could  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  have  been  born  of  Mary,  except  by  the 
Word  becoming  flesh  :  that  is  by  the  Son  of 
God,  though  in  the  form  of  God,  taking  the 
form  of  a  slave?  When  He  Who  was  in  the 
form  of  God  took  the  form  of  a  slave,  two 
contraries  were  brought  together6.  Thus  it 
was  just  as  true,  that  He  received  the  form  of 
a  slave,  as  that  He  remained  in  the  form  of 
God.  The  use  of  the  one  word  'form  '  to  de- 
scribe both  natures  compels  us  to  recognise  that 
He  truly  possessed  both.  He  is  in  the  form 
of  a  servant,  Who  is  also  in  the  form  of  God  ?. 
And  though  He  is  the  latter  by  His  eternal 
nature,  and  the  former  in  accordance  with  the 
divine  Plan  of  Grace,  the  word  has  its  true 
significance  equally  in  both  cases,  because  He 
is  both  :  as  truly  in  the  form  of  God  as  in  the 
form  of  Man.  Just  as  to  take  the  form  of 
a  servant  is  none  other  than  to  be  born  a 
man,  so  to  be  in  the  form  of  God  is  none 
other  than  to  be  God :  and  we  confess  Him 
as  one  and  the  same  Person,  not  by  loss 
of  the  Godhead,  but  by  assumption  of  the 
manhood :  in  the  form  of  God  through  His 
divine  nature,  in  the  form  of  man  from  His 
conception  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  being  found 
in  fashion  as  a  man.  That  is  why  after  His 
birth  as  Jesus  Christ,  His  suffering,  death,  and 
burial,  He  also  rose  again.  We  cannot  sep- 
arate Him  from  Himself  in  all  these  diverse 
mysteries,  so  that  He  should  be  no  longer 
Christ;  for  Christ,  Who  took  the  form  of  a 
servant,  was  none  other  than  He  Who  was 
in  the  form  of  God  :  He  Who  died  was  the 
same  as  He  Who  was  born :  He  Who  rose 
again  as  He  Who  died ;  He  Who  is  in  heaven 
as  He  Who  rose  again ;  lastly,  He  Who  is  in 
heaven  as  He  Who  before  descended  from 
heaven. 

23.  So  the  Man  Jesus  Christ,  Only-begotten 
God,  as  flesh  and  as  Word  at  the  same  time  Son 
of  Man  and  Son  of  God,  without  ceasing  to  be 
Himself,  that  is,  God,  took  true  humanity  after 
the  likeness  of  our  humanity.  But  when,  in  this 
humanity,  He  was  struck  with  blows,  or  smitten 
with  wounds,  or  bound  with  ropes,  or  lifted  on 
high,  He  felt  the  force  of  suffering,  but  with- 
out its  pain.  Thus  a  dart  passing  through 
water,  or  piercing  a  flame,  or  wounding  the 
air,  inflicts  all  that  it  is  its  nature  to  do  :    it 


6  i.e.  the  infinite  nature  of  God,  and  the  finite  nature  of  man. 

7  Form  since  the  time  of  Aristotle  meant  the  qualities  which 
constituted  the  distinctive  essence  of  a  thing. 


i8S 


DE   TRIXITATE. 


passes  through,  it  pierces,  it  wounds;    but  all 
this  is  without  effect  on  the  thing  it  strikes; 
since  it  is  against  the  order  of  nature  to  make 
a  hole  in  water,  or  pierce  flame,  or  wound  the 
air,  though  it  is  the  nature  of  a  dart  to  make 
holes,  to  pierce  and  to  wound.     So  our  Lord 
Jesus   Christ   suffered   blows,   hanging, _ cruci- 
fixion and  death  :    but  the  suffering  which  at- 
tacked the  body  of  the  Lord,  without  ceasing 
to  be  suffering,  had  not  the  natural  effect  of 
suffering.     It  exercised  its  function  of  punish- 
ment with  all  its  violence  ;    but  the  body  of 
Christ  by  its  virtue  suffered  the  violence  of  the 
punishment,  without  its  consciousness.     True, 
the  body  of  the  Lord  would  have  been  capable 
of  feeling  pain  like  our  natures,  if  our  bodies 
possessed  the  power  of  treading  on  the  waters, 
and  walking  over  the  waves  without  weighing 
them  down  by  our  tread  or  forcing  them  apart 
by  the  pressure  of  our  steps,  if  we  could  pass 
through  solid  substances,  and  the  barred  doors 
were  no  obstacle  to  us.     But,  as  only  the  body 
of  our  Lord  could  be  borne  up  by  the  power  of 
His  soul  in  the  waters,  could  walk  upon  the 
waves,  and  pass  through   walls,  how  can  we 
judge  of  the  flesh  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
on  the  analogy  of  a  human  body?    That  flesh, 
that    is,    that    Bread,    is    from    Heaven ;    that 
humanity  is  from    God.     He  had  a  body  to 
suffer,  and  He  suffered  :  but  He  had  not  a  na- 
ture8 which  could  feel   pain.     For  His  body 
possessed  a  unique  nature  of  its  own  ;  it  was 
transformed  into  heavenly  glory  on  the  Mount, 
it  put  fevers  to  flight  by  its  touch,  it  gave  new 
eyesight  by  its  spittle. 

24.  It  may  perhaps  be  said,  '  We  find  Him 
giving  way  to  weeping,  to  hunger  and  thirst : 
must  we  not  suppose  Him  liable  to  all  the 
other  affections  of  human  nature?'  But  if  we 
do  not  understand  the  mystery  of  His  tears, 
hunger,  and  thirst,  let  us  remember  that  He 
Who  wept  also  raised  the  dead  to  life :  that 
He  did  not  weep  for  the  death  of  Lazarus,  but 
rejoiced  * ;  that  He  Who  thirsted,  gave  from 
Himself  rivers  of  living  water  2.  He  could  not 
be  parched  with  thirst,  if  He  was  able  to  give 
the  thirsty  drink.  Again,  He  Who  hungered 
could  condemn  the  tree  which  offered  no  fruit 
for  His  hunger  3  ;  but  how  could  His  nature 
be  overcome  by  hunger  if  He  could  strike  the 
green  tree  barren  by  His  word  ?  And  if,  be- 
side the  mystery  of  weeping,  hunger  and 
thirst,  the  flesh  He  assumed,  that  is  His  en- 


8  Erasmus  mentions  an  insertion  in  one  MS.  here,  which 
explains  what  Hilary  implies  throughout  the  chapter  ;  '  weak  as 
ours  from  sin,'  i.e.  weakness  is  the  proper  penalty  for  sin  :  pain 
is  only  a  secondary  and  adventitious  effect  of  the  weakness  of 
human  nature  brought  on  by  sin.  Christ  then  atoned  completely 
for  sin,  by  suffering,  without  feeling  pain. 

1  St.  John  xi.  15,  'Lazarus  is  dead.  And  I  am  glad  for  your 
»ake^  that  I  was  not  there,  to  the  intent  that  ye  may  believe.' 

»  St.  John  vii    38.         3  St.  Matt.  xxi.  19  and  St.  Mark  xi.  3. 


tire  manhood,  was  exposed  to  our  weaknesses: 
even  then  it  was  not  left  to  suffer  from  their 
indignities.  His  weeping  was  not  for  Him- 
self ;  His  thirst  needed  no  water  to  quench  it ; 
His  hunger  no  food  to  stay  it.  It  is  never 
said  that  the  Lord  ate  or  drank  or  wept  when 
He  was  hungry,  or  thirsty,  or  sorrowful.  He 
conformed  to  the  habits  of  the  body  to  prove 
the  reality  of  His  own  body,  to  satisfy  the 
custom  of  human  bodies  by  doing  as  our 
nature  does.  When  He  ate  and  drank,  it  was 
a  concession,  not  to  His  own  necessities,  but 
to  our  habits. 

25.  For   Christ   had    indeed    a    body,   but 
unique,  as  befitted   His  origin.     He  did   not 
come  into  existence  through  the  passions  in- 
cident to  human  conception  :    He  came  into 
the  form  of  our  body  by  an  act  of  His  own 
power.     He  bore  our  collective  humanity  in 
the  form  of  a  servant,  but  He  was  free  from 
the  sins  and  imperfections  of  the  human  body: 
that  we  might  be  in  Him,  because  He  was  born 
of  the  Virgin,  and  yet  our  faults  might  not  be 
in  Him,  because  He  is  the  source  of  His  own 
humanity,  born  as  man  but  not  born  under  the 
defects  of  human  conception.     It  is  this  mys- 
tery of  His  birth  which  the  Apostle  upholds 
and  demonstrates,  when  he  says,  He  humbled 
Himself,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant,   being 
made  in  the  likeness  of  a  man  and  being  formed 
in  fashion  as  a  man  4  .•  that  is,  in  that  He  took 
the  form  of  a   servant,  He  was  born  in   the 
form  of  a  man  :    in  that  He  was  made  in  the 
likeness  of  a  man,  and  formed  in  fashion  as 
a   man,    the   appearance   and    reality  of    His 
body  testified  His  humanity,  yet,  though  He 
was  formed   in  fashion  as   a  man,    He  knew 
not  what  sin  was.     For  His  conception  was 
in    the    likeness    of    our    nature,    not   in    the 
possession  of  our  faults.     For  lest  the  words, 
He  took  the  form  of  a  servant,  might  be  un- 
derstood of  a  natural  birth,  the  Apostle  adds, 
made   in    the   likeness  of  a    man,  and  formed 
in  fashion  as  a  man.     The  truth  of  His  birth 
is  thus  prevented  from  suggesting  the  defects 
incident  to  our  weak  natures,  since  the  form 
of  a  servant  implies  the  reality  of  His  birth, 
and  found  in  fashion  as  a   man,  the  likeness 
of  our  nature.     He  was  of  Himself  born  man 
through  the  Virgin,  and  found  in  the  likeness 
of  our  degenerate  body  of  sin  :  as  the  Apostle 
testifies  in  his  letter  to  the  Romans,  For  what 
the  law  could  not  do,  in  that  it  was  weak  through 
the  flesh,  God  sending  His  Son  in  the  likeness  of 
flesh  of  sin,   condemned  sin  of  sin  5.     He  was 
not  found  in  the  fashion  of  a  man  :  but  found 
in  fashion  as  a  man :    nor  was  His  flesh  the 
flesh  of 


,  but  the  likeness  of  the  flesh  of 


4  Phil.  ii.  7. 


S  Rom.  viii.  3. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.-- HOOK    X. 


189 


sin.  Thus  the  fashion  of  flesh  implies  the 
truth  of  His  birth,  and  the  likeness  of  the 
flesh  of  sin  removes  Him  from  the  imper- 
fections of  human  weakness.  So  the  Man 
Jesus  Christ  as  man  was  truly  born,  as  Christ 
had  no  sin  in  His  nature :  for,  on  His  human 
side,  He  was  born,  and  could  not  but  be 
a  man  ;  on  His  divine  side,  He  could  never 
cease  to  be  Christ.  Since  then  Jesus  Christ 
was  man,  He  submitted  as  man  to  a  human 
birth :  yet  as  Christ  He  was  free  from  the  in- 
firmity of  our  degenerate  race. 

26.  The  Apostles'  belief  prepares  us  for  the 
understanding  of  this  mystery ;  when  it  tes- 
tifies that  Jesus  Christ  was  found  in  fashion 
as  a  man  and  was  sent  in  the  likeness  of  the 
flesh  of  sin.  For  being  fashioned  as  a  man, 
He  is  in  the  form  of  a  servant,  but  not  in  the 
imperfections  of  a  servant's  nature ;  and  being 
in  the  likeness  of  the  flesh  of  sin,  the  Word  is 
indeed  flesh,  but  is  in  the  likeness  of  the  flesh 
of  sin  and  not  the  flesh  of  sin  itself.  In  like 
manner  Jesus  Christ  being  man  is  indeed 
human,  but  even  thus  cannot  be  aught  else 
but  Christ,  born  as  man  by  the  birth  of  His 
body,  but  not  human  in  defects,  as  He  was 
not  human  in  origin.  The  Word  made  flesh 
could  not  but  be  the  flesh  that  He  was  made  ; 
yet  He  remained  always  the  Word,  though 
He  was  made  flesh.  As  the  Word  made  flesh 
could  not  vacate  the  nature  of  His  Source,  so 
by  virtue  of  the  origin  of  His  nature  He 
could  not  but  remain  the  Word  :  but  at  the 
same  time  we  must  believe  that  the  Word 
is  that  flesh  which  He  was  made  ;  always, 
however,  with  the  reserve,  that  when  He  dwelt 
among  us,  the  flesh  was  not  the  Word,  but 
was  the  flesh  of  the  Word  dwelling  in  the 
flesh. 

Though  we  have  proved  this,  still  we  will 
see  whether  in  the  whole  range  of  suffering, 
which  He  endured,  we  can  anywhere  detect  in 
our  Lord  the  weakness  of  bodily  pain.  We 
will  put  off  for  a  time  the  discussion  of  the 
passages  on  the  strength  of  which  heresy  has 
attributed  fear  to  our  Lord ;  now  let  us  turn  to 
the  facts  themselves:  for  His  words  cannot 
signify  fear  if  His  actions  display  confidence. 

27.  Do  you  suppose,  heretic,  that  the  Lord 
of  glory  feared  to  suffer?  Why,  when  Peter 
made  this  error  through  ignorance,  did  He  not 
call  him  'Satan'  and  a  'stumbling-block6?' 
Thus  was  Peter,  who  deprecated  the  mystery 
of  the  Passion,  established  in  the  faith  by 
so  sharp  a  rebuke  from  the  lips  of  the  gentle 
Christ,  Whom  not  flesh  and  blood,  but  the 
Father  in  Heaven  had  revealed  to  him  1. 

What  phantom  hope  are  you  chasing  when 


6  St.  Matt   xvi.  22,  >3. 


7  lb.  xvi.  16. 


you  deny  that  Christ  is  God,  and  attribute  to 
Him  fear  of  suffering  ?  He  afraid,  Who  went 
forth  to  meet  the  armed  bands  of  His  captors? 
Weakness  in  His  body,  at  Whose  approach 
the  pursuers  reeled  and  broke  their  ranks  and 
fell  prone,  unable  to  endure  His  Majesty  as 
He  offered  Himself  to  their  chains?  What 
weakness  could  enthral  His  body,  Whose 
nature  had  such  power  ? 

28.  But  perhaps  He  feared  the  pain  of 
wounds.  Say  then,  What  terror  had  the  thrust 
of  the  nail  for  Him  Who  merely  by  His  touch 
restored  the  ear  that  was  cut  off?  You  who 
assert  the  weakness  of  the  Lord,  explain  this 
work  of  power  at  the  moment  when  His  flesh 
was  weak  and  suffering.  Peter  drew  his  sword 
and  smote  :  the  High  Priest's  servant  stood 
there,  lopped  of  his  ear.  How  was  the  flesh 
of  the  ear  restored  from  the  bare  wound  by  the 
touch  of  Christ  ?  Amidst  the  flowing  blood,  and 
the  wound  left  by  the  cleaving  sword,  when  the 
body  was  so  maimed,  whence  sprang  forth  an 
ear  which  was  not  there  ?  Whence  came  that 
which  did  not  exist  before?  Whence  was 
restored  that  which  was  wanting?  Did  the 
hand,  which  created  an. ear,  feel  the  pain  of 
the  nails  ?  He  prevented  another  from  feeling 
the  pain  of  a  wound  :  did  He  feel  it  Himself? 
His  touch  could  restore  the  flesh  that  was  cut 
off;  was  He  sorrowful  because  He  feared  the 
piercing  of  His  own  flesh  ?  And  if  the  body  of 
Christ  had  this  virtue,  dare  we  allege  infir- 
mity in  that  nature,  whose  natural  force  could 
counteract  all  the  natural  infirmities  of  man  ? 

29.  But,  perhaps,  in  their  misguided  and 
impious  perversity,  they  infer  His  weakness 
from  the  fact  that  His  soul  was  sorrowful 
unto  death  8.  It  is  not  yet  the  time  to  blame 
you,  heretic,  for  misunderstanding  the  passage. 
For  the  present  I  will  only  ask  you,  Why  do 
you  forget  that  when  Judas  went  forth  to  be- 
tray Him,  He  said,  Now  is  the  Son  of  Man 
glorified^  ?  If  suffering  was  to  glorify  Him, 
how  could  the  fear  of  it  have  made  Him  sor- 
rowful ?  How,  unless  He  was  so  void  of  reason, 
that  He  feared  to  suffer  when  suffering  was  to 
glorify  Him  ? 

30.  But  perhaps  He  maybe  thought  to  have 
feared  to  the  extent  that  He  prayed  that  the 
cup  might  be  removed  from  Him :  Abba, 
Father,  all  things  are  possible  unto  Thee :  re- 
move this  cup  from  Me  l.  To  take  the  narrowest 
ground  of  argument,  might  you  not  have  re- 
futed for  yourself  this  dull  impiety  by  your  own 
reading  of  the  words,  Put  up  thy  sword  into 
its  sheath :  the  cup  which  My  Father  hath 
given  Me,  shall  I  not  drink  it 2  1   Could  fear 


8  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  38. 
1  St.  Mark  xiv.  36. 


9  St.  John  xiii.  31. 
2  St.  John  xviii.  u. 


190 


DE    TRINITATE. 


induce  Him  to  pray  for  the  removal  from 
Him  of  that  which,  in  His  zeal  for  the  Divine 
Plan,  He  was  hastening  to  fulfil  ?  To  say  He 
shrank  from  the  suffering  He  desired  is  not 
consistent.  You  allow  that  He  suffered  wil- 
lingly :  would  it  not  be  more  reverent  to  con- 
fess that  you  had  misunderstood  this  passage, 
than  to  rush  with  blasphemous  and  headlong 
folly  to  the  assertion  that  He  prayed  to  escape 
suffering,  though  you  allow  that  He  suffered 
willingly  ? 

31.  Yet,  I  suppose,  you  will  arm  yourself 
also  for  your  godless  contention  with  these 
words  of  the  Lord,  My  God,  My  God,  why 
hast  Thou  forsaken  Me  3  ?  Perhaps  you  think 
that  after  the  disgrace  of  the  cross,  the  favour 
of  His  Father's  help  departed  from  Him,  and 
hence  His  cry  that  He  was  left  alone  in  His 
weakness.  But  if  you  regard  the  contempt, 
the  weakness,  the  cross  of  Christ  as  a  disgrace, 
you  should  remember  His  words,  Verily  /  say 
unto  you,  From  henceforth  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of 
Man  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  power,  and 
coming  with  the  clouds  of  Heaven*. 

32.  Where,  pray,  can  you  see  fear  in  His 
Passion  ?  Where  weakness  ?  Or  pain  ?  Or  dis- 
honour ?  Do  the  godless  say  He  feared  ?  But 
He  proclaimed  with  His  own  lips  His  wil- 
lingness to  suffer.  Do  they  maintain  that  He 
was  weak  ?  He  revealed  His  power,  when 
His  pursuers  were  stricken  with  panic  and 
dared  not  face  Him.  Do  they  contend  that 
He  felt  the  pain  of  the  wounds  in  His  flesh  ? 
But  He  shewed,  when  He  restored  the 
wounded  flesh  of  the  ear,  that,  though  He 
was  flesh,  He  did  not  feel  the  pain  of  fleshly 
wounds.  The  hand  which  touched  the  wounded 
ear  belonged  to  His  body :  yet  that  hand 
created  an  ear  out  of  a  wound :  how  then 
can  that  be  the  hand  of  a  body  which  was 
subject  to  weakness? 

33.  But,  they  say,  the  cross  was  a  dishonour 
to  Him  ;  yet  it  is  because  of  the  cross  that  we 
can  now  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  on  the 
right  hand  of  power,  that  He  Who  was  born 
man  of  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  has  returned 
in  His  Majesty  with  the  clouds  of  heaven. 
Your  irreverence  blinds  you  to  the  natural 
relations  of  cause  and  event:  not  only  does 
the  spirit  of  godlessness  and  error,  with  which 
you  are  filled,  hide  from  your  understand- 
ing the  mystery  of  faith,  but  the  obtuseness 
of  heresy  drags  you  below  the  level  of  or- 
dinary human  intelligence.  For  it  stands 
to  reason  that  whatever  we  fear,  we  avoid : 
that  a  weak  nature  is  a  prey  to  terror  by  its 
very    feebleness :    that    whatever    feels    pain 


3  St.  Mark  xv.  34  ;  St.  Matt,  xxvii.  46. 
4  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  64  ;  cf.  xvi.  27. 


possesses  a  nature  always  liable  to  pain  : 
that  whatever  dishonours  is  always  a  de- 
gradation. On  what  reasonable  principle, 
then,  do  you  hold  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
feared  that  towards  which  He  pressed  :  or 
awed  the  brave,  yet  trembled  Himself  -vith 
weakness  :  or  stopped  the  pain  of  wounds, 
yet  felt  the  pain  of  His  own  :  or  was  dishon- 
oured by  the  degradation  of  the  cross,  vet 
through  the  cross  sat  down  by  God  on  high, 
and  returned  to  His  Kingdom  ? 

34.  But  perhaps  you  think  your  impiety 
has  still  an  opportunity  left  to  see  in  the 
words,  Father,  into  Thy  hands  I  commend 
My  Spirits,  a  proof  that  He  feared  the  descent 
into  the  lower  world,  and  even  the  necessity 
of  death.  But  when  you  read  these  words 
and  could  not  understand  them,  would  it  not 
have  been  better  to  say  nothing,  or  to  pray 
devoutly  to  be  shewn  their  meaning,  than  to 
go  astray  with  such  barefaced  assertions,  too 
mad  with  your  own  folly  to  perceive  the 
truth  ?  Could  you  believe  that  He  feared  the 
depths  of  the  abyss,  the  scorching  flames,  or 
the  pit  of  avenging  punishment,  when  you 
listen  to  His  words  to  the  thief  on  the  cross, 
Verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  To-day  shalt  thou  be  with 
Me  in  Paradise6 1  Such  a  nature  with  such 
power  could  not  be  shut  up  within  the  con- 
fines of  the  nether  world,  nor  even  subjected 
to  fear  of  it.  When  He  descended  to  Hades, 
He  was  never  absent  from  Paradise  (just  as 
He  was~  always  in  Heaven  when  He  was 
preaching  on  earth  as  the  Son  of  Man),  but 
promised  His  martyr  7  a  home  there,  and  held 
out  to  him  the  transports  of  perfect  happiness. 
Bodily  fear  cannot  touch  Him  Who  reaches  in- 
deed down  as  far  as  Hades,  but  by  the  power 
of  His  nature  is  present  in  all  things  every- 
where. As  little  can  the  abyss  8  of  Hell  and 
the  terrors  of  death  lay  hold  upon  the  nature 
wrhich  rules  the  world,  boundless  in  the  free- 
dom of  its  spiritual  power,  confident  of  the 
raptures  of  Paradise  ;  for  the  Lord  Who  was 
to  descend  to  Hades,  was  also  to  dwell  in 
Paradise.  Separate,  if  you  can,  from  His  indi- 
visible nature  a  part  which  could  fear  punish- 
ment :  send  the  one  part  of  Christ  to  Hades 
to  surfer  pain,  the  other,  you  must  leave  in 
Paradise  to  reign  :  for  the  thief  says,  Remember 
me  when  Thou  contest  in  Thy  Kingdom.  It 
was  the  groan  he  heard,  1  suppose,  when 
the  nails  pierced  the  hands  of  our  Lord,  which 
provoked  in  him  this  blessed  confession  of 
faith  :  he  learnt  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  from 
His  weakened  and  stricken  body  !    He  begs 

5  St.  Luke  xxiii.  46.  6  lb.  43. 

7  i.e.  the  thiet  on  the  cross. 

8  In  Biblical  and  Patristic  Latin  chaos  had  acquired  the  sens* 
of  xa<rM>i ;  cf.  Konsch,  Itala  u.  Vulgata,  p.  250. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    X. 


191 


that  Christ  will  remember  him  when  He 
comes  in  His  Kingdom  :  you  say  that  Christ 
feared  as  He  hung  dying  upon  the  cross.  The 
Lord  promises  him,  To-day  shalt  tlion  be  with 
Me  in  Paradise;  you  would  subject  Christ 
to  Hades  and  fear  of  punishment.  Your  faith 
has  the  opposite  expectation.  The  thief  con- 
fessed Christ  in  His  Kingdom  as  He  hung  on 
the  cross,  and  was  rewarded  with  Paradise 
from  the  cross:  you  who  impute  to  Christ  the 
pain  of  punishment  and  the  fear  of  death,  will 
fail  of  Paradise  and  His  Kingdom. 

35.  We  have  now  seen  the  power  that  lay  in 
the  acts  and  words  of  Christ.  We  have  incon- 
testably  proved  that  His  body  did  not  share 
the  infirmity  of  a  natural  body,  because  its 
power  could  expel  the  infirmities  of  the  body  : 
that  when  He  suffered,  suffering  laid  hold  of 
His  body,  but  did  not  inflict  upon  it  the 
nature  of  pain  :  and  this  because,  though  the 
form  of  our  body  was  in  the  Lord,  yet  He 
by  virtue  of  His  origin  was  not  in  the  body  of 
our  weakness  and  imperfection.  He  was  con- 
ceived of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  born  of  the 
Virgin,  who  performed  the  office  of  her  sex, 
but  did  not  receive  the  seed  of  His  conception 
from  man  9.  She  brought  forth  a  body,  but 
one  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  a  body 
possessing  inherent  reality,  but  with  no  in- 
firmity in  its  nature.  That  body  was  truly 
and  indeed  body,  because  it  was  born  of  the 
Virgin  :  but  it  was  above  the  weakness  of  our 
body,  because  it  had  its  beginning  in  a  spi- 
ritual conception. 

36.  But  even  now  that  we  have  proved  what 
was  the  faith  of  the  Apostle,  the  heretics  think 
to  meet  it  by  the  text,  My  soul  is  sorrowful  even 
unto  death  \  These  words,  they  say,  prove  the 
consciousness  of  natural  infirmity  which  made 
Christ  begin  to  be  sorrowful.  Now,  first, 
I  appeal  to  common  intelligence :  what  do  we 
mean  by  sorrowful  unto  death  ?  It  cannot 
signify  the  same  as  '  to  be  sorrowful  because  of 
death :  '  for  where  there  is  sorrow  because  of 
death,  it  is  the  death  that  is  the  cause  of  the 
sadness.  But  a  sadness  even  to  death 2  im- 
plies that  death  is  the  finish,  not  the  cause,  of 
the  sadness.  If  then  He  was  sorrowful  even 
to  death,  not  because  of  death,  we  must  enquire, 
whence  came  His  sadness  ?  He  was  sorrowful, 
not  for  a  certain  time,  or  for  a  period  which 
human  ignorance  could  not  determine,  but 
even  unto  death.  So  far  from  His  sadness 
being  caused  by  His  death,- it  was  removed 
by  it. 


9  Reading  '  susceptis  elementis.' 

'  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  38  ;   St.  Mark  xiv.  34. 

2  Usque  ad  mortem  :  up  to,  as  far  as  death.  The  Latin  gives 
more  colour  to  this  interpretation  of  Hilary  than  the  English 
translation  '  even  unto  death.' 


37.  That  we  may  understand  what  was  the 
cause  of  His  sadness,  let  us  see  what  pre- 
cedes and  follows  this  confession  of  sadness: 
for  in  the  Passover  supper  our  Lord  com- 
pletely signified  the  whole  mystery  of  His 
Passion  and  our  faith.  After  He  had  said 
that  they  should  all  be  offended  in  Him  3,  but 
promised  that  He  would  go  before  them  into 
Galilee  4,  Peter  protested  that  though  all  the 
rest  should  be  offended,  he  would  remain 
faithful  and  not  be  offended  s.  But  the  Lord 
knowing  by  His  Divine  Nature  what  should 
come  to  pass,  answered  that  Peter  would 
deny  Him  thrice  :  that  we  might  know  from 
Peter  how  the  others  were  offended,  since  even 
he  lapsed  into  so  great  peril  to  his  faith  by 
the  triple  denial.  After  that,  He  took  Peter, 
James  and  John,  chosen,  the  first  two  to  be 
His  martyrs,  John  to  be  strengthened  for 
the  proclamation  of  the  Gospel,  and  de 
clared  that  He  was  sorrowful  unto  death. 
Then  He  went  before,  and  prayed,  saying, 
My  Father,  if  it  is  possible,  let  this  cup  pass 
from  Me  ;  yet,  not  as  I  will,  but  as  Thou  wilt 6. 
He  prays  that  the  cup  may  pass  from  Him, 
when  it  was  certainly  already  before  Him  :  for 
even  then  was  being  fulfilled  that  pouring" 
forth  of  His  blood  of  the  New  Testament  for 
the  sins  of  many.  He  does  not  pray  that 
it  may  not  be  with  Him  ;  but  that  it  may  pass 
away  from  Him.  Then  He  prays  that  His  will 
may  not  be  done,  and  wills  that  what  He 
wishes  to  be  effected,  may  not  be  granted 
Him.  For  He  says,  Yet  not  as  I  will,  but  as 
Thou  wilt:  signifying  by  His  spontaneous 
prayer  for  the  cup's  removal  His  fellowship 
with  human  anxiety,  yet  associating  Himself 
with  the  decree  of  the  Will  which  He  shares 
inseparably  with  the  Father.  To  shew,  more- 
over, that  He  does  not  pray  for  Himself,  and 
that  He  seeks  only  a  conditional  fulfilment  of 
what  He  desires  and  prays  for,  He  prefaces 
the  whole  of  this  request  with  the  words,  My 
Father,  if  it  is  possible.  Is  there  anything 
for  the  Father  the  possibility  of  which  is 
uncertain?  But  if  nothing  is  impossible  to  the 
Father,  we  can  see  on  what  depends  this  con 
dition,  //  it  is  possible  ?  .-  for  this  prayer  is 
immediately  followed  by  the  words,  And  He 
came  to  His  disciples  and  findeth  them  sleeping, 
and  saith  to  Peler,  Could  ye  not  watch  one  hour 
with-  Me  ?  Watch  and  pray  that  ye  enter  not 
into  temptation  :  for  the  spirit  indeed  is  willing, 


3  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  31  ;  St.  Mark  xiv.  27  ;  cf.  St.  John  xvi.  3*. 

4  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  32  ;  St.  Mark  xiv.  28  ;  cf.  xvi.  7. 

5  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  33. 

6  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  39  ;  St.  Mark  xiv.  36 ;  St.  Luke  xxii.  42. 

7  i.e.  the  possibility  that  the  disciples  may  not  enaure  the 
temptation  of  the  cup:  that  it  might  abide  with  them  insuad 
of  passing  away.     See  the  explanation  in  the  next  chapter. 


192 


DE    TRINITATE. 


but  the  flesh  is  weak*.  Is  the  cause  of  this 
sadness  and  this  prayer  any  longer  doubtful? 
He  bids  them  watch  and  pray  with  Him  for 
this  purpose,  that  they  may  not  enter  into 
temptation  ;  for  the  spirit  indeed  is  willing,  but 
the  flesh  is  weak.  They  were  under  the  pro- 
mise made  in  the  constancy  of  faithful  souls, 
not  to  be  offended,  yet,  through  weakness  of 
the  flesh,  they  were  to  be  offended  It  is  not, 
therefore,  for  Himself  that  He  is  sorrowful, 
and  prays :  it  is  for  those  whom  He  exhorts 
to  watchfulness  and  prayer,  lest  the  cup  of 
suffering  should  be  their  lot :  lest  that  cup 
which  He  prays  may  pass  away  from  Him, 
should  abide  with  them. 

38.  And  the  reason  He  prayed  that  the  cup 
might  be  removed  from  Him,  if  that  were 
possible,  was  that,  though  with  God  nothing  is 
impossible,  as  Christ  Himself  says,  Father,  all 
things  are  possible  to  Thee  °,  yet  for  man  it  is 
impossible  to  withstand  the  fear  of  suffer- 
ing, and  only  by  trial  can  faith  be  proved. 
Wherefore,  as  Man  He  prays  for  men  that 
the  cup  may  pass  away,  but  as  God  from 
God,  His  will  is  in  unison  with  the  Father's 
effectual  will.  He  teaches  what  He  meant 
by  If  it  is  possible,  in  His  words  to  Peter, 
Lo,  Satan  hath  sought  you  that  He  might 
sift  you  as  wheat :  but  I  have  prayed  for  thee 
that  thy  faith  may  not  fail1.  The  cup  of 
the  Lord's  Passion  was  to  be  a  trial  for  them 
all,  and  He  prays  the  Father  for  Peter  that 
his  faith  may  not  fail :  that  when  he  denied 
through  weakness,  at  least  he  might  not  fail 
of  penitential  sorrow,  for  repentance  would 
mean  that  faith  survived 

39.  The  Lord  was  sorrowful  then  unto  death 
because  in  presence  of  the  death,  the  earth- 
quake, the  darkened  day,  the  rent  veil,  the 
opened  graves,  and  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  the  faith  of  the  disciples  would  need  to 
be  established  which  had  been  so  shaken  by 
the  terror  of  the  night  arrest,  the  scourging, 
the  striking,  the  spitting  upon,  the  crown  of 
thorns,  the  bearing  of  the  cross,  and  all  the 
insults  of  the  Passion,  but  most  of  all  by  the 
condemnation  to  the  accursed  cross.  Know- 
ing that  all  this  would  be  at  an  end  after 
His  Passion,  He  was  sad  unto  death.  He 
knew,  too,  that  the  cup  could  not  pass  away 
unless  He  drank  it,  for  He  said,  My  Father, 
this  cup  cannot  pass  from  Me  unless  I  drink 
it:  2^hy  will  be  done 2 :  that  is,  with  the  com- 
pletion of  His  Passion,  the  fear  of  the  cup 
would  pass  away  which  could  not  pass  away 


8  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  40,  41 ;  St.  Mark  xiv.  37,  38;  cf.  St.  Luke 
sxii.  45,  46. 

9  St.  Mark  xiv.  36.  '  St.  Luke  xxii.  31,  32. 

3  St.  Matt.   xxvi.  42.     The   Greek  is:— 'My  Father,   if  this 
cup  cannot  pass  away  except  I  drink  of  it,  Thy  will  be  done.' 


unless  He  drank  it :  the  end  of  that  fear 
would  follow  only  when  His  Passion  was  com- 
pleted and  terror  destroyed  3.  because  after 
His  death,  the  stumbling-block  of  the  dis- 
ciples' weakness  would  be  removed  by  the 
glory  of  His  power. 

40.  Although    by  His   words,    Thy  will  be 
done,  He  surrendered  the  Apostles  to  the  de- 
cision  of  His  Father's  will,  in  regard  to  the 
offence  of  the  cup,  that   is,  of  His   Passion, 
still    He   repeated   His  prayer  a  second  and 
a  third  time.    After  that  He  said,  Sleep  on  now, 
and  take  your  rest*.      It  is   not   without   the 
consciousness  of  some  secret  reason  that  He 
Who    had    reproached    them    for   their   sleep, 
now  bade  them  sleep  on,  and  take  their  rest. 
Luke  is  thought  to  have  given  us  the  meaning 
of  this  command.     After  He  had  told  us  how 
Satan  had  sought  to  sift  the  Apostles  as  it  were 
wheat,  and  how  the  Lord  had  been  entreated 
that   the  faith  of  Peter   might   not  fails,    he 
adds  that  the  Lord  prayed  earnestly,  and  then 
that  an  angel  stood  by  Him  comforting  Him, 
and  as  the  angel  stood  by  Him,  He  prayed 
the  more  earnestly,  so  that  the  sweat  poured 
from    His    body   in   drops   of    blood 6.     The 
Angel  was  sent,  then,  to  watch  over  the  Apos- 
tles, and  when  the  Lord  was  comforted  by  him, 
so  that  He  no  longer  sorrowed  for  them,  He 
said,  without  fear  of  sadness,  Sleep  on  now,  and 
take  your  rest.     Matthew  and  Mark  are  silent 
about  the  angel,  and  the  request  of  the  devil: 
but  after  the  sorrowfulness  of  His  soul,  the 
reproach  of  the  sleepers,  and  the  prayer  that 
the  cup    may  be  taken    away,  there  must  be 
some  good  reason  for  the  command  to  the 
sleepers  which  follows ;  unless  we  assume  that 
He  Who  was  about  to  leave  them,  and  Him- 
self had  received  comfort  from  the  Angel  sent 
to  Him,  meant  to  abandon  them  to  their  sleep, 
soon  to  be  arrested  and  kept  in  durance. 

4.1.  We  must  not  indeed  pass  over  the  fact 
that  in  many  manuscripts,  both  Latin  and 
Greek,  nothing  is  said  of  the  angel's  coming 
or  the  Bloody  Sweat.  But  while  we  suspend 
judgment,  whether  this  is  an  omission,  where 
it  is  wanting,  or  an  interpolation,  where  it 
is  found  (for  the  discordance  of  the  copies 
leaves  the  question  uncertain),  let  not  the 
heretics  encourage  themselves  that  herein 
lies  a  confirmation  of  His  weakness,  that  He 
needed  the  help  and  comfort  of  an  angel. 
Let  them  remember  the  Creator  of  the  angels 
needs  not  the  support  of  His  creatures. 
Moreover  His  comforting  must  be  explained 


3  Reading  '  non  nisi  finito.'  4  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  45. 

5  This  is  a  mistranslation  of  St.  Luke  xxii.  32,  i&erjt)i)i/  being 
taken  as  passive. 

6  St.  Luke  xxii.  43,  44.    The  Greek  is  ixrtt.,  '«sit  were  drops 
of  blood' 


ON    THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK    X. 


193 


in  the  same  way  as  His  sorrow.  He  was 
sorrowful  for  us,  that  is,  on  our  account  ;  He 
must  also  have  been  comforted  for  us,  that  is, 
on  our  account.  If  He  sorrowed  concerning 
us,  He  was  comforted  concerning  us.  The 
object  of  His  comfort  is  the  same  as  that  of 
His  sadness.  Nor  let  any  one  dare  to  impute 
the  Sweat  to  a  weakness,  for  it  is  contrary 
to  nature  to  sweat  blood  7.  It  was  no  in- 
firmity, for  His  power  reversed  the  law  of 
nature.  The  bloody  sweat  does  not  for  one 
moment  support  the  heresy  of  weakness, 
while  it  establishes  against  the  heresy  which 
invents  an  apparent  body 8,  the  reality  of 
His  body.  Since,  then,  His  fear  was  con- 
cerning us,  and  His  prayer  on  our  behalf, 
we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  all  this 
happened  on  our  account,  for  whom  He 
feared,  and  for  whom  He  prayed. 

42.  Again  the  Gospels  fill  up  what  is  lack- 
ing in  one  another :  we  learn  some  things 
from  one,  some  from  another,  and  so  on, 
because  all  are  the  proclamation  of  the  same 
spirit.  Thus  John,  who  especially  brings  out 
the  working  of  spiritual  causes  in  the  Gospel, 
preserves  this  prayer  of  the  Lord  for  the 
Apostles,  which  all  the  others  passed  over : 
how  He  prayed,  namely,  Holy  Father,  keep 
them  i?i  Thy  Name  ....  while  I  was  with 
them  I  kept  them  in  Thy  Name:  those  whom 
Thou  gavest  Me  I  have  kept  9.  That  prayer 
was  not  for  Himself  but  for  His  Apostles  ; 
nor  was  He  sorrowful  for  Himself,  since  He 
bids  them  pray  that  they  be  not  tempted  : 
nor  is  the  angel  sent  to  Him,  for  He  could 
summon  down  from  Heaven,  if  He  would, 
twelve  thousand  angels  ' ;  nor  did  He  fear 
because  of  death  when  He  was  troubled  unto 
death.  Again,  He  does  not  pray  that  the 
cup  may  pass  over  Himself,  but  that  it  may 
pass  away  from  Himself,  though  before  it 
could  pass  away  He  must  have  drunk  it.  But, 
further,  '  to  pass  away '  does  not  mean  merely 
'  to  leave  the  place,'  but '  not  to  exist  any  more 
at  all : '  which  is  shewn  in  the  language  of  the 
Gospels  and  Epistles:  for  example,  Heaven 
and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  My  word  shall 
not  perish 2 :  also  the  Apostle  says,  Behold  the 
old  things  are  passed  away  ;  they  are  become 
new  3.     And  again,  The  fashion  of  this  world 

7  The  Greek  is  eyeVero  Si  6  V6pu>s  avroii  oicrei  Spd/xjSoi  ot/xaros. 
'  His  sweat  became  as  it  were  great  drops  of  blood  '  (R.V.) :  see 
supra. 

8  i.e.  all  sects  with  Docetic  tenets,  who  would  not  allow  Christ 
to  have  had  a  real  human  body,  but  only  to  have  appeared  in 
bodily  shape,  like  a  ghost. 

9  St.  John  xvii.  n,  12.  Hilary  omits  after  '  keeping  them  in 
Thy  Name,'  the  words  '  which  Thou  hast  given  Me,  that  they  may 
be  one  even  as  We  are  One.' 

•  St.  Matt.  xxvL  53. 

2  Su  Mark  xiii.  31.  In  the  Greek  the  same  word  napepx«r6ai 
is  used  in  both  cases,  but  Hilary  uses  transire  in  the  first,  prat- 
Urire  in  the  second  instance.  3  2  Cor.  v.  17. 

VOL.  IX. 


shall  pass  away*.  The  cup,  therefore,  of 
which  He  prays  to  the  Father,  cannot  pass 
away  unless  it  be  drunk ;  and  when  He  prays, 
He  prays  for  those  whom  He  preserved,  so 
long  as  He  was  with  them,  whom  He  now 
hands  over  to  the  Father  to  preserve.  Now 
that  He  is  about  to  accomplish  the  mystery  of 
death  He  begs  the  Father  to  guard  them.  The 
presence  of  the  angel  who  was  sent  to  Him 
(if  this  explanation  be  true)  is  not  of  doubt- 
ful significance.  Jesus  shewed  His  certainty 
that  the  prayer  was  answered  when,  at  its 
close,  He  bade  the  disciples  sleep  on.  The 
effect  of  this  prayer  and  the  security  which 
prompted  the  command,  '  sleep  on,'  is  noticed 
by  the  Evangelist  in  the  course  of  the  Passion, 
when  he  says  of  the  Apostles  just  before  they 
escaped  from  the  hands  of  the  pursuers,  That 
the  word  might  be  fulfilled  which  He  had  spoken , 
Of  those  who7n  Thou  hast  give7i  Me  I  lost  7iot 
one  of  them  s.  He  fulfils  Himself  the  petition 
of  His  prayer,  and  they  are  all  safe ;  but 
He  asks  that  those  whom  He  has  preserved 
the  Father  will  now  preserve  in  His  own 
Name.  And  they  are  preserved  :  the  faith 
of  Peter  does  not  fail :  it  cowered,  but  re- 
pentance followed  immediately. 

43.  Combine  the  Lord's  prayer  in  John, 
the  request  of  the  devil  in  Luke,  the  sorrow- 
fulness unto  death,  and  the  protest  against 
sleep,  followed  by  the  command,  Sleep  on, 
in  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  all  difficulty  dis- 
appears. The  prayer  in  John,  in  which  He 
commends  the  Apostles  to  His  Father,  ex- 
plains the  cause  of  His  sorrowfulness,  and  the 
prayer  that  the  cup  may  pass  away.  It  is 
not  from  Himself  that  the  Lord  prays  the 
suffering  may  be  taken  away.  He  beseeches 
the  Father  to  preserve  the  disciples  during 
His  coming  passion.  In  the  same  way,  the 
prayer  against  Satan  6  in  St.  Luke  explains  the 
confidence  with  which  He  permitted  the  sleep 
He  had  just  forbidden. 

44.  There  was,  then,  no  place  for  human 
anxiety  and  trepidation  in  that  nature,  which 
was  more  than  human.  It  was  superior  to  the 
ills  of  earthly  flesh  ;  a  body  not  sprung  from 
earthly  elements,  although  His  origin  as  Son 
of  Man  was  due  to  the  mystery  of  the  con- 
ception by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  power  of  the 
Most  High  imparted  its  power  to  the  body 
which  the  Virgin  bare  from  the  conception  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  The  animated  body  derives 
its  conscious  existence  from  association  with 
a  soul,  which  is  diffused  throughout  it,  and 
quickens  it  to  perceive  pains  inflicted  from 
without.    Thus  the  soul,  warned  by  the  happy 

4  1  Cor.  vii.  31.  S  St.  John  xviiL  9. 

6  i.e.  St.  Luke  xxvi.  31,  33,  as  quoted  above,  c.  38. 

O 


194 


DE   TRINITATE. 


e;1ow  of  its  own  heavenly  faith  and  hope,  soars 
above  its  own  origin  in  the  beginnings  of  an 
earthly  body,  and  raises 6a  that  body  to  union 
with  itself  in  thought  and  spirit,  so  that  it 
ceases  to  feel  the  suffering  of  that  which,  all 
the  while,  it  suffers.  Why  need  we  then  say 
more  about  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  body, 
that  of  the  Son  of  Man  Who  came  down  from 
heaven  ?  Even  earthly  bodies  can  sometimes 
be  made  indifferent  to  the  natural  necessities 
of  pain  and  fear. 

45.  Did  the  Jewish  children  fear  the  flames 
blazing  up  with  the  fuel  cast  upon  them  in  the 
fiery  furnace  at   Babylon?    Did  the  terror  of 
that  terrible  fire  prevail  over  their  nature,  con- 
ceived though  it  was  like  ours  1  ?    Did  they  feel 
pain,  when  the  flames  surrounded  them  ?  Per- 
haps, however,  you  may  say  they  felt  no  pain, 
because  they  were  not  burnt :  the  flames  were 
deprived  of  their  burning  nature.    To  be  sure 
it  is  natural  to  the  body  to  fear  burning,  and 
to  be  burnt  by  fire.     But  through  the  spirit 
of  faith  their  earthly  bodies  (that  is,  bodies 
which  had  their  origin  according  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  natural  birth)  could  neither  be  burnt 
nor  made  afraid.     What,  therefore,  in  the  case 
of  men  was  a  violation  of  the  order  of  nature, 
produced  by  faith  in  God,  cannot  be  judged 
in  God's  case  natural,  but  as  an  activity  of  the 
Spirit   commencing  with   His   earthly   origin. 
The  children  were  bound  in  the  midst  of  the 
fire ;   they  had  no  fear  as  they  mounted  the 
blazing  pile  :   they  felt  not  the  flame  as  they 
prayed  :  though  in  the  midst  of  the  furnace, 
they  could  not  be  burnt.     Both  the  fire  and 
their  bodies  lost  their  proper  natures ;  the  one 
did  not  burn,  the  others  were  not  burnt.     Yet 
in  all  other  respects,  both  fire  and  bodies  re- 
tained their  natures :  for  the  bystanders  were 
Consumed,  and  the   ministers  of  punishment 
were  themselves  punished.     Impious  heretic, 
you  will  have  it  that  Christ  suffered  pain  from 
the  piercing   of  the  nails,   that   He   felt    the 
bitterness  of  the  wound,  when  they  were  driven 
through   His  hands :   why,  pray,  did  not  the 
children  fear  the  flames?  Why  did  they' suffer 
no  pain  ?  What  was  the  nature  in  their  bodies, 
which  overcame  that  of  fire  ?    In  the  zeal  of 
their  faith  and  the  glory  of  a  blessed  martyr- 
dom they  forgot  to  fear  the  terrible ;   should 
Christ   be  sorrowful  from   fear  of  the  cross, 
Christ,  Who  even  if  He  had  been  conceived 
with  our  sinful  origin,  would  have  been  still 
God  upon  the  cross,  Who  was  to  judge  the 
world  and  reign  for  ever  and  ever?  Could  He 
forget  such  a  reward,  and  tremble  with  the 
anxiety  of  dishonourable  fear  ? 


6a  Reading  tfficit. 


7  Dan.  iii.  23. 


46.  Daniel,  whose  meat  was  the  scanty  por- 
tion of  a  prophet8,  did  not  fear  the  lions'  den. 
The  Apostles  rejoiced  in  suffering  and  death 
for  the  Name  of  Christ.  To  Paul  his  sacrifice 
was  the  crown  of  righteousness?.  The  Martyrs 
sang  hymns  as  they  offered  their  necks  to  the 
executioner,  and  climbed  with  psalms  the  blaz- 
ing logs  piled  for  them.  The  consciousness 
of  faith  takes  away  the  weakness  of  nature, 
transforms  the  bodily  senses  that  they  feel  no 
pain,  and  so  the  body  is  strengthened  by  the 
fixed  purpose  of  the  soul,  and  feels  nothing 
except  the  impulse  of  its  enthusiasm.  The 
suffering  which  the  mind  despises  in  its  desire 
of  glory,  the  body  does  not  feel,  so  long  as  the 
soul  invigorates  it.  It  is,  then,  a  natural  effect 
in  man,  that  the  zeal  of  the  soul  glowing  for 
glory  should  make  him  unconscious  of  suffer- 
ing, heedless  of  wounds,  and  regardless  of 
death.  But  Jesus  Christ  the  Lord  of  glory, 
the  hem  of  Whose  garment  can  heal,  Whose 
spittle  and  word  can  create  ;  for  the  man  with 
the  withered  hand  at  His  command  stretched 
it  forth  whole,  he  who  was  born  blind  felt  no 
more  the  defect  of  his  birth,  and  the  smitten 
ear  was  made  sound  as  the  other;  dare  we 
think  of  His  pierced  body  in  that  pain  and 
weakness,  from  which  the  spirit  of  faith  in 
Him  rescued  the  glorious  and  blessed  Martyrs? 

47.  The  Only-begotten  God,  then,  suffered 
in  His  person  the  attacks  of  all  the  infirmities 
to   which  we   are    subject;    but    He  suffered 
them   in  the  power  of  His  own  nature,  just 
as   He  was   born  in  the  power  of  His   own 
nature,  for  at  His  birth  He  did  not  lose  His 
omnipotent  nature  by  being   born.     Though 
born   under  human  conditions,   He  was  not 
so  conceived :    His  birth  was  surrounded  by 
human   circumstances,    but   His   origin    went 
beyond  them.     He  suffered  then  in  His  body 
after   the   manner   of   our    infirm    body,    yet 
bore  the  sufferings  of  our  body  in  the  power 
of  His  own  body.     To  this  article  of  our  faith 
the  prophet  bears  witness  when  he  says,  He 
beareth  our  sins  and  grieveth  for  us ;  and  we 
esteemed  Hun  stricketi,  smitten,  and  afflicted: 
He  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions  and 
made  zveak  for  our  sins1.     It  is   then  a  mis- 
taken   opinion    of    human    judgment,    which 
thinks  He  felt  pain  because  He  suffered.     He 
bore  our  sins,  that  is,  He  assumed  our  body  of 
sin,  but  was  Himself  sinless.    He  was  sent  in  the 
likeness  of  the  flesh  of  sin,  bearing  sin  indeed 
in  His  flesh  but  our  sin.     So  too  He  felt  pain 
for  us,  but  not  with  our  senses;  He  was  found 
in  fashion  as  a  man,  with  a  body  which  could 


8  Dan.  i.  8— 16.  9  2  Tim.  iv.  6,  8. 

1  Isai.  liii.  4,  5.     Hilary  translates  from  the  Septuagint,     The 
iv  and  the  Vulgate  differ,  cf.  the  English  \  ersion,  "  Suiely 
lie  hath  b  irne  our  griefs"  (instead  of  "our  sins"). 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    X. 


195 


feel  pain,  but  His  nature  could  not  feel  pain  ; 
for.  though  His  fashion  was  that  of  a  man,  His 
origin  was  not  human,  but  He  was  born  by 
conception  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

For  the  reasons  mentioned,  He  was  es- 
teemed '  stricken,  smitten  and  afflicted.'  He 
took  the  form  of  a  servant  :  and  '  man  born  of 
a  Virgin '  conveys  to  us  the  idea  of  One 
Whose  nature  felt  pain  when  He  suffered.  Rut 
though  He  was  wounded  it  was  'for  our  trans- 
gressions.' The  wound  was  not  the  wound 
of  His  own  trangressions  :  the  suffering  not 
a  suffering  for  Himself.  He  was  not  born 
man  for  His  own  sake,  nor  did  He  transgress 
in  His  own  action.  The  Apostle  explains  the 
principle  of  the  Divine  Plan  when  he  says, 
We  beseech  you  through  Christ  to  be  reconciled 
to  God.  Him,  Who  ktiew  no  sin,  He  made  to 
be  sin  on  our  behalf2.  To  condemn  sin  through 
sin  in  the  flesh,  He  Who  knew  no  sin  was 
Himself  made  sin  ;  that  is,  by  means  of  the 
flesh  to  condemn  sin  in  the  flesh,  He  became 
flesh  on  our  behalf  but  knew  not  flesh  3 ;  and 
therefore  was  wounded  because  of  our  trans- 
gressions. 

48.  Again,  the  Apostle  knows  nothing  in 
Christ  about  fear  of  pain.  When  He  wishes  to 
speak  of  the  dispensation  of  the  Passion,  He 
includes  it  in  the  mystery  of  Christ's  Divinity. 
Forgiving  us  all  our  trespasses,  blotting  out  the 
bond  written  in  ordinances,  that  was  against  us, 
which  was  contrary  to  us:  taking  it  away, 
and  nailing  it  to  the  cross ;  stripping  off  from 
Himself  His  flesh,  He  made  a  shew  of  prin- 
cipalities and  powers  openly  triumphing  over 
them  in  Himself*.  Was  that  the  power,  think 
you,  to  yield  to  the  wound  of  the  nail,  to 
wince  under  the  piercing  blow,  to  convert 
itself  into  a  nature  that  can  feel  pain?  Yet 
the  Apostle,  who  speaks  as  the  mouthpiece  of 
Christ5,  relating  the  work  of  our  salvation 
through  the  Lord,  describes  the  death  of  Christ 
as  ' stripping  off  from  Himself  His  flesh,  boldly 
putting  to  shame  the  powers  and  triumphing 
over  them  in  Himself.'  If  His  passion  was 
a  necessity  of  nature  and  not  the  free  gift  of 
your  salvation :  if  the  cross  was  merely  the 
suffering  of  wounds,  and  nut  the  fixing  upon 
Himself  of  the  decree  of  death  made  out 
against  you  :  if  His  dying  was  a  violence  done 
by  death,  and  not  the  stripping  off  of  the  flesh 
by  the  power  of  God  :  lastly,  if  His  death  itself 
was  anything  but  a  dishonouring  of  powers, 
an  act  of  boldness,  a  triumph  :  then  ascribe 
to  Him  infirmity,  because  He  was  therein 
subject  to  necessity  and  nature,  to  force,  to 


2  2  Cor.  v.  20,  21.     The  Greek  is  vnep  xp'fTov,  'on  behalf 
of  Christ.' 

3  i.e.  flesh  in  the  bad  sense,  "the  flesh  of  sin." 

4  Col.  ii.  13—15.  5  2  Cor.  xiii.  3. 


fear  and  disgrace.  But  if  it  is  the  exact  op- 
posite in  the  mystery  of  the  Passion,  as  it  was 
preached  to  us,  who,  pray,  can  be  so  senseless 
as  to  repudiate  the  faith  taught  by  the  Apostles, 
to  reverse  all  feelings  of  religion,  to  distort 
into  the  dishonourable  charge  of  natural  weak- 
ness, what  was  an  act  of  free-will,  a  mystery, 
a  display  of  power  and  boldness,  a  triumph  ? 
And  what  a  triumph  it  was,  when  He  offered 
Himself  to  those  who  sought  to  crucify  Him, 
and  they  could  not  endure  His  presence : 
when  He  stood  under  sentence  of  death,  Who 
shortly  was  to  sit  on  the  right  hand  of  power : 
when  He  prayed  for  His  persecutors  while  the 
nails  were  driven  through  Him :  when  He 
completed  the  mystery  as  He  drained  the 
draught  of  vinegar ;  when  He  was  numbered 
among  the  transgressors  and  meanwhile  granted 
Paradise  :  that  when  He  was  lifted  on  the  tree, 
the  earth  quaked :  when  He  hung  on  the 
cross,  sun  and  day  were  put  to  flight :  that  He 
left  His  own  body,  yet  called  life  back  to  the 
bodies  of  others  6  :  was  buried  a  corpse  and 
rose  again  God  :  as  man  suffered  all  weaknesses 
for  our  sakes,  as  God  triumphed  in  them  all. 

49.  There  is  still,  the  heretics  say,  another 
serious  and  far  reaching  confession  of  weak- 
ness, all  the  more  so  because  it  is  in  the  mouth 
of  the  Lord  Himself,  My  God,  My  God,  why 
hast  Thou  forsaken  MeT  ?  They  construe  this 
into  the  expression  of  a  bitter  complaint,  that 
He  was  deserted  and  given  over  to  weakness. 
But  what  a  violent  interpretation  of  an  irre- 
ligious mind !  how  repugnant  to  the  whole 
tenor  of  our  Lord's  words  !  He  hastened  to 
the  death,  which  was  to  glorify  Him,  and  after 
which  He  was  to  sit  on  the  right  hand  of 
power;  with  all  those  blessed  expectations 
could  He  fear  death,  and  therefore  complain 
that  His  God  had  betrayed  Him  to  its  ne- 
cessity, when  it  was  the  entrance  to  eternal 
blessedness? 

50.  Further  their  heretical  ingenuity  presses 
on  in  the  path  prepared  by  their  own  godless- 
ness,  even  to  the  entire  absorption  of  God  the 
Word  into  the  human  soul,  and  consequent 
denial  that  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  Man,  was 
the  same  as  the  Son  of  God.  So  either  God 
the  Word  ceased  to  be  Himself  while  He  per- 
formed the  function  of  a  soul  in  giving  life 
to  a  body8,  or  the  man  who  was  born  was 
not  the  Christ  at  all,  but  the  Word  dwelt  in 
him,   as   the    Spirit  dwelt    in   the    prophets  9. 

6  Allusion  to  St.  Matt,  xxvii.  52,  "many  bodies  of  the  saints 
that  had  fallen  asleep  were  raised." 

7  St.  Matt,  xxvii.  46. 

8  Apollinaris'  heresy  that  in  Christ  the  place  of  the  ordinary 
human  soul  was  supplied  by  the  Logos,  the  second  Person  ia 
the  Trinity. 

9  This  doctrine  was  held  by  Marcellus  of  Ancyra  (Sozomen, 
H.E  II.  33),  and  Photinus  :  cp.  also  what  Sozomen  (VII.  7)  says 
of  Hebion. 


O   2 


196 


DE   TRINITATE. 


These  absurd  and  perverse  errors  have  grown 
in  boldness  and  godlessness  till  they  assert  that 
Jesus  Christ  was  not  Christ  until  He  was  born 
of  Mary.  He  Who  was  born  was  not  a  pre- 
existent  Being,  but  began  at  that  moment  to 
exist?*. 

Hence  follows  also  the  error  that  God  the 
Word,  as  it  were  some  part  of  the  Divine 
power  extending  itself  in  unbroken  continua- 
tion, dwelt  within  that  man  who  received  from 
Mary  the  beginning  of  his  being,  and  endowed 
him  with  the  power  of  Divine  working  :  though 
that  man  lived  and  moved  by  the  nature  of 
his  own  soul x. 

51.  Through  this  subtle  and  mischievous 
doctrine  they  are  drawn  into  the  error  that 
God  the  Word  became  soul  to  the  body,  His 
nature  by  self-humiliation  working  the  change 
upon  itself,  and  thus  the  Word  ceased  to  be 
God  ;  or  else,  that  the  Man  Jesus,  in  the 
poverty  and  remoteness  from  God  of  Hps 
nature,  was  animated  only  by  the  life  and 
motion  of  His  own  human  soul,  wherein  the 
Word  of  God,  that  is,  as  it  were,  the  might 
of  His  uttered  voice,  resided.  Thus  the  way 
is  opened  for  all  manner  of  irreverent  theor- 
ising :  the  sum  of  which  is,  either  that  God 
the  Word  was  merged  in  the  soul  and  ceased 
to  be  God  :  or  that  Christ  had  no  existence 
before  His  birth  from  Mary,  since  Jesus 
Christ,  a  mere  man  of  ordinary  body  and  soul, 
began  to  exist  only  at  His  human  birth  and 
was  raised  to  the  level  of  the  Power,  which 
worked  within  Him,  by  the  extraneous  force  of 
the  Divine  Word  extending  itself  into  Him. 
Then  when  God  the  Word,  after  this  exten- 
sion, was  withdrawn,  He  cried,  My  God,  My 
God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  Me  ?  or  at  least 
when  the  divine  nature  of  the  Word  once 
more  gave  place  within  Him  to  a  human  soul, 
He  Who  had  hitherto  relied  on  His  Father's 
help,  now  separated  from  it,  and  abandoned 
to  death,  bemoaned  His  solitude  and  chid  His 
deserter.  Thus  in  every  way  arises  a  deadly 
danger  of  error  in  belief,  whether  it  be  thought 
that  the  cry  of  complaint  denotes  a  weakness 
of  nature  in  God  the  Word,  or  that  God  the 
Word  was  not  pre-existent  because  the  birth 
of  Jesus  Christ  from  Mary  was  the  beginning 
of  His  being. 

52.  Amid  these  irreverent  and  ill-grounded 
theories  the  faith  of  the  Church,  inspired  by 
the  teaching  of  the  Apostles,  has  recognised 
a  birth  of  Christ,  but  no  beginning.  It  knows 
of  the  dispensation,  but  of  no  division  " :  it  re- 

9»  See  note  9. 

x  The  preaching  of  Sabellius,  cf.  I.  16,  protensio  sit  potius 
fua>t:  descensio,  '  an  extension  rather  than  a  descent.' 

3  i.e.  it  realises  the  plan  by  which  the  second  Person  of  the 
Trinity  chose  to  take  a  human  form,  but  refuses  to  separate  the 
Divine  from  the  human  in  Jesus. 


fuses  to  make  a  separation  in  Jesus  Christ  3, 
whereby  Jesus  is  one  and  Christ  another ;  nor 
does  it  distinguish  the  Son  of  Man  from  the 
Son  of  God,  lest  perhaps  the  Son  of  God  be 
not  regarded  as  Son  of  Man  also.  It  does  not 
absorb  the  Son  of  God  in  the  Son  of  Man ; 
nor  does  it  by  a  tripartite  belief  3a  tear  asunder 
Christ,  Whose  coat  woven  from  the  top 
throughout  was  not  parted,  dividing  Jesus 
Christ  into  the  Word,  a  body  and  a  soul ; 
nor,  on  the  other  hand,  does  it  absorb  the 
Word  in  body  and  soul.  To  it  He  is  perfectly 
God  the  Word,  and  perfectly  Christ  the  Man. 
To  this  alone  we  hold  fast  in  the  mystery  of 
our  confession,  namely,  the  faith  that  Christ 
is  none  other  than  Jesus,  and  the  doctrine 
that  Jesus  is  none  other  than  Christ. 

53.  I  am  not  ignorant  how  much  the  gran- 
deur of  the  divine  mystery  baffles  our  weak 
understanding,  so  that  language  can  scarcely 
express  it,  or  reason  define  it,  or  thought  even 
embrace  it.  The  Apostle,  knowing  that  the 
most  difficult  task  for  an  earthly  nature  is  to 
apprehend,  unaided,  God's  mode  of  action 
(for  then  our  judgment  were  keener  to  discern 
than  God  is  mighty  to  effect),  writes  to  his 
true  son  according  to  the  faith,  who  had  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Scripture  from  his  childhood, 
As  I  exhorted  thee  to  tarry  at  Ephesus,  when 
I  was  going  into  Macedonia,  that  thou  miglitest 
charge  certain  men  not  to  teach  a  different  doc- 
trine, neither  to  give  heed  to  fables  and  endless 
genealogies,  the  which  minister  questionings, 
rather  than  the  edification  of  God  which  is  in 
faith  4.  He  bids  him  forbear  to  handle  wordy 
genealogies  and  fables,  which  minister  endless 
questionings.  The  edification  of  God,  he  says, 
is  in  faith  :  he  limits  human  reverence  to  the 
faithful  worship  of  the  Almighty,  and  does 
not  suffer  our  weakness  to  strain  itself  in  the 
attempt  to  see  what  only  dazzles  the  eye.  If 
we  look  at  the  brightness  of  the  sun,  the  sight 
is  strained  and  weakened :  and  sometimes 
when  we  scrutinise  with  too  curious  gaze  the 
source  of  the  shining  light,  the  eyes  lose  theii 
natural  power,  and  the  sense  of  sight  is  even 
destroyed.  Thus  it  happens  that  through  try- 
ing to  see  too  much  we  see  nothing  at  all. 
What  must  we  then  expect  in  the  case  of  God, 
the  Sun  of  Righteousness?  Will  not  foolish- 
ness be  their  reward,  who  would  be  over  wise  ? 
Will  not  dull  and  brainless  stupor  usurp  the 
place  of  the  burning  light  of  intelligence  ?  A 
lower  nature  cannot  understand  the  principle 
of  a  higher :  nor  can  Heaven's  mode  of 
thought  be  revealed  to  human  conception,  for 
whatever  is  within  the  range  of  a  limited  con- 


3  P> eading  partitur  for  MSS.  patitur. 
3&  Apollinarianism.  4  I  Tim.  i.  3,  4. 


ON   THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK   X. 


197 


suousness,  is  itself  limited.  The  divine 
power  exceeds  therefore  the  capacity  of  the 
human  mind.  If  the  limited  strains  itself  to 
reach  so  far,  it  becomes  even  feebler  than 
before.  It  loses  what  certainty  it  had  :  instead 
of  seeing  heavenly  things  it  is  only  blinded 
by  them.  No  mind  can  fully  comprehend 
the  divine :  it  punishes  the  obstinacy  of  the 
curious  by  depriving  them  of  their  power. 
Would  we  look  at  the  sun  we  must  remove 
as  much  of  his  brilliancy  as  we  need,  in  order 
to  see  him  :  if  not,  by  expecting  too  much,  we 
fall  short  of  the  possible.  In  the  same  way 
we  can  only  hope  to  understand  the  purposes 
of  Heaven,  so  far  as  is  permitted.  We  must 
expect  only  what  He  grants  to  our  appre- 
hension :  if  we  attempt  to  go  beyond  the 
limit  of  His  indulgence,  it  is  withdrawn  alto- 
gether. There  is  that  in  God  which  we  can 
perceive  :  it  is  visible  to  all  if  we  are  content 
with  the  possible.  Just  as  with  the  sun  we 
can  see  something,  if  we  are  content  to  see 
what  can  be  seen,  but  if  we  strain  beyond  the 
possible  we  lose  all :  so  is  it  with  the  nature 
ui  God.  There  is  that  which  we  can  under- 
stand if  we  are  content  with  understanding 
what  we  can  :  but  aim  beyond  your  powers 
and  you  will  lose  even  the  power  of  attaining 
what  was  within  your  reach. 

54.  The  mystery  of  that  other  timeless 
birth  I  will  not  yet  touch  upon  :  its  treat- 
ment demands  an  ampler  space  than  this.  For 
the  present  I  will  speak  of  the  Incarnation 
only.  Tell  me,  I  pray,  ye  who  pry  into  the 
secrets  of  Heaven,  the  mystery  of  Christ  born 
of  a  Virgin  and  His  nature  ;  whence  will  you 
explain  that  He  was  conceived  and  born  of 
a  Virgin  ?  What  was  the  physical  cause  of 
His  origin  according  to  your  disputations  ? 
How  was  He  formed  within  His  mother's 
womb?  Whence  His  body  and  His  humanity? 
And  lastly,  what  does  it  mean  that  the  Son  of 
Man  descended  from  heaven  Who  remained  in 
heaven  s  /  It  is  not  possible  by  the  laws  of 
bodies  for  the  same  object  to  remain  and  to 
descend  :  the  one  is  the  change  of  downward 
motion ;  the  other  the  stillness  of  being  at 
rest.  The  Infant  wails  but  is  in  Heaven  :  the 
Boy  grows  but  remains  ever  the  immeasurable 
God.  By  what  perception  of  human  under- 
standing can  we  comprehend  that  He  as- 
cended where  He  was  before,  and  He  de- 
scended Who  remained  in  heaven  ?  The 
Lord  says,  What  if  ye  should  behold  the  Son  of 
Man  ascending  thither  where  He  was  bejore  6  1 
The  Son  of  Man  ascends  where  He  was 
before :  can  sense  apprehend  this  ?    The  Son 


5  St.  John  iii.  13. 


6  lb.  vi.  62. 


of  Man  descends  from  heaven,  Who  is  in 
heaven  :  can  reason  cope  with  this?  The  Word 
was  made  flesh  :  can  words  express  this  ?  The 
Word  becomes  flesh,  that  is,  God  becomes 
Man  :  the  Man  is  in  heaven :  the  God  is 
from  heaven.  He  ascends  Who  descended : 
but  He  descends  and  yet  does  not  descend. 
He  is  as  He  ever  was,  yet  He  was  not  ever 
what  He  is.  We  pass  in  review  the  causes, 
but  we  cannot  explain  the  manner  :  we  perceive 
the  manner,  and  we  cannot  understand  the 
causes.  Yet  if  we  understand  Christ  Jesus 
even  thus,  we  shall  know  Him  :  if  we  seek 
to  understand  Him  further  we  shall  not  know 
Him  at  all. 

55.  Again,  how  great  a  mystery  of  word 
and  act  it  is  that  Christ  wept,  that  His  eyes 
filled  with  tears  from  the  anguish  of  His 
mind  ?.  Whence  came  this  defect  in  His  soul 
that  sorrow  should  wring  tears  from  His  body? 
What  bitter  fate,  what  unendurable  pain, 
could  move  to  a  flood  of  tears  the  Son  of 
Man  Who  descended  from  heaven  ?  Again, 
what  was  it  in  Him  which  wept  ?  God  the 
Word  ?  or  Hi.s  human  soul  ?  For  though  weep- 
ing is  a  bodily  function,  the  body  is  but  a  ser- 
vant ;  tears  are,  as  it  were,  the  sweat  of  the 
agonised  soul.  Again,  what  was  the  cause  of 
His  weeping?  Did  He  owe  to  Jerusalem  the 
debt  of  His  tears,  Jerusalem,  the  godless 
parricide,  whom  no  suffering  could  requite 
for  the  slaughter  of  Apostles  and  Prophets, 
and  the  murder  of  her  Lord  Himself?  He 
might  weep  for  the  disasters  and  death  which 
befall  mankind  :  but  could  He  grieve  for  the 
fall  of  that  doomed  and  desperate  race?  What, 
1  ask,  was  this  mystery  of  weeping  ?  His  soul 
wept  for  sorrow;  was  not  it  the  soul  which 
sent  forth  the  Prophets?  Which  would  so 
often  have  gathered  the  chickens  together 
under  the  shadow  of  His  wings  8  ?  But  God 
the  Word  cannot  grieve,  nor  can  the  Spirit 
weep :  nor  could  His  soul  possibly  do  any- 
thing before  the  body  existed.  Yet  we  can- 
not doubt  that  Jesus  Christ  truly  wept  9. 

56.  No  less  real  were  the  tears  He  shed 
for  Lazarus  *.  The  first  question  here  is, 
What  was  there  to  weep  for  in  the  case  of 
Lazarus  ?  Not  his  death,  for  that  was  not 
unto  death,  but  for  the  glory  of  God :  for  the 
Lord  says,  That  sickness  is  not  unto  death,  but 
for  the  glory  of  God,  that  the  Son  of  God  may 
be  honoured  through  him 2.     The  death  which 


7  St.  Luke  xix.  41. 

8  St.  Matt,  xxiii.  37  ;  St.  Luke  xiii.  34. 

9  The  human  soul  in  Jesus  alone  could  feel  grief  and  weep  : 
yet  it  was  the  divine  Spirit  winch  sent  forth  the  prophets:  tor  the 
human  soul  began  to  exist  only  in  conjunction  wit't  His  human 
body. 

1  St.  John  xi.  35. 

2  I  b.  4.     The  Greek  is  Si  avrfjs,  through  it. 


198 


DE   TRINITATE. 


was  the  cause  of  God's  being  glorified  could 
not  bring  sorrow  and  tears.  Nor  was  there 
any  occasion  for  tears  in  His  absence  from 
Lazarus  at  the  time  of  his  death.  He  says 
plainly,  Lazarus  is  dead,  and  I  rejoice  for  your 
sakes  tliat  I  was  not  there,  to  the  intent  that  ye 
may  believe  3.  His  absence  then,  which  aided 
the  Apostles'  belief,  was  not  the  cause  of  His 
sorrow  :  for  with  the  knowledge  of  Divine  om- 
niscience, He  declared  the  death  of  the  sick 
man  from  afar.  ,We  can  find,  then,  no  neces- 
sity for  tears,  yet  He  wept.  And  again  I  ask, 
To  whom  must  we  ascribe  the  weeping  ?  To 
God,  or  the  soul,  or  the  body  ?  The  body, 
of  itself,  has  no  tears  except  those  it  sheds 
at  the  command  of  the  sorrowing  soul.  Far 
less  can  God  have  wept,  for  He  was  to  be 
glorified  in  Lazarus.  Nor  is  it  reason  to  say 
His  soul  recalled  Lazarus  from  the  tomb  :  can 
a  soul  linked  to  a  body,  by  the  power  of  its 
command,  call  another  soul  back  to  the  dead 
body  from  which  it  has  departed  ?  Can  He 
grieve  Who  is  about  to  be  glorified  ?  Can  He 
weep  Who  is  about  to  restore  the  dead  to 
life?  Tears  are  not  for  Him  Who  is  about 
to  give  life,  or  grief  for  Him  Who  is  about 
to  receive  glory.  Yet  He  Who  wept  and 
grieved  was  also  the  Giver  of  life. 

57.  If  there  are  many  points  which  we  treat 
scantily  it  is  not  because  we  have  nothing  to 
say,  or  do  not  know  what  has  already  been 
said  ;  our  purpose  is,  by  abstaining  from  too 
laborious  a  process  of  argument,  to  render 
the  results  as  attractive  as  possible  to  the 
reader.  We  know  the  deeds  and  words  of 
our  Lord,  yet  we  know  them  not :  we  are  not 
ignorant  of  them,  yet  they  cannot  be  under- 
stood. The  facts  are  real,  but  the  power  be- 
hind them  is  a  mystery.  We  will  prove  this 
lrom  His  own  words,  For  this  reason  doth  the 
Father  love  Me,  because  I  lay  down  My  life  that 
I  may  take  it  up  again.  JVo  one  taketh  it  from 
Me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  Myself  I  have  power 
to  lay  it  down  and  I  have  poiver  to  take  it 
up  again.  This  commandment  received  I  from 
the  Father*.  He  lays  down  His  life  of  Him- 
self, but  I  ask  who  lays  it  down  ?  We  confess, 
without  hesitation,  that  Christ  is  God  the 
Word :  but  on  the  other  hand,  we  know  that 
the  Son  of  Man  was  composed  of  a  soul  and 
a  body :  compare  the  angel's  words  to  Jo- 
seph, Arise,  and  take  the  child  and  His  mother, 
and  go  into  the  land  of  Israel ;  for  they  are 
dead  who  sought  the  soul  of  the  child5.  Whose 
soul  is  it?  His  body's,  or  God's?  If  His 
body's,  what  power  has  the  body  to  lay  down 
the  soul,  when  it  is  only  by  the  working  of  the 


3  St.  John  14,  15.  4  lb.  x.  17,  18.  S  St.  Matt.  ii.  20. 


soul  that  it  is  quickened  into  life  ?  Again,  how 
could  the  body,  which  apart  from  the  soul 
is  inert  and  dead,  receive  a  command  from 
the  Father?  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  any 
man  suppose  that  God  the  Word  laid  aside 
His  soul,  that  He  might  take  it  up  again,  he 
must  prove  that  God  the  Word  died,  that  is, 
remained  without  life  and  feeling  like  a  dead 
body,  and  took  up  His  soul  again  to  be  quick- 
ened once  more  into  life  by  it. 

58.  But,  further,  no  one  who  is  endued 
with  reason  can  impute  to  God  a  soul ;  though 
it  is  written  in  many  places  that  the  soul  of 
God  hates  sabbaths  and  new  moons  :  and  also 
that  it  delights  in  certain  things  6.  But  this 
is  merely  a  conventional  expression  to  be 
understood  in  the  same  way  as  when  God  is 
spoken  of  as  possessing  body,  with  hands,  and 
eyes,  and  fingers,  and  arms,  and  heart.  As 
the  Lord  said,  A  Spirit  hath  not  flesh  and 
bones  7 :  He  then  Who  is,  and  changeth  not 8, 
cannot  have  the  limbs  and  parts  of  a  tangible 
body.  He  is  a  simple  and  blessed  nature,  a 
single,  complete,  all-embracing  Whole.  God 
is  therefore  not  quickened  into  life,  like 
bodies,  by  the  action  of  an  indwelling  soul, 
but  is  Himself  His  own  life. 

59.  How  does  He  then  lay  down  His  soul, 
or  take  it  up  again?  What  is  the  meaning  of 
this  command  He  received  ?  God  could  not 
lay  it  down,  that  is,  die,  or  take  it  up  again, 
that  is,  come  to  life.  But  neither  did  the 
body  receive  the  command  to  take  it  up 
again ;  it  could  not  do  so  of  itself,  for  He 
said  of  the  Temple  of  His  body,  Destroy  this 
temple  and  after  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up  9. 
Thus  it  is  God  Who  raises  up  the  temple  of 
His  body.  And  Who  lays  down  His  soul  to  take 
it  again  ?  The  body  does  not  take  it  up  again 
of  itself:  it  is  raised  up  by  God.  That  which 
is  raised  up  again  must  have  been  dead,  and 
that  which  is  living  does  not  lay  down  its  soul. 
God  then  was  neither  dead  nor  buried  :  and 
yet  He  said,  In  that  she  has  poured  this  oint- 
ment upon  My  body  she  did  it  for  My  burial l. 
In  that  it  was  poured  upon  His  body  it  was 
done  for  His  burial :  but  the  His  is  not  the 
same  as  Him.  It  is  quite  another  use  of  the 
pronoun  when  we  say,  'it  was  done  for  the 
burial  of  Him,'  and  when  we  say,  '  His  body 
was  anointed  : '  nor  is  the  sense  the  same  in 
'His  body  was  buried,'  and  '  He  was  buried.' 

60.  To  grasp  this  divine  mystery  we  must 
see  the  God  in  Him  without  ignoring  the 
Man ;  and  the  Man  without  ignoring  the  God. 
We  must  not  divide  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  Word 
was  made  flesh :    yet  we  must  not  call  Him 


6  E.g.  Isai.  i.  14.         7  St.  Luke  xxiv.  39.         8  Mai.  iii.  6. 
9  St.  John  ii.  19.  «  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  u. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   X. 


199 


buried,  though  we  know  He  raised  Himself 
again :  must  not  doubt  His  resurrection, 
though  we  dare  not  deny  He  was  buried 2. 
Jesus  Christ  was  buried,  for  He  died  :  He 
died,  and  even  cried  out  at  the  moment  of 
death,  My  God,  My  God,  why  hast  Thou  for- 
saken Me  ?  Yet  He,  Who  uttered  these  words, 
said  also  :  Verily  I  say  unto  thee,  This  day  shall 
thou  be  with  Me  in  Paradise  3,  and  He  Who 
promised  Paradise  to  the  thief  cried  aloud, 
Father,  into  Thy  hands  I  commend  My  Spirit ; 
and  having  said  this  He  gave  up  the  Ghost  *. 

61.  Ye  who  trisect  Christ  into  the  Word,  the 
soul  and  the  body,  or  degrade  the  whole  Christ, 
even  God  the  Word,  into  a  single  member  of 
our  race,  unfold  to  us  this  mystery  of  great 
godliness  which  was  manifested  in  the  flesh  4». 
What  Spirit  did  Christ  give  up?  Who  com- 
mended His  Spirit  into  the  hands  of  His 
Father  ?  Who  was  to  be  in  Paradise  that  same 
day  ?  Who  complained  that  He  was  deserted 
of  God  ?  The  cry  of  the  deserted  betokens  the 
weakness  of  the  dying  :  the  promise  of  Para- 
dise the  sovereign  power  of  the  living  God. 
To  commend  His  Spirit  denoted  confidence  : 
to  give  up  His  Spirit  implied  His  departure 
by  death.  Who  then,  I  demand,  was  it  Who 
died?  Surely  He  Who  gave  up  His  Spirit? 
but  Who  gave  up  His  Spirit?  Certainly  He  Who 
commended  it  to  His  Father.  And  if  He  Who 
commended  His  Spirit  is  the  same  as  He  Who 
gave  it  up  and  died,  was  it  the  body  which 
commended  its  soul,  or  God  Who  commended 
the  body's  soul  ?  I  say  c  soul,'  because  there 
is  no  doubt  it  is  frequently  synonymous  with 
'  spirit,'  as  might  be  gathered  merely  from  the 
language  here:  Jesus  gave  up  His  'Spirit' 
when  He  was  on  the  point  of  death.  If,  there- 
fore, you  hold  the  conviction  that  the  body 
commended  the  soul,  that  the  perishable  com- 
mended the  living,  the  corruptible  the  eternal, 
that  which  was  to  be  raised  again,  that  which 
abides  unchanged,  then,  since  He  Who  com- 
mended His  Spirit  to  the  Father  was  also  to 
be  in  Paradise  with  the  thief  that  same  day, 
I  would  fain  know  if,  while  the  sepulchre  re- 
ceived Him,  He  was  abiding  in  heaven,  or  if 
He  was  abiding  in  heaven,  when  He  cried 
out  that  God  had  deserted  Him. 

62.  It  is  one  and  the  same  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Word  made  flesh,  Who  expresses 
Himself  in  all  these  utterances,  Who  is  man 
when  He  says  He  is  abandoned  to  death  :  yet 
while  man  still  rules  in  Paradise  as  God,  and 
though  reigning  in  Paradise,  as  Son  of   God 


*  Hilary  is  playing  on  the  mystery  of  the  two  natures  in  one 
Person.  We  cannot  say  the  God-natuie  was  buried  :  nor  that  the 
human  nature  brought  itself  back  to  life:  yet  Jesus  Christ  died, 
was  buried,  and  rose  again. 

3  St.  Luke  xxiii.  43.         4  lb.  46.  *•  1  Tim.  iii.  16. 


commends  His  Spirit  to  His  Father,  as  Son 
of  Man  gives  up  to  death  the  Spirit  He  com- 
mended to  the  Father.  Why  do  we  then  view 
as  a  disgrace  that  which  is  a  mystery  ?  We  see 
Him  complaining  that  He  is  left  to  die,  be- 
cause He  is  Man  :  we  see  Him,  as  He  dies, 
declaring  that  He  reigned  in  Paradise,  be- 
cause He  is  God.  Why  should  we  harp,  to 
support  our  irreverence,  on  what  He  said 
to  make  us  understand  His  death,  and  keep 
back  what  He  proclaimed  to  demonstrate 
His  immortality  ?  The  words  and  the  voice 
are  equally  His,  when  He  complains  of  de- 
sertion, and  when  He  declares  His  rule  :  by 
what  method  of  heretical  logic  do  we  split 
up  our  belief  and  deny  that  He  Who  died  was 
at  the  same  time  He  Who  rules  ?  Did  He  not 
testify  both  equally  of  Himself,  when  He  com- 
mended His  Spirit,  and  when  He  gave  it  up  ? 
But  if  He  is  the  same,  Who  commended  His 
Spirit,  and  gave  it  up,  if  He  dies  when  ruling 
and  rules  when  dead  :  then  the  mystery  of 
the  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  Man  means  that 
He  is  One,  Who  dying  reigns,  and  reigning 
dies. 

63.  Stand  aside  then,  all  godless  unbelievers, 
for  whom  the  divine  mystery  is  too  great,  who 
do  not  know  that  Christ  wept  not  for  Himself 
but  for  us,  to  prove  the  reality  of  His  assumed 
manhood  by  yielding  to  the  emotion  common 
to  humanity :  who  do  not  perceive  that  Christ 
died  not  for  Himself,  but  for  our  life,  to  re- 
new human  life  by  the  death  of  the  deathless 
God  :  who  cannot  reconcile  the  complaint  of 
the  deserted  with  the  confidence  of  the  Ruler  : 
who  would  teach  us  that  because  He  reigns  as 
God  and  complains  that  He  is  dying,  we  have 
here  a  dead  man  and  the  reigning  God.  For 
He  Who  dies  is  none  other  than  He  Who 
reigns,  He  Who  commends  His  spirit  than 
He  Who  gives  it  up  :  He  Who  was  buried, 
rose  again :  ascending  or  descending  He  is 
altogether  one. 

64.  Listen  to  the  teaching  of  the  Apostle 
and  see  in  it  a  faith  instructed  not  by  the 
understanding  of  the  flesh  but  by  the  gift  of 
the  Spirit.  The  Greeks  seek  after  wisdom,  he 
says,  and  the  Jews  ask  for  a  sign;  but  we 
preach  Christ  crucified,  to  the  Jews  a  stumbling 
block,  and  unto  Gentiles  foolishness ;  but  unto 
them  that  are  called,  both  Jews  and  Greeks, 
Christ  Jesus,  the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom 
of  God5.  Is  Christ  divided  here  so  that  Jesus 
the  crucified  is  one,  and  Christ,  the  power  and 
wisdom  of  God,  another  ?  This  is  to  the  Jews 
a  stumbling-block  and  unto  the  Gentiles  fool- 
ishness ;  but  to  us  Christ  Jesus  is  the  power  of 
God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God :    wisdom,  how- 

5  1  Cor.  i.  33,  24. 


200 


DE   TRINITATE. 


ever,  not  known  of  the  world,  nor  understood 
by  a  secular  philosophy.  Hear  the  same  blessed 
Apostle  when  he  declares  that  it  has  not  been 
understood,  We  speak  the  wisdom  of  God, 
which  hath  been  hiddeti  in  a  mystery,  which  God 
foreordained  before  the  world  for  our  glory : 
which  none  of  the  rulers  of  this  world  has  knoivn  : 
for  had  they  ktioivn  it,  they  would  not  have 
crucified  the  Lord  of  Glory  6.  Does  not  the 
Apostle  know  that  this  wisdom  of  God  is  hidden 
in  a  mystery,  and  cannot  be  known  of  the 
rulers  of  this  world  ?  Does  he  divide  Christ 
into  a  Lord  of  Glory  and  a  crucified  Jesus  ? 
Nay,  rather,  he  contradicts  this  most  foolish 
and  impious  idea  with  the  words,  For  I  deter- 
mined to  know  nothing  among  you,  save  Jesus 
Christ,  and  Him  crucified  7. 

65.  The  Apostle  knew  nothing  else,  and  he 
determined  to  know  nothing  else  :  we  men  of 
feebler  wit,  and  feebler  faith,  split  up,  divide 
and  double  Jesus  Christ,  constituting  our- 
selves judges  of  the  unknown,  and  blaspheming 
the  hidden  mystery.  For  us  Christ  crucified 
is  one,  Christ  the  wisdom  of  God  another : 
Christ  Who  was  buried  different  from  Christ 
Who  descended  from  Heaven :  the  Son  of 
Man  not  at  the  same  time  also  Son  of  God. 
We  teach  that  which  we  do  not  understand  : 
we  seek  to  refute  that  which  we  cannot  grasp. 
We  men  improve  upon  the  revelation  of  God  : 
we  are  not  content  to  say  with  the  Apostle, 
Who  shall  lay  anything  to  the  charge  of  God's 
elect  1  It  is  God  that  justifieth,  who  is  he  that 
condemneth  1  It  is  Christ  Jesus,  that  died,  yea, 
rather,  that  was  raised  from  the  dead,  Who 
is  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  Who  also  maketh 
intercession  for  us8.  Is  He  Who  intercedes 
for  us  other  than  He  Who  is  at  the  right  hand 
of  God  ?  Is  not  He  Who  is  at  the  right  hand 
of  God  the  very  same  Who  rose  again  ?  Is  He 
Who  rose  again  other  than  He  Who  died  ? 
He  Who  died  than  He  Who  condemns  us? 
Lastly,  is  not  He  Who  condemns  us  also  God 
Who  justifies  us?  Distinguish,  if  you  can, 
Christ  our  accuser  from  God  our  defender, 
Christ  Who  died  from  Christ  Who  condemns, 
Christ  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God  and 
praying  for  us  from  Christ  Who  died.  Whether, 
therefore,  dead  or  buried,  descended  into 
Hades  or  ascended  in:o  Heaven,  all  is  one 
and  the  same  Chri.-t:  as  the  Apostle  says, 
Now  this  '  He  ascended '  what  is  it,  but  that  He 
also  desce tided  to  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth  l 
He  that  descended  is  the  same  also  that  ascended 
far  above  all  heavens,  that  He  may  fill  all 
things  9.  How  far  then  shall  we  push  our 
babbling  ignorance  and  blasphemy,  professing 


6  x  Cor.  ii.  7,  8.  7  lb.  2.  8  Rom.  viii.  33,  34. 

9  Eph.  iv.  9,  10. 


to  explain  what  is  hidden  in  the  mystery  of 
God  ?  He  that  descended  is  the  same  also  that 
ascended.  Can  we  longer  doubt  that  the  Man 
Christ  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead,  ascended 
above  the  heavens  and  is  at  the  right  hand  of 
God  ?  We  cannot  say  His  body  descended  into 
Hades,  which  lay  in  the  grave.  If  then  He 
Who  descended  is  one  with  Him,  Who  as- 
cended; if  His  body  did  not  go  down  into 
Hades,  yet  really  arose  from  the  dead,  and 
ascended  into  heaven,  what  remains,  except 
to  believe  in  the  secret  mystery,  which  is 
hidden  from  the  world  and  the  rulers  of  this 
age,  and  to  confess  that;  ascending  or  de- 
scending, He  is  but  One,  one  Jesus  Christ 
for  us,  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  Man,  God 
the  Word  and  Man  in  the  flesh,  Who  suffered, 
died,  was  buried,  rose  again,  was  received 
into  heaven,  and  sitteth  at  the  right  hand 
of  God :  Who  possesses  in  His  one  single 
self,  according  to  the  Divine  Plan  and  na- 
ture, in  the  form  of  God  and  in  the  form 
of  a  servant,  the  Human  and  Divine  with- 
out separation  or  division. 

66.  So  the  Apostle  moulding  our  ignorant 
and  haphazard  ideas  into  conformity  with 
truth  says  of  this  mystery  of  the  faith,  For  He 
was  crucified  through  weakness  but  He  liveth 
through  the  power  of  God1.  Preaching  the 
Son  of  Man  and  Son  of  God,  Man  through  the 
Divine  Plan,  God  through  His  eternal  nature,  he 
says,  that  He  Who  was  crucified  through  weak- 
ness is  He  Who  lives  through  the  power  of  God. 
His  weakness  arises  from  the  form  of  a  servant, 
His  nature  remains  because  of  the  form  of 
God.  He  took  the  form  of  a  servant,  though 
He  was  in  form  of  God  :  therefore  there  can 
be  no  doubt  as  to  the  mystery  according  to 
which  He  both  suffered  and  lived.  There 
existed  in  Him  both  weakness  to  suffer,  and 
power  of  God  to  give  life  :  and  hence  He  Who 
suffered  and  lived  cannot  be  more  than  One, 
or  other  than  Himself. 

67.  The  Only-begotten  God  suffered  indeed 
all  that  men  can  suffer:  but  let  us  express 
ourselves  in  the  words  and  faith  of  the 
Apostle.  He  says,  For  I  delivered  unto  you 
first  of  all  hoiv  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins, 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  that  He  was 
buried,  and  that  He  rose  again  the  third  day 
according  to  the  Scriptures'2-.  This  is  no  un- 
supported statement  of  his  own,  which  might 
lead  to  error,  but  a  warning  to  us  to  confess 
that  Christ  died  and  rose  after  a  real  manner, 
not  a  nominal,  since  the  fact  is  certified  by 
the  full  weight  of  Scripture  authority  ;  and  that 
we  must  understand  His  death  in  that  exact 
sense  in  which  Scripture  declares  it.     In  his 


1  2  Cor.  xiii.  4. 


a  1  Cor.  xv.  3,  4. 


ON    THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK    X. 


20 1 


regard  for  the  perplexities  and  scruples  of  the 
weak  and  sensitive  believer,  he  adds  these 
solemn  concluding  words,  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  to  his  proclamation  of  the  death 
and  the  resurrection.  He  would  not  have 
us  grow  weaker,  driven  about  by  every  wind 
of  vain  doctrine,  or  vexed  by  empty  sub- 
tleties and  false  doubts:  he  would  summon 
faith  to  return,  before  it  were  shipwrecked, 
to  the  haven  of  piety,  believing  and  confess- 
ing the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ, 
Son  of  Man  and  Son  of  God,  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  this  being  the  safeguard  of  rev- 
erence against  the  attack  of  the  adversary,  so 
to  understand  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ,  as  it  was  written  of  Him.  There 
is  no  danger  in  faith  :  the  reverent  confession 
of  the  hidden  mystery  of  God  is  always  safe. 
Christ  was  born  of  the  Virgin,  but  conceived 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  according  to  the  Scriptures. 
Christ  wept,  but  according  to  the  Scriptures : 
that  which  made  Him  weep  was  also  a  cause 
of  joy.  Christ  hungered  ;  but  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  He  used  His  power  as  God  against 
the  tree  which  bore  no  fruit,  when  He  had  no 
food.  Christ  suffered :  but  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  He  was  about  to  sit  at  the  right  hand 
of  Power.  He  complained  that  He  was  aban- 
doned to  die  :  but  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
at  the  same  moment  He  received  in  His 
kingdom  in  Paradise  the  thief  who  confessed 
Him.  He  died  :  but  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, He  rose  again  and  sits  at  the  right 
hand  of  God.  In  the  belief  of  this  mystery 
there  is  life  :  this  confession  resists  all  attack. 

68.  The  Apostle  is  careful  to  leave  no  room 
for  doubt :  we  cannot  say,  "  Christ  was  born, 
suffered,  was  dead  and  buried,  and  rose  again : 
but  how,  by  what  power,  by  what  division  of 
parts  of  Himself?  Who  wept?  Who  rejoiced? 
Who  complained?  Who  descended ?  and  Who 
ascended?"  He  rests  the  merits  of  faith  en- 
tirely on  the  confession  of  unquestioning  rever- 
ence. The  righteousness,  he  says,  which  is 
of  faith  saith  thus,  Say  not  in  thy  heart, 
Who  hath  ascended  into  heaven,  that  is,  to 
bring  Christ  down ;  or  Who  hath  descended 
into  the  abyss:  that  is,  to  bring  Christ  up 
from  the  dead?  But  what  saith  the  Scripture? 
Thy  word  is  nigh,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy 
heart ;  that  is,  the  word  of  faith  which  %ve 
preach  :  because  if  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy 
mouth  Jesus  as  Lord,  and  shalt  believe  in  thy 
heart,  that  God  hath  raised  Him  up  from  the 
dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved  3.  Faith  perfects  the 
righteous  man  :  as  it  is  written,  Abraham  be- 
lieved God  and  it  was  reckoned  unto  him  for 


3  Rom.  x.  6 — 9. 


righteousness*.  Did  Abraham  impugn  the  word 
of  God,  when  he  was  promised  the  inheritance 
of  the  Gentiles,  and  an  abiding  posterity  as 
many  as  the  sand  or  the  stars  for  multitude? 
To  the  reverent  faith,  which  trusts  implicitly  on 
the  omnipotence  of  God,  the  limits  of  human 
weakness  are  no  barrier.  Despising  all  that  is 
feeble  and  earthly  in  itself,  it  believes  the 
divine  promise,  even  though  it  exceeds  the 
possibilities  of  human  nature.  It  knows  that 
the  laws  which  govern  man  are  no  hindrance 
to  the  power  of  God,  Who  is  as  bountiful  in 
the  performance  as  He  is  gracious  in  the  pro- 
mise. Nothing  is  more  righteous  than  Faith. 
For  as  in  human  conduct  it  is  equity  and  self- 
restraint  that  receive  our  approval,  so  in  the 
case  of  God,  what  is  more  righteous  for  man 
than  to  ascribe  omnipotence  to  Him,  Whose 
Power  He  perceives  to  be  without  limits? 

69.  The  Apostle  then  looking  in  us  for  the 
righteousness  which  is  of  Faith,  cuts  at  the  root 
of  incredulous  doubt  and  godless  unbelief. 
He  forbids  us  to  admit  into  our  hearts  the 
cares  of  anxious  thought,  and  points  to  the 
authority  of  the  Prophet's  words,  Say  not  in 
thy  heart,  Who  hath  ascended  into  heaven  5  ? 
Then  He  completes  the  thought  of  the  Pro- 
phet's words  with  the  addiiion,  That  is  to  bring 
Christ  down.  The  perception  of  the  human 
mind  cannot  attain  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
divine  :  but  neither  can  a  reverent  faith  doubt 
the  works  of  God.  Christ  needed  no  human 
help,  that  any  one  should  ascend  into  heaven 
to  bring  Him  down  from  His  blessed  Home 
to  His  earthly  body.  It  was  no  external  force 
which  drove  Him  down  to  the  earth.  We  must 
believe  that  He  came,  even  as  He  did  come  : 
it  is  true  religion  to  confess  Jesus  Christ  not 
brought  down,  but  descending.  The  mystery 
both  of  the  time  and  the  method  of  His  com- 
ing, belongs  to  Him  alone.  We  may  not  think 
because  He  came  but  recently,  that  therefore 
He  must  have  been  brought  down,  nor  that 
His  coming  in  time  depended  upon  another, 
who  brought  Him  down. 

Nor  does  the  Apostle  give  room  for  unbe- 
lief in  the  other  direction.  He  quotes  at  once 
the  words  of  the  Prophet,  Or  Who  hath  de- 
scended into  the  abyss  6,  and  adds  immediately 
the  explanation,  That  is  to  bring  Christ  back 
from  the  dead.  He  is  free  to  return  into 
heaven,  Who  was  free  to  descend  to  the  earth. 
All  hesitation  and  doubt  is  then  removed. 
Faith  reveals  what   omnipotence   plans :   his- 


4  Gen.  xv.  16  ;  Rom.  iv.  3. 

5  Deut.  xxx.  i2.  The  context  is  the  assurance  of  Moses,  that 
"the  law  is  not  hidden  from  thee,  neither  is  it  fflr  off,"  but  "  th« 
word  is  very  nigh  unto  thee,  in  thy  nuuth,  and  in  thy  heart." 

0  Deut.  xxx.  13.     E.V.  Who  shall  go  over  the  sea  for  us? 


20. 


DE    TRINITATE. 


tory  relates  the  effect,  God  Almighty  was  the 
cause. 

70.  But  there  is  demanded  from  us  an  un- 
wavering certainty.  The  Apostle  expound- 
ing the  whole  secret  of  the  Scripture  passes 
on,  Thy  word  is  nigh,  in  thy  mouth  and  in  thy 
heart  t.  The  words  of  our  confession  must 
not  be  tardy  or  deliberately  vague  :  there  must 
be  no  interval  between  heart  and  lips,  lest 
what  ought  to  be  the  confession  of  true  rever- 
ence become  a  subterfuge  of  infidelity.  The 
word  must  be  near  us,  and  within  us ;  no 
delay  between  the  heart  and  the  lips ;  a  faith 
of  conviction  as  well  as  of  words.  Heart 
and  lips  must  be  in  harmony,  and  reveal  in 
thought  and  utterance  a  religion  which  does 
not  waver.  Here  too,  as  before,  the  Apostle 
adds  the  explanation  of  the  Prophet's  words, 
That  is  the  word  of  Faith,  which  we  preach  ; 
because  if  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth 
Jesus  as  Lord,  and  shalt  believe  in  thy  heart 
that  God  hath  raised  Him  up  from  the  dead, 
thou  shalt  be  saved.  Piety  consists  in  re- 
jecting doubt,  righteousness  in  believing,  sal- 
vation in  confessing.  Trifle  not  with  am- 
biguities, be  not  stirred  up  to  vain  babblings, 
do  not  debate  in  any  way  the  powers  of  God, 
or  impose  limits  upon  His  might,  cease  search- 
ing again  and  again  for  the  causes  of  unsearch- 
able mysteries :  confess  rather  that  Jesus  is 
the  Lord,  and  believe  that  God  raised  Him 
from  the  dead ;  herein  is  salvation.  What 
folly  is  it  to  depreciate  the  nature  and  cha- 
racter of  Christ,  when  this  alone  is  salvation, 
to  know  that  He  is  the  Lord.  Again,  what  an 
error  of  human  vanity  to  quarrel  about  His 
resurrection,  when  it  is  enough  for  eternal  life 
to  believe  that  God  raised  Him -up.  In  sim- 
plicity then  is  faith,  in  faith  righteousness,  and 
in  confession  true  godliness.  For  God  does 
not  call  us  to  the  blessed  life  through  arduous 
investigations.  He  does  not  tempt  us  with 
the  varied  arts  of  rhetoric.  The  way  to  eter- 
nity is  plain  and  easy ;  believe  that  Jesus  was 
raised  from  the  dead  by  God  and  confess  that 
He  is  the  Lord.  Let  no  one  therefore  wrest 
into  an  occasion  for  impiety,  what  was  said 
because  of  our  ignorance.  It  had  to  be  proved 
to  us,  that  Jesus  Christ  died,  that  we  might 
live  in  Him. 

7  Deut.  xxx.  14. 


71.  If  then  He  said.  My  God,  My  God, 
why  hast  Thou  forsaken  Me8,  and  Father,  into 
Thy  hands  I  commend  My  Spirit  9,  that  we 
might  be  sure  that  He  did  die,  was  not  this, 
in  His  care  for  our  faith,  rather  a  scattering  of 
our  doubts,  than  a  confession  of  His  weak- 
ness? When  He  was  about  to  restore  Lazarus, 
He  prayed  to  the  Father:  but  what  need  had 
He  of  prayer,  Who  said,  Father,  I  thank  Thee, 
that  Thou  hast  heard  Me ;  and  I  know  that 
Thou  hearest  Me  always,  but  because  of  the 
multitude  1  said  it,  that  they  may  believe  that 
Thou  didst  send  Me  J  ?  He  prayed  then  for  us, 
that  we  may  know  Him  to  be  the  Son  ;  the 
words  of  prayer  availed  Him  nothing,  but  He 
said  them  for  the  advancement  of  our  faith.  He 
was  not  in  want  of  help,  but  we  of  teaching. 
Again  He  prayed  to  be  glorified ;  and  imme- 
diately was  heard  from  heaven  the  voice  of 
God  the  Father  glorifying  Him :  but  when 
they  wondered  at  the  voice,  He  said,  This 
voice  hath  not  come  for  My  sake,  but  for  your 
sakes2.  The  Father  is  besought  for  us,  He 
speaks  for  us  :  may  all  this  lead  us  to  be- 
lieve and  confess  !  The  answer  of  the  Glorifier 
is  granted  not  to  the  prayer  for  glory,  but  to 
the  ignorance  of  the  bystanders  :  must  we  not 
then  regard  the  complaint  of  suffering,  when 
He  found  His  greatest  joy  in  suffering,  as  in- 
tended for  the  building  up  of  our  faith  ?  Christ 
prayed  for  His  persecutors,  because  they  knew 
not  what  they  did.  He  promised  Paradise 
from  the  cross,  because  He  is  God  the  King. 
He  rejoiced  upon  the  cross,  that  all  was  finished 
when  He  drank  the  vinegar,  because  He  had 
fulfilled  all  prophecy  before  He  died.  He  was 
born  for  us,  suffered  for  us,  died  for  us,  rose 
again  for  us.  This  alone  is  necessary  for  our 
salvation,  to  confess  the  Son  of  God  risen  from 
the  dead  :  why  then  should  we  die  in  this 
state  of  godless  unbelief?  If  Christ,  ever  secure 
of  His  divinity,  made  clear  to  us  His  death, 
Himself  indifferent  to  death,  yet  dying  to 
assure  that  it  was  true  humanity  that  He  had 
assumed  :  why  should  we  use  this  very  con- 
fession of  the  Son  of  God  that  for  us  He 
became  Son  of  Man  and  died  as  the  chief 
weapon  to  deny  His  divinity  ? 


8  St.  Mark  xv.  34. 

1  St.  John  xi.  41,  42. 


9  St.  Luke  xxiii.  46. 
2  lb.  xii.  30. 


BOOK    XI. 


i.  The  Apostle  in  his  letter  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,  reviewing  in  its  manifold  aspects  the  full 
and  perfect  mystery  of  the  Gospel,  mingles 
with  other  instructions  in  the  knowledge  of 
God  the  following  :  As  ye  also  were  called  in 
one  hope  of  your  calling  ;  One  Lord,  one  faith, 
one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all,  and 
through  all,  and  in  us  all1.  He  does  not  leave 
us  in  the  vague  and  misleading  paths  of  an 
indefinite  teaching,  or  abandon  us  to  the  shift- 
ing fancies  of  imagination,  but  limits  the  un- 
impeded license  of  intellect  and  desire  by  the 
appointment  of  restraining  barriers.  He  gives 
us  no  opportunity  to  be  wise  beyond  what  he 
preached,  but  defines  in  exact  and  precise 
language  the  faith  fixed  for  all  time,  that  there 
may  be  no  excuse  for  instability  of  belief.  He 
declares  one  faith,  as  he  preaches  one  Lord, 
and  pronounces  one  baptism,  as  he  declares 
one  faith  of  one  Lord,  that  as  there  is  one 
faith  of  one  Lord,  so  there  may  be  one  bap- 
tism of  one  faith  in  one  Lord.  And  singe  the 
whole  mystery  of  the  baptism  and  the  faith  is 
not  only  in  one  Lord,  but  also  in  one  God, 
he  completes  the  consummation  of  our  hope 
by  the  confession  of  one  God.  The  one  bap- 
tism and  the  one  faith  are  of  one  God,  as  they 
are  of  one  Lord.  Lord  and  God  are  each  one, 
not  by  union  of  person  but  by  distinction  of 
properties  :  for,  on  the  one  hand,  it  is  the 
property  of  Each  to  be  one,  whether  of  the 
Father  in  His  Fatherhood,  or  of  the  Son  in 
His  Sonship,  and  on  the  other  hand,  that  pro- 
perty of  individuality,  which  Each  possesses, 
constitutes  for  Each  the  mystery  of  His  union 
with  the  Other.  Thus  the  one  Lord  Christ 
cannot  take  away  from  God  the  Father  His 
Lordship,  or  the  one  God  the  Father  deny  to 
the  one  Lord  Christ  His  Godhead.  If,  be- 
cause God  is  one,  Christ  is  not  also  by  nature 
divine,  then  we  cannot  allow  that  the  one  God 
is  Lord,  because  there  is  one  Lord  Christ : 
that  is,  on  the  supposition  that  by  their  '  one- 
ness '  is  signified  not  the  mystery,  but  an  ex- 
clusive unity.  So  there  is  one  baptism  and 
one  faith  of  one  Lord,  as  of  one  God. 

2.  But  how  can  it  be  any  longer  one  faith, 
if  it  does  not  steadfastly  and  sincerely  confess 
one  Lord  and  one  God  the  Father :  and  how 
can  the  faith  which  is  not  one  faith  confess 

1  Eph.  iv.  4 — 6. 


one  Lord  and  one  God  the  Father  ?  Further, 
how  can  the  faith  be  one,  when  its  preachers 
are  so  at  variance?  One  comes  teaching  that 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  being  in  the  weakness 
of  our  nature,  groaned  with  anguish  when  the 
nails  pierced  His  hands,  that  He  lost  the 
virtue  of  His  own  power  and  nature,  and 
shrank  shuddering  from  the  death  which 
threatened  Him.  Another  even  denies  the 
cardinal  doctrine  of  the  Generation  and  pro- 
nounces Him  a  creature.  Another  will  call 
Him,  but  not  think  Him,  God  on  the  ground 
that  religion  allows  us  to  speak  of  more  Gods 
than  One,  but  He,  Whom  we  recognise  as  God, 
must  be  conscious  of  sharing  the  divine  nature 2. 
Again,  how  can  Christ  the  Lord  be  one,  when 
some  say  that  as  God  He  feels  no  pain,  others 
make  Him  weak  and  fearful :  to  some  He  is 
God  in  name,  to  others  God  in  nature  :  to 
some  the  Son  by  Generation,  to  others  the 
Son  by  appellation  ?  And  if  this  is  so,  how  can 
God  the  Father  be  one  in  the  faith,  when  to 
some  He  is  Father  by  His  authority,  to  others 
Father  by  generation,  in  the  sense  that  God 
is  Father  of  the  universe  ? 

And  yet,  who  will  deny  that  whatever  is  not 
the  one  faith,  is  not  faith  at  all  ?  For  in  the 
one  faith  there  is  one  Lord  Christ,  and  God 
the  Father  is  one.  But  the  one  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  is  not  one  in  the  truth  of  the  confes- 
sion, as  well  as  in  name,  unless  He  is  Son, 
unless  He  is  God3,  unless  He  is  unchangeable, 
unless  His  Sonship  and  His  Godhead  have 
been  eternally  present  in  Him.  He  who 
preaches  Christ  other  than  He  is,  that  is, 
other  than  Son  and  God,  preaches  another 
Christ.  Nor  is  he  in  the  one  faith  of  the  one 
baptism,  for  in  the  teaching  of  the  Apostle 
the  one  faith  is  the  faith  of  that  one  baptism, 
in  which  the  one  Lord  is  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God  Who  is  also  God. 

3.  Yet  it  cannot  be  denied  that  Christ  was 
Christ.  It  cannot  be  that  He  was  incognis- 
able  to  mankind.  The  books  of  the  pro- 
phets have  set  their  seal  upon  Him  :    the  ful- 

2  The  text  is  very  corrupt  here,  but  the  meaning  seems  to  be 
that,  while  we  have  the  authority  of  the  Bible  to  speak  of  God, 
if  we  do  not  attach  its  full  meaning  to  the  word  (e.g.  P^alm 
lxxxii.  6,  "  I  have  said,  '  Ye  are  Gods,' "),  yet  if  we  use  the  name 
in  its  proper  significance  it  is  blasphemous  to  call  Christ  God. 
The  reading  of  the  earlier  editions  and  some  MSS.,  '  duos  dici 
irreligiosum  est,  et  Deum  non  intelligi,'  is  probably  a  gloss  to 
soften  the  difficulty. 

3  Reading  '  unus  est,  si  filius  sit,  si  Deus  sit.' 


204 


DE   TRINITATE. 


ness  of  the  times,  which  waxes  daily,  witnesses 
of  Him  :  by  the  working  of  wonders  the  tombs 
of  Apostles  and  Martyrs  proclaim  Him :  the 
power  of  His  name  reveals  Him  :  the  unclean 
spirits  confess  Him,  and  the  devils  howling  in 
their  torment  call  aloud  His  name.  In  all  we 
see  the  dispensation  of  His  power.  But  our 
faith  must  preach  Him  as  He  is,  namely,  one 
Lord  not  in  name  but  in  confession,  in  one  faith 
of  one  baptism  :  for  on  our  faith  in  one  Lord 
Christ  depends  our  confession  of  one  God  the 
Father. 

4.  But  these  teachers  of  a  new  Christ,  who 
deny  to  Him  all  that  is  His,  preach  another 
Lord  Christ  as  well  as  another  God  the  Fa- 
ther. The  One  is  not  the  Begetter  but  the 
Creator,  the  Other  not  begotten,  but  created. 
Christ  is  therefore  not  very  God,  because  He 
is  not  God  by  birth,  and  faith  cannot  re- 
cognise a  Father  in  God,  because  there  is  no 
generation  to  constitute  Him  Father.  They 
glorify  God  the  Father  indeed,  as  is  His  right 
and  due,  when  they  predicate  of  Him  a  nature 
unapproachable,  invisible,  inviolable,  ineffable, 
and  infinite,  endued  with  omniscience  and 
omnipotence,  instinct  with  love,  moving  in  all 
and  permeating  all,  immanent  and  transcen- 
dent, sentient  in  all  sentient  existence.  But 
when  they  proceed  to  ascribe  to  Him  the 
unique  glory  of  being  alone  good,  alone  om- 
nipotent, alone  immortal,  who  does  not  feel 
that  this  pious  praise  aims  to  exclude  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  from  the  blessedness,  which 
by  the  reservation  '  alone  '  is  restricted  to  the 
glory  of  God?  Does  it  not  leave  Christ  in 
sinfulness  and  weakness  and  death,  while  the 
Father  reigns  in  solitary  perfection?  Does 
it  not  deny  in  Christ  a  natural  origin  from 
God  the  Father,  in  the  fear  lest  He  should  be 
thought  to  inherit  by  a  birth,  which  bestows 
upon  the  Begotten  the  same  virtue  of  nature 
as  the  Begetter,  a  blessedness  natural  to  God 
the  Father  alone  ? 

5.  Unlearned  in  the  teaching  of  the  Gos- 
pels and  Apostles,  they  extol  the  glory  of 
God  the  Father,  not,  however,  with  the  sin- 
cerity of  a  devout  believer,  but  with  the  cun- 
ning of  impiety,  to  wrest  from  it  an  argument 
for  their  wicked  heresy.  Nothing,  they  say, 
can  be  compared  with  His  nature  :  therefore 
the  Only-begotten  God  is  excluded  from  the 
comparison,  because  He  possesses  a  lower  and 
weaker  nature.  And  this  they  say  of  God, 
the  living  image  of  the  living  God,  the  perfect 
form  of  His  blessed  nature,  the  only-begotten 
offspring  of  His  unbegotten  substance;  Who 
is  not  truly  the  image  of  God  unless  He  pos- 
sesses the  perfect  glory  of  the  Father's  blessed- 
ness, and  reproduces  in  its  exactitude  the  like- 
ness of  His  whole  nature.     But  if  the 'Only- 


begotten  God  is  the  image  of  the  Unbegotten 
God,  the  verity  of  that  perfect  and  supreme 
nature  resides  in  Him  and  makes  Him  the 
image  of  the  very  God.  Is  the  Father  omni- 
potent? The  weak  Son  is  not  the  image  of 
omnipotence.  Is  He  good  ?  The  Son,  Whose 
divinity  is  of  a  lower  stamp,  does  not  reflect  in 
His  sinful  nature  the  image  of  goodness.  Is 
He  incorporeal?  The  Son,  Whose  very  spirit 
is  confined  to  the  limits  of  a  body,  is  not  in 
the  form  of  the  Incorporeal.  Is  He  ineffable? 
The  Son,  Whom  language  can  define,  Whose 
nature  the  tongue  can  describe,  is  not  the 
image  of  the  Ineffable.  Is  He  the  true  God? 
The  Son  possesses  only  a  fictitious  divinity, 
and  the  false  cannot  be  the  image  of  the  True. 
The  Apostle,  however,  does  not  ascribe  to 
Christ  a  portion  of  the  image,  or  a  part  of  the 
form,  but  pronounces  Him  unreservedly  the 
image  of  the  invisible  God  and  the  form  of 
God 4.  And  how  could  He  declare  more  ex- 
pressly the  divine  nature  of  the  Son  of  God, 
than  by  saying  that  Christ  is  the  image  of  the 
invisible  God  even  in  respect  of  His  invisi- 
bility :  for  if  the  substance  of  Christ  were  dis- 
cernible how  could  He  be  the  image  of  an 
invisible  nature? 

6.  But,  as  we  pointed  out  in  the  former 
books,  they  seize  the  Dispensation  of  the 
assumed  manhood  as  a  pretext  to  dishonour 
His  divinity,  and  distort  the  Mystery  of  our 
salvation  into  an  occasion  of  blasphemy. 
Had  they  held  fast  the  faith  of  the  Apostle, 
they  would  neither  have  forgotten  that  He, 
Who  was  in  the  form  of  God,  took  the  form 
of  a  servant,  nor  made  use  of  the  servant's 
form  to  dishonour  the  form  of  God  (for  the 
form  of  God  includes  the  fulness  of  divinity), 
but  they  would  have  noted,  reasonably  and 
reverently,  the  distinction  of  occasions  5  and 
mysteries,  without  dishonouring  the  divinity, 
or  being  misled  by  the  Incarnation  of  Christ. 
But  now,  when  we  have,  I  am  convinced,  proved 
everything  to  the  utmost,  and  pointed  out 
the  power  of  the  divine  nature  underlying  the 
birth  of  the  assumed  body,  there  is  no  longer 
room  for  doubt.  He  Who  was  at  once  man 
and  the  Only-begotten  God  performed  all 
things  by  the  power  of  God,  and  in  the  power 
of  Cod  accomplished  all  things  through  a  true 
human  nature.  As  begotten  of  God  He  pos- 
sessed the  nature  of  divine  omnipotence,  as 
born  of  the  Virgin  He  had  a  perfect  and 
entire  humanity.  Though  He  had  a  real 
body,  He  subsisted  in  the  nature  of  God,  and 
though  He  subsisted  in  the  nature  of  God, 
He  abode  in  a  real  body. 


*  Cf.  Col.  i.  15,  and  Phil.  ii.  6. 

5  i.e.  the  occasions  when  Christ  was  speaking  of  His  humanity 
and  those  when  He  was  referring  to  His  divine  nature. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    XI. 


205 


7.  In  our  reply  we  have  followed  Him  to 
the  moment  of  His  glorious  death,  and  taking 
one  by  one  the  statements  of  their  unhallowed 
doctrine,  we  have  refuted  them  from  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Gospels  and  the  Apostle.  But  even 
after  His  glorious  resurrection  there  are  cer- 
tain things  which  they  have  made  bold  to  con- 
strue as  proofs  of  the  weakness  of  a  lower 
nature,  and  to  these  we  must  now  reply.  Let 
us  adopt  once  more  our  usual  method  of  draw- 
ing out  from  the  words  themselves  their  true 
signification,  that  so  we  may  discover  the  truth 
precisely  where  they  think  to  overthrow  it. 
For  the  Lord  spoke  in  simple  words  for  our 
instruction  in  the  faith,  and  His  words  cannot 
need  support  or  comment  from  foreign  and 
irrelevant  sayings. 

8.  Among  their  other  sins  the  heretics 
often  employ  as  an  argument  the  words 
of  the  Lord,  /  ascend  unto  My  Father 
and  your  Father,  and  My  God  and  your 
God6.  His  Father  is  also  their  Father,  His 
God  their  God  ;  therefore  He  is  not  in  the 
nature  of  God,  for  He  pronounces  God  the 
Father  of  others  as  of  Himself,  and  His 
unique  Sonship  ceases  when  He  shares  with 
others  the  nature  and  the  origin  which  make 
Him  Son  and  God.  But  let  them  add  further 
the  words  of  the  Apostle,  But  when  He  saith 
All  things  are  put  in  subjection,  He  is  excepted 
Who  did  subject  all  things  unto  Him.  And 
when  all  things  have  been  subjected  unto  Him, 
then  shall  He  Himself  be  subjected  unto  Him, 
that  did  subject  all  things  unto  Himself,  that 
God  may  be  all  in  all  7,  whereby,  since  they 
regard  that  subjection  as  a  proof  of  weakness, 
they  may  dispossess  Him  of  the  virtue  of  His 
Father's  nature,  because  His  natural  infirmity 
subjected  Him  to  the  dominion  of  a  stronger 
nature.  And  after  that,  let  them  adopt  their 
very  strongest  position  and  their  impregnable 
defence,  before  which  the  truth  of  the  Divine 
birth  is  to  be  demolished  ;  namely,  that  if  He 
is  subjected,  He  is  not  God;  if  His  God  and 
Father  is  ours  also,  He  shares  all  in  common 
with  creatures,  and  therefore  is  Himself  also 
a  creature :  created  of  God  and  not  begotten, 
since  the  creature  has  its  substance  out  of 
nothing,  but  the  begotten  possesses  the  nature 
of  its  author. 

9.  Falsehood  is  always  infamous,  for  the  liar 
throwing  off  the  bridle  of  shame  dares  to  gain- 
say the  truth,  or  else  at  times  he  hides  be- 
hind some  veil  of  pretext,  that  he  may  appear 
to  defend  with  modesty  what  is  shameless  in 
intention.  But  in  this  case,  when  they  sacri- 
legiously use  the  Scriptures  to  degrade  the 
dignity  of  our  Lord,  there  is  no  room  for  the 


6  St.  John  xx.  17. 


7  1  Cor.  xv.  27,  28. 


blush  or  the  false  excuse ;  for  there  are  occa- 
sions when  even  pardon  accorded  to  ignorance 
is  refused,  and  wilful  misconstruction  is  exposed 
in  its  naked  profanity.  Let  us  postpone  for 
a  moment  the  exposition  of  this  passage  in  the 
Gospel,  and  ask  them  first  whether  they  have 
forgotten  the  preaching  of  the  Apostle,  who 
said,  Without  controversy  great  is  the  mystery 
of  godliness,  which  was  manifested  in  the  flesh, 
justified  in  the  Spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached 
among  the  nations,  believed  on  in  the  world, 
received  up  in  glory  8.  Who  is  so  dull  that  he 
cannot  comprehend  that  the  mystery  of  god- 
liness is  simply  the  Dispensation  of  the  flesh 
assumed  by  the  Lord  ?  At  the  outset  then,  he 
who  does  not  agree  in  this  confession  is  not 
in  the  faith  of  God.  For  the  Apostle  leaves 
no  doubt  that  all  must  confess  that  the  hidden 
secret  of  our  salvation  is  not  the  dishonour 
of  God,  but  the  mystery  of  great  godliness, 
and  a  mystery  no  longer  kept  from  our  eyes, 
but  manifested  in  the  flesh ;  no  longer  weak 
through  the  nature  of  flesh,  but  justified  in 
the  Spirit.  And  so  by  the  justification  of  the 
Spirit  is  removed  from  our  faith  the  idea  of 
fleshly  weakness  ;  through  the  manifestation  of 
the  flesh  is  revealed  that  which  was  secret,  and 
in  the  unknown  cause  of  that  which  was  secret 
is  contained  the  only  confession,  the  confession 
of  the  mystery  of  great  godliness.  This  is  the 
whole  system  of  the  faith  set  forth  by  the 
Apostle  in  its  proper  order.  From  godliness 
proceeds  the  mystery,  from  the  mystery  the 
manifestation  in  the  flesh,  from  the  manifes- 
tation in  the  flesh  the  justification  in  the  Spirit: 
for  the  mystery  of  godliness  which  was  mani- 
fested in  the  flesh,  to  be  truly  a  mystery,  was 
manifested  in  the  flesh  through  the  justification 
of  the  Spirit.  Again,  we  must  not  forget  what 
manner  of  justification  in  the  Spirit  is  this 
manifestation  in  the  flesh :  for  the  mystery 
which  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,  justified  in 
the  Spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached  among  the 
nations,  and  believed  on  in  this  world,  this 
same  mystery  was  received  up  in  glory.  Thus 
is  it  in  every  way  a  mystery  of  great  godliness, 
when  it  is  manifested  in  the  flesh,  when  it  is 
justified  in  the  Spirit,  when  it  is  seen  of  angels, 
when  it  is  preached  among  the  nations,  when 
it  is  believed  on  in  the  world,  and  when  it  is 
received  up  in  glory.  The  preaching  follows 
the  seeing,  and  the  believing  the  preaching, 
and  the  consummation  of  all  is  the  receiving 
up  in  glory  :  for  the  assumption  into  glory  is 
the  mystery  of  great  godliness,  and  by  faith  in 
the  Dispensation  we  are  prepared  to  be  re- 
ceived up,  and  to  be  conformed  to  the  glory 
of  the  Lord.     The  assumption  of  flesh  is  there- 

8  1  Tim.  iii.  16. 


206 


DE   TRINITATE. 


fore  also  the  mystery  of  great  godliness,  for 
through  the  assumption  of  flesh  the  mystery 
was  manifested  in  the  flesh.  But  we  must 
believe  that  the  manifestation  in  the  flesh  also 
is  this  same  mystery  of  great  godliness,  for 
His  manifestation  in  the  flesh  is  His  justifica- 
tion in  the  Spirit,  and  His  assumption  into 
glory.  And  now  what  room  does  our  faith 
leave  for  any  to  think  that  the  secret  of  the 
Dispensation  of  godliness  is  the  enfeebling  of 
the  divinity,  when  through  the  assumption  of 
glory  is  to  be  confessed  the  mystery  of  great 
godliness  ?  What  was  '  infirmity '  is  now  the 
'  mystery : '  what  was  'necessity'  becomes  '  god- 
liness 9.'  And  now  let  us  turn  to  the  meaning 
of  the  Evangelist's  words,  that  the  secret  of 
our  salvation  and  our  glory  may  not  be  con- 
verted into  an  occasion  of  blasphemy. 

10.  You  credit  with  the  weight  of  irresistible 
authority,  heretic,  that  saying  of  the  Lord, 
J  ascend  to  My  Father  and  your  Father,  and 
My  God  and  your  God l.  The  same  Father, 
you  say,  is  His  Father  and  ours,  the  same 
God  His  God  and  ours.  He  partakes,  there- 
fore, of  our  weakness,  for  in  the  possession 
of  the  same  Father  we  are  not  inferior  as  sons, 
and  in  the  service  of  the  same  God  we  are 
equal  as  servants.  Since,  then,  we  are  of  created 
origin  and  a  servant's  nature,  but  have  a  com- 
mon Father  and  God  with  Him,  He  is  in  com- 
mon with  our  nature  a  creature  and  a  servant. 
So  runs  this  infatuated  and  unhallowed  teach- 
ing. It  produces  also  the  words  of  the  Pro- 
phet, Thy  God  hath  anointed  Thee,  O  God, 
to  prove  that  Christ  does  not  partake  of  that 
glorious  nature  which  belongs  to  God,  since 
the  God  Who  anoints  Him  is  preferred  before 
Him  as  His  God 2. 

ii.  We  do  not  know  Christ  the  God  unless 
we  know  God  the  Begotten.  But  to  be  born 
God  is  to  belong  to  the  nature  of  God,  for  the 
name  Begotten  signifies  indeed  the  manner  of 
His  origin,  but  does  not  make  Him  different 
in  kind  from  the  Begetter.  And  if  so,  the 
Begotten  owes  indeed  to  His  Author  the  source 
of  His  being,  but  is  not  dispossessed  of  the 
nature  of  that  Author,  for  the  birth  of  God 
can  arise  but  from  one  origin,  and  have  but 
one  nature.  If  its  origin  is  not  from  God,  it 
is  not  a  birth ;  if  it  is  anything  but  a  birth, 
Christ  is  not  God.  But  He  is  God  of  God, 
and  therefore  God  the  Father  stands  to  God 
the  Son  as  God  of  His  biith  and  Father  of 
His  nature,  for  the  birth  of  God  is  from  God, 
and  in  the  specific  nature  of  God. 


9  i.e.    the   Incarnation  is  the   Mystery  of  godliness,   not   the 
infirmity  ol  nec< 

1  St.  John  xx.  1 7. 

2  Ps.  xiv.   7.     1  lie  general  reading  is,  "Therefore  God,  thy 
God,&c."    (R.V.). 


12.  See  in  all  that  He  said,  how  carefully 
the  Lord  tempers  the  pious  acknowledgment 
of  His  debt,  so  that  neither  the  confession  of 
the  birth  could  be  held  to  reflect  upon  His 
divinity,  nor  His  reverent  obedience  to  infringe 
upon  His  sovereign  nature.  He  does  not 
withhold  the  homage  due  from  Him  as  the 
Begotten,  Who  owed  to  His  Author  His  very 
existence,  but  He  manifests  by  His  confident 
bearing  the  consciousness  of  participation  in 
that  nature,  which  belongs  to  Him  by  virtue 
of  the  origin  whereby  He  was  born  as  God. 
Take,  for  instance,  the  words,  He  that  hath 
seen  Me,  hath  seen  the  Father  also  3,  and,  The 
words  that  I  say,  I  speak  not  from  Myself"'.  He 
does  not  speak  from  Himself:  therefore  He 
receives  from  His  Author  that  which  He 
says.  But  if  any  have  seen  Him,  they 
have  seen  the  Father  also  :  they  are  con- 
scious, by  this  evidence,  given  to  shew  that 
God  is  in  Him,  that  a  nature,  one  in  kind 
with  that  of  God,  was  born  from  God  to 
subsist  as  God.  Take  again  the  words, 
That  which  the  Father  hath  given  unto  Me, 
is  greater  than  alls,  and,  /  and  the  Father  are 
one 6.  To  say  that  the  Father  gave,  is  a  con- 
fession that  He  received  His  origin  :  but  the 
unity  of  Himself  with  the  Father  is  a  property 
of  His  nature  derived  from  that  origin.  Take 
another  instance,  He  hath  given  all  judgment 
unto  the  Son,  that  all  may  honour  the  Son  even 
as  they  honour  the  Father!.  He  acknowledges 
that  the  judgment  is  given  to  Him,  and  there- 
fore He  does  not  put  His  birth  in  the  back- 
ground:  but  He  claims  equal  honour  with  the 
Father,  and  therefore  He  does  not  resign  His 
nature.  Yet  another  example,  /'  am  in  the 
Father,  and  the  Father  is  in  Me8,  and,  The 
Father  is  greater  than  I*.  The  One  is  in  the 
Other  :  recognise,  then,  the  divinity  of  God, 
the  Begotten  of  God  :  the  Father  is  greater 
than  He  :  perceive,  then,  His  acknowledgment 
of  the  Father's  authority.  In  the  same  way 
He  says,  The  Sou  can  do  nothing  of  Himself 
but  what  He  hath  seen  the  Father  doing:  for 
what  things  soever  He  doeth,  these  the  Son  also 
doeth  in  like  maimer'1.  He  doeth  nothing  of 
Himself:  that  is,  in  accordance  with  His  birth 
the  Father  prompts  His  actions  :  yet  what 
things  soever  the  Father  doeth,  these  the  Son 
also  doeth  in  like  manner  ;  that  is,  He  subsists 
as  nothing  less  than  God,  and  by  the  Father's 
omnipotent  nature  residing  in  Him,  can  do 
all  that  God  the  Father  does.  All  is  uttered 
in  agreement  with  His  unity  of  Spirit  with 
the  Father,  and  the  properties  of  that  nature, 


3  St.  John  xiv.  9.  *  lb    10.  S  lb.  x.  ag. 

6  lb.  30.  7  lb.  v.  22,  23.  8  lb.  xiv.  11  ;  cf.  x.  38. 

9  lb.  xiv.  28.  '  lb.  v.  10. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK  XI. 


207 


which  He  possesses  by  virtue  of  His  birth. 
That  birth,  which  brought  Him  into  being, 
constituted  Him  divine,  and  His  being  reveals 
the  consciousness  of  that  divine  nature.  God 
the  Son  confesses  God  His  Father,  because 
He  was  born  of  Him  ;  but  also,  because  He 
was  born,  He  inherits  the  whole  nature  of  God. 

13.  So  the  Dispensation  of  the  great  and 
godly  mystery  makes  Him,  Who  was  already 
Father  of  the  divine  Son,  also  His  Lord  in  the 
created  form  which  He  assumed,  for  He,  Who 
was  in  the  form  of  God,  was  found  also  in 
the  form  of  a  servant.  Yet  He  was  not  a 
servant,  for  according  to  the  Spirit  He  was 
God  the  Son  of  God.  Every  one  will  agree 
also  that  there  is  no  servant  where  there  is 
no  lord.  God  is  indeed  Father  in  the  Gen- 
eration of  the  Only-begotten  God,  but  only 
in  the  case  that  the  Other  is  a  servant  can 
we  call  Him  Lord  as  well  as  Father.  The 
Son  was  not  at  the  first  a  servant  by  nature, 
but  afterwards  began  to  be  by  nature  some- 
thing which  He  was  not  before.  Thus  the 
Father  is  Lord  on  the  same  grounds  as  the 
Son  is  servant.  By  the  Dispensation  of  His 
nature  the  Son  had  a  Lord,  when  He  made 
Himself  a  servant  by  the  assumption  of  man- 
hood. 

14.  Being,  then,  in  the  form  of  a  servant, 
Jesus  Christ,  Who  before  was  in  the  form  of 
God,  said  as  a  man,  /  ascend  to  My  Father 
and  your  Father,  and  My  God  and  your  God. 
He  was  speaking  as  a  servant  to  servants  :  how 
can  we  then  dissociate  the  words  from  Christ 
the  servant,  and  transfer  them  to  that  nature, 
which  had  nothing  of  the  servant  in  it  ?  For 
He  Who  abode  in  the  form  of  God  took  upon 
Him  the  form  of  a  servant,  this  form  being 
the  indispensable  condition  of  His  fellowship 
as  a  servant  with  servants.  It  is  in  this 
sense  that  God  is  His  Father  and  the  Father 
of  men,  His  God  and  the  God  of  servants. 
Jesus  Christ  was  speaking  as  a  man  in  the 
form  of  a  servant  to  men  and  servants;  what 
difficulty  is  there  then  in  the  idea,  that  in  His 
human  aspect  the  Father  is  His  Father  as 
ours,  in  His  servant's  nature  God  is  His  God 
as  all  men's  ? 

15.  These,  then,  are  the  words  with  which 
He  prefaces  the  message,  Go  unto  My  brethren, 
and  say  to  them,  I  ascend  unto  My  Father  and 
your  Father,  and  My  God  and  your  God. 
I  ask,  Are  they  to  be  understood  as  His  bre- 
thren with  reference  to  the  form  of  God  or 
to  the  form  of  a  servant?  And  has  our  flesh 
kinship  with  Him  in  regard  to  the  fulness 
of  the  Godhead  dwelling  in  Him,  that  we 
should  be  reckoned  His  brothers  in  respect 
of  His  divinity?  No,  for  the  Spirit  of  pro- 
phecy recognises   clearly  in  what  respect  we 


are  the  brethren  of  the  Only-begotten  God. 
It  is  as  a  worm  and  no  man2  that  He  says, 
/  will  declare  Thy  name  unto  My  brethren*. 
As  a  worm,  which  is  born  without  the  ordi- 
nary process  of  conception,  or  else  comes  up 
into  the  world,  already  living,  from  the  depths 
of  the  earth,  He  speaks  here  in  manifestation 
of  the  fact  that  He  had  assumed  flesh  and  also 
brought  it  up,  living,  from  Hades.  Throughout 
the  Psalm  He  is  foretelling  by  the  Spirit  of 
prophecy  the  mysteries  of  His  Passion  :  it  is 
therefore  in  respect  of  the  Dispensation,  in 
which  He  suffered,  that  He  has  brethren. 
The  Apostle  also  recognises  the  mystery  of 
this  brotherhood,  for  he  calls  Him  not  only 
the  firstborn  from  the  dead4,  but  also  the  first- 
born among  many  brethren  s,  Christ  is  the 
Firstborn  among  many  brethren  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  He  is  Firstborn  from  the  dead  : 
and  as  the  mystery  of  death  concerns  His 
body,  so  the  mystery  of  brotherhood  also 
refers  to  His  flesh.  Thus  God  has  brethren 
according  to  His  flesh,  for  the  Word  became 
flesh  and  dwelt  amongst  us 6  :  but  the  Only- 
begotten  Son,  unique  as  the  Only-begotten, 
has  no  brethren. 

16.  By  assuming  flesh,  however,  He  acquired 
our  nature  in  our  totality,  and  became  all  that 
we  are,  but  did  not  lose  that  which  He  was 
before.  Both  before  by  His  heavenly  origin, 
and  now  by  His  earthly  constitution,  God  is 
His  Father.  By  His  earthly  constitution  God 
is  His  Father,  since  all  things  are  from  God 
the  Father,  and  God  is  Father  to  all  things, 
since  from  Him  and  in  Him  are  all  things. 
But  to  the  Only-begotten  God,  God  is  Father, 
not  only  because  the  Word  became  flesh ;  His 
Fatherhood  extends  also  to  Him  Who  was, 
as  God  the  Word,  with  God  in  the  beginning. 
Thus,  when  the  Word  became  flesh,  God  was 
His  Father  both  by  the  birth  of  God  the 
Word,  and  by  the  constitution  of  His  flesh  : 
for  God  is  the  Father  of  all  flesh,  though  not 
in  the  same  way  that  He  is  Father  to  God 
the  Word.  But  God  the  Word,  though  He 
did  not  cease  to  be  God,  really  did  become 
flesh  :  and  while  He  thus  dwelt  He  was  still 
truly  the  Word,  just  as  when  the  Word  became 
flesh  He  was  still  truly  God  as-  well  as  man. 
For  to  '  dwell '  can  only  be  said  of  one  who 
abides  in  something  :  and  to  '  become  flesh  ' 
of  one  who  is  born.  He  dwelt  among  us; 
that  is,  He  assumed  our  flesh.  The  Word 
became  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us ;  that  is,  He 
was  God  in  the  reality  of  our  body.  If  Christ 
Jesus,  the  man  according  to  the  flesh,  robbed 
God  the  Word  of  the  divine  nature,  or  was 


3  Ps.  xxii.  6. 
4  Col.  i.  18.  S  Rom.  viii.  29. 


3  lb.  22. 

6  St.  John  i.  14. 


208 


DE   TRINITATE. 


not  according  to  the  mystery  of  godliness  also 
God  the  Word,  then  it  reduces  His  nature 
to  our  level  that  God  is  His  Father,  and  our 
Father,  His  God  and  our  God.  But  if  God 
the  Word,  when  He  became  the  man  Christ 
Jesus,  did  not  cease  to  be  God  the  Word, 
then  God  is  at  the  same  time  His  Father  and 
ours,  His  God  and  ours,  only  in  respect  of 
that  nature,  by  which  the  Word  is  our  brother, 
and  the  message  to  His  brethren,  /  ascend 
unto  My  Father  and  your  Father,  and  My  God 
and  your  God,  is  not  that  of  the  Only-begotten 
God  the  Word,  but  of  the  Word  made  flesh. 

17.   The  Apostle   here    speaks  in  carefully 
guarded   words,    which   by  their   definiteness 
can  give  no  occasion  to  the  ungodly.    We  have 
seen  that  the  Evangelist  makes  the  Lord  use 
the  word  '  Brethren '   in  the   preface   to   the 
message,  thus  signifying  that  the  whole  mes- 
sage, being  addressed  to  His  brethren,  refers 
to  His  fellowship  in  that  nature  which  makes 
Him  their  brother.     Thus  he  makes  manifest 
that  the  mystery  of  godliness,  which  is  here 
proclaimed,  is  no  degradation  of  His  divinity. 
The  community  with  Him,  by  which  God  is 
our  Father  and  His,  our  God  and  His,  exists 
in  regard  to  the  Dispensation  of  the  flesh :  we 
are  counted   His  brethren,   because    He  was 
born    into  the   body.     No  one  disputes  that 
God  the  Father  is  also  the  God  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  but  this  reverent  confession  offers 
no  occasion  for  irreverence.     God  is  His  God, 
but   not  as    possessing   a   different    order   of 
divinity  from    His.     He   was    begotten    God 
of  the  Father,  and  born  a  servant  by  the  Dis- 
pensation :  and  so  God  is  His  Father  because 
He  is  God  of  God,  and  God  is  His  God,  be- 
cause He  is  flesh  of  the  Virgin.     All  this  the 
Apostle   confirms  in   one  short  and  decisive 
sentence,  Making  mention  of  you  in  my  prayers 
that  the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Fa- 
ther of  glory,  may  give  unto  you  a  spirit  of  wis- 
dom and  revelation  ?.    When  he  speaks  of  Him 
as  Jesus  Christ,  he  mentions  His  God :  when 
his  theme  is  the  glory  of  Christ,  he  calls  God 
His  Father.     To  Christ,  as  having  glory,  God 
is  Father:   to  Christ,  as  being  Jesus,  God  is 
God.     For  the  angel,  when  speaking  of  Christ 
the  Lord,  Who  should  be  born  of  Mary,  calls 
Him  by  the  name  'Jesus8:'    but  to  the  pro- 
phets   Christ    the    Lord    is    '  Spirit  °.'     The 
Apostle's  words  in  this  passage  seem  to  many, 
on  account  of  the  Latin,  somewhat  obscure, 
for  Latin  has  no  articles,  which  the  beautiful 
and   logical   usage   of  Greek    employs.     The 

Greek  runs,  6  Qeus  tov  Kvpiov  T]fio>i>  'iquoO  Xpurrov, 

6  nctTTjp  ttjs  8ȣr)s,  which  we  might  translate  into 


7  Eph.  i.  16, 17. 


8  St.  Matt.  i.  21 ;  St.  Luke  i.  31. 
9  i.e.  divine. 


Latin,  if  the  usage  of  the  article  were  per- 
mitted, '  Ille  Deus  illius  Domini  nostri  Jesu 
Christi,  ille  pater  illius  claritatis  '  (The  God 
of  the  Lord  [of  us]  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of 
the  glory).  In  this  form  '  The  God  of  the 
Jesus  Christ,'  and  '  the  Father  of  the  glory,'  the 
sentence  expresses,  so  far  as  we  can  compre- 
hend them,  certain  truths  of  His  nature. 
Where  the  glory  of  Christ  is  concerned,  God 
is  His  Father  ;  where  Christ  is  Jesus,  there 
the  Father  is  His  God.  '  In  the  Dispensation 
by  which  He  is  a  servant,  He  has  as  God 
Him  Whom,  in  the  glory  by  which  He  is  God, 
He  has  as  Father. 

18.  Time  and  the  lapse  of  ages  make  no 
difference  to  a  Spirit x.  Christ  is  one  and 
the  same  Christ,  whether  in  the  body,  or 
abiding  by  the  Spirit  in  the  prophets.  Speak- 
ing through  the  mouth  of  the  holy  Patriarch 
David,  He  says,  Thy  God,  O  God,  hath 
anointed  Thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above 
Thy  fellows'2,  which  refers  to  no  less  a  mys- 
tery than  the  Dispensation  of  His  assumption 
of  flesh.  He,  Who  now  sends  the  message  to 
His  brethren  that  their  Father  is  His  Father, 
and  their  God  His  God,  announced  Himself 
then  as  anointed  by  His  God  above  His 
fellows.  No  one  is  fellow  to  the  Only-begotten 
Christ,  God  the  Word :  but  we  know  that  we 
are  His  fellows  by  the  assumption  which  made 
Him  flesh.  That  anointing  did  not  exalt  the 
blessed  and  incorruptible  Begotten  Who 
abides  in  the  nature  of  God,  but  it  established 
the  mystery  of  His  body,  and  sanctified  the 
manhood  which  He  assumed.  To  this  the 
Apostle  Peter  witnesses,  Of  a  truth  in  this 
city  were  they  gathered  together  against  Thy 
holy  Son  Jesus,  Whom  Thou  didst  anoint*: 
and  on  another  occasion,  Ye  know  that  the 
saying  was  published  through  all  Judcea,  begin- 
ning from  Galilee,  after  the  baptism  which  fohn 
preached  :  even  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  how  that  God 
anointed  Him  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
power*.  Jesus  was  anointed,  therefore,  that 
the  mystery  of  the  regeneration  of  flesh  might 
be  accomplished.  Nor  are  we  left  in  doubt 
how  He  was  thus  anointed  with  the  Spirit 
of  God  and  with  power,  when  we  listen  to  the 
Father's  voice,  as  it  spoke  when  He  came  up 
out  of  the  Jordan,  Thou  art  My  Son,  this  day 
have  I  begotten  Thee*.  Thus  is  testified  the 
sanctification  of  His  flesh,  and  in  this  testi- 
mony we  must  recognise  His  anointing  with 
the  power  of  the  Spirit. 

1  By  '  Spirit '  Hilary  means  God  considered  as  a  spiritual 
(as  opposed  to  a  material)  Being :  cf.  in  the  previous  chapter, 
"to  the  prophets  Christ  the  Lord  is  '  Spirit.'" 

2  Ps.  xlv.  7.  3  Acts  iv.  27.  4  lb.  x.  37,  38. 

5  Ps.  ii.  7.  The  last  words  occur  neither  in  St.  Matt.  (iii.  17X 
nor  St.  Murk  (i.  11),  nor  St.  Luke  (iii.  22)  :  but  there  is  evidence 
of  the  existence  of  such  a  reading.  See  Teschendorf,  Nov.  Test. 
Grcec,  on  St.  Matt.  iii.  17,  and  St.  Luke  iii.  23. 


ON    THE    TRINITY.  —  BOOK    XI. 


209 


19.  But  the  Word  was  God,  and  with  God 
in  the  beginning,  and  therefore  the  anointing 
could  neither  be  related  nor  explained,  if  it 
referred  to  that  nature,  of  which  we  are  told 
nothing,  except  that  it  was  in  the  beginning. 
And  in  fact  He  Who  was  God  had  no  need  to 
anoint  Himself  with  the  Spirit  and  power 
of  God,  when  He  was  Himself  the  Spirit  and 
power  of  God.  So  He,  being  God,  was 
anointed  by  His  God  above  His  fellows.  And, 
although  there  were  many  Christs  (i.e.  anointed 
persons)  according  to  the  Law  before  the  Dis- 
pensation of  the  flesh,  yet  Christ,  Who  was 
anointed  above  His  fellows,  came  after  them, 
for  He  was  preferred  above  His  anointed 
fellows.  Accordingly,  the  words  of  the  pro- 
phecy bring  out  the  fact  that  the  anointing 
took  place  in  time,  and  comparatively  late  in 
time.  Thou  hast  loved  righteousness  and 
hated  iniquity :  therefore  Thy  God,  O  God, 
hath  anointed  Thee  tvith  the  oil  of  glad- 
ness above  Thy  fellows.  Now,  a  fact  which 
follows  later  upon  other  facts,  cannot  be 
dated  before  them.  That  a  reward  be  de- 
served postulates  as  a  prior  condition  the  ex- 
istence of  one  who  can  deserve  it,  for  merit 
earned  implies  that  there  has  been  one 
capable  of  acquiring  it.  If,  therefore,  we 
attribute  the  birth  of  the  Only-begotten  God 
to  this  anointing,  which  is  His  reward  for 
loving  righteousness  and  hating  iniquity,  we 
shall  be  regarding  Him  not  as  born,  but  as 
promoted  by  unction,  to  be  the  Only-begotten 
God.  But  then  we  imply  that  He  advanced 
with  gradual  progress  and  promotion  to  perfect 
divinity,  and  that  He  was  not  born  God,  but 
afterwards  for  His  merit  anointed  God.  Thus 
we  shall  make  Christ  as  God  Himself  con- 
ditioned, whereas  He  is  the  final  cause  of  all 
conditions  ;  and  what  becomes  then  of  the 
Apostle's  words,  All  things  are  through  Him 
and  in  Him,  and  He  is  before  all,  and  in  Him 
all  things  consist 6  ?  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
was  not  deified  because  of  anything,  or  by 
means  of  anything,  but  was  born  God  :  God 
by  origin,  not  promoted  to  divinity  for  any 
cause  after  His  birth,  but  as  the  Son  ;  and  one 
in  kind  with  God  because  begotten  of  Him. 
His  anointing  then,  though  it  is  the  result 
of  a  cause,  did  not  enhance  that  in  Him, 
which  could  not  be  made  more  perfect.  It 
concerned  that  part  of  Him  which  was  to  be 
made  perfect  through  the  perfection  of  the 
Mystery :  that  is,  our  manhood  was  sanctified 
in  Christ  by  unction.  If  then  the  prophet 
here  also  teaches  us  the  dispensation  of  the 
servant,  for  which  Christ  is  anointed  by  His 
God    above    His    fellows,   and   that   because 


«  Col.  i.  16,  17. 


He  loved  righteousness  and  hated  iniquity, 
then  surely  the  words  of  the  prophet  must  refer 
to  that  nature  in  Christ,  by  which  He  has 
fellows  through  His  assumption  of  flesh.  Can 
we  doubt  this  when  we  note  how  carefully 
the  Spirit  of  prophecy  chooses  His  words  ? 
God  is  anointed  by  His  God ;  that  is,  in  His 
own  nature  He  is  God,  but  in  the  dispensation 
of  the  anointing  God  is  His  God.  God  is 
anointed  :  but  tell  me,  is  that  Word  anointed, 
Who  was  God  in  the  beginning  ?  Mani- 
festly not,  for  the  anointing  comes  after  His 
divine  birth.  It  was  then  not  the  begotten 
Word,  God  with  God  in  the  beginning,  Who 
was  anointed,  but  that  nature  in  God  which 
came  to  Him  through  the  dispensation  later 
than  His  divinity  1  :  and  when  His  God 
anointed  Him,  He  anointed  in  Him  the  whole 
nature  of  the  servant,  which  He  assumed  in 
the  mystery  of  His  flesh. 

20.  Let  no  one  then  defile  with  his  godless 
interpretations  the  mystery  of  great  god- 
liness which  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,  or 
reckon  himself  equal  to  the  Only-begotten  in 
respect  of  His  divine  substance.  Let  Him 
be  our  brother  and  our  fellow,  inasmuch  as 
the  Word  made  flesh  dwelt  among  us,  inas- 
much as  the  man  Jesus  Christ  is  Mediator 
between  God  and  man.  Let  Him,  after  the 
manner  of  servants,  have  a  common  Father 
and  a  common  God  with  us,  and  as  anointed 
above  His  fellows,  let  Him  be  of  the  same 
nature  as  His  anointed  fellows,  though  His 
be  an  unction  of  special  privilege.  In  the 
mystery  of  the  Mediatorship  let  Him  be  at 
once  very  man  and  very  God,  Himself  God 
of  God,  but  having  a  common  Father  and 
God  with  us  in  that  community  by  which 
He  is  our  brother. 

21.  But  perhaps  that  subjection,  that  de- 
livering of  the  kingdom,  and  lastly  that  end 
betoken  the  dissolution  of  His  nature,  or  the 
loss  of  His  power,  or  the  enfeebling  of  His 
divinity.  Many  argue  thus  :  Christ  is  included 
in  the  common  subjection  of  all  to  God,  and 
by  the  condition  of  subjection  loses  His 
divinity  :  He  surrenders  His  Kingdom,  there- 
fore He  is  no  longer  King  :  the  end  which 
overtakes  Him  entails  as  its  consequence  the 
loss  of  His  power. 

22.  It  will  not  be  out  of  place  here  if  we 
review  the  full  meaning  of  the  Apostle's  teach- 
ing upon  this  subject.  Let  us  take,  then,  each 
single  sentence  and  expound  it,  that  we  may 
grasp  the  entire  Mystery  by  comprehending  it 
in  its  fulness.  The  words  of  the  Apostle  are, 
For  since  by  man  came  death,  by  man  came 


7  Reading  'quam'  instead  of  qua. 


VOL.  IX. 


2IO 


DE   TRINITATE. 


also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  For  as  in 
Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  are  all  made 
alive.  But  each  in  his  own  order :  Christ  the 
firs /fruits,  then  they  that  are  Christ's  at  His 
coming.  Then  cometh  the  end,  when  He  shall 
have  delivered  the  Kingdom  to  God,  even  the 
Father,  when  He  shall  have  em/tied  all  autho- 
rity and  all  power.  For  He  must  reign  ten  til 
He  put  all  enemies  under  His  feet.  The  last 
enemy  that  shall  be  conquered  is  death.  But  when 
He  saith,  All  things  are  put  in  subjection,  He 
is  excepted  Who  did  subject  all  things  unto  Him. 
But  when  all  things  have  been  subjected  to  Him, 
then  shall  He  also  Himself  be  subjected  to  Him, 
that  did  subject  all  things  unto  Him,  that  God 
may  be  all  in  all 8. 

23.  The  Apostle  who  was  chosen  not  of 
men  nor  through  man,  but  through  Jesus 
Christ,  to  be  the  teacher  of  the  Gentiles  9, 
expounds  in  language  as  express  as  he  can 
command  the  secrets  of  the  heavenly  Dis- 
pensations. He  who  had  been  caught  up  into 
the  third  heaven  and  had  heard  unspeakable 
words1,  reveals  to  the  perception  of"  human 
understanding  as  much  as  human  nature  can 
receive.  But  he  does  not  forget  that  there 
are  things  which  cannot  be  understood  in  the 
moment  of  hearing.  The  infirmity  of  man 
needs  time  to  review  before  the  true  and  per- 
fect tribunal  of  the  mind,  that  which  is  poured 
indiscriminately  into  the  ears.  Comprehension 
follows  the  spoken  words  more  slowly  than 
hearing,  for  it  is  the  ear  which  hears,  but  the 
reason  which  understands,  though  it  is  God 
Who  reveals  the  inner  meaning  to  those 
who  seek  it.  We  learn  this  from  the  words 
written  among  many  other  exhortations  to 
Timothy,  the  disciple  instructed  from  a  babe 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  the  glorious  faith  of 
his  grandmother  and  mother2:  Understand 
what  J  say,  for  the  Lord  shall  give  thee  under- 
standing in  all  things  3.  The  exhortation  to 
understand  is  prompted  by  the  difficulty  of 
understanding.  But  God's  gift  of  understand- 
ing is  the  reward  of  faith,  for  through  faith 
the  infirmity  of  sense  is  recompensed  with  the 
gift  of  revelation.  Timothy,  that  '  man  of 
God '  as  the  Apostle  witnesses  of  him  4,  Paul's 
true  child  in  the  faith  5,  is  exhorted  to  under- 
stand because  the  Lord  will  give  him  under- 
standing in  all  things  :  let  us,  therefore,  know- 
ing that  the  Lord  will  grant  us  understanding 
in  all  things,  remember  that  the  Apostle  ex- 
horts us  also  to  understand. 

24.  And  if,  by  an  error  incident  to  human 
nature,  we  be  clinging  to  some  preconception 


8  1  Cor.  xv.  21— 28.  9  Cf.  Gal.  i.  i. 

'  Cf.  2  Cor.  xii.  2,  4.  a  Cf.  2  Tim.  i.  5  ;  iii.  15. 

3  2  Tim.  ii.  7.  4  1  Tim.  vi.  11.  5  lb.  i.  2. 


of  our  own,  let  us  not  reject  the  advance  in 
knowledge  through  the  gift  of  revelation.  If  we 
have  hitherto  used  only  our  own  judgment, 
let  that  not  make  us  ashamed  to  change  its 
decisions  for  the  better.  Guiding  this  advance 
wisely  and  carefully,  the  same  blessed  Apostle 
writes  to  the  Philippians,  Let  us  therefore  as 
many  as  be  perfect,  be  thus  minded:  and  if  in 
anything  ye  are  otherwise  minded,  this  also 
shall  God  reveal  unto  you.  Only,  wherein  we 
have  hastened,  in  that  same  let  us  walk 6. 
Reason  cannot  anticipate  with  preconceptions 
the  revelation  of  God.  For  the  Apostle  has 
here  shewn  us  wherein  consists  the  wisdom 
of  those  who  have  the  perfect  wisdom,  and  for 
those  who  are  otherwise  minded,  he  awaits  the 
revelation  of  God,  that  they  may  obtain  the 
perfect  wisdom.  If  any,  then,  have  otherwise 
conceived  this  profound  dispensation  of  the 
hidden  knowledge,  and  if  that  which  we  offer 
them  is  in  any  respect  more  right  or  better 
approved,  let  them  not  be  ashamed  to  receive 
the  perfect  wisdom,  as  the  Apostle  advises, 
through  the  revelation  of  God,  and  if  they  hate 
to  abide  in  untruth  let  them  not  love  igno- 
rance more.  If  to  them,  who  had  another 
wisdom,  God  has  revealed  this  also,  the 
Apostle  exhorts  them  to  hasten  on  the  road 
in  which  they  have  started,  to  cast  aside  the 
notions  of  their  former  ignorance,  and  obtain 
the  revelation  of  perfect  understanding  by  the 
path  into  which  they  have  eagerly  entered. 
Let  us,  therefore,  keep  on  in  the  path  along 
which  we  have  hastened  :  or,  if  the  error  of  our 
wandering  steps  has  delayed  our  eager  haste, 
let  us,  notwithstanding,  start  again  through 
the  revelation  of  God  towards  the  goal  of  our 
desire,  and  not  turn  our  feet  from  the  path. 
We  have  hastened  towards  Christ  Jesus  the 
Lord  of  Glory,  the  King  of  the  eternal  ages,  in 
Whom  are  restored  all  things  in  Heaven  and  in 
earth,  by  Whom  all  things  consist,  in  Whom  and 
with  Whom  we  shall  abide  for  ever.  So  long 
as  we  walk  in  this  path  we  have  the  perfect 
wisdom  :  and  if  we  have  another  wisdom,  God 
will  reveal  to  us  what  is  the  perfect  wisdom. 
Let  us,  then,  examine  in  the  light  of  the 
Apostle's  faith  the  mystery  of  the  words  before 
us  :  and  let  our  treatment  be,  as  it  always  has 
been,  a  refutation  from  the  actual  truth  of  the 
Apostle's  confession  of  every  interpretation, 
which  they  would  profanely  foist  upon  his 
words. 

25.  Three  assertions  are  here  disputed, 
which,  in  the  order  in  which  the  Acostle 
makes  them,  are  first  the  end,  then  the  de- 
livering, and  lastly  the  subjection.  The  object 
is  to  prove  that  Christ  ceases  to  exist  at  the 

«  Phil.  iii.  rs,  r6. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    XI. 


21  1 


end,  that  He  loses  His  kingdom,  when  He 
delivers  it  up,  that  He  strips  Himself  of  the 
divine  nature,  when  He  is  subjected  to  God. 

26.  At  the  outset  take  note  that  this  is  not 
the  order  of  the  Apostle's  teaching,  for  in 
that  order  the  surrender  of  the  Kingdom  is 
first,  then  the  subjection,  and  lastly  the  end. 
But  every  cause  is  itself  the  result  of  its  par- 
ticular cause,  so  that,  in  every  chain  of  causa- 
tion, each  cause,  itself  producing  a  result, 
has  inevitably  its  underlying  antecedent. 
Thus  the  end  will  come,  but  when  He  has 
delivered  the  Kingdom  to  God.  He  will  de- 
liver the  Kingdom,  but  when  He  has  abolished 
all  authority  and  power.  He  will  abolish  all 
authority  and  power,  because  He  must  reign. 
He  will  reign  until  He  has  put  all  enemies 
under  His  feet.  He  will  put  all  enemies 
under  His  feet,  because  God  has  subjected 
everything  under  His  feet.  God  has  so  sub- 
jected them  as  to  make  death  the  last  enemy 
to  be  conquered  by  Him.  Then,  when  all 
things  are  subjected  unto  God,  except  Him 
Who  subjected  all  things  unto  Him,  He  too 
will  be  subjected  unto  Him,  Who  subjects  all 
to  Himself.  But  the  cause  of  the  subjection 
is  none  other  than  that  God  may  be  all  in  all ; 
and  therefore  the  end  is  that  God  is  all  in  all. 

27.  Before  going  any  further  we  must  now 
enquire  whether  the  end  is  a  dissolution,  or 
the  delivering  a  forfeiture,  or  the  subjection 
an  enfeebling  of  Christ.  And  if  we  find  that 
these  are  contraries,  which  cannot  be  connected 
as  causes  and  effects,  we  shall  be  able  to 
understand  the  words  in  the  true  sense  in 
which  they  were  spoken. 

28.  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law'' ;  but,  tell 
me,  is  He  come  to  destroy  it  or  to  fulfil  it? 
And  if  Christ,  the  end  of  the  law,  does  not  de- 
stroy it,  but  fulfils  it  (as  He  says,  I  am  come  not 
to  destroy  the  law  but  to  fulfil  it 8),  is  not  the  end 
of  the  law,  so  far  from  being  its  dissolution, 
the  very  opposite,  namely  its  final  perfection  ? 
All  things  are  advancing  towards  an  end,  but 
that  end  is  a  condition  of  rest  in  the  perfection, 
which  is  the  goal  of  their  advance,  and  not 
their  abolition.  Further,  all  things  exist  for 
the  sake  of  the  end,  but  the  end  itself  is  not 
the  means  to  anything  beyond  :  it  is  an  ulti- 
mate, all-embracing  whole,  which  rests  in  itself. 
And  because  it  is  self-contained,  and  works 
for  no  other  time  or  object  than  itself,  the 
goal  is  always  that  to  which  our  hopes  are  di- 
rected. Therefore  the  Lord  exhorts  us  to  wait 
with  patient  and  reverent  faith  until  the  end 
comes  :  Blessed  is  He  that  endureth  to  the  end?. 
It  is  not  a  blessed  dissolution,  which  awaits  us, 


7  Rom.  x.  4.  8  St.  Matt.  v.  17. 

9  St.  Matt.  x.  22  ;  cf.  St.  Mark  xiii.  13. 


nor  is  non-existence  the  fruit,  and  annihilation 
the  appointed  reward  of  faith  :  but  the  end  is 
the  final  attainment  of  the  promised  blessedness, 
and  they  are  blessed  who  endure  until  the 
glial  of  perfect  ha]  pincss  is  reached,  when 
the  expectation  of  faithful  hope  has  no  object 
beyond.  Their  end  is  to  abide  with  unbroken 
rest  in  that  condition,  towards  which  they  are 
pressing.  Similarly,  as  a  deterrent,  the  Apostle 
warns  us  of  the  end  of  the  wicked,  Whose  end 

is  perditio7i, but  our  expectation  is  in 

heaven r.  Suppose  then  we  interpret  the  end 
as  a  dissolution,  we  are  forced  to  acknowledge 
that,  since  there  is  an  end  for  the  blessed  and 
for  the  wicked,  the  issue  levels  the  godly  with 
the  ungodly,  for  the  appointed  end  of  both  is  a 
common  annihilation.  What  of  our  expectation 
in  heaven,  if  for  us  as  well  as  for  the  wicked 
the  end  is  a  cessation  of  being?  But  even  if 
there  remains  for  the  saints  an  expectation, 
whereas  for  the  wicked  there  waits  the  end 
they  have  deserved,  we  cannot  conceive  that 
end  as  a  final  dissolution.  What  punishment 
would  it  be  for  the  wicked  to  be  beyond  the 
feeling  of  avenging  torments,  because  the  capa- 
bility of  suffering  has  been  removed  by  dis- 
solution? The  end  is,  therefore,  a  culminating 
and  irrevocable  condition  which  awaits  us, 
reserved  for  the  blessed  and  prepared  for  the 
wicked. 

29.  We  can  therefore  no  longer  doubt  that 
by  the  end  is  meant  an  ultimate  and  final 
condition  and  not  a  dissolution.  We  shall 
have  something  more  to  say  upon  this  subject, 
when  we  come  to  the  explanation  of  this  pas- 
sage, but  for  the  present  this  is  enough  to 
make  our  meaning  clear.  Let  us,  therefore, 
turn  now  to  the  delivering  of  the  Kingdom, 
and  see  whether  it  means  a  surrender  of  rule, 
whether  the  Son  by  delivering  ceases  to  possess 
that  which  He  delivers  to  the  Father.  If 
this  is  what  the  wicked  contend  in  their  un- 
reasoning infatuation,  they  must  allow  that 
the  Father,  by  delivering,  lost  all,  when  He 
delivered  all  to  the  Son,  if  delivery  implies 
the  surrender  of  that  which  is  delivered.  For 
the  Lord  said,  All  things  have  been  delivered 
unto  Me  of  My  Father2,  and  again,  All  authority 
hath  been  given  unto  Me  in  heaven  and  earth  3. 
If,  therefore,  to  deliver  is  to  yield  possession, 
the  Father  no  longer  possessed  that  which  He 
delivered.  But  if  the  Father  did  not  cease  to 
possess  that  which  He  delivered,  neither  does 
the  Son  surrender  that  which  He  delivers. 
Therefore,  if  He  did  not  lose  by  the  delivering 
that  which  He  delivered,  we  must  recognise 
that  only  the  Dispensation  explains  how  the 

1  Phil.  iii.   19,  20.    The  Greek  paraphrased  '  expectation,'  il 
7ro\tTevjiia,  '  citizenship '  (R.  V.),  or  '  commonwealth '  (marg. ) . 
3  St.  Lukex.  22.  3  St.  Matt,  xxviii.  18. 


P  2 


212 


DE   TRINITATE. 


Father  still  possesses  what  He  delivered,  and 
the  Son  does  not  forfeit  what  He  gave. 

30.  As  to  the  subjection,  there  are  other 
facts  which  come  to  the  help  of  our  faith,  and 
prevent  us  from  putting  an  indignity  on  Christ 
upon  this  score,  but  above  all  this  passage 
contains  its  own  defence.  First,  however,  I 
appeal  to  common  reason  :  is  the  subjection 
still  to  be  understood  as  the  subordination  of 
servitude  to  lordship,  weakness  to  power,  mean- 
ness to  honour,  qualities  the  opposite  of  one 
another  ?  Is  the  Son  in  this  manner  subjected 
to  the  Father  by  the  distinction  of  a  different 
nature?  If,  indeed,  we  would  think  so,  we  shall 
find  in  the  Apostle's  words  a  preventive  for 
such  errors  of  the  imagination.  When  all 
things  are  subjected  to  Him,  says  He,  then 
must  He  be  subjected  to  Him,  Who  subjects 
all  things  to  Himself;  and  by  this  'then'  he 
means  to  denote  the  temporal  Dispensation. 
For  if  we  put  any  other  construction  on  the 
subjection,  Christ,  though  then  to  be  subjected, 
is  not  subjected  now,  and  thus  we  make  Him 
an  insolent  and  impious  rebel,  whom  the  ne- 
cessity of  time,  breaking  as  it  were  and  sub- 
duing His  profane  and  overweening  pride,  will 
reduce  to  a  tardy  obedience.  But  what  does 
He  Himself  say  ?  /  am  not  come  to  do  Mine 
own  will,  but  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  Me  *  : 
and  again,  Therefore  hath  the  Father  loved  Me 
because  I  do  all  things  that  are  pleasing  unto 
Him  ^ :  and,  Father,  Thy  will  be  done6.  Or 
hear  the  Apostle,  He  humbled  Himself,  becom- 
ing obedient  even  unto  death  7.  Although  He 
humbled  Himself,  His  nature  knew  no  humi- 
liation :  though  He  was  obedient,  it  was  a 
voluntary  obedience,  for  He  became  obedient 
by  humbling  Himself.  The  Only-begotten 
God  humbled  Himself,  and  obeyed  His  Father 
even  to  the  death  of  the  Cross  :  but  as  what, 
as  man  or  as  God,  is  He  to  be  subjected  to 
the  Father,  when  all  things  have  been  subjected 
to  Him?  Of  a  truth  this  subjection  is  no 
sign  of  a  fresh  obedience,  but  the  Dispensa- 
tion of  the  Mystery,  for  the  allegiance  is  eternal, 
the  subjection  an  event  within  time.  The 
subjection  is  then  in  its  signification  simply 
a  demonstration  of  the  Mystery. 

31.  What  that  is  must  be  understood  in 
view  of  this  same  hope  of  our  faith.  We  can- 
not be  ignorant  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  rose 
again  from  the  dead,  and  sits  at  the  right  hand 
of  God,  for  we  have  also  the  witness  of  the 
Apostle,  According  to  the  working  of  the  strength 
of  His  might,  which  He  wrought  in  Christ, 
when  He  raised  Him  from  the  dead,  and  made 


4  St.  John  vi.  38.  5  Cf.  ib.  viii.  29. 

6  Cf.   St.   Matt.  xxvi.  39,  42;    St.   Mark  xiv.  36;    St.  Luke 
xxii.  42.  7  Phil.  ii.  8. 


Him  to  sit  at  His  right  hand  in  the  heavenly 
places  above  all  rule  and  authority  and  power 
and  dominion,  and  every  name  that  is  named 
not  only  in  this  world  but  also  in  that  wit  irk 
is  to  come,  and  put  all  things  in  subjection 
under  His  feet3.  The  language  of  the  Apostle, 
as  befits  the  power  of  God,  speaks  of  the  future 
as  already  past  :  for  that  which  is  to  be  wrought 
by  the  completion  of  time  already  exists  in 
Christ,  in  Whom  is  all  fulness,  and  'future' 
refers  only  to  the  temporal  order  of  the  Dis- 
pensation, not  to  a  new  development.  Thus, 
God  has  put  all  things  under  His  feet,  though 
they  are  still  to  be  subjected.  By  their  sub- 
jection, conceived  as  already  past,  is  expressed 
the  immutable  power  of  Christ :  by  their  sub- 
jection, as  future,  is  signified  their  consumma- 
tion at  the  end  of  the  ages  as  the  result  of 
the  fulness  of  time. 

32.  The  meaning  of  the  abolishing  of  every 
power  which  is  against  Him  is  not  ^bscure. 
The  prince  of  the  air,  the  power  of  spiritual 
wickedness,  shall  be  delivered  to  eternal  de- 
struction, as  Christ  says,  Depart  from  Me,  ye 
cursed,  into  the  eternal  fire  which  My  Father 
hath  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels'*. 
The  abolishing  is  not  the  same  as  the  subject- 
ing. To  abolish  the  power  of  the  enemy  is  to 
sweep  away  for  ever  his  prerogative  of  power, 
so  that  by  the  abolition  of  his  power  is  brought 
to  an  end  the  rule  of  his  kingdom.  Of  this 
the  Lord  testifies  when  He  says,  My  kingdom 
is  not  of  this  world1  :  as  He  had  once  before 
testified  that  the  ruler  of  that  kingdom  is  the 
prince  of  the  world,  whose  power  shall  be 
destroyed  by  the  abolition  of  the  rule  of  Flis 
kingdom  2.  A  subjection,  on  the  other  hand, 
which  implies  obedience  and  allegiance,  is  a 
proof  of  submission  and  mutability. 

33.  So  when  their  authority  is  abolished, 
His  enemies  shall  be  subjected :  and  so  sub- 
jected, that  He  shall  subject  them  to  Himself. 
Moreover  He  shall  so  subject  them  to  Himself, 
that  God  shall  subject  them  to  Him.  Was 
the  Apostle  ignorant,  think  you,  of  the  force 
of  these  words  in  the  Gospel,  No  one  cometh 
to  Me,  except  the  Father  draw  Him  to  Me3 
which  stand  side  by  side  with  those  other  words, 
No  07ie  cometh  wito  the  Father  but  by  Me*: 
just  as  in  this  Epistle  Christ  subjects  His 
enemies  to  Himself,  yet  God  subjects  them 
to  Him,  and  He  witnesses  throughout  this, 
his  work  of  subjection,  that  God  is  working 
in  Him?  Except  through  Him  there  is  no 
approach  to  the  Father,  but  there  is  also 
no  approach  to  Him,  unless  the  Father  draw 


9  St.  Matt.  xxv.  41. 


8  Eph.  i.  19  b — 22  a. 

1  St.  John  xviii.  36. 

2  Ib.  xvi.  11.     "  The  prince  of  this  world  hath  been  judged.' 

3  Ib.  vi.  4  t  4  lb.  xiv.  6. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    XI. 


213 


us.  Understanding  Him  to  be  the  Son  of 
God,  we  recognise  in  Him  the  true  nature 
of  the  Father.  Hence,  when  we  learn  to 
know  the  Son,  God  the  Father  calls  us:  when 
we  believe  the  Son,  God  the  Father  receives 
us  ;  for  our  recognition  and  knowledge  of  the 
Father  is  in  the  Son,  Who  shews  us  in  Him- 
self God  the  Father,  Who  draws  us,  if  we  be 
devout,  by  His  fatherly  love  into  a  mutual 
bond  with  His  Son.  So  then  the  Father 
draws  us,  when,  as  the  first  condition,  He 
is  acknowledged  Father  :  but  no  one  comes 
to  the  Father  except  through  the  Son,  be- 
cause we  cannot  know  the  Father,  unless 
faith  in  the  Son  is  active  in  us,  since  we 
cannot  approach  the  Father  in  worship,  un- 
less we  first  adore  the  Son,  while  if  we  know 
the  Son,  the  Father  draws  us  to  eternal  life  and 
receives  us.  But  each  result  is  the  work  of  the 
Son,  for  by  the  preaching  of  the  Father,  Whom 
the  Son  preaches,  the  Father  brings  us  to  the 
Son,  and  the  Son  leads  us  to  the  Father.  The 
statement  of  this  Mystery  was  necessary  for  the 
more  perfect  understanding  of  the  present 
passage,  to  shew  that  through  the  Son  the 
Father  draws  us  and  receives  us ;  that  we 
might  understand  the  two  aspects,  the  Son 
subjecting  all  to  Himself,  and  the  Father  sub- 
jecting all  to  Him.  Through  the  birth  the 
nature  of  God  is  abiding  in  the  Son,  and  does 
that  which  He  Himself  does.  What  He  does 
God  does,  but  what  God  does  in  Him,  He 
Himself  does  :  in  the  sense  that  where  He 
acts  Himself  we  must  believe  the  Son  of  God 
acts ;  and  where  God  acts,  we  must  perceive 
the  properties  of  the  Father's  nature  existing 
in  Him  as  the  Son. 

34.  When  authorities  and  powers  are  abol- 
ished, His  enemies  shall  be  subjected  under 
His   feet.     The   same  Apostle   tells  who  are 
these  enemies,  As  touching  the  Gospel  they  are 
enemies  for  your   sakes,    but   as   touching  the 
election  they  are  beloved  for  the  fathers'1  sake*. 
We  remember  that  they  are  enemies  of  the  cross 
of  Christ ;  let  us  remember  also  that,  because 
they  are  beloved  for  the  fathers'  sake,  they  are 
reserved  for  the  subjection,  as  the  Apostle  says, 
/  would  not,  brethren,  have  you  ignorant  of  this 
mystery,  lest  ye  be  wise  in  your  own  conceits, 
that  a  hardening  in  part  hath  befallen  Israel, 
until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in,  and 
so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved,  even  as  it  is  written, 
There  shall  come  out  of  Sion  a  Deliverer,  and 
shall  turn  away  ungodlitiess  from  facob :  and 
this  is  the  covenant  from  Me  to  them,  when  I 
have  taken  away  their  sins 6.     So  His  enemies 
shall  be  subjected  under  His  feet. 

35.  But  we  must  not  forget  what  follows  the 


S  Rom.  xi.  28. 


6  lb.  25—2;. 


subjection,  namely,  Last  of  all  is  death  conquered 
by  Hinn.  This  victory  over  death  is  nothing 
else  than  the  resurrection  from  the  dead  :  for 
when  the  corruption  of  death  is  stayed,  the 
quickened  and  now  heavenly  nature  is  made 
eternal,  as  it  is  written,  For  this  corruptible 
must  put  on  incorrupt  ion,  and  this  mortal  must 
put  on  immortality.  But  when  this  mortal 
shall  have  put  on  immortality,  then  shall  come 
to  pass  the  saying  that  is  written,  Death  is 
swallowed  up  in  strife.  O  death,  where  is  thy 
sting  ?  O  death,  where  is  thy  strife 8  ?  In  the 
subjection  of  His  enemies  death  is  conquered; 
and,  death  conquered,  life  immortal  follows. 
The  Apostle  tells  us  also  of  the  special  re- 
ward attained  by  this  subjection  which  is  made 
perfect  by  the  subjection  of  belief:  Who  shall 
fashion  anew  the  body  of  our  humiliation,  that 
it  may  be  conformed  to  the  body  of  His  glory, 
according  to  the  works  of  His  potver,  whereby 
He  is  able  to  subject  all  things  to  Himself*). 
There  is  then  another  subjection,  which  con- 
sists in  a  transition  from  one  nature  to  an- 
other, for  our  nature  ceases,  so  far  as  its 
present  character  is  concerned,  and  is  sub- 
jected to  Him,  into  Whose  form  it  passes. 
But  by  'ceasing'  is  implied  not  an  end  of 
being,  but  a  promotion  into  something  higher. 
Thus  our  nature  by  being  merged  into  the 
image  of  the  other  nature  which  it  receives, 
becomes  subjected  through  the  imposition  of 
a  new  form. 

36.  Hence  the  Apostle,  to  make  his  explan- 
ation of  this  Mystery  complete,  after  saying  that 
death  is  the  last  enemy  to  be  conquered,  adds  : 
But  when  He  saith,  All  things  are  put  in  sub- 
jection except  Him,  Who  did  subject  all  things 

to  Him,  then  must  He  be  subjected  to  Him,  that 
did  subject  all  things  to  Him,  that  God  may 
be  all  in  all1.  The  first  step  of  the  Mystery 
is  that  all  things  are  subjected  to  Him : 
then  He  is  subjected  to  Him,  Who  sub- 
jects all  things  to  Himself.  As  we  are  sub- 
jected to  the  glory  of  the  rule  of  His  body, 
so  He  also,  reigning  in  the  glory  of  His  body, 
is  by  the  same  Mystery  in  turn  subjected  to 
Him,  Who  subjects  all  things  to  Himself. 
And  we  are  subjected  to  the  glory  of  His  body, 
that  we  may  share  that  splendour  with  which 
He  reigns  in  the  body,  since  we  shall  be  con- 
formed to  His  body. 

37.  Nor  are  the  Gospels  silent  concerning 
the  glory  of  His  present  reigning  body.  It  is 
written  that  the  Lord  said,  Verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  there  be  some  of  them  that  stand  here,  ivhich 


7  Cf.  1  Cor.  xv.  26. 

8  lb.  S3 — 55.  The  reading  'strife'  instead  of 'victory'  arose 
from  the  confusion  of  veticos  (=  strife)  and  vikos  (=  victory)  in 
the  original  Greek. 

'hil    iii.  21.  '   1  Cor.  xv.  27,  28. 


2I4 


DE   TRINITATE. 


shall  not  taste  of  death  till  they  see  the  Son  of 
Man  coming  in  His  Kingdom.  And  it  came  to 
pass,  after  six  days  Jesus  taketh  with  Him 
Peter  and  James  and  John  His  brother,  and 
bringeth  them  up  into  a  high  mountain  apart. 
And  Jesus  was  transfigured  before  them,  and 
His  face  did  shine  as  the  sun,  and  His  garments 
became  as  snow 2.  Thus  was  shewn  to  the 
Apostles  the  glory  of  the  body  of  Christ  com- 
ing into  His  Kingdom  :  for  in  the  fashion  of 
His  glorious  Transfiguration,  the  Lord  stood 
revealed  in  the  splendour  of  His  reigning  body. 

38.  He  promised  also  to  the  Apostles  the 
participation  in  this  His  glory.  So  shall  it  be 
in  the  end  of  the  world.  The  Son  of  Man  shall 
send  forth  His  angels,  and  they  shall  gather 
together  out  of  His  Kingdom  all  things  that 
cause  stumbling,  and  them  that  do  iniquity,  and 
He  shall  send  them  into  the  furnace  of  fire  : 
there  shall  be  the  iveeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth. 
Then  shall  the  righteous  shine  forth  as  the  sun 
in  the  Kingdom  of  their  Father.  He  that  hath 
ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear  3.  Were  their  natural 
and  bodily  ears  closed  to  the  hearing  of  the 
words,  that  the  Lord  should  need  to  admonish 
them  to  hear?  Yet  the  Lord,  hinting  at  the 
knowledge  of  the  Mystery,  commands  them  to 
listen  to  the  doctrine  of  the  faith.  In  the  end 
of  the  world  all  things  that  cause  stumbling 
shall  be  removed  from  His  Kingdom.  We 
see  the  Lord  then  reigning  in  the  splendour 
of  His  body,  until  the  things  that  cause  stum- 
bling are  removed.  And  we  see  ourselves,  in 
consequence,  conformed  to  the  glory  of  His 
body  in  the  Kingdom  of  the  Father,  shining 
as  with  the  splendour  of  the  sun,  the  splendour 
in  which  He  shewed  the  fashion  of  His  King- 
dom to  the  Apostles,  when  He  was  transfigured 
on  the  mountain. 

39.  He  shall  deliver  the  Kingdom  to  God 
the  Father,  not  in  the  sense  that  He  resigns 
His  power  by  the  delivering,  but  that  we,  being 
conformed  to  the  glory  of  His  body,  shall  form 
the  Kingdom  of  God.  It  is  not  said,  He  shall 
deliver  up  His  Kingdom,  but,  He  shall  deliver 
up  the  Kingdom  *,  that  is,  deliver  up  to  God 
us  who  have  been  made  the  Kingdom  by  the 
glorifying  of  His  body.  He  shall  deliver  us 
into  the  Kingdom,  as  it  is  said  in  the  Gospel, 
Come,  ye  blessed  of  My  Father,  inherit  the 
Kingdom  prepared  for  you  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world s.  The  just  shall  shine  like  the 
sun  in  the  Kingdom  of  their  Father,  and  the 
Son  shall  deliver  to  the  Father,  as  His  King- 
dom, those  whom  He  has  called  into  His 
Kingdom,  to  whom  also  He  has  promised  the 
blessedness  of  this  Mystery,  Blessed  are  the 


St.  Matt.  xvi.  a8— xvii.  a. 
•*  1  Cor.  xv.  24. 


3  lb.  xiii.  40 — 43. 
5  St.  Matt.  xxv.  34. 


pure  in  heart,  for  they  shall  see  God6.  While 
He  reigns,  He  shall  remove  all  things  that 
cause  stumbling,  and  then  the  just  shall  shine  as 
the  sun  in  the  Kingdom  of  the  Father.  After- 
wards He  shall  deliver  the  Kingdom  to  the 
Father,  and  those  whom  He  has  handed  to  the 
Father,  as  the  Kingdom,  shall  see  God.  He 
Himself  witnesses  to  the  Apostles  what  manner 
of  Kingdom  this  is :  The  Kingdom  of  God  is 
within  you  7.  Thus  it  is  as  King  that  He  shall 
deliver  up  the  Kingdom,  and  if  any  ask  Who  it 
is  that  delivers  up  the  Kingdom,  let  him  hear, 
Christ  is  risen  from  the  dead,  the  firstfruits  op 
them  that  sleep;  since  by  man  came  death,  by 
man  came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead*. 
All  that  is  said  on  the  point  before  us  concerns 
the  Mystery  of  the  body,  since  Christ  is  the 
firstfruits  of  the  dead.  Let  us  gather  also  from 
the  words  of  the  Apostle  by  what  Mystery 
Christ  rose  from  the  dead :  Remember  that 
Christ  hath  risen  from  the  dead,  of  the  seed  of 
David?.  Here  he  teaches  that  the  death  and 
resurrection  are  due  only  to  the  Dispensation 
by  which  Christ  was  flesh. 

40.  In  His  body,  the  same  body  though 
now  made  glorious,  He  reigns  until  the  au- 
thorities are  abolished,  death  conquered,  and 
His  enemies  subdued.  This  distinction  is 
carefully  preserved  by  the  Apostle  :  the  au- 
thorities and  powers  are  abolished,  the  enemies 
are  subjected''.  Then,  when  they  are  subjected, 
He,  that  is  the  Lord,  shall  be  subjected  to 
Him  that  subjecteth  all  things  to  Himself, 
that  God  may  be  all  in  all 2,  the  nature  of  the 
Father's  divinity  imposing  itself  upon  the  na- 
ture of  our  body  which  was  assumed.  It  is 
thus  that  God  shall  be  all  in  all  :  according 
to  the  Dispensation  He  becomes  by  His  God- 
head and  His  manhood  the  Mediator  between 
men  and  God,  and  so  by  the  Dispensation 
He  acquires  the  nature  of  flesh,  and  by  the 
subjection  shall  obtain  the  nature  of  God  in 
all  things,  so  as  to  be  God  not  in  part,  but 
wholly  and  entirely.  The  end  of  the  subjection 
is  then  simply  that  God  may  be  all  in  all, 
that  no  trace  of  the  nature  of  His  earthly 
body  may  remain  in  Him.  Although  before 
this  time  the  two  were  combined  within  Him, 
He  must  now  become  God  only ;  not,  however, 
by  casting  off  the  body,  but  by  translating  it 
through  subjection;  not  by  losing  it  through 
dissolution,  but  by  transfiguring  it  in  glory  : 
adding  humanity  to  His  divinity,  not  divesting 
Himself  of  divinity  by  His  humanity.  And 
He  is  subjected,  not  that  He  may  cease  to  be, 
but  that  God  may  be  all  in  all,  having,  in  the 
mystery  of  the  subjection,  to  continue  to  be 


6  St.  Matt.  v.  8.        1  St.  Luke  xvii.  ab         •  *  Cor.  xv.  20,  si. 
9  2  Tim.  ii.  8.  *  1  C«r.  xv.  34,  25.  a  lb.  «8. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK  XI. 


215 


that  which  He  no  longer  is  3,  not  having  by 
dissolution  to  be  robbed  of  Himself,  that  is, 
to  be  deprived  of  His  being. 

41.  We  have  a  sufficient  ami  sacred  guarantee 
for  this  belief  in  the  authority  of  the  Apostle. 
Through  the  Dispensation,  and  within  time, 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  firstfruits  of  them 
that  sleep,  is  to  be  subjected,  that  God  may 
be  all  in  all,  and  this  subjection  is  not  the 
debasement  of  His  divinity,  but  the  promotion 
of  His  assumed  nature,  for  He  Who  is  God  and 
Man  is  now  altogether  God.  But  some  may 
think  that,  when  we  say  He  was  both  glorified 
in  the  body  whilst  reigning  in  the  body,  and 
is  hereafter  to  be  subjected  that  God  may  be 
all  in  all,  our  belief  finds  no  support  for  itself 
in  the  Gospels  nor  yet  in  the  Epistles.  We 
will,  therefore,  produce  testimony  of  our  faith, 
not  only  from  the  words  of  the  Apostle,  but 
also  from  our  Lord's  mouth.  We  will  shew 
that  Christ  said  first  with  His  own  lips  what 
He  afterwards  said  by  the  mouth  of  Paul. 

42.  Does  He  not  reveal  to  His  Apostles 
the  Dispensation  of  this  glory  by  the  express 
signification  of  the  words,  Now  is  the  Son  of 
Man  glorified,  and  God  is  glorified  in  Him. 
If  God  hath  been  glorified  in  Him,  God  hath 
glorified  Him  in  Himself  and  straightway  hath 
He  glorified  Him  4.  In  the  words,  Now  is  the 
Son  of  Man  honoured,  and  God  is  honoured  in 
Him,  we  have  first  the  glory  of  the  Son  of 
Man,  then  the  glory  of  God  in  the  Son  of 
Man.  So  there  is  first  signified  the  glory  of 
the  body,  which  it  borrows  from  its  association 
with  the  divine  nature  :  and  then  follows  the 
promotion  to  a  fuller  glory  derived  from  an 
addition  to  the  glory  of  the  body.  If  God 
hath  been  honoured  in  Him,  God  hath  honoured 
Him  in  Himself,  and  straightivay  hath  God 
honoured  Him.  God  has  glorified  Him  in 
Himself,  because  He  has  already  been  glori- 
fied in  Him.  God  was  glorified  in  Him  :  this 
refers  to  the  glory  of  the  body,  for  by  this 
glory  is  expressed  in  a  human  body  the  glory 
of  God,  in  the  glory  of  the  Son  of  Man  is  seen 
the  divine  glory.  God  was  glorified  in  Him, 
and  therefore  hath  God  glorified  Him  in  Him- 
self: that  is,  by  His  promotion  to  the  God- 
head, whose  glory  was  increased  in  Him,  God 
has  glorified  Him  in  Himself.  Already  before 
this  He  was  reigning  in  the  glory  which  springs 
from  the  divine  glory :  from  henceforth,  how- 
ever, He  is  Himselt  to  pass  into  the  divine 
glory.      God  hath  glorified  Him  in  Himself: 

3  The  humanity  is  eternal,  although  He  is  no  longer  man. 

4  St.  John  xiii.  31,  32.  There  is  another  reading  in  the  text 
of  Hilary,  glorificabit,  "shall  glorify  Him  in  Himself,"  and 
though  it  is  not  well  supported  by  MS.  authority,  and  in  ix.  40 
all  the  MSS.  agree  in  the  perfect  honorificavit,  the  future  is 
favoured  by  the  last  two  sentences  of  this  chapter.  The  variation 
between  honoured  and  glorified  shews  the  confusion  of  texts 
which  preceded  the  Vulgate  and  caused  it  to  b;  welcomed. 


that  is,  in  that  nature  by  which  God  is  what 
He  is.  That  God  may  be  all  in  all :  that  His 
whole  being,  leaving  behind  the  Dispensation 
by  which  He  is  man,  may  be  eternally  trans- 
formed into  divinity.  Nor  is  the  time  of  this 
hidden  from  us  :  And  God  hath  glorified  Him 
in  Himself,  and  straightivay  hath  He  glorified 
Him.  At  the  moment  when  Judas  arose  to 
betray  Him,  He  signified  as  present  the  glory 
which  He  would  obtain  after  His  Passion 
through  the  Resurrection,  but  assigned  to  the 
future  the  glory  with  which  God  would  glorify 
Him  with  Himself.  The  glory  of  God  is  seen 
in  Him  in  the  power  of  the  Resurrection,  but 
He  Himself,  out  of  the  Dispensation  of  sub- 
jection, will  be  taken  eternally  into  the  glory 
of  God,  that  is,  into  God,  the  all  in  all. 

43.  But  what  absurd  folly  is  it  of  the 
heretics  to  regard  as  unattainable  for  God 
that  goal  to  which  man  hopes  to  attain,  to 
imply  that  He  is  powerless  to  effect  in  Himself 
that  which  He  is  mighty  to  effect  in  us.  It  is 
not  the  language  of  reason  or  common  sense 
to  say  that  God  is  bound  by  some  necessity  of 
His  nature  to  consult  our  happiness,  but  can- 
not bestow  the  like  blessings  upon  Himself. 
God  does  not,  indeed,  need  any  further  bles- 
sedness, for  His  nature  and  power  stand  fast 
in  their  eternal  perfection.  But  although  in 
the  Dispensation,  that  mystery  of  great  god- 
liness, He  Who  is  God  became  man,  He  is 
not  powerless  to  make  Himself  again  entirely 
God,  for  without  doubt  He  will  transform  us 
also  into  that  which  as  yet  we  are  not.  The  final 
sequel  of  man's  life  and  death  is  the  resur- 
rection :  the  assured  reward  of  our  warfare  is 
immortality  and  incorruption,  not  the  cease- 
less persistence  of  everlasting  punishment,  but 
the  unbroken  enjoyment  and  happiness  of 
eternal  glory.  These  bodies  of  earthly  origin 
shall  be  exalted  to  the  fashion  of  a  higher 
nature,  and  conformed  to  the  glory  of  the 
Lord's  body.  But  what  then  of  God  found  in 
the  form  of  a  servant  ?  Though  already,  while 
still  in  the  form  of  a  servant,  glorified  in  the 
body,  shall  He  not  be  also  conformed  to  God? 
Shall  He  bestow  upon  us  the  form  of  His 
glorified  body,  and  yet  be  able  to  do  for  His  own 
body  nothing  more  than  He  does  for  Himself 
in  common  with  us  ?  For  the  most  part  the 
heretics  interpret  the  words,  Then  shall  He  be 
subjected  to  Him  that  did  subject  all  things  to 
Himself,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all,  as  if  they 
meant  that  the  Son  is  to  be  subjected  to  God 
the  Father,  in  order  that  by  the  subjection  of 
the  Son,  God  the  Father  may  be  all  in  all. 
But  is  there  still  lacking  in  God  some  per- 
fection which  He  is  to  obtain  by  the  subjec- 
tion of  the  Son  ?  Can  they  believe  that  God 
does  not  already  possess  that  final  accession 


2l6 


DE   TRINITATE. 


of  blessed  divinity,  because  it  is  said  that  by 
the  coming  of  the  fulness  of  time  He  shall  be 
made  all  in  all  ? 

44.  To  me,  who  hold  that  God  cannot  be 
known  except  by  devotion,  even  to  answer 
such  objections  seems  no  less  unholy  than  to 
support  them.  What  presumption  to  suppose 
that  words  can  adequately  describe  His  nature, 
when  thought  is  often  too  deep  for  words,  and 
His  nature  transcends  even  the  conceptions  of 
thought !  What  blasphemy  even  to  discuss 
whether  anything  is  lacking  in  God,  whether 
He  is  Himself  full,  or  it  remains  for  Him  to  be 
fuller  than  His  fulness  !  If  God,  Who  is  Him- 
self the  source  of  His  own  eternal  divinity, 
were  capable  of  progress,  that  He  should  be 
greater  to-day  than  yesterday,  He  could  never 
reach  the  time  when  nothing  would  be  want- 
ing to  Him,  for  the  nature  to  which  advance 
is  still  possible  must  always  in  its  progress 
leave  some  ground  ahead  still  untrodden : 
if  it  be  subject  to  the  law  of  progress,  though 
always  progressing  it  must  always  be  sus- 
ceptible of  further  progress.  But  to  Him, 
Who  abides  in  perfect  fulness,  Who  for  ever 
is,  there  is  no  fulness  left  by  which  He  can 
be  made  more  full,  for  perfect  fulness  cannot 
receive  an  accession  of  further  fulness.  And 
this  is  the  attitude  of  thought  in  which  rev- 
erence contemplates  God,  namely,  that  no- 
thing is  wanting  to  Him,  that  He  is  full. 

45.  But  the  Apostle  does  not  neglect  to 
say  with  what  manner  of  confession  we  should 
bear  witness  of  God.  O  the  depth  of  the  riches 
both  of  the  wisdom  and  of  the  knowledge  of  God! 
How  unsearchable  are  His  judgments,  and  His 
ways  past  tracing-  out !  For  who  hath  known 
the  mind  of  the  Lord?  Or  who  hath  been  His 
counsellor?  Or  who  hath  first  given  to  Him, 
and  it  shall  be  recompensed  unto  him  ?  For 
of  Hi?n,  and  through  Him,  and  in  Him  are 
all  things.  To  Him  be  the  glory  for  ever  and 
ever  s.  No  earthly  mind  can  define  God,  no 
understanding  can  penetrate  with  its  perception 
to  sound  the  depth  of  His  wisdom.  His  judg- 
ments defy  the  searching  scrutiny  of  His 
creatures  :  the  trackless  paths  of  His  know- 
ledge baffle  the  zeal  of  all  pursuers.  His  ways 
are  plunged  in  the  depths  of  incomprehensi- 
bility :  nothing  can  be  fathomed  or  traced  to 
the  end  in  the  things  of  God.  No  one  has  ever 
been  taught  to  know  His  mind,  no  one  besides 
Himself  ever  permitted  to  share  His  counsel. 
But  all  this  applies  to  us  men  only,  and  not 
to  Him,  through  Whom  are  all  things,  the 
Angel  of  mighty  Counsel6,  Who  said,  No  one 
knoweth  the  Son  save  the  Father :  neither  doth 
any  one  know  the  Father  save  the  Son,  and  him 

5  Rom.  xi.  33 — 36. 

6  Isai.  ix.  0  in  the  LXX.  and  Old  Latin. 


to  whom  the  Son  hath  willed  to  reveal  Him1. 
It  is  to  curb  our  own  feeble  intellect,  when 
it  strains  itself  to  fathom  the  depth  of  the 
divine  nature  with  its  descriptions  and  defini- 
tions, that  we  must  re-echo  the  language  of 
the  Apostle's  exclamation,  lest  we  should  at- 
tempt by  rash  conjecture  to  snatch  from  God 
more  than  He  has  been  pleased  to  reveal  to 
us. 

46.  It  is  a  recognised  axiom  of  natural 
philosophy,  that  nothing  falls  within  the  scope 
of  the  senses  unless  it  is  subjected  to  their 
observation,  as  for  instance  an  object  placed 
before  the  eyes,  or  an  event  posterior  to  the 
birth  of  human  sense  and  intelligence.  The 
former  we  can  see  and  handle,  and  therefore 
the  mind  is  qualified  to  pass  a  verdict  upon 
it,  since  it  can  be  examined  by  the  senses  of 
touch  and  sight.  The  latter,  which  is  an  event 
in  time,  produced  or  constituted  since  the 
origin  of  man,  falls  within  the  limits  in 
which  the  discerning  sense  may  claim  to  pass 
judgment,  since  it  is  not  prior  in  time  to  our 
perception  and  reason.  For  our  sight  cannot 
perceive  the  invisible,  since  it  only  distinguishes 
the  seen  ;  our  reason  cannot  project  itself  into 
the  time  when  it  was  not,  because  it  can  only 
judge  of  that,  to  which  it  is  prior  in  time. 
And  even  within  these  limits,  the  infirmity 
which  is  bound  up  with  its  nature  robs  it  of 
absolutely  certain  knowledge  of  the  sequence 
of  cause  and  effect.  How  much  less  then 
can  it  go  back  behind  the  time  when  it  had 
its  origin,  and  comprehend  with  its  perception 
things  which  existed  before  it  in  the  realms 
of  eternity  ? 

47.  The  Apostle  then  recognised  that  no- 
thing can  fall  within  our  knowledge,  except 
it  be  posterior  in  time  to  the  faculty  of  sense. 
Accordingly  when  he  had  asserted  the  depth 
of  the  wisdom  of  God,  the  infinity  of  His 
inscrutable  judgments,  the  secret  of  His  un- 
searchable ways,  the  mystery  of  His  unfathom- 
able mind,  the  incomprehensibility  of  His  un- 
communicated  counsel,  he  continued,  For  who 
hath  first  given  to  Him,  and  it  shall  be  recom- 
pensed unto  him  again  ?  For  of  Him,  and 
through  Him,  and  in  Him  are  all  things.  The 
eternal  God  is  neither  subject  to  limitation, 
nor  did  human  reason  and  intelligence  exercise 
their  functions  before  He  had  His  being.  His 
whole  being  is  therefore  a  depth,  which  we 
can  neither  examine  nor  penetrate.  We  say 
His  whole  being,  not  to  define  it  as  limited, 
but  to  understand  it  in  its  unlimited  bound- 
lessness :  because  of  no  one  has  He  received 
His  being,  no  antecedent  giver  can  claim  ser- 
vice from  Him  in  return  for  a  gift  bestowed  :  for 


7  St.  Matt.  xi.  27. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    XL 


217 


of  Him  and  through  Him  and  in  Him  are  all 
things.  He  does  not  lack  tilings  that  are  of  Him 
and  through  Him  and  in  Him.  The  Source 
and  Maker  of  all,  Who  contains  all,  Who  is 
beyond  all,  does  not  need  that  which  is  within 
Him,  the  Creator  His  creatures,  the  Possessor 
His  possessions.  Nothing  is  prior  to  Him, 
nothing  derived  from  any  other  than  Him, 
nothing  beyond  Him.  What  element  of  ful- 
ness is  still  lacking  in  God,  which  time  will  sup- 
ply to  make  Him  all  in  all?  Whence  can  He 
receive  it,  if  outside  Him  is  nothing,  and  while 
nothing  is  outside  Him,  He  is  eternally  Him- 
self? And  if  He  is  eternally  Himself,  and  there 
is  nothing  outside  Him,  with  what  increase 
shall  He  be  made  full,  by  what  addition  shall 
He  be  made  other  than  He  is?  Did  He  not 
say,  I  am  and  I  change  not8?  What  possi- 
bility is  there  of  change  in  Him?  What  scope 
for  progress?  What  is  prior  to  eternity?  What 
more  divine  than  God?  The  subjection  of  the 
Son  will  not  therefore  make  God  to  be  all 
in  all,  nor  will  any  cause  perfect  Him,  from 
Whom  and  through  Whom  and  in  Whom  are 
all  causes.  He  remains  God  as  He  ever  was, 
and  He  needs  nothing  further,  for  what  He 
is,  He  is  eternally  of  Himself  and  for  Himself. 
48.  But  neither  is  it  necessary  for  the  Only- 
begotten  God  that  He  should  change.  He 
is  God,  and  that  is  the  name  of  full  and  per- 
fect divinity.  For,  as  we  said  before,  the 
meaning  of  the  repeated  glorifying,  and  the 
cause  of  the  subjection  is  that  God  may  be 
all  in  all :  but  it  is  a  Mystery,  not  a  necessity, 
that  God  is  to  be  all  in  all.  Christ  abode  in 
the  form  of  God  when  He  assumed  the  form 
of  a  servant,  not  being  subjected  to  change, 
but  emptying  Himself;  hiding  within  Himself, 
and  remaining  master  of  Himself  though 
He  was  emptied.  He  constrained  Himself 
even  to  the  form  and  fashion  of  a  man,  lest 
the  weakness  of  the  assumed  humility  should 
not  be  able  to  endure  the  immeasurable  power 
of  His  nature.  His  unbounded  might  con- 
tracted itself,  until  it  could  fulfil  the  duty  of 
obedience  even  to  the  endurance  of  the  body 
to  which  it  was  yoked.  But  since  He  was  self- 
contained  even  when  He  emptied  Himself, 
His  authority  suffered  no   diminution,  for  in 

8  Mai.  iii.  6. 


the  humiliation  of  the  emptying  He  exercised 
within  Himself  the  power  of  that  authority 
which  was  emptied. 

49.  It  is  therefore  for  the  promotion  of  us, 
the  assumed  humanity,  that  God  shall  be  all 
in  all.  He  Who  was  found  in  the  form  of 
a  servant,  though  He  was  in  the  form  of  God, 
is  now  again  to  be  confessed  in  the  glory  of 
God  the  Father  :  that  is,  without  doubt  He 
dwells  in  the  form  of  God,  in  Whose  glory 
He  is  to  be  confessed.  All  is  therefore  a 
dispensation  only,  and  not  a  change  of  His 
nature ;  for  He  abides  still  in  Him,  in  Whom 
He  ever  was.  But  there  intervenes  a  new 
nature,  which  began  in  Him  with  His  human 
birth,  and  so  all  that  He  obtains  is  on  behalf 
of  that  nature  which  before  was  not  God,  since 
after  the  Mystery  of  the  Dispensation  God 
is  all  in  all.  It  is,  therefore,  we  who  are  the 
gainers,  we  who  are  promoted,  for  we  shall  be 
conformed  to  the  glory  of  the  body  of  God. 
Further  the  Only-begotten  God,  despite  His 
human  birth,  is  nothing  less  than  God,  Who 
is  all  in  all.  That  subjection  of  the  body,  by 
which  all  that  is  fleshly  in  Him,  is  swallowed 
up  into  the  spiritual  nature,  will  make  Him  to 
be  God  and  all  in  all,  since  He  is  Man  also  as 
well  as  God  ;  and  His  humanity  which  advances 
towards  this  goal  is  ours  also.  We  shall  be 
promoted  to  a  glory  conformable  to  that  of 
Him  Who  became  Man  for  us,  being  renewed 
unto  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  created  again 
in  the  image  of  the  Creator,  as  the  Apostle  says, 
Having  put  off  the  old  man  with  his  doings,  and 
put  on  the  new  man,  which  is  being  renewed 
unto  the  knowledge  of  God,  after  the  image  of 
Him  that  created  him^.  Thus  is  man  made 
the  perfect  image  of  God.  For,  being  con- 
formed to  the  glory  of  the  body  of  God,  he 
is  exalted  to  the  image  of  the  Creator,  after 
the  pattern  assigned  to  the  first  man.  Leaving 
sin  and  the  old  man  behind,  he  is  made  a  new 
man  unto  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  arrives 
at  the  perfection  of  his  constitution,  since 
through  the  knowledge  of  his  God  he  becomes 
the  perfect  image  of  God.  Through  godli- 
ness he  is  promoted  to  immortality,  through 
immortality  he  shall  live  for  ever  as  the  image 
of  his  Creator. 

9  Col.  iii.  9,  to. 


BOOK    XII. 


i.  At  length,  with  the  Holy  Ghost  speeding 
our  way,  we  are  approaching  the  safe,  calm 
harbour  of  a  firm  faith.  We  are  in  the  posi- 
tion of  men,  long  tossed  about  by  sea  and 
wind,  to  whom  it  very  often  happens,  that 
while  great  heaped-up  waves  delay  them  for 
a  time  around  the  coasts  near  the  ports,  at 
last  that  very  surge  of  the  vast  and  dreadful 
billows  drives  them  on  into  a  trusty,  well- 
known  anchorage.  And  this,  I  hope,  will 
befall  us,  as  we  struggle  in  this  twelfth  book 
against  the  storm  of  heresy;  so  that  while 
we  venture  our  trusty  bark  therein  upon  the 
wave  of  this  grievous  impiety,  this  very  wave 
may  bring  us  to  the  haven  of  rest  for  which 
we  long.  For  while  all  are  driven  about  by 
the  uncertain  wind  of  doctrine,  there  is  panic 
here  and  danger  there,  and  then  again  there 
often  is  even  shipwreck,  because  it  is  main- 
tained on  prophetic  authority  that  God  Only- 
begotten  is  a  creature — so  that  to  Him  there 
belongs  not  birth  but  creation,  because  it  has 
been  said  in  the  character  of  Wisdom,  The 
Lord  created  Me  as  the  beginning  of  His  ways  l. 
This  is  the  greatest  billow  in  the  storm  they 
raise,  this  is  the  big  wave  of  the  whirling 
tempest :  yet  when  we  have  faced  it,  and 
it  has  broken  without  damage  to  our  ship,  it 
will  speed  us  forward  even  to  the  all-safe 
harbour  of  the  shore  for  which  we  long. 

2.  Yet  we  do  not  rest,  like  sailors,  on  un- 
certain or  on  idle  hopes  :  whom,  as  they  shape 
their  course  to  their  wish,  and  not  by  assured 
knowledge,  at  times  the  shifting,  fickle  winds 
forsake  or  drive  from  their  course.  But  we 
have  by  our  side  the  unfailing  Spirit  of  faith, 
abiding  with  us  by  the  gift  of  the  Only-begotten 
God,  and  leading  us  to  smooth  waters  in  an 
unwavering  course.  For  we  recognise  the 
Lord  Christ  as  no  creature,  for  indeed  He  is 
none  such;  nor  as  something  that  has  been 
made,  since  He  is  Himself  the  Lord  of  all 
things  that  are  made ;  but  we  know  Him 
to  be  God,  God  the  true  generation  of  God 
the  Father.  All  we  indeed,  as  His  goodness 
has  thought  fit,  have  been  named  and  adopted 
as  sons  of  God  :  but  He  is  to  God  the  Father 
the  one,  true  Son,  and  the  true  and  perfect 
birth,  which  abides  only  in  the  knowledge 
of  the  Father  and   the  Son.     But  this  oniy, 


and  this  alone,  is  our  religion,  to  confess  Him 
as  the  Son  not  adopted  but  born,  not  chosen 
but  begotten.  For  we  do  not  speak  of  Him 
either  as  made,  or  as  not  born ;  since  we 
neither  compare  the  Creator  to  His  creatures, 
nor  falsely  speak  of  birth  without  begetting. 
He  does  not  exist  of  Himself,  Who  exists 
through  birth;  nor  is  He  not  born,  Who  is 
the  Son ;  nor  can  He,  Who  is  the  Son,  come 
to  exist  otherwise  than  by  being  born,  be- 
cause He  is  the  Son. 

3.  Moreover  no  one  doubts  that  the  asser- 
tions of  impiety  always  contradict  and  resist 
the  assertions  of  religious  faith  ;  and  that  that 
cannot  be  piously  held  now  which  is  already 
condemned  as  impiously  conceived ;  as,  for 
instance,  the  discrepancy  and  variance  which 
these  new  correctors  of  the  apostolic  faith 
maintain  between  the  Spirit  of  the  Evangelists 
and  that  of  Prophets ;  or  their  assertion  that 
the  Prophets  prophesied  one  thing  and  the 
Evangelists  preached  another,  since  Solomon 
calls  upon  us  to  adore  a  creature,  while  Paul 
convicts  those  who  serve  a  creature.  And 
certainly  these  two  texts  do  not  seem  to 
agree  together,  according  to  the  blasphemous 
theory,  whereby  the  Apostle,  who  was  trained 
by  the  law,  and  separated  by  divine  appoint- 
ment, and  spoke  through  Christ  speaking  in 
him,  either  was  ignorant  of  the  prophecy,  or 
was  not  ignorant  but  contradicted  it ;  and  thus 
did  not  know  Christ  to  be  a  creature  when 
he  named  Him  the  Creator;  and  forbade  the 
worship  of  a  creature,  warning'  us  that  the 
Creator  alone  is  to  be  served,  and  saying, 
Who  changed  the  truth  of  God  into  a  lie,  and 

served  the  creature,  passing  by  the  Creator  Who 
is  blessed  for  ever  and  ever  2. 

4.  Does  Christ,  Who  is  God,  speaking  in 
Paul,  fail  to  refute  this  impiety  of  falsehood  ? 
Does  He  fail  to  condemn  this  lying  per- 
version of  truth  ?  For  through  the  Lord  Christ 
all  things  were  created  ;  and  therefore  it  is 
His  proper  name  that  He  should  be  the 
Creator.  Does  not  both  the  reality  and  the 
title  of  His  creative  power  belong  to  Him? 
Melchisedec  is  our  witness,  thus  declaring 
God  to  be  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth : 
Blessed  be  Abraham  of  God  most  high,  Who 
created    heaven    and    earth*.      The    prophet 


1  Prov.  viii.  22. 


^  Pom 


3  Gen.  xiv.  19. 


ON    THE    TRINITY.  — BOOK    XII. 


219 


Hosea  also  is  witness,  saying,  /  am  the  Lord 
thy  God,  that  establish  the  heavens  and  create 
the  earth,  Whose  hands  have  created  all  /he 
host  of  heaven*.  Peter  too  is  witness,  writing 
thus,  Committing  your  souls  as  to  a  faithful 
Creator  $.  Why  do  we  apply  the  name  of  the 
work  to  the  Maker  of  that  work  ?  Why  do  we 
give  the  same  name  to  God  and  to  our  fellow- 
men  ?  He  is  our  Creator,  He  is  the  Creator 
of  all  the  heavenly  host. 

5.  Since  by  the  faith  of  the  Apostles  and 
Evangelists  these  statements  are  referred  in 
their  meaning  to  the  Son,  through  Whom  all 
things  were  made,  how  shall  He  be  made 
equal  to  the  very  works  of  His  hands,  and 
be  in  the  same  category  of  nature  as  all  other 
things?  In  the  first  place  our  human  in- 
telligence repudiates  this  statement  that  the 
Creator  is  a  creature ;  since  creation  comes 
to  exist  by  means  of  the  Creator.  But  if  He 
is  a  creature,  He  is  both  subject  to  corrup- 
tion and  exposed  to  the  suspense  of  waiting, 
and  is  subjected  to  bondage.  For  the  same 
blessed  Apostle  Paul  says :  For  the  long  ex- 
pectation of  the  creature  waiteth  for  the  revela- 
tion of  the  sons  of  God.  For  the  creature  was 
subject  to  vanity,  not  of  its  own  will,  but  on 
account  of  Him  Who  has  made  it  subject  in 
hope.  Because  also  the  creature  itself  shall 
be  freed  from  the  slavery  of  corruption  into  the 
liberty  of  the  glory  of  the  children  of  God6. 
If,  therefore,  Christ  is  a  creature,  it  must  needs 
be  that  He  is  in  uncertainty,  hoping  always 
with  a  tedious  expectation,  and  that  His  long 
expectation,  rather  than  ours,  is  waiting,  and 
that  while  He  waits  He  is  subjected  to  vanity, 
and  is  subjected  through  a  subjection  due 
to  necessity,  not  of  His  own  will.  But  since 
He  is  subjected  not  of  His  own  will,  He  must 
needs  be  also  a  bondservant ;  moreover  since 
He  is  a  bondservant  He  must  needs  also 
be  dwelling  in  a  corruptible  nature.  For  the 
Apostle  teaches  that  all  these  things  belong  to 
the  creature,  and  that,  when  it  shall  be  freed 
from  these  through  a  long  expectation,  it  will 
shine  with  a  glory  proper  to  man.  But  what 
a  thoughtless  and  impious  assertion  about 
God  is  this,  to  imagine  Him  exposed,  through 
the  insults  which  the  creature  bears,  to  such 
mockeries  as  that  He  should  hope  and  serve, 
and  be  under  compulsion  and  receive  recog- 
nition, and  be  freed  hereafter  into  a  condi- 
tion which  is  ours,  not  His  ;  while  really  it 
is  of  His  gift  that  we  make  our  little  progress. 

6.  But  our  impiety,  by  the  licence  of  this 
forbidden  language,  waxes  apace  with  yet 
deeper  faithlessness;  asserting  that  since  the 


4  Hos.  xiii.  4  (LXX.).  S  1  Pet.  iv.  19. 

6  Rom.  viii.  19 — 21. 


Son  is  a  creature  it  is  bound  to  maintain  that 
the  Father  also  does  not  differ  from  a  creature. 
For  Christ,  remaining  in  the  form  of  God, 
took  the  form  of  a  servant ;  and  if  He  is 
a  creature  Who  is  in  the  form  of  God,  God  can 
never  be  separate  from  the  creature,  because 
there  is  a  creature  in  the  form  of  God.  But 
to  be  in  the  form  of  God  can  only  be  under- 
stood to  mean,  remaining  in  the  nature  of 
God  ;  whence  also  God  is  a  creature,  because 
there  is  a  creature  with  His  nature.  But  He 
Who  was  in  the  form  of  God,  did  not  grasp 
at  being  equal  with  God,  because  from  equality 
with  God,  that  is,  from  the  form  of  God, 
He  descended  into  the  form  of  a  servant. 
But  He  could  not  descend  from  God  into 
man,  except  by  emptying  Himself,  as  God,  of 
the  form  of  God.  But  when  He  emptied  Him- 
self, He  was  not  effaced,  so  as  not  to  be  ; 
since  then  He  would  have  become  other  in 
kind  than  He  had  been.  For  neither  did  He, 
Who  emptied  Himself  within  Himself,  cease 
to  be  Himself;  since  the  power  of  His  might 
remains  even  in  the  power  of  emptying  Him- 
self; and  the  transition  into  the  form  of 
a  servant  does  not  mean  the  loss  of  the  nature 
of  God,  since  to  have  put  off  the  form  of 
God  is  nothing  less  than  a  mighty  act  of  di- 
vine power. 

7.  But  to  be  in  this  way  in  the  form  of 
God  is  nothing  else  than  to  be  equal  with 
God :  so  that  equality  of  honour  is  owed 
to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Who  is  in  the  form 
of  God,  as  He  Himself  says,  That  all  men 
may  honour  the  Son,  even  as  they  honour  the 
Father.  He  that  hououreth  not  the  Son 
honoureth  not  the  Father  Who  sent  Him  ?. 
There  is  never  a  difference  between  things 
which  does  not  also  imply  a  different  degree 
of  honour.  The  same  objects  deserve  the 
same  reverence  ;  for  otherwise  the  highest 
honour  will  be  unworthily  bestowed  on  those 
which  are  inferior,  or  with  insult  to  the 
superior  the  inferior  will  be  made  equal  to 
them  in  honour.  But  if  the  Son,  regarded  as 
a  creation  rather  than  a  birth,  be  treated  with 
a  reverence  equal  to  that  paid  the  Father, 
then  we  grant  no  special  meed  of  honour  to 
the  Father,  since  we  charge  ourselves  with  only 
such  reverence  towards  Him  as  is  shewn  to  a 
creature.  But  since  He  is  equal  to  God  the 
Father,  inasmuch  as  He  is  born  as  God  from 
Him,  He  is  also  equal  to  Him  in  honour, 
for  He  is  a  Son  and  not  a  creature. 

8.  This  again  is  a  notable  utterance  of  the 
Father  concerning  Him:  From  the  womb,  before 
the  morning  star  I  begat  Thee8.  Here,  as  we 
have  often  said  already,   nothing   derogatory 


7  St.  John  v.  23. 


8  Ps.  cix.  3  (LXX.X 


220 


DE   TRINITATE. 


to  God  is  implied  in  the  concession  to  our 
weakness  of  understanding ;  as  though,  because 
He  said  that  He  begat  Him  from  the  womb, 
He  were  therefore  composed  of  inner  and 
outer  parts,  which  unite  to  form  His  members, 
and  owed  His  being  to  the  same  causes  within 
time  to  which  earthly  bodies  owe  theirs ; 
when  in  fact  He  Whose  existence  is  due  to 
no  natural  necessities,  free  and  perfect,  and 
eternal  Lord  of  all  nature,  in  explanation  of 
the  true  character  of  the  birth  of  His  Only- 
begotten,  points  to  power  of  His  own  un- 
changeable nature.  For  though  Spirit  be  born 
of  Spirit  (consistently,  be  it  remembered,  with 
the  true  character  of  Spirit,  through  which 
itself  is  also  Spirit),  nevertheless  its  only  cause 
for  being  born  lies  within  those  perfect  and 
unchangeable  causes.  And  though  it  is  from 
a  perfect  and  unchangeable  cause  that  it  is 
born,  it  must  needs  be  born  from  that  cause, 
in  accordance  with  the  true  character  of  that 
cause.  Now  the  necessary  process  of  human 
birth  is  conditioned  by  the  causes  which  oper- 
ate upon  the  womb.  But  as  God  is  not  made 
up  of  parts,  but  is  unchangeable  as  being 
Spirit,  for  God  is  Spirit,  He  is  subject  to  no 
natural  necessity  working  within  Him.  But 
since  He  was  telling  us  of  the  birth  of  Spirit 
from  Spirit,  He  instructed  our  understanding 
by  an  example  from  causes  which  work  among 
us  :  not  to  give  an  example  of  the  manner 
of  birth,  but  to  declare  the  fact  of  generation ; 
not  that  the  example  might  prove  Him  sub- 
ject to  necessity,  but  that  it  might  enlighten 
our  mind.  If,  therefore,  God  Only-begotten 
is  a  created  being,  what  meaning  is  there  in 
a  revelation  which  uses  the  common  facts  of 
human  birth  to  indicate  that  He  was  divinely 
generated? 

9.  For  often  by  means  of  these  members 
of  our  bodies,  God  illustrates  for  us  the  method 
of  His  own  operations,  enlightening  our  in- 
telligence by  using  terms  commonly  under- 
stood :  as  when  He  says,  Whose  hands  created 
all  the  host  of  heaven  9  /  or  again,  The  eyes  of 
the  Lord  are  upon  the  righteous *  /  or  again, 
I  have  found  David,  the  son  of  Jesse,  a  man 
after  My  own  heart2.  Now  by  the  heart  is 
denoted  the  desire,  to  which  David  was  well- 
pleasing  through  the  uprightness  of  his  charac- 
ter ;  and  knowledge  of  the  whole  universe, 
whereby  nothing  is  beyond  God's  ken,  is  ex- 
pressed under  the  term  'eyes;'  and  His 
creative  activity,  whereby  nothing  exists  which 
is  not  of  God,  is  understood  by  the  name 
of  hands.'  Therefore  as  God  wills  and  fore- 
sees and  does  everything,  and  even  in  the  use 

*  Hos-  xiii.  4,  according  to  LXX.  l  Ps.  xxxiv.  15. 

-  Acts  xiii.  22  ;  cf.  Ps.  lxxxix.  20. 


of  terms  denoting  bodily  action  must  be  un- 
derstood to  have  no  need  of  the  assistance 
of  a  body  ;  surely,  now,  in  the  statement  that 
He  begat  from  the  womb,  the  idea  is  brought 
forward  not  of  a  human  origin  produced  by 
a  bodily  act,  but  of  a  birth  which  must  be 
understood  as  spiritual,  since  in  the  other 
cases  where  members  are  spoken  of,  this  is 
done  to  represent  to  us  other  active  powers 
in  God. 

10.  Therefore  since  heart  is  put  for  desire, 
and  eyes  for  sight,  and  hands  for  work 
achieved, —  and  yet,  without  in  any  way  being 
made  up  of  parts,  God  desires  and  foresees  and 
acts,  these  same  operations  being  expressed 
by  the  words  heart,  and  eyes,  and  hand, — 
is  not  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  that  He  begat 
from  the  womb  an  assertion  of  the  reality  of 
the  birth?  Not  that  He  begat  the  Son  from 
His  womb,  just  as  neither  does  He  act  by 
means  of  a  hand,  nor  see  by  means  of  eyes, 
nor  desire  by  means  of  a  heart.  But  since 
by  the  employment  of  these  terms  it  is  made 
clear  that  He  really  acts  and  sees  and  wills 
everything,  so  from  the  word  'womb'  it  is 
clear  that  He  really  begat  from  Himself  Him 
Whom  He  begat ;  not  that  he  made  use  of  a 
womb,  but  that  He  purposed  to  express  reality. 
Just  in  the  same  way  He  does  not  will  or  see 
or  act  through  bodily  faculties,  but  uses  the 
names  of  these  members  in  order  that  through 
the  services  performed  by  corporeal  forces 
we  may  understand  the  power  of  forces  which 
are  not  corporeal. 

11.  Now  the  constitution  of  human  society 
does  not  allow,  nor  indeed  do  the  words  of 
our  Lord's  teaching  permit,  that  the  disciple 
should  be  above  his  master,  or  the  slave 
rule  over  his  lord;  because,  in  these  con- 
trasted positions,  subordination  to  knowledge 
is  the  fitting  state  of  ignorance,  and  uncon- 
ditional submission  the  appointed  lot  of  servi- 
tude. And  since  it  is  the  common  judgment 
of  all  that  this  is  so,  whose  rashness  now  shall 
induce  us  to  say  or  think  that  God  is  a  creature, 
or  that  the  Son  has  been  made  ?  For  nowhere 
do  we  find  that  our  Master  and  Lord  spake 
thus  of  Himself  to  His  servants  and  disciples, 
or  that  He  taught  that  His  birth  was  a  creation 
or  a  making.  Moreover,  the  Father  never 
bore  witness  to  Him  as  being  aught  else  but 
a  Son,  nor  did  the  Son  profess  that  God  was 
aught  else  than  His  own  true  Father,  assuredly 
affirming  that  He  was  born,  not  made  nor 
created,  as  He  says,  Every  one  that  loveih  the 
Father,  loveth  also  the  Son  Who  is  born  of 
/dim  3. 


3  1  St.  John  v.  1. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   XII. 


221 


ia  On  the  other  hand  His  works  in  creation 
are  acts  of  making  and  not  a  birth  through 
generation.  For  the  heaven  is  not  a  son, 
neither  is  the  earth  a  son,  nor  is  the  world 
a  birth  ;  for  of  these  it  is  said,  All  things 
were  made  through  Him*;  and  by  the  prophet, 
The  heavens  are  the  works  of  Thy  hands  5  ; 
and  by  the  same  prophet,  Neglect  not  the 
zvorks  of  Thy  hands  6.  Is  the  picture  a  son  of 
the  painter,  or  the  sword  a  son  of  the  smith, 
or  the  house  a  son  of  the  architect  ?  These 
are  the  works  of  their  making  :  but  He  alone 
is  the  Son  of  the  Father  Who  is  born  of  the 
Father. 

13.  And  we  indeed  are  sons  of  God,  but 
sons  because  the  Son  has  made  us  such.  For 
we  were  once  sons  of  wrath,  but  have  been 
made  sons  of  God  through  the  Spirit  of  adop- 
tion, and  have  earned  that  title  by  favour,  not 
by  right  of  birth.  And  since  everything  that 
is  made,  before  it  was  made,  was  not,  so  we, 
although  we. were  not  sons,  have  been  made 
what  we  are.  For  formerly  we  were  not 
sons  :  but  after  we  have  earned  the  name  we 
are  such.  Moreover,  we  have  not  been  born, 
but  made  ;  not  begotten,  but  purchased.  For 
God  purchased  a  people  for  Himself,  and  by 
this  act  begat  them.  But  we  never  learn  that 
God  begat  sons  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term. 
For  He  does  not  say,  "  I  have  begotten  and 
brought  up  My  sons,"  but  only,  I  have  begotten 
and  brought  up  sons  ?. 

14.  Yet  perchance  inasmuch  as  He  says, 
My  firstborn  Son  Israel91,  some  one  will  inter- 
pret the  fact  that  He  said,  My  firstborn,  so 
as  to  deprive  the  Son  of  the  characteristic  pro- 
perty of  birth ;  as  though,  because  God  also 
applied  to  Israel  the  epithet  Mine,  the  adop- 
tion of  those  who  have  been  made  sons  was 
misrepresented  as  though  it  were  an  actual 
birth,  and  therefore  the  phrase  used  of  Him, 
This  is  My  beloved  Son  9,  is  not  solely  applic- 
able to  the  birth  of  God,  since  the  epithet 
My  is  (so  it  is  asserted)  shared  with  those  who 
clearly  were  not  born  sons.  But  that  they 
were  not  really  born,  although  they  are  said 
to  have  been  born,  is  shewn  even  from  that 
passage  where  it  is  said,  A  people  which  shall 
be  born,  whom  the  Lord  hath  made  l. 

15.  Therefore  the  people  of  Israel  is  born, 
in  such  wise  that  it  is  made ;  nor  do  we  take 
the  assertion  that  it  is  born  as  contradictory 
to  the  fact  that  it  is  made.  For  it  is  a 
son  by  adoption,  not  by  generation ;  nor  is 
this  its  true  character,  but  its  title.  For  al- 
though the  words,  My  firstborn  are  written  of 


*  St.  John  i.  3.  5  Ps.  cii.  25.  6  lb.  cxxxviii.  &. 

7  Is.  i.  2  (LXX.).  8  Ex.  ;v.  22.         9  St.  Matt.  xvii.  5. 

*  Ps.  xxi.32(LXX.). 


it ;  there  is  yet  a  great  and  wide  difference 
between  My  beloved  Son,  and  My  firstborn 
son.  For  where  there  is  birth,  there  we  see, 
My  beloved  Son  ;  but  where  there  is  a  choice 
from  among  the  nations,  and  adoption  through 
an  act  of  will,  there  is  My  firstborn  son. 
Here  the  people  is  God's,  in  regard  to  its 
character  as  firstborn  ;  in  the  former  case  the 
fact  that  He  is  God's,  relates  to  His  character 
as  a  Son.  Again,  in  a  case  of  birth  the  father's 
ownership  comes  first,  and  then  his  love ;  in 
a  case  of  adoption  the  primary  fact  is  that  the 
son  is  made  a  firstborn,  and  then  comes  the 
ownership.  Thus  to  Israel,  adopted  for  a  son 
out  of  all  the  peoples  of  the  earth,  properly 
belonged  the  character  of  a  firstborn ;  but 
to  Him  alone,  Who  is  born  God,  properly 
belongs  the  character  of  a  Son.  Accordingly 
there  is  no  true  and  complete  birth  where 
sonship  is  imputed  rather  than  real :  since  it 
is  not  doubtful  that  that  people,  which  is  born 
into  a  state  of  sonship,  is  also  made.  But 
since  it  would  not  have  been  what  it  is  now 
become,  and  inasmuch  as  its  birth  is  but  a 
name  for  its  being  made,  it  has  no  true  birth, 
since  it  was  something  else  before  it  was  born. 
And  for  this  reason  it  was  not  before  it  was 
born,  that  is,  before  it  was  made,  because  that 
which  is  a  son  from  among  the  nations  was 
a  nation  before  it  was  a  son  :  and  accordingly 
it  is  not  truly  a  son,  because  it  was  not  always 
a  son.  But  God  Only-begotten  was  neither 
at  any  time  not  a  Son,  nor  was  He  anything 
before  He  was  a  Son,  nor  is  He  Himself  any- 
thing except  a  Son.  And  so  He  Who  is 
always  a  Son,  has  rendered  it  impossible  for 
us  to  think  of  Him  that  there  was  a  time 
when  He  was  not. 

16.  For  indeed  human  births  involve  a  pre- 
vious non-existence,  because,  as  a  first  reason, 
all  are  born  from  those,  all  of  whom  formerly 
were  not.  For  although  each  one  who  is 
born  has  his  origin  from  one  who  has  been, 
nevertheless  that  very  parent,  from  whom  he 
is  born,  was  not  before  he  was  born.  Again, 
as  a  second  reason,  he  who  is  born,  is  born 
after  that  he  was  not,  for  time  existed  before 
he  was  born.  For  if  he  is  born  to-day,  in 
the  time  which  was  yesterday,  he  was  not ; 
and  he  has  come  into  a  state  of  being  from 
a  state  of  not  being;  and  our  reason  en- 
forces that  that  which  is  born  to-day  did  not 
exist  yesterday.  And  so  it  remains  that  his 
birth,  by  virtue  of  which  he  is,  took  place  after 
a  state  of  non-existence ;  since  necessarily  to- 
day implies  the  previous  existence  of  yesterday, 
so  that  it  is  true  of  it  that  there  was  a  time 
when  it  was  not.  And  these  facts  hold  good 
of  the  origin  of  everything  relating  to  man : 
all  receive  a  beginning,  previously  to  which  they 


222 


DE   TRINITATE. 


had  not  been  :  firstly,  as  we  have  explained, 
in  respect  of  time,  and  then  in  respect  of 
cause  And  in  respect  of  time  indeed  there 
is  no  doubt  that  things  which  now  begin  to  be, 
formerly  were  not ;  and  this  is  true  also  in 
respect  of  cause,  since  it  is  certain  that  their 
existence  is  not  derived  from  a  cause  within 
themselves.  For  think  over  all  the  causes  of 
beginnings,  and  direct  your  understanding  to 
their  antecedents  :  you  will  find  that  nothing 
began  by  self-causation,  since  nothing  is  born 
by  the  free  act  of  the  parent,  but  all  things  are 
created  what  they  are  through  the  power 
of  God.  Whence  also  it  is  a  natural  property 
of  each  class  of  things  by  virtue  of  actual 
heredity,  that  it  once  was  not  and  then  be- 
gan to  be,  beginning  after  time  began,  and 
existing  within  time.  And  white  all  existing 
things  have  an  origin  later  than  that  of  time, 
their  causes  also,  in  their  turn,  were  once  non- 
existent, being  born  from  things  which  once 
were  not.  Even  Adam,  the  first  parent  of  the 
human  race,  was  formed  from  the  earth,  which 
was  made  out  of  nothing,  and  after  time,  that 
is  to  say,  after  the  heaven  and  earth,  and  the 
day  and  the  sun,  moon  and  stars,  and  he  had 
no  first  beginning  in  being  born,  and  began 
to  be  when  he  once  had  not  been. 

17.  But  for  God  Only-begotten,  Who  is  pre- 
ceded by  no  antecedent  time,  the  possibility 
is  excluded  that  at  some  time  He  was  not, 
since  that  "some  time"  thus  becomes  prior 
to  Him ;  and  again,  the  assertion  that  He 
was  not  involves  the  notion  of  time :  whence 
time  will  not  begin  to  be  after  Him,  but  He 
Himself  will  begin  to  be  after  time,  and,  in- 
asmuch as  He  was  not  before  He  was  born, 
the  very  period  when  He  was  not  will  take 
precedence  of  Him.  Further,  He  Who  is  born 
from  Him  Who  really  is,  cannot  be  understood 
to  have  been  born  from  that  which  was  not : 
since  He  Who  really  is,  is  the  cause  of  His 
existing,  and  His  birth  cannot  have  its  origin 
in  that  which  is  not.  And  therefore  since  in 
His  case  it  is  not  true  either  in  regard  of  time 
that  He  ever  was  not,  or  in  regard  of  the 
Father,  that  is,  the  Author  of  His  being,  that 
He  has  come  into  existence  out  of  nothing, 
He  has  left  no  possibility  with  regard  to  Him- 
self either  of  His  having  been  born  out  of 
nothing,  or  of  His  not  having  existed  before 
He  was  born. 

18.  Now  I  am  not  ignorant  that  most  of 
those,  whose  mind  being  dulled  by  impiety 
does  not  accept  the  mystery  of  God,  or  who 
through  the  strong  influence  of  a  hostile  spirit 
are  ready  to  manifest,  under  the  cover  of  rever- 
ence, a  mad  passion  for  disparaging  God,  are 
wont  to  make  strange  assertions  in  the  ears 
of  simple-minded  men.    They  assert  that  since 


we  say  that  the  Son  always  has  been,  and 
that  He  never  has  been  anything  which  He 
has  not  always  been,  we  are  therefore  declaring 
that  He  is  without  birth,  inasmuch  as  He 
always  has  been  ;  since,  according  to  the  work- 
ings of  human  reason,  that  which  always  has 
existed  cannot  possibly  have  been  born  :  since 
(so  they  urge)  the  cause  of  a  thing  being  born, 
is  that  something,  which  was  not,  may  come 
into  existence,  while  the  coming  into  existence 
of  something  which  was  not,  means  nothing 
else,  according  to  the  judgment  of  common 
sense,  than  its  being  born.  They  may  add 
those  arguments,  subtle  enough  and  pleasant 
to  hear  ; — "  If  He  was  born,  He  began  to  be  ; 
at  the  time  when  He  began  to  be,  He  was 
not  :  and  when  He  was  not,  it  cannot  be 
that  He  was."  By  such  proofs  let  them  main- 
tain that  it  is  the  language  of  reasonable  piety 
to  say,  "  He  was  not  before  He  was  born : 
because  in  order  that  He  might  come  to  be, 
One  Who  was  not,  not  One  Who  was,  was 
born.  Nor  did  He  Who  was,  require  a  birth, 
although  He  Who  was  not  was  born,  to  the 
end  that  He  might  come  to  be." 

19.  Now,  first  of  all,  men  professing  a  devout 
knowledge  of  divine  things,  in  matters  where 
the  truth  preached  by  Evangelists  and  Apostles 
shewed  the  way,  ought  to  have  laid  aside  the 
intricate  questions  of  a  crafty  philosophy,  and 
rather  to  have  followed  after  the  faith  which 
rests  in  God :  because  the  sophistry  of  a  syl- 
logistical  question  easily  disarms  a  weak  under- 
standing of  the  protection  of  its  faith,  since 
treacherous  assertion  lures  on  the  guileless 
defender,  who  tries  to  support  his  case  by 
enquiry  into  facts,  till  at  last  it  robs  him,  by 
means  of  his  own  enquiry,  of  his  certainty ; 
so  that  the  answerer  no  longer  retains  in  his 
consciousness  a  truth  which  by  his  admission 
he  has  surrendered.  For  what  answer  accom- 
modates itself  so  well  to  the  questioner's  pur- 
pose, as  the  admission  on  our  part,  when  we 
are  asked,  "Does  anything  exist  before  it  is 
born?"  that  that  which  is  born,  did  not  pre- 
viously exist?  For  it  is  contrary  both  to  na- 
ture and  to  necessary  reason  that  a  thing  which 
already  exists  should  be  born :  since  a  thing 
must  needs  be  born  in  order  that  it  may  come 
to  be,  and  not  because  it  already  existed. 
But  when  we  have  made  this  concession,  be- 
cause it  is  rightly  made,  we  lose  the  certainty 
of  our  faith,  and  being  ensnared  we  fall  in 
with  their  impious  and  unchristian  designs. 

20.  But  the  blessed  Apostle  Paul,  taking 
precaution  against  this,  as  we  have  often  shewn, 
warned  us  to  be  on  our  guard,  saying :  Take 
heed  lest  any  man  spoil  you  through  philosophy 
and  vain  deceit,  according  to  the  tradition  of 
men,  according  to  the  elements  of  the  world,  and 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   XII. 


223 


not  according  to  Christ,  in  Whom  dwelkth  all 
the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily*.     Therefore 
we  must  be  on  our  guard  against  philosophy, 
and  methods  which    rest   upon   traditions   of 
men  we  must  not  so  much  avoid  as  refute. 
Any  concession  that  we  make  must  imply  not 
that  we  are  out-argued  but  that  we  are  con- 
fused,   for   it  is   right   that  we,  who  declare 
that  Christ  is  the  power  of  God  and  the  wis- 
dom of  God,  should  not  flee  from  the  doctrines 
of  men,  but  rather  overthrow  them  ;  and  we 
must  restrain  and  instruct  the  simple-minded 
lest  they  be  spoiled  by  these  teachers.     For 
since  God  can  do  all  things,  and  in  His  wis- 
dom can  do  all  things  wisely,   for  neither  is 
His  purpose   unarmed   with   power   nor    His 
power  unguided  by  purpose,  it  behoves  those 
who  proclaim  Christ  to  the  world,  to  face  the 
irreverent  and  faulty  doctrines  of  the   world 
with   the   knowledge  imparted   by   that   wise 
Omnipotence,  according  to  the  saying  of  the 
blessed    Apostle  :   For  our  weapons   are   not 
carnal  but  potverful  for  God,  for  the  casting 
down  of  strongholds,  casting  down  reasonings 
and  every  high  thing  which  is  exalted  against 
the  knoivledge  of  God X     The  Apostle  did  not 
leave  us  a  faith  which  was  bare  and  devoid 
of  reason ;  for  although  a  bare  faith  may  be 
most  mighty  to  salvation,  nevertheless,  unless 
it  is  trained  by  teaching,   while  it  will  have 
indeed  a  secure  retreat  to  withdraw  to  in  the 
midst  of  foes,  it  will  yet  be  unable  to  main- 
tain a  safe  and  strong  position  for  resistance. 
Its  position  will  be  like  that  which  a  camp 
affords  to  a  weak  force  after  a  flight ;  not  like 
the  undismayed  courage  of  men  who  have  a 
camp  to  hold.     Therefore  we  must  beat  down 
the  insolent  arguments  which  are  raised  against 
God,  and  destroy  the  fastnesses  of  fallacious 
reasoning,  and  crush  cunning  intellects  which 
lift  themselves  up  to  impiety,  with  weapons 
not  carnal  but  spiritual,  not  with  earthly  learn- 
ing  but  with   heavenly  wisdom ;   so  that   in 
proportion  as  divine  things  differ  from  human, 
so  may  the  philosophy  of  heaven  surpass  the 
rivalry  of  earth. 

21.  Accordingly  let  misbelief  abandon  its 
efforts ;  let  it  not  think,  because  it  does  not 
understand,  that  we  deny  a  truth  which,  in 
fact,  we  alone  rightly  understand  and  believe. 
For  while  we  declare  in  so  many  words  that 
He  was  born,  nevertheless  we  do  not  assert  that 
He  was  ever  not  born  3a.  For  it  is  not  the  same 
thing  to  be  not  born  and  to  be  born  :  since  the 
latter  term  expresses  origin  derived  from  some 
other,  the  former  origin  derived  from  none. 
And  it  is  one  thing  to  exist  always,  as  the  Eter- 


»  CoL  ii.  8,  9. 


3»  i.e.  not  yet  born. 


3  2  Cor.  x.  4,  5. 


nal,  without  any  source  of  being,  and  another 
to  be  co-eternal  with  a  Father,  having  Him  for 
the  Source  of  being.     For  where  a  father  is 
the  source  of  being,  there  also  is  birth  ;  and 
further,  where  the  Source  of  being  is  eternal, 
the  birth  also  is  eternal  :  for  since  birth  comes 
from  the  source  of  being,  birth  which  comes 
from  an  eternal  Source  of  being  must  be  eternal. 
Now   everything  which  always  exists,  is  also 
eternal.    But  nevertheless,  not  everything  which 
is  eternal  is  also  not  born  ;  since  that  which 
is  born  from  eternity  has  eternally  the  charac- 
ter of  having  been  born ;    but  that  which  is 
not    born    is    ingenerate   as    well    as    eternal. 
But   if  that   which  has   been   born  from  the 
Eternal    is    not   born    eternal,    it   will   follow 
that  the  Father  also  is  not  an  eternal  Source 
of  being.    Therefore  if  any  measure  of  eternity 
is  wanting  to  Him  Who  has  been  born  of  the 
eternal  Father,  clearly  the  very  same  measure 
is  wanting  to  the  Author  of  His  being;  since 
what  belongs  in  an   infinite   degree   to   Him 
Who  begets,  belongs  in  an  infinite  degree  to 
Him  also  Who  is  born.     For  neither  reason 
nor  intelligence  allows  of  any  interval  between 
the  birth  of  God  the  Son  and  the  generation 
by  God  the  Father  ;  since  the  generation  con- 
sists in  the  birth,  and  the  birth  in  the  genera- 
tion.    Thus    each  of  these  events   coincides 
exactly   with    the    other;   neither  took   place 
unless  both  took  place.     Therefore  that  which 
owes  its  existence  to  both  these  events  can- 
not be  eternal  unless  they  both  are  eternal ; 
since  neither  of  the    two  correlatives,   apart 
from  the  other,  has  any  reality,  because  it  is 
impossible  for  one  to  exist  without  the  other. 

22.  But  some  one,  who  cannot  receive  this 
divine  mystery,  will  say,  "  Everything  which 
has  been  born,  once  was  not;  since  it  was 
born  in  order  that  it  might  come  into  exist- 
ence." 

23- 


beings 


But  does  any  one  doubt  that  all  human 
that  have  been  born,  at  one  time 
were  not?  It  is,  however,  one  thing  to  be 
born  of  some  one  who  once  was  not,  and 
another  to  be  born  of  One  Who  always  is. 
For  every  state  of  infancy,  since  previously 
it  had  no  existence,  began  from  some  point 
of  time.  And  this  again,  growing  up  into 
childhood,  still  later  urges  on  youth  to  father- 
hood. Yet  the  man  was  not  always  a  father, 
for  he  advanced  to  youth  through  boyhood, 
and  to  boyhood  through  original  infancy. 
Therefore  he  who  was  not  always  a  father, 
also  did  not  always  beget :  but  where  the 
Father  is  eternal,  the  Son  also  is  eternal. 
And  so  if  you  hold,  whether  by  argument 
or  by  instinct,  that  God,  in  the  mystery  of 
our  knowledge  of  Whom  one  property  is  that 
He  is  Father,  was  not  always  the  Father  of 


224 


DE    TRINITATE. 


the  begotten  Son,  you  hold  also,  as  a  matter  of 
understanding  and  of  knowledge,  that  the  Son, 
Who  was  begotten,  did  not  always  exist.  But 
if  the  property  of  fatherhood  be  co-eternal 
with  the  Father,  then  necessarily  also  the  pro- 
perty of  sonship  must  be  co-eternal  with  the 
Son.  And  how  will  it  square  with  our  Ian 
guage  or  our  understanding  to  maintain  that 
He  was  not  before  He  was  born,  Whose 
property  it  is  that  He  always  was  what  He 
has  been  born. 

24.  And  so  God  Only-begotten,  containing 
in  Himself  the  form  and  image  of  the  in- 
visible God,  in  all  things  which  are  properties 
of  God  the  Father  is  equal  to  Him  by  virtue 
of  the  fulness  of  true  Godhead  in  Himself. 
For,  as  we  have  shewn  in  the  former  books, 
in  respect  of  power  and  .veneration  He  is  as 
mighty  and  as  worthy  of  honour  as  the 
Father :  so  also,  inasmuch  as  the  Father  is 
always  Father,  He  too,  inasmuch  as  He  is 
the  Son,  possesses  the  like  property  of  being 
always  the  Son.  For  according  to  the  words 
spoken  to  Moses,  He  Who  is,  hath  sent  Ate 
u?ito  you 4,  we  obtain  the  unambiguous  con- 
ception that  absolute  being  belongs  to  God ; 
since  that  which  is,  cannot  be  thought  of  or 
spoken  of  as  not  being.  For  being  and  not 
being  are  contraries,  nor  can  these  mutually 
exclusive  descriptions  be  simultaneously  true 
of  one  and  the  same  object :  for  while  the 
one  is  present,  the  other  must  be  absent. 
Therefore,  where  anything  is,  neither  concep- 
tion nor  language  will  admit  of  its  not  being. 
When  our  thoughts  are  turned  backwards,  and 
are  continually  carried  back  further  and  further 
to  understand  the  nature  of  Him  Who  is,  this 
sole  fact  about  Him,  that  He  is,  remains  ever 
prior  to  our  thoughts ;  since  that  quality,  which 
is  infinitely  present  in  God,  always  withdraws 
itself  from  the  backward  gaze  of  our  thoughts, 
though  they  reach  back  to  an  infinite  distance. 
The  result  is  that  the  backward  straining  of 
our  thoughts  can  never  grasp  anything  prior 
to  God's  property  of  absolute  existence  ;  since 
nothing  presents  itself,  to  enable  us  to  under- 
stand the  nature  of  God,  even  though  we  go 
on  seeking  to  eternity,  save  always  the  fact 
that  God  always  is.  That  then  which  has 
both  been  declared  about  God  by  Moses, 
that  of  which  our  human  intelligence  can  give 
no  further  explanation  ;  that  very  quality  the 
Gospels  testify  to  be  a  property  of  God  Only- 
begotten ;  since  in  the  beginning  was  the 
Word,  and  since  the  Word  was  with  God, 
and  since  He  was  the  true  Light,  and  since 
God   Only-begotten  is  in   the    bosom  of  the 


Father5,  and  since  Jesus  Christ  is 'God  over 
all6. 

25.  Therefore  He  was,  and  He  is,  since 
He  is  from  Him  Who  always  is  what  He  is. 
But  to  be  from  Him,  that  is  to  say,  to  be  from 
the  Father,  is  birth.  Moreover,  to  be  always 
from  Him,  Who  always  is,  is  eternity ;  but 
this  eternity  is  derived  not  from  Himself,  but 
from  the  Eternal.  And  from  the  Eternal  no- 
thing can  spring  but  what  is  eternal  :  for  if 
the  Offspring  is  not  eternal,  then  neither  is 
the  Father,  Who  is  the  source  of  generation, 
eternal.  Now  since  it  is  the  special  character- 
istic of  His  being  that  His  Father  always 
exists,  and  that  He  is  always  His  Son,  and 
since  eternity  is  expressed  in  the  name  He 
that  is,  therefore,  since  He  possesses  absolute 
being,  He  possesses  also  eternal  being.  More- 
over, no  one  doubts  that  generation  implies 
birth,  and  that  birth  points  to  one  existing 
from  that  time  forth,  and  not  to  one  who  does 
not  continue.  Furthermore,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  no  one  who  already  was  in  exis- 
tence could  be  born.  For  no  cause  of  birth 
can  accrue  to  Him,  Who  of  Himself  con- 
tinues eternal.  But  God  Only-begotten,  Who 
is  the  Wisdom  of  God,  and  the  Power  and 
the  Word  of  God,  since  He  was  born,  bears 
witness  to  the  Father  as  the  source  of  His 
being.  Since  He  was  born  of  One,  Who 
eternally  exists,  He  was  not  born  of  nothing. 
Since  He  was  born  before  times  eternal,  His 
birth  must  necessarily  be  prior  to  all  thought. 
There  is  no  room  for  the  verbal  quibble,  "  He 
was  not,  before  He  was  born."  For  if  He  is 
within  the  range  of  our  thought,  in  the  sense 
that  He  was  not  before  He  was  born,  then 
both  our  thought  and  time  are  prior  to  His 
birth ;  since  everything  which  once  was  not, 
is  within  the  compass  of  thought  and  time, 
by  the  very  meaning  of  the  assertion  that  it 
once  was  not,  which  separates  off,  within  time, 
a  period  when  it  did  not  exist.  But  He  is 
from  the  Eternal,  and  yet  has  always  been ; 
He  is  not  ingenerate,  yet  never  was  non-exis- 
tent; since  to  have  always  been  transcends 
time,  and  to  have  been  born  is  birth. 

26.  And  so  we  confess  that  God  Only- 
begotten  was  born,  but  born  before  times 
eternal :  since  we  must  make  our  confession 
within  such  limits  as  the  express  preaching 
of  Apostles  and  Prophets  assigns  to  us  ;  though 
at  the  same  time  human  thought  cannot  grasp 
any  intelligible  idea  of  birth  out  of  time,  since 
it  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  earthly 
beings  that  any  of  them  should  be  born  before 
all  times.     But  when  we  make  this  assertion, 


*  Ex.  iii.  14  (in  LXX.). 


5  St.  John  i.  1,  9,  18. 


*  Rom.  is.  5. 


ON    THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    Xil, 


225 


how  can  we  reconcile  with  it,  as  part  of  the 
same  doctrine,  the  contradictory  statement 
that  before  His  birth  He  was  not,  when  ac- 
cording to  the  Apostle  He  is  God  Only- 
begotten  before  times  eternal  ?  If,  therefore, 
the  belief  that  He  was  born  before  times  eternal 
is  not  only  the  reasonable  conclusion  of  human 
intelligence,  but  the  confession  of  thoughtful 
faith,  then,  since  birth  implies  some  author 
of  being,  and  what  surpasses  all  time  is  eternal, 
and  whatever  is  born  before  times  eternal  trans- 
cends earthly  perception,  we  are  certainly  exalt- 
ing by  impious  self-will  a  notion  of  human 
reason,  if  we  maintain  in  a  carnal  sense  that 
before  He  was  born  He  was  not,  since  He 
is  born  eternal,  beyond  human  perception  or 
carnal  intelligence.  And  again,  whatever  trans- 
cends time  is  eternal. 

27.  For  we  can  embrace  all  time  in  imagina- 
tion or  knowledge,  since  we  know  that  what 
is  now  to-day,  did  not  exist  yesterday,  because 
what  was  yesterday  is  not  now ;  and  on  the 
other  hand  what  is  now,  is  only  now  and  was 
not  also  yesterday.  And  by  imagination  we 
can  so  span  the  past  that  we  have  no  doubt 
that  before  some  city  was  founded,  there 
existed  a  time  in  which  that  city  had  not 
been  founded.  Since,  therefore,  all  time  is 
the  sphere  of  knowledge  or  imagination,  we 
judge  of  it  by  the  perceptions  of  human 
reason ;  hence  we  are  considered  to  have 
reasonably  asserted  about  anything,  "It  was 
not,  before  it  was  born,"  since  antecedent 
time  is  prior  to  the  origin  of  every  single 
thing.  But  on  the  other  hand,  since  in  things 
of  God,  that  is  to  say,  in  regard  to  the  birth 
of  God,  there  is  nothing  that  is  not  before 
time  eternal  :  it  is  illogical  to  use  of  Him  the 
phrase  "before  He  was  born,"  or  to  suppose 
that  He  Who  possesses  before  times  eternal 
the  eternal  promise,  is  merely  (in  the  language 
of  the  blessed  Apostle  ?)  in  hope  of  eternal  life, 
which  God  Who  cannot  lie  has  promised  be- 
fore times  eternal,  or  to  say  that  once  He 
was  not.  For  reason  rejects  the  notion  that 
He  began  to  exist  after  anything,  Who,  so  we 
must  confess,  existed  before  times  eternal. 

28.  We  may  grant  that  for  anything  to  be 
born  before  times  eternal  is  not  the  way  of 
human  nature,  nor  a  matter  which  we  can 
understand ;  and  yet  in  this  we  believe  God's 
declarations  about  Himself.  How  then  does 
the  infidelity  of  our  own  day  assert,  according 
to  the  conceptions  of  human  intelligence,  that 
that  had  no  existence  before  it  was  born, 
which  the  Apostolic  faith  tells  us  was,  in 
some  manner  inconceivable  to  the  human 8 
understanding,  always  born,  or  in  other  words 


7  a  Tim.  i.  9  ;  Tit.  L  9. 
VOL.  IX. 


8  Reading  humance. 


existed  before  times  eternal  ?  For  what  is 
born  before  time  is  always  born ;  since  that 
which  exists  before  time  eternal,  always  exists. 
But  what  has  always  been  born,  cannot  at  any 
time  have  had  no  existence  ;  since  non-exist- 
ence at  a  given  time  is  directly  contrary  to 
eternity  of  existence.  Moreover,  existing  al- 
ways excludes  the  idea  of  not  having  existed 
always.  And  the  idea  of  not  having  existed 
always  being  excluded  by  the  postulate  that 
He  has  always  been  born,  we  cannot  con- 
ceive the  supposition  that  He  did  not  exist 
before  He  was  born.  For  it  is  obvious  that 
He  Who  was  born  before  times  eternal,  has 
always  been  born,  although  we  can  form  no 
positive  conception  of  anything  having  been 
born  before  all  time.  For  if  we  must  con- 
fess (as  is  clearly  necessary)  that  He  has 
been  born  before  every  creature,  whether  in- 
visible or  corporeal,  and  before  all  ages  and 
times  eternal,  and  before  all  perception,  Who 
always  exists  through  the  very  fact  that  He 
has  been  so  born  ; — then  by  no  manner  of 
thought  can  it  be  conceived  that  before  He 
was  born,  He  did  not  exist;  since  He  Who 
has  been  born  before  times  eternal,  is  prior 
to  all  thought,  and  we  can  never  think  that 
once  He  did  not  exist,  when  we  have  to  con- 
fess that  He  always  exists. 

29.  But  our  opponent  cunningly  anticipates 
us  with  this  carping  objection.  "  If,"  he  urges, 
"it  is  inconceivable  that  He  did  not  exist 
before  He  was  born,  it  must  be  conceivable 
that  One  Who  already  existed  was  born." 

30.  I  will  ask  this  objector  in  reply,  whether 
he  remembers  my  calling  Him  anything  else 
than  born,  and  whether  I  did  not  say  that 
existence  before  times  eternal  and  birth  have 
the  same  meaning  in  the  case  of  Him  that  was. 
For  the  birth  of  One  already  existing  is  not 
really  birth,  but  a  self-wrought  change  through 
birth,  and  the  eternal  existence  of  One  Who 
is  born  means  that  in  His  birth  He  is  prior 
to  any  conception  of  time,  and  that  there  is 
no  room  for  the  mind  to  suppose  that  at  any 
time  He  was  unborn.  And  so  an  eternal 
birth  before  times  eternal  is  not  the  same  as 
existence  before  being  born.  But  to  have 
been  born  always  before  times  eternal  excludes 
the  possibility  of  having  had  no  existence  be- 
fore birth. 

31.  Again,  this  same  fact  excludes  the  possi- 
bility of  saying  that  He  existed  before  He 
was  born  ;  because  He  Who  transcends  per- 
ception transcends  it  in  every  respect.  For 
if  the  notion  of  being  born,  though  always 
existing,  transcends  thought,  it  is  equally  im- 
possible that  the  notion  that  He  did  not  exist 
before  He  was  born  should  be  a  subject 
of  thought.     And  so,  since  we  must  confess 


226 


DE   TRINITATE. 


that  to  have  been  always  born  means  for  us 
nothing  beyond  the  fact  of  birth,  the  ques- 
tion whether  He  did  or  did  not  exist  before 
He  was  born  cannot  be  determined  under 
our  conditions  of  thought ;  since  this  one 
fact  that  He  was  born  before  times  eternal 
ever  eludes  the  grasp  of  our  thought.  So  He 
was  born  and  yet  has  always  existed  ;  He 
Who  does  not  allow  anything  else  to  be 
understood  or  said  about  Him  than  that  He 
was  born.  For  since  He  is  prior  to  time  itself, 
within  which  thought  exists  (since  time  eternal 
is  previous  to  thought),  He  debars  thought 
from  determining  concerning  Him,  whether 
He  was  or  was  not  before  He  was  born  ;  since 
existence  before  birth  is  incompatible  with 
the  idea  of  birth,  and  previous  non-existence 
involves  the  idea  of  time.  Therefore,  while 
the  infinity  of  times  eternal  is  fatal  to  any 
explanation  involving  the  idea  of  time — that 
is  to  say,  to  the  notion  that  He  did  not  exist ; 
His  birth  equally  forbids  any  that  is  inconsis- 
tent with  it, — that  is  to  say,  the  notion  that 
He  existed  before  He  was  born.  For  if  the 
question  of  His  existence  or  His  non-exis- 
tence can  be  determined  under  our  conditions 
of  thought,  then  the  birth  itself  must  be  after 
time  ;  for  He  Who  does  not  always  exist  must, 
of  necessity,  have  begun  to  be  after  some  given 
point  of  time. 

32.  Therefore  the  conclusion  reached  by 
iaith  and  argument  and  thought  is  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  both  was  born  and  always  existed  : 
since  if  the  mind  survey  the  past  in  search  of 
knowledge  concerning  the  Son,  this  one  fact, 
and  nothing  else,  will  be  constantly  present 
to  the  enquirer's  perception,  that  He  was 
born  and  always  existed.  As  therefore  it  is 
a  property  of  God  the  Father  to  exist  without 
birth,  so  also  it  must  belong  to  the  Son  to 
exist  always  through  birth.  But  birth  can 
declare  nothing  except  that  there  is  a  Father, 
and  the  title  Father  nothing  else  except  that 
there  is  a  birth.  For  neither  those  names, 
nor  the  nature  of  the  case,  will  allow  of  any 
intermediate  position.  For  either  He  was 
not  always  a  Father,  unless  there  was  always 
also  a  Son ;  or  if  He  was  always  a  Father, 
there  was  always  also  a  Son  ;  since  whatever 
period  of  time  is  denied  to  the  Son,  to  make 
His  sonship  non-eternal,  just  so  much  the 
Father  lacks  of  having  been  always  a  Father : 
so  that  although  He  was  always  God,  never- 
theless He  cannot  have  been  also  a  Father 
for  the  same  infinity  during  which  He  is  God. 

33.  Now  the  declarations  of  impiety  even 
go  so  far  as  not  only  9  to  ascribe  to  the  Son 
birth  in  time,  but  also  generation  in  time  9a  to 


*  Reading  man  solum. 


9*  Reading  gencrationis. 


the  Father;   because  the  process  of  generation 
and  the  birth  take  place  within  one  period. 

34.  But,  heretic,  do  you  consider  it  pious 
and  devout  to  confess  that  God  indeed  always 
existed,  yet  was  not  always  Father?  For  if 
it  is  pious  for  you  to  think  so,  you  must  then 
condemn  Paul  of  impiety,  when  he  says  that 
the  Son  existed  before  times  eternal x :  you 
must  also  accuse  Wisdom  itself,  when  it  bears 
witness  concerning  itself  that  it  was  founded 
before  the  ages  :  for  it  was  present  with  the 
Father  when  He  was  preparing  the  heaven. 
But  in  order  that  you  may  assign  to  God 
a  beginning  of  His  being  a  Father,  first  de- 
termine the  starting-point  at  which  the  times 
must  have  begun.  For  if  they  had  a  begin- 
ning, the  Apostle  is  a  liar  for  declaring  them 
to  be  eternal.  For  you  all  are  accustomed 
to  reckon  the  times  from  the  creation  of  the 
sun  and  the  moon,  since  it  is  written  of  them, 
And  let  them  be  for  si^ns  and  for  times  and  for 
years 2.  But  He  Who  is  before  the  heaven, 
which  in  your  view  is  even  before  time,  is 
also  before  the  ages.  Nor  is  He  merely  before 
the  ages,  but  also  before  the  generations  of 
generations  which  precede  the  ages.  Why 
do  you  limit  things  divine  and  infinite  by  what 
is  perishable  and  earthly  and  narrow?  With 
regard  to  Christ,  Paul  knows  of  nothing  except 
an  eternity  of  times.  Wisdom  does  not  sav  that 
it  is  after  anything,  but  before  everything. 
In  your  judgment  the  times  were  established 
by  the  sun  and  the  moon ;  but  David  shews 
that  Christ  remains  before  the  sun,  saying, 
His  name  is  before  the  sun  3.  And  lest  you 
should  think  that  the  things  of  God  began 
with  the  formation  of.  this  universe,  he  says 
again,  And  for  generations  of  generations  before 
the  moon''.  These  great  men  counted  worthy 
of  prophetic  inspiration  look  down  upon  time  : 
every  opening  is  barred  whereby  human  per- 
ception might  penetrate  behind  the  birth,  which 
transcends  times  eternal.  Yet  let  the  faith 
of  a  devout  imagination  accept  this  as  limit 
of  its  speculations,  remembering  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  God  Only-begotten,  is  born  in  a 
manner  to  be  acknowledged  as  a  perfect  birth, 
and  in  the  reverence  paid  to  His  divinity, 
not  forgetting  that  He  is  eternal. 

35.  But  we  are  accused  of  lying,  and  to- 
gether with  us  the  doctrine  preached  by  the 
ApOstle  is  attacked,  because  while  it  confesses 
the  birth,  it  asserts  the  eternity  of  that  birth  : 
the  result  being  that,  while  the  birth  bears 
witness  to  an  Author  of  being,  the  assertion 
of  eternity  in  the  mystery  of  the  divine  birth 
transgresses  the  limits  of  human  thought,     tor 


>  Tit.  i.  3.  *  Gen.  1. 14.  3  Ps.  tad.  17  (in  LXX.). 

4  lb.  5  (LXX.). 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    XII. 


?,">, 


27 


there  is  brought  forward  against  us  the  de" 
claration  of  Wisdom  concerning  itself,  when 
it  taught  that  it  was  created  in  these  words  : 
The  Lord  created  Me  for  the  beginning  of  His 
ways  s. 

36.  And,  O  wretched  heretic !  you  turn 
the  weapons  granted  to  the  Church  against 
the  Synagogue,  against  belief  in  the  Church's 
preaching,  and  distort  against  the  common 
salvation  of  all  the  sure  meaning  of  a  saving 
doctrine.  For  you  maintain  by  these  words 
that  Christ  is  a  creature,  instead  of  silencing 
the  Jew,  who  denies  that  Christ  was  God 
before  eternal  ages,  and  that  His  power  is 
active  in  all  the  working  and  teaching  of  God, 
by  these  words  of  the  living  Wisdom  !  For 
Wisdom  has  in  this  passage  asserted  that  it 
had  been  created  for  the  beginning  of  the 
ways  of  God  and  for  His  works  from  the 
commencement  of  the  ages,  lest  perchance 
it  might  be  supposed  that  it  did  not  subsist 
before  Mary ;  yet  has  not  employed  this  word 
'created  '  in-order  to  signify  that  its  birth  was 
a  creation,  since  it  was  created  for  the  begin- 
ning of  God's  ways  and  for  His  works.  Nay 
rather  lest  any  one  should  suppose  that  this 
beginning  of  the  ways,  which  is  indeed  the 
starting-point  for  the  human  knowledge  of 
things  divine,  was  meant  to  subordinate  an 
infinite  birth  to  conditions  of  time,  Wisdom 
declared  itself  established  before  the  ages. 
For,  since  it  is  one  thing  to  be  created  for  the 
beginning  of  the  ways  and  for  the  works  of 
God,  and  another  to  be  established  before 
the  ages,  the  establishing  was  intended  to 
be  understood  as  prior  to  the  creation ;  and 
the  very  fact  of  its  being  established  for  God's 
works  before  the  ages  was  intended  to  point 
to  the  mystery  of  the  creation  ;  since  the  es- 
tablishing is  before  the  ages,  but  the  creation 
for  the  beginning  of  the  ways  and  for  the 
works  of  God  is  after  the  commencement  of 
the  ages. 

37.  But  now,  lest  the  terms  'creation'  and 
'establishing'  should  be  an  obstacle  to  belief 
in  the  divine  birth,  these  words  follow,  Before 
He  made  the  earth,  before  He  made  firm  the 
mountains,  before  all  the  hills  He  begat  Me6. 
Thus  He  is  begotten  before  the  earth,  Who 
is  established  before  the  ages ;  and  not  only 
before  the  earth,  but  also  before  the  mountains 
and  hills.  And  indeed  in  these  expressions, 
since  Wisdom  speaks  of  itself,  more  is  meant 
than  is  said.  For  all  objects  which  are  used 
to  convey  the  idea  of  infinity  must  be  of 
such  a  kind  as  to  be  subsequent  in  point  of 
time  to  no  single  thing  and  to  no  class  of 
things.      But  things  existing  in   time  cannot 


5  Prov.  viii.  22  (LXX.). 


«  lb.  24,  25  (LXX.). 


possibly  be  fitted  to  indicate  eternity  ;  because, 
from  the  very  fact  that  they  are  posterior  to 
other  things,  they  are  incapable  of  suggesting 
the  thought  of  infinity  as  a  beginning,  them- 
selves having  their  own  beginning  in  time.  For 
what  wonder  is  it,  that  God  should  have  be- 
gotten the  Lord  Christ  before  the  earth, 
when  the  origin  of  the  angels  is  found  to 
be  prior  to  the  creation  of  the  earth  ?  Or 
why  should  He,  Who  was  said  to  be  begotten 
before  the  earth,  be  also  declared  to  be  born 
before  the  mountains,  and  not  only  before  the 
mountains  but  also  before  the  hills ;  the  hills 
being  mentioned,  as  an  afterthought,  after  the 
mountains,  and  reason  requiring  that  there 
should  be  a  world  before  mountains  could 
exist?  For  such  reasons  it  cannot  be  sup- 
posed that  these  words  were  used  merely  in 
order  that  He  might  be  understood  to  exist 
prior  to  hills  and  mountains  and  earth,  Who 
surpasses  by  the  eternity  of  His  own  infinity 
things  which  are  themselves  prior  to  earth 
and  mountains  and  hills. 

38.  But  this  divine  discourse  has  not  left 
our  understandings  unenlightened,  since  it  ex- 
plains the  reason  of  the  phrase  in  what  fol- 
lows : — God  made  the  regions,  both  the  un- 
inhabitable parts  and  the  heights  which  are 
inhabited  under  the  heaven.  When  He  was 
preparing  the  heaven,  I  was  with  Him ;  a?id 
when    He   tvas    setting   apart    His   own   seat. 

When  above  the  winds  He  made  the  clouds  huge 
in  the  upper  air,  and  when  He  placed  securely 
the  springs  under  the  heaven,  and  when  He 
made  firm  the  foundations  of  the  earth,  I  was 
by  Him,  joining  all  things  together 1.  What 
period  in  time  is  here?  Or  how  far  are  the 
conceptions  of  human  intelligence  allowed  to 
reach  beyond  the  infinite  birth  of  God  Only- 
begotten  ?  By  means  of  things  whose  creation 
we  can  conceive  in  our  mind,  it  is  not  possible 
to  understand  the  generation  of  Him,  Who 
is  prior  to  all  these  things  ;  and  hence  we 
cannot  maintain  that  He  came,  indeed,  first 
in  time,  yet  was  not  infinite,  inasmuch  as  the 
only  privilege  bestowed  upon  Him  was  a  birth 
prior  to  things  temporal.  For  in  that  case, 
since  they,  by  their  constitution,  are  subject 
to  the  conditions  of  time,  He,  though  prior 
to  them  all,  would  be  equally  subject  to  con- 
ditions of  time,  because  their  creation  within 
time  would  define  the  time  of  His  birth, 
namely  that  He  was  born  before  then  ;  for 
that  which  is  antecedent  to  temporal  things 
stands  in  the  same  relation  to  time  as  they. 

39.  But  the  vpice  of  God,  our  instruction 
in  true  wisdom,  speaks  what  is  perfect,  and 
expresses  the  absolute  truth,  when  it  teaches 


7  Prov.  viii.  26—30  (LXX.). 


Q2 


228 


DE    TRINITATE. 


that  itself  is  prior  not  merely  to  things  of  time, 
but   even   to    things   infinite.     For    when    the 
heavei:    was   being   prepared,    it   was   present 
with  God.     Is  the  preparation  of  the  heaven 
an   act  of  God   within   time ;  so  that  an  im- 
pulse of  thought  suddenly  surprised  His  mind, 
as  though  it  had  been  previously  dull  and  inert, 
and  after  the  fashion  of  men  He  sought  for 
materials  and   instruments  for  fashioning  the 
heaven  ?    Nay,  the  prophet's  conception  of  the 
working  of  God  is  far  different,  when  He  says, 
By   the   word  of  the  Lord  were  the   heavens 
established,  and  all  their  poiver  by  the  breath 
of  His  mouth  8.     Yet  the  heavens  needed  the 
command  of  God,  that  they  might  be  estab- 
lished;   for  their  arrangement  and  excellence 
in  this  firm  unshaken  constitution,  which  they 
display,  did  not  arise  from  the  blending  and 
commingling  of  some  kind  of  matter,  but  from 
the  breath  of  the  mouth  of  God.     What  then 
does  it  mean,  that  Wisdom  begotten  of  God 
was  present  with  Him,  when  He  was  preparing 
the   heaven?     For  neither  does   the  creation 
of  heaven  consist  in  a  preparation  of  material, 
nor  does  it  consist  with  the  nature  of  God  to 
linger  over   preliminary   thoughts    concerning 
His  work.      For  everything,  which  there  is  in 
created    things,    was   always   with    God :     for 
although    these    things    in    respect    of    their 
creation  have  a  beginning,   nevertheless  they 
have  no  beginning  in  respect  of  the  knowledge 
and  power  of  God.     And  here  the  prophet  is 
our  witness,  saying,  O  God,   Who  hast  made  all 
things   which  shall  be  °.     For  although  things 
future,  in   so    far  as  they  are  to  be  created, 
are  still  to  be  made,  yet  to  God,  with  Whom 
there  is  nothing  new  or  sudden  in   creation, 
they  have  already  been  made ;    since  there  is 
a  dispensation  of  times  for  their  creation,  and 
in  the  prescient  working  of  the  divine  power 
they  have  already  been  made.     Here,  therefore, 
Wisdom,  in  teaching  that  it  was  born  before 
the  ages,  teaches  that  it  is  not  merely  prior 
to  things  which  have  been  created,  but  is  even 
co-eternal  with  what  is  eternal,  to  wit,  with  the 
preparation    of  the   heaven,   and   the   setting 
apart  of  the  abode  of  God.     For  this  abode 
was  not  set  apart   at  the  time  when   it    was 
actually  made,  for  setting  apart  and  fashioning 
an  abode  are  different  things.     Nor  again  was 
the   heaven  formed  at  the  time  when  it  was 
(ideally)  prepared,  for  Wisdom  was  with  God 
both  when  He  prepared  and  when  He  set  apart 
the  heaven.     And  afterwards  it  was  fashioning 
the  heaven  by  the  side  of  God  Who  formed 
it:  it  proves  its  eternity  by  its  presence  with 


8  Ps.  xxxii.6(LXX.). 

9  Is.  xlv.   ii  (LXX.  but  altered  from  the  3rd  persoa  to  the 
and). 


Him  as  He  prepares  ;  it  reveals  its  functions, 
when  it  fashions  by  the  side  of  God  Who  forms. 
Therefore,  in  the  passage  before  us  it  said  that 
it  was  begotten  even  before  the  earth  and  moun- 
tains and  hills,  because  it  meant  to  teach  that 
it  was  present  at  the  preparation  of  the  heaven; 
in  order  that  it  might  shew  that,  even  when 
the  heaven  was  being  prepared,  this  work  was 
already  finished  in  the  counsel  of  God,  for 
to  Him  there  is  nothing  new. 

40.  For  the  preparation  for  creation  is  per- 
petual and  eternal ;  nor  was  the  frame  of  this 
universe   actually   made   by   isolated    acts    of 
thought,  in    the   sense  that   first   the   heaven 
was   thought   of,  and   afterwards    there   came 
into  God's  mind  a  thought  and  plan  concern- 
ing the  earth;  that  He  thought  of  each  part 
singly,  so  that  first  the  earth  was  spread  out 
as  a  plain,  and  then  through  better  counsels 
was   made   to  rise  up  in  mountains,  and  yet 
again  was  diversified  with  hills,  and  in  the  fourth 
place  was   also    made    habitable  even   in  the 
heights ;  that  so  the  heaven  was  prepared  and 
the  abode  of  God  set  apart,  and  huge  clouds 
in  the  upper  air  held  the  exhalations  caught 
up  by  the  winds  ;  then  afterwards  sure  springs 
began  to  run  under  the  heaven,  and,  last  of  all, 
the  earth  was  made  firm  with  strong  founda- 
tions.    For  Wisdom  declares  that  it  is  prior 
to  all  these  things.     But  since  all  things  under 
the    heaven    were    made    through    God,    and 
Christ  was  present  at  the  fashioning  of  the 
heaven,  and  preceded  even  the  eternity  of  the 
heaven  which  was  prepared,  this  fact  does  not 
allow  us  to  think  in  respect  to  God  of  dis- 
connected thoughts  on  details,  since  the  whole 
preparation  of  these  things  is  co-eternal  with 
God.     For  although,  as  Moses  teaches,  each 
act   of  creation    had    its   proper    order; — the 
making  the  firmament  solid,  the  laying  bare 
of  the  dry  land,  the  gathering  together  of  the 
sea,  the  ordering  of  the  stars,  the  generation  by 
the  waters  and  the  earth  when  they  brought 
forth  living  creatures  out  of  themselves  ;    yet 
the  creation  of  the  heaven  and  earth  and  other 
elements   is   not    separated    by   the    slightest 
interval  in  God's  working,  since  their  prepara- 
tion  had  been  completed   in   like   infinity  of 
eternity  in  the  counsel  of  God. 

41.  Thus,  though  Christ  was  present  in  God 
with  these  infinite  and  eternal  decrees,  He  has 
granted  to  us  nothing  more  than  a  knowledge 
of  the  fact  of  His  birth;  in  order  that,  just 
as  an  apprehension  of  the  birth  is  the  means 
which  leads  to  faith  in  God,  so  also  the  know- 
ledge of  the  eternity  of  His  birth  might  avail 
to  sustain  piety ;  since  neither  reason  nor  ex- 
perience allow  us  to  speak  of  any  but  an  eternal 
Son  as  proceeding  from  a  Father  Who  is 
eternal. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK    XII. 


229 


42.  But  perhaps  the  word  'creation,'  and 
its  employment  of  Him,  disturbs  us.  Certainly 
the  word  '  creation  '  would  disturb  us,  if  birth 
before  the  ages  and  creation  for  the  begin- 
ning of  the  ways  of  God  and  for  His  works 
were  not  affirmed  of  Him.  For  birth  cannot 
be  understood  to  denote  creation,  since  the 
birth  precedes  causation,  but  the  creation  takes 
place  through  causation.  For  before  the  pre- 
paration of  the  heaven  and  before  the  com- 
mencement of  the  ages  was  He  established, 
Who  was  created  for  the  beginning  of  the 
ways  of  God  and  for  His  works.  Is  it  pos- 
sible that  to  be  created  for  the  beginning  of 
the  ways  of  God  and  for  His  works,  means 
the  same  as  to  be  born  before  all  things  ? 
No  :  one  of  these  ideas  relates  to  time  em- 
ployed in  action,  but  the  other  bears  a  sense 
which  has  no  relation  to  time. 

43.  Or  perhaps  you  wish  the  assertion  that 
He  was  created  for  the  works  to  be  under- 
stood in  the  sense  that  He  was  created  on 
account  of  the  works;  in  other  words  that 
Christ  was  created  for  the  sake  of  performing 
the  works.  In  that  case  He  exists  as  a  ser- 
vant and  a  builder  of  the  universe,  and  was 
not  born  the  Lord  of  Glory ;  He  was  created 
for  the  service  of  forming  the  ages,  and  was 
not  always  the  beloved  Son  and  the  King  of  the 
ages.  But,  although  the  general  understanding 
of  Christians  contradicts  this  impious  thought 
of  yours,  recognising  that  it  is  one  thing  to 
be  created  for  the  beginning  of  the  ways  of 
God  and  for  His  works,  and  another  to  be 
born  before  the  ages,  yet  this  very  same 
passage  thwarts  your  purpose  of  falsely  assert- 
ing that  the  Lord  Christ  was  created,  on 
account  of  the  formation  of  the  universe, 
since  it  shews  that  God  the  Father  is  the 
Maker  and  Former  of  the  universe,  and 
shews  it  convincingly,  since  Christ  Himself 
was  present  fashioning  by  the  side  of  Him 
Who  was  forming  all  things.  But,  while  all 
Scripture  was  designed  to  speak  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  as  the  Creator  of  the  universe, 
Wisdom,  to  destroy  all  occasion  for  impiety,  has 
here  declared  that  though  God  the  Father 
was  the  Constructor  of  the  universe,  yet  itself 
was  not  absent  from  Him  while  constructing 
it,  since  it  was  present  with  Him  even  when 
He  was  preparing  it  beforehand,  and  that 
when  the  Father  formed  the  universe,  Wis- 
dom also  was  fashioning  it  by  the  side  of 
Him  Who  formed  it,  and  was  present  with 
Him  even  when  He  prepared  it.  Whence 
Wisdom  would  have  us  understand  that  it 
was  not  created  on  account  of  God's  works  r, 
by  the  very  fact  that  it  had  been  present  at 


1  Reading  per  id  ipsunt  ea  nequc  propter  opera. 


the  eternal  preparation  of  works  yet  to  be, 
and  proves  Scripture  not  to  be  false,  by  the 
fact  that  it  fashioned  the  universe  by  the  side 
of  God  when  He  formed  it. 

44.  Learn  at  last,  heretic,  from  the  revelation 
of  Catholic  teaching,  what  is  the  meaning  of 
the  saying  that  Christ  was  created  for  the 
beginning  of  the  ways  of  God  and  for  His 
works;  and  be  taught  by  the  words  of  Wisdom 
itself  the  folly  of  your  impious  dulness.  For 
thus  it  begins:  If  I  shall  declare  unto  you  the 
things  which  are  done  every  day,  I  will  remember 
to  recount  those  things  which  are  from  of  old*. 
For  Wisdom  had  said  before,  You,  O  men, 
I  entreat,  and  I  utter  my  voice  to  the  sons  of 
men.  O  ye  simple,  understand  subtilty,  more- 
over, ye  unlearned,  apply  your  heart  * ;  and 
again,  Through  Me  hings  reign,  and  mighty 
men  decree  justice.  Through  Me  princes  are 
magnified,  and  through  Me  despots  possess  the 
earth  *;  and  again,  I  xvalk  iti  the  ways  of  equity, 
and  move  in  the  midst  of  the  paths  of  justice ; 
that  I  may  divide  substance  to  those  that  love 
Me,  and  fill  their  treasuries  with  good  things*. 
Wisdom  is  not  silent  about  its  daily  work. 
And  firstly  entreating  all  men,  it  advises  the 
simple  to  understand  subtilty,  and  the  un- 
learned to  apply  their  heart,  in  order  that 
a  zealous  and  diligent  reader  may  ponder  the 
different  and  separate  meanings  of  the  words. 
And  so  it  teaches  that  by  its  methods  and 
ordinances  all  success,  all  attainment  of  know- 
ledge or  fame  or  wealth,  is  achieved :  it  shews 
that  within  itself  are  contained  the  reigns  of 
kings  and  the  prudence  of  the  mighty,  and 
the  famous  works  of  princes,  and  the  justice 
of  despots  who  possess  the  earth ;  that  it  more- 
over does  not  mingle  with  wicked  deeds  and 
has  no  part  in  acts  of  injustice;  and  that  all 
this  is  done  by  Wisdom  in  order  that,  by 
taking  part  in  every  work  of  equity  and  justice, 
it  may  supply  to  those  that  love  it,  a  wealth 
of  eternal  goods  and  incorruptible  treasures. 
Therefore  Wisdom,  after  declaring  that  it  will 
relate  the  things  which  are  done  every  day, 
promises  that  it  will  also  be  mindful  to  re- 
count the  things  which  are  from  of  old.  And 
now  what  blindness  is  it,  to  think  that  things 
were  performed  before  the  beginning  of  the 
ages,  which  are  expressly  declared  to  date 
merely  from  the  beginning  of  the  ages  !  For 
every  work  among  those  which  date  from  the 
beginning  of  the  ages  is  itself  posterior  to  that 
beginning  :  but  on  the  contrary,  things  which 
are  before  the  beginning  of  the  ages,  precede 
the  ordering  of  the  ages,  which  are  later  than 
they.      And  so  Wisdom,  after  declaring   that 


Prov.  viii.  ai  (LXX.).  3  lb.  4,  5.  4  lb.  15,  16. 

5  lb.  20,  21. 


2jO 


DE   TRINITATE. 


it  is  mindful  to  speak  of  the  things  which  date 
from  the  beginning  of  the  ages,  says,  The  Lord 
created  Me  for  the  beginning  of  His  ways  for 
His  works,  by  these  words  denoting  things  per- 
formed from  the  date  of  the  beginning  of  the 
ages.  Thus  Wisdom's  teaching  concerns  not  a 
generation  declared  to  precede  the  ages,  but 
a  dispensation  which  began  with  the  ages 
themselves. 

45.  We  must  also  enquire  what  is  the  mean- 
ing of  the  saying  that  God,  born  before  the 
ages,  was  again  created  for  the  beginning  of 
the  ways  of  God  and  for  His  works.  This 
surely  is  said  because  where  there  is  a  birth 
before  the  commencement  of  the  ages,  there 
is  the  eternity  of  an  endless  generation :  but 
where  the  same  birth  is  represented  as  a  crea- 
tion from  the  commencement  of  the  ages,  for 
the  ways  of  God  and  for  His  works,  it  is 
applied  as  the  creative  cause  to  the  works 
and  to  the  ways.  And  first,  since  Christ  is 
Wisdom,  we  must  see  whether  He  is  Himself 
the  beginning  of  the  way  of  the  works  of  God. 
Of  this,  I  think,  there  is  no  doubt;  for  He 
says,  /  am  the  way,  and,  No  man  cometh  to 
the  Father  except  through  Me6.  A  way  is  the 
guide  of  those  who  go,  the  course  marked 
out  for  those  who  hasten,  the  safeguard  of 
the  ignorant,  a  teacher,  so  to  speak,  of  things 
unknown  and  longed  for.  Therefore  He  is 
created  for  the  beginning  of  the  ways,  for 
the  works  of  God ;  because  He  is  the  Way 
and  leads  men  to  the  Father.  But  we  must 
seek  for  the  purpose  of  this  creation,  which  is 
from  the  commencement  of  the  ages.  For 
it  is  also  the  mystery  of  the  last  dispensation, 
wherein  Christ  was  again  created  in  bodily 
form,  and  declared  that  He  was  the  way  of 
the  works  of  God.  Again,  He  was  created  for 
the  ways  of  God  from  the  commencement  of 
the  ages,  when,  subjecting  Himself  to  the 
visible  form  of  a  creature,  He  took  the  form 
of  a  created  being. 

46.  And  so  let  us  see  for  what  ways  of 
God,  and  for  what  works  of  God,  Wisdom 
was  created  from  the  commencement  of  the 
ages,  though  born  of  God  before  all  ages. 
Adam  heard  the  voice  of  One  walking  in 
Paradise.  Do  you  think  that  His  approach 
could  have  been  heard,  had  He  not  assumed 
the  guise  of  a  created  being?  Is  not  the 
fact,  that  He  was  heard  as  He  walked,  proof 
that  He  was  present  in  a  created  form  ?  I  do 
not  ask  in  what  guise  He  spoke  to  Cain  and 
Abel  and  Noah,  and  in  what  guise  He  was 
near  to  Enoch  also,  blessing  him.  An  Angel 
speaks  to  Hagar,  and  certainly  He  is  also 
God.     Has   He    the   same    form,    when    He 


6  St.  John  xiv.  6. 


appears  like  an  Angel,  as  He  has  in  that 
nature,  by  virtue  of  which  He  is  God  ?  Cer- 
tainly the  form  of  an  Angel  is  revealed,  where 
afterwards  mention  is  made  of  the  nature  of 
God.  But  why  should  I  speak  of  an  Angel? 
He  comes  as  a  man  to  Abraham.  Under  the 
guise  of  a  man,  in  the  shape  of  that  created 
being,  is  not  Christ  present  in  that  nature, 
which  He  possesses  as  being  also  God  ?  A 
man  speaks,  and  is  present  in  the  body,  and 
is  nourished  by  food ;  and  yet  God  is  adored. 
Surely  He  Who  was  an  Angel  is  now  also  man, 
in  order  to  save  us  from  the  assumption  that 
any  of  these  diverse  aspects  of  one  state,  that 
of  the  creature,  is  His  natural  form  as  God. 
Again,  He  comes  to  Jacob  in  human  shape, 
and  even  grasps  him  for  wrestling ;  and  He 
takes  hold  with  His  hands,  and  struggles  with 
His  limbs,  and  bends  His  flanks,  and  adopts 
every  movement  and  gesture  of  ours.  But 
again  He  is  revealed,  this  time  to  Moses,  and 
as  a  fire ;  in  order  that  you  might  learn  to 
believe  that  this  created  nature  was  to  provide 
Him  with  an  outward  guise,  not  to  embody 
the  reality  of  His  nature.  He  possessed,  at 
that  moment,  the  power  of  burning,  but  He 
did  not  assume  the  destructive  property  which 
is  inherent  in  the  nature  of  fire,  for  the  fire 
evidently  burned  and  yet  the  bush  was  not 
injured. 

47.  Glance  over  the  whole  course  of  time, 
and  realise  in  what  guise  He  appeared  to 
Joshua  the  son  of  Nun,  a  prophet  bearing 
His  name,  or  to  Isaiah,  who  relates  that  he 
saw  Him,  as  the  Gospel  also  bears  witness  7, 
or  to  Ezekiel,  who  was  admitted  even  to 
knowledge  of  the  Resurrection,  or  to  Daniel, 
who  confesses  the  Son  of  Man  in  the  eternal 
kingdom  of  the  ages,  or  to  all  the  rest  to  whom 
He  presented  Himself  in  the  form  of  various 
created  beings,  for  the  ways  of  God  and  for  the 
works  of  God,  that  is  to  say,  to  teach  us  to 
know  God,  and  to  profit  our  eternal  state. 
Why  does  this  method,  expressly  designed  for 
human  salvation,  bring  about  at  the  present 
time  such  an  impious  attack  upon  His  eternal 
birth?  The  creation,  of  which  you  speak, 
dates  from  the  commencement  of  the  ages; 
but  His  birth  is  without  end,  and  before  the 
ages.  Maintain  by  all  means  that  we  are 
doing  violence  to  words,  if  a  Prophet,  or  the 
Lord,  or  an  Apostle,  or  any  oracle  whatever 
has  described  by  the  name  of  creation  the 
birth  of  His  eternal  divinity.  In  all  these 
manifestations  God,  Who  is  a  consuming  fire, 
is  present,  as  created,  in  such  a  manner  that 
He  could  lay  aside  the  created  form  by  the 
same  power  by  which  He  assumed  it,  being 

t  St.  John  xii.  41. 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   XII. 


231 


able  to  destroy  again  that  which  had  come 
into  existence  merely  that  it  might  be  looked 
upon. 

48.  But  that  blessed  and  true  birth  of  the 
flesh  conceived  within  the  Virgin  the  Apostle 
has  named  both  a  creating  and  a  making,  for 
then  there  was  born  both  the  nature  and  form 
of  our  created  being.  And  without  doubt  in  his 
view  this  name  belongs  to  Christ's  true  birth 
as  a  man,  since  he  says,  But  when  the  fulness 
of  the  time  came,  God  sent  His  Son,  made  of 
a  woman,  made  under  the  law,  in  order  that 
He  might  redeem  those  who  are  under  the  law, 
that  we  might  obtain  the  adoption  of  sons%. 
And  so  He  is  God's  own  Son,  Who  is  made 
in  human  form  and  of  human  origin ;  nor  is 
He  only  made  but  also  created,  as  it  is  said  : 
Even  as  the  truth  is  in  Jesus,  that  ye  put 
away,  according  to  your  former  manner  of  life, 
that  old  man,  which  becomes  corrupt  according 
to  the  lusts  of  deceit.  However,  be  ye  renewed 
in  the  spirit  of  your  mind,  and  put  ye  on 
that  new  man,  which  is  created  according  to 
God  v.  So  the  new  man  is  to  be  put  on  Who 
has  been  created  according  to  God.  For  He 
Who  was  Son  of  God  was  born  also  Son  of 
Man.  This  was  not  the  birth  of  the  divinity, 
but  the  creating  of  the  flesh  ;  the  new  Man 
taking  the  title  of  the  race,  and  being  created 
according  to  God  Who  was  born  before  the 
ages.  And  how  the  new  man  was  created 
according  to  God,  he  explains  in  what  follows, 
adding,  in  righteousness,  and  in  holiness,  and 
in  truth*.  For  there  was  no  guile  in  Him; 
and  He  has  been  made  unto  us  righteousness 
and  sanctification,  and  is  Himself  the  Truth. 
This,  then,  is  the  Christ,  created  a  new  man 
according  to  God,  Whom  we  put  on. 

49.  If,  then,  Wisdom,  in  saying  that  it  was 
mindful  of  the  things  which  have  been  per- 
formed since  the  beginning  of  the  ages,  said 
that  it  was  created  for  the  works  of  God  and 
for  the  ways  of  God ;  and  yet,  while  saying 
that  it  was  created,  taught  that  it  was  estab- 
lished before  the  ages,  lest  we  should  sup- 
pose that  the  mystery  of  that  created  form, 
so  variously  and  frequently  assumed,  involved 
some  change  in  its  nature ; — for  although  the 
firmness  with  which  it  was  established  would 
not  allow  of  any  disturbance  that  could  over- 
throw it,  yet,  lest  the  establishment  might 
seem  to  mean  something  less  than  birth,  Wis- 
dom declared  itself  to  be  begotten  before  all 
things : — if  this  is  so,  why  is  the  term  '  crea- 
tion '  now  applied  to  the  birth  of  that  which  was 
both  begotten  before  all  things,  and  also  es- 
tablished before  the  ages  ?    Because  that  which 


8  GaL  hr.  4,  5.  9  Eph.  iv.  21 — 24.  »  lb.  24. 


was  established  before  the  ages  was  created 
anew  from  the  commencement  of  the  ages  for 
the  beginning  of  the  ways  of  God  and  for 
His  works.  In  this  sense  must  we  understand 
the  difference  between  creation  from  the  com  ■ 
mencement  of  the  ages  and  that  birth  which 
precedes  the  ages  and  all  things.  Impiety  at 
least  has  not  this  excuse,  that  it  can  plead 
error  as  the  cause  of  its  profanity. 

50.  For  although  the  weakness  of  the  un- 
derstanding might  hinder  the  perceptions  of 
a  man  devoutly  disposed,  so  that,  even  after 
this  explanation,  he  might  fail  to  grasp  the 
meaning  of  "creation,"  nevertheless,  even  the 
letter  of  the  Apostle's  saying,  when  he  ap- 
plies2 the  term  "making"  to  a  true  birth, 
should  have  sufficed  for  a  sincere,  if  not  in- 
telligent, belief,  that  the  term  "creation"  was 
designed  to  conduce  to  a  belief  in  generation. 
For  when  the  Apostle  was  minded  to  assert  the 
birth  of  One  from  one  Parent,  that  is  to  say, 
the  birth  of  the  Lord  from  a  virgin  without 
a  conception  due  to  human  passions,  he  clearly 
had  a  definite  purpose  in  calling  Him  "  made 
of  a  woman,"  Whom  he  knew  and  had  fre- 
quently asserted  to  have  been  born.  He  de- 
sired that  the  '  birth  '  should  point  to  the  reality 
of  the  generation,  and  the  'making'  should 
testify  to  the  birth  of  One  from  one  Parent ; 
because  the  term  'making'  excludes  the  idea 
of  a  conception  by  means  of  human  inter- 
course, it  being  expressly  stated  that  He  was 
made  of  a  virgin,  though  it  is  equally  certain 
that  He  was  born  and  not  made.  But  see, 
heretic,  how  impious  you  are.  No  sentence 
of  prophet,  or  evangelist,  or  apostle  has  said 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  created  from  God,  rather 
than  born  from  Him :  yet  you  deny  the  birth, 
and  assert  the  creation,  but  not  according 
to  the  Apostle's  meaning,  when  he  said  that 
He  was  made,  lest  there  should  be  any  doubt 
that  He  was  born  as  One  from  one  Parent. 
You  make  your  assertion  in  a  most  impious 
sense,  implying  that  God  did  not  derive  His 
being  by  way  of  birth  conveying  nature;  al- 
though a  creature  would  rather  have  come  into 
being  out  of  nothing.  This  is  the  primary 
infection  in  your  unhappy  mind,  not  that  you 
term  birth  a  creating,  but  that  you  adapt 
your  faith  to  the  idea  of  creation  instead  of 
birth.  And  yet  while  it  would  mark  a  poor 
intellect,  still  it  would  not  mark  a  man  en- 
tirely undevout,  if  you  had  called  Christ 
created,  in  order  that  men  might  recognise 
His  impassible  birth  from  God,  as  being  that 
of  One  from  One. 

51.  But  none  of  these  phrases  does  a  firm 


1  Deputantis,  conj.  edd.  Benedict. 


232 


DE   TRINITATE. 


apostolic  faith  permit.  For  it  knows  in  what 
dispensation  of  time  Christ  was  created,  and 
in  what  eternity  of  times  He  was  born.  More- 
over, He  was  born  God  of  God,  and  the 
divinity  of  His  true  birth  and  perfect  gene- 
ration is  not  doubtful.  For  in  relation  to  God 
we  acknowledge  only  two  modes  of  being, 
birth  and  eternity  :  birth,  moreover,  not  after 
anything,  but  before  all  things,  so  that  birth 
only  bears  witness  to  a  Source  of  being,  and 
does  not  predicate  any  incongruity  between 
the  offspring  and  the  Source  of  being.  Still, 
by  common  admission,  this  birth,  because  it 
is  from  God,  implies  a  secondary  position 
in  respect  to  the  Source  of  being,  and  yet 
cannot  be  separated  from  that  Source,  since 
any  attempt  of  thought  to  pass  beyond  accept- 
ance of  the  fact  of  birth,  must  also  necessarily 
penetrate  the  mystery  of  the  generation.  And 
so  this  is  the  only  pious  language  to  use  about 
God  :  to  know  Him  as  Father,  and  with  Him 
to  know  also  Him,  Who  is  the  Son  born  of 
Him.  Nor  assuredly  are  we  taught  anything 
concerning  God,  except  that  He  is  the  Father 
of  God  the  Only-begotten  and  the  Creator. 
So  let  not  human  weakness  overreach  itself; 
and  let  it  make  this  only  confession,  in  which 
alone  lies  its  salvation — that,  before  the  mys- 
tery of  the  Incarnation,  it  is  ever  assured, 
concerning  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  of  this  one 
fact  that  He  had  been  born. 

52.  For  my  part,  so  long  as  I  shall  have  the 
power  by  means  of  this  Spirit  Whom  Thou 
hast  granted  me,  Holy  Father,  Almighty  God, 
I  will  confess  Thee  to  be  not  only  eternally 
God,  but  also  eternally  Father.  Nor  will 
I  ever  break  out  into  such  folly  and  impiety, 
as  to  make  myself  the  judge  of  Thy  omni- 
potence and  Thy  mysteries,  nor  shall  this 
weak  understanding  arrogantly  seek  for  more 
than  that  devout  belief  in  Thy  infinitude  and 
faith  in  Thy  eternity,  which  have  been  taught 
me.  I  will  not  assert  that  Thou  wast  ever 
without  Thy  Wisdom,  and  Thy  Power,  and 
Thy  Word,  without  God  Only-begotten,  my 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  weak  and  imperfect 
language,  to  which  our  nature  is  limited,  does 
not  dominate  my  thoughts  concerning  Thee, 
so  that  my  poverty  of  utterance  should  choke 
faith  into  silence.  For  although  we  have  a 
word  and  wisdom  and  power  of  our  own,  the 
product  of  our  free  inward  activity,  yet  Thine 
is  the  absolute  generation  of  perfect  God,  Who 
is  Thy  Word  and  Wisdom  and  Power;  so 
that  He  can  never  be  separated  from  Thee, 
Who  in  these  names  of  Thy  eternal  properties 
is  shewn  to  be  born  of  Thee.  Yet  His  birth 
is  only  so  far  shewn  as  to  make  manifest  the 
fact  that  Thou  art  the  Source  of  His  being; 
yet   sufficiently  to  confirm    our  belief  in  His 


infinity,  inasmuch  as  it  is  related  that  He  was 
born  before  times  eternal. 

53.  For  in  human  affairs  Thou  hast  set  be- 
fore us  many  things  of  such  a  sort,  that  though 
we  do  not  know  their  cause,  yet  the  effect 
is  not  unknown ;  and  reverence  inculcates 
faith,  where  ignorance  is  inherent  in  our  nature. 
Thus  when  I  raised  to  Thy  heaven  these 
feeble  eyes  of  mine,  my  certainty  regarding 
it  was  limited  to  the  fact  that  it  is  Thine. 
For  seeing  therein  these  orbits  where  the 
stars  are  fixed,  and  their  annual  revolutions, 
and  the  Pleiades  and  the  Great  Bear  and  the 
Morning  Star,  each  having  their  varied  duties 
in  the  service  which  is  appointed  them,  I 
recognise  Thy  presence,  O  God,  in  these 
things  whereof  I  cannot  gain  any  clear  under- 
standing. And  when  I  view  the  marvellous 
swellings  of  Thy  sea,  I  know  that  I  have 
failed  to  comprehend  not  merely  the  origin 
of  the  waters  but  even  the  movements  of  this 
changeful  expanse;  yet  I  grasp  at  faith  in 
some  reasonable  cause,  although  it  is  one  that 
I  cannot  see,  and  fail  not  to  recognise  Thee 
in  these  things  also,  which  I  do  not  know. 
Furthermore,  when  in  thought  I  turn  to  the 
earth,  which  by  the  power  of  hidden  agencies 
causes  to  decay  all  the  seeds  which  it  receives, 
quickens  them  when  decayed,  multiplies  them 
when  quickened,  and  makes  them  strong  when 
multiplied  ;  in  all  these  changes  I  find  nothing 
which  my  mind  can  understand,  yet  my  ignor- 
ance helps  towards  recognising  Thee,  for 
though  I  know  nothing  of  the  nature  that 
waits  on  me,  I  recognise  Thee  by  actual  ex- 
perience of  the  advantages  I  possess.  More- 
over, though  I  do  not  know  myself,  yet  I 
perceive  so  much  that  I  marvel  at  Thee  the 
more  because  I  am  ignorant  of  myself.  For 
without  understanding  it,  I  perceive  a  certain 
motion  or  order  or  life  in  my  mind  when 
it  exercises  its  powers ;  and  this  very  per- 
ception I  owe  to  Thee,  for  though  Thou  deniest 
the  power  of  understanding  my  natural  first 
beginning,  yet  Thou  givest  that  of  perceiving 
nature  with  its  charms.  And  since  in  what 
concerns  myself  I  recognise  Thee,  ignorant 
as  I  am,  so  recognising  Thee  I  will  not  in 
what  concerns  Thee  cherish  a  feebler  faith 
in  Thy  omnipotence,  because  I  do  not  under- 
stand. My  thoughts  shall  not  attempt  to 
grasp  and  master  the  origin  of  Thy  Only- 
begotten  Son,  nor  shall  my  faculties  strain 
to  reach  beyond  the  truth  that  He  is  my 
Creator  and  my  God. 

54.  His  birth  is  before  times  eternal.  If 
anything  exist  which  precedes  eternity,  it  will 
be  something  which,  when  eternity  is  compre- 
hended, still  eludes  comprehension.  And  this 
something  is  Thine,  and  is  Thy  Only-begotten  ; 


ON   THE   TRINITY.  — BOOK   XII. 


233 


no  portion,  nor  extension,  nor  any  empty  name 
devised  to  suit  some  theory  of  Thy  mode  of 
action.  He  is  the  Son,  a  Son  born  of  Thee, 
God  the  Father,  Himself  true  God,  begotten 
by  Thee  in  the  unity  of  Thy  nature,  and 
meet  to  be  acknowledged  after  Thee,  and 
yet  with  Thee,  since  Thou  art  the  eternal 
Author  of  His  eternal  origin.  For  since 
He  is  from  Thee,  He  is  second  to  Thee ; 
yet  since  He  is  Thine,  Thou  art  not  to  be 
separated  from  Him.  For  we  must  never  as- 
sert that  Thou  didst  once  exist  without  Thy 
Son,  lest  we  should  be  reproaching  Thee 
either  with  imperfection,  as  then  unable  to 
generate,  or  with  superfluousness  after  the 
generation.  And  so  the  exact  meaning  for 
us  of  the  eternal  generation  is  that  we  know 
Thee  to  be  the  eternal  Father  of  Thy  Only- 
begotten  Son,  Who  was  born  of  Thee  before 
times  eternal. 

55.  But,  for  my  part,  I  cannot  be  content 
by  the  service  of  my  faith  and  voice,  to  deny 
that  my  Lord  and  my  God,  Thy  Only-begotten, 
Jesus  Christ,  is  a  creature ;  I  must  also  deny 
that  this  name  of  '  creature '  belongs  to  Thy 
Holy  Spirit,  seeing  that  He  proceeds  from 
Thee  and  is  sent  through  Him,  so  great  is 
my  reverence  for  everything  that  is  Thine. 
Nor,  because  I  know  that  Thou  alone  art 
unborn  and  that  the  Only-begotten  is  born  of 
Thee,  will  I  refuse  to  say  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  begotten,  or  assert  that  He  was  ever 
created.  I  fear  the  blasphemies  which  would 
be  insinuated  against  Thee  by  such  use  of  this 
title  '  creature,'  which  I  share  with  the  other 
beings  brought  into  being  by  Thee.  Thy 
Holy  Spirit,  as  the  Apostle  says,  searches  and 
knows  Thy  deep  things,  and  as  Intercessor 
for  me  speaks  to  Thee  words  I  could  not 
utter ;  and  shall  I  express  or  rather  dishonour, 
by  the  title  '  creature,'  the  power  of  His  na- 
ture, which  subsists  eternally,  derived  from 
Thee  through  Thine  Only-begotten  ?  Nothing, 
except  what  belongs  to  Thee,  penetrates  into 
Thee  :  nor  can  the  agency  of  a  power  foreign 
and  strange  to  Thee  measure  the  depth  of 
Thy  boundless  majesty.  To  Thee  belongs 
whatever  enters  into  Thee;  nor  is  anything 
strange  to  Thee,  which  dwells  in  Thee  through 
its  searching  power. 

56.  But  I  cannot  describe  Him,  Whose 
pleas  for  me  I  cannot  describe.  As  in  the 
revelation  that  Thy  Only-begotten  was  born 
of  Thee  before  times  eternal,  when  we  cease 
to  struggle  with  ambiguities  of  language  and 
difficulties  of  thought,  the  one  certainty  of  His 
birth  remains ;  so  I  hold  fast  in  my  conscious- 
ness the  truth  that  Thy  Holy  Spirit  is  from 
Thee  and  through  Him,  although  I  cannot 
by  my  intellect  comprehend  it.     For  in  Thy 


spiritual  things  I  am  dull,  as  Thy  Only-begot- 
ten says,  Marvel  not  that  I  said  unto  thee, 
ye  must  be  born  aneiv.  The  Spirit  breathes 
tvhere  it  will,  and  thou  hearest  the  voice  of  it  ; 
but  dost  not  know  whence  it  comes  or  whither 
it  goes.  So  is  every  one  who  is  born  of  water 
and  of  the  Holy  Spirit*.  Though  I  hold  a  be- 
lief in  my  regeneration,  I  hold  it  in  ignorance ; 
I  possess  the  reality,  though  I  comprehend  it 
not.  For  my  own  consciousness  had  no  part 
in  causing  this  new  birth,  which  is  manifest 
in  its  effects.  Moreover  the  Spirit  has  no 
limits  ;  He  speaks  when  He  will,  and  what  He 
will,  and  where  He  will.  Since,  then,  the 
cause  of  His  coming  and  going  is  unknown, 
though  the  watcher  is  conscious  of  the  fact, 
shall  I  count  the  nature  of  the  Spirit  among 
created  things,  and  limit  Him  by  fixing  the 
time  of  His  origin?  Thy  servant  John  says, 
indeed,  that  all  things  were  made  through  the 
Son  %  Who  as  God  the  Word  was  in  the  be- 
ginning, O  God,  with  Thee.  Again,  Paul  re- 
counts all  things  as  created  in  Him,  in  heaven 
and  on  earth,  visible  and  invisible5.  And, 
while  he  declared  that  everything  was  created 
in  Christ  and  through  Christ,  he  thought,  with 
respect  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  the  description 
was  sufficient,  when  he  called  Him  Thy  Spirit. 
With  these  men,  peculiarly  Thine  elect,  I  will 
think  in  these  matters ;  just  as,  after  their 
example,  I  will  say  nothing  beyond  my  com- 
prehension about  Thy  Only-begotten,  but 
1  simply  declare  that  He  was  born,  so  also  after 
their  example  I  will  not  trespass  beyond  that 
which  human  intellect  can  know  about  Thy 
Holy  Spirit,  but  simply  declare  that  He  is 
Thy  Spirit.  May  my  lot  be  no  useless  strife 
of  words,  but  the  unwavering  confession  of 
an  unhesitating  faith  ! 

57.  Keep,  I  pray  Thee,  this  my  pious  faith 
undefiled,  and  even  till  my  spirit  departs, 
grant  that  this  may  be  the  utterance  of  my 
convictions :  so  that  I  may  ever  hold  fast 
that  which  I  professed  in  the  creed  of  my 
regeneration,  when  I  was  baptized  in  the 
Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Let  me,  in  short,  adore  Thee  our  Father, 
and  Thy  Son  together  with  Thee ;  let  me 
win  the  favour  of  Thy  Holy  Spirit,  Who  is 
from  Thee,  through  Thy  Only-begotten.  For 
I  have  a  convincing  Witness  to  my  faith,  Who 
says,  Father,  all  Mine  are  Thine,  and  Thine  are 
Mine6,  even  my  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  abiding  in 
Thee,  and  from  Thee,  and  with  Thee,  for 
ever  God  :  Who  is  blessed  for  ever  and  ever. 
Amen. 


3  St.  John  iii.  7,  8.  *  lb.  i.  1,  3. 

6  St.  John  xvii.  10. 


S  Col.  i.  16. 


INTRODUCTION    TO    THE 

HOMILIES  ON  PSALMS  L,  LIII.,  CXXX. 


Some  account  of  St.  Hilary's  Homilies  on  the  Psalms  has  already  been  given  in  the 
Introduction  to  this  volume,  pp.  xl. — xlv.  A  few  words  remain  to  be  said  concerning 
his  principle  of  exposition.  This  may  be  gathered  from  his  own  statement  in  the  fifth 
section  of  the  Instructio  Psalmorum,  the  discourse  preliminary  to  the  Homilies : — '  There 
is  no  doubt  that  the  language  of  the  Psalms  must  be  interpreted  by  the  light  of  the 
teaching  of  the  Gospel.  Thus,  whoever  he  be  by  whose  mouth  the  Spirit  of  prophecy 
has  spoken,  the  whole  purpose  of  his  words  is  our  instruction  concerning  the  glory  and 
power  of  the  coming,  the  Incarnation,  the  Passion,  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  of  our  resurrection.  Moreover,  all  the  prophecies  are  shut  and  sealed  to  worldly  sense 
and  pagan  wisdom,  as  Isaiah  says,  And  all  these  words  shall  be  unto  you  as  the  sayings 
of  this  book  which  is  sealed r.  .  . .  The  whole  is  a  texture  woven  of  allegorical  and  typical 
meanings,  whereby  are  spread  before  our  view  all  the  mysteries  of  the  Only-begotten  Son 
of  God,  Who  was  to  be  born  in  the  body,  to  suffer,  to  die,  to  rise  again,  to  reign  for 
ever  with  those  who  share  His  glory  because  they  believed  on  Him,  to  be  the  Judge 
of  the  rest  of  mankind.'  It  is  true  that  Hilary  from  time  to  time  discriminates,  and 
sometimes  very  shrewdly,  between  passages  which  must,  and  others  which  must  not,  be 
thus  interpreted,  but  for  the  most  part  the  commentary  is  theological  and  therefore  mystical. 
The  Psalter  is  not  used  for  the  establishment  of  doctrine.  No  position  for  which  Hilary 
had  not  another  and  an  independent  defence  is  maintained  on  the  strength  of  an  allegorical 
explanation,  and  no  deductions  are  drawn  from  such  allegories.  They  are  simply  used 
for  the  cumulative  confirmation  of  truth  otherwise  revealed.  The  result  is  a  commentary 
much  more  illustrative  of  Hilary's  own  thought  than  of  that  of  the  writers  of  the  Psalms  : 
and  great  as  are  the  merits  of  the  Homilies,  they  are  counter-balanced  by  obvious  and 
serious  defects.  There  is,  of  course,  little  interest  taken  in  the  circumstances  in  which 
the  Psalms  were  written.  They  are,  in  Hilary's  eyes,  essentially  prophecies,  and  he  is 
content  as  a  rule  to  describe  the  writer  simply  as  •  the  Prophet.'  And  as  with  the  history, 
so  with  the  spirit  of  the  Psalter.  There  is  little  evidence  that  he  recognised  in  it  the 
noblest  and  most  perfect  expression  of  human  devotion  towards  God,  and  still  less  that 
he  appreciated  the  elevation  of  its  poetry.  For  the  latter  failure  there  is  ample  excuse. 
The  Septuagint  and  Old  Latin  versions  of  the  Psalms  have  for  us  venerable  antiquity 
and  sacred  associations,  but  they  can  hardly  be  said  to  appeal  to  the  imagination. 
Now  while  Hilary  of  course  regarded  the  Greek  translation  as  authoritative  on  account 
both  of  our  Lord's  use  of  it  and  of  general  consent,  he  treats  it  not  as  literature 
but  rather  in  the  spirit  of  a  lawyer  interpreting  and  applying  the  terms  of  an 
ancient  charter.  Nor  is  it  likely  that  the  Latin  version  would  move  Hilary  as  it  sometimes 
moves  us  who  read  it  to-day  and  fin.d  a  certain  dignity  and  power  in  its  unpolished  sentences. 
Its  roughness  could  only  shock,  and  its  obscurity  perplex,  one  who,  as  we  have  said  already 
(Intr.  hi.),  could  think  and  express  himself  clearly  in  what  was  to  him  a  living  and  a  culti- 
vated language.  But  with  all  his  disadvantages  he  has  produced  a  great  and  profoundly 
Christian  work,  of  permanent  value  and  interest  and  of  abiding  influence  upon  thought, 
theological  and  moral.  For  in  these  Homilies,  and  not  least  in  those  which  are  here 
translated,  the  Roman  genius  for  moral  reflection  is  manifest,  and  the  pattern  set  which 
St.  Ambrose  was  to  follow  with  success  in  such  work  as  his  De  officiis  ministrorum. 

1  Is.  xxix.  ii. 


HOMILIES   ON   THE   PSALMS. 


PSALM    I. 


The   primary  condition   of  knowledge   for 
reading  the  Psalms  is  the   ability  to  see  as 
whose  mouthpiece  we  are  to  regard  the  Psalmist 
as  speaking,  and  who  it  is  that  he  addresses. 
For  they  are   not   all    of  the   same   uniform 
character,    but    of   different    authorship    and 
different  types.     For  we  constantly  find  that 
the  Person  of  God   the   Father  is  being  •  set 
before  us,  as  in  that  passage  of  the  eighty-eighth 
Psalm  :   I  have  exalted  one  chosen  out  of  My 
people,  I  have  found  David  My  servant,  with 
My  holy  oil  have  I  anointed  him.     He  shall 
call  Me,  Thou  art  my  Father  and  the  upholder 
of  my  salvation.     A?id  1  7vill  make  him   My 
first-born,  higher  than  the  kings  of  the  earth  1  ; 
while  in  what  we  might  call  the  majority  of 
Psalms  the  Person  of  the  Son  is  introduced, 
as  in  the  seventeenth  :  A  people  whom  I  have 
not  known  hath  served  Ale  ,2 ;  and  in  the  twenty- 
first  :  they  parted  My  garments  among  them  and 
cast  lots  upo?i  My  vesture*.     But  the  contents 
of  the  first  Psalm  forbid  us  to  understand  it 
either  of  the  Person  of  the  Father  or  of  the 
Son  :  But  his  will  hath  been  in  the  law  of  the 
Lord,  and  in  His  Law  will  he  meditate  day  and 
night.     Now  in  the  Psalm  in  which  we  said 
the  Person  of  the  Father  is  intended,  the  terms 
used  are  exactly  appropriate,  for  instance :  He 
shall  call  Me,   Thou  art  my  Father,  my  God 
and  the  upholder  of  my  salvation ;  and  in  that 
one  in  which  we  hear  the  Son  speaking,  He 
proclaims   Himself  to  be  the   author   of  the 
words  by  the  very  expressions   He   employs, 
saying,  A  people  whom  I  have  not  known  hath 
served  Me.     That  is  to  say,  when  the  Father 
on    the   one   hand   says:    He  shall  call  Me; 
and  the  Son  on  the  other  hand  says:  a  people 
hath  served  Me,   they  she-v  that  it   is   They 
Themselves    Who    are    speaking    concerning 
Themselves.     Here,  however,  where  we  have 
But  his  will  hath  been  in  the  Law  of  the  Lord ; 
obviously  it   is  not  the   Person  of  the   Lord 
speaking  concerning  Himself,  but  the  person 
of  another,    extolling   the   happiness   of   that 
man  whose  will  is  in  the  Law  of  the  Lord. 


1  P».  Lxicxviii.  (lxxxix.),  20 ff.  2  lb.  xvii.  (xviii.),  45. 

3  lb.  xxi.  (xxii.),  ig. 


Here,  then,  we  are  to  recognise  the  person 
of  the  Prophet  by  whose  lips  the  Holy  Spirit 
speaks,  raising  us  by  the  instrumentality  of 
his  lips  to  the  knowledge  of  a  spiritual  mystery. 

2.  And  as  he  says  this  we  must  enquire 
concerning  what  man  we  are  to  understand 
him  to  be  speaking.  He  says :  Happy  is  the 
man  who  hath  not  walked  in  the  counsel  of 'the 
ungodly  nor  stood  in  the  way  of  sinners,  and 
hath  not  sat  in  the  seat  of  pestilence.  But  his 
will  hath  been  in  the  Law  of  the  Lord,  and 
in  His  Law  will  he  meditate  day  and  night. 
And  he  shall  be  like  a  tree  planted  by  the  rills 
of  water,  that  will  yield  its  fruit  in  its  own 
season.  His  leaf  also  shall  not  wither,  and 
all  things,  whatsoever  he  shall  do,  shall  prosper. 
I  have  discovered,  either  from  personal  con- 
versation or  from  their  letters  and  writings, 
that  the  opinion  of  many  men  about  this  Psalm 
is,  that  we  ought  to  understand  it  to  be  a 
description  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  that 
it  is  His  happiness  which  is  extolled  in  the 
verses  following.  But  this  interpretation  is 
wrong  both  in  method  and  reasoning,  though 
doubtless  it  is  inspired  by  a  pious  tendency 
of  thought,  since  the  whole  of  the  Psalter 
is  to  be  referred  to  Him :  the  time  and  place 
in  His  life  to  which  this  passage  refers  must 
be  ascertained  by  the  sound  method  of  know- 
ledge guided  by  reason. 

3.  Now  the  words  which  stand  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Psalm  are  quite  unsuited  to  the 
Person  and  Dignity  of  the  Son,  while  the  whole 
contents  are  in  themselves  a  condemnation 
of  the  careless  haste  that  would  use  them 
to  extol  Him.  For  when  it  is  said,  and  his 
will  hath  been  in  the  Latv  of  the  Lord,  how 
(seeing  that  the  Law  was  given  by  the  Son 
of  God)  can  a  happiness  which  depends 
on  his  will  being  in  the  Law  of  the  Lord 
be  attributed  to  Him  Who  is  Himself  Lord 
of  the  Law?  That  the  Law  is  His  He  Him- 
self declares  in  the  seventy-seventh  Psalm, 
where  He  says:  Hear  My  Law,  O  My  people: 
incline  your  ears  unto  the  words  of  My  mouth. 
I  will  open  My  mouth  in  a  parable  *.     And  the 


4  Ps.  lxxvii.  (Ixxviii.),  I. 


PSALM    I. 


237 


Evangelist  Matthew  further  asserts  that  these 
words  were  spoken  by  the  Son,  when  he  says  : 
For  this  cause  spake  He  in  parables  that  the 
saying  might  be  fulfilled :  I  will  open  My  mouth 
in  parables*.  The  Lord  then  gave  fulfilment 
in  act  to  His  own  prophecy,  speaking  in  the 
parables  in  which  He  had  promised  that  He 
would  speak.  But  how  can  the  sentence,  and 
he  shall  be  like  a  tree  planted  by  the  rills  of 
water, — wherein  growth  in  happiness  is  set 
forth  in  a  figure — be  possibly  applied  to  His 
Person,  and  a  tree  be  said  to  be  more  happy 
than  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  cause  of  His 
happiness,  which  would  be  the  case  if  an 
analogy  were  established  between  Him  and 
it  in  respect  of  growth  towards  happiness? 
Again,  since  according  to  Wisdom  sa  and  the 
Apostle,  He  is  both  before  the  ages  and  before 
times  eternal,  and  is  the  First-born  of  every 
creature;  and  since  in  Him  and  through  Him 
all  things  were  created,  how  can  He  be  happy 
by  becoming  like  objects  created  by  Himself? 
For  neither  does  the  power  of  the  Creator 
need  for  its  exaltation  comparison  with  any 
creature,  nor  does  the  immemorial  age  of  the 
First-born  allow  of  a  comparison  involving  un- 
suitable conditions  of  time,  as  would  be  the  case 
if  He  were  compared  to  a  tree.  For  that  which 
shall  be  at  some  point  of  future  time  cannot 
be  looked  upon  as  having  either  previously 
existed  or  as  now  existing  anywhere.  But 
whatsoever  already  is  does  not  need  any  ex- 
tension of  time  to  begin  existence,  because 
it  already  possesses  continuous  existence  from 
the  date  of  its  beginning  up  till  the  present. 

4.  And  so,  since  these  words  are  understood 
to  be  inapplicable  to  the  divinity  of  the  Only- 
begotten  Son  of  God,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
we  must  suppose  him,  who  is  here  extolled 
as  happy  by  the  Prophet,  to  be  the  man  who 
strives  to  conform  himself  to  that  body  which 
the  Lord  assumed  and  in  which  He  was  born 
as  man,  by  zeal  for  justice  and  perfect  fulfil- 
ment of  all  righteousness.  That  this  is  the 
necessary  interpretation  will  be  shewn  as  the 
exposition  of  the  Psalm  proceeds. 

5.  The  Holy  Spirit  made  choice  of  this 
magnificent  and  noble  introduction  to  the 
Psalter,  in  order  to  stir  up  weak  man  to  a 
pure  zeal  for  piety  by  the  hope  of  happiness, 
to  teach  him  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnate 
God,  to  promise  him  participation  in  heavenly 
glory,  to  declare  the  penalty  of  the  Judgment, 
to  proclaim  the  two-fold  resurrection,  to  shew 
forth  the  counsel  of  God  as  seen  in  His  award. 
It  is  indeed  after  a  faultless  and  mature  design 
that  He  has  laid  the  foundation  of  this  great 
prophecy 6 ;  His  will  being  that  the  hope  con- 

5  St.  Matt.  xiii.  35.        5»  Prov.  viii.  22.         6  ;>e,  tne  Psalter. 


nected  with  the  happy  man  might  allure  weak 
humanity  to  zeal  for  the  Faith ;  that  the  an- 
alogy of  the  happiness  of  the  tree  might  be 
the  pledge  of  a  happy  hope,  that  the  declar- 
ation of  His  wrath  against  the  ungodly  might 
set  the  bounds  of  fear  to  the  excesses  of  un- 
godliness, that  difference  in  rank  in  the  assem- 
blies of  the  saints  might  mark  difference  in 
merit,  that  the  standard  appointed  for  judging 
the  ways  of  the  righteous  might  shew  forth 
the  majesty  of  God. 

But  let  us  now  deal  with  the  subject  matter 
and  the  words  which  express  it. 

6.  Happy  is  the  man  7cho  hath  not  walked 
in  the  counsel  of  the  ungodly  nor  stood  in  the  way 
of  shiners,  and  hath  not  sat  in  the  seat  of  pesti- 
lence. But  his  will  hath  been  in  the  Law  of  the 
Lord,  and  in  His  Law  will  he  meditate  day  and 
night. 

The  Prophet  recites  five  kinds  of  caution 
as  continually  present  in  the  mind  of  the  happy 
man :  the  first,  not  to  walk  in  the  counsel 
of  the  ungodly,  the  second,  not  to  stand  in  the 
way  of  sinners,  the  third,  not  to  sit  in  the  seat 
of  pestilence,  next,  to  set  his  will  in  the  Law  of 
the  Lord,  and  lastly,  to  meditate  therein  by 
day  and  by  night.  There  must,  therefore,  be 
a  distinction  between  the  ungodly  and  the 
sinner,  between  the  sinner  and  the  pestilent ; 
chiefly  because  here  the  ungodly  has  a  counsel, 
the  sinner  a  way,  the  pestilent  a  seat,  and 
again,  because  the  question  is  of  walking,  not 
standing,  in  the  counsel  of  the  ungodly ;  of 
standing,  not  walking,  in  the  way  of  the  sinner. 
Now,  if  we  would  understand  the  reason  of 
these  facts,  we  must  note  the  precise  difference 
between  the  sinner  and  the  undutiful  7,  that 
so  it  may  become  clear  why  to  the  sinner 
is  assigned  a  way,  and  to  the  undutiful  a  coun 
sel ;  next,  why  the  question  is  of  standing 
in  the  way,  and  of  walking  in  the  counsel, 
whereas  men  are  accustomed  to  connect  stand- 
ing with  a  counsel,  and  walking  with  a  way. 

Not  every  man  that  is  a  sinner  is  also  un- 
dutiful :  but  the  undutiful  man  cannot  fail  to 
be  a  sinner.  Let  us  take  an  instance  lrom 
general  experience.  Sons,  though  they  be 
drunken  and  profligate  and  spendthrift,  can 
yet  love  their  fathers ;  and  with  all  these  vices, 
and,  therefore,  not  free  from  guilt,  may  yet  be 
free  from  undutifulness.  But  the  undutiful, 
though  they  may  be  models  of  continence  and 
frugality,  are,  by  the  mere  fact  of  despising 
the  parent,  worse  transgressors  than  it  they 
were  guilty  of  every  sin  that  lies  outside  the 
category  of  undutifulness. 

7  Impius,  which  is  elsewhere  in  the  Homily  translated  un- 
godly, is  here  rendered  undutiful,  in  order  to  preserve  to  soma 
extent  the  sense  of  undutiful  towards  parents  in  which  Hilary, 
with  true  Roman  appreciation  of  the  patria  potestas,  uses  it  in  this 
passage. 


238 


HOMILIES   ON   THE   PSALMS. 


7.  There  is  no  doubt  then  that,  as  this  in- 
stance proves,  the  undutiful  (or  ungodly)  must 
be  distinguished  from  the  sinner.  And,  indeed, 
general  opinion  agrees  to  call  those  men  ungodly 
who  scorn  to  search  for  the  knowledge  of  God, 
who  in  their  irreverent  mind  take  for  granted 
that  there  is  no  Creator  of  the  world,  who 
assert  that  it  arrived  at  the  order  and  beauty 
which  we  see  by  chance  movements,  who, 
in  order  to  deprive  their  Creator  of  all  power 
to  pass  judgment  on  a  life  lived  rightly  or  in 
sin,  will  have  it  that  man  comes  into  being  and 
passes  out  of  it  again  by  the  simple  operation 
of  a  law  of  nature. 

Thus,  all  the  counsel  of  these  men  is  waver- 
ing, unsteady,  and  vague,  and  wanders  about 
in  the  same  familiar  paths  and  over  the  same 
familiar  ground,  never  finding  a  resting-place, 
for  it  fails  to  reach  any  definite  decision.  They 
have  never  in  their  system  risen  to  the  doctrine 
of  a  Creator  of  the  world,  for  instead  of  answer- 
ing our  questions  as  to  the  cause,  beginning, 
and  duration  of  the  world,  whether  the  world 
is  for  man,  or  man  for  the  world,  the  reason 
of  death,  its  extent  and  nature,  they  press 
in  ceaseless  motion  round  the  circle  of  this 
godless  argument  and  find  no  rest  in  these 
imaginings. 

8.  There  are,  besides,  other  counsels  of  the 
ungodly,  i.e.,  of  those  who  have  fallen  into 
heresy,  unrestrained  by  the  laws  of  either  the 
New  Testament  or  the  Old.  Their  reasoning 
ever  takes  the  course  of  a  vicious  circle  ;  with- 
out grasp  or  foothold  to  stay  them  they  tread 
their  interminable  round  of  endless  indecision. 
Their  ungodliness  consists  in  measuring  God, 
not  by  His  own  revelation,  but  by  a  standard' 
of  their  choosing  ;  they  forget  that  it  is  as  god- 
less to  make  a  God  as  to  deny  Him ;  if  you 
ask  them  what  effect  these  opinions  have  on 
their  faith  and  hope,  they  are  perplexed  and 
confused,  they  wander  from  the  point  and 
wilfully  avoid  the  real  issue  of  the  debate. 
Happy  is  the  man  then  who  hath  not  walked 
in  this  kind  of  counsel  of  the  ungodly,  nay, 
who  has  not  even  entertained  the  wish  to  walk 
therein,  for  it  is  a  sin  even  to  think  for  a 
moment  of  things  that  are  ungodly. 

9.  The  next  condition  is,  that  the  man  who 
has  not  walked  in  the  counsel  of  the  ungodly 
shall  not  stand  in  the  way  of  sinners.  For 
there  are  many  whose  confession  concerning 
God,  while  it  acquits  them  of  ungodliness, 
yet  does  not  set  them  free  from  sin  ;  those, 
for  example,  who  abide  in  the  Church  but 
do  not  observe  her  laws  ;  such  are  the  greedy, 
the  drunken,  the  brawlers,  the  wanton,  the 
proud,  hypocrites,  liars,  plunderers.  No  doubt 
we  are  urged  towards  these  sins  by  the  prompt- 
ings of  our  natural  instincts  ;  but  it  is  good  for 


us  to  withdraw  from  the  path  into  which  we 
are  being  hurried  and  not  to  stand  therein, 
seeing  that  we  are  offered  so  easy  a  way  of 
escape.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  man 
who  has  not  stood  in  the  way  of  sinners  is 
happy,  for  while  nature  carries  him  into  that 
way,  religious  belief  draws  him  back. 

10.  Now  the  third  condition  for  gaining 
happiness  is  not  to  sit  in  the  seat  of  pestilence. 
The  Pharisees  sat  as  teachers  in  Moses'  seat, 
and  Pilate  sat  in  the  seat  of  judgment  :  of 
what  seat'  then  are  we  to  consider  the  occupa- 
tion pestilential  ?  Not  surely  of  that  of  Moses, 
for  it  is  the  occupants  of  the  seat  and  not 
the  occupation  of  it  that  the  Lord  condemns 
when  He  says :  The  Scribes  and  Pharisees 
sit  on  Moses1  seat ;  whatsoever  they  bid  you  do, 
that  do;  but  do  not  ye  after  their  work  8.  The 
occupation  of  that  seat  is  not  pestilential,  to 
which  obedience  is  enjoined  by  the  Lord's  own 
word.  That  then  must  be  really  pestilential, 
the  infection  of  which  Pilate  sought  to  avoid 
by  washing  his  hands.  For  many,  even  God- 
fearing men,  are  led  astray  by  the  canvassing 
for  worldly  honours  ;  and  desire  to  administer 
the  law  of  the  courts,  though  they  are  bound 
by  those  of  the  Church. 

But  although  they  bring  to  the  discharge 
of  their  duties  a  religious  intention,  as  is  shewn 
by  their  merciful  and  upright  demeanour,  still 
they  cannot  escape  a  certain  contagious  in- 
fection arising  from  the  business  in  which  their 
life  is  spent.  For  the  conduct  of  civil  cases 
does  not  suffer  them  to  be  true  to  the  holy 
principles  of  the  Church's  law,  even  though 
they  wish  it.  And  without  abandoning  their 
pious  purpose  they  are  compelled,  against 
their  will,  by  the  necessary  conditions  of  the 
seat  they  have  won,  to  use,  at  one  time  invec- 
tive, at  another,  insult,  at  another,  punishment ; 
and  their  very  position  makes  them  authors  as 
well  as  victims  of  the  necessity  which  con- 
strains them,  their  system  being  as  it  were 
impregnated  with  the  infection.  Hence  this 
title,  the  seat  of  pestilence,  by  which  the  Prophet 
describes  their  seat,  because  by  its  infection 
it  poisons  the  very  will  of  the  religiously 
minded. 

11.  But  the  fact  that  he  has  not  walked 
in  the  counsel  of  the  ungodly,  nor  stood  in  the 
way  of  sinners,  nor  sat  in  the  seat  of  pestilence, 
does  not  constitute  the  perfection  of  the  man's 
happiness.  For  the  belief  that  one  God  is  the 
Creator  of  the  world,  the  avoidance  of  sin  by 
the  pursuit  of  unassuming  goodness,  the  pre- 
ference of  the  tranquil  leisure  of  private  life 
to  the  grandeur  of  public  position — all  this 
may  be   tound   even   in   a  pagan.     But  here 

8  St.  Matt,  xxiii.  2. 


PSALM    I. 


239 


the  Prophet,  in  portraying  in  the  likeness  of 
God  the  man  that  is  perfect — one  who  may 
serve  as  a  noble  example  of  eternal  happiness — 
points  to  the  exercise  by  him  of  no  common- 
place virtues,  and  to  the  words,  But  his  will 
hath  been  in  the  Law  of  the  Lord,  for  the  attain- 
ment of  perfect  happiness.  To  refrain  from 
what  has  gone  before  is  useless  unless  his  mind 
be  set  on  what  follows,  But  his  will  hath  been 
in  the  Law  of  the  Lord.  The  Prophet  does  not 
look  for  fear.  The  majority  of  men  are  kept 
within  the  bounds  of  Law  by  fear  ;  the  few  are 
brought  under  the  Law  by  will  :  for  it  is  the 
mark  of  fear  not  to  dare  to  omit  what  it  is 
afraid  of,  but  of  perfect  piety  to  be  ready  to 
obey  commands.  This  is  why  that  man  is 
happy  whose  will,  not  whose  fear,  is  in  the  Law 
of  God. 

12.  But  then  sometimes  the  will  needs  sup- 
plementing ;  and  the  mere  desire  for  perfect 
happiness  does  not  win  it,  unless  performance 
wait  upon  intention.  The  Psalm,  you  re- 
member, goes  on  :  And  in  His  Law  will  he 
meditate  day  and  night.  The  man  achieves 
the  perfection  of  happiness  by  unbroken  and 
unwearied  meditation  in  the  Law.  Now  it 
may  be  objected  that  this  is  impossible  owing 
to  the  conditions  of  human  infirmity,  which 
require  time  for  repose,  for  sleep,  for  food: 
so  that  our  bodily  circumstances  preclude  us 
from  the  hope  of  attaining  happiness,  inasmuch 
as  we  are  distracted  by  the  interruption  of  our 
bodily  needs  from  our  meditation  by  day  and 
night.  Parallel  to  this  passage  are  the  words  of 
the  Apostle,  Pray  without  ceasing?.  As  though 
we  were  bound  to  set  at  naught  our  bodily  re- 
quirements and  to  continue  praying  without  any 
interruption  !  Meditation  in  the  Law,  therefore, 
does  not  lie  in  reading  its  words,  but  in  pious 
performance  of  its  injunctions ;  not  in  a  mere 
perusal  of  the  books  and  writings,  but  in 
a  practical  meditation  and  exercise  in  their 
respective  contents,  and  in  a  fulfilment  of  the 
Law  by  the  works  we  do  by  night  and  day,  as 
the  Apostle  says :  Whether  ye  eat  or  drink,  or 
whatsoever  ye  do,  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God r. 
The  way  to  secure  uninterrupted  prayer  is  for 
every  devout  man  to  make  his  life  one  long 
prayer  by  works  acceptable  to  God  and  always 
done  to  His  glory  :  thus  a  life  lived  according 
to  the  Law  by  night  and  day  will  in  itself  be- 
come a  nightly  and  daily  meditation  in  the 
Law. 

13.  But  now  that  the  man  has  found  perfect 
happiness  by  keeping  aloof  from  the  counsel  of 
the  ungodly  and  the  way  of  sinners  and  the 
seat  of  pestilence,  and  by  gladly  meditating  in 
the  Law  of  God  by  day  and  by  night,  we  are 


9  1  Thess.  v.  17. 


1  1  Cor.  x.  31. 


next  to  be  shewn  the  rich  fruit  that  this  happiness 
he  has  won  will  yield  him.  Now  the  anticipation 
of  happiness  contains  the  germ  of  future  hap- 
piness. For  the  next  verse  runs  :  And  he  shall 
be  like  a  tree  planted  beside  the  rills  of  water, 
which  shall  yield  its  fruit  in  its  own  season, 
whose  leaf  also  shall  not  fall  off.  This  may 
perhaps  be  deemed  an  absurd  and  inappro- 
priate comparison,  in  which  are  extolled  a 
planted  tree,  rills  of  water,  the  yielding  of  fruit, 
its  own  time,  and  the  leaf  that  falls  not.  All 
this  may  appear  trivial  enough  to  the  judgment 
of  the  world.  But  let  us  examine  the  teaching 
of  the  Prophet  and  see  the  beauty  that  lies  in 
the  objects  and  words  used  to  illustrate  hap- 
piness. 

14.  In  the  book  of  Genesis2,  where  the  law- 
giver depicts  the  paradise  planted  by  God,  we 
are  shewn  that  every  tree  is  fair  to  look  upon 
and  good  for  food  ;  it  is  also  stated  that  there 
stands  in  the  midst  of  the  garden  a  tree  of  Life 
and  a  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil ; 
next  that  the  garden  is  watered  by  a  stream  that 
afterwards  divides  into  four  heads.  The  Prophet 
Solomon  teaches  us  what  this  tree  of  Life  is  in 
his  exhortation  concerning  Wisdom :  She  is  a  tree 
of  life  to  all  them  that  lay  hold  upon  her,  and 
lean  upon  her*.  This  tree  then  is  living;  and 
not  only  living,  but,  furthermore,  guided  by 
reason ;  guided  by  reason,  that  is,  in  so  far  as 
to  yield  fruit,  and  that  not  casually  nor  un- 
seasonably, but  in  its  own  season.  And  this 
tree  is  planted  beside  the  rills  of  water  in  the 
domain  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  that  is,  of 
course,  in  Paradise,  and  in  the  place  where  the 
stream  as  it  issues  forth  is  divided  into  four 
heads.  For  he  does  not  say,  Behind  the  rills  of 
water,  but,  Beside  the  rills  of "water,  at  the  place 
where  first  the  heads  receive  each  their  flow  of 
waters.  This  tree  is  planted  in  that  place 
whither  the  Lord,  Who  is  Wisdom,  leads  the 
thief  who  confessed  Him  to  be  the  Lord,  say- 
ing :  Verily  J  say  imto  thee,  to-day  shall  thou  be 
with  Me  in  Paradise*.  And  now  that  we  have 
shewn  upon  prophetic  warrant  that  Wisdom, 
which  is  Christ,  is  called  the  tree  of  Life  in 
accordance  with  the  mystery  of  the  coming 
Incarnation  and  Passion,  we  must  go  on  to  find 
support  for  the  strict  truth  of  this  interpreta- 
tion from  the  Gospels.  The  Lord  with  His 
own  lips  compared  Himself  to  a  tree  when 
the  Jews  said  that  He  cast  out  devils  in  Beel- 
zebub: Either  make  the  tree  good,  said  He,  and 
its  fruit  good  ;  or  else  make  the  tree  corrupt,  and 
its  fruit  corrupt ;  for  the  tree  is  known  by  its 
fruit* ;  because  although  to  cast  out  devils  is 
an  excellent  fruit,  they  said  He  was  Beelzebub, 


2  Gen.  ii.  9.  3  Prov.  iii.  18.  4  St.  Luke  xxiii.  43. 

5  St.  Matt.  xii.  33. 


240 


HOMILIES    ON   THE    PSALMS. 


whose  fruits  are  abominable.  Nor  yet  did  He 
hesitate  to  teach  that  the  power  that  makes  the 
tree  happy  resided  in  His  Person,  when  on 
the  way  to  the  Cross  He  said  :  For  if  they  do 
these  things  in  the  green  tree,  what  shall  be  done 
in  the  dry  6  ?  Declaring  by  this  image  of  the 
green  tree  that  there  was  nothing  in  Him  that 
was  subject  to  the  dryness  of  death. 

15.  That  happy  man,  then,  will  become  like 
unto  this  tree  when  he  shall  be  transplanted, 
as  the  thief  was,  into  the  garden  and  set  to 
grow  beside  the  rills  of  water  :  and  his  planting 
will  be  that  happy  new  planting  which  cannot 
be  uprooted,  to  which  the  Lord  refers  in  the 
Gospels   when    He  curses   the   other  kind   of 
planting   and   says  :    Every  planting  that  My 
Father  hath    not  planted  shall  be  rooted  upi. 
This  tree,  therefore,  will  yield  its  fruits.     Now 
in    all    other    passages    where    God's    Word 
teaches  some  lesson  from  the  fruits  of  trees, 
it  mentions  them  as  making  fruit  rather  than 
as    yielding  fruit,  as  when   it   says :    A  good 
tree   cannot  make   evil  fruits 8,   and   when   in 
Isaiah  the  complaint  about  the  vine  is  :  Hooked 
that  it  should  make  grapes,  and  it  made  thorns  9. 
But  this  tree  will  yield  its  fruits,  being  supplied 
with  free-will  and  understanding  for  the  pur- 
pose.    For  it  will   yield  its  fruits  in  its  own 
season.     And,  pray,  in  what  season  ?    In  the 
season,  of  course,  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks: 
That  He  might  make  known  unto  you  also  the 
mystery   of   His    Will,  according  to   His  good 
pleasure  which  He  hath  purposed  in  Himself,  in 
the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  time  l.     This, 
then,  is  the  dispensation  of  time,  by  which  is 
regulated  the  right  moment  of  receiving,  in  the 
case  of  the  recipients,  and  of  giving,  in  that  of 
the   giver;     for   the   giver  has  choice  of  the 
season.     But  delay  in  point  of  time  depends 
upon  the  fulness  of  times.     For  the  dispensa- 
tion of  yielding  fruit  waits   upon  the  fulness 
of    time.     Now   what,    you   ask,   is   this   fruit 
that  is   to  be  dispensed  ?    That   assuredly  of 
which    this    same   Apostle   is   speaking    when 
he  says  :    And  He  will  change  our  vile  body, 
that    it    may    be  fashioned  like    His    glorious 
body*.     Thus  He  will  give  us  those  fruits  of 
His  which  He  has  already  brought  to  perfec- 
tion in  that  man  whom  He  has  chosen  to  Him- 
self, who  is  portrayed  under  the  image  of  a  tree, 
whose  mortality  He  has  utterly  done  away  and 
has  raised  him  to  share  in  His  own  immortality. 
This  man  then  will  be  happy  like  that  tree, 
when  at  length  he  stands  surrounded   by  the 
glory  of  God,  being  made  like  unto  the  Lord. 

16.  But  the  leaf  of  this  tree  shall  not  fall  off. 
There  is  no  ground  for  wonder  that  its  leaves 


do  not  fall  off,  seeing  that  its  fruits  will  not 
drop  to  the  ground,  either  because  they  are 
forced  off  by  ripeness,  or  shaken  off  by  ex- 
ternal violence,  but  it  will  yield  them,  distri- 
buting them  by  an  act  of  reasoned  service. 
Now  the  spiritual  significance  of  the  leaves 
is  made  clear  by  a  comparison  based  upon 
material  objects.  We  see  that  leaves  are  made 
to  sprout  round  the  fruits  about  which  they 
cluster,  for  the  express  purpose  of  protecting 
them,  and  of  forming  a  kind  of  fence  to  the 
young  and  tender  shoots.  What  the  leaves 
signify,  then,  is  the  teaching  of  God's  words 
in  which  the  promised  fruits  are  clothed.  For 
it  is  these  words  that  kindly  shade  our  hopes, 
that  shield  and  protect  them  from  the  rough 
winds  of  this  world.  These  leaves,  then,  that 
is  the  words  of  God,  shall  not  fall :  for  the 
Lord  Himself  has  said  :  Heaven  and  earth  shall 
pass  away,  but  My  words  shall  not  pass  away  3, 
for  of  the  words  that  have  been  spoken  by  God 
not  one  shall  fail  or  fall. 

17.  Now  that  the  leaves  of  the  tree  we  speak 
of  are  not  valueless  but  are  a  source  of  health 
to  the  nations  is  testified  by  St.  John  in  the 
Apocalypse,  where  he  says  :  And  He  shewed  me 
a  river  of  water  of  life,  bright  as  crystal,  pro- 
ceeding out  of  the  throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb; 
in  the  midst  of  the  street  of  it  and  on  either  side 
of  the  river  the  tree  of  life,  bearing  twelve  man- 
ner of  fruits,  yielding  its  fruit  every  month  : 
and  the  leaves  of  the  tree  are  for  the  healing  of 
the  nations  4. 

Bodily  manifestations  so  reveal  the  mys- 
steries  of  heaven  that,  although  matter  by  it- 
self cannot  convey  the  full  spiritual  meaning, 
yet  to  regard  them  only  in  their  material 
aspect  is  to  mutilate  them.  We  should  have 
expected  to  hear  that  there  were  trees,  not 
one  tree,  standing  on  either  side  of  the  river 
shewn  to  the  saint.  But  because  the  tree  of 
Life  in  the  sacrament  of  Baptism  is  in  every 
case  one,  supplying  to  those  that  come  to  it 
on  every  side  the  fruits  of  the  apostolic  mes- 
sage, so  there  stands  on  either  side  of  the 
river  one  tree  of  Life.  There  is  one  Lamb 
seen  amid  the  throne  of  God,  and  one  river, 
and  one  tree  of  Life  :  three  figures  wherein  are 
comprised  the  mysteries  of  the  Incarnation, 
Baptism  and  Passion,  whose  leaves,  that  is 
to  say,  the  words  of  the  Gospel,  bring  healing 
to  the  nations  through  the  teaching  of  a  mes- 
sage that  cannot  fall  to  the  ground. 

18.  And  all  things  whatsoever  he  doeth  shall 
prosper.  Never  again  shall  His  gift  and  His 
statutes  be  set  at  naught,  as  they  were  in  the 
case  of  Adam,  who  by  his  sin  in  breaking  the 


*  St.  Luke  xziii.  31. 
9  Is.  v.  2. 


7  St.  Matt.  xv.  13.        8  lb.  vii.  18. 
1  Eph.  i.  9.  *  Phil.  iii.  21. 


3  St.  Matt.  xiit.  3S. 


4  Apoc.  xxii.  1. 


PSALM    1. 


241 


Law  lost  the  happiness  of  an  assured  immor- 
tality ;  but  now,  thanks  to  the  redemption 
wrought  by  the  tree  of  Life,  that  is,  by  the 
Passion  of  the  Lord,  all  that  happens  to  us 
is  eternal  and  eternally  conscious  of  happiness, 
in  virtue  of  our  future  likeness  to  that  tree 
of  Life.  For  all  their  doings  shall  prosper, 
being  wrought  no  longer  amid  shift  and  change 
nor  in  human  weakness,  for  corruption  will  be 
swallowed  up  in  incorruption,  weakness  in  end- 
less life,  the  form  of  earthly  flesh  in  the  form 
of  God.  This  tree,  then,  planted  and  yielding 
its  fruit  in  its  own  season,  shall  that  happy  man 
resemble,  himself  being  planted  in  the  Garden, 
that  what  God  has  planted  may  abide,  never 
to  be  rooted  up,  in  the  Garden  where  all  things 
done  by  God  shall  be  guided  to  a  prosperous 
issue,  apart  from  the  decay  that  belongs  to 
human  weakness  and  to  time,  and  has  to  be 
uprooted. 

19.  The  next  point  after  the  prophet  had 
set  forth  the  man's  perfect  happiness  was  for 
him  to  declare  what  punishment  remained  for 
the  ungodly.  Thus  there  ensues  :  The  ungodly 
are  not  so,  but  are  like  the  dust  which  the  wind 
driveth  away  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  The 
ungodly  have  no  possible  hope  of  having  the 
image  of  the  happy  tree  applied  to  them  ;  the 
only  lot  that  awaits  them  is  one  of  wandering 
and  winnowing,  crushing,  dispersion  and  un- 
rest ;  shaken  out  of  the  solid  framework  of 
their  bodily  condition,  they  must  be  swept 
away  to  punishment  in  dust,  a  plaything  of  the 
wind.  They  shall  not  be  dissolved  into  no- 
thing, for  punishment  must  find  in  them  some 
stuff  to  work  on,  but  ground  into  particles, 
imponderable,  unsubstantial,  dry,  they  shall  be 
tossed  to  and  fro,  and  make  sport  for  the 
punishment  that  gives  them  never  rest.  Their 
punishment  is  recorded  by  the  same  Prophet 
in  another  place  where  he  says  :  I  will  beat 
them  small  as  the  dust  before  the  wind,  like 
the  mire  of  the  streets  I  will  destroy  them  s. 

Thus  as  there  is  an  appointed  type  for 
happiness,  so  is  there  one  for  punishment. 
For  as  it  is  no  hard  task  for  the  wind  to 
scatter  the  dust,  and  as  men  who  walk  through 
the  mud  of  the  streets  are  hardly  aware  that 
they  have  been  treading  on  it,  so  it  is  easy  for 
the  punishment  of  hell  to  destroy  and  disperse 
the  ungodly,  the  logical  result  of  whose  sins 
is  to  melt  them  into  mud  and  crush  them  into 
dust,  reft  of  all  solid  substance,  for  dust  and 
mud  they  are,  and  being  merely  mud  and 
dust  are  good  for  nothing  else  than  punish- 
ment. 

20.  And  the  Prophet,  seeing  that  the  change 
of  their  solid  substance  into  dust  will  deprive 


S  P».  xvii.  (xviii.)  42. 


them  of  all  share  in  the  boon  of  fruit  to  be 
bestowed  upon  the  happy  man  in  season  by 
the  tree,  has  accordingly  added  :  Therefore  the. 
ungodly  shall  not  rise  again  in  the  Judgment. 
The  fact  that  they  shall  not  rise  again  does  not 
convey  sentence  of  annihilation  upon  these 
men,  for  indeed  they  will  exist  as  dust ;  it  is 
the  resurrection  to  Judgment  that  is  denied 
them.  Non-existence  will  not  enable  them  to 
miss  the  pain  of  punishment;  for  while  that 
which  will  be  non-existent  would  escape  pun- 
ishment, they,  on  the  other  hand,  will  exist  to 
be  punished,  for  they  will  be  dust.  Now  to 
become  dust,  whether  by  being  dried  to  dust 
or  ground  to  dust,  involves  not  loss  of  the  state 
of  existence,  but  a  change  of  state.  But  the 
fact  that  they  will  not  rise  again  to  Judgment 
makes  it  clear  that  they  have  lost,  not  the  power 
to  rise,  but  the  privilege  of  rising  to  Judgment. 
Now  what  we  are  to  understand  by  the  privilege 
of  rising  again  and  being  judged  is  declared  by 
the  Lord  in  the  Gospels  where  He  says  :  He 
that  believeth  on  Me  is  not  judged :  he  that  be- 
lieveth  not  hath  been  judged  already.  And  this 
is  the  judgment,  that  the  light  is  come  into  the 
zvorld,  and  men  loved  the  darkness  rather  than 
the  light 6. 

21.  The  terms  of  this  utterance  of  the  Lord 
are  disturbing  to  inattentive  hearers  and  care- 
less, hasty  readers.  For  by  saying  :  He  that 
believeth  on  Me  shall  not  be  judged,  He  exempts 
believers,  and  by  adding  :  But  he  that  believeth 
not  hath  been  judged  already,  He  excludes  un- 
believers, from  judgment.  If,  then,  He  has  thus 
exempted  believers  and  debarred  unbelievers, 
allowing  the  chance  of  judgment  neither  to 
one  class  nor  the  other,  how  can  He  be 
considered  consistent  when  he  adds  thirdly : 
And  this  is  the  judgment,  that  the  light  is  come 
into  the  world,  and  men  loved  the  darkness 
rather  than  the  light  1  For  there  can  appar- 
ently be  no  place  left  for  judgment,  since 
neither  believers  nor  unbelievers  are  to  be 
judged.  Such  no  doubt  will  be  the  conclusion 
drawn  by  inattentive  hearers  and  hasty  readers. 
The  utterance,  however,  has  an  appropriate 
meaning  and  a  rational  interpretation  of  its 
own. 

22.  He  that  believes,  says  Christ,  is  not 
judged.  And  is  there  any  need  to  judge  a  be- 
liever? Judgment  arises  out  of  ambiguity,  and 
where  ambiguity  ceases,  there  is  no  call  for 
trial  and  judgment.  Hence  not  even  unbe- 
lievers need  be  judged,  because  there  is  no 
doubt  about  their  being  unbelievers ;  but  after 
exempting  believers  and  unbelievers  alike  from 
judgment,  the  Lord  added  a  case  for  judgment 
and   human  agents   upon  whom   it    must   be 


6  St.  John  iii.  i8,  19. 


VOL.   IX. 


242 


HOMILIES   ON   THE    PSALMS. 


exercised.  For  some  there  are  who  stand 
midway  between  the  godly  and  the  ungodly, 
having  affinities  to  both,  but  strictly  belonging 
to  neither  class,  because  they  have  come  to  be 
what  they  are  by  a  combination  of  the  two. 
They  may  not  be  assigned  to  the  ranks  of 
belief,  because  there  is  in  them  a  certain  in- 
fusion of  unbelief;  they  may  not  be  ranged 
with  unbelief,  because  they  are  not  without 
a  certain  portion  of  belief.  For  many  are  kept 
within  the  pale  of  the  church  by  the  fear  of 
God;  yet  they  are  tempted  all  the  while  to 
worldly  faults  by  the  allurements  of  the  world. 
They  pray,  because  they  are  afraid ;  they  sin, 
because  it  is  their  will.  The  fair  hope  of 
future  life  makes  them  call  themselves  Chris- 
tians ;  the  allurements  of  present  pleasure 
make  them  act  like  heathen.  They  do  not 
abide  in  ungodliness,  because  they  hold  the 
name  of  God  in  honour;  they  are  not  godly 
because  they  follow  after  things  contrary  to 
godliness.  And  they  cannot  help  loving  those 
things  best  which  can  never  enable  them  to 
be  what  they  call  themselves,  because  their 
desire  to  do  such  works  is  stronger  than  their 
desire  to  be  true  to  their  name.  And  this 
is  why  the  Lord,  after  saying  that  believers 
would  not  be  judged  and  that  unbelievers  had 
been  judged  already,  added  that  This  is  the 
judgment,  that  the  light  is  come  into  the  world, 
and  ?nen  loved  the  darkness  rather  than  the 
light. 

These,  then,  are  they  whom  the  judgment 
awaits  which  unbelievers  have  already  had 
passed  upon  them  and  believers  do  not  need  : 
because  they  have  loved  darkness  more  than 
light ;  not  that  they  did  not  love  the  light  too, 
but  because  their  love  of  darkness  is  the  more 
active.  For  when  two  loves  are  matched  in 
rivalry,  one  always  wins  the  preference  ;  and 
their  judgment  arises  from  the  fact  that,  though 
they  loved  Christ,  they  yet  loved  darkness  more. 
These  then  will  be  judged ;  they  are  neither 
exempted  from  judgment  like  the  godly,  nor 
have  they  already  been  judged  like  the  un- 
godly ;  but  judgment  awaits  them  for  the  love 
which  they  have  deliberately  preferred. 

23.  It  is  precisely  the  scheme  and  system 
thus  laid  down  in  the  Gospel  that  the  Prophet 
has  followed,  when  he  says  :  Therefore  the  un- 
godly shall  7io t  rise  again  in  the  Judgment,  nor 
sinners  in  the  counsel  of  the  righteous.  He 
leaves  no  judgment  for  the  ungodly,  because 
they  have  been  judged  already ;  on  the  other 
hand,  he  has  refused  to  sinners,  who  as  we 
shewed  in  our  former  discourse  ?  are  to  be 
distinguished  from  the  ungodly,  the  counsel  of 


7  This  proves  tnat  the  Homily  in  its  original  form  consisted 
of  two  parts. 


the  righteous,  because  they  are  to  be  judged. 
For  ungodliness  causes  the  formci  to  be  judged 
beforehand,  but  sin  keeps  the  latter  to  be 
judged  hereafter.  Thus  ungodliness  having 
already  been  judged  is  not  admitted  to  the 
judgment  of  sinners,  while  again  sinners,  who 
are  yet  to  be  judged,  are  deemed  unworthy  of 
enjoying  the  counsel  of  the  righteous,  who  will 
not  be  judged. 

24.  The  source  of  this  distinction  lies  in  the 
following  words  :  Tor  the  Lord  knoweth  the  way 
of  the  righteous,  but  the  way  of  the  ungodly  shall 
perish.  Sinners  do  not  come  near  the  counsel 
of  the  righteous  for  this  reason,  that  the  Lord 
knows  the  way  of  the  righteous.  Now  He 
knows,  not  by  an  advance  from  ignorance 
to  knowledge,  but  because  He  condescends 
to  know.  For  there  is  no  play  of  human 
emotions  in  God  that  He  should  know  or  not 
know  anything.  The  blessed  Apostle  Paul 
declared  how  we  were  known  of  God  when 
he  said  :  If  any  man  among  you  is  a  prophet  or 
spiritual,  let  him  take  knowledge  of  the  things 
which  I  write  unto  you,  that  they  are  of  the 
Lord :  but  if  any  man  does  not  know,  he  is 
not  known  8. 

Thus  he  shews  that  those  are  known  of  God 
who  know  the  things  of  God  :  they  are  to  come 
to  be  known  when  they  know,  that  is,  when 
they  attain  to  the  honour  of  being  known 
through  the  merit  of  their  known  godliness, 
in  order  that  the  knowledge  may  be  seen  to  be 
a  growth  on  the  part  of  him  who  is  known,  and 
not  a  growth  on  the  part  of  one  who  knows  not. 

Now  God  shews  clearly  in  the  cases  of 
Adam  and  Abraham  that  He  does  not  know 
sinners,  but  does  know  believers.  For  it  was 
said  to  Adam  when  he  had  sinned  :  Adam,  where 
art  thou  9  1  Not  because  God  knew  not  that 
the  man  whom  He  still  had  in  the  garden  was 
there  still,  but  to  shew,  by  his  being  asked 
where  he  was,  that  he  was  unworthy  of  God's 
knowledge  by  the  fact  of  having  sinned.  But 
Abraham,  after  being  for  a  long  time  un- 
known— the  word  of  God  came  to  him  when 
he  was  seventy  years  of  age — was,  upon  his 
proving  himself  faithful  to  the  Lord,  admitted 
to  intimacy  with  God  by  the  following  act  of 
high  condescension  :  Now  I  know  that  thou 
fearest  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  for  My  sake 
thou  hast  not  spared  thy  dearly  loved  son  1. 

God  certainly  was  not  ignorant  of  the  faith 
of  Abraham,  which  He  had  already  reckoned 
to  him  for  righteousness  when  he  believed 
about  the  birth  of  Isaac :  but  now  because 
he  had  given  a  signal  instance  of  his  fear  in 
offering  his  son,  he  is  at  last  known,  approved, 
rendered  worthy  of  being  not  unknown.     It  is 

8  1  Cor.  xiv.  37.  9  Gen.  iii.  9.  *  lb.  xxii.  12. 


PSALM    LIU.   (LIV.). 


240 


in  this  way  then  that  God  both  knows  and 
knows  not — Adam  the  sinner  is  not  known, 
and  Abraham  the  faithful  is  known,  is  worthy, 
that  is,  of  being  known  by  God  Who  surely 
knows  all  things.  The  way  of  the  righteous, 
therefore,  who  are  not  to  be  judged  is  known 
by  God  :  and  this   is  why  sinners,   who  are 


to  be  judged,  are  set  far  from  their  counsel  ; 
while  the  ungodly  shall  not  rise  again  to  judg- 
ment, because  their  way  has  perished,  and  they 
have  already  been  judged  by  Him  Who  said  : 
The  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  given  all 
judgment  unto  the  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
Who  is  blessed  for  ever  and  ever.     Amen. 


PSALM    LIIL    (LIV.). 


For  the  end  among  the  hymns,  of  the  meaning 
of  David  when  the  Ziphims  came  and  said  to 
Saul :  behold,  is  not  David  hid  with  us  ? 

Save  me,  O  God,  by  Thy  name,  and  judge 
me  by  Thy  power.  Hear  my  prayer,  O  God ; 
give  ear  unto  the  words  of  my  mouth,  and  so  on. 

i.  The  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  were  well 
known  to  holy  and  blessed  David  in  his  capa- 
city of  Prophet,  and  although  it  was  under  the 
Law  that  he  lived  his  bodily  life,  he  yet  ful- 
filled, as  far  as  in  him  lay,  the  requirements 
of  the  Apostolic  behest  and  justified  the  wit- 
ness borne  to  him  by  God  in  the  words : 
/  have  found  a  man  after  My  own  heart,  David, 
the  son  of  Jesse*.  He  did  not  avenge  himself 
upon  his  foes  by  war,  he  did  not  oppose  force 
of  arms  to  those  that  laid  wait  for  him,  but 
after  the  pattern  of  the  Lord,  Whose  name 
and  Whose  meekness  alike  he  foreshadowed, 
when  he  was  betrayed  he  entreated,  when  he 
was  in  danger  he  sang  psalms,  when  he  in- 
curred hatred  he  rejoiced ;  and  for  this  cause 
he  was  found  a  man  after  God's  own  heart. 
For  although  twelve  legions  of  angels  might 
have  come  to  the  help  of  the  Lord  in  His 
hour  of  passion,  yet  that  He  might  perfectly 
fulfil  His  service  of  humble  obedience,  He  sur- 
rendered Himself  to  suffering  and  weakness, 
only  praying  with  the  words  :  Father  into  Thy 
hands  I  commend  My  spirit  3.  After  the  same 
pattern,  David,  whose  actual  sufferings  pro- 
phetically foretold  the  future  sufferings  of  the 
Lord,  opposed  not  his  enemies  either  by  word 
or  act ;  in  obedience  to  the  command  of  the 
Gospel,  he  would  not  render  evil  for  evil,  in 
imitation  of  his  Master's  meekness,  in  his  afflic- 
tion, in  his  betrayal,  in  his  flight,  he  called 
upon  the  Lord  and  was  content  to  use  His 
weapons  only  in  his  contest  with  the  ungodly. 

2.  Now  to  this  Psalm  is  prefixed  a  title 
arising  out  of  an  historical  event;  but  before 
the  event  is  described  we  are  instructed  as 
to  the  scope,  time  and  application  of  the  inci- 
dents underlying  it.  First  we  have  :  For  the 
end  of  the  meaning  of  that  David.     Then  there 


9  Acts  xiii.  2a  (cp.  i  Sam.  xiii.  14).        3  St.  Luke  xxiii.  46. 


follows  :  When  the  Ziphims  came  and  said  to 
Saul:  behold,  is  not  David  hid  with  us  ?  Thus 
David's  betrayal  by  the  Ziphims  awaits  for  its 
interpretation  the  end.  This  shews  that  what 
was  actually  being  done  to  David  contained 
a  type  of  something  yet  to  come ;  an  innocent 
man  is  harassed  by  railing,  a  prophet  is  mocked 
by  reviling  words,  one  approved  by  God  is  de- 
manded for  execution,  a  king  is  betrayed  to  his 
foe.  So  the  Lord  was  betrayed  to  Herod  and 
Pilate  by  those  very  men  in  whose  hands  He 
ought  to  have  been  safe.  The  Psalm  then 
awaits  the  end  for  its  interpretation,  and  finds 
its  meaning  in  the  true  David,  in  Whom  is  the 
end  of  the  Law,  that  David  who  holds  the  keys 
and  opens  with  them  the  gate  of  knowledge, 
in  fulfilling  the  things  foretold  of  Him  by 
David. 

3.  The  meaning  of  the  proper  name,  accord- 
ing to  the  exact  sense  of  the  Hebrew,  affords 
us  no  small  assistance  in  interpreting  the  pas- 
sage. Ziphims  mean  what  we  call  sprinklings 
of  the  face  ;  these  were  called  in  Hebrew 
Ziphims.  Now,  by  the  Law,  sprinkling  was 
a  cleansing  from  sins ;  it  purified  the  people 
through  faith  by  the  sprinkling  of  blood,  of 
which  this  same  blessed  David  thus  speaks  : 
Thou  shalt  sprinkle  me  with  hyssop  and  I  shall 
be  cleansed*  ;  the  Law,  through  faith,  providing 
as  a  temporary  substitute,  in  the  blood  of  whole 
burnt-offerings,  a  type  of  the  sprinkling  with 
the  blood  of  the  Lord,  which  was  to  be.  But 
this  people,  like  the  people  of  the  Ziphims, 
being  sprinkled  on  their  face  and  not  in  their 
faith,  and  receiving  the  cleansing  drops  on 
their  lips  and  not  in  their  hearts,  turned  faith- 
less and  traitors  towards  their  David,  as  God 
had  foretold  by  the  Prophet  :  This  people  hon- 
our eth  Me  with  their  lips,  but  their  heart  is  far 
from  Me  5.  They  were  ready  to  betray  David 
because,  the  faith  of  their  heart  being  dead, 
they  had  performed  all  the  mystical  ceremonies 
of  the  Law  with  deceitful  face. 

4.  Save  me,  O  God,  by  Thy  Natne,  and  judge 
me  by  Thy  power.  Hear  my  prayer^  O  God ; 
give  ear  unto  the  words  of  my  mouth. 


4  Pt .  L  (li.)  9. 


5  Is.  xxix.  13. 


R  2 


244 


HOMILIES    ON   THE   PSALMS. 


The  suffering  of  the  Prophet  David  is,  accord- 
ing to  the  account  we  have  given  of  the  title, 
a  type  of  the  Passion  of  our  God  and  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  This  is  why  his  prayer  also 
corresponds  in  sense  with  the  prayer  of  Him, 
Who  being  the  Word  was  made  flesh  :  in  such 
wise  that  He  Who  suffered  all  things  after  the 
manner  of  man,  in  everything  He  said,  spoke 
after  the  manner  of  man  ;  and  He  who  bore  the 
infirmities  and  took  on  Him  the  sins  of  men 
approached  God  in  prayer  with  the  humility 
proper  to  men.  This  interpretation,  even 
though  we  be  unwilling  and  slow  to  receive 
it,  is  required  by  the  meaning  and  force  of  the 
words,  so  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
everything  in  the  Psalm  is  uttered  by  David 
as  His  mouthpiece.  For  he  says  :  Save  me, 
O  God,  by  Thy  name.  Thus  prays  in  bodily 
humiliation,  using  the  words  of  His  own  Pro- 
phet, the  Only-begotten  Son  of  God,  Who  at 
the  same  time  was  claiming  again  the  glory 
which  He  had  possessed  before  the  ages.  He 
asks  to  be  saved  by  the  Name  of  God  whereby 
He  was  called  and  wherein  He  was  begotten, 
in  order  that  the  Name  of  God  which  rightly 
belonged  to  His  former  nature  and  kind  might 
avail  to  save  Him  in  that  body  wherein  He 
had  been  born. 

5.  And  because  the  whole  of  this  passage 
is  the  utterance  of  One  in  the  form  of  a  ser- 
vant— of  a  servant  obedient  unto  the  death 
of  the  Cross — which  He  took  upon  Him  and 
for  which  He  supplicates  the  saving  help  of 
the  Name  that  belongs  to  God,  and  being  sure 
of  salvation  by  that  Name,  He  immediately 
adds  :  and  judge  Me  by  Thy  power.  For  now, 
a*  the  reward  for  His  humility  in  emptying 
Himself  and  assuming  the  form  of  a  servant, 
in  the  same  humility  in  which  He  had  assumed 
it,  He  was  asking  to  resume  the  form  which  He 
shared  with  God,  having  saved  to  bear  the 
Name  of  God  that  humanity  in  which  as  God 
He  had  obediently  condescended  to  be  born. 
And  in  order  to  teach  us  that  the  dignity  of 
this  Name  whereby  He  prayed  to  be  saved  is 
something  more  than  an  empty  title,  He  prays 
to  be  judged  by  the  power  of  God.  For  a 
right  award  is  the  essential  result  of  judgment, 
as  the  Scripture  says :  Becoming  obedient  unto 
death  6,  yea,  the  death  of  the  Cross.  Wherefore 
also  God  highly  exalted  Him  and  gave  unto  Him 
the  name  which  is  above  every  name.  Thus, 
first  of  all  the  name  which  is  above  every  name 
is  given  unto  Him  ;  then  next,  this  is  a  judg- 
ment of  decisive  force,  because  by  the  power 
of  God,  He,  Who  after  being  God  had  died 
as  man,  rose  again  from  death  as  man  to  be 
God,  as  the   Apostle  says:  He  was  crucified 

«  Phil.ii.  8ff. 


from  weakness,  yet  He  liveth  by  the  power  of 
Godi,  and  again  :  For  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the 
Gospel:  for  it  is  the potver  of  God  unto  salvation 
to  every  one  that  believeth  8.  For  by  the  power 
of  the  Judgment  human  weakness  is  rescued 
to  bear  God's  name  and  nature ;  and  thus 
as  the  reward  for  His  obedience  He  is  exalted 
by  the  power  of  this  judgment  unto  the  saving 
protection  of  God's  name;  whence  He  pos- 
sesses both  the  Name  and  the  Power  of  God. 
Again,  if  the  Prophet  had  begun  this  utterance 
in  the  way  men  generally  speak,  he  would  have 
asked  to  be  judged  by  mercy  or  kindness,  not 
by  power.  But  judgment  by  power  was  a 
necessity  in  the  case  of  One  Who  being  the 
Son  of  God  was  born  of  a  virgin  to  be  Son  of 
Man,  and  Who  now  being  Son  of  Man  was 
to  have  the  Name  and  power  of  the  Son  of 
God  restored  to  Him  by  the  power  of  judg- 
ment. 

6.  Next  there  follows:  Hear  my  prayer,  O 
God,  give  ear  unto  the  words  of  my  mouth. 
The  obvious  thing  for  the  Prophet  to  say  was, 
O  God,  hear  me.  But  because  he  is  speaking 
as  the  mouthpiece  of  Him,  Who  alone  knew 
how  to  pray,  we  are  given  a  constantly  reiter- 
ated demand  that  prayer  shall  be  heard.  The 
words  of  St.  Paul  teach  us  that  no  man  knows 
how  he  ought  to  pray  :  For  we  know  not  how 
to  pray  as  we  ought  °.  Man  in  his  weakness, 
therefore,  has  no  right  to  demand  that  his 
praver  shall  be  heard  :  for  even  the  teacher 
of  the  Gentiles  does  not  know  the  true  object 
and  scope  of  prayer,  and  that,  after  the  Lord 
had  given  a  model.  What  we  are  shewn  here 
is  the  perfect  confidence  of  Him,  Who  alone 
sees  the  Father,  Who  alone  knows  the  Father, 
Who  alone  can  pray  the  whole  night  through — 
the  Gospel  tells  us  that  the  Lord  continued 
all  night  in  prayer — Who  in  the  mirror  of  words 
has  shewn  us  the  true  image  of  the  deepest  of 
all  mysteries  in  the  simple  words  we  use  in 
prayer.  And  so,  in  making  the  demand  that 
His  prayer  should  be  heard,  he  added,  in  order 
to  teach  us  that  this  was  the  prerogative  of  His 
perfect  confidence  :  Give  ear  unto  the  words  of 
My  mouth.  Now  can  any  man  suppose  that  it 
is  a  human  confidence  which  can  thus  desire 
that  the  words  of  his  mouth  should  be  heard  ? 
Those  words,  for  instance,  in  which  we  express 
the  motions  and  instincts  of  the  mind,  either 
when  anger  inflames  us,  or  hatred  moves  us  to 
slander,  or  pain  to  complaint,  when  flattery 
makes  us  fawn,  when  hope  of  gain  or  shame 
of  the  truth  begets  the  lie,  or  resentment  over 
injury,  the  insult?  Was  there  ever  any  man  at 
all  points  so  pure  and  patient  in  his  life  as  not 
to  be  liable  to  these  failings  of  human  insta- 


7  2  Cor.  xiii.  4. 


*  Rom.  i.  16. 


9  lb.  riii.  ad. 


PSALM    LIII.   (LIV.). 


245 


bility?  He  alone  could  confidently  desire  this 
Who  did  no  sin,  in  Whose  mouth  was  no 
deceit,  Who  gave  His  back  to  the  smiters, 
Who  turned  not  His  cheek  from  the  blow, 
Who  did  not  resent  scorn  and  spitting,  Who 
never  crossed  the  will  of  Him,  to  Whose  Will 
ordering  it  all  He  gave  in  all  points  glad 
obedience. 

7.  He  has  next  added  the  reason  why  He 
prays  for  His  words  to  be  heard  :  For  strangers 
are  risen  up  against  Me  and  violent  men  have 
sought  after  My  soul ;  they  have  not  set  God 
before  their  eyes.  The  Only-begotten  Son  of 
God,  the  Word  of  God  and  God  the  Word— 
although  assuredly  He  could  Himself  do  all 
things   that    the    Father   could,   as    He   says : 

What  things  soever  the  Father  doeth,  the  Son 
also  doeth  in  like  maimer1,  while  the  name 
describing  the  divine  nature  which  was  His 
inseparably  involved  the  inseparable  possession 
of  divine  power, —  yet  in  order  that  He  might 
present  to  us  a  perfect  example  of  human 
humility,  both  prayed  for  and  underwent  all 
things  that  are  the  lot  of  man.  Sharing  in 
our  common  weakness  He  prayed  the  Father 
to  save  Him,  so  that  He  might  teach  us  that 
He  was  born  man  under  all  the  conditions  of 
man's  infirmity.  This  is  why  He  was  hungry 
and  thirsty,  slept  and  was  wear)'-,  shunned  the 
assemblies  of  the  ungodly,  was  sad  and  wept, 
suffered  and  died.  And  it  was  in  order  to 
make  it  clear  that  He  was  subject  to  all  these 
conditions,  not  by  His  nature,  but  by  as- 
sumption, that  when  He  had  undergone  them 
all  He  rose  again.  Thus  all  His  complaints 
in  the  Psalms  spring  from  a  mental  state  be- 
longing to  our  nature.  Nor  must  it  cause  sur- 
prise if  we  take  the  words  of  the  Psalms  in 
this  sense,  seeing  that  the  Lord  Himself  testi- 
fied, if  we  believe  the  Gospel,  that  the  Psalms 
spiritually  foretold  His  Passion. 

8.  Now  they  were  strangers  thai  rose  up 
against  Him.  For  these  are  no  sons  of  Abra- 
ham, nor  sons  of  God,  but  a  brood  of  vipers, 
servants  of  sin,  a  Canaanitish  seed,  their  father 
an  Amorite  and  their  mother  a  daughter  of 
Heth,  inheriting  diabolical  desires  from  the 
devil  their  parent.  Further  it  is  the  violent 
that  seek  after  His  soul ;  such  as  was  Herod 
when  he  asked  the  chief  priests  where  Christ 
should  be  born,  such  as  was  the  whole  syna- 
gogue when  it  bore  false  witness  against  Him. 
But  in  deeming  this  soul  to  be  of  human 
nature  and  weakness  they  set  not  God  before 
their  eyes;  for  God  had  stooped  from  that 
estate  wherein  He  abode  as  God,  even  to  the 
beginnings  of  human  birth;  that  is,  He  be- 
came Son  of  Man  Who  before  was  the  Son 


1  St.  John  v.  19 


of  God.  For  the  Son  of  God  is  none  othei 
than  He  Who  is  Son  of  Man,  and  Son  of  Man 
not  in  partial  measure  but  born  so,  the  Form 
of  God  divesting  Itself  of  that  which  It  was 
and  becoming  that  which  It  was  not,  that 
so  It  might  be  born  into  a  soul  and  body 
of  Its  own.  Hence  He  is  both  Son  of  God 
and  Son  of  Man,  hence  both  God  and  Man : 
in  other  words  the  Son  of  God  was  born  with 
the  attributes  derived  from  human  birth,  the 
Nature  of  God  condescending  to  assume  the  na- 
ture of  one  born  as  man  who  is  wholly  moulded 
of  soul  and  flesh.  Wherefore  strangers,  when 
they  rise  up  against  Him,  and  the  mighty,  when 
they  seek  after  that  soul  of  His,  which  in  the 
Gospels  is  often  sad  and  cast  down,  set  not  God 
before  their  eyes,  because  God  it  was,  and  the 
Son  of  God  existing  from  out  the  ages,  that  was 
born  with  the  attributes  of  human  nature,  was 
born  as  man,  that  is,  with  our  body  and  our 
soul,  by  a  virgin  birth ;  the  mighty  and  glorious 
works  He  wrought  never  opened  their  eyes 
to  the  fact  that  the  Son  of  Man  Whose  soul 
they  were  seeking  had  come  to  be  man  with 
a  beginning  of  life  after  an  eternal  existence 
as  Son  of  God. 

9.  The  introduction  of  a  pause2  marks  a 
change  of  person.  He  no  longer  speaks  but 
is  addressed.  For  now  the  prophetic  utter- 
ance assumes  a  general  character.  Thus 
immediately  after  the  prayer  addressed  to  God, 
he  has  added,  in  order  that  the  confidence 
of  the  speaker  might  be  understood  to  have 
obtained  what  He  was  asking  even  in  the 
very  moment  of  asking :  Behold,  God  is  My 
helper  and  the  Lord  is  the  upholder  of  My  soul. 
He  has  requited  evil  unto  Mine  enemies.  To 
each  separate  petition  he  has  assigned  its 
proper  result,  thus  teaching  us  both  that  God 
does  not  neglect  to  hear,  and  that  to  look 
for  a  pledge  of  His  pitifulness  in  hearing  our 
several  petitions  is  not  a  thing  unreasonable. 
For  to  the  words,  For  strangers  are  risen  up 
against  Me,  the  corresponding  statement  is  : 
God  is  My  helper ;  while  with  regard  to  and 
the  violent  have  sought  after  My  soul,  the  exact 
result  of  the  hearing  of  His  prayer  is  expressed 
in  the  words  :  and  the  Lord  is  the  upholder 
of  My  soul ;  lastly  the  statement,  they  have 
not  set  God  bejort  their  eyes,  is  appropriately 
balanced  by,  He  hath  requited  evil  unto 
Mine  enemies.  Thus  God  both  gives  help 
against  those  that  rise  up,  and  upholds  the 
soul  of  His  Holy  One  when  it  is  sought  by 
the  violent,  and  when  He  is  not  set  before  the 
eyes,  nor  considered  by  the  ungodly,  He  re- 
quites upon  His  enemies  the  very  evils  which 
they  had  wrought ;  so  that  while  without  think- 


3  Diapsalmus,  see  Suicer,  s.v.  and  Diet,  of  Bible,  Stlah. 


246 


HOMILIES   ON  THE    PSALMS. 


ing  upon  God  they  seek  the  soul  of  the 
righteous  and  rise  up  against  Him,  He  is  saved 
and  upheld,  and  they  find  that  He  Whom, 
absorbed  in  their  wicked  works,  they  did  not 
consider,  avenges  their  malice  by  turning  it 
against  themselves. 

10.  Let  pure  religion,  therefore,  have  this 
confidence,  and  doubt  not  that  amid  the  per- 
secutions at  the  hand  of  man  and  the  dangers 
to  the  soul,  it  still   has  God  for  its  helper, 
knowing  that,  if  at  length  it  comes  to  a  violent 
and   unjust   death,   the   soul   on   leaving   the 
tabernacle  of  the   body  finds  rest  with  God 
its   upholder;   let  it  have,  moreover,   perfect 
assurance  of  requital  in  the  thought  that  all 
evil  deeds  return  upon  the  heads  of  those  that 
work   them.      God   cannot   be   charged   with 
injustice,  and   perfect   goodness  is  unstained 
by  the  impulses  and  motions  of  an  evil  will. 
He  does  not  awaken  mischief  out  of  malice,  but 
requites  it  in  vengeance;  He  does  not  inflict 
it  because  He  wishes  us  ill,  but  He  aims  it 
against  our  sins.     For  these  evils  are  univer- 
sally appointed  as  instruments  of  retribution 
without   destruction   of  life,   such    being   the 
sternly  just  ordinance  of  that  righteous  judg- 
ment.    But  these  evils  are  warded  off  from 
the  righteous  by  the  law  of  righteousness,  and 
are  turned  back  upon  the  unrighteous  by  the 
righteousness    of  that  judgment.     Each   pro- 
ceeding  is    equally  just ;    for   the    righteous, 
because  they  are  righteous,   the  warning  ex- 
hibition of  evil  without  actual  infliction ;   for 
the    wicked,    because    they    so    deserve,    the 
punitive  infliction  of  evil ;   the  righteous  will 
not  suffer  it,  though  it  is  displayed  to  them  ; 
the  wicked  will  never  cease  to  suffer  it,  because 
it  is  displayed  to  them. 

11.  After  this  there  is  a  return  to  the  Person 
of  God,  to  Whom  the  petition  was  at  the  first 
addressed  :  Destroy  them  by  Thy  truth.  Truth 
confounds  falsehood,  and  lying  is  destroyed 
by  truth.  We  have  shewn  that  the  whole  of 
the  foregoing  prayer  is  the  utterance  of  that 
human  nature  in  which  the  Son  of  God  was 
born ;  so  here  it  is  the  voice  of  human  nature 
calling  upon  God  the  Father  to  destroy  His 
enemies  in  His  truth.  What  this  truth  is, 
stands  beyond  doubt ;  it  is  of  course  He  Who 
said  :  /  am  the  Life,  the  Way,  the  Truth  3. 
And  the  enemies  were  destroyed  by  the  truth 
when,  for  all  their  attempts  to  win  Christ's 
condemnation  by  false  witness,  they  heard 
that  He  was  risen  from  the  dead  and  had 
to  admit  that  He  had  resumed  His  glory  in 
all  the  reality  of  Godhead.  Ere  long  they 
found,  in  ruin  and  destruction  by  famine  and 
war,  their  reward  for  crucifying  God ;  for  they 

3  St.  John  xiv.  6. 


condemned  the  Lord  of  Life  to  death,  and 
paid  no  heed  to  God's  truth  displayed  in  Him 
through  His  glorious  works.  And  thus  the 
Truth  of  God  destroyed  them  when  He  rose 
again  to  resume  the  majesty  of  His  Father's 
Glory,  and  gave  proof  of  the  truth  of  that 
perfect  Divinity  which  He  possessed. 

12.  Now  in  view  of  our  repeated,  nay  our 
unbroken  assertion  both  that  it  was  the  Only- 
begotten  Son  of  God  Who  was  uplifted  on  the 
cross,  and  that  He  was  condemned  to  death 
Who  is  eternal  by  virtue  of  the  origin  which  is 
His  by  the  nature  which  He  derives  from  the 
eternal  Father,  it  must  be  clearly  understood 
that  He  was  subjected  to  suffering  of  no 
natural  necessity,  but  to  accomplish  the  mys- 
tery of  man's  salvation  ;  that  He  submitted  to 
suffering  of  His  own  Will,  and  not  under  com- 
pulsion. And  although  this  suffering  did  not 
belong  to  His  nature  as  eternal  Son,  the  im- 
mutability of  God  being  proof  against  the 
assault  of  any  derogatory  disturbance,  yet  it 
was  freely  undertaken,  and  was  intended  to 
fulfil  a  penal  function  without,  however,  in- 
flicting the  pain  of  penalty  upon  the  sufferer: 
not  that  the  suffering  in  question  was  not  of 
a  kind  to  cause  pain,  but  because  the  divine 
Nature  feels  no  pain.  God  suffered,  then,  by 
voluntarily  submitting  to  suffering ;  but  al- 
though He  underwent  the  sufferings  in  all  the 
fulness  of  their  force,  which  necessarily  causes 
pain  to  the  sufferers,  yet  He  never  so  aban- 
doned the  powers  of  His  Nature  as  to  feel 
pain. 

13.  For  next  there  follows  :  7"  will  sacrifice 
unto  Thee  freely.  The  sacrifices  of  the  Law, 
which  consisted  of  whole  burnt-offerings  and 
oblations  of  goats  and  of  bulls,  did  not  involve 
an  expression  of  free  will,  because  the  sentence 
of  a  curse  was  pronounced  on  all  who  broke 
the  Law.  Whoever  failed  to  sacrifice  laid 
himself  open  to  the  curse.  And  it  was  always 
necessary  to  go  through  the  whole  sacrificial 
action  because  the  addition  of  a  curse  to  the 
commandment  forbad  any  trifling  with  the 
obligation  of  offering.  It  was  from  this  curse 
that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  redeemed  us,  when, 
as  the  Apostle  says  :  Christ  redeemed  us  from 
the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  curse  for  us> 
for  it  is  written  :  cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth 
on  a  tree*.  Thus  He  offered  Himself  to  the 
death  of  the  accursed  that  He  might  break  the 
curse  of  the  Law,  offering  Himself  voluntarily 
a  victim  to  God  the  Father,  in  order  that  by 
means  of  a  voluntary  victim  the  curse  which 
attended  the  discontinuance  of  the  regular 
victim  might  be  removed.  Now  of  this  sacri- 
fice mention  is  made  in  another  passage  of  the 

4  Gal.  iii.  13. 


PSALM    CXXX.    (CXXXI.). 


247 


Psalms :  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  wouldcst 
not,  but  a  body  hast  thou  prepared  for  me <" ;  that 
is,  by  offering  to  God  the  Father,  Who  refused 
the  legal  sacrifices,  the  acceptable  ofLring  of 
the  body  which  He  received.  Of  which  offer- 
ing the  holy  Apostle  thus  speaks  :  For  this  He 
did  once  for  all  when  He  offered  Himself  up  s, 
securing  complete  salvation  for  the  human  race 
by  the  offering  of  this  holy,  perfect  victim. 

14.  Then  He  gives  thanks  to  God  the 
Father  for  the  accomplishment  of  all  these 
acts :  /  will  give  thanks  unto  Thy  name, 
O  Lord,  for  it  is  good,  for  Thou  hast  delivered 
Me  out  of  all  affliction.  He  has  assigned  to 
each  clause  its  strict  fulfilment.  Thus  at  the 
beginning  He  had  said:  Save  Me,  O  God,  by 
Thy  name ;  after  the  prayers  had  been  heard 
it  was  right  that  there  should  follow  a  cor- 
responding ascription  of  thanks,  in  order  that 
confession  might  be  made  to  His  name  by 
Whose  name  He  had  prayed  to  be  saved,  and 
that  inasmuch  as  He  had  asked  for  help 
against  the  strangers  that  rose  up  against  Him, 
He  might  set  on  record  that  He  had  received 
it  in  the  burst  of  joy  expressed  in  the  words  : 
Thou  hast  delivered  Me  out  of  all  affliction. 
Then  in  respect  of  the  fact  that  the  violent 
in  seeking  after   His   soul   did   not   set  God 


4»  P*.  zxxix.  (zl.)  J. 


S  Heb.  vii.  27. 


before  their  eyes,  He  has  declared  His  eternal 
possession    of    unchangeable   divinity   in    the 
words  :  And  Mine  eye  hath  looked  doivn  upon 
Mine  enemies.     For  the  Only-begotten  Son  of 
God  was  not  cut  off  by  death.     It  is  true  that 
in  order  to  take  the  whole  of  our  nature  upon 
Him  He  submitted  to  death,  that  is  to  the 
apparent  severance  of  soul  and  body,and  made 
His  way  even  to  the  realms  below,  the  debt 
which  man  must  manifestly  pay  :  but  He  rose 
again  and  abides  for  ever  and  looks  down  with 
an  eye  that  death  cannot  dim  upon  His  ene- 
mies, being   exalted   unto   the   glory  of  God 
and  born  once  more  Son  of  God   after   be- 
coming Son  of  Man,  as  He  had  been  Son  of 
God  when  He  first  became  Son  of  Man,  by 
the  glory  of  His  resurrection.     He  looks  down 
upon  His  enemies  to  whom   He  once  said: 
Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  1  will 
build  it  up6.    And  so,  now  that  this  temple 
of  His  body  has  been  built  again,  He  surveys 
from  His  throne  on  high  those  who  sought 
after  His  soul,  and,  set  far  beyond  the  power 
of  human  death,  He  looks  down  from  heaven 
upon  those  who  wrought  His  death,  He  who 
suffered  death,  yet  could  not  die,  the   God- 
Man,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Who  is  blessed 
for  ever  and  ever.     Amen. 

•  St.  John  U.  19, 


PSALM   CXXX.    (CXXXI.). 


O  Lord,  my  heart  is  not  exalted,  neither  have 
mine  eyes  been  lifted  up. 

i.  This  Psalm,  a  short  one,  v/hich  demands 
an  analytical  rather  than  a  homiletical  treat- 
ment, teaches  us  the  lesson  of  humility  and 
meekness.  Now,  as  we  have  in  a  great  number 
of  other  places  spoken  about  humility,  there 
is  no  need  to  repeat  the  same  things  here. 
Of  course  we  are  bound  to  bear  in  mind  in 
how  great  need  our  faith  stands  of  humility 
when  we  hear  the  Prophet  thus  speaking  of 
it  as  equivalent  to  the  performance  of  the 
highest  works  :  O  Lord,  my  heart  is  not  exalted. 
For  a  troubled  heart  is  the  noblest  sacrifice  in 
the  eyes  of  God.  The  heart,  therefore,  must 
not  be  lifted  up  by  prosperity,  but  humbly  kept 
within  the  bounds  of  meekness  through  the 
fear  of  God. 

2.  Neither  have  mine  eyes  been  lifted  up.  The 
strict  sense  of  the  Greek  here  conveys  a  dif- 
ferent meaning  ;   oiibi  (ii(T(Oipi(rdr](Tav  ot  ofdaXnoi 

fiov,  that  is,  have  not  been  lifted  up  from  one 
object  to  look  on  another.     Yet  the  eyes  must 


be  lifted  up  in  obedience  to  the  Prophet's 
words  :  Lift  up  your  eyes  and  see  zvho  hath  dis- 
played all  these  things  ?.  And  the  Lord  says 
in  the  gospel  :  Lift  up  your  eyes,  and  look  on 
the  fields,  that  they  are  white  unto  harvest*. 
The  eyes,  then,  are  to  be  lifted  up :  not,  how- 
ever, to  transfer  their  gaze  elsewhere,  but  to 
remain  fixed  once  for  all  upon  that  to  which 
they  have  been  raised. 

3.  Then  follows  :  Neither  have  I  walked 
amid  great  things,  nor  amid  wonderful  things 
that  are  above  me.  It  is  most  dangerous  to 
walk  amid  mean  things,  and  not  to  linger  amid 
wonderful  things.  God's  utterances  are  great ; 
He  Himself  is  won  lerful  in  the  highest  :  how 
then  can  the  psalmist  pride  himself  as  on 
a  good  work  for  not  walking  amid  great  and 
wonderful  things?  It  is  the  addition  of  the 
words,  which  are  above  me,  that  shews  that 
the  walking  is  not  amid  those  things  which 
men  commonly  regard  as  great  and  wonderful. 


7  Is.  xl.  26. 


8  St.  fohn  iv.  35. 


248 


HOMILIES   ON   THE    PSALMS. 


For  David,  prophet  and  king  as  he  was,  once 
was  humble  and  despised  and  unworthy  to  sit 
at  his  father's  table ;  but  he  found  favour  with 
God,  he  was  anointed  to  be  king,  he  was  in- 
spired to  prophesy.  His  kingdom  did  not 
make  him  haughty,  he  was  not  moved  by 
hatreds :  he  loved  those  that  persecuted  him, 
he  paid  honour  to  his  dead  enemies,  he  spared 
his  incestuous  and  murderous  children.  In 
his  capacity  of  sovereign  he  was  despised,  in 
that  of  father  he  was  wounded,  in  that  of  pro- 
phet he  was  afflicted ;  yet  he  did  not  call  for 
vengeance  as  a  prophet  might,  nor  exact  pun- 
ishment as  a  father,  nor  requite  insults  as  a 
sovereign.  And  so  he  did  not  walk  amid  things 
great  and  wonderful  which  were  above  him. 

4.  Let  us  see  what  comes  next :  If  I  was 
not  humble-minded  but  have  lifted  up  my  soul. 
What  inconsistency  on  the  Prophet's  part ! 
He  does  not  lift  up  his  heart :  he  does  lift  up 
his  soul.  He  does  not  walk  amid  things  great 
and  wonderful  that  are  above  him ;  yet  his 
thoughts  are  not  mean.  He  is  exalted  in  mind  : 
and  cast  down  in  heart.  He  is  humble  in  his 
own  affairs :  but  he  is  not  humble  in  his 
thought.  For  his  thought  reaches  to  heaven, 
his  soul  is  lifted  up  on  high.  But  his  heart, 
out  of  which  proceed,  according  to  the  Gospel, 
evil  thoughts,  murders,  adulteries,  fornications, 
thefts,  false  witness,  railings  9,  is  humble, 
pressed  down  beneath  the  gentle  yoke  of 
meekness.  We  must  strike  a  middle  course, 
then,  between  humility  and  exaltation,  so  that 
we  may  be  humble  in  heart  but  lifted  up  in 
soul  and  thought. 

»  St.  Matt.  zt.  1* 


5.  Then  he  goes  on  :  Like  a  weaned  child 
upon  his  mother's  breast,  so  wilt  thou  reward  my 
soul.  We  are  told  that  when  Isaac  was  weaned 
Abraham  made  a  feast  because  now  that  he 
was  weaned  he  was  on  the  verge  of  boyhood 
and  was  passing  beyond  milk  food.  The 
Apostle  feeds  all  that  are  imperfect  in  the  faith 
and  still  babes  in  the  things  of  God  with  the  milk 
of  knowledge.  Thus  to  cease  to  need  milk 
marks  the  greatest  possible  advance.  Abraham 
proclaimed  by  a  joyful  feast  that  his  son  had 
come  to  stronger  meat,  and  the  Apostle  refuses 
bread  to  the  carnal -minded  and  those  that  are 
babes  in  Christ.  And  so  the  Prophet  prays 
that  God,  because  he  has  not  lifted  up  his 
heart,  nor  walked  amid  things  great  and  won- 
derful that  are  above  him,  because  he  has 
not  been  humble-minded  but  did  lift  up  his 
soul,  may  reward  his  soul,  lying  like  a  weaned 
child  upon  his  mother  :  that  is  to  say  that  he 
may  be  deemed  worthy  of  the  reward  of  the 
perfect,  heavenly  and  living  bread,  on  the 
ground  that  by  reason  of  his  works  already 
recorded  he  has  now  passed  beyond  the  stage 
of  milk. 

6.  But  he  does  not  demand  this  living  bread 
from  heaven  for  himself  alone,  he  encourages 
all  mankind  to  hope  for  it  by  saying  :  Let  Israel- 
hope  i?i  the  Lord  from  henceforth  and  for  ever- 
more.  He  sets  no  temporal  limit  to  our  hope, 
he  bids  our  faithful  expectation  stretch  out 
into  infinity.  We  are  to  hope  for  ever  and 
ever,  winning  the  hope  of  future  life  through 
the  hope  of  our  present  life  which  we  have 
in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  Who  is  blessed  for 
ever  and  ever.     Amen. 


INDEX. 


I.    INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


Intr.  =  Introduction.         T.  =  De  Trin.         S.  =  De  Syn.         Ps.  =  Horn,  in  Psalmos. 


Abraham,  faith  of,  Ps.  i,  24;  and 
the  Three,  T.  iv,  24,  27  f. ;  v, 
15  f- ;  Ps.  cxxx,  5 

Adam,  fall  of,  Ps.  i,  18,  24;  T.  iv, 
21  ;  flesh  of,  T.  x,  20 ;  Intr. 
lxix  ;  soul  of,  T.  x,  20 

Adoption,  T.  vi,  18,  25,  43  (see  Son- 
ship) 

Alexander  (of  Alexandria),  letter  to, 
T.  iv,  12 

Alexandria,  birthplace  of  Arianism, 
T.  vii,  3 

Alexandrian  philosophy  (see  Platon- 
ism,  Christian) 

Allegorism,  Hilary's  use  of;  Intr. 
viii,  xxxvi,  xliv  f. 

Almsgiving,  Intr.  xcii 

Ambrose,  St.,  Intr.  vi,  ix,  xlv,  xlvi, 
xciv 

Analogy,  Argument  from,  T.  i,  19 ; 
iv,  2  ;  vi,  9  ;  vii,  29  f. 

Ancyra,  Council  of,  S.  12  f.,  89  f. ; 
Intr.  i,  xvii 

Angel,  title  of,  T.  v,  II,  22 

Angel  of  God,  T.  iv,  23  f. ,  32 

Angels,  nature  of,  T.  v,  11  ;  office 
of,  T.  iv,  23 ;  v,  13;  worship 
Christ,  T.  iii,  7  ;  ministered  to 
Christ,  T.  x,  40 

Annihilation  of  wicked,  Ps.  i,  20  f. 

Anomoeans,  Intr.  xvii  f .,  xxxiii 

Anthropology  of  Hilary,  Intr.  lxixf., 
lxxxv  f. 

Anti-Christ,  T.  ix,  22  ;  Arians  are, 
T.  vi,  42 

Antioch,  Council  of  (" Dedication"), 
S.  28 — 33  ;  Intr.  xix — xxx  ;  an 
"  assembly  of  Saints,"  S.  32 

Antioch,  Council  of  (against  Paul  of 
Samosata),  S.  86 

Apollinarianism,  Intr.  lxx,  lxxvi 

Apostles,  faith  of,  T.  vi,  32  f. ;  x, 
39  f. ;  their  knowledge  of  Christ, 
T.  vi,  34  f. ;  miracles  at  tombs 
of,  T.  xi,  3 

Apostles'  Creed,  Hilary  and  the, 
Intr.  xxii  f. ;  T.  ii.  1 

Aquila,  Intr.  xliii 

Aquileia,  Council  of,  Intr.  xii 

Arianism,  birthplace  of,  T.  vii,  3  ; 
extent  of,  T.  vi,  I  ;  foretold  by 
St.  Paul,  T.  x,  2  f. ;  adoptionist 
foundation  of,  T.  iv,  3 ;  char- 
acterised by  Hilary,  T.  vi,  3f.; 


x,  3  ;  S.  I,  6  f. ;  novel,  T.  ii,  4, 
23;  vii,  3  ;  xi,  4;  xii,  3;  Intr. 
vii;  an  "inward  evil,"  T.  vii, 
3  ;  Intr.  xii  ;  serpentine,  S.  I, 
6  f .  ;  diabolical,  S.  1;  Anti- 
Christian,  T.  vi,  42 ;  main  ar- 
gument of,  T.  iv,  15;  ix,  2; 
difficulty  of  dealing  with,  T.  vi, 
I  ;  defeat  of,  S.  4 

Arian  doctrine,  T.  i,  16  ;  ii,  4 ;  iv, 
3f.,  n  ;  S.  18,  &c. ;  practice  in- 
distinguishable from  Catholic, 
Intr.  xi ;  falsehood,  T.  i,  23  ; 
iv.  1,  9  ;  v,  1,  26  ;  vii,  r  ;  viii, 
I  ;  x,  5  ;  subterfuges,  T.  viii, 
3 ;  S.  20 ;  motives,  T.  iv,  4 ; 
chronology,  T.  xii,  34  ;  objec- 
tions to  divinity  of  Christ,  T. 
x,  9;  objections  to  homoousion, 
T.  iv,  4;  phrases,  T.  vi,  13; 
xii  passim  ;  iii,  8  ;  iv,  3  f . , 
"  f-;  v,  3,  35,  39;  vi,  4f.,  10, 
14  f.,  38  ;  vii,  1  f.,  6;  texts,  T. 
vii.  6;  xii,  1,  35  f. 

Arians,  never  named  by  Hilary,  Intr. 
xxxiv  ;  how  designated  by  Hil- 
ary, T.  ii,  4;  vi,  42 ;  vii,  6 ;  S. 
6  f.  ;  "lunatics,"  T.  vii,  7; 
Intr.  xv ;  misdirected  zeal  of, 
T.  viii,  3  ;  worse  than  Jews,  T. 
vi,  50 ;  appeal  to  Scripture,  T. 
i,  29  f. ;  vii,  6  ;  ix,  2  ;  xi,  8  ; 
xii,  1,  35  f.  ;  falsify  Scripture, 
T.  v.  26,  &c. ;  dishonesty  of, 
T.  i,  23  ;  iv.  I,  9  ;  v.  I,  26  ; 
vii,  1  j  viii,  1  ;  x,  5,  &c. ;  with- 
out hope  of  salvation,  T.  vi,  50  ; 
without  excuse,  T.  vi,  50  ;  vii, 
23 !  x'>  9 ;  incapable  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  T.  ix,  35  ;  at  issue 
with  Sabelli.ans,  T.  i,  26  ;  re- 
ject Valentinian  error,  T.  vi,  9; 
Manichean,  T.  vi,  9  ;  Sabellian, 
T.  vi,  9 

Arians,  know  not  God,  T.  v,  35  ; 
dishonour  God,  T.  iv,  41  ;  S. 
20;  profane  the  Holy  Spirit,  T. 
ii,  4  ;  destroy  the  humanity  of 
Christ,  T.  ix,  5  ;  preach  another 
Christ,  T.  xi,  4  ;  deny  real  In- 
carnation, T.  i,  16 ;  viii,  3 ;  deny 
eternity  of  the  Son,  T.  iv,  4f.  ; 
xii,  18;  deny  common  nature  of 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  T.  vii, 


5 ;  exalt  the  Father  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  Son,  T.  iv,  4f.  ; 
xii,  18  ;  say  Christ  had  name  of 
God  alone,  T.  vii,  13,  31  ;  Intr. 
lxii ;  admit  Christ  to  be  Wisdom, 
T.  iv,  21 ;  dare  not  openly  deny 
divinity  of  Christ,  T.  viii,  3  ; 
worship  a*creature,  T.  viii,  28  ; 
call  Christ  a  creature,  T.  iv,  3  ; 
vi,  42;  their  doctrine  briefly 
stated,  T.  i,  16  ;  ii,  4 ;  their 
view  of  Sonship  of  Christ,  T.  vi, 
18  ;  S.  20  ;  of  Christ's  creative 
function,  T.  iv,  19  ;  of  purpose 
of  Christ's  creation,  T.  xii,  43 

Arians,  confuted  by  their  own  argu- 
ments, T.  viii,  6  f. ;  by  twofold 
nature  of  Christ,  T.  xi,  6 ;  by 
Scripture,  T.  i,  29  f. ;  ii,  23  ; 
viii,  1 1  f.,  21  f. ;  ix,  69  f  ;  xii,  3 

Ariminum,  Council  of,  S.  8  (see 
Rimini) 

Arius,  T.  vii,  6  f ;  letter  of,  to  Alex- 
ander, T.  iv,  12  f . ;  vi,  5  f . ; 
Intr.  xxxi,  xxxiv  f.;  to  Eusebius, 
Intr.  xxxiii 

Aries,  Intr.  ix ;  Council  of,  Intr.  x 
(see  Auxenlius) 

Asia,  ten  provinces  of,  ignorant  of 
God,  S.  63 

"Assumption,"  see  Incarnation,  Self- 
emptying,  &°c. 

Athanasius,  St.,  Intr.  x:  personally 
unknown  to  Hilary,  Intr.  xv  ; 
never  mentions  Hilary,  Intr.  ii ; 
on  the  eternal  Generation,  Intr. 
lxv  f. ,  xciv 

Atonement  of  Christ,  T.  viii,  15,  51  ; 
ix,  3,  10;  xi,  20  ;  Intr.  lxxxvii ; 
theories  of,  Intr.  lxxi ;  Ps.  liii, 
13  (see  Christ) 

Augustine,  St.,  Intr.  i,  vi,  xxxvi,  xlv ; 
on  Hilary,  Intr.  v,  lxxxv  f,  xciv 

Auxentius  of  Milan,  Intr.  ix,  xi,  xlix 
-liv 

Baptism,  Intr.  Ixxxix  ;  One,  T.  xi, 
1;  Intr.  xxvii ;  of  Regeneration, 
T.  i,  18;  v,  35;  ix,  9  ;  xii,  57 

Baptism,  in  Name  of  Trinity,  T.  i, 
21  ;  ii,  I  ;  xii,  57;  S.  II,  29  ; 
Intr.  xxii  ;  in  Name  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  T.  v,  35 ; 
in  One  Name,  S.  85  ;  with  the 


250 


I.     INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


Holy  Ghost,  Intr.  lxxxix;  here- 
tical, T.  viii,  40;  Intr.  xvi 

Baptism  of  Christ,  T.  vi,  23  ;  Intr. 
lxxxi  ;  T.  viii,  25 

Baptismal  formula  (see  Baptism) 

Baruch,  Look  of,  T.  iv,  42 ;    v,  39 

Basil,  St.,  Intr.  i,  xv,  xvii  f. 

Beziers,  Council  of,  Intr.  xiv,  xxv; 
S.  2 

Birth  (nativitas),  T.  v,  37;  vi,  13  ; 
vii,  14  f.;  21,  25;  xi,  4;  xii, 
15;  S.  20 f.  ;  distinguished  from 
creation,  S.  17  ;  of  Son,  of 
Christ  (see  Generation,  the  eter- 
nal, Incarnation,  Baptism  of 
Christ,  Resurrection) 

"Births"  of  Christ,  successive  (see 
above^jd  Christ) 

Bishop,JBPFvi,  2 ;  a  prince  of  the 
ChuTOfi,  T.  viii,  1 

Bishops  under  Anathema,  S.  9 1 

Biterrae  (see  Beziers) 

Bithynia,  Council  of,  S.  8 

"Blasphemy,"  the  (see  Sirmian 
Manifesto) 

Body  of  Christ,  sensible  to  pain,  T. 
x,  14  ;  whence  derived,  T.  x, 
15,  18,  23;  nature  of,  T.  x,  25, 
35 ;  absorption  of  carnal  ele- 
ments of,  T.  x,  44  f.  ;  univer- 
sality of,  T.  ii,  24 ;  final  glori- 
fication of,  T.  xi,  40,  49 

Body,  human,  Intr.  Ixxxv 


Cana,  miracle  at,  T.  iii,  5 

Christ,  births  of,  successive  {a)  pre- 
temporal  (see  Generation,  the 
eternal,  Creator,  the  Son  as) ; 
(&)  temporal  (see  Incarnation, 
Baptism  of  Chris!,  Resurrec- 
tion); (c)  post-temporal  (see 
Final  state  of  Christ) ;  Threefold 
state  of,  T.  ix,  6 ;  Godhead  of, 
T.  vii  passim;  i,  10  f. ;  proved 
by  His  miracles,  T.  iii  passim  ; 
ii,  27;  Intr.  lxix  ;  "abiding," 
T.  iii,  3,  13,  16;  v,  18,  35;  vii, 
41  ;  viii,  41  ;  ix,  14,  30,  38,  51, 
66  ;  x.  16,  21,  34  ;  xi,  48  ;  xii, 
36;  possesses  not  only  the  name 
but  the  nature  of  God,  T.  vii, 
13,  31  ;  Intr.  lxxvii  f.  ;  eternal 
existence  of,  T.  ix,  53  ;  xii,  34  ; 
omniscience  of,  T.  ix,  62  ;  the 
Image  of  God,  T,  vii,  37  :  viii, 
48  f.  ;  ix,  1,  69  ;  xi,  5  ;  unity  of 
Person  of,  T.  viii,  13;  x,  61  f. ; 
Intr.  lxxvii  f.  ;  Sonship  of,  T.  i, 
27;  vi,  21  f.,  &c. ;  Ps.  liii,  12; 
not  adoptive,  T.  iii,  11 ;  vi,  23, 
32,  36  ;    eternal  Generation  of, 

T-  vi>  35 ;  v»»  *4>  &c.  (see 
Genera/ion,  the  eternal)  ;  Sub- 
ordination of,  T.  i,  33;  ii,  12, 
&c.  (see  Subordination) ;  not  a 
creature,  T.  vi,  29  ;  ix,  57  ;  xii, 
5  f.,  50  ;  in  what  sense  created, 
T.  xii,  43,  50 ;  Intr.  lxvii  f. ;  as 
Creator,  T.  ii,  6;  iii,  22;  viii, 
51  ;  xii,  4,  19,  35  f.,  43  ;  Intr. 
lxvii  ;  the  Spirit  of,  T.  viii,  21  { 
ix»  73  5  Christ  is  Wisdom,  Ps.  i, 
14 ;  is  the  tree  of  Life,  Ps.  i,  14 ; 


a  green  tree,  Ps.  i.  14  ;  a  worm, 
T.  xi,  15;  how  known  to  be 
God,  T.  vii,  9  f. ;  various  mani- 
festations of,  T.  iv,  27  f.  ;    xii, 

46  f.  ;  Intr.  lxvii ;  in  the  O.  T., 
T.  v,  29  ;  xi,  18  ;  witness  of,  to 
Himself,  T.  vii,  17  f.,  21  f. ;  In- 
carnation of,  a  "birth,"  T.  ii, 
24 ;  a  creation,  T.  xii,  45  ;  Intr. 
lxvii;  an  "embodiment,"  Intr. 
lxii ;  an  "assumption,"  T.  ii, 
26;  x,  15,  22;  Ps.  i.  4;  Intr. 
lxix  ;  part  of  the  original  coun- 
sel of  God,  T.  xi,  49 ;  Intr. 
lxviii,  lxxxviii,  xcvi ;  a  self- 
emptying,  T.  xii,  6,  &c.  ;  pur- 
pose of,  T.  i,  II ;  ii,  24  ;  iii,  3, 
9;  x,  7;  Intr.  lxviii;  ultimate 
result  of,  T.  xi,  40—42;  self- 
emptying  of,  T.  ix,  14  f.,  38 — 42, 
51  f.,  58  f. ;  x,  19—22;  Christ, 
self-humiliation  of,  T.  ix,  4 ;  x, 
II,  61  ;  xi,  30,  48;  Intr.  lxxiv  ; 
in  form  of  a  servant,  T.  xi,  13  f., 
&c. ;  ix,  14  (see  Incarnation, 
Self-emptying,  Form  of  a  Servant, 
&c.)  ;  Christ  is  perfect  man,  T. 
ix,  38  ;  x,  21  f.  ;  x,  52  ;  is  Son 
of  Man  in  fullest  sense,  Ps.  liii, 
8  ;  body  of,  whence  derived,  T. 
ii,  24;  x,  16,  18;  Intr.  lxix, 
Ixxiii ;  a  true  body,  T.  x,  24  f., 

47  f.  ;  absorption  of  carnal  ele- 
ments of,  T.  x,  44,  47  ;  flesh  of, 
T.  ii,  26;  iii,  16;  iv,  42;  viii, 
I3f.  ;  ix,  8;  soul  of,  T.  x  20  f., 
57,  61  ;  whence  derived,  T.  x, 
15  ;  not  the  cause  of  miracles, 
T.  x,  56  ;  free  will  of,  T.  ix,  50  ; 
human  nature  of,  united  to  the 
divine  nature,  T.  xi,  48  ;  Ps.  liii, 
8,  14;  two  natures  in,  T.  ix,  11, 
39;  x,  16,22,  34;  Intr.  Ixxiii; 
anointed  by  God,  T.  xi,  18  f.  ; 
sealed  by  God,  T.  viii,  44  f.  ; 
baptism  of,  T.  vi,  23 ;  viii,  25  ; 
Intr.  lxxxi  ;  mission  of,  T.  iii, 
14  ;  knowledge  of,  its  limits,  T. 
ix,  58  f.  ;  passible,  T.  ii,  24;  x, 

11,  23  f.,  47  f. ;  S.  49  n.  ;  Ps. 
liii,   7,    12 ;    impassible,  T.   x, 

23  f->  36>  37.41.45 ;  s.49;  Ps. 

liii,  7,  12;  Intr.  vii,  lxxv  ;  why 
Firstborn,  T.  viii,  50 ;  media- 
torial office  of,  T.  iv,  16,  42  ;  v, 
23;  viii,  15;  ix,  3;  xi,  20;  pas- 
sion of,  T.  x,  9  f.,  27 — 43,  48, 
61  f.;  Intr.  lxxiv f.  ;  sufferings  of, 
their  purpose,  Intr.  Ixxvi  (see/w- 
passibility,  Passibility,  Passion)  ; 
death  of,  moved  creation,  T.  iii, 
10;  Christ  removed  the  sting 
of  death,  T.  i,  13  f.  ;  bore  our 
sin,  T.  x,  47  ;  suffered  for  us, 
Ps.  liii,  I2f.  (see  Redemption, 
Passion);  resurrection  of,  T.  vii, 

12,  &c.  (see  Resurrection);  king- 
dom of,  T.  xi,  29,  39 ;  reconciles 
man  to  God,  T.  viii,  15  ;  ix,  3  ; 
xi,  20  (see  Atonement)  ;  inter- 
cession of,  Ps.  liii,  4  ;  His  de- 
scent into  Hell,  S.  85  ;  Ps,  liii, 
14 ;  T.  x,  34  ;  faith  in  Christ,  our 
salvation,  T.i,  16 f.,  18;  vi,4if., 


47  f.  ;  union  with,  T.  ix,  55 ;  in- 
dwelling in,T.  ix,  8 ;  faith  about, 
not  to  be  delivered  piece-meal, 
S.  70 ;  Christ  reveals  God,  T. 
iii, 9;  ix,  52;  Intr.  lxviii;  alone 
knows  the  Father,  Ps.  liii,  6; 
guides  to  the  Father,  T.  iii,  9  ; 
xii,  45  ;  confidence  of,  Ps.  liii, 
6 ;  obedience  of,  Ps.  liii,  6 ;  T. 
ix,  39  ;  our  pattern,  Ps.  liii.  7  ; 
tears  of,  T.  x,  55  ;  future  sub- 
jection of,  T.  xi,  21  f.  ;  S.  79 
(see  Subjection) ;  known  by  His 
works,  T.  vii,  26 ;  confessed  by 
demons,  T.  vi,  49 ;  Advent  of, 
T.  vi,  31 ;  final  state  of,  T.  xi, 

40,  49 
Christian,  a  new  name,  T.  v,  29 
Christians,  the  Kingdom  of  Christ, 

T.  xi,  39 
Church,  is  one,  T,  vi,  38;  vii,  4; 

marks  of,  T.  vii,  4 ;  invincible, 

T.  i,  25 ;  wisdom  of,  T.  vi,  10 ; 

disloyalty  to,  T.  vii,  4 ;  Ps.  i,  6  ; 

law  of,  Ps.  i,  5 ;  Christ  is,  Intr. 

lxxx 
Circumcision,    Spiritual,    T.   i,   13; 

ix,  9 
Circuminsession  (see  Indwelling) 
Clement  of  Alex.,  Intr.  vii,  lxxvii 
Commuuicalio  idiomatum,  T.  ix,  15 
Conception  by  the  Son,  T.  ii,  24  ;  x, 

16  ;  Intr.  lxx 
Concurrence  (concursus),  T.  ix,  14 
Constans,  Intr.  x 
Constantinople,   Councils    of,    Intr. 

xii,  xxi 
Constantius,  Intr.  ix  f.  ;  xviii  f. ;   S. 

78  ;  First  Epistle  to,  Intr.  xii  f. ; 

Second  Epistle  to,  Intr.  xxi  f. ; 

Invective  against,  Intr.  xxv  f. 
Contraction,  S.  44  (see  Expansion) 
Cosmology,  Ps.  i,  7;  T.  vi,  29;  xii, 

39  £ 

Councils  (seeAnlioch,  Aries,  Beziers, 

All  Ian,    Niccea,    Sardica,    Sir- 

mium,  &c.) 
Creationism,  T.  x,  20  f. ;  Intr.  lxxx 
Creation,  T.  iv,  16,  21  ;  xii,  40;  of 

man,  Intr.  lxxx ;    distinguished 

from  birth,  S.   17;   T.  xii,  16; 

the  image  of  God,  T.  viii,  51; 

the  work  of  the  Son,  Intr.  lxvii ; 

T.  ii,  6 ;  xii,  4 
Creator,  the  Son  (Christ)  as,  T.  ii,  6; 

xii,  4,  &c.  (see  Births  of  Christ) 
Creature,  Christ  in  what  sense  a,  T. 

xii,  43,  50  ;  Intr.  lxvii  f. 
Creatures,   may  not  be  worshipped, 

T.  xii,  3 
Creed,      Apostles',      Intr.      xxii  f. ; 

Nicene,    S.    84;    Hilary  ready 

to  sacrifice,  Intr.  xxii  f.  ;  of  An- 

tioch  (Dedication),  Intr.  xix;  S. 

29  f.  ;  a  bridge  to  the  Nicene,  S. 

33 ;    of  Sardica,    S.    34  f.  ;    of 

Sirmium,  S.  38  ;  "  Dated,"  Intr. 

xxi 
Creeds,  Post-Nicene,  S.  6f. 
Cyprian,    St.,    Intr.    vi,    viii,  xxxv, 

lxxxviii  f. 

Daniel,  vision  of,  T.  xii,  47  ;  weeks 
of,  T.  vi,  20 


I.     INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS. 


251 


Darkness,    held    by    heretics    to    be 

coeval  with  God,  S.  85 
"Dated"  Creed,  Intr.  xxi 
David,  a  type  of  Christ,  I's.  liii,  if.; 

not  ignorant  of  the  Gospel,  Ps. 

liii.  I  f.  ;  a  Prophet,  P»s.  passim 
Death,  causes  of,  T.  x,  II  ;    fear  of, 

T.  i,  13;  abolished  in  Christ, T. 

i,  13  ;   punishment  after,  Ps.  i, 

20  f. 
Deification  of  man,  T.  ix,  4,  3S  ;  x. 

7;  Ps  liii,  8,  14;  Intr.  lxiii  (see 

Man,  Incarnation) 
Descent  into  Hell,  Christ's,  S.  85; 

Ps.  liii,  14;  T.  x,  34 
Diapsalmus,  Ps.  liii,  9  n. 
"Dilatation"  (see  Expansion) 
Dionysius  of  Milan,  Intr.  x,  xlix 
"  Dispensation  "  or  Economy,  T.  ix, 

8,  39,  &c. ;  Intr.  lxxii  f. 
Docetism,    Hilary's    avoidance    of, 

Intr.  lxxvii 
Doctrine,  definition  of,  forced  upon 

the   Church   by  heretics,    Intr. 

lxiii ;  T.  ii,  2 
Donatists,  Intr.  vi 

Eastern  bishops,  at  Bithynia,  S.  8  ; 
at  Ancyra,  S.  27;  reject  Sirmian 
Manifesto,  S.  3,  12,  27  ;  praised 
by  Hilary,  S.  78  ;  yet  some  de- 
nied the  equality  of  the  Son,  S. 

74 

Eighty,  a  mystical  number,  S.  86 

Eleusius,  S.  63 

"  Embodiment"  of  Christ,  Intr.  lxii 
(see  Incarnation) 

Epicureans,  philosophy  of,  Ps.  i,  7 

Eschatology,  Intr.  xciii 

Essence,  the  term  defined,  S.  12; 
generally  avoided  by  Hilary, 
Intr.  lxii 

Eucharist,  T.  viii,  13  f.  ;  Intr.  v 

Eudoxius,  Intr.  xx,  xxvii 

Eusebius  (of  Vercelli),  Intr.  xi,  xxx, 
xlix 

"Evacuation"  (see  Self-emptying, 
Incarnation,  Exinanition,  <5r»t\) 

Exegesis.  Hilary's  faulty,  Intr.  xxxvi; 
examples  of,  T.  ii,  35 ;  vi,  34 ; 
viii,  31 

"Exinanition,"  T.  ix,  51  (see  Self- 
emptying,  &*c. ) 

"  Exition,"  T.  vi,  35  (see  Son  of  God, 
birth  of,  Generation,  the  eter- 
nal) 

Exorcism,  Intr.  xxvi,  « 

"  Expansion  "  {dilatatio),  S.  44 

Ezechiel,  vision  of,  T.  xii,  47 

Faith,  a  prophylactic,  T.  ii,  22 ; 
equivalent  to  works.  Ps.  cxxx, 
I  ;  inferior  to  knowledge,  Intr. 
lxxxviii  ;  precedes  knowledge, 
T.  i.  12;  of  Apostles,  the,  T. 
vi,  32  f.,  51  ;  x,  39 

Faithful,  the,  one  with  Christ,  T. 
viii.  8  f.  ;  xi,  19 

Fasting,  Intr.  xcii 

Father,  a  real  not  a  titular  name,  S. 
20  ;  God  is  wholly,  T.  ix,  61 ; 
God  is  always,  T.  ix,  61 ;  xii, 
23  ;  S.  24 ;  especially  to  those 
wh->  worship  the  Son,  T.  vi,  30  ; 


God  is  universal,  T.  xi,  16  ;  be- 
lief in  God  as  F., insufficient  for 
salvation,  T.  i,  17,  &c.  ;  Intr. 
lxiv  ;  the  F.  is  Spirit,  T.  viii,  25  ; 
is  alone  ingcnerate,  T.  iv,  8  ;  ix, 
51  ;  xii,  55;  S.  60;  is  not  bound 
by  time,  S.  24  f. ;  One  with  the 
Son,T.  vi,  38;  viii,  20,  41  ;  ix, 
23.37;  S.  19  f.,  36,  41,  51,  64; 
On'j  with  the  Son,  in  substance, 
S.  33,  &c.  ;  not  in  person, 
S.  64  (see  Ilomoousion) ;  can- 
not be  thought  of  apart  from 
the  Son,  T.  vii,  31;  identical  in 
nature  with  the  Son,  T.  v,  35; 
viii,  41  ;  ix,  30;  of  equal  dig- 
nity with  the  Son,  T.  xii,  7 ;  of 
equal  power  with  the  Son,  T. 
vii,  22 ;  is  the  mirror  of  the  Son, 
T.  ix,  69  ;  in  what  sense  greater 
than  the  Son,  T.  ix,  55  ;  S.  64, 
79;  in  what  sense  praised  by  the 
Son,  T.  iii,  15  ;  nature  of,  un- 
affected by  the  Incarnation,  T. 
ix,  38,  51  ;  reconciles  to  Him- 
self, T.  viii,  51 

Fatherhood,  T.  ii,  3,  6;  S.  20; 
metaphysical,  T.  v,  27  ;  mystery 
of,  T.  ix,  31  (see  Sonship) 

Fatherhood  of  God,  eternal,  Intr. 
lxiv;  T.  ix,  61  ;  xii,  23  ;  S.  24  ; 
destroyed  by  Arians,  S.  21  f. 
(see  Father,  Sonship,  Son) 

Fear,  Christ  without,  T.  x,  33 

Fire  of  hell,  T.  x,  34 

Fire,  purifying,  T.  vi,  3  ;  Intr.  xciv 

Flesh,  of  Christ  (see  Body  of  Christ) 

Form,  of  God,  T.  xii,  6  f.,  &c.  ; 
the  subject  of  the  Self-emptying, 
T.  viii,  45;  ix,  14,  38;  Intr. 
lxxi  f.  ;  Ps.  liii,  8 ;  resumed  by 
Christ,  T.  ix,  38  f.,  54 ;  xi,  2, 
40,  49  ;  Ps.  liii,  8;  retained  by 
Christ,  S.  69  (see  Self-emptying, 
Incarnation,  Resurrection) 

Form,  of  a  servant,  assumed  by 
Christ,  T.  ix,  14  ;  xi,  48  ;  Intr. 
lxxiii  ;  Ps.  liii,  5  (see  Self- 
emptying,  Incarnation,  &*c) 

Free-will,  defined,  T.  vii,  19 ;  viii, 
12  ;  of  man,  Intr.  vii,  lxxxv  f.  ; 
of  Christ,  T.  ix,  50;  x,  11  ;  xi, 
8  f.  ;  Intr.  xcv 

French,  Bp.,  Intr.  xcv 

Galatia,  the  cradle  of  heresy,  T. 
vii,  3 

GalHcan  bishops,  S.  2  f. ,  8 

Gaul  in  the  4th  cent  ,  Intr.  ii. 

Generation,  the  eternal,  Intr.  viii, 
lxivf.;  T.  ii,9;  iii,  3  ;  vi,  13,35, 
45;  vii,  14;  ix,  37,  51  f.,  54; 
x,  6  ;  xii,  21,  23;  S.  17,  24, 
26  f.,  35,  42  f. ;  S.  69 ;  cause 
of,  T.  iii,  4;  vi,  21  ;  viii,  54; 
s-  35-  37,  59  5  distinguished 
from  creation,  S.  17;  Athan- 
asius  on,  Intr.  lxv 

Genus,  equivalent  to  nature,  sub- 
stance, essence,  S.  12 

Germinius,  S.  81  ;  Intr.  lvi. 

Glory,  the  divine,  obscured  in  the 
Incarnation,  T.  ix,  6;  Intr.  vii, 
lwxi  ;    restored   in  the   Resur- 


rection, Ts.  liii,  14;  Intr.  lxxxi; 
man's  share  in,  T.  ix,  4  ;  x,  7; 
xi,  42  f.,  49;  Ps.  liii,  5  ;  Intr. 
lxxxii ;  the,  of  the  Father  and  the 
Son  is  One,  T.  ix,  38  f.  ;  of  the 
Son  of  Man,  T.  ii,26f.  ;  iii,  l8f.; 
xi,  42  ;  Intr.  Ixxiv  ;  of  the  body 
of  Christ,  T.  xi,  35,  37  (see 
Incarnation,  Self-emptying,  Re- 
suri  ection ) 
God,  Catholic  doctrine  of,  T.  iv,  6, 
33,42;  vii, 21, 27  ;  ix,  51;  S.64; 
Arian  doctrine  of,  T.  iv,  3,  &c.  ; 
ancient  ideas  concerning,  T.  i,  4; 
alone  to  be  worshipped,  T.  xi, 
44  ;  Nature  of,  T.  vii,  21 ;  S. 
33,  &c. ;  Form  of,  T.  ix,  44  ;  xii, 
6  f.  ;  Intr.  lxxi  f.  (see  form  of 
God) ;  Name  of,  unknown  to 
men  before  Christ,  T.  iii,  17; 
Unity  of,  T.  iv,  15  ;  vi,  II ; 
vii,  2,  21  ;  viii,  40  f. ;  ix,  26, 
37  f.,  51,  61,  72;  S.  I9f.  ; 
natural  not  Personal,  T.  i,  17  ; 
S.  69  ;  belief  in  U.  of  G.,  T.  iv, 
15  f.  ;  how  confessed  by  Arians, 
v,  1  ;  simplicity  of,  T.  ix,  31,  72; 
distinction  of  Persons  in,  T.  v. 
3  ;  Father  and  Son  are  one  G., 
T.iv,33;  vii,  25,31  f.,4o;xi,  I; 
is  Spirit,  T.  viii,  25  ;  Spirit  of, 
T.  viii,  21  (see  Spirit,  the  Holy) ; 
is  incorporeal,  T.  vi,  12  ;  S.  49  ; 
ingenerate,  S.  60;  without  parts, 
T.  vii,  27  ;  xii,  8 ;  not  subject 
to  expansion  or  contraction,  S. 
44 ;  ingenerate,  generate  (see 
Father,  Son) ;  not  solitary,  S. 
37;  T.  iv,  30;  vi,  12,  19;  vii, 
8 ;  self-existent,  T.  i,  5  ;  etern- 
ally existent,  T.  iii,  2  ;  xii,  39  ; 
infinite,  T.  i,  6 ;  ii,  6 ;  soulless, 
T.  x,  58  ;  immutable,  T.  ix,  72  ; 
S.  47 ;  not  subject  to  laws  of 
nature,  T.  ix,  72  ;  the  Creator, 
T.  viii,  51  ;  creates  what  already 
exists  to  Him  ;  T.  xii,  39  ;  the 
Father  of  all,  T.  ii,  6  ;  in  Nature, 
T.  i,  6  (see  Immanence) ;  all 
in  all,  T.  xi,  47  f. ;  is  omnipo- 
tent, T,  iii,  6 ;  ix,  72 ;  omni- 
present, T.  viii,  24  ;  omniscient, 
T.  ix,  29,  61  f.,  68  f.  ;  alone  can 
raise  from  the  dead,  T.  vii,  12  ; 
needs  nothing,  T.  ix,  72  ;  xi, 
44,  47  ;  is  unsearchable,  T.  iv, 
2  ;  ix,  72  ;  xi,  44  ;  S.  62 ; 
but  accommodates  Himself  to 
man's  capacity,  T.  iv,  17  ;  vi, 
16 ;  viii,  43 ;  vision  of,  T.  v, 
17,  34  ;  xi,  38  f.  ;  xii,  46 ;  seen 
by  Isaiah,  T.  v,  33 ;  by  Abra- 
ham, T.  iv,  27  ;  by  Jacob,  T. 
iv,  31  ;  v,  19  f. ;  how  to  know 
G.,  T.  ii,  7  ;  iii.  26  ;  iv,  14  ;  v, 
20  f.  ;  reveals  Himself,  T.  i,  18  ; 
v,  20  f. ;  is  revealed  in  Scripture, 
T.  i,  iS  ;  vi,  19;  teaches  us 
through  His  Son,  T.  ix,  49 ;  is 
known  by  His  works,  T.  iii,  5  > 
by  His  words,  T.  i,  18;  is  Love, 
T.  ix,  61  ;  is  Life,  T.  viii,  43  ; 
beauty  of,  T.  1,  7  ;  pitifulness  of, 
T.  vi,   19;    is  merciful  to  igno- 


252 


I.     INDEX    OF  SUBJECTS. 


ranee,  T.  vi,  3  ;   in  what  sense 

ignorant,  T.  ix,  63  f.,  68  ;  Ps.  i, 

24  ;    "  Only  begotten,"  T.  iv, 

33,  &c. ;  Intr.  xvi,  lxv 
"God-Man,"  Ps.  liii,  14,  &c. 
Gospel,  hidden  in  O.  T.,  T.  v,  18  ; 

and  Law,  T.  ix,  28 
Gospels,  apparent  inconsistencies  in, 

S.85;  mutually  complementary, 

T.  x,  42 
Grace,   T.  ii,  35,    37;    iv,   38;    v, 

20  f. ;  viii,  30;  Intr.  lxxxv  f. 
Greek,    quotations    in,    T.    xi,    17 ; 

Ps.  exxx,  2 ;  Hilary's  knowledge 

of,  Intr.  ii ;   xivf. ;    misrender- 

ing  of,    T.    x,   40;    S.  29  (?); 

Intr.  xxxiv 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  St.,  Intr.  i, 

xv  f. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  St,  Intr.  i,  xv  f. 


Hagar,  T.  iv,  23  f. 

Hebion,  T.  i,  26;  ii,  4;  vii,  3  (see 
Photinus) 

Hebrew,  exact  sense  of,  Ps.  liii,  3  ; 
Hilary's  ignorance  of,  Intr.  ii, 
n.  4;    lix 

Heliodorus,  Intr.  ii,  n.  4 

Hell,  fire  of,  T.  x,  34;  Christ's 
descent  into,  S.  85  ;  Ps.  liii,  14  ; 
T.  x,  34 

Heresy,  origin  of,  T.  ii,  3 ;  vii,  4  ; 
newness  of,  T.  ii,  4,  &c.  ;  all  h. 
not  hopeless,  T.  vi,  15 ;  wicked- 
ness of,  consists  in  its  dishon- 
esty, T.  v,  1,  26;  vi,  46  f. ; 
viii,  17  ;  Intr.  lxiii  (see  Arianism) 

Heretics,  without  faith,  hope,  or 
baptism,  T.  viii,  40  ;  cosmology 
of,  Ps.  i,  7 ;  admit  miracles  of 
Christ,  T.  ii,  12  ;  unreasonable, 
Ps.  i,  2  f.  ;  force  the  Church  to 
define  her  doctrine,  Intr.  Ixiii  ; 
T.  ii,  2  (see  Arians,  Sabel- 
lius,  &°c.) 

Hermas,  Intr.  xci,  n.  4 

Hieracas,  T.  i,  25  ;  vi,  12 

Hilary  of  Aries,  Intr.  ii 

Hilary  of  Poitiers,  St.,  birth  and 
education,  Intr.  ii  ;  conversion, 
Intr.  v  ;  episcopate,  Intr.  ix  f.  ; 
exile,  Intr.  xiv,  xvi ;  S.  8  ;  re- 
turn, Intr.  xxix,  xxxviii ;  attacks 
Constantius,  Intr.  xxv  f.  ;  Sa- 
turninus,  Intr.  xxxix  f.  ;  Auxen- 
tius,  Intr.  xlix — liii ;  death,  Intr. 
lvii.  ;  biography  of,  by  For- 
tunatus,  Intr.  xlviii  ;  theology 
of,  Intr.  lviii — xevi  ;  theology 
of,  his  own  statement,  S.  64  f.  ; 
Christology  of,  Intr.  i,  lxiv  f. ; 
his  apparent  Docetism,  Intr. 
Ixxvii  ;  H.  on  the  Holy  Spirit, 
Intr.  vi,  lxiii,  Ixxxiii  f.  (see  Spirit, 
the  Holy)  ;  on  the  Eucharist, 
Intr.  v  (see  Eucharist) ;  on  the 
use  of  Scripture,  Intr.  lix.  f.  (see 
Scripture)  ;  eschatology  of,  Intr. 
xciii ;  moral  teaching  of,  Intr. 
xc  f.  ;  psychology  of,  Intr.  vii, 
Ixx,  lxxv,  Ixxx  ;  physiology  of, 
Intr.  lxix ;  anthropology  of, 
Intr.  lxix  f.,  lxxxv  f. ;  indepen- 


dence of,  Intr.  i,  iii,  vi,  &c. ; 
his  sympathy  with  Eastern 
thought,  Intr.  vi  f.,  xvi,  lxvi  ; 
and  Origen,  Intr.  i  f.,  iv,  vii  f. , 
xv,  xl,  xlii  f.  ;  and  Augustine, 
Intr.vi,xxxvi,&c;  and  Clement, 
Intr.  vii,  Ixxvii ;  and  Basil, 
Intr.  i,  xv ;  and  the  Gregories, 
Intr.  i,  xv ;  and  Cyprian,  Intr. 
vi,  viii,  xxxv,  Ixxxviii ;  and  Leo, 
Intr.  xciv  ;  and  Martin  of  Tours, 
Intr.  lvi  f. ;  and  Ambrose,  Intr. 
vi,  ix,  &c,  p.  235  ;  and  Mar- 
cellus,  Intr.  xv  ;  and  Novatian, 
Intr.  iv  (see  Origen,  Augus- 
tine, &c.) ;  and  Arianism,  Intr. 
xi  f. ;  and  Semi- Arianism,  Intr. 
xii,  xv,  xix,  xxiv,  xxxv ;  and 
Neoplatonism,  Intr.  iv ;  and 
Christian  Platonism,  Intr.  vii ; 
his  views  of  Church  and  State, 
Intr.  liv ;  his  avoidance  of  tech- 
nical terms,  Intr.  lxii  f.  ;  his 
literary  style,  Intr.  iii  f.,  xxxv, 
xli ;  his  knowledge  of  natural 
history,  Intr.  iv ;  his  ignorance 
of  Hebrew,  Intr.  ii,  n.  4,  lix 
Hilary,  Works  of,  Intr.  iii  f. ,  viii, 
xxx — xxxvi 

(a)  De   Trin. ,  title  of,  Intr.  xxx  ; 

interpolations  in,  Intr.  xxxiv ; 
general  purpose  of,  Intr.  xxxiv; 
style  of,  Intr.  xxxv ;  dualism 
of,  Intr.  lxvii  ;  permanent 
value  of,  Intr.  xxxiv,  xxxvi f., 
lxvii,  xcv 

(b)  De  Synodis,  Intr.  i  f.,  xviii  f. ; 

object  of,  S.  5  f 

(c)  Homilies  on  the  Pss.,  Intr.  iii, 

viii  f.,  xl — xlv,  p.  235  ;  not 
a  translation  of  Origen,  Intr. 
xliii ;  permanent  interest  of, 
Intr.  xlv 

(d)  Commentary  on  St.   Matthew, 
Intr.  vii,  lx 

(e)  Commentary  on  Job,  Intr.  xl 

(f)  First  Epistle    to   Constantius, 

Intr.  xii  f. 

(g)  Second  Epistle  to  Constantius, 

Intr.  xxi  f. 
(h)  Invective  against  Constantius, 

Intr.  xxv  f.,  xxxix 
(i)  Against  A uxentius, Intr.  xlixf., 

Iii,  liii 
(j)  Against  Ursacius  and  Valens, 

Intr.  liv 
(k)  Against  Dioscorus,  Intr.  iv 
(1)  History   of  the    Avian     Con- 

troversy,  Intr.  liv 
(m)  De  Mysteriis,  Intr.  xlv  f. 
(n)  Hymns  attributed  to,  Intr.  xlvi 
(o)  Letter  to  Abra,  Intr.  v,  xlviii 
Hippolylus,  Intr.  vii,  lxx 
Holy  Spirit  (see  Spirit,  the  Holy) 
Homoeans,  Intr.  xx  f.,  xxiv,  xxvii, 

xxxiii 
"  Homoiousion,"    S.    10,   72,    &c.  ; 
Intr.    xxi  f.,  xxxviii;    scriptural 
in  sense,  S.  88,  91 
**  Homoousion,"  T.  iv,  4f.  ;  vi.  10; 
S.  10,  &c. ,  Intr.  lxvi  ;  Sabellian 
sense  of,  S.   71  ;  objections  to, 
T.  ii,  4  ;  S.  81  f. 
Hosius.  S.  11,  63,  87 


Humanity,  capable  of  exaltation,  T. 
xi,  42,    49;  raised  to  divinity, 
T.  ix,  4,  39  ;  x.  7  (see  Man) 
Hymnody,  Hilary  on,  Intr.  xlvii 
Hypocrisy,    the    result   of  unbelief, 
T.  x,  2 

Ignorance,  God  merciful  towards, 
T.  vi,  3 

Image,  defined,  S.  13  ;  a  proof  of 
distinction  of  Persons,  Intr. 
lxvi ;  S.  13  ;  of  God,  man  in  the, 
T.  v.  8  f.  ;  xi,  49 ;  I.  of  God, 
Christ  is  the,  T.  viii,  48  f. ;  of 
the  Father,  the  Son  is,  T.  vii, 
37  ;  ix,  1 ;   xi,  5 

Immanence  of  God  in  nature,  T.  i,  6 

Immortality,  human  intimations  of, 
T.  i,  2,  9 

Impassibility  of  Christ,  T.  x,  23  f.t 
36,  37,  4i.45»  S.  49;  Ps.  liii, 
7,  12  ;  Intr.  vii,  lxxv 

Imperfection  defined,  T.  iii,  24 

Incarnation,  the,  doctrine  of,  Intr. 
viii,  lxviii  f.  ;  man  cannot  com- 
prehend, T.  i,  12;  ii,  33; 
man  did  not  deserve,  T.  ii,  25  ; 
independent  of  the  Fall,  Intr. 
lxviii,  Ixxxviii,  xevi  ;  T.  xi,  49  ; 
purpose  of,  T.  i,  11  j  ii,  24 ; 
iii,  9  ;  x,  7 ;  Intr.  lxviii  ;  ne- 
cessity of,  T.  ix,  55  ;  ulti- 
mate result  of,  T.  xi,  40 — 42 ; 
universal  significance  of,  T.  ii, 
24  f. ;  Ps.  liii,  8;  a  "birth," 
T.  i,  12 ;  ix,  38 ;  x,  7 ; 
Ps.  liii,  4  ;  Intr.  Ixxxi ;  a  crea- 
tion, T.  xii,  45  ;  Intr.  lxvii  ;  an 
act  of  free  will,  T.  xi,  8  f . ;  an 
"  embodiment,"  Intr.  lxii ;  an 
"evacuation,"  T.  xi,  32;  xii, 
6 ;  an  "  exinanition,"  T.  xi, 
48;  xii,  6;  self-emptying,  a 
condition  of,  T.  xii,  6 ;  effect  of, 
on  the  divine  nature,  T.  ix,  4, 
14,  51,  54;  Intr.  lxix;  an  as- 
sumption of  something  foreign 
todiv.  nat.,  T.  ii,  26  ;  x,  15,  22  ; 
Ps.  i,  4 ;  Intr.  lxix ;  obscured 
the  divine  glory,  T.  ix,  6,  &c. ; 
Intr.  vii,  lxxxi  ;  enhanced  man's 
glory,  T.  ix.  40 ;  not  a  mere  ex- 
tension of  the  power  of  the 
Word,  T.  x,  21,  50  f.;  involved 
a  partial  breach  within  the  God- 
head, T.  ix,  38 ;  Intr.  lxxix ; 
and  a  division  within  the  Person 
of  Christ,  T.  x,  22 ;  to  be 
finally  healed,  T.  ix,  38  ;  xi,  40f., 
49;  Intr.  lxxxi;  the  Virgin's 
share  in  (see  Mary,  the  B.  V. ) 

Indwelling,  the  mutual,  T.  iii,  1  f.  ; 
iv,  40  f.  ;  ix,  69  ;  Intr.  lxii, 
lxiv  (see  Circum  in session,  Fa- 
ther,  Sou) 

Ingenerateness  of  the  Father,  T.  ix, 
51,  &c. 

Inspiration,  T.  v,  33 

Isaiah,  legend  of,  T.  v,  33 

Itala,  vetus,  Intr.  iii,  n.  I,  lix, 
P-  235 

Jacob,  saw  God,  T.  iv,  31 ;  v,  19  f. 

Jerome,  St. ,  on  Hilary  and  his  works, 
Intr.   ii,  iii,  vii,  xl,  liv  ;  on  the 


I.     INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


253 


Homilies,  Intr.  xl ;  on  De  Mys- 
tents,  Intr.  xlv  f. 

Jews,  did  not  see  the  Father,  T.  ix, 
21 ;  less  guilty  than  Arians, 
T.  vii,  50  (see  Arians) ;  refuted, 
T.  xii,  36 

John,  St.,  an  ignorant  fisherman, 
T.  ii,  13;  Intr.  xxxv ;  his  doc- 
trine of  the  Word,  Intr.  xxxv 

Jovian,  Intr.  xl 

Judgment,  bestowed  on  the  Son, 
T.  vii,  20 ;   the  day  of,  Ps.  i, 

20  f.  ;  how  hiddsn  from  the 
Son,  T.  iii,  16;  ix,  59,  66,  71 

Julian,  Intr.  xiv,  xxi,  xxiii,  xxxviii,  xl 

Knowledge,  superior  to  Faith,  Intr. 
Ixxxviii ;  only  to  be  won  through 
Faith,  T.  i,  12 

Language,  human,  incapable  of  ex- 
pressing divine  truth,  T.  ii,  2,  7  5 
iv,  2  ;  xi,  44  ;  Intr.  lxiii 

Latin,  Old  (see  Itala) 

Law,  the,  Christ  the  Mediator  of, 
T.  v,  23  ;  and  the  Gospel,  T.  v, 
17  f;  ix,  28;  meditation  in, 
Ps.  i,  12  f. 

Leo,  St.,  Intr.  xciv 

Liberius,  Intr.  x,  xvii,  xix,  xxix  f. 

Life,  God  is,  T.  viii,  43  ;  tree  of, 
Ps.  i,  14  f.  ;  L.  eternal,  T.  iii, 
13  ;  vi,  43  f.,  48  f.  ;  ix,  7,  31 

Light,  nature  of,  T.  vi,  12 ;  vii,  29 

Likeness  =  equality,  S.  73  f.  (see 
Homoioztsioti) 

Lucianic  Creed  (See  Creed  of  Anlioch) 

Lucifer  of  Cagliari,  Intr.  xi,  xxix, 
xxxviii 

Macedonius,  Intr.  xxiv 

Magi,  the,  T.  ii,  27 ;  iv,  38 

Magnentius,  Intr.  x 

Man,  origin  of,  T.  xii,  16 ;  soul  of, 
T.  x,  20;  Intr.  vii,  lxxx  f. ; 
body  of,  Ps.  liii,  8  ;  Intr. 
lxxxv ;  free-will  of,  Intr.  vii, 
lxxxv  f. ;  made  in  the  image  of 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  T.  v, 
8  f.  ;  created  by  the  hands  of 
God,  Intr.  lxxx ;  destiny  of, 
T.  i,  2  f.  ;  nature  of,  T.  vii,  28  ; 
Intr.  lxix;  T.  x,  15,  16  (see 
Anthropology  0/ Hilary,  Psycho- 
logy, Body,  Soul,  &>c. ) ;  future 
perfection  of,  T.  xii,  49 ;  Ps. 
liii,  5  >  Intr.  lxxxii ;  limits  of 
his  understanding,  T.  iii,  I  ; 
xi,  23,  46 ;  xii,  53  ;  his  ignor- 
ance helped  by  faith,  T.  ii,  24  f; 
xii,  53  ;  cannot  unaided  find  out 
God,  T.  v,  20,  &c.  (see  Grace)  ; 
taught  by  God,  T.  vi,  19  ;  needed 
the  Incarnation,  T.  ix,  55  ;  did 
not  deserve  the  Incarnation, 
T.  ii,  25  ;  deified  in  Christ, 
T.  ix,  4,  38  ;  x,  7  ;  Intr.  lxiii, 
lxxxii  (see  Incarnation) 

Manichseans,   T.  ii,  4 ;   iv,  12 ;   vi, 

Marcellus,  heresy  of,  T.  vi,  17 ;  xi, 

21  ;  Intr.  xv,  xviii,  lv,  n. 

Marcion,  S.  85 

Marcionites,  T.  ii,  4 

Martin  of  Tours,  St.,  Intr.  ix,  lvii. 


Martyrs,  joy  of,  T.  x,  46;  miracles 

at    tombs   of,   T.    xi,   3  ;    Intr. 

xxviii 
Mary,  the  Blessed  Virgin,  her  share 

in   the    Incarnation,   T.  ii,  25  ; 

iii,  19  ;  x,  15  f.,  35  ;  Intr.  hex; 

needs  purification,  Intr.  xciv 
Mediation  (see  Christ,  Atonement) 
Merit  of  Christ,  T.  ix,  39 
Methusaleh,  S.  85 
Milan,    Intr.    ix,    li ;    Council    of, 

Intr.  xi  (see  Auxeniius) 
Miracle   of  feeding   the    multitude, 

T.  iii,  6 ;  at  Cana,  T.  iii,  5 
Miracles  of  Christ,  not  due  to  His 

soul,    T.   x,   56 ;    but    to    the 

Divine   nature,    T.   vii,   6,    26, 

36;   a  proof  of  His  Godhead, 

T.    iii    passim,   cp.    T.   ii,    27  ; 

Intr.  lxix  ;  admitted  by  heretics, 

T.  ii,  12 
Miracles  at  tombs  of  apostles   and 

martyrs,  T.  xi,  3  ;  Intr.  xxviii 
Monstrosities,  animal,  T.  vii,  14 
Moses,  T.  i,  5  ;  iv,  22 ;  v,  21  f,  36 ; 

vi,  19  f. ;  S.  85;  seat  of,  Ps.  i, 

10 

Natural  history,  Hilary's,  T.  ii,  22 ; 
vii,  14;  ix,  4;  x,  14;  xi,  15  ; 
Intr.  iv 

Nature  =  essence,  S.  12;  of  God,  re- 
tained by  the  Incarnate  Son,  T. 
ix,  51  ;  xi,  48,  &c.  (see  Christ, 
abiding  Godhead  of)  ;  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  identical; 
T.  v,  35  ;  viii,  41 ;  ix,  30  ;  of 
the  Father  unaffected  by  the  In- 
carnation, T.  ix,  38,  51,  &c. 
(see  Incarnation) 

Natures  of  Christ,  the  two,  T.  ix,  II, 
39 ;  x,  16  ;  Intr.  lxxiii 

Nature-worship,  T.  i,  4 

Neoplatonism,  Intr.  iv 

Nicaea,  Council  of,  S.  84  f . ;  Creed 
of,  S.  84,  91  ;  unknown  in  W., 
S.  91  ;  Intr.  x,  xii 

Nicsea  in  Thrace,  Intr.  liii 

Numbers,  mystical,  S.  86 

Origen,  on  the  Psalms,  Intr.  xlii  f.  ; 
his  influence  on  Hilary,  Intr. 
ii,  vii  f,  xv,  xl,  xlii  f. 

Pain,  causes  of,  T.  x,  14 

Paraclete,  the,  T.  viii,  19;  S.  11,29, 
54  f.  (see  Spirit  the  Holy,  Mis- 
sion op) 

Paradise,  T.  vi,  20  ;  x,  34  ;  Ps.  i, 
14  ;  St.  Paul  in,  T.  vi,  20 

Paris,  Council  of,  Intr.  xxxix 

Passibility  of  Christ  (see  Passion, 
Christ) 

Passion,  the,  displayed  Christ's  di- 
vinity, T.  x,.n,  23,  47,  &c.  ; 
a  satisfaction  for  man's  sins,  Ps. 
liii.  12,  13 

Paternus  of  Perigord,  Intr.  xxxix 

Paul,  St.,  foretold  Arianism,  T.  x, 
2  f. ;  in  Paradise,  T.  vi,  20 

Paul  of  Samosata,  S.  81,  86;  Intr. 
lxvi 

Paulinus  of  Treves,  Intr.  x,  xxvi. 

Perichoresis  (see  Indwelling,  Cir- 
atminsesswn ) 


Person,  the  term,  T.  iii,  23  ;  iv,  42  ; 

v.  10,  26  ;  vii.  39,  40 
Persons  in  Godhead,  distinction  of, 

T.  iii,  14;  iv,  21  f.,  29,  40;  v, 

3;  xi,  1;  S.  22  f.,  42,  47,  74! 

Intr.  lxvi 
Pestilence,  the  seat  of,  Ps.  i.  6f. 
Peter,  St.,  T.  ii,  23;    vi,  20,  36 f.  ; 

2nd  Epistle  of,  T.  i,  18 
Philosophy,  T.    i,    13;    ix,  8;    xii, 

18  f.  ;     teaches    Theism,     Intr. 

lix  ;  T.  i,  2 
Photinus,  T.  i,  26;   ii,  4 ;   vii,  3,  7  ; 

viii,   40;    S.  38,  39,  50;    Intr. 

xv  (see  Hebion) 
Physiology  of  Hilary,  Intr.  lxix 
Platonism,    Christian,    Intr.    v,   &c. 

(see  Origen,  Clement) 
Potamius,  S.  3 
Prayer,  duty  of  ceaseless,   Ps.  i,  12; 

of   Christ,  a   dispensation,   Ps. 

liii,  6  ;  T.  x,  71 
Prophet,    the    Psalmist    so    called, 

Pss.  passim,  and  p.  235 
Prophets,  inspiration  of,  T.  xi,  18 
Psalms,  the  way  to  interpret,  Ps.  i, 

I  ;  Hilary's  Homilies  on,  Intr. 

xlf.,  p.  235  j  date  of,  Intr.  xlii; 

not  a  translation  from    Origen, 

Intr.  xciii 
Psychology  of  Hilary,  Intr.  vii,  lxx, 

Ixxv, lxxx 
Purification  of  the  soul  after  death, 

Intr.  xciv 

Recapitulation,  doctrine  of,  T.  ii, 
24  ;  Intr.  vi  n. 

Redemption,  in  Christ  alone,  T.  i, 
16 ;  mysteriousness  of,  T.  vi, 
43  ;  manifests  God's  love,  T. 
vi,  40 ;  wrought  for  man's  sake, 
T.  x,  37  f.,  47  ;  xii,  47  ;  by  the 
Tree  of  Life,  Ps.  i,  8  ;  by  the 
name  of  God,  Ps.  liii,  5;  is 
universal,  Ps.  liii,  5,  13 ;  per- 
fected through  baptism,  T.  v, 
35  f.  ;  Christ's  death  redeems 
from  death  and  corruption,  T. 
iii,  7f.,  II  f.  ;  brings  life,  T.  iii, 
13,  25  ;  destroys  death,  T.  iv, 
42  ;  cancels  the  bond  against 
us,  T.  v,  31  ;  Ps.  liii,  13  (see 
Atonement,  Christ,  Son,  &>c. ) 

Resumption  of  divine  glory  by 
Christ,  T.  ix,  38  f. .  54  ;  xi,  40  f., 
49;  Ps.  liii,  5  (see  Glory,  the 
divine,  Resurrection,  &*c.) 

Resurrection,  of  Christ,  the  power  of, 
T.  ix,  9  ;  a  proof  of  divinity, 
T.  vii,  12;  restored  to  Him  the 
divine  glory,  T.  ix,  38  f.,  54; 
xi,  40  f. ,  49  ;  Ps.  liii,  5 

Resurrection,  of  man,  T.  i,  13,  &c.  ; 
the  twofold,  Ps.  i,  20 

Rimini,  Council  of,  Intr.  xx,  xxvi, 
xxix,  xxxix,  xlixf.,  liii,  liv  (see 
Ariminum) 

Rome,  Council  of,  Intr.  1,  liv 

Rufinus,  Intr.  xxix,  xxx 

Sabellians,   at    issue    with    Arians, 

T.  i,  26  (see  Sabellius) 
Sabellius,  Intr.  lxvi. ;  T.  i,  16,  25, 

26;    ii,  4  ;    iv,    12;    vi,   5,   11; 


254 


I.     INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


vii,  3,  5  f.  ;  viii,  39  f. ;  confuted 

out  of  Scripture,  T.  ii,  23 
Sacerdos  =  Bishop,  Intr.  ix 
Saints,  miracles  at  tombs  of,  T.  xi, 

3  ;    communication  with  tombs 

of,  Intr.  xxviii, «. 
Salvation  through  Christ,  T.  L  16, 

&c.  (see  Redemption} 
Samaria,  woman  of,  T.  ii,  31 
Samosata,   Paul  of,  S.   86,   91  (see 

Paul  of  Samosata) 
Sardica,  Council  of,  S.  34  f. ;  Intr.  x 
Saturninus,  S.  2  f.  ;    Intr.   ix  f.,  xii, 

xxif.,  xxxviiif.  ;     fall  of,  Intr. 


xxxix 


Scriptural  language  to  be  employed, 
T.  i,  18  ;  v,  21  ;  viii,  38 

Scripture,  authority  of,  T.  iv,  14, 
19;  S.  73;  reveals  God,  T.  i, 
18 ;  vi.  19 ;  requires  spiritual 
understanding,  T.  viii,  38,  &c.  ; 
use  and  abuse  of,  T.  i,  37  f.  ; 
iv,  14;  v,  26  f.  ;  viii,  14;  ix, 
2  f . ;  S.  85  ;  appealed  to  by 
Arians,  T.  i,  29  f. ;  iv,  8  ;  vii, 
6;  ix,  2;_xi,  8  ;  xii,  1,  35  f.  ; 
difficulties  in,  S.  85  ;  Hilary's 
use  of,  Intr.  lix  f. ;  cp.  T.  i,  6  ; 
iv,  4  ;  ix,  59  ;  Origen's  use  of, 
Intr.  Ix 

Seleucia,  Council  of,  Intr.  xx — xxvi, 
xxviii  f. ,  liv 

"Self-emptying,"  Intr.  lxxi,  Ixxvi ; 
purpose  of,  T.  x.  7  ;  not  a  sur- 
render of  the  divine  nature, 
T.  ix,  14 ;  x,  50 ;  xi,  48  f.  ; 
xii,  6 ;  Ps.  liii,  5,  8,  14 ; 
a  partial  disturbance  of  the 
divine  unity,  T.  ix,  38 ;  a  divi- 
sion within  the  Person  of  the 
Incarnate  Christ,  T.  x.  22  ; 
Intr.  lxxix  ;  a  dispensation,  T. 
ix.  38  f. ;  Intr.  Ixxii  (see  Incar- 
nation, Form  of  a  servant,  Word, 
Christ,  Son) 

Semi-Arians,  Hilary  and,  Intr.  xxiv, 
xxxvii 

Sensation,  bodily,  T.  x.  14  f.,  44  f.  ; 
xi,  46  ;  of  Christ,  T.  x,  44  f. 
(see  Christ,  Passibility) 

Septuagint,  Intr.  xliii,  lix  f.,  p.  235 

Servant,  form  of  a  (see  Form  of  a 
Servant) 

Severus,  Sulpicius,  Intr.  xvi,  xx,  xxi, 
xl 

Silvia  of  Aquitaine,  Intr.  xlv 

Sin,  not  the  determining  cause  of 
Incarnation,  Intr.  lxviii  (see 
Incarnation) 

Sin,  original,  T.  i,  13  ;  Hilary's  doc- 
trine of,  Intr.  lxxx 

Sinners  distinguished  from  ungodly, 
Ps.  i.  6  f. 

Sirmian  Manifesto,  S.  2  f.,  9  f.,  27, 
63,  79  ;  Intr.  i,  xvii 

Sirmium,  Council  of,  S.  38  f.  ;  Creed 
of,  S.  38  f. 

Son  of  God,  a  real  not  a  titular 
name,  S.  20;  is  Spirit,  T.  viii, 
25  ;  is  wholly  God,  T.  viii, 
45;  ix,  6,  38;  x,  22,  52;  xi, 
40,  41  ;  S.  69  ;  abiding  God- 
head of,  T.  iii,  5,  13,  16  f. ; 
v>    18,    35;    vii,   41  ;   viii,   41, 


46;  ix,  14  f.,  30,  38,  51,  66; 
x,  16,  21,  34,  63;  xi,  48;  xii, 
36;  changeless  essence  of  eter- 
nity of,  S.  26,  64 ;  Ps.  liii, 
8 ;  as   Creator,    T.    ii,    6 ;  xii, 

4,  35  f. ;  viii,  51  ;  Intr.  lxvii 
(see  Christ) 

Son  of  God,  only-begotten,  Ps.  liii, 
12;  Intr.  xvi ;  born  of  the  Will 
of  God,  S.  37 ;  births  of,  suc- 
cessive (see  Generation,  the 
eternal,  Creator,  Incarnation, 
Baptism,  Resurrection,  Christ) ; 
derives  His  being  from  the  Fa- 
ther, S.  69;  is  Christ  from  the 
beginning  of  time,  Intr.  lxviii 
(see  Creation) ;  the  Image  of  the 
Father,  T.  iii,  23;  vii,  37; 
x,  6 ;   S.  69  ;  like  the  Father, 

5.  64.  72  (see  Homoiousion) ; 
inseparable  from  the  Father,  T. 
y,  38  f. ;  ix,  30 ;  one  with 
the  Father,  T.  vi,  38 ;  viii,  20, 
41  ;  ix,  23,  32,  37  ;  S.  19  f., 
36,41,  51,  64;  identical  in  na- 
ture with  the  Father,  T.  v,  35  ; 
viii,  41  ;  ix,  30 ;  S.  69 ;  con- 
substantial  with  the  Father, 
S.  33,  &c.  (see  Homoousion) , 
the  mirror  of  the  Father,  T.  ix, 
69  ;  equal  to  the  Father,  T.  i,n; 
ii,  10;  iii,  15  f.,  17  ;  iv,  passim  ; 
v, passim;  vi,  25  f.,  vii,  22;  xi, 
5  ;  xii,  7  ;  not  less  because  He 
is  Son,  S-  64 ;  subordinate  to 
the  Father,  T.  i,  33;  iii,  12; 
ix,  5.  55;  xi,  4o;  S.  11, 
51.  64,  69,  79  ;  Intr.  lxvi  (see 
Subordination)  ;  not  a  crea- 
ture, T.  vi,  29;  ix,  57;  xii, 
5  f.,  50;  S.  69;  in  what  sense 
created,  T.  xii,  43,  50;  Intr. 
lxvii  f.  ;  not  an  emanation, 
S.  21 ;  not  a  second  God,  S.  69  ; 
not  from  nothing,  S.  69 ;  not 
ingenerate,  T.  ix,  54  ;  S.  26,  60 ; 
reveals  the  Father,  T.  iii,  9 ; 
v,  42 ;  ix,  52 ;  Intr.  lxviii ; 
final  subjection  of,  T.  xi,  21  f., 
36,  40  (see  Subjection)  ;  as  re- 
presentative man,T.  ii,  24;  born 
into  human  nature,  T.  ii,  26 ; 
xii,    48,    &c. ;    Ps.    liii,    5,   8; 

'  born  of  the  Spirit,  T.  iii,  9 ; 
became  S.  of  man  that  man 
might  become  S.  of  God,  T.  i, 
11 ;  became  S.  of  man  that  man 
might  believe  Him,  T.  iii,  9 ; 
became  perfect  Son  by  baptism, 
T.  viii,  25  ;  Intr.  Ixxxi ;  wholly 
man,  T.  ix,  38;  x,  21  f . ; 
x,  52 ;  took  the  form  of  a 
servant,  T.  ix,  14 ;  xi,  13  f. ; 
condescension  of,  T.  iii,  3  ; 
ix,  7 ;  obedience  of,  T.  ix,  39 ; 
free  will  of,  T.  ix,  50 ;  ignor- 
ance of,  T.  ix,  58;  mission  of, 
T.  iii,  14;  subject  to  human 
infirmity,  T.  ii,  24;  x,  II, 
23  (.,  47  f.  ;  S.  49  «.;  Ps.  liii, 
7,  12  (see  Christ,  Passibility) ; 
suffered  with  (compassus)  man, 
S.  79 ;  reconciliation  through, 
T.  viii,  57,  &c.  (see  Atonement) 


Sons  of  God,  adoptive,  T.  i,  1 1 ;  vi, 

44;  xii,  13 
Sonship,   nature   of,   T.    ii,    8 ;    ix, 

44;  S.  20,  73 
Sonship  of  Christ  (see  Son  of  God, 

Christ) 
Sonship    of    Christians,    T.    i,    II  ; 

iv,  37;  vi,  44;  xii,  13  f. 
Soul  of  Christ,  T.  x,  15,  20  f.  (see 

Christ,  Soul  of) 
Soul  of  man,  T.   x,  20;   Intr.  vii, 

lxxx  f. ;    is   corporeal,    Intr.  vii 

(see    Hilary,    Psychology    of) ; 

after    death,    Ps.    i,    19  f. ;    Ps. 

liii,  10  ;  Intr.  xciii 
Spirit,  defined,  T.  iii,  31 ;  often  used 

for    soul,   T.    x,   61 ;    of   God, 

T.  viii,  21  (see  Christ,  Spirit  of); 

The  Father  and  the  Son  are,  T. 

ii,  30;  predicated  of  each  Person 

of  the  Trinity,  T.  ii,  30;   viii, 

23  f. ;  Intr.  Ixix 

Spirit,  the  Holy,  T.  ii,  29 — 35  ;  iv. 
6;  viii,  I9f,  31  f  ;  iv,  31,  73; 
S.  1 1 ,  29,  32,  85  ;  Intr.  vi  f.,  xvi, 
lxiii,  lxxxiii  f.  ;  existence  and 
source  of,  T.  ii,  29  ;  not  a  crea- 
ture, T,  xii,  55  f.;  Ps.  i,  5  ;  His 
relation  to  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  T.  ii,  4,  29 ;  viii,  20 ;  ix, 
73 ;  profaned  by  Arians,  T.  ii, 
4;  procession  of,  T.  viii,  I9f., 
25  J  xii,  55  ;  mission  of,  T.  viii, 
19;  S.  11,  29  (see  Paraclete); 
Teitullian  on,  Intr.  lxxxiv, 
n.  3 

Subjection,  the  final,  T.  xi,  21  f., 
36,  40  ;  Intr.  lxvi 

Subordination  of  the  Son  ;  T.  i,  33 ; 
iii,  12  ;  ix,  5  ;  ix,  55  ;  xi,  40  ; 
S.  II,  51,  64,  69,  79;  Intr. 
lxvi 

Substance,  S.  II,  12  (see  Homo- 
ousion) ;  three  "  substances  "  in 
the  Godhead,  S.  22  ;  S.  =  na- 
ture, T.  iv,  42;  v,  10;  vi,  18, 
35 ;  vii,  29  ;  ix,  36  ;  S.  69 ;  Intr. 
lxii 

Synod  (see  Council) 

Tears  of  Christ,  T  x,  55 

Tertullian,  Intr.  vi,  lxx,  lxxii,  lxxxir, 
n.  3  ;  xci,  «.  4 

Theophanies  of  O.  T.,  T.  iv,  I5f.; 
Intr.  lxviii 

Theotes,  Intr.  viii 

Thomas,  St.,  T.  vii,  12  f. 

Timothy,  St.,  T.  xi,  23 

Tractatus  =  homily,  Intr.  i,  n.  2, 
xl,  n.  6 

Tradition,  T.  i,  5 

Tree  of  Life,  Ps.  i,  14  f. 

Trinity,  the  term,  T.  i,  22,  36 ; 
S.  II;  Intr.  xxx  ;  baptism  into 
Name  of,  T.  i,  21 ;  ii,  1  ;  xii, 
57;  S.  11,  29;  Intr.  xxii 

Truth,  how  to  win,  T.  v,  3,  6  ;  xi. 

24  ;  victory  of,  T.  vii,  4 ;  x,  I  f. ; 
transcendence  of,  T.  ii,  5  f. 

Understanding,  human,  derived  from 
God,  T.  xi,  23 ;  scope  of,  T.  xi, 
46  ;  limits  of,  T.  iv,  14 ;  xi,  46 
(see  Man) 


I.     INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


255 


Undutifulness,  the  worst  of  sins, 
Ps  i,  6 

Ungodly,  distinguished  from  sinners, 
Ps.  i.  6f.  ;  fate  of,  Ps.  i,  19 

Union  with  Christ,  T.  viii,  7,  9, 
12  f.  ;  xi,  20;  the  only  analogy 
of  the  divine  unity,  T.  viii,  1 3  f.  ; 
Intr.  lxvi 

Unitas  )(  unto,  T.  iv,  42,  &c. 

Unity  defined,  T.  viii,  8  f.  ;  of  God 
(see  God,  Father,  Son,  Christ)  ; 
of  believers,  T.  viii,  7  f . ;  in  Eu- 
charist, T.  viii,  13 

Unum  )(  units,  T.  i,  17,  &c. 

Ursacius,  S.79;  Intr.  xiif.,  xviif., 
liv 

Valens,  S.  79;  Intr.  xiif.  ;  xviif.; 
xlix,  lr,  liv 


Valentinian,  Intr.  xi,  xlix  f. 
Valentinianism    and    Valentinus, 


T. 


12,  23  f. 


vi, 


5f.,  9;  Intr. 


•v, 

lxx 

Versions,  danger  of,  S.  9 
Virgin,  the  Blessed  (see  Mary) 


Way,  the,  Christ  is,  T.  xii,  45 

Ways  of  God,  T.  xii,  45  f. 

Wicked,  the,  ultimate  fate  of,  Ps.  i, 
19  f. 

Will,  T.  vii,  19;  viii,  12  (see  Free- 
zvill) 

Wisdom,  present  with  God  at  crea- 
tion, T.  iv,  21  ;  in  what  sense 
created,  T.  xii,  35  f.,  44;  S. 
I7f.  ;  Christ  is,  T.  vii,  11  ;  xii, 
52 ;  Ps.  i,  14 


Word,  the,  doctrine  of,  T.  ii,  13 — 
21  ;  birth  of,  T.  ii,  20  f. ;  W.  as 
Creator,  T.  ii,  19  ;  why  the 
Son  is  named,  T.  vii,  1 1  ; 
Christ  is,  not  a  "sound,"  T.  ii, 
15  ;  x,  21  ;  personal  existence 
of,  T.  x,  21  ;  is  not  bound  by 
time,  T.  ii,  13;  became  flesh, 
T.  x,  50,  54;  Ps.  liii,  4f.  ; 
Intr.  lxx  ;  was  not  transformed 
into  flesh,  S.  49 ;  extension  of 
the  power  of,  T.  x,  50  ;  Hilary's 
sparing  use  of  the  term,  Intr. 
lxiv  (see  Christ,  Son,  Incarna- 
tion, &°r.) 

World,  origin  of,  T.  xii,  39  f.  ;  false 
opinions  about,  Ps.  i,  7  (see  Cos- 
mology) 

Worms,  generation  of,  T.  xi,  15 


II.     INDEX  OF  TEXTS. 


Gkw.  it  T.  iv,  21 ;  xii,  40 
1.  I  .  .  .  T.  ii,  13 
i.  2 .  .  .  .  S.  85 
*.  6  .  T.  iv,  16  ;  v,  5 
i.  7  .  T.  iv,  16;  v,  5 
L  14  .  .  T.  xii,  34 
i.  26  T.  iii,  23;  iv,  17; 
v.  7 ;  S.  38,  49 
i.27T.  iv,  17,  18;  v,  9 
ii.  9  .  .  Ps.  i,  14 
iii.  8  .  .  T.  xii,  46 
iii.  9     .     .    Ps.  liii,  24 

v.  3  •  •  •  S.  73 
v.  26  .  .  .  S.  85 
ix.  6  .  .  .  T.  iv,  19 
xiv.  14  .  .  S.  86 
xiv.  19  .  .  T.  xii,  4 
xv.  6  T.  ix,  64;  x.  68 
xvi.  9  .  .  .  T.  iv.  23 
xvi.  10  .  .  T.  iv.  23 
xvi.  13      .     T.  iv,  23  ; 

xii,  46 
xvii.  19  .  T.  iv,  24 
xvii.  20  T.  iv,  24,  26 
xviii.  ...  S.  38 
xviii.  1  .  .  S.  49 
xviii.  2      .     T.  iv,  27  ; 

xii,  46 
xviii.  3  .  .T.  iv,  27 
xviii.  10  .  .T.  iv,  25 
xviii.  13  f.  .  T.  iv,  28 
xviii.  14  .  .  T.  v,  15 
xviii.  17  .  .  T.  iv,  25 
xviii.  20  .  T.  iv,  25  ; 
ix,  63 
xviii.  21  .  T.  ix,  63  ; 
S.  85 
xviii.  25  T.  iv,  25,  27  ; 
v,  16 
xviii.  26  .  .  T.  iv.  25 
xix.  1  .  .  .  T.  iv.  28 
xix.  2  .  .  .  T.  iv.  28 
xix.  4  .  .  .  S.  49 
xix.   24  T.  iv,  25,  29  ; 

S.  38 
xxi.  1  .  T.  iv,  25,  27 
xxi.  2  .  T.  iv,  25,  27 
xxi.  17  .  .  T.  iv,  25 
xxi.  18  .  .  T.  iv,  25 
xxii.  12  T.  ix,  64,  71  ; 
Ps.  i,  24 
xxviii.  .  .T.  iv,  30 
xxviii.  13  .  .  T.  v,  20 
xxxii.  24  .  T.  iv.  31  ; 
xii,  46 
xxxii.  26   .    T.  v,  19  ; 

S.  49 
xxxii.  28  .  .  T.  v.  19 
xxxii.  30  .  .  T.  v.  19 
xxxv.  1     .    T.  iv,  30  ; 

v,  20 

Exod.  ii.  12    .     .  T.  v,  21 

iii.  if.      .     .  T.  v,  21 


EXOD.  iii.  2    . 

T.  iv.  32 ; 

xii.  46 

iii.  4  f.      . 

.  T.  iv,  32 

iii.  14    T.  1 

i»  5 ;  iv»  8 ; 

v, 

22 ;  xii,  24 

iv.  22  .     . 

T.  xii,  14 

vii.  I    .     . 

T.  vii,  10 

vii.  12       . 

T.  vii,  10 

viii.  19     . 

T.  vii,  10 

viii.  31 

T.  vii,  10 

ix.  33  •     • 

T.  vii,  10 

x.  19   .     . 

T.  vii,  10 

xix.  17     . 

.  T.  v,  23 

xix.  20 

.  T.  v,  23 

xx.  19  .     . 

.  T.  v,  23 

xx.  24  .     . 

.  T.  v,  23 

xxxiv.  29  . 

T.  vi,  20 

Deut.  vi.4  T.iv,  8,15,  33, 

42 ;  v,  1, 

25 ;  vu,  12 

xxiii.  16   . 

•  T.  v,  23 

xxx.  14     . 

.  T.  x,  70 

xxxii.  21  . 

.  T.  v,  31 

xxxii.  39  T 

.iv,  33,  40; 

v,  36,  37 

xxxii.  43  . 

T.  iv,  33  ; 

v,  36 

xxxiii.  16. 

.  T. iv.  33 

xxxiv.  6   . 

.       S.  85 

1  Kings  iii.  12 

.  T.  vi,  20 

Psalms  ii.  7  .  T.  viii,  25  ; 
xi,  18 
ii.  8  .  .  .T.iv,  37 
vii.  11.  .  .  T.  iv,  8 
xv.  (xvi.)  10.  T.  x,  12 
xvii.  (xviii.)  42  Ps.  i,  19 
xvii.  (xviii.)  45  Ps.  i,  1 
xxi.  (xxii.)  19  Ps.  i,  I 
xxi.  (xxii.)  22  T.  xi,  15 
xxi.  (xxii.)  32  T.  xii,  14 
xxxii.  (xxxiii.)  6 

T.  xii,  39 
xxxiii.  (xxxiv.)  16 

T.  xii,  9 
xxxix.  (xl.)  7  Ps.  liii,  13 
xliv.  (xiv.)  7  T.  iv,  35 
xliv.  (xiv.)  8  T.  iv,  35  ; 
xi,  10,  18,  19 
1.  (li.)9  Ps.  liii,  3 

lxxi.  (lxxii.)  5  T.  xii,  34 
lxxi.  (lxxii.)  9  T.  iv,  38 
lxxi  (lxxii.)  10  T.  iv.  38 
lxxi.  (lxxii.)  17    T.  xii, 

34 
lxxvii.  (lxxviii.)  1     Ps. 

h  3 
lxxxi.  (lxxxii.)  6  T.  vi, 

18 
lxxxi.  (lxxxii.)  6  T.  vii, 

10 
lxxxviii.  (lxxxix.)  20  f. 


ci.  (cii.)  26    T.  xii, 
ciii.  (civ.)  4      T.  v, 


Ps.  i,  I 
12 
II 


Psalms  cix.  (ex.)  1   T.  ix, 

26,  27  ;  S.  38,  50 

cix.  (ex..)  3      T.  vi,  16 

cix.  (ex. )  5       T.  xii,  8 

exxxvii.    (exxxviii.)    8 

T.  xii,  12 

exxxviii.  (exxxix.)  7  f. 

T.  i,  6 ;  iv,  8 

cxlviii.  (cxlix.)  5 

T.  iv,  16 

Prov.  iii.  18  .  .  Ps.  i,  14 
viii.  4  .  .  T.  xii,  44 
viii.  5  .  .  T.  xii,  44 
viii.  15  .  T.  xii,  44 
viii.  16  .  T.  xii,  44 
viii.  20  .  T.  xii,  44 
viii.  21  .  T.  xii,  44 
viii.  22  T.  i,  35  ,  iv,  1 1 ; 
xii,  1,  35,  36,  44  ; 
S.  16  ;  Ps.  i,  3 
viii.  25  .  T.  xii,  37 ; 
S.  16 
viii.  26  T.  xii,  37,  38 
viii.  28  f  .  .  T.  iv,  21 
viii.  30  .  .  T.  iv,  21 
viii.  31     .     .  T.  iv,  21 

Isaiah  i.  2  .  .  T.  vi,  23 
i.  14  .  .  .  T.  x,  58 
v.  2  .  .  .  Ps.  i,  15 
vi.  I  T.  v,  33  ;  vi,  20 
vii.  14  .  .  T.  ii,  27 
ix.  6(LXX.)T.iv,  23; 
xi,  45 
xxix.  13  .  Ps.  liii,  3 
xxix.  14  .  .  T.  iii,  8 
xl.  12  .  .  .  T.  i,  6 
xl.  26  .  .  Ps.  exxx,  2 
xlii.  1  .  .  .  T.  x,  58 
xliii.  10  T.  iv,  35,  36 
xliv.  6  .  S.  38,  56 
xiv.. 1  if.  .     T.iv,  38; 

xii,  39 
xiv.  14 T.iv.  39  ;  v.  38 
xiv.  1ST.  iv,  40;  v,  38 
xiv.  16  .  .  T.  iv.  41 
xiv.  18  .  .  T.  iv.  41 
Hi.  7  .  .  .  T.  v,  32 
liii.  1  .  .  .  T.  v,  32 
liii.  4  .  .  .  T.  x,  47 
liii.  5  .  .  .  T.  x,  47 
liii.  8  .  T.  ii,  10,  21  ; 
S.  11 
lix.  20  f.  .  .T.  xi,  34 
lix.  25  f.  .  .  T.  xi,  34 
lxiv.  4  .  .  T.  v,  33 
lxv.  1         T.  v,  31,  32 

lxv.   2  .        .       .  T.  V,  31 

lxv.  13  .  .  T.  v,  28 
lxv.  14  .  .  T.  v,  28 
lxv.  15  .  .  T.  v,  28 
lxv.  16  .  T.  iv,  8  ;  v, 
25,  31 
lxvi.  1      T.  i,  6  ;  iv,  8 


Isaiah  lxvi.  a  .  T.  i,  « 
lxvii.  13  f.    .  T.  v,  27 

Jeremiah  i.  5  .  T.  vi,  20 
i.  6  .  .  T.  iv,  8 
xiii.  22       .    .  T.  i,  18 

Ezekiel  xxxvii,  T.  vi,  20  ; 
xii,  47 

Daniel  iii.  23.  T.  x,  45 
vii.  13  .  .  T.  xii,  47 
vii.  14  .  .  T.  xii,  47 
ix.  23  .  .  T.  vi,  20 
xiii.  42.     .     .  T.  iv,  8 

HoseaL  6.  .  T.  iv,  37 
i.  7 .  .  .  T.  iv,  37 
xiii.  4  .     .  T.  xii,  4,  9 

Malachi  iii.  6  T.  iv,  8  ; 
vii,  27  ;  x,  58  ;  xi,  47 

Baruch  iii.  35  f.  T.  iv,  42  ; 

v,  39 
2  Macc.  vii.  28  T.  iv,  16 
Wisdom  xiii.  5  .  T.  i,  7 
St.  Matthew  i.  21 

T.  xi,  17 
i.  23  .  .  .  T.  x,  7 
ii.  20  .  .  T.  x,  57 
ii.  27  .  .  T.  vi,  26 
iii.  17  T.  ii,  8;  vi,  23, 
27,  46  ;  viii,  25  ; 
ix,  20 
iv.  4  .  .  .  S.  70 
v.  3  .  .  T.  ix,  25 
v.  8  .  .  T.  xi,  39 
v.  17  .  .  T.  xi,  28 
vi.  26  .  .  .  T.  iv,  8 
vii.  18  .  .  Ps.  i,  15 
vii.  23  .  .  T.  ix,  65 
vii.  25  .  .  T.  ii,  22 
ix.  4  .  .  T.  ix,  66 
x.  16  .  .  .  S.  23 
x.  22  .  .  T.  xi,  28 
x.  28  .  .  T.  x,  10 
x.  29    .     .     .  T.  iv,  8 

x-  33  •     •     •  T-  vi»  3 

x.  38  .     .      T.  x,  10 

x.  39  .     .       T.  x.  10 

x.  40  .     .      T.  vi,  3& 

xi.  25  T.  vi,  36  ;  ix, 

5° ;  xi>  45 

xi.  27  .  T.  ii,  10,  20 ; 
vi,  28 
xi.  28  f.  .  T.  ix,  15 
xii.  18  .  .  T.  iv,  36  , 
viii,  23 
xii.  33  .  .  Ps.  i,  14 
xiii.  10.  .  T.  ix.  18 
xiii.  35  .  .  .  Ps.  i.  3 
xiii.  40  f.  .  T.  xi,  38 
xiv..  .  .  T.  vi,  33 
xiv.  17  .  .  .  T.  iii,  6 
xiv.  33.  .  T.  vi,  51 
xv.  13  .  .  T.  vi,  25  ; 
Ps.  i,  15 
xv.  19  .       Ps.  exxx,  4. 


II.     INDEX   OF   TEXTS. 


257 


St.  Matthew  xv.  24 

St.  Luke  iv. 

18       T.  viii, 

St.  John  v. 

20     T.  vii,  19 

St.  John  x.  38     T.  i,  22  ; 

T.  ix,  16 

23 

v.  21  T. 

vii,  19  ;  ix,  50 

ii,   8,    10;    iii,  4, 

xvi.  16  .    T.  vi,  36,  46 

vi.  5     . 

.    T.  vii,  21 

v.  22 

T.  iv,  29  ;  vii, 

23;    vii,    26,   27; 

xvi.  17.     .     T.  ii,  23  ; 

viii,  28. 

.      T.  vi,  49 

20  ;  xi,  12 

ix,  1,  52 

vi,  36 

x.  22     . 

.      T.  xi,  29 

v.23     . 

T.  vi,  2 ; 

xi.  4      .    .     T.  ix,  23 

xvi.  18 .     T.  vi,  20,  37 
xvi.  19.     .     T.  vi,  37 

.     .  T.  i,  37 

vii,  20.  2        ix.  21. 

xi.  5      .    .      T.  x,  56 
xi.  14    .     .       T.  x,  56 

xvii.  21 

.     T.  xi,  39 

45; 

7 7      — '       +s* 

xi,  12 ;  xii,  7 

xvi.  22  .     .     T.  vi,  38 

xviii.  19 

.T.  i,  29,  30 

v.  25     . 

.   T.  ix,  22  ; 

xi.  15   .     .      T.  x,  56 

xvi.  23  .     .  T.  vi,  38; 

xix.  41  . 

.       T.  x,  55 

S.79 

xi.  27    .     .      T.  vi,  47 

x,  27 

xxii.  31 

.       T.  x,  38 

v.  26     . 

T.  ii,  8,  10, 

xi.  35    .     .       T.  x,  56 

xvi.  28.     .     T.  xi,  37 

xxii.  32 

.       T.  x,  38 

20; 

vii,  27  ;  viii, 

xi.  41    .     .    T.  ii,  23; 

xvii.  I   .     .      T.  xi,  37 

xxii.  36 

.     .      S.  85 

43; 

S.  13,  15,  18, 

x,  71 

xvii.  2  .     .     T.  xi,  37 

xxii.  43 

.       T.  x,  40 

19 

xi.  42   .     .      T.  x,  71 

xvii.  5  .     .    T.  ii,  23  ; 

xxii.  44 

.      T.  x,  40 

v.  32     . 

.     .      S.  22 

xi.  44    .     .     T.  vi,  33 

vi,  24,  25,  36  ; 

xxii.  51 

.      T.  x,  28 

v.  36     . 

.     T.  vi,  27 

xii.  23  .     .  T.  iii,  10  ; 

xii,  14 

xxiii.  34 

.     T.  i,  32  ; 

v.  36  f.  . 

.     T.  ix,  20 

S.  70 

xviii.  15  f.       .     .   S.  1 

x,  71 

v.  37  T. 

vi,  27  ;  ix,  21 

xii.  27  .     .     T.  vi,  25 

xxi.  19  .     .       T.  x,  24 

xxiii.  43 

•     T.  i,  32  ; 

v.  38     . 

.     T.  ix,  21 

xii.  30  .     .  T.  ix,  72 ; 

xxiii.  2  .     .      Ps.  i,  10 

x,  34,60; 

v.  40  f. . 

.     T.  ix,  22 

x,  71 

xxiii.  37     .       T.  x,  55 

Ps.  i.  14 

v.  44     . 

.     T.  ix,  22 

xii.  41  .     .     T.  v,  33 ; 

xxiv.  35     .       Ps.  i,  16 

xxiii.  46 

T.  i,  3L32; 

v.  46     . 

.      T.  v,  23 

xii,  47 

xxiv.  44     .      T.  ix,  67 

x,  9.  34.  7i; 

vi.  27  f. 

T.  viii,  42,  44 

xiii.  13       .      T.  ix,  18 

xxiv.  46     .      T.  ix,  67 

Ps.  liii,  1 

vi-  37    • 

T.  ix,  49 

xiii.  23       .      T.  vi,  43 

xxv.  12       .      T.  ix,  65 

xxiv.  39 

.     T.  iv,  6  ; 

vi.  38  T 

iii,  9  ;  ix,  49, 

xiii.  25       .      T.  ii,  21 

xxv.  13      .      T.  ix,  65 

x,  58 

745 

xi,  30;  S.  29 

xiii.  31       .   T.  ix,  40  ; 

xxv.  34      .  T.  ix,  25  ; 

St.  John  i. 

1 — 14  T.  i,  10 

vi.  39    . 

.     T.  ix,  50 

xi,  42 

»>  39 

i.  1     T. 

ii,  13,  14,  23; 

vi.  40    . 

.  T.  viii,  34 

xiii.  32      .    T.  ix,  40; 

xxv.  41       .     T.  xi,  32 

iv,  1 

6  ;  vii,  9  ;  xii, 

vi.  44    . 

•     T.  xi,  33 

xi,  42 

xxvi.  12     .        T.  x,  59 

24, 

56;    S.  23,  29, 

vi.  45  f. 

.     T.  ix,  49 

xiv.  I    .     .      T.  ix,  19 

xxvi.  31  f.  .     .T.  x,  37 

70 

vi.  51     . 

.       T.  x,  18 

xiv.  6  f.      .  T.  vii,  33  ; 

xxvi.  33     .     .T.  x,  37 

i.3    T. 

11,  23  ;  iv,  II, 

vi.  52    . 

.       T.  x.  18 

xi,  33;  xii,  45; 

xxvi.  37      .     .T.  x,  37 

1 

6;  xii,   12,  56 

vi.  54    . 

.       T.  x,  18 

Ps.  liii,  11 

xxvi.  38    T.  i,  31,  32; 

i.  4  .     . 

T.  ii,  20 

vi.  56.  . 

.   T.  viii,  14 

xiv.  7    .     .  T.  vii.  34; 

x,  9,  29,  36 

i.  10 

•      T.  ii,  23 

vi.  57    • 

.  T.  viii,  14, 

viii,  4,  18 

xxvi.  39      .       T.  i,  31, 

i.  14      . 

.     .      S.  38 

16;   S.  13 

xiv.  8    .     .    T.  vii,  35 

32 ;  x>  9.  37 

i.  18      . 

.     T.  11,  23  ; 

vi.  58   . 

.    T.  vii,  27 

xiv.  9    .     .     T.  i,  30  ; 

xxvi.  40     .       T.  x,  37 

iv, 

8,  42  ;  v,  33  ; 

vi.  61    . 

•     T.  ix,  33 

ii,  8,  10,  20  ;  vii,  5  ; 

xxvi.  41      .      T.  x,  37 

vi,  39  ;  xii,  24 

vi.  63    . 

•      T.  x,  54 

36,     37,     38,    41  ; 

xxvi.  42      .       T.  x,  39 

i.  49      . 

•      T.  vi,  33 

vi.  65    . 

.     T.  ix,  59 

viii,  4,  18,   48,   49, 

xxvi.  45      .      T.  x,  40 

ii.     .     . 

•      T.  vi,  33 

vii.  28  . 

.      T.vi,  28 

51  ;    ix,    1,  52,    54, 

xxvi.  52      .     .       S.  85 

ii.  9       . 

T.  iii,  5 

vii.  29  . 

.     T.  vi,  28 

55,  69;  xi,  12; 

xxvi.  64     .      T.  i,  32  ; 

ii.  15     . 

.       T.  x,  24 

vii.  38  . 

.      T.  x,  24 

S.  79 

vi,  25  ;  x,  31 

ii.  16     . 

T.  vi,  25 

viii.  28  . 

.     T.  ix,  47 

xiv.  9f.      .   T.  vi,  33  ; 

xxvii.  46    .      T.  i,  31, 

ii.  19     . 

.    T.  ix,  12  ; 

viii.  29. 

.    T.  ix,  47  ; 

ix,  29 

32  ;  vi,  25  ; 

x,  59  ;    Ps. 

xi,  30 

xiv.  10       .    T.  vii,  39, 

x,  9,  49 

liii  (liv),  13 

viii.  42 . 

T.  vi,  29 

40;    viii,    4,     18, 

xxvii.  54    .  T.  iii,  11  ; 

ii.  41     . 

.     T.  vi,  25 

viii.  56 . 

.     T.  iv,  27 

51;    ix,    44,    55; 

vi,  52 

iii.  6 

•    T.  vii,  30 

ix.  3      . 

.    T.  vii,  21 

xi,  12 

xxviii.  19  .    S.  11,  29, 

iii.  7,  8 

.    T.  xii,  56 

ix.  14    . 

•      T.  vi,  25 

xiv.  11  T.  i,  30 ;  ii,  23 ; 

85  ;  T.  ii,  1 

iii.  8      . 

.      T.  ii,  26 

ix.  35     . 

T.  vi,  25,  48 

iii,  I  ;  vii,  12,  40, 

xxviii.  20  .     .   T.  ii,  I 

iii.  13    • 

.      T.  x,  16 

ix.  36    . 

T.  vi,  48 

41  ;    viii,    4.   52 ; 

St.  Mark  i.  ii     T.  vi,  27 

iii.  16   . 

.     T.  vi,  40 

ix.  37    . 

T.  vi,  46,  48 

ix,  52,  54,  55,  70  ; 

x.  17     .    .     T.  ix,  16 

iii.  17   . 

.     T.  vi,  25 

x.  17     . 

.   T.  ix,  12  ; 

xi,  12 

x.  18     .  T.  iv,  8  ;  ix, 

iii.  18,  1 

9  .      Ps.  i,  20 

x,  57 

xiv.  12     .      T.  ii,  23  ; 

2,  15 

iv.  13    . 

.     .       S.  70 

x.  18     . 

.  T.  ix,  12; 

viii,  4,  18; 

x.  20     .     .     T.  ix,  25 

iv.  20   . 

.      T.  ii,  31 

x,  57 

ix,  52 

x.  21      .     .     T.  ix,  17 

iv.  21  f. 

.      T.  ii,  31 

x.  19     . 

.     T.  vii,  22 

xiv.  16  T.  ii,  33  ;  S.  38 

xii.  29  .     T.  iv,  8 ;  v, 

iv.  24    . 

.    T.  ii,  31  ; 

x.  27  f. 

.     T.  vii,  22 

xiv.  17      .     .   T.  ii,  23 

I  ;  ix,  26 

iv,  8  ;  xii,  8 

x.  28     . 

.  T.  vii,  22  ; 

xiv.  19      .     T.  viii,  15 

xii.  29  f.     .      T.  ix,  24 

iv.  35  • 

Ps.  cxxx,  2  ; 

viii,  18 

xiv.  23      .     T.  viii,  27 

xii.  32  .     .     T.  ix,  24 

T. 

vii,  37  ;  ix,  45 

x.  29     . 

.  T.  vii,  41 ; 

xiv.  28  .     T.  i,  29,  30; 

xii.  33  .     .      T.  ix,  24 

v.  1  .    . 

.    T.  xii,  11 

xi,  12 

ii,  10,  23  ;  iii,  12; 

xii.  34  .     .    T.  ix,  25, 

v.  16     . 

T.  ix,  44 

x.  30   T 

i,  30  ;  ii,  10, 

iv,  1 1  ;   v,  6 ;    vi, 

26 

v.  17     . 

.  T.  vii,  17  ; 

20, 

23  5    i«,    23  ; 

25  ;  vii,  6;    ix,  2, 

xiii.  31 .     .     T.  i,  30  ; 

ix,  44,  45 

vii, 

5,  6,   12,   22, 

51-  54,  55  ;  xi,i2; 

x,  42 

v.  18     T.  vii,  15  ;  viii, 

25; 

viii,  4,  5,  10, 

S.  11,  85 

xiii.  32  .     .     T.  i,  29  ; 

43; 

ix,  44  ;  S.  73 

28; 

ix,  1,  54;  x, 

xiv.  30      .T.  ix,55,  69 

ix,  2,  58  ;  S.  85 

▼.  19      . 

.      T.  i,  29 ; 

55 

xi,  12  ;  S.  85 

xiv.  31      .     .  T.  ix,  55 

xiv.  36  .     .    T.  ix,  72  ; 

vii, 

17,  18,  21;  ix, 

x.  30  f. 

.    T.  vii,  23 

xv.  if.     .     .  T.  ix,  55 

x,  38 

2,  43.  44,  45.  47. 

x.  33     • 

.    T.  vii,  23 

xv.  23 .     .     .  T.  vi,  30 

xiv.  61  .     .      T.  vi,  50 

72; 

xi,  12  ;  S.  18, 

x.  34  f. 

.    T.  vii,  24 

xv.  26  .     .    T.  viii,  19 

xv.  34  .     T.  x,  60,  71 

19, 

75  ;    Ps.  liii,  7 

x.  36      . 

.     T.  vi,  25 

xvi.  7  .     .     .  T.  ii,  33 

St.  Lukel  31     .      S.  11 

v.  19  f. 

.  T.  vii,  16 ; 

x.  36  f.  . 

.    T.  vii,  26 

xvi.  12      .     .  T.  ii,  53 

i.  35      .     .     T.  ii,  26 

viii,  43 

x.  37  T. 

vii,  26  ;  S.  54 

xvi.  I2f. .     T.  viii,  20 

VOL.  IX. 


258 


II.     INDEX   OF   TEXTS. 


St.  John  xvi.  13  T.  ii,  33 

Romans  i.  16.      Ps.  liii,  5 

1  Corinthians  xii.  12 

Philippians  iii.  20 

xvi.  14  T.  ii,  33  ;  viii,  2 

i.  20    .     .     T.  viii,  56 

T.  viii,  32 

T.  xi,  28 

xvi.  15        T.  ii,  8,  20; 

i.  25  T.  viii,  28 ;  xii,  3 

xii.  27  .     .  T.  viii,  33 

iii.  21   .     T.  ix,  8;  xi, 

vii,  12  ;  viii,  20, 

ii.  16  .    .     .  T.  v,  29 

xii.  28  .     .  T.  viii,  33 

35  ;  Ps.  i,  15 

52;  ix,  1,  31 

ii.  29  .     ,    .  T.  v,  28 

xiii.  4   .     .      T.  x,  66 

COLOSSIANS  i.  15 

xvi,  21      .     .  T.  xi,  32 

iii.  29.     .     .        S.  11 

xiv.  6    .     .  T.  viii,  30 

T.  viii,  48  ;  xi,  5 

xvi.  27  T.  vi,  16,  31  ; 

iii.  30  .    .     .        S.  11 

xiv.  32 .     .     .       S.  80 

L  15  f.  .     .   T.  viii,  49 

ix,  30 

iv.  3    T.  ix,  64  ;  x,  68 

xiv.  37  .     •      Ps.  i,  24 

L  16     .  T.  ii.  19,  20  ; 

xvi.  28  .  T.  ii,  10 ;  vi, 

v.  10   .    .     .  T.  vi,  44 

xv.  3     .     •      T.  x,  67 

v,  4;   ix,  59;   xi, 

31,  32,34»  ix,  30 

vi.  10  .     .     .T.  ix,  13 

xv.  4     .     .       T.  x,  67 

19;  xii,  56 

xvi.  29  .  T.  vi,  33,  34 

vi.  11  .     .     .T.  ix,  13 

xv.  21  .     .      T.  xi,  39 

i.  17      .     .  T.  viii,  50 

xvi.  30  .  T.  ix,  29,  66 

viii.  3     T.  vi,  44 ;  ix, 

xv.  2 if.     .     T.  xi,  22 

i.  18  f.  .    .   T.  viii,  50 

xvi.  32  .     T.  ix,  30,  32 

16,  55  ;  x,  25 

xv.  24  .     .     T.  xi,  39 

i.  19      .     .   T.  iii.  17; 

xvi.  33  .    T.  ix,  30,  32 

xv.  26  .     .      T.  xi,  35 

ix,  59;  xi,  17 

xvi.  37      .     T.  viii,  49 

viii.  9f.    .    T.  viii,  21 

xv.  26 f.      T.  xi,  8,  36 

ii.  I .     .     .       T.  ix,  9 

xvii.  I      .     .  T.  ix,  31 

viii.  11     .     .  T.  ii,  29 

xv.  27  .     .       T.  i,  33 

ii.  3  .     .     .     T.  ix,  67 

xvii.  if..     .  T.  iii,  9  ; 

viii.  14  T.  ii,  34 ;  vi,  44 

xv.  28  .     .     T.  i,  33 ; 

ii.  8   T.  viii,  53 ;  ix,  I 

ix,  32 

viii.  15     .     .  T.  vi,  44 

xi,  40,  43 

ii.  S  f.    .     .     T.  i.  13  ; 

xvii.  2.     .     T.  iii,  13; 

viii.  19  f.  .     .  T.  xii,  5 

xv.  47  .    .       T.  x,  17 

ix,  8 ;  xii,  20 

ix,  31 

viii.  26     .      Ps.  liii,  6 

xv.  53  .     .     T.  xi,  35 

ii.  9      .     T.  ii,  8,  20 ; 

xvii.  3  .    T.  i,  29,  30 ; 

viii.  29     .     .  T.  xi,  15 

2  Corinthians  iii.  17 

viii,  53  ;  ix,  I 

iii,  13;   iv,  8;   ix, 

viii.  33     .     .  T.  x,  65 

T.  ii,  32 

ii.  12    .     .        T.  ix,  9 

2,  28,  33,  39,  42 

viii.  34     .     .  T.  x,  65 

v.  17    .     .       T.  x,  42 

ii.  13  f.      .  T.  ix,  10; 

xvii.  4  T.  iii,  16;  ix,  39 

ix.  5  T.  iv,  39  ;  xii,  24 

v.  19    .    .     T.  iv,  39 

x,  48 

xvii.  5      T.  ii,  23  ;  vi, 

x.  6f.  .    .T.  x,  68,  69 

v.  20    .     .      T.  x,  47 

iii.  4     .     .     T.  ix,  59 

25  ;  ix,  39 

x.  7     .     .     .  T.  x,  69 

x.  4      •    .     T.  xii,  20 

iii.  9     .     .     T.  xi,  49 

xvii.  6      .     .  T.  iii,  22 

x.  8  f.  .    .    .  T.  x,  70 

x.  5       .    .    T.  xii,  20 

iii.  IO  .     .      T.  xi,  49 

xvii.  IO  T.  i,  30;  ii,  8  ; 

x.  I3f.     .    .  T.  v,  32 

xi.  25    .    .      T.  vi,  20 

1  Thessalonians  i.  V.  2 

viii,  20  ;  xii,  57 

xi.  28  .     .    .  T.  xi,  34 

xii.  2    .    .    T.  v,  32 ; 

T.  ix,  59 

xvii.  11     .     .  T.  x,  42 

xi.  33  .     .    T.  viii,  38 

vi,  20 

i.  v.  17  .     .     Ps.  i.  12 

xvii.  12    .     .  T.  x,  42 

xi.  33  f.    .      T.  xi,  45 

xiii.  3    .  T.  x,  48  ;  xii, 

1  Timothy  i.  3     T.  x,  53 

xvii.  20  T.  i,  28;  viii,  5 

xi.  36  .     .    T.  viii,  38 

3 

i.  4  .     .    .      T.  x,  53 

xvii.  21    T.  i,  28  ;  viii, 

xii.  3    .     .     .          S.  6 

xiii.  4   T.  ix,  13  ;   Ps. 

ii.  5  .    T.  iv,  8 ;  S.  85 

5,  10,  12 

xvi.  25  f.  .     .    T.  iv,  8 

Hi',  5 

iii.  16    T.  x,  61 ;  xi,  9 

xvii.  22  T.  viii,  12,  13 

xvii.  10    .     .  T.  v,  36 

Galatians  i.  15   T.  xii,  3 

iv.  1      .     .     .   T.  x,  2 

xvii  23     .     T.  viii,  13 

xvii.  12     .     .  T.  v,  36 

iii.  13    .     .  Ps.  liii,  13 

vi.  11    .     .     T.  xi,  23 

xvii.  24     T.  ix,  50,  74 

xxi.  35      .     .  T.  xi,  47 

iii.  27   .     .     T.  viii,  8 

vi.  15    .    .       T.  iv,  8 

xviii.  6      .    .  T.  x,  27 

xxi.  36      .     .  T.  xi,  47 

iii.  28    .    .     T.  viii,  8 

vi.  16    .     .        T.  iv,  8 

xviii.  9      .     .  T.  x,  42 

1  Corinthians  i.  9 

iv.  4      .     ,     T.  xii,  48 

2  Timothy  i.  9    T.  xii,  26 

xviii.  11    .     .  T.  i,  32 

T.  vi,  44 

iv.  6     .     .      T.  ii,  29 

ii.  7 .     .     .     T.  xi,  23 

xviii.  36    .     .  T.  xi,  32 

i.  17  f.       .     .  T.  iii,  24 

Ephesians  i.  4   T.  iv,  37  ; 

ii.  8 .     .     .     T.  xi,  39 

i.  20    .     .     .  T.  ii.  12 

ix,  74 

ii.  17     .     .     T.  viii,  1 

xix.  23      .     .  T.  x,  52 

i.  20  f. .    a     .    T.  iii,  8 

i.  9  .     .    .      Ps.  i,  15 

iv.  3      ,    •     .  T.  x,  2 

xix.  27      .     .  T.  vi,  43 

i.  23     .     «    .  T.  x,  64 

i.  16      •    ■     T.  xi,  17 

iv.  6     *     .     T.  vi,  20 

xix.  30        T.x,  11,  71 

i.  24     .    .     .  T.  x,  64 

i.  17      .     .     T.  xi,  17 

iv.  7     .    .     T.  vi,  20 

xx.  4   .     .     .  T.  vi ,  43 

i.  27    •    .     .  T.  iii,  10 

i.  19  f.        .      T.  xi,  31 

Titus  i.  2  .    .    . 

xx.  17  T.  i,  33 ;  xi,  8, 

ii.  2     .     .    .  T.  x,  64 

ii.  3       .    .    T.  xii,  13 

T.  xii,  26,  27,  34 

IO,  14,  15  ;  S.  II 

ii.  7     .     .     .  T.  x,  64 

iv.  4      .     .     T.  viii,  7 

i.  9  .     .     .     T.  viii,  1 

xx.  25      .     .  T.  iii,  20 

ii.  8     .     .     .  T.  x,  64 

iv.  4C  .     .       T.  xi,  I 

ii.  7       .    .     T.  viii,  I 

xx.  26      .     .  T.  iii,  20 

ii.  10  T.  ix,  69;  xii,  55 

iv.  5      .    T.  viii,  7,  34 

ii.  8      .     .     T    viii,  I 

xx.  28      .      T.  vii,  12 

ii.  11    .     .     .T.  ix,  69 

iv.  6      .     .  T.  viii,  34 

Philemon  i  .     T.  iv,  39 

xx.  29      .      T.  vii,  12 

ii.  12   .      T.  ii,  29,  35 

iv.  9      .     .      T.  x,  65 

HEBREWsi.4.     T.iv,  11 

xx.  31       .     .  T.  vi,  41 

iii.  8     T.  i,  28;  viii,  5 

iv.  10    .    .      T.  x,  65 

iii.  1      .     .      T.  iv,  u 

xxi.  7  .     .     .  T.  iy,  39 

iii.  II  .     .     T.  viii,  27 

iv.  21  f.      .     T.  xii,  48 

v.  12     .    .    .       S.  85 

xxi.  17      .     .  T.  vi,  37 

v.  17   .     .     .  T.  x,  42 

iv.  24    .     .     T.  xii,  48 

vii.  27  .     .   Ps.  liii,  13 

Acts  i.  4/.     .     T.  viii,  30 

v.  18   .     .     .  T.  x,  51 

iv.  30    .     .      T.  ii,  29 

James  i.  17     .       T.  iv,  8 

i.  7     .     .     .T.  ix,  75 

v.  19  .     .     .  T.  x,  51 

Philippians  ii.  6 

1  Peter  ii.  9  .     T.  xii,  13 

ii.  16  f.     .     T.  viii,  25 

vii.  31       .     .  T.  x,  42 

T.  viii,  45 

iii.  20  .     .     •       S.  85 

iv.  27  .     .     .  T.  xi,  18 

viii.  16   T.  iv,  16,  39  ; 

ii.  7       .      T.  viii,  45  ; 

iv.  19  .     .     .  T.  xii,  4 

iv.  32  T.  i,  28  ;  viii,  5 

ix,  32,  34 

x.25;  S.  85 

2  Peter  ii.  14     .  T.  i,  id 

vii.  22      .     .  T.  v,  21 

x.  31    .     .     .  Ps.  i,  12 

ii.  8       .     .     T.  xi,  30 

1  John  ii.  22  .      T.  vi,  42 

ix.  15  .     .     .  T.  vi,  20 

xii.  3     T.  ii,  34  ;  viii, 

ii.  8  f.    , 

.    Ps.  liii,  5 

ii.  23    .     .      T.  vi,  42 

x.  37  .     .     .  T.  xi,  18 

28,  34 

ii.  9  .     . 

,     .     T.  ix,  54 

v.  1      .     .      T.  vi,  42 

x.  38  .     .     .T.  xi,  18 

xii.  4f.      .    T.  viii,  29 

ii.  IO 

.     .       T.  ix,  8 

v.  20    .     .      T.  vi,  43 

x.  48  .     .    .        S.  85 

xii.  5    .  T.  viii,  33,  34 

ii.  11 

,    ,     T.  ix,  42 

v.  21     .     T.  vi,  43,  46 

xiii.  22  T.  vi,  20  ;  xii, 

xii.  6    .  T.  viii,  33,  34 

iii.  15 

,     .     T.  xi,  24 

Revelation  v.    T.  vi,  43 

9 ;  Ps.  liii,  1 

xii.  8  f.     .    T.  viii,  29 

iii.  16 

,     .     T.  xi,  24 

xxii.  1  .     .      Ps.  i,  17 

xvii.  28    .     .    T.  iv,  8 

xii.  II       .    T.  viii,  31 

iii.  19 

.    .     T.  xi,  28 

JOHN    OF    DAMASCUS. 


EXPOSITION   OF  THE   ORTHODOX   FAITH. 


TRANSLATED    BT 


THE    REV.  S.  D.  F.  SALMOND,  D.D.,   F.E.I.S., 

PRINCIPAL  OF  THE   FREE   CHURCH   COLLEGE,    ABERDEEN. 


VOL.  IX. 


NOTE. 


.In  the  difficult  task  of  translating  the  De  Fide  Orthodoxa — a  taslc  made  the  more 
difficult  at  times  by  the  condition  of  the  text, — I  am  indebted  for  much  to  my  son,  James 
L.  Salmond,  M.A.,  M.B.,  formerly  of  Balliol  College,  Oxford.  There  still  remain  passages 
of  doubtful  interpretation.  It  was  intended  to  furnish  a  larger  body  of  Notes  and  also 
an  account  of  John  and  his  writings.  It  has  been  found  advisable,  however,  to  complete 
the  volume  without  these. 

S.  D.  F.  SALMOND. 

Aberdeen, 

i  Sept.  1898. 


CONTENTS   OF  DOGMATIC   CHAPTERS. 


Chap. 


Chap. 


I.    (t.) 


II.       (2.) 


Chap. 

III. 

(3-) 

Chap. 

IV. 

(4-) 

Chap. 

V. 

(5-) 

Chap. 

VI. 

(6.) 

Chap. 

VII. 

(7-) 

Chap. 

VIII. 

(8.) 

Chap. 

IX. 

(9-) 

Chap. 

X. 

(IO.) 

Chap. 

XI. 

(ii.) 

Chap. 

XII. 

(12.) 

Chap. 

XIII. 

(I3-) 

Chap. 

XIV. 

(I4-) 

BOOK    I. 

That  the  Deity  is  incomprehensible,  and  that  we  ought  not  to  pry  into  and 
meddle  with  the  things  which  have  not  been  delivered  to  us  by  the  holy 
Prophets,  and  Apostles,  and  Evangelists 

Concerning  things  utterable  and  things  unutterable,  and  things  knowable  and 
things  unknowable   „ 

Proof  that  there  is  a  God    , M,„ 

Concerning  the  nature  of  Deity  :  that  it  is  incomprehensible   

Proof  that  God  is  one  and  not  many     

Concerning  the  Word  and  the  Son  of  God  :  a  reasoned  proof 

Concerning  the  Holy  Spirit  :  a  reasoned  proof  „ 

Concerning  the  Holy  Trinity     M m 

Concerning  what  is  affirmed  about  God    .... 

Concerning  divine  union  and  separation „  .. 

Concerning  what  is  affirmed  about  God  as  though  He  had  body     M 

Concerning  the  same   

Concerning  the  place  of  God  :  and  that  the  Deity  alone  is  uncircumscribed     ... 

The  properties  of  the  divine  nature ... .._... MM*.M 


PAGB 


ib. 
2 

3 

4 
ib. 

5 

6 

12 

ib. 

13 

ib. 

15 
17 


BOOK    II. 


Chap. 

I. 

(15.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

II. 

(16.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

III. 

(17.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

IV. 

(18.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

V. 

(19.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

VI. 

(20.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

VII. 

(21.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

VIII. 

(22.) 

'  Concerning 

Chap. 

IX. 

(23.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

X. 

(24.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XI. 

(25-) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XII. 

(26.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XIII. 

(-27.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XIV. 

(28.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XV. 

(29.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XVI. 

(30.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XVII. 

(3I-) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XVIII. 

(32.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XIX. 

(33-) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XX. 

(34-) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XXI. 

(35-) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XXII. 

(36.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XXIII. 

(37-) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XXIV. 

(38.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XXV. 

(39-) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XXVI. 

(40.) 

Concerning 

Chap. 

XXVII. 

(41.) 

Concerning 

••• ••• ••■ •  • 


•  •**••••>... 


aeon  or  age ... 

the  creation , 

angels    , 

the  devil  and  demons, 
the  visible  creation     . 

the  Heaven      

light,  fire,  the  luminaries,  sun,  moon  and  stars. 

air  and  winds 

the  waters    

earth  and  its  products    

Paradise 

Man 


.  •.....•.*•*.......«.. ... 


Pleasures .... 

Pain 

Fear 

Anger  , 

Imagination. 

Sensation 

Thought  .... 
Memory  


Conception  and  Articulation 

Passion  and  Energy   

Energy     

what  is  Voluntary  and  what  is  Involuntary    

what  is  in  our  own  power,  that  is,  concerning  Free-will 

Events 

the  reason  of  our  endowment  with  Free-will 


18 
ib. 

ib. 
20 
21 
ib. 
22 
26 
ib. 
28 
29 
30 

33 

ib. 

ib. 
ib. 

34 
ib. 

35 
ib. 

ib. 

ib. 

38 
ib. 

39 
40 
ib. 


IV 


CONTENTS  OF  DOGMATIC  CHAPTERS. 


Chap.  XXVIII.  (42.) 
Chap.  XXIX.  (43.) 
Chap.       XXX.  (44.) 


Concerning  what  is  not  in  our  hands  ................ 

Concerning  Providence    ....... 

Concerning  Prescience  and  Predestination 


•  «  t  M  «  an  ■ 


•  •*••  •>* 


41 
ib. 
42 


rHAR" 

I. 

(45) 

Chap. 

II. 

(46.) 

Chap. 

III. 

(470 

Chap. 

IV. 

(48.) 

Chap. 

V. 

(49-) 

Chap. 

VI. 

(5o.) 

Chap. 

VII. 

(Si-) 

Chap. 

VIII. 

(52.) 

Chap. 

IX. 

(S3-) 

Chap. 

X. 

(54-) 

Chap. 

XI. 

(55-) 

Cha».  XII.  (56.) 


Chap. 

XIII. 

(57.) 

Chap. 

XIV. 

(58- ) 

Chap. 

XV. 

(59-) 

Chap. 

XVI. 

(60.) 

Chap. 

XVII. 

(61.) 

Chap. 

XVIII. 

(62.) 

Chap. 

XIX. 

(63.) 

Chap. 

XX. 

(64.) 

Chap. 

XXI. 

(65-) 

Chap. 

XXII. 

(66.) 

Chap. 

XXIII. 

(67) 

Chap. 

XXIV. 

(68.) 

Chap. 

XXV. 

(69.) 

Chap. 

XXVI. 

(7o.) 

Chap.     XXVII.  (71.) 


Chap.  XXVIII.  (72.) 
Chap.      XXIX.  (73.) 


BOOK    III. 

Concerning  the  Divine  CEconomy  and  God's  care  over  us,  and  concerning 
our  salvation    

Concerning  the  manner  in  which  the  Word  was  conceived,  and  concerning 
His  divine  incarnation  .._ 

Concerning  Christ's  two  natures,  in  opposition  to  those  who  hold  that  He  has 
only  one ~ « 

Concerning  the  manner  of  the  Mutual  Communication .. 

Concerning  the  number  of  the  Natures  ...... „ 

That  in  one  of  its  subsistences  the  divine  nature  is  united  in  its  entirety  to  the 
human  nature,  in  its  entirety  and  not  only  part  to  part 

Concerning  the  one  compound  subsistence  of  God  the  Word „ 

In  reply  to  those  who  ask  whether  the  two  natures  are  brought  under 
continuous  or  discontinuous  quantity 

In  reply  to  the  question  whether  there  is  any  Nature  that  has  no  Subsistence 

Concerning  the  Trisagium  ("  the  Thrice  Holy  ") 

Concerning  the  Nature  as  viewed  in  Species  and  in  Individual,  and  con- 
cerning the  difference  between  Union  and  Incarnation  :  and  how  this  is  to 
be  understood,  "The  one  Nature  of  God  the  Word  Incarnate"    

That  the  holy  Virgin  is  the  Mother  of  God  :  an  argument  directed  against  the 
Nestorians - 

Concerning  the  properties  of  the  two  Natures ...., 

Concerning  the  volitions  and  free-wills  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  

Concerning  the  energies  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ   „ 

In  reply  to  those  who  say,  "  If  man  has  two  natures  and  two  energies,  Christ 
must  be  held  to  have  three  natures  and  as  many  energies" 

Concerning  the  deification  of  the  nature  of  our  Lord's  flesh  and  of  His  will   ... 

Further   concerning  volitions   and  free-wills :    minds,    too,   and    knowledges 

till'  1    \V  ISt  lOlilS      -■    -11 --...  —--».----- .. T.TT|TfTT1|T  Tfi  |^-j>>Ii>>b>  1  inn  tlJ  mm 

Concerning  the  theandric  energy 

Concerning  the  natural  and  innocent  passions „ ...«, 

Concerning  ignorance  and  servitude 

Concerning  His  growth 

Concerning  His  Fear «......._ 

Concerning  our  Lord's  Praying .. 

Concerning  the  Appropriation «, 

Concerning  the  Passion  of  our  Lord's  body,  and  the   Impassibility  of  His 

divinity 

Concerning  the  fact  that  the  divinity  of  the  Word  remained  inseparable  from 
the  soul  and  the  body,  even  at  our  Lord's  death,  and  that  His  subsistence 

continued  one     ^. «. 

Concerning  Corruption  and  Destruction 

Concerning  the  Descent  to  Hades 


.  —*  •••  *  **  • 


•  ••■•••«•■ 


45 
46 

ib. 
48 
49 

50 
51 

52 

53 

ib. 

54 

55 
57 
ib. 

60 

64 
65 

66 
67 
68 
69 
ib. 
70 
ib. 

71 
ib. 


ib. 
72 
ib. 


Chap. 
Chap. 
Chap. 


Chap. 


BOOK    IV. 

I.  (74.)     Concerning  what  followed  the  Resurrection „...  74 

II.    (75-)     Concerning  the  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father ib. 

III.  (76.)     In  reply  to  those  who  say,  "  If  Christ  has  two  natures,  either  ye  do  service 

to  the  creature  in  worshipping  created  nature,  or  ye  say  that  there  is  one 

nature  to  be  worshipped,  and  another  not  to  be  worshipped"    ib. 

IV.  (77.)     Why  it  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  not  the  Father  or  the  Spirit,  that  became 

man:  and  what  having  become  man  He  achieved h 75 


CONTENTS  OF  DOGMATIC  CHAPTERS. 


Chap. 

V. 

(78.) 

Chap. 

VI. 

(79-) 

Chap. 

VII. 

(80.) 

Chap. 

VIII. 

(81.) 

Chap. 

IX. 

(82.) 

Chap. 

X. 

(83.) 

Chap. 

XI. 

(84.) 

Chap. 

XII. 

(85.) 

Chap. 

XIII. 

(86.) 

Chap. 

XIV. 

(87-) 

Chap. 

XV. 

(SS.) 

Chap. 

XVI. 

(89) 

Chap. 

XVII. 

(90.) 

Chap. 

XVIII. 

(91.) 

Chap. 

XIX. 

(92.) 

Chap. 

XX. 

(93-) 

Chap. 

XXI. 

(94.) 

Chap. 

XXII 

(95-) 

Chap. 

XXIII 

(96.) 

Chap. 

XXIV 

(97) 

Chap. 

XXV 

.  (98.) 

Chap. 

XXVI 

(990 

Chap. 

XXVII 

.  (100. 

In  reply  to  those  who  ask  if  Christ's  subsistence  is  create  or  uncreate „ 

Concerning  the  question,  when  Christ  was  called     

In  answer  to  those  who  enquire  whether  the  holy  Mother  of  God  bore  two 

natures,  and  whether  two  natures  hung  upon  the  Cross  .• 

How  the  Only-begotten  Son  of  God  is  called  first-born  

Concerning  Faith  and  Baptism    

Concerning  Faith 

Concerning  the  Cross  and  here  further  concerning  Faith 

Concerning  Worship  towards  the  East    

Concerning  the  holy  and  immaculate  Mysteries  of  the  Lord    

Concerning  our  Lord's  genealogy  and  concerning  the  holy  Mother  of  God 

Concerning  the  honour  due  to  the  Saints  and  their  remains    

Concerning  Images     

Concerning  Scripture -.. — 

Regarding  the  things  said  concerning  Christ „ 

That  God  is  not  the  cause  of  evils  ». 

That  there  are  not  two  Kingdoms   

The  purpose  for  which  God  in  His  foreknowledge  created  persons  who  would 

sin  and  not  repent » 

Concerning  the  law  of  God  and  the  law  of  sin „ ^. 

Against  the  Jews  on  the  question  of  the  Sabbath    „ 

Concerning  Virginity t 

Concerning  the  Circumcision • 

Concerning  the  Antichrist   

)  Concerning  the  Resurrection  


PACE 

76 
ib. 

ib. 

77 

ib. 

79 
ib. 
81 
ib. 

84 
86 
88 

89 
90 
92 
93 

94 
ib. 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 


Index  of  Scripture  Passages 
Index  of  Subjects * 


103 
105 


PROLOGUE. 


FROM   THE   LATIN   OF  THE   EDITION   OF  MICHAEL   LEQUIEN, 
AS   GIVEN    IN    MIGNE'S    PATROLOGY. 


After  the  rules  of  Christian  dialectic  and 
the  review  of  the   errors  of  ancient  heresies 
comes  at  last  the  book  "  Concerning  the  Or- 
thodox Faith."    In  this  book  John  of  Damas- 
cus retains  the  same  order  as  was  adopted  by 
Theodoret  in  his  "  Epitome  of  Divine  Dog- 
mas," but  takes  a  different  method.     For  the 
former,  by  the  sheer  weight  of  his  own  genius, 
framed    various    kinds    of  arguments    against 
heretics,  adducing  the  testimony  of  the  sacred 
page,  and  thus  he  composed  a  concise  treatise 
of  Theology.     Our  author,  however,   did   not 
confine  himself  to  Scripture,  but  gathered  to- 
gether also  the  opinions  of  the  holy  Fathers, 
and  produced  a  work  marked  with  equal  per- 
spicuity  and  brevity,  and    forming  an    unex- 
hausted storehouse  of  tradition  in  which  no- 
thing is  to  be  found  that  has  not  been  either 
sanctioned  by  the  oecumenical  synods  or  ac- 
cepted by  the  approved  leaders  of  the  Church. 
He   followed,   indeed,    chiefly    Gregory   of 
Nazianzus,  who,  from  the  great  accuracy  of  his 
erudition  in  divine  matters,  earned  the  title 
"  The  Theologian,"  and  who  has  left  scarcely 
any  chapter  of  Christian  learning  untouched 
in  his  surviving  works,  and  is  free  from  any 
taint  or  suspicion  of  the  slightest  error.     John 
had  read  his  books  with  such  assiduity  that 
he  seemed  to  hold  them  all  in  the  embrace 
of  his  faithful  memory.    Wherefore  throughout 
this  work  you  may  hear  not  so  much  John 
of    Damascus    as    Gregory    the    Theologian 
expounding   the   mysteries    of   the    orthodox 
faith.     John    further   made  use   of  Basil   the 
Great,    of  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  especially 
of  Nemesius,  bishop  of  Emesa  in  Syria,  the 
most   beloved   of  all;    likewise    of   Cyril    of 
Alexandria,   Leo  the  Great,   Leontius  of  By- 
zantium, the  martyr  Maximus  :  also  of  Atha- 
nasius,  Chrysostom,  Epiphanius,  and,  not  to 
mention  others,  that  writer  who  took  the  name 
of  Dionysius  the  Areopagite.     Out  of  all  these 
he  culled   on  every  hand  the  flower  of  their 
opinions,  and  concocted  most  sweet  honey  of 
soundest  doctrine.     Foi    his  aim  was,  not  to 
strike  out  views  of  his  own  or  anything  novel, 
but  rather  to  collect  into  one  single  theological 
work  the  opinions  of  the  ancients  which  were 
scattered  through  various  volumes.     And,  in- 
deed, in  order  that  the  reader  may  more  readily 


perceive  the  method  of  this  most  careful 
teacher,  we  shall  carefully  note  in  the  margin 
the  names  of  the  authors  and  of  the  books 
from  which  he  copied  each  separate  opinion. 

To   John  of  Damascus,   therefore,   belongs 
the   merit   of  being    the   first    to  compose  a 
volume  packed  with  the  sentences  of  catholic 
teachers.      Accordingly    his    authority   among 
theologians  was  always  weighty,  not  only  in 
the  East  but  even  in  the  West  and  with  the 
Latins :  all  the  more  so  after  the  translation 
into    Latin    of    his    book    "  Concerning    the 
Orthodox    Faith,"    by     Burgundio,    a    citizen 
of  Pisa,  during   the   Pontificate   of  Eugenius 
the   Third.      Further   it   was  this    translation 
that   was    used   by   that   master   of  sentences, 
St.  Thomas,  and  other  later  theologians,  down 
till  the  time  when    at   the  beginning  of  the 
1 6th    century  Jacobus    Faber   Stapulensis  at- 
tempted to  produce  a  more  perfect  translation 
than  was   the  old  one  with  its  uncouth  and 
barbarous  diction.     But  as  this  one,  too,  had 
many   faults,   Jacobus    Billius,   in   the   course 
of  the  same  century,  completed  a  version  of 
greater    elegance   but  yet   lacking  in   careful- 
ness and  brevity.     For,  as  Combefis  remarked, 
"  in  translating  the  Damascene  Billius  shewed 
the  rawness  of  a  recruit."     Combefis  himself, 
however,  considered  the   translation    of   Billy 
of  no  little  worth ;   for  when   he  was  toiling 
at   a   new   edition    of  the  works  of  John  of 
Damascus,  he  did  not  think  it  necessary  to 
make  a  new  translation  once  more,  but  was 
quite  content  to  emend  the  earlier  one.     For 
he  was  rightly  aware  that  all  the  most  learned 
interpreters  of  lengthy  tomes  slip  into  many 
errors,  and  that  it  is  much  easier  to  improve 
on  the  errors  of  others  than  to  detect  one's 
own.     Thus  our  translation  will  represent  that 
of  Billius  purged  of  its  blemishes  and  restored 
to  a  more  concise  style.     But  in  order  that 
our  edition  should  go  forth  in  a  more  accurate 
shape   than  the  rest,  besides  using  the  older 
translations    and    the    various    copies    to    the 
number  of  twenty  or  more  codices,  collated 
by  my    own    hand,    I   have  moreover    revised 
the  Greek  phraseology  and  diction   in   those 
places  of  the  Greek  Fathers  which  the  Damas- 
cene   has    massed     together.      Nay,     further, 
omitting    both    the    shorter    commentaries    oi 


•  •  • 

Vlll 


PROLOGUE. 


Faber  on  each  chapter  and  also  the  longer 
ones  of  Judocus  Clictoveus  of  Neoportua, 
neither  of  whom  contributes  much,  if  anything, 
to  the  intelligent  understanding  of  the  Greek 
Fathers,  I  have  attempted  by  fuller  annota- 
tions to  place  before  the  eyes  of  all  a  speci- 
men of  eastern  theology,  drawn  alike  from 
those  teachers  whom  the  Damascene  copied 
and  from  Greeks  of  later  date  whom  I  had 
the  privilege  of  consulting. 

The  customary  division  among  the  Latins 
of  the  work  "  Concerning  the  Orthodox  Faith  " 
into  four  books  is  found  in  no  Greek  codex, 
nor  in  the  Greek  edition  of  Verona.  And, 
further,  that  division  is  not  met  with  in  the 
old  manuscripts  of  the  original  Latin  trans- 
lation, except  as  a  chance  note  written  in  ink 
by  a  second  and  later  hand  on  the  margins  of 
some  of  them.  Hence  Marcus  Hopperus  ap- 
pears to  be  mistaken  in  ascribing  in  the  dedi- 
catory epistle  of  the  Graeco-Latin  edition  of 
Basil  the  division  into  four  books  to  the  Latin 
translator  :  that  is,  unless  I  am  mistaken,  to 
Faber,  whose  edition  he  published.  Traces 
of  this,  however,  exist  in  the  books  of  St. 
Thomas  Aquinas  I  therefore  hold  that  this 
mode  of  division  was  devised  and  introduced 
by  the  Latins  in  imitation  of  the  four  books 
of  "Sentences"  of  Peter  Lombard.  Codex 
Regius  n.  3445,  and  that  is  a  veiy  late 
one,  alone  seems  to  divide  the  "  De  Fide 
Orthodoxa "  into  two  parts,  the  first,  or  7repi 
-f?s  Oeoh.yias,  dealing  indeed  with  the  one 
triune   God,    the  Creator   and   Provider,    and 

the    second,    Or   nepl    rrjs   oiKovopias,    with    God 

Incarnate,  the  Redeemer  and  Rewarder.  But 
an  objection  to  this  division  is  the  clear  con- 
nection between  chapter  43,  in  which  the 
Incarnation,  or  "  Oeconomia  Divina,"  is  dis- 
cussed, and  the  words  which  immediately 
precede  it  in  the  end  of  chapter  42,  which 
is  entitled  "On  Praedestination,"  making 
either  chapter  part  of  one  continuous  dis- 
cussion. This  fault  cannot  be  taken  to  the 
other  division  into  four  parts.  But  in  order 
not  to  startle  the  reader  accustomed  to  the 
former  division  with  too  much  novelty,  I 
have,  following  Hopperus,  assigned  indeed  to 
the  Greek  chapters  the  same  numbers  as  were 
marked  in  the  Greek  codices,  but  I  have  not 
hesitated  to  divide  the  Latin  translation  into 
four  books. 

I  have  come  across  no  edition  of  the  old 
Latin  translation ;  but  the  version  of  Jaco- 
bus Faber  was  issued  in  Paris  by  Judocus 
Clictoveus  from  the  press  of  Henry  Stephen 
in  the  year  15 12,  along  with  commentaries. 
Next,  in  the  year  1535,  Henry  Pet,  the 
printer  of  Basle,  published  the  existing  works 
of  St.  John  of  Damascus,  and  amongst  them 


the  four  books  "Concerning  the  Orthodox 
Faith,  as  translated  by  Jacobus  Faber  of 
Stapula,"  but  without  any  commentary.  After 
some  years  the  same  Henry  in  a  second  edition 
added  the  shorter  commentaries  of  Clictoveus, 
and  again  in  the  edition  published  in  the  year 
1537.  In  the  preface  to  these  editions  there 
occurs  among  others  the  following  sentence, 
"  Now  for  the  first  time  are  added  annotations 
explaining  all  the  difficulties  and  the  hard  and 
lofty  passages."  For  of  a  truth  I  know  no 
older  edition  in  which  those  explanations,  such 
as  they  are,  are  given.  Further,  the  author  of 
these  is  asserted  by  Henricus  Gravius,  of  the 
order  of  Preachers,  in  his  own  Latin  edition  of 
the  works  of  holy  John  of  Damascus,  which  he 
brought  out  at  Cologne  from  the  press  of  Peter 
Quentel,  in  the  year  1546,  to  have  been  Jacobus 
Faber,  and  of  a  surety  indeed  in  certain  places, 
and  in  especial  where  the  most  holy  mystery 
of  the  Eucharist  is  under  discussion,  the  anno- 
tations are  somewhat  frigid  in  character  and 
do  not  express  with  sufficient  fulness  the 
catholic  faith.  And  this  cannot  be  said  with- 
out pain,  for  the  sake  of  a  man  whom  otherwise 
I  should  look  up  to  as  worthy  of  veneration, 
as  almost  one  of  my  own  house,  had  he  not 
proved  himself  a  traitor  to  his  ancestral  re- 
ligion or  at  least  somewhat  too  partial  to  in- 
novators. As  to  the  edition  of  our  Gravius, 
learned  as  he  was  in  both  Latin  and  Greek, 
he  revised  the  translation,  Jacobus  Faber's 
translation,  and  compared  it  with  the  Greek 
text  and  illustrated  it  with  very  short  scholia, 
"for  the  sake  of  heretics,"  as  he  said  in  the 
dedicatory  letter  to  Oswald,  especially  where 
they  themselves  try  in  vain  to  shake  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  as  stated  by  the 
Damascene. 

The  book  "Concerning  the  Orthodox  Faith" 
Donatus  Veronensis  caused  to  be  printed  at 
Verona  first  in  Greek  only,  and  presented  it 
to  Clement  the  Seventh  in  the  year  1531. 
Not  till  the  year  1548  did  he  produce  a 
version  containing  both  the  Greek  and  Latin, 
and  again  in  the  year  1575.  Next,  in  the  year 
T577>  Jacobus  Billy  published  at  Paris  his 
own  translation  without  the  Greek  text  :  and 
it  was  printed  again  in  that  same  city  in  the 
years  1603  and  1617. 

Here  it  will  not  be  superfluous  to  call  to 
mind  that  the  great  part  of  the  first  book, 
as  they  say,  of  the  work  "  Concerning  the 
Orthodox  Faith"  exists  as  the  sixth  volume 
of  the  works  of  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  inscribed 
in  that  teacher's  name,  a  result  to  be  doubtless 
attributed  to  the  carelessness  of  some  copyist 
who  found  these  writings  of  the  Damascene 
along  with  others  of  Cyril. 


AN    EXACT    EXPOSITION    OF   THE 
ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


BOOK    I. 


CHAPTER  L 

That  the  Deity  is  incomprehensible,  and  that 
we  ought  not  to  pry  into  and  meddle  with  the 
things  which  have  not  been  delivered  to  us  by 
the  holy  Prophets,  and  Apostles,  and  Evan- 
gelists. 

No  one  hath  seen  God  at  any  time;  the  Only- 
begotten  Son,  which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father, 
He  hath  declared  Him  l.  The  Deity,  therefore, 
is  ineffable  and  incomprehensible.  For  no  one 
knoweth  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  nor  the  Son, 
save  the  Father2.  And  the  Holy  Spirit,  too, 
so  knows  the  things  of  God  as  the  spirit  of  the 
man  knows  the  things  that  are  in  him 3.  More- 
over, after  the  first  and  blessed  nature  no  one, 
not  of  men  only,  but  even  of  supramundane 
powers,  and  the  Cherubim,  I  say,  and  Sera- 
phim themselves,  has  ever  known  God,  save 
he  to  whom  He  revealed  Himself. 

God,  however,  did  not  leave  us  in  absolute 
ignorance.     For  the  knowledge  of  God's  exist- 
ence has  been  implanted   by  Him  in  all  by 
nature.     This  creation,  too,  and  its  mainten- 
ance,  and   its  government,   proclaim  the  ma- 
jesty of  the   Divine  nature*.     Moreover,  by 
the  Law  and  the  Prophets  s  in  former  times, 
and  afterwards  by  His  Only-begotten  Son,  our 
Lord  and  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  He 
disclosed  to  us  the  knowledge  of  Himself  as 
that  was  possible  for  us.     All  things,  therefore, 
that  have  been  delivered  to  us  by  Law  and 
Prophets   and    Apostles   and    Evangelists   we 
receive,  and  know,  and  honour6,  seeking  for 
nothing  beyond  these.     For  God,  being  good, 
is   the  cause  of  all  good,  subject  neither  to 
envy  nor  to  any  passion  7.     For  envy  is  far 
removed   from    the    Divine   nature,    which    is 
both  passionless  and  only  good.     As  knowing 
all  things,  therefore,  and  providing  for  what 


'  St.  John  i.  i8(R.V.). 
3  i  Cor.  ii.  ii. 
5  Greg .  Naz.,  Orat.  34. 
7  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  34. 

VOL.  IX. 


2  St.  Matt.  xi.  27. 
4  Wisd.  xiii.  5. 
6  Dionys.,  be  div.  nam.,  c.  I. 


is  profitable  for  each,  He  revealed  that  which 
it  was  to  our  profit  to  know;  but  what  we 
were  unable8  to  bear  He  kept  secret.  With 
these  things  let  us  be  satisfied,  and  let  us 
abide  by  them,  not  removing  everlasting 
boundaries,  nor  overpassing  the  divine  tra- 
dition 9. 

CHAPTER   II. 

Concerning  things  utterable  and  things  unutter- 
able, and  things  knowable  and  things  unknow- 
able. 

It  is  necessary,  therefore,  that  one  who 
wishes  to  speak  or  to  hear  of  God  should 
understand  clearly  that  alike  in  the  doctrine 
of  Deity  and  in  that  of  the  Incarnation  \ 
neither  are  all  things  unutterable  nor  all  utter- 
able;  neither  all  unknowable  nor  all  knowable2. 
But  the  knowable  belongs  to  one  order,  and 
the  utterable  to  another;  just  as  it  is  one  thing 
to  speak  and  another  thing  to  know.  Many 
of  the  things  relating  to  God,  therefore,  that 
are  dimly  understood  cannot  be  put  into  fit- 
ting terms,  but  on  things  above  us  we  cannot 
do  else  than  express  ourselves  according  to 
our  limited  capacity;  as,  for  instance,  when 
we  speak  of  God  we  use  the  terms  sleep,  and 
wrath,  and  regardlessness,  hands,  too,  and  feet, 
and  such  like  expressions. 

We,  therefore,  both  know  and  confess  that 
God  is  without  beginning,  without  end,  eternal 
and  everlasting,  uncreate,  unchangeable,  in- 
variable, simple,  uncompound,  incorporeal, 
invisible,  impalpable,  uncircumscribed,  infi- 
nite, incognisable,  indefinable,  incomprehen- 
sible, good,  just,  maker  of  all  things  created, 
almighty,  all-ruling,  all-surveying,  of  all  overseer, 
sovereign,  judge;  and  that  God  is  One,  that 


8  Reading   onep  Se  ovk   iSm  a/jf  0a  for  oir«p   Si  ovv  iSwdfiedti. 
Cod.  Reg.  3370  gives  icai  0  ov  SwapeS*. 

9  Prov.  xxii.  28. 

1  ra  re  ttjs  OeoAoyi'as,  to  t«  t>)s  oiKovofiiat. 

2  Dionys.,  De  div.  nom.  c.  1  ;  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  34  and  37. 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


:s  to  say,  one  essence3;  and  that  He  is  known*, 
and  has  His  being  in  three  subsistences,  in 
Father,  I  say,  and  Son  and  Holy  Spirit ;  and 
that  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  are  one  in  all  respects,  except  in  that  of 
not  being  begotten,  that  of  being  begotten,  and 
that  of  procession;  and  that  the  Only-begotten 
Son  and  Word  of  God  and  God,  in  His  bowels 
of  mercy,  for  our  salvation,  by  the  good  plea- 
sure of  God  and  the  co-operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  being  conceived  without  seed,  was  born 
uncorruptedly  of  the  Holy  Virgin  and  Mother 
of  God,  Mary,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  became 
of  her  perfect  Man ;  and  that  the  Same  is  at 
once  perfect  God  and  perfect  Man,  of  two 
natures,  Godhead  and  Manhood,  and  in  two 
natures  possessing  intelligence,  will  and  energy, 
and  freedom,  and,  in  a  word,  perfect  according 
to  the  measure  and  proportion  proper  to  each, 
at  once  to  the  divinity,  I  say,  and  to  the  hu- 
manity, yet  to  one  composite  person  s ;  and 
that  He  suffered  hunger  and  thirst  and  weari- 
ness, and  was  crucified,  and  for  three  days 
submitted  to  the  experience  of  death  and 
burial,  and  ascended  to  heaven,  from  which 
also  He  came  to  us,  and  shall  come  again. 
And  the  Holy  Scripture  is  witness  to  this  and 
the  whole  choir  of  the  Saints. 

But  neither  do  we  know,  nor  can  we  tell, 
what  the  essence6  of  God  is,  or  how  it  is  in 
all,  or  how  the  Only-begotten  Son  and  God, 
having  emptied  Himself,  became  Man  of  virgin 
biood,  made  by  another  law  contrary  to  nature, 
or  how  He  walked  with  dry  feet  upon  the 
waters  7.  It  is  not  within  our  capacity,  therefore, 
to  say  anything  about  God  or  even  to  think 
of  Him,  beyond  the  things  which  have  been 
divinely  revealed  to  us,  whether  by  word  or 
by  manifestation,  by  the  divine  oracles  at  once 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  New  8. 

CHAPTER   III. 

Proof  that  there  is  a  God. 

That  there  is  a  God,  then,  is  no  matter  of 
doubt  to  those  who  receive  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, the  Old  Testament,  I  mean,  and  the 
New ;  nor  indeed  to  most  of  the  Greeks. 
For,  as  we  said  9,  the  knowledge  of  the  ex- 
istence of  God  is  implanted  in  us  by  nature. 
But  since  the  wickedness  of  the  Evil  One  has 
prevailed  so  mightily  against  man's  nature 
as  even  to  drive  some  into  denying  the  ex- 
istence of  God,  that  most  foolish  and  woe- 
fulest  pit  of  destruction  (whose  folly  David, 
revealer  of  the  Divine  meaning,  exposed  when 

3  oitaia,  ajWtance,  being. 

4  u7ro<rTa<Te<ri,  hypostases,  persons. 

5  fLi<f  Hi  trvvBirw  virotnatrei..  6  oixria,  substance,  being. 
7  Dionys.,  De  div.  nom.,  c.  2.  8  Ibid.  c.  1. 

9  Su/>r.  c   j  ;  cf.  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  34. 


he  said  9,  The  fool  said  in  his  heart,  T7iere  is  no 
God),  so  the  disciples  of  the  Lord  and  His 
Apostles,  made  wise  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
working  wonders  in  His  power  and  grace, 
took  them  captive  in  the  net  of  miracles  and 
drew  them  up  out  of  the  depths  of  ignorance  r 
to  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  GoJ.  In  like 
manner  also  their  successors  in  grace  and 
worth,  both  pastors  and  teachers,  having  re- 
ceived the  enlightening  grace  of  the  Spirit, 
were  wont,  alike  by  the  power  of  miracles  and 
the  word  of  grace,  to  enlighten  those  walking 
in  darkness  and  to  bring  back  the  wanderers 
into  the  way.  But  as  for  us  who z  are  not 
recipients  either  of  the  gift  of  miracles  or  the 
gift  of  teaching  (for  indeed  we  have  rendered 
ourselves  unworthy  of  these  by  our  passion 
for  pleasure),  come,  let  us  in  connection  with 
this  theme  discuss  a  few  of  those  things  which 
have  been  delivered  to  us  on  this  subject 
by  the  expounders  of  grace,  calling  on  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

All  things,  that  exist,  are  either  created 
or  uncreated.  If,  then,  things  are  created,  it 
follows  that  they  are  also  wholly  mutable.  For 
things,  whose  existence  originated  in  change, 
must  also  be  subject  to  change,  whether  it 
be  that  they  perish  or  that  they  become 
other  than  they  are  by  act  of  wills.  But 
if  things  are  un-created  they  must  in  all 
consistency  be  also  wholly  immutable.  For 
things  which  are  opposed  in  the  nature  of 
their  existence  must  also  be  opposed  in  the 
mode  of  their  existence,  that  is  to  say,  must 
have  opposite  properties  :  who,  then,  will  re- 
fuse to  grant  that  all  existing  things,  not  only 
such  as  come  within  the  province  of  the 
senses,  but  even  the  very  angels,  are  subject 
to  change  and  transformation  and  movement 
of  various  kinds  ?  For  the  things  appertaining 
to  the  rational  world,  I  mean  angels  and  spirits 
and  demons,  are  subject  to  changes  of  will, 
whether  it  is  a  progression  or  a  retrogression 
in  goodness,  whether  a  struggle  or  a  surren- 
der ;  while  the  others  suffer  changes  of  gener- 
ation and  destruction,  of  increase  and  decrease, 
of  quality  and  of  movement  in  space.  Things 
then  that  are  mutable  are  also  wholly  created. 
But  things  that  are  created  must  be  the  work 
of  some  maker,  and  the  maker  cannot  have 
been  created.  For  if  he  had  been  created, 
he  also  must  surely  have  been  created  by 
some  one,  and  so  on  till  we  arrive  at  something 
uncreated.  The  Creator,  then,  being  uncreated, 
is  also  wholly  immutable.  And  what  could 
this  be  other  than  Deity  ? 


9  Ps.  xiv.  i  (E.V.). 

1  The  readings  vary  between  ayvuxrias  and  ayvoia 

2  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  34. 

3  Reading  npoa.i.pe<ri.v  ;  a  variant  is  rpomfiv. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


And  even  the  very  continuity  of  the  creation, 
and  its  preservation  and  government,  teach 
us  that  there  does  exist  a  Deity,  who  supports 
and  maintains  and  preserves  and  ever  provides 
for  this  universe.  For  how*  could  opposite 
natures,  such  as  fire  and  water,  air  and  earth, 
have  combined  with  each  other  so  as  to  form 
one  complete  world,  and  continue  to  abide 
in  indissoluble  union,  were  there  not  some 
omnipotent  power  which  bound  them  together 
and  always  is  preserving  them  from  dissolu- 
tion ? 

What  is  it  that  gave  order  to  things  of 
heaven  and  things  of  earth,  and  all  those 
things  that  move  in  the  air  and  in  the  water, 
or  rather  to  what  was  in  existence  before 
these,  viz.,  to  heaven  and  earth  and  air  and 
the  elements  of  fire  and  water?  What5  was 
it  that  mingled  and  distributed  these  ?  What 
was  it  that  set  these  in  motion  and  keeps 
them  in  their  unceasing  and  unhindered 
course 6  ?  Was  it  not  the  Artificer  of  these 
things,  and  He  Who  hath  implanted  in  every- 
thing the  law  whereby  the  universe  is  carried 
on  and  directed?  Who  then  is  the  Artificer 
of  these  things?  Is  it  not  He  Who  created 
them  and  brought  them  into  existence.  For 
we  shall  not  attribute  such  a  power  to 
the  spontaneous  ?.  For,  supposing  their  com- 
ing into  existence  was  due  to  the  sponta- 
neous ;  what  of  the  power  that  put  all  in 
order8?  And  let  us  grant  this,  if  you  please. 
What  of  that  which  has  preserved  and  kept 
them  in  harmony  with  the  original  laws  of 
their  existence  9  ?  Clearly  it  is  something  quite 
distinct  from  the  spontaneous  \  And  what 
could  this  be  other  than  Deity 2  ? 

CHAPTER   IV. 

Concerning  the  nature  of  Deity  •  that  it  is 
incomprehensible. 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  there  is  a  God.  But 
what  He  is  in  His  essence  and  nature  is 
absolutely  incomprehensible  and  unknowable. 
For  it  is  evident  that  He  is  incorporeal 3. 
For  how  could  that  possess  body  which  is 
infinite,  and  boundless,  and  formless,  and  in- 
tangible and  invisible,  in  short,  simple  and 
not  compound  ?     How  could  that  be  immu- 

*  A  than.,  Cont.  Gent.  5  Various  reading,  Who, 

6  Greg.  .Vaz.,  Orat.  34. 

7  The  Greek  is  ™  auToju.aTo>,  to  the  automatic  ;  perhaps  =  to 
the  accidental,  or.  to  chance. 

8  Or,  It' hose  was  the  disposing  0/  them  in  order* 

9  Or,  Whose  are  the  preserving  of  them,  and  the  keeping  0/ 
them  in  accordance  with  the  principles  under  which  they  were 
first  placed  ? 

1  napa  to  avTOftarov  ;  or,  quite  other  than  the  spontaneous, 
or,  than  chance. 

2  A  than.,  De  Incarn.  Verbi,  near  the  beginning.  Greg.  Naz., 
Orat.  34. 

3  Various  reading,  //  is  evidtnt  that  the  divine  (to  ©eJoi ) 
it  incorporeal. 


table4  which  is  circumscribed  and  subject  to 
passion  ?  And  how  could  that  be  passionless 
which  is  composed  of  elements  and  is  resolved 
again  into  them?  For  combination5  is  the 
beginning  of  conflict,  and  conflict  of  separ- 
ation, and  separation  of  dissolution,  and  dis- 
solution is  altogether  foreign  to  God  6. 

Again,  how  will  it  also  be  maintained  J  that 
God  permeates  and  fills  the  universe?  as  the 
Scriptures  say,  Do  not  I  fill  heaven  and  earth, 
saith  the  Lord3?  For  it  is  an  impossibility 9 
that  one  body  should  permeate  other  bodies 
without  dividing  and  being  divided,  and  with- 
out being  enveloped  and  contrasted,  in  the 
same  way  as  all  fluids  mix  and  commingle. 

But  if  some  say  that  the  body  is  immaterial, 
in  the  same  way  as  the  fifth  body  *  of  which 
the  Greek  philosophers  speak  (which  body 
is  an  impossibility),  it  will  be  wholly  subject 
to  motion  like  the  heaven.  For  that  is  what 
they  mean  by  the  fifth  body.  Who  then 
is  it  that  moves  it  ?  For  everything  that  is 
moved  is  moved  by  another  thing.  And  who 
again  is  it  that  moves  that?  and  so  on  to 
infinity  till  we  at  length  arrive  at  something 
motionless.  For  the  first  mover  is  motionless, 
and  that  is  the  Deity.  And  must  not  that, 
which  is  moved  be  circumscribed  in  space  ? 
The  Deity,  then,  alone  is  motionless,  moving 
the  universe  by  immobility 2.  So  then  it  must 
be  assumed  that  the  Deity  is  incorporeal. 

But  even  this  gives  no  true  idea  of  His  es- 
sence, to  say  that  He  is  unbegotten,  and  without 
beginning,  changeless  and  imperishable,  and 
possessed  of  such  other  qualities  as  we  are  wont 
to  ascribe  to  God  and  His  environments  For 
these  do  not  indicate  what  He  is,  but  what 
He  is  not  1     But  when  we  would  explain  what 


4  Text,  arpciTTOv.  Most  MSS.  read  o-en-ToV.  So,  too,  Greg. 
Naz.,  Orat.  34,  from  which  these  words  are  taken.  An  old  inter- 
pretation is  '  venerabile  est.'  But  in  the  opinion  of  Corabefis, 
Gregory's  text  is  corrupt,  and  aT/>e7TT0i>  should  be  read,  which 
reading  is  also  supported  by  various  authorities  including  three 
Cod.  Reg.  :  cf.  also  De  Trinit.  in  Cyril. 

5  trvvOeffLS. 

6  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  32,  34'.^ 

7  Text,  trw0>jo-eTai :  various  reading,  <Tvv6-qcrcTai. 

8  Jer.  xxiii.  24.  9  Greg.  Naz.  ut  supr. 

1  The  reference  is_  to  the  Pythagorean  and  Aristotelian  ideas 
of  the  heavens  as  being  like  the  body  of  Deity,  something  un- 
corrupt,  different  from  the  four  elements,  and  therefore  called 
a  fifth  body  or  element  (oroixe'°i').  In  his  Meteor,  i.  3,  De  Ca>lo 
i.  3,  &c,  Aristotle  speaks  of  the  Ether  as  extending  from  the 
heaven  of  the  fixed  stars  down  to  the  moon,  as  of  a  nature  spe- 
cially adapted  for  circular  motion,  as  the  first  element  in  rank, 
but  as  the  fifth,  "if  we  enumerate  beginning  with  the  elements 
directly  known  _by  the  senses  ....  the  subsequently  so-called 
nefXTTTOv  o-toix*'<»'.  quinta  essentia."  The  other  elem»nts,  he 
taught,  had  the  upward  motion,  or  the  downward  ;  the  earth 
having  the  attribute  of  heaviness,  and  its  natural  place  in  the 
world  being  the  lowest;  fire  being  the  light  element,  and  "its 
place  the  sphere  next  adjoining  the  sphere  of  the  ether  "  See 
Ueberweg's  History  of  Philosophy,  Vol.  I.  p.  167,  Morris'5.  trans- 
lation, and  the  chapter  on  the  De  Coelo  in  Grote's  Aristotle. 
Vol    II.  pp.  .389,  &c. 

2  Greg.  Naz.  ut  supr. 

3  Or,  such  as  are  said  to  exist  in  the  case  of  God,  or  in  re- 
lation  to  God.  The  Greek  is,  00-0  ncpl  ©eoO,  f)  wept  ©ebv  ctvau 
AeycTcu. 

*  Greg.  Naz   ut  supr. 


U  2 


4 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


the  essence  of  anything  is,  we  must  not  speak 
only  negatively.  In  the  case  of  God,  however, 
it  is  impossible  to  explain  what  He  is  in  His 
essence,  and  it  befits  us  the  rather  to  hold 
discourse  about  His  absolute  separation  from 
all  things  s.  For  He  does  not  belong  to  the 
class  of  existing  things  :  not  that  He  has 
no  existence6,  but  that  He  is  above  all  existing 
things,  nay  even  above  existence  itself.  For 
if  all  forms  of  knowledge  have  to  do  with 
what  exists,  assuredly  that  which  is  above 
knowledge  must  certainly  be  also  above  es- 
sence "> :  and,  conversely,  that  which  is  above 
essence  ?  will  also  be  above  knowledge. 

God  then  is  infinite  and  incomprehensible  : 
and  all  that  is  comprehensible  about  Him 
is  His  infinity  and  incomprehensibility.  But 
all  that  we  can  affirm  concerning  God  does 
not  shew  forth  God's  nature,  but  only  the 
qualities  of  His  nature 8.  For  when  you  speak 
of  Him  as  good,  and  just,  and  wise,  and  so 
forth,  you  do  not  tell  God's  nature  but  only 
the  qualities  of  His  nature  9.  Further  there  are 
some  affirmations  which  we  make  concerning 
God  which  have  the  force  of  absolute  nega- 
tion :  for  example,  when  we  use  the  term 
darkness,  in  reference  to  God,  we  do  not 
mean  darkness  itself,  but  that  He  is  not  light 
but  above  light :  and  when  we  speak  of  Him 
as  light,  we  mean  that  He  is  not  darkness. 

CHAPTER   V. 

Proof  that  God  is  one  and  not  many. 

We  have,  then,  adequately  demonstrated  that 
there  is  a  God,  and  that  His  essence  is  in- 
comprehensible. But  that  God  is  one  *  and 
not  many  is  no  matter  of  doubt  to  those  who 
believe  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  For  the  Lord 
says  in  the  beginning  of  the  Law  :  /  am  the 
Lord  thy  God,  which  have  brought  thee  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt.  Thou  shall  have  no 
other  Gods  before  Ale2.  And  again  He  says, 
Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is  one 
Lord*.  And  in  Isaiah  the  prophet  we  read, 
For  J  am  the  first  God  and  I  am  the  last, 
and  beside  Me  the7-e  is  no  God.  Before  Me 
there  was  not  any  God,  nor  after  Me  will 
there  be  any  God,  and  beside  Me  there  is  no 
God*.     And  the  Lord,  too,  in  the  holy  gospels 


S  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  32,  34.  The  Greek  is,  oifcctdrcpop  Se 
fiaAAoy  ck  TTjs  airdvTuit'  a^aipeVew?  Troi€i<r&ai  tov  \6yov.  It  may 
be  given  thus  : — It  is  more  in  accordance  with  the  nature  0/  the 
case  rather  to  discourse  0/  Him  in  the  way  of  abstracting  from 
Him  a  II  that  belongs  to  us. 

*  Dionys. ,  De  Myst.  Theolog. 

7  Or,  above  being ;  v-nip  ovaiav. 

*  Or,  but  only  the  things  which  relate  to  His  nature.  The 
Greek  is,  o<ra  &i  \eyofifv  e»ri  0«oO  KarcufxuTiicb)?,  ov  tt)v  <\>v<tiv, 
«AAd  xa  7repi  tt\v  <f>v<riv  Sij\ol. 

9  Or,  the  things  that  relate  to  His  nature. 

1  Various  reading,  but  that  He  is  one.  a  Exod.  xx.  2,  > 

3  DeuL  vL  4.  4  Isai.  xliii.  10. 


speaketh  these  words  to  His  Father,  And  this 
is  life  eternal,   that  they  may  know    Thee  the      * 
only  true  God  s.     But  with  those  that  do  not 
believe  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  we  will  reason 
thus. 

The  Deity  is  perfect 6,  and  without  blemish 
in  goodness,  and  wisdom,  and  power,  without 
beginning,  without  end,  everlasting,  uncircum- 
scribed  ?,  and  in  short,  perfect  in  all  things. 
Should  we  say,  then,  that  there  are  many  Gods, 
we  must  recognise  difference  among  the  many. 
For  if  there  is  no  difference  among  them, 
they  are  one  rather  than  many.  But  if  there 
is  difference  among  them,  what  becomes  of 
the  perfectness  ?  For  that  which  comes  short 
of  perfection,  whether  it  be  in  goodness,  or 
power,  or  wisdom,  or  time,  or  place,  could 
not  be  God.  But  it  is  this  very  identity  in 
all  respects  that  shews  that  the  Deity  is  one 
and  not  many  8. 

Again,  if  there  are  many  Gods,  how  can 
one  maintain  that  God  is  uncircumscribed  ? 
For  where  the  one  would  be,  the  other  could 
not  be  9. 

Further,  how  could  the  world  be  governed 
by  many  and  saved  from  dissolution  and 
destruction,  while  strife  is  seen  to  rage  be- 
tween the  rulers  ?  For  difference  introduces 
strife1.  And  if  any  one  should  say  that  each 
rules  over  a  part,  what  of  that  which  estab- 
lished this  order  and  gave  to  each  his  par- 
ticular realm  ?  For  this  would  the  rather 
be  God.  Therefore,  God  is  one,  perfect,  un- 
circumscribed, maker  of  the  universe,  and  its 
preserver  and  governor,  exceeding  and  pre- 
ceding all  perfection. 

Moreover,  it  is  a  natural  necessity  that 
duality  should  originate  in  unity2. 

CHAPTER   VI. 

Concerning  the  Word  and  the  Son  of  God: 
a  reasoned  proof. 

So  then  this  one  and  only  God  is  not  Word- 
less 3.  And  possessing  the  Word,  He  will  have 
it  not  as  without  a  subsistence,  nor  as  having 
had  a  beginning,  nor  as  destined  to  cease  to 
be.  For  there  never  was  a  time  when  God 
was  not  Word  :  but  He  ever  possesses  His 
own  Word,  begotten  of  Himself,  not,  as  our 
word  is,  without  a  subsistence  and  dissolving 
into  air,  but  having  a  subsistence  in  Him  and 


5  St.  John  xvii.  3. 

6  See  Thomas  Aquin.  I.  qucest.  it,  Art.  4;  also  cf.  Book  iv., 
c.  21  beneath.  The  question  of  the  unity  of  the  Deity  is  similarly 
dealt  with  by  those  of  the  Fathers  who  wrote  against  the  Mar- 
cionites  and  the  Manichaeans,  and  by  Athenagoras. 

7  Or.  infinite  ;  antpiypatTTOv. 

8  /«/>-.  lib.  iv.  c.  21.  9  Greg.  Nyss.,  ProL  Catech. 
1  Greg-  Naz.,  Orat.  35. 

a  Cf.  Dionys.,  De  div.  nam.,  c  5.  15. 

3  a\oyov ;  without  Word,  or,  without  Reason. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE   ORTHODOX   FAITH. 


5 


life  and  perfection,  not  proceeding  out  of  Him- 
self but  ever  existing  within  Himself4.  For 
where  could  it  be,  if  it  were  to  go  outside 
Him?  For  inasmuch  as  our  nature  is  perish- 
able and  easily  dissolved,  our  word  is  also 
without  subsistence.  But  since  God  is  ever- 
lasting and  perfect,  He  will  have  His  Word 
subsistent  in  Him,  and  everlasting  and  living, 
and  possessed  of  all  the  attributes  of  the  Be- 
getter. For  just  as  our  word,  proceeding  as  it 
does  out  of  the  mind,  is  neither  wholly  iden- 
tical with  the  mind  nor  utterly  diverse  from  it 
(for  so  far  as  it  proceeds  out  of  the  mind 
it  is  different  from  it,  while  so  far  as  it  reveals 
the  mind,  it  is  no  longer  absolutely  diverse 
from  the  mind,  but  being  one  in  nature  with 
the  mind,  it  is  yet  to  the  subject  diverse  from 
it),  so  in  the  same  manner  also  the  Word  of 
Gods  in  its  independent  subsistence  is  dif- 
ferentiated 6  from  Him  from  Whom  it  derives 
its  subsistence  7 :  but  inasmuch  as  it  displays 
in  itself  the  same  attributes  as  are  seen  in 
God,  it  is  of  the  same  nature  as  God.  For 
just  as  absolute  perfection  is  contemplated  in 
the  Father,  so  also  is  it  contemplated  in  the 
Word  that  is  begotten  of  Him. 

CHAPTER    VII. 

Concerning  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  reasoned  proof  . 

Moreover  the  Word  must  also  possess  Spirit 8. 
For  in  fact  even  our  word  is  not  destitute  of 
spirit ;  but  in  our  case  the  spirit  is  something 
different  from  our  essence  9.  For  there  is  an 
attraction  and  movement  of  the  air  which  is 
drawn  in  and  poured  forth  that  the  body  maj 
be  sustained.  And  it  is  this  which  in  the 
moment  of  utterance  becomes  the  articulate 
word,  revealing  in  itself  the  force  of  the  word1. 
2  But  in  the  case  of  the  divine  nature,  which 


*  Greg.  Nyss.,  Cateck.,  c.  i. 

5  In  K.  2427  is  added,  'Who  is  the  Son.' 

6  SiijpTjrai,  i.e.  distinguished  from  the  Father.  Objection  is 
taken  to  the  use  of  such  a  verb  as  suggestive  of  division.  It  is 
often  employed,  however,  by  Greg.  Naz.  (e.g.  Oral.  34)  to  express 
the  distinction  of  persons.  In  many  passages  of  Gregory  and  other 
Fathers  the  noun  6iacpeo-i.s  is  used  to  express  the  distinction  of 
one  thing  from  another :  and  in  this  sense  it  is  opposed  both  to 
the  Sabellian  confu-ion  and  the  Aiian  division. 

7  Reading  \>-n6<na.<nv.     Various  reading,  vnap^LV,  existence. 

8  The  Greek  theologians,  founding  on  the  primary  sense  of  the 
Greek  term  Ili'.C.'ia,  and  on  certain  passages  of  Scripture  in  which 
ihe  word  seemed  to  retain  that  sense  more  or  less  (especially 
Psalm  xxxiii.  6  in  the  Vulgate  rendering,  verbo  Dei  cceli  formati 
sunt  :  et  spiritu  oris  ejus  omnis  virtus  eorum),  spoke  of  the  Holy 
Gho.>t  as  proceeding  from  the  Father  like  the  breath  of  His  mouth 
in  the  utterance  or  emission  of  His  Word.  See  ch.  15  of  this  Book, 
where  we  have  the  sentence,  ov6e/xia  yap  6pp.  >i  avev  TryevjuaTOS. 
Compare  also  such  passages  as  these — Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  i.  3; 
Cyril.  Alex  ,  Thes.,  assert.  34,  De  Trin.  dial.  2,  p  425,  and  7, 
pp.634,  640;  Basil,  Contra  Eunom.,  B.V.,and  De  Spiritu  Snncto, 
ch.  18  ;  Greg.  Scholar.,  Contra  Latin.,  de  process.  S/iritus 
Sancti,  i.  4,  where  we  have  the  statement  ouTW/cai  to  iiyiov  IlreCjua 
iaamp  op/A')  «ai  KiV>}<ns,  ivboTipa.  rijs  ujrepipuovs  intiinfi  oiai^.%, 
so  the  Holy  Spirit  is  like  an  impulse  and  movement  within  that 
Supernatural  essence. 

9  Or,  substance ;  oixria. 

1  Text,  <pa.vipov<ra. :  various  reading,  ^e'povo-a  (ct  Cyril,  D* 
Trinitate). 

3  Greg.  Nyss.,  Catech.,  c.  2. 


is  simple  and  uncompound,  we  must  confess 
in  all  piety  that  there  exists  a  Spirit  of  God,  for 
the  Word  is  not  more  imperfect  than  our  own 
word.  Now  we  cannot,  in  piety,  consider  the 
Spirit  to  be  something  foreign  that  gains  ad- 
mission into  God  from  without,  as  is  the  case 
with  compound  natures  like  us.  Nay,  just  as, 
when  we  heard  3  of  the  Word  of  God,  we 
considered  it  to  be  not  without  subsistence, 
nor  the  product  of  learning,  nor  the  mere 
utterance  of  voice,  nor  as  passing  into  the 
air  and  perishing,  but  as  being  essentially 
subsisting,  endowed  with  free  volition,  and 
energy,  and  omnipotence  :  so  also,  when  we 
have  learnt  about  the  Spirit  of  God,  we  con- 
template it  as  the  companion  of  the  Word 
and  the  revealer  of  His  energy,  and  not  as 
mere  breath  without  subsistence.  For  to 
conceive  of  the  Spirit  that  dwells  in  God  as 
after  the  likeness  of  our  own  spirit,  would 
be  to  drag  down  the  greatness  of  the  divine 
nature  to  the  lowest  depths  of  degradation. 
But  we  must  contemplate  it  as  an  essential 
power,  existing  in  its  own  proper  and  peculiar 
subsistence,  proceeding  from  the  Father  and 
resting  in  the  Word  *,  and  shewing  forth  the 
Word,  neither  capable  of  disjunction  from 
God  in  Whom  it  exists,  and  the  Word  Whose 
companion  it  is,  nor  poured  forth  to  vanish 
into  nothingness  s?  but  being  in  subsistence  in 
the  likeness  of  the  Word,  endowed  with  life, 
free  volition,  independent  movement,  energy, 
ever  willing  that  which  is  good,  and  having 
power  to  keep  pace  with  the  will  in  all  its 
decrees6,  having  no  beginning  and  no  end. 
For  never  was  the  Father  at  any  time  lacking 
in  the  Word,  nor  the  Word  in  the  Spirit. 

Thus  because  of  the  unity  in  nature,  the 
error  of  the  Greeks  in  holding  that  God  is 
many,  is  utterly  destroyed :  and  again  by  our 
acceptance  of  the  Word  and  the  Spirit,  the 
dogma  of  the  Jews  is  overthrown :  and  there 
remains  of  each  party?  only  what  is  profit- 
able8. On  the  one  hand  of  the  Jewish  idea 
we  have  the  unity  of  God's  nature,  and  on  the 
other,  of  the  Greek,  we  have  the  distinction 
in  subsistences  and  that  only  9. 


3  Text,  oKoucrapTes  :  variant,  Slkovovtc;  (so  in  Cyril). 

4  So  Cyril  speaks  frequently  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  proceeding 
from  the  Father  and  being(eivai)  ami  abiding  (jxeveiv)  in  the  Son  ; 

as  also  oi  the  Spirit  as  being'  of  the  Son  and  having  His  nature 
in  //im  (t£  aurou  kcu  e/ATrccpu/ctos  aurw).  The  idea  seems  to  have 
been  that  as  the  Son  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father  so  the  Spirit 
is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Son.  The  Spirit  was  compared  again  to  the 
energy,  the  natural,  living  energy,  of  the  Son  {ivipytia  <iuo-iK7] 
icai  <Ja»o~a,  to  ei/epyes  tou  vtoG),  Cyril,  Dial  7  ad  Hermiam  Such 
terms  as  7rpoj3oAsu«  extpavTopiKov  Trvevp.a.TOi,  the  Producer,  or, 
Emitter  of  the  revealing  Spirit,  and  the  eicfpayo-is  or  eAAa/m^i?, 
the  revealing,  the  forth-shewing,  were  also  used  to  express  the 
procession  of  the  one  eternal  Person  from  the  Other  as  like  the 
emission  or  forth-shewing  01  light  from  light. 

5  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  37,  44. 

6  Text,  n-pbs  uaaav  np6S«ri.v'.    variant,  6iKr\<rtv  in  almost  all 
the  codices.  7  a'ipco-is.  8  Greg.  Orat.  38,  and  elsewhere. 

9  Greg.  Nyss.,  Catech.,  c.  3. 


JOHN    OF    DAMASCUS. 


But  should  the  Jew  refuse  to  accept  the 
Word  and  the  Spirit,  let  the  divine  Scripture 
confute  him  and  curb  his  tongue.  For  con- 
cerning the  Word,  the  divine  David  says, 
For  ever,  O  Lord,  Thy  Word  is  settled  in 
heaven  z.  And  again,  He  sent  His  Word  and 
healed  them'2.  But  the  word  that  is  uttered 
is  not  sent,  nor  is  it  for  ever  settled  3.  And 
concerning  the  Spirit,  the  same  David  says, 
Thou  sendest  forth  Thy  Spirit,  they  are  created*. 
And  again,  By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were 
the  heavens  made:  and  all  the  host  of  them 
by  the  breath  of  His  mouth s.  Job,  too,  says, 
The  Spirit  of  God  hath  made  me,  and  the 
breath  of  the  Almighty  hath  given  me  life6. 
Now  the  Spirit  which  is  sent  and  makes  and 
stablishes  and  conserves,  is  not  mere  breath 
that  dissolves,  any  more  than  the  mouth  of 
God  is  a  bodily  member.  For  the  conception 
of  both  must  be  such  as  harmonizes  with  the 
Divine  nature  ?. 

CHAPTER   VIII. 

Concerning  the  Holy  Trinity. 

We  believe,  then,  in  One  God,  one  begin- 
ning8, having  no  beginning,  uncreate,  unbe- 
gotten,  imperishable  and  immortal,  everlasting, 
infinite,  uncircumscribed,  boundless,  of  infin- 
ite power,  simple,  uncompound,  incorporeal, 
without  flux,  passionless,  unchangeable,  un- 
alterable, unseen,  the  fountain  of  goodness 
and  justice,  the  light  of  the  mind,  inaccessi- 
ble ;  a  power  known  by  no  measure,  measura- 
ble only  by  His  own  will  alone  (for  all  things 
that  He  wills  He  can  9),  creator  of  all  created 
things,  seen  or  unseen,  of  all  the  maintainer 
and  preserver,  for  all  the  provider,  master  and 
lord  and  king  over  all,  with  an  endless  and  im- 
mortal kingdom  :  having  no  contrary,  filling  all, 
by  nothing  encompassed,  but  rather  Himself 
the  encompasser  and  maintainer  and  original 
possessor  of  the  universe,  occupying x  all  es- 
sences intact 2  and  extending  beyond  all  things, 
and  being  separate  from  all  essence  as  being 
super-essential  3  and  above  all  things  and  abso- 
lute God,  absolute  goodness,  and  absolute  ful- 
ness 4 :  determining  all  sovereignties  and  ranks, 
being  placed  above  all  sovereignty  and  rank, 
above  essence  and  life  and  word  and  thought : 
being  Himself  very  light  and  goodness  and  life 
and  essence,  inasmuch  as  He  does  not  derive 
His  being  from  another,  that  is  to  say,  of  those 
things  that  exist :  but  being  Himself  the  foun- 


«  Ps.  cxix.  89.  2  lb.  cvii.  30. 

3  Text,  6ia/a€>ei :  variant,  fiivu.  *  Ps.  civ.  30. 

5  lb.  xxxiii.  6.  6  Job  xxxiii.  4. 

7  Basil,  De  Spir.  Sancto,  ad  Amphil.  c.  18. 

8  Ot  principle,  apxnv.  9  Cf.  Ps.  exxxv.  6. 
1  Or ',  frinetrating,  i-mfiaTcvov<rav.  3  a\pa.vTUf. 

3  U7repoi  trioy. 

4  vTrepdfov,  vTrcpa.ya.8ov,  V7r«p7r\)jpij. 


tain  of  being  to  all  that  is,  of  life  to  the  living, 
of  reason  to  those  that  have  reason  ;  to  all 
the  cause  of  all  good  :  perceiving  all  things 
even  before  they  have  become :  one  essence, 
one  divinity,  one  power,  one  will,  one  energy, 
one  beginning,  one  authority,  one  dominion, 
one  sovereignty,  made  known  in  three  perfect 
subsistences  and  adored  with  one  adoration, 
believed  in  and  ministered  to  by  all  rational 
creation 5,  united  without  confusion  and  di- 
vided without  separation  (which  indeed  tran- 
scends thought).  (We  believe)  in  Father  and 
Son  and  Holy  Spirit  whereinto  also  we  have 
been  baptized6.  For  so  our  Lord  commanded 
the  Apostles  to  baptize,  saying,  Baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit  7. 

(We  believe)  in  one  Father,  the  beginning8, 
and  cause  of  all :  begotten  of  no  one  :  without 
cause  or  generation,  alone  subsisting :  creator 
of  all :  but  Father  of  one  only  by  nature,  His 
Only-begotten  Son  and  our  Lord  and  God 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  Produced  of  the 
most  Holy  Spirit.  And  in  one  Son  of  God, 
the  Only-begotten,  our  Lord,  Jesus  Christ : 
begotten  of  the  Father,  before  all  the  ages: 
Light  of  Light,  true  God  of  true  God  :  be- 
gotten, not  made,  consubstantial  with  the 
Father,  through  Whom  all  things  are  made : 
and  when  we  say  He  was  before  all  the  ages 
we  shew  that  His  birth  is  without  time  or 
beginning:  for  the  Son  of  God  was  not  brought 
into  being  out  of  nothing  x,  He  that  is  the  efful- 
gence of  the  glory,  the  impress  of  the  Father's 
subsistence 2,  the  living  wisdom  and  power  3,  the 
Word  possessing  interior  subsistence 4,  the  es- 
sential and  perfect  and  living  images  of  the  un- 
seen God.  But  always  He  was  with  the  Father 
and  in  Him  6,  everlastingly  and  without  begin- 
ning begotten  of  Him.     For  there  never  was 

5  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  13,  n.  32. 

6  An  argument  much  used  against  the  Arians,  the  Mace- 
donians, and  the  Sabellians.  See  e.g.  Athan  ,  ad  Sera.fr.  Epist.  x 
and  2  ;  Basil,  Contra  Eunom.,  bk.  iii.,  and  De  Spirit u  Sancto, 
ch.  10,  12;  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  34. 

7  St.  Matt,  xviii.  19.  8  Or,  principle,  apxqv. 

9  jrpoj3oAe'a.  The  term  Trpofiokr),  rendered  prolatio  by  Ter- 
tullian  and  Hilary,  was  rejected  as  unsuitable  to  the  idea  of  the 
Divine  procession,  e.g.  by  Athanasius,  who  in  his  Expos.  Fidei 
denies  that  the  Word  is  anoppoia,  efflux,  or  r/uijcris,  segmen, 
or  rrpo/3oA7J,  eniissio  or  prolatio;  and  by  Jerome,  Adz1.  Riif., 
Apol.  2,  his  reason  being  that  the  word  had  been  used  by  Gnostics 
in  speaking  of  the  emanations  of  ^Eons,  Greg.  Naz. ,  however, 
Orat.  13,  35,  speaks  of  the  Father  as  yfvvtjTittp  and  n-po/3oAeu«, 
and  of  the  Spirit  as  Trp6^\r)p.a. 

«  Greg.  Xaz.,  Orat.  36.  2  Ibid. 

3  1  Cor.  i.  24. 

4  The  Word  enhypostatic,  o  Aoyos  cit)jrd<rraTos. 

5  Heb.  i.  3. 

6  The  Arians  admitted  that  the  Son  is  in  the  Father,  in  the 
sense  in  which  all  created  things  are  in  God.  Basil  (De  Spiritu 
Sancto,  ch.  25,  Orat.  in  frrincip.  evang.  Joan.)  takes  the  pre- 
position a~vv,  in,  to  express  the  idea  of  the  <rvva<peta,  or  conjunc- 
tion of  the  two.  The  Scholiast  on  the  present  passages  calls 
attention  to  the  two  prepositions  with  and  in  as  denoting  the 
Son's  eternal  existence  and  His  union  with  the  Father,  as  the 
shining  is  with  the  light,  and  comes  from  it  without  separation. 
Basil,  De  Spir.  Sancto,  ch.  26,  holds  it  better  to  say  that  the 
Spirit  is  one  with  (o-uveivaC)  the  Father  and  the  Son  than  that 
He  is  in  (eveiuai)  the  Father  and  the  Son. 


EXPOSITION   OF   THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


a  time  when  the  Father  was  and  the  Son  was 
not,  but  always  the  Father  and  always  the  Son, 
Who  was  begotten  of  Him,  existed  together. 
For  He  could  not  have  received  the  name 
Father  apart  from  the  Son  :  for  if  He  were 
without  the  Son 7,  He  could  not  be  the  Father: 
and  if  He  thereafter  had  the  Son,  thereafter 
He  became  the  Father,  not  having  been  the 
Father  prior  to  this,  and  He  was  changed 
from  that  which  was  not  the  Father  and  be- 
came the  Father.  This  is  the  worst  form  of 
blasphemy8.  For  we  may  not  speak  of  God 
as  destitute  of  natural  generative  power :  and 
generative  power  means,  the  power  of  pro- 
ducing from  one's  self,  that  is  to  say,  from 
one's  own  proper  essence,  that  which  is  like 
in  nature  to  one's  self  9. 

In  treating,  then,  of  the  generation  of  the 
Son,  it  is  an  act  of  impiety  l  to  say  that  time 
comes  into  play  and  that  the  existence  of  the 
Son  is  of  later  origin  than  the  Father.  For 
we  hold  that  it  is  from  Him,  that  is,  from 
the  Father's  nature,  that  the  Son  is  generated. 
And  unless  we  grant  that  the  Son  co-existed 
from  the  beginning  with  the  Father,  by  Whom 
He  was  begotten,  we  introduce  change  into 
the  Father's  subsistence,  because,  not  being 
the  Father,  He  subsequently  became  the  Fa- 
ther 2.  For  the  creation,  even  though  it  origin- 
ated later,  is  nevertheless  not  derived  from 
the  essence  of  God,  but  is  brought  into  exist- 
ence out  of  nothing  by  Ffis  will  and  power, 
and  change  does  not  touch  God's  nature.  For 
generation  means  that  the  begetter  produces 
out  of  his  essence  offspring  similar  in  essence. 
But  creation  and  making  mean  that  the  creator 
and  maker  produces  from  that  which  is  ex- 
ternal, and  not  out  of  his  own  essence,  a  crea- 
tion of  an  absolutely  dissimilar  nature3. 

Wherefore  in  God,  Who  alone  is  passionless 
and  unalterable,  and  immutable,  and  ever  so 
continueth,  both  begetting  and  creating  are 
passionless  *.  For  being  by  nature  passionless 
and  not  liable  to  flux,  since  He  is  simple  and 
uncompound,  He  is  not  subject  to  passion 
or  flux  either  in  begetting  or  in  creating,  nor 
has  He  need  of  any  co-operation.  But  gener- 
ation in  Him  is  without  beginning  and  ever- 
lasting, being  the  work  of  nature  and  pro- 
ducing out  of  His  own  essence,  that  the  Be- 
getter may  not  undergo  change,  and  that  He 
may  not  be  God  first  and  God  last,  nor  receive 
any  accession  :  while  creation  in  the  case  of 
God  s,  being  the  work  of  will,  is  not  co-eternal 


7  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  35. 

8  Cyril,  Thesaurus,  assert.  4  and  5.  9  Ibid.,  assert.  6. 
1  Ibid.,  assert.  4.                        3  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  29. 

3  Text,   avofioiov  navT*\£>s,   variant,   an>6/ioi.ov  navTiKiits   «ot' 
ovcriay,  cf.  also  Cyrill. 

*  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat-  29  and  35. 

5  On  this  distinction  between  generation  and  creation,  com- 


with  God.  For  it  is  not  natural  that  that 
which  is  brought  into  existence  out  of  nothing 
should  be  co-eternal  with  what  is  without 
beginning  and  everlasting.  There  is  this 
difference  in  fact  between  man's  making  and 
God's.  Man  can  bring  nothing  into  existence 
out  of  nothing6,  but  all  that  he  makes  re- 
quires pre-existing  matter  for  its  basis  7,  and 
he  does  not  create  it  by  will  only,  but  thinks 
out  first  what  it  is  to  be  and  pictures  it  in  his 
mind,  and  only  then  fashions  it  with  his  hands, 
undergoing  labour  and  trouble 8,  and  often 
missing  the  mark  and  failing  to  produce  to 
his  satisfaction  that  after  which  he  strives. 
But  God,  through  the  exercise  of  will  alone, 
has  brought  all  things  into  existence  out  of 
nothing.  Now  there  is  the  same  difference 
between  God  and  man  in  begetting  and  gener- 
ating. For  in  God,  Who  is  without  time  and 
beginning,  passionless,  not  liable  to  flux,  in- 
corporeal, alone  and  without  end  *,  generation 
is  without  time  and  beginning,  passionless  and 
not  liable  to  flux,  nor  dependent  on  the  union 
of  two  2  :  nor  has  His  own  incomprehensible 
generation  beginning  or  end.  And  it  is  with- 
out beginning  because  He  is  immutable  :  with- 
out flux  because  He  is  passionless  and  incor- 
poreal :  independent  of  the  union  of  two  again 
because  He  is  incorporeal  but  also  because 
He  is  the  one  and  only  God,  and  stands  in 
need  of  no  co-operation :  and  without  end 
or  cessation  because  He  is  without  beginning, 
or  time,  or  end,  and  ever  continues  the  same. 
For  that  which  has  no  beginning  has  no  end  : 
but  that  which  through  grace  is  endless  is 
assuredly  not  without  beginning,  as,  witness, 
the  angels 3. 

Accordingly  the  everlasting  God  generates 
His  own  Word  which  is  perfect,  without  be- 
ginning and  without  end,  that  God,  Whose 
nature  and  existence  are  above  time,  may  not 
engender  in  time.  But  with  man  clearly  it 
is  otherwise,  for  generation  is  with  him  a 
matter  of  sex,  and  destruction  and  flux  and 
increase  and  body  clothe  him  round  about*, 
and  he  possesses  a  nature  which  is  male  or 
female.  For  the  male  requires  the  assistance 
of  the  female.  But  may  He  Who  surpasses 
all,  and  transcends  all  thought  and  compre- 
hension, be  gracious  to  us. 

The   holy   catholic   and   apostolic  Church, 

pare  Athan.,  Contra  Arianos,  Or.  a,  3  ;  Basil,  Contra  Eunom., 
bk.  iv.  :   Cyril,  T/ies.,  assert.  3,  &c. 

6  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  29.         7  Cyril,  Thes.,  assert.  7  and  18. 

8  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  29. 

x  Cyril,  Thes.,  assert.  5,  6,  and  16  ;  Greg.,  Orat.  35. 

•  appcuo"rujs  ytvva  icat  €ktoc  (TvvSvaLafxov.  This  argument  is 
repeatedly  made  in  refutation  both  of  Gnostic  ideas  of  emanation 
and  Arian  misrepresentations  of  the  orthodox  doctrine.  Cf. 
Athan.,  De  Synodis ;  Epiph.,  Hceret.  69;  Hilary,  Dt  Trin. 
iii.  iv. ;  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  35. 

3  Infra,  Book  ii.  c.  3. 

4  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat-  45. 


8 


JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS. 


then,  teaches  the  existence  at  once  of  a  Father 
and  of  His  Only-begotten  Son,  born  of  Him 
without  time  and  flux  and  passion,  in  a  man- 
ner incomprehensible  and  perceived  by  the 
God  of  the  universe  alone :  just  as  we  recog- 
nise the  existence  at  once  of  fire  and  the  light 
which  proceeds  from  it :  for  there  is  not  first 
fire  and  thereafter  light,  but  they  exist  to- 
gether. And  just  as  light  is  ever  the  product 
of  fire,  and  ever  is  in  it  and  at  no  time  is 
separate  from  it,  so  in  like  manner  also  the 
Son  is  begotten  of  the  Father  and  is  never 
in  any  way5  separate  from  Him,  but  ever  is 
in  Him6.  But  whereas  the  light  which  is 
produced  from  fire  without  separation,  and 
abideth  ever  in  it,  has  no  proper  subsistence 
of  its  own  distinct  from  that  of  fire  (for  it 
is  a  natural  quality  of  fire),  the  Only-begotten 
Son  of  God,  begotten  of  the  Father  without 
separation  and  difference  and  ever  abiding 
in  Him,  has  a  proper  subsistence  of  its  own 
distinct  from  that  of  the  Father. 

The  terms,  'Word'  and  'effulgence,'  then, 
are  used  because  He  is  begotten  of  the  Father 
without  the  union  of  two,  or  passion,  or  time, 
or  flux,  or  separation  i :  and  the  terms  '  Son ' 
and  '  impress  of  the  Father's  subsistence,' 
because  He  is  perfect  and  has  subsistence  8  and 
is  in  all  respects  similar  to  the  Father,  save 
that  the  Father  is  not  begotten  9 :  and  the 
term  '  Only-begotten  ' *  because  He  alone  was 
begotten  alone  of  the  Father  alone.  For  no 
other  generation  is  like  to  the  generation  of 
the  Son  of  God,  since  no  other  is  Son  of  God. 
For  though  the  Holy  Spirit  proceedeth  from 
the  Father,  yet  this  is  not  generative  in  charac- 
ter but  processional.  This  is  a  different  mode 
of  existence,  alike  incomprehensible  and  un- 
known, just  as  is  the  generation  of  the  Son. 
Wherefore  all  the  qualities  the  Father  has  are 
the  Son's,  save  that  the  Father  is  unbegotten  2, 
and  this  exception  involves  no  difference  in 
essence  nor  dignity  3,  but  only  a  different 
mode  of  coming  into  existence4.  We  have 
an  analogy  in  Adam,  who  was  not  begotten 
(for  God  Himself  moulded  him),  and  Seth,  who 
was  begotten  (for  he  is  Adam's  son),  and  Eve, 
who  proceeded  out  of  Adam's  rib  (for  she  was 
not  begotten).  These  do  not  differ  from  each 
other  in  nature,  for  they  are  human  beings : 
but  they  differ  in  the  mode  of  coming  into 
existence  s. 


5  Text,  /u.7]S'  oAojs.      Variant  in  many  codices  is  fiifSa/uus,  as 
in  the  previous  sentence. 

6  Greg:  Naz.,  Orat.  bk.  i.,  Cont.  Eun.,  p.  66;  Cyril,  Thes., 
assert.  5.  7  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  36. 

8  ivvrro<rTa.TOv ',    enhypostatic.      See    Suicer,    Thesaurus,   sub 
Voce. 

9  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  23,  37  and  39.  '  Cf.  ibid.  23,  36.  _ 

a  A  than..  Contra  Arian.,  Orat.  2  ;  Basil,  Contra  Eunom.  iv.  ; 
Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  35.  3  aficunaxt. 

4  Basil,  bk.  ii.  and  iv.  5  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  36  and  37. 


For  one  must  recognise  that  the  word 
ayevrjTov  with  only  one  c  v'  signifies  "  uncreate  " 
or  "  not  having  been  made,"  while  aykwr)Tov 
written  with  double  '  v'  means  "unbegotten1" 
According  to  the  first  significance  essence 
differs  from  essence  :  for  one  essence  is  un- 
create, or  dye'vTjTov  with  one  '  v,'  and  another 
is  create  or  yevrjrf].  But  in  the  second  signifi- 
cance there  is  no  difference  between  essence 
and  essence.  For  the  first  subsistence  of  all 
kinds  of  living  creatures  is  dyeWr/ro?  but  not 
dyevrjTos.  For  they  were  created  by  the  Creator, 
being  brought  into  being  by  His  Word,  but 
they  were  not  begotten,  for  there  was  no  pre- 
existing form  like  themselves  from  which  they 
might  have  been  born. 

So  then  in  the  first  sense  of  the  word  the 
three  absolutely  divine  subsistences  of  the 
Holy  Godhead  agree 6 :  for  they  exist  as  one 
in  essence  and  uncreate?.  But  with  the 
second  signification  it  is  quite  otherwise.  For 
the  Father  alone  is  ingenerate  8,  no  other  sub- 
sistence having  given  Him  being.  And  the 
Son  alone  is  generate,  for  He  was  begotten 
of  the  Father's  essence  without  beginning  and 
without  time.  And  only  the  Holy  Spirit  pro- 
ceedeth from  the  Father's  essence,  not  having 
been  generated  but  simply  proceedings.  For 
this  is  the  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture.  But 
the  nature  of  the  generation  and  the  procession 
is  quite  beyond  comprehension. 

And  this  also  it  behoves  '  us  to  know,  that 
the  names  Fatherhood,  Sonship  and  Proces- 
sion, were  not  applied  to  the  Holy  Godhead 
by  us :  on  the  contrary,  they  were  communi- 
cated to  us  by  the  Godhead,  as  the  divine 
apostle  says,  Wherefore  I  bow  the  knee  to  the 
Fat  her )  from  Whom  is  every  family  in  heaven 
and  on  earth  2.  But  if  we  say  3  that  the  Father 
is  the  origin  of  the  Son  and  greater  than  the 


6  Man.  Dialog,  contr.  Arian. 

7  Cyril,  Thes.,  assert,  i,  p.  12.  8  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  33. 
9  St.  John  xv.  26. 

1  Cf.  Basil,  Contra  Eunom.,  v.  ;  A  than.,  Contra  Arian.,  ii.  ; 
Cyril,  Thes.,  assert.  32;  Epiphan.,  Na?-es.  73,  &c. 

a  Ephes.  iii.  14  and  15  :    Cyril,  Thes.,  assert.  32  :    Dionys.,  De 
divin.  twin.,  c.  1. 

3  In  the  first  Book  of  his  Contra  Arianos  Athanasius  refers 
to  Christ's  word  in  St.  John  xiv.  28.  He  remarks  that  He  does  not 
say  "the  Father  is  better  (/cpeicrcrioi/)  than  I,"  lest  it  should  be 
inferred  that  the  Son  is  not  equal  to  the  Father  in  Divine  nature, 
but  of  another  nature;  but  ''the  Father  is  greater  (jiei^utv) 
than  I,"  that  is  to  say,  not  in  dignity  or  age,  but  as  being  begotten 
of  the  Father.  And  further,  that  by  the  word  "greater"  He 
indicates  the  peculiar  property  of  the  substance  (rtjs  ovxnas  rt\v 
iSiorrjTo).  This  declaration  of  our  Lord's  was  understood  in  the 
same  way  by  Basil,  Gregory  Nazyinzenus,  Cyril  and  others  of 
the  Greek  Fathers,  and  by  Hilary  among  the  Latin  Fathers.  In 
the  ixth  and  xth  Books  of  his  De  Trinitate  Hilary  refers  to  this, 
and  says  that  the  Father  is  called  'greater*  propter  auctori- 
tatcm,  meaning  by  auctoritas  not  poivcr,  but  what  the  Greeks 
understand  by  aii-ionis,  causation,  principle  or  authorship  0/ 
being.  So  also  Soebadius  says  that  the  Father  is  rightly  called 
'greater?  because  He  alone  is  without  an  author  of  His  being. 
But  Latin  theologians  usually  spoke  of  the  Father  as  'greater,' 
not  because  He  is  Father,  but  because  the  Son  was  made  Man. 
To  this  effect  also  Athanasius  expresses  himself  in  his  De  hum. 
carne  suscepta,  while  Gregory  Nazianzenus  speaks  otherwise  in 
his  Orat.  36. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


Son,  we  do  not  suggest   any  precedence   in 
time  or  superiority   in   nature  of  the  Father 
over  the   Son  *  (for  through   His  agency  He 
made  the  ages5),  or  superiority  in  any  other 
respect    save    causation.     And    we    mean    by 
this,  that  the  Son  is  begotten  of  the  Father 
and  not  the  Father  of  the  Son,  and  that  the 
Father  naturally  is  the  cause  of  the  Son  :  just 
as  we  say  in  the  same  way  not  that  fire  pro- 
ceeded! from  light,  but  rather  light  from  fire. 
So  then,  whenever  we  hear  it  said  that  the 
Father  is  the  origin  of  the  Son  and  greater 
than   the  Son,   let  us  understand  it  to  mean 
in  respect  of  causation.     And  just  as  we  do 
not  say  that  fire  is  of  one  essence  and  light 
of  another,  so  we  cannot  say  that  the  Father 
is  of  one  essence  and  the  Son  of  another  : 
but  both  are  of  one  and  the  same  essence  6. 
And  just  as  we  say  that  fire  has  brightness  i 
through  the  light  proceeding  from  it,  and  do 
not   consider  the  light  of  the  fire  as  an  in- 
strument  ministering   to   the   fire,   but   rather 
as  its  natural  force :  so  we  say  that  the  Father 
creates  all  that  He  creates  through  His  Only- 
begotten    Son,  not   as   though   the   Son   were 
a  mere  instrument  serving8  the  Father's  ends, 
but  as  His  natural   and    subsistential  force 9. 
And  just  as  we  say  both  that  the  fire  shines 
and  again  that  the    light   of  the  fire   shines, 
So  all  t/ii?igs  whatsoever  the  Father  doeth,  these 
also   doeth  the  Son  likewise 9*.     But    whereas 
light  possesses   no  proper  subsistence    of  its 
own,   distinct  from  that  of  the  fire,  the  Son 
is  a  perfect  subsistence  *,  inseparable  from  the 
Father's  subsistence,  as  we  have  shewn  above. 
For  it  is  quite  impossible  to  find  in  creation 
an  image  that    will  illustrate  in  itself  exactly 
in  all  details  the  nature  of  the  Holy  Trinity. 
For  how  could  that  which  is  create  and  com- 
pound, subject   to   flux   and   change,  circum- 
scribed, formed  and  corruptible,  clearly  shew 
forth  the   super-essential    divine   essence,   un- 
affected as  it  is  in  any  of  these  ways?     Now 
it  is  evident  that  all  creation  is  liable  to  most 
of  these  affections,  and  all  from  its  very  nature 
is  subject  to  corruption. 

Likewise  we  believe  also  in  one  Holy  Spirit, 
the  Lord  and  Giver  of  Life :  Who  proceedeth 
from  the  Father  and  resteth  in  the  Son  ;  the 
object  of  equal  adoration  and  glorification 
with  the  Father  and  Son,  since  He  is  co- 
essential  and  co-eternal 2 :  the  Spirit  of  God, 
direct,  authoritative  3,  the  fountain  of  wisdom, 


4  St.  John  xiv.  28.  5  tovs  aiwvas;    Heb.  i.  3. 

6  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  yj ;  Athan.,  Contr.  Avian.,  bk.  i. 

7  <paivew,  shines. 

8  See  Cyril,  Ad  Herm.,  dial.  2  ;   Irenceus,  iv.  14,  v.  6,  and 
John  of  Damascus,  himself  in  his  Dial.  Contr.  Manich. 

9  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  13,  31  and  37. 
9a  St.  John  v.  19. 

1  Tf'Aeta  iurdoTao-ts  ;  a  perfect  hypostasis. 

2  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  37.  3  riyefioviKov . 


and  life,  and  holiness  :  God  existing  and  ad- 
dressed along  with  Father  and  Son  :  un- 
create,  full,  creative,  all-ruling,  all-effecting, 
all  powerful,  of  infinite  power,  Lord  of  all 
creation  and  not  under  any  lord  4  :  deifying, 
not  deified s  :  filling,  not  filled:  shared  in,  not 
sharing  in  :  sanctifying,  not  sanctified  :  the 
intercessor,  receiving  the  supplications  of  all : 
in  all  things  like  to  the  Father  and  Son : 
proceeding  from  the  Father  and  communi- 
cated through  the  Son,  and  participated  in  by 
all  creation,  through  Himself  creating,  and 
investing  with  essence  and  sanctifying,  and 
maintaining  the  universe  :  having  subsistence, 
existing  in  its  own  proper  and  peculiar  subsis- 
tence, inseparable  and  indivisible  from  Father 
and  Son,  and  possessing  all  the  qualities  that 
the  Father  and  Son  possess,  save  that  of  not 
being  begotten  or  born.  For  the  Father  is 
without  cause  and  unborn:  for  He  is  derived 
from  nothing,  but  derives  from  Himself  His 
being,  nor  does  He  derive  a  single  quality 
from  another6.  Rather  He  is  Himself  the 
beginning  and  cause  of  the  existence  of  all 
things  in  a  definite  and  natural  manner.  But 
the  Son  is  derived  from  the  Father  after  the 
manner  of  generation,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
likewise  is  derived  from  the  Father,  yet  not 
after  the  manner  of  generation,  but  after  that  of 
procession.  And  we  have  learned  that  there 
is  a  difference?  between  generation  and  pro- 
cession, but  the  nature  of  that  difference  we 
in  no  wise  understand.  Further,  the  genera- 
tion of  the  Son  from  the  Father  and  the  pro- 
cession of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  simultaneous. 

All  then  that  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  have 
is  from  the  Father,  even  their  very  being8: 
and  unless  the  Father  is,  neither  the  Son 
nor  the  Spirit  is.  And  unless  the  Father 
possesses  a  certain  attribute,  neither  the  Son 
nor  the  Spirit  possesses  it :  and  through  the 
Father0,  that  is,  because  of  the  Father's 
existence z,  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  exist 2, 
and  through  the  Father,  that  is,  because  of 
the  Father  having  the  qualities,  the  Son  and 
the  Spirit  have  all  their  qualities,  those  of 
being  unbegotten,  and  of  birth  and  of  pro- 
cession being  excepted  3.     For  in  these  hypo- 


4  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  49.  5  6eovv  ov  Beov/jLevov. 

6  Text,  oil  yap  ex  nyo?"  c?  iavrov  yap  to  rival  e\ei,  ovSe  ti 
toiv  60-ajrep  i\fL  «f  erepov  f\eL'  Another  reading  is,  ov  yap  £k 
Tii'os  76  t4i>at  exet>  °"S<:  Tt  tuv  60-a  t"x«,  i.e.Jor  He  does  not  derive 
His  being  nor  any  one  0/  His  qualities  from  any  one. 

7  See  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  29,  35 ;  Thomas  Aquin.,  I.  Quctst.  35, 
art-  1. 

8  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  25. 

9  See  A  than. ,  Contra  Arian.,  Orat.  3  ;  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  35. 
So  Augustine  {Contr.  Max.  iii.  14,  De  Trin.  xv.),  Epiphanius 
{Anchor.),  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa  (Epist.  ad  Ablab.)  teach  that 
the  Spirit  proceeds,  and  is  not  begotten,  because  He  is  both  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  while  the  Son  is  only  of  the  Father. 

1  Reading,  Sia  to  tlvax  top  UaTcpa :  a  variant  is,  Sid  to  ilvai 
avrbv  UaTe'pa,  as  also  in  Cyritli,  De  Trinitate. 

2  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  23.  3  Ibid.,  Orat.,  25. 


10 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


sta tic  or  personal  properties  alone  do  the  three 
holy  subsistences  sa  differ  from  each  other,  be- 
ing indivisibly  divided  not  by  essence  but  by 
the  distinguishing  mark  of  their  proper  and 
peculiar  subsistence. 

Further  we  say  that  each  of*  the  three  has 
a  perfect  subsistence,  that  we  may  understand 
not  one  compound  perfect  nature  made  up 
of  three  imperfect  elements,  but  one  simple 
essence,  surpassing  and  preceding  perfection, 
existing  in  three  perfect  subsistences  s.  For 
all  that  is  composed  of  imperfect  elements 
must  necessarily  be  compound.  But  from 
perfect  subsistences  no  compound  can  arise. 
Wherefore  we  do  not  speak  of  the  form  as 
from  subsistences,  but  as  in  subsistences 6. 
But  we  speak  of  those  things  as  imperfect 
which  do  not  preserve  the  form  of  that  which 
is  completed  out  of  them.  For  stone  and 
wood  and  iron  are  each  perfect  in  its  own 
nature,  but  with  reference  to  the  building  that 
is  completed  out  of  them  each  is  imperfect : 
for  none  of  them  is  in  itself  a  house. 

The  subsistences  then  we  say  are  perfect, 
that  we  may  not  conceive  of  the  divine  nature 
as  compound.  For  compoundness  is  the  be- 
ginning of  separation.  And  again  we  speak 
of  the  three  subsistences  as  being  in  each 
other  7,  that  we  may  not  introduce  a  crowd 
and  multitude  of  Gods8.  Owing  to  the  three 
subsistences,  there  is  no  compoundness  or 
confusion  :  while,  owing  to  their  having  the 
same  essence  and  dwelling  in  one  another, 
and  being  the  same  in  will,  and  energy,  and 
power,  and  authority,  and  movement,  so  to 
speak,  we  recognise  the  indivisibility  and  the 
unity  of  God.  For  verily  there  is  one  God, 
and  His  word  and  Spirit. 

Marg.  MS.  Concerning  the  distinction  of  the 
three  subsistences :  and  concerning  the  thing 
itself  and  our  reason  and  thought  in  relation 
to  it. 

One  ought,  moreover,  to  recognise  that  it 
is  one  thing  to  look  at  a  matter  as  it  is, 
and  another  thing  to  look  at  it  in  the  light 
of  reason  and  thought.  In  the  case  of  all 
created  things,  the  distinction  of  the  sub- 
sistences is  observed  in  actual  fact.  For  in 
actual  fact  Peter  is  seen  to  be  separate  from 
Paul.  But  the  community  and  connection 
and  unity  are  apprehended  by  reason  and 
thought.  For  it  is  by  the  mind  that  we 
perceive  that  Peter  and  Paul  are  of  the  same 


3»  v7ro<rra(7eis ;  hypostases. 

4  See  A  than. ,  Contra  Arian.,  Orat.  5. 

5  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  13  and  29  :  Athan.,  Orat.  Contr.  Arian. 
'  The  Greek  is  offev  oiiSe  \eyoixtv  to  clSos  ef  vn-oorao-cup,  <lAA' 

iy  vTrotrTaasaiv.   See  Basil.,  Orat.  Contr.  Sabell.,  Ar.  et  Eunom. 

7  See  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat   1  and  37. 

8  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  29,  34  and  40. 


nature  and  have  one  common  nature'.  For 
both  are  living  creatures,  rational  and  mortal : 
and  both  are  flesh,  endowed  with  the  spirit 
of  reason  and  understanding1.  It  is,  then,  by 
reason  that  this  community  of  nature  is  ob- 
served. For  here  indeed  the  subsistences  do 
not  exist  one  within  the  other.  But  each  pri- 
vately and  individually,  that  is  to  say,  in  itself, 
stands  quite  separate,  having  very  many  points 
that  divide  it  from  the  other.  For  they  are 
both  separated  in  space  and  differ  in  time,  and 
are  divided  in  thought,  and  power,  and  shape, 
or  form,  and  habit,  and  temperament  and  dig- 
nity, and  pursuits,  and  all  differentiating  pro- 
perties, but  above  all,  in  the  fact  that  they 
do  not  dwell  in  one  another  but  are  separated. 
Hence  it  conies  that  we  can  speak  of  two, 
three,  or  many  men. 

And  this  may  be  perceived  throughout  the 
whole  of  creation,  but  in  the  case  of  the  holy  and 
superessential  and  incomprehensible  Trinity, 
far  removed  from  everything,  it  is  quite  the 
reverse.  For  there  the  community  and  unity 
are  observed  in  fact,  through  the  co-eternity  of 
the  subsistences,  and  hrough  their  having  the 
same  essence  and  energy  and  will  and  con- 
cord of  mind 2,  and  then  being  identical  in 
authority  and  power  and  goodness — I  do  not 
say  similar  but  identical — and  then  move- 
ment by  one  impulses.  For  there  is  one 
essence,  one  goodness,  one  power,  one  will, 
one  energy,  one  authority,  one  and  the  same, 
I  repeat,  not  three  resembling  each  other. 
But  the  three  subsistences  have  one  and  the 
same  movement.  For  each  one  of  them  is 
related  as  closely  to  the  other  as  to  itself: 
that  is  to  say  that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  are  one  in  all  respects,  save 
those  of  not  being  begotten,  of  birth  and  of 
procession.  But  it  is  by  thought  that  the 
difference  is  perceived  *.  For  we  recognise 
one  God  :  but  only  in  the  attributes  of  Father- 
hood, Sonship,  and  Procession,  both  in  respect 
of  cause  and  effect  and  perfection  of  sub- 
sistence, that  is,  manner  of  existence,  do  we 
perceive  differences.  For  with  reference  to 
the  uncircumscribed  Deity  we  cannot  speak 
of  separation  in  space,  as  we  can  in  our  own 
case.  For  the  subsistences  dwell  in  one  an- 
other, in  no  wise  confused  but  cleaving  to- 
gether, according  to  the  word    of  the  Lord, 


9  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  37.  *  Ibid.  32. 

2  tV  ttjs  -yi/ii/xTjs  avfj.T7voi.av ;  co-operation  of  judgment,  or, 
disposition. 

3  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  40.  The  Greek  is  singular  atid  difficult: 
to  'iv  tfaA/ia  tt)5  K<.vy\atu><i ;  the  one  forthleaping  0/  the  motion, 
or  movement.  Origen  speaks  of  t)  air'  aiirou  <ctV>)o-ts  (1.  436  A.). 
In  Athanasius  (I.  253  C.)  /ciVrjorts  has  the  metaphorical  tense 
of  indignation. 

*  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  37;  Greg.  Nyss.,  Epist.  ad  Ablab.  *t 
Orat.  32. 

5  Basil. ,  Epist.  43. 


EXPOSITION   OF   THE   ORTHODOX   FAITH. 


II 


/  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  Me 6  : 
nor  can  one  admit  difference  in  will  or  judg- 
ment or  energy  or  power  or  anything  else  what- 
soever which  may  produce  actual  and  abso- 
lute separation  in  our  case.  Wherefore  we 
do  not  speak  of  three  Gods,  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  rather  of  one 
God,  the  holy  Trinity,  the  Son  and  Spirit 
being  referred  to  one  cause  ?,  and  not  com- 
pounded or  coalesced  according  to  the  synae- 
resis  of  Sabellius.  For,  as  we  said,  they  are 
made  one  not  so  as  to  commingle,  but  so  as 
to  cleave  to  each  other,  and  they  have  their 
being  in  each  other8  without  any  coales- 
cence or  commingling.  Nor  do  the  Son  and 
the  Spirit  stand  apart,  nor  are  they  sundered 
in  essence  according  to  the  diaeresis  of  Arius?. 
For  the  Deity  is  undivided  amongst  things 
divided,  to  put  it  concisely  :  and  it  is  just  like 
three  suns  cleaving  to  each  other  without  sep- 
aration and  giving  out  light  mingled  and  con- 
joined into  one.  When,  then,  we  turn  our  eyes 
to  the  Divinity,  and  the  first  cause  and  the 
sovereignty  and  the  oneness  and  sameness,  so 
to  speak,  of  the  movement  and  will  of  the 
Divinity,  and  the  identity  in  essence  and  power 
and  energy  and  lordship,  what  is  seen  by 
us  is  unity x.  But  when  we  look  to  those 
things  in  which  the  Divinity  is,  or,  to  put  it 
more  accurately,  which  are  the  Divinity,  and 
those  things  which  are  in  it  through  the  first 
cause  without  time  or  distinction  in  glory  or 
separation,  that  is  to  say,  the  subsistences  of 
the   Son  and   the    Spirit,    it   seems   to  us   a 


6  St.  John  xiv.  n. 

7  eis  ev  alnov.  So  elsewhere  it  is  put,  uxrirep  ixCa.  apxn,  Kara 
touto  e!s  ©cos.  The  three  Persons  or  Subsistences  are  yet  One 
God,  because  of  the  one  Principle  of  Being  whence  Son  and 
Spirit  derive.  So  the  Father  is  said  to  be  the  eVuxris  e£  o5  icai 
7rpbs  ov  ayayerai  Ta  e^ijs. 

8  The  Greek  runs  thus: — icat  ttj>'  iv  dAAtjAais  7repix«p>)0"i!' 
«Xouo*t  5t\a  7raon7S  o~vvaAoi<f)i)s  ko\  <rv^i$upo"ea>s.  The  term  7rept- 
XoipTjcris,  circumituessio,  immanentia,  was  meant  to  express  the 
peculiarity  of  the  relations  of  the  Three  Divine  Persons  or  Sub- 
sistences— their  Indwelling  in  each  other,  the  fact  that,  while  they 
are  distinct  they  yet  are  in  one  another,  the  Coinherence  which 
implies  their  equal  and  identical  Godhead.  "  In  the  Trinity," 
says  Bishop  Bull  (Defence  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  bk.  iv.  ch.  iv., 
sees.  13,  14),  "  the  circumincession  is  most  proper  and  perfect, 
forasmuch  as  the  Persons  mutually  contain  Each  Other,  and  all 
the  three  have  an  immeasureable  whereabouts  (immensum  ubi, 
as  the  Schoolmen  express  it),  so  that  wherever  one  Person  is  there 
the  other  two  exist  ;  in  other  words  They  are  all  everywhere.  .  .  . 
This  outcome  of  the  circumincession  of  the  Persons  in  the  Trinity 
is  so  far  from  introducing  Sabellianism,  that  it  is  of  great  use, 
as  Petavius  has  also  observed,  for  (establishing)  the  diversity 
of  the  Persons,  and  for  confuting  that  heresy.  For,  in  order 
to  that  mutual  existence  (in  each  other)  which  is  discerned  in  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  is  absolutely  necessary 
that  there  should  be  some  distinction  between  these  who  are  thus 
joined  together-  that  is,  that  those  that  exist  mutually  in  each 
other  should  be  different  in  reality,  and  not  in  mode  of  conception 
only  ;  for  that  which  is  simply  one  is  not  said  to  exist  in  itself, 
or  to  interpenetrate  itself.  .  .  .  Lastly,  this  is  to  be  especially 
considered — that  this  circumincession  of  the  Divine  Persons  is 
indeed  a  very  great  mystery,  which  we  ought  rather  religiously 
to  adore  than  curiously  to  pry  into.  No  similitude  can  be  devised 
which  shall  be  in  every  respect  apt  to  illustrate  it;  no  language 
avails  worthily  to  set  it  forth,  seeing  that  it  is  an  union  which  far 
transcends  all  other  unions." 

9  Greg.,  Orat.  29  ;  Dionys.,  Dt  div.  mom.,  c  t. 
1  Greg.  Nat.,  Orat.  37. 


Trinity  that  we  adore2.  The  Father  is  one 
Father,  and  without  beginning,  that  is,  without 
cause  :  for  He  is  not  derived  from  anything. 
The  Son  is  one  Son,  but  not  without  begin- 
ning, that  is,  not  without  cause  :  for  He  is 
derived  from  the  Father.  But  if  you  eliminate 
the  idea  of  a  beginning  from  time,  He  is  also 
without  beginning  :  for  the  creator  of  times  can- 
not be  subject  to  time.  The  Holy  Spirit  is 
one  Spirit,  going  forth  from  the  Father,  not  in 
the  manner  of  Sonship  but  of  procession ; 
so  that  neither  has  the  Father  lost  His  pro- 
perty of  being  unbegotten  because  He  hath 
begotten,  nor  has  the  Son  lost  His  property 
of  being  begotten  because  He  was  begotten 
of  that  which  was  unbegotten  (for  how  could 
that  be  so  ?),  nor  does  the  Spirit  change  either 
into  the  Father  or  into  the  Son  because  He 
hath  proceeded  and  is  God.  For  a  property 
is  quite  constant.  For  how  could  a  property 
persist  if  it  were  variable,  moveable,  and  could 
change  into  something  else  ?  For  if  the  Father 
is  the  Son,  He  is  not  strictly  the  Father  :  for 
there  is  strictly  one  Father.  And  if  the  Son 
is  the  Father,  He  is  not  strictly  the  Son  :  for 
there  is  strictly  one  Son  and  one  Holy  Spirit. 

Further,  it  should  be  understood  that  we 
do  not  speak  of  the  Father  as  derived  from 
any  one,  but  we  speak  of  Him  as  the  Father 
of  the  Son.  And  we  do  not  speak  of  the 
Son  as  Cause  3  or  Father,  but  we  speak  of 
Him  both  as  from  the  Father,  and  as  the  Son 
of  the  Father.  And  we  speak  likewise  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  from  the  Father,  and  call 
Him  the  Spirit  of  the  Father.  And  we  do 
not  speak  of  the  Spirit  as  from  the  Son*: 
s  but  yet  we  call  Him  the  Spirit  of  the 
Son.  For  if  any  one  hath  not  the  Spirit  0/ 
Christ,  he  is  none  of  His6,  saith  the  divine 
apostle.  And  we  confess  that  He  is  manifested 
and  imparted  to  us  through  the  Son.  For  He 
breathed  upon  His  Disciples,  says  he,  and  said, 
Receive  ye  the  Holy  Spirit  t.  It  is  just  the 
same  as  in  the  case  of  the  sun  from  which 
come  both  the  ray  and  the  radiance  (for  the 
sun  itself  is  the  source  of  both  the  ray  and 
the  radiance),  and  it  is  through  the  ray  that 
the  radiance  is  imparted  to  us,  and  it  is  the 
radiance  itself  by  which  we  are  lightened  and 
in  which  we  participate.  Further  we  do  not 
speak  of  the  Son  of  the  Spirit,  or  of  the  Son 
as  derived  from  the  Spirit8. 


2  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  19  and  29. 

3  Text,  otnof :  variant,  avaCriov,  causeless. 

4  Maxim.  Epist.  ad  Marin. 

5  €K  toO  Yiov  Se  to  Ilveu/xa  ov  Xeyop-ev.  See  also  ch.  xii.,  Kai 
Yiov  nvevp-a  ovx  "«  «f  avTovf  and  at  the  close  of  the  Epist.  ad 
Jordan.,  TJi/eu^ta  YcoO  y.r)  ef  Yiov. 

°  Rom.  viii.  9.  7  St.  John  xx.  39. 

8  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  37. 


12 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

Concerning  what  is  affirmed  about  God. 

The  De:ty  is  simple  and  uncompound.  But 
that  which  is  composed  of  many  and  different 
elements  is  compound.  If,  then,  we  should 
speak  of  the  qualities  of  being  uncreate  and 
without  beginning  and  incorporeal  and  im- 
mortal and  everlasting  and  good  and  creative 
and  so  forth  as  essential  differences  in  the  case 
of  God,  that  which  is  composed  of  so  many 
qualities  will  not  be  simple  but  must  be  com- 
pound. But  this  is  impious  in  the  extreme. 
Each  then  of  the  affirmations  about  God  should 
be  thought  of  as  signifying  not  what  He  is 
in  essence,  but  either  something  that  it  is 
impossible  to  make  plain,  or  some  relation 
to  some  of  those  tilings  which  are  contrasts 
or  some  of  those  things  that  follow  the  nature, 
or  an  energy  9. 

It  appears  then  9a  that  the  most  proper  of  all 
the  names  given  to  God  is  "  He  that  is," 
as  He  Himself  said  in  answer  to  Moses  on 
the  mountain,  Say  to  the  sons  of  Israel,  He 
that  is  hath  sent  Me  \  For  He  keeps  all  being 
in  His  own  embrace2,  like  a  sea  of  essence 
infinite  and  unseen.  Or  as  the  holy  Diony- 
sius  says,  "  He  that  is  good  3."  For  one 
cannot  say  of  God  that  He  has  being  in  the 
first  plai2  and  goodness  in  the  second. 

The  second  name  of  God  is  6  Geoy,  derived 
from  6Ulv  4,  to  run,  because  He  courses  through 
all  things,  or  from  a'Lduv,  to  burn  :  For  God 
is  a  fire  consuming  all  evil5 :  or  from  deaadai, 
because  He  is  all-seeing 6 :  for  nothing  can 
escape  Him,  and  over  all  He  keepeth  watch. 
For  He  saw  all  things  before  they  were,  hold- 
ing them  timelessly  in  His  thoughts  ;  and  each 
one  conformably  to  His  voluntary  and  time- 
less thought  7,  which  constitutes  predeter- 
mination and  image  and  pattern,  comes  into 
existence  at  the  predetermined  time  8. 

The  first  name  then  conveys  the  notion 
of  His  existence  and  of  the  nature  of  His 
existence:  while  the  second  contains  the 
idea  of  energy.     Further,  the  terms  '  without 


9  The  Greek  runs  : — rj  (r^eo-iv  Tiyi  n-pbs  t!  tu>i/  ovrtSiaoreAAo- 
fit'ruji',  t)  Tt  tuv  TrapeTrou.evuii'  T77  <f>v(rei,  rf  ei>cpyeiai>. 

9a  Rendered  in  the  Septuagint  Version,  'Eyio  et^ti  o  mv.  Some 
of  the  Fathers  made  much  of  the  fact  that  it  is  not  the  neuter  form 
TO  ov. 

1  Exod.  iii.  14.  *    Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  36. 

3  Dionys.,  De  div.  notn.  c.  2,  3  and  4.  This  sentence  and  the 
next  are  absent  in  some  MSS.,  and  are  rather  more  obscurely 
stated  than  is  usual  with  John  of  Damascus. 

4  In  his  Cratylus  Plato  gives  this  etymology,  and  Eusebius 
quotes  it  in  his  Prep.  Evangel,  i.  Clement  of  Alexandria  refers 
to  it  more  than  once  in  his  Strom.,  bk.  iv.,  and  in  his  Protrept., 
where  he  snys—Sidera  flcous  c/c  tov  8eeiv,  deos  a  currendo  nomi- 
narunt. 

5  Deut.  iy.  24.  6  2  Mach.  x.  5. 

7  Kara  t\\v  fleATjriKTjy  avrov  axpocot'  trruiav.  See  Thomas 
Aguin..  I.,  II.  Quast.  17,  Art.  1,  where  he  says,  est  actus 
rationis,  prasupposito  tamen  actu  voluntatis. 

8  This  sentence  is  absent  in  some  MSS.,  being  added  at  the 
end  of  the  chapter  with  the  mark  o-x<>A. 


beginning,'  'incorruptible,'  ' unbegotten,'  as 
also  'uncreate,'  'incorporeal,'  'unseen,'  and 
so  forth,  explain  what  He  is  not :  that  is  to 
say,  they  tell  us  that  His  being  had  no  be- 
ginning, that  He  is  not  corruptible,  nor 
created,  nor  corporeal,  nor  visible  9.  Again, 
goodness  and  justice  and  piety  and  such  like 
names  belong  to  the  nature x,  but  do  not 
explain  His  actual  essence.  Finally,  Lord 
and  King  and  names  of  that  class  indicate 
a  relationship  with  their  contrasts :  for  the 
name  Lord  has  reference  to  those  over  whom 
the  lord  rules,  and  the  name  King  to  those 
under  kingly  authority,  and  the  name  Creator 
to  the  creatures,  and  the  name  Shepherd  to 
the  sheep  he  tends. 

CHAPTER   X. 

Concerning  divine  union  and  separation. 

Therefore  all  these  names  must  be  under- 
stood as  common  to  deity  as  a  whole,  and 
as  containing  the  notions  of  sameness  and 
simplicity  and  indivisibility  and  union  :  while 
the  names  Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  and  cause- 
less and  caused,  and  unbegotten  and  begotten, 
and  procession  contain  the  idea  of  separa- 
tion ;  for  these  terms  do  not  explain  His 
essence,  but  the  mutual  relationship a  and 
manner  of  existence 3. 

When,  then,  we  have  perceived  these  things 
and  are  conducted  from  these  to  the  divine 
essence,  we  do  not  apprehend  the  essence 
itself  but  only  the  attributes  of  the  essence  : 
just  as  we  have  not  apprehended  the  essence 
of  the  soul  even  when  we  have  learnt  that 
it  is  incorporeal  and  without  magnitude  and 
form ;  nor  again,  the  essence  of  the  body 
when  we  know  that  it  is  white  or  black,  but 
only  the  attributes  of  the  essence.  Further,  the 
true  doctrine4  teacheth  that  the  Deity  is  simple 
and  has  one  simple  energy,  good  and  ener- 
gising in  all  things,  just  as  the  sun's  ray, 
which  warms  all  things  and  energises  in  each 
in  harmony  with  its  natural  aptitude  and  re- 
ceptive power,  having  obtained  this  form  of 
energy  from  God,  its  Maker. 

But  quite  distinct  is  all  that  pertains  to 
the  divine  and  benignant  incarnation  of  the 
divine  Word.  For  in  that  neither  the  Father 
nor  the  Spirit  have  any  part  at  all,  unless 
so  far  as  regards  approval  and  the  working 
of  inexplicable  miracles  which  the  God-Word, 


9  Dionys.,  De  div.  nom.,  c.  5. 

1  ira.peTrovTo.1  rjj  <pv<ret. ;  follow  the  nature,  are  consequent* 
of  the  nature,  or  accompany  it. 

2  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  45  ;  cf.  also  Epist.  ad  Evagr.,  and  Greg. 
Nyss.,  Epist.  ad  Ablab. ;  Dionys.,  De  div.  nom.,  c.  2  ;  Basil, 
Epist.  43  ad  Greg.fratr. 

3  Dionys.,  De  div.  nom.,  C  a ;  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  37  and  45  5 
Nyss.  Epist.  ad.  Ablab. 

4  6  Si  <iAi)8t)S  Aoyoj, 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE   ORTHODOX   FAITH. 


13 


having  become  man  s  like  us,  worked,  as  un- 
changeable God  and  son  of  God6. 

CHAPTER   XL 

Concerning  what  is  affirmed  a  ^out  God  as 
though  He  had  body. 

Since  we  find  many  terms  used  symbolically 
in  the  Scriptures  concerning  God  which  are 
more  applicable  to  that  which  has  body,  we 
should  recognise  that  it  is  quite  impossible 
for  us  men  clothed  about  with  this  dense 
covering  of  flesh  to  understand  or  speak  of 
the  divine  and  lofty  and  immaterial  energies 
of  the  Godhead,  except  by  the  use  of  images 
and  types  and  symbols  derived  from  our  own 
life  7.  So  then  all  the  statements  concerning 
God,  that  imply  body,  are  symbols,  but  have 
a  higher  meaning  :  for  the  Deity  is  simple  and 
formless.  Hence  by  God's  eyes  and  eyelids 
and  sight  we  are  to  understand  His  power 
of  overseeing  all  things  and  His  knowledge, 
that  nothing  can  escape :  for  in  the  case  of  us 
this  sense  makes  our  knowledge  more  com- 
plete and  more  full  of  certainty.  By  God's 
ears  and  hearing  is  meant  His  readiness  to 
be  propitiated  and  to  receive  our  petitions  : 
for  it  is  this  sense  that  renders  us  also  kind 
to  suppliants,  inclining  our  ear  to  them  more 
graciously.  God's  mouth  and  speech  are  His 
means  of  indicating  His  will ;  for  it  is  by  the 
mouth  and  speech  that  we  make  clear  the 
thoughts  that  are  in  the  heart  :  God's  food 
and  drink  are  our  concurrence  to  His  will, 
for  we,  too,  satisfy  the  necessities  of  our 
natural  appetite  through  the  sense  of  taste. 
And  God's  sense  of  smell  is  His  appreciation 
of  our  thoughts  of  and  good  will  towards 
Him,  for  it  is  through  this  sense  that  we 
appreciate  sweet  fragrance.  And  God's  coun- 
tenance is  the  demonstration  and  manifesta- 
tion of  Himself  through  His  works,  for  our 
manifestation  is  through  the  countenance. 
And  God's  hands  mean  the  effectual  nature 
of  His  energy,  for  it  is  with  our  own  hands 
that  we  accomplish  our  most  useful  and  valu- 
able work.  And  His  right  hand  is  His  aid 
in  prosperity,  for  it  is  the  right  hand  that 
we  also  use  when  making  anything  of  beauti- 
ful shape  or  of  great  value,  or  where  much 
strength  is  required.  His  handling  is  His 
power  of  accurate  discrimination  and  exaction, 
even  in  the  minutest  and  most  secret  details, 
for  those  whom  we  have  handled  cannot  con- 
ceal from  us  aught  within  themselves.  His 
feet  and  walk  are  His  advent  and  presence, 


5  Text,   avBpunros,  which  is  absent  in  some  codices   and  in 
Dionys.,  De  div.  nom.,  from  which  these  words  are  taken. 

6  Greg.  Nat.,  Orat.  24  :  Dionys.,  De  div.  nom.,  c.  2. 

7  Dionys.,  De  div.  nom.,  c.  1  ;  De  Ccel.  Hier.,  c.  15. 


either  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  succour  to 
the  needy,  or  vengeance  against  enemies,  or 
to  perform  any  other  action,  for  it  is  by  using 
our  feet  that  we  come  to  arrive  at  any  place. 
His  oath  is  the  unchangeableness  of  His  coun- 
sel, for  it  is  by  oath  that  we  confirm  our 
compacts  with  one  another.  His  anger  and 
fury  are  His  hatred  of  and  aversion  to  all 
wickedness,  for  we,  too,  hate  that  which  is 
contrary  to  our  mind  and  become  enraged 
thereat8.  His  forgetfulness  and  sleep  and 
slumbering  are  His  delay  in  taking  vengeance 
on  His  enemies  and  the  postponement  of  the 
accustomed  help  to  His  own.  And  to  put  it 
shortly,  all  the  statements  made  about  God 
that  imply  body  have  some  hidden  meaning 
and  teach  us  what  is  above  us  by  means  of 
something  familiar  to  ourselves,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  any  statement  concerning  the  bodily 
sojourn  of  the  God-Word.  For  He  for  our 
safety  took  upon  Himself  the  whole  nature 
of  man  9,  the  thinking  spirit,  the  body,  and 
all  the  properties  of  human  nature,  even  the 
natural  and  blameless  passions. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

Concerning  the  Same. 

The  following,  then,  are  the  mysteries  which 
we  have  learned  from  the  holy  oracles,  as  the 
divine  Dionysius  the  Areopagite  said  l :  that 
God  is  the  cause  and  beginning  of  all :  the 
essence  of  all  that  have  essence :  the  life  of 
the  living :  the  reason  of  all  rational  beings : 
the  intellect  of  all  intelligent  beings :  the  re- 
calling and  restoring  of  those  who  fall  away 
from  Him :  the  renovation  and  transformation 
of  those  that  corrupt  that  which  is  natural : 
the  holy  foundation  of  those  who  are  tossed  in 
unholiness:  the  steadfastness  of  those  who  have 
stood  firm :  the  way  of  those  whose  course 
is  directed  to  Him  and  the  hand  stretched 
forth  to  guide  them  upwards.  And  I  shall 
add  He  is  also  the  Father  of  all  His  creatures 
(for  God,  Who  brought  us  into  being  out  of 
nothing,  is  in  a  stricter  sense  our  Father  than 
are  our  parents  who  have  derived  both  being 
and  begetting  from  Him 2) :  the  shepherd  of 
those  who  follow  and  are  tended  by  Him :  the 
radiance  of  those  who  are  enlightened:  the 
initiation  of  the  initiated  :  the  deification  of 
the  deified :  the  peace  of  those  at  discord : 
the  simplicity  of  those  who  love  simplicity : 
the  unity  of  those  who  worship  unity:  of  all 
beginning   the  beginning,    super-essential   be- 


8  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  37. 

9  Text,  TtavTO.  tok  ai/Opon-ov  :  variant,  anavra. 

1  Dionys.,  De  div.  nom.,  c.  1. 

2  A  than.,  Orat.  2,  Cont.  Arian.  ;  Cyril,  T/tes.,  atttrt.  13. 


H 


JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS. 


cause  above  all  beginnings:  and  the  good 
revelation  of  what  is  hidden,  that  is,  of  the 
knowledge  of  Him  so  far  as  that  is  lawful 
for  and  attainable  by  each. 

Further  and  more  accurately  concerning  the 
divine  names  *. 

The  Deity  being  incomprehensible  is  also 
assuredly  nameless.  Therefore  since  we  know 
not  His  essence,  let  us  not  seek  for  a  name 
for  His  essence.  For  names  are  explanations 
of  actual  things  s.  But  God,  Who  is  good 
and  brought  us  out  of  nothing  into  being  that 
we  might  share  in  His  goodness,  and  Who 
gave  us  the  faculty  of  knowledge,  not  only 
did  not  impart  to  us  His  essence,  but  did 
not  even  grant  us  the  knowledge  of  His  es- 
sence. For  it  is  impossible  for  nature  to  un- 
derstand fully  the  super-natural6.  Moreover, 
if  knowledge  is  of  things  that  are  7,  how  can 
there  be  knowledge  of  the  super-essential  ? 
Through  His  unspeakable  goodness,  then,  it 
pleased  Him  to  be  called  by  names  that  we 
could  understand,  that  we  might  not  be  alto- 
gether cut  off  from  the  knowlege  of  Him  but 
should  have  some  notion  of  Him,  however 
vague.  Inasmuch,  then,  as  He  is  incompre- 
hensible, He  is  also  unnameable.  But  inas- 
much as  He  is  the  cause  of  all  and  contains 
in  Himself  the  reasons  and  causes  of  all  that 
is,  He  receives  names  drawn  from  all  that  is, 
even  from  opposites:  for  example,  He  is  called 
light  and  darkness,  water  and  fire :  in  order 
that  we  may  know  that  these  are  not  of  His 
essence  but  that  He  is  super-essential  and 
unnameable :  but  inasmuch  as  He  is  the 
cause  of  all,  He  receives  names  from  all  His 
effects. 

Wherefore,  of  the  divine  names,  some  have 
a  negative  signification,  and  indicate  that  He 
is  super-essential8:  such  are  "  non-essential 9," 
"timeless,"  "without  beginning,"  "invisible"  : 
not  that  God  is  inferior  to  anything  or  lack- 
ing in  anything  (for  all  things  are  His  and 
have  become  from  Him  and  through  Him 
and  endure  in  Him  9a),  but  that  He  is  pre- 
eminently separated  from  all  that  is.  For 
He  is  not  one  of  the  things  that  are,  but  over 
all  things.  Some  again  have  an  affirmative 
signification,   as   indicating   that    He    is    the 

3  Text  reads,  <is  vn-apxios:  surely  a  misprint  for  us  virepap- 
X'os. 

4  This  chapter  is  not  found  in  the  oldest  copies,  but  only 
in  a  few  of  the  latest  date.  In  Cod.  Keg.  3109  it  comes  in  after 
bk.  iv.  c.  9,  and  in  Cod.  Keg.  3451,  after  bk.  ii.  c.  2. 

5  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  36. 

6  Dionys.,  De  div.  nom.,  c.  1. 

7  Text,  ei  fie  icai  ri>v  ovtiov  ai  ■yvoitreis,  to  iiirepovcnov  7ru>s 
fviaB-qaera.!.;  a  variant,  ei  &e  ai  (pucreis  ayvuxrTot,  aiirb  VTrepovcriov 
wiii  yycoSijo-erai.  If  the  natures  are  unknown  how  can  the  super- 
essential  itself  be  known  ? 

8  Or,  super-substantial,  vjrepov<rio5- 

9  avovo-ios,  non-substantial,  without  subitance. 
9»  Coloss.  i.  17. 


cause  of  all  things.  For  as  the  cause  of  all 
that  is  and  of  all  essence,  He  is  called  both 
Ens  and  Essence.  And  as  the  cause  of  all 
reason  and  wisdom,  of  the  rational  and  the  wise, 
He  is  called  both  reason  and  rational,  and  wis- 
dom and  wise.  Similarly  He  is  spoken  of  as 
Intellect  and  Intellectual,  Life  and  Living, 
Power  and  Powerful,  and  so  on  with  all  the 
rest.  Or  rather  those  names  are  most  appro- 
priate to  Him  which  are  derived  from  what 
is  most  precious  and  most  akin  to  Himself. 
That  which  is  immaterial  is  more  precious 
and  more  akin  to  Himself  than  that  which 
is  material,  and  the  pure  than  the  impure, 
and  the  holy  than  the  unholy :  for  they  have 
greater  part  in  Him.  So  then,  sun  and  light 
will  be  more  apt  names  for  Him  than  dark- 
ness, and  day  than  night,  and  life  than  death, 
and  fire  and  spirit  and  water,  as  having  life, 
than  earth,  and  above  all,  goodness ,  than 
wickedness :  which  is  just  to  say,  being  more 
than  not  being.  For  goodness  is  existence 
and  the  cause  of  existence,  but  wickedness 
is  the  negation  of  goodness,  that  is,  of  exist- 
ence. These,  then,  are  the  affirmations  and 
the  negations,  but  the  sweetest  names  are 
a  combination  of  both :  for  example,  the 
super-essential  essence,  the  Godhead  that  is 
more  than  God,  the  beginning  that  is  above 
beginning  and  such  like.  Further  there  are 
some  affirmations  about  God  which  have  in 
a  pre-eminent  degree  the  force  of  denial :  for 
example,  darkness  :  for  this  does  not  imply 
that  God  is  darkness  but  that  He  is  not  light, 
but  above  light. 

God  then  is  called  Mind  and  Reason  and 
Spirit  and  Wisdom  and  Power,  as  the  cause 
of  these,  and  as  immaterial,  and  maker  of 
all,  and  omnipotent  9b.  And  these  names  are 
common  to  the  whole  Godhead,  whether  affir- 
mative or  negative.  And  they  are  also  used 
of  each  of  the  subsistences  of  the  Holy  Trinity 
in  the  very  same  and  identical  way  and  with 
their  full  significance x.  For  when  I  think 
of  one  of  the  subsistences,  I  recognise  it  to 
be  perfect  God  and  perfect  essence :  but 
when  I  combine  and  reckon  the  three  to- 
gether, I  know  one  perfect  God.  For  the 
Godhead  is  not  compound  but  in  three  per- 
fect subsistences,  one  perfect  indivisible  and 
uncompound  God.  And  when  I  think  of  the 
relation  of  the  three  subsistences  to  each 
other,  I  perceive  that  the  Father  is  super- 
essential  Sun,  source  of  goodness,  fathomless 
sea  of  essence,  reason,  wisdom,  power,  light, 
divinity:  the  generating  and  productive  source 


9b  Dionys.,  De  div.  nom.,  c.  5. 

1  Text,  di7rapa\et7rTO>5 :  variant,  an-apaAAcutTwt,  unchangeably, 
an  adverb  used  by  the  Greeks  in  connection  with  the  equality 
of  the  divine  persons. 


EXPOSITION   OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


15 


•of  good  hidden  in  it.  He  Himself  then  is 
mind,  the  depth  of  reason,  begetter  of  the  Word, 
and  through  the  Word  the  Producer2  of  the  re- 
vealing Spirit.  And  to  put  it  shortly,  the  Fa- 
ther has  no  reason  3,  wisdom,  power,  will 4,  save 
the  Son  Who  is  the  only  power  of  the  Father, 
the  immediate 5  cause  of  the  creation  of  the 
universe :  as  perfect  subsistence  begotten  of 
perfect  subsistence  in  a  manner  known  to 
Himself,  Who  is  and  is  named  the  Son.  And 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  power  of  the  Father 
revealing  the  hidden  mysteries  of  ilis  Divinity, 
proceeding  from  the  Father  through  the  Son 
in  a  manner  known  to  Himself,  but  different 
from  that  of  generation.  Wherefore  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  the  perfecter  of  the  creation  of  the  uni- 
verse. All  the  terms,  then,  that  are  appropriate 
to  the  Father,  as  cause,  source,  begetter,  are 
to  be  ascribed  to  the  Father  alone  :  while 
those  that  are  appropriate  to  the  caused,  be- 
gotten Son,  Word,  immediate  power,  will, 
wisdom,  are  to  be  ascribed  to  the  Son  :  and 
those  that  are  appropriate  to  the  caused,  pro- 
cessional, manifesting,  perfecting  power,  are 
to  be  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Father 
is  the  source  and  cause  of  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Spirit :  Father  of  the  Son  alone  and 
producer  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Son  is  Son, 
Word,  Wisdom,  Power,  Image,  Effulgence, 
Impress  of  the  Father  and  derived  from  the 
Father.  But  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  the  Son 
of  the  Father  but  the  Spirit  of  the  Father 
as  proceeding  from  the  Father.  For  there 
is  no  impulse  without  Spirit.  And  we  speak 
also  of  the  Spirit  of  the  Son,  not  as  though 
proceeding  from  Him,  but  as  proceeding 
through  Him  from  the  Father.  For  the 
Father  alone  is  cause. 

CHAPTER   XIII. 

Concerning  the  place  of  God:  and  that  the 
Deity  a/one  is  uncircumscribed. 

Bodily  place  is  the  limit  of  that  which  con- 
tains, by  which  that  which  is  contained  is 
contained6  :  for  example,  the  air  contains  but 
the  body  is  contained  ?.  But  it  is  not  the 
whole  of  the  containing  air  which  is  the  place 
of  the  contained  body,  but  the  limit  of  the 


2  Trpo|3oA€vs,  Lat.  productor,  Emitter. 

3  Or,  Word;  Aoyos. 

*  0<?Ar)<ris,  cf.  Cyril,  Th.,  assert.  7  ;  A  than.,  Contr.  Arian.  4  ; 
Greg.  Nyss.,  Contr.  Eunom.,  p.  345. 

5  r\  p-ovrj  Supcuiis  rov  UaTpbs,  ij  irpoKaTapriKr)  T>ji  to>i>  TtavTinv 
jroirjaeiot.  The  ri  irpoKa.TapTi.Kri  is  understood  by  some  to  mean 
the  primordial  or  immediate  Cause,  by  others  to  be  better  ren- 
dered as  the  primordial  Power  or  Energy.  Basil  in  his  De 
Spiritu  Sam  to  speaks  of  the  Father  as  the  primordial  Cause 
(n-poieaTapTiK7j  curia)  in  the  creation  of  the  world. 

6  Arist.,  Physic,  bk.  iv.  4. 

1  Text,  oioi'  6  dijp  irepie'^ei,  to  Se  <ru>p.a.  n-epie'xeTcu'  o\i\  oAos 
St  6  Trepie'x'op  djjp,  &c.  Variant,  oW  o  dijp  Trepie'x*'  ToSe  cra>p.a, 
ov\  oAos,  &c. 


containing  air,  where  it  comes  into  contact 
with  the  contained  body  :  and  the  rea-on 
is  clearly  because  that  which  contains  is  not 
within  that  which  it  contains. 

But  there  is  also  mental  place  where  mind 
is  active,  and  mental  and  incorporeal  nature 
exists  :  where  mind  dwells  and  energises  and 
is  contained  not  in  a  bodily  but  in  a  mental 
fashion.  For  it  is  without  form,  and  so  can 
not  be  contained  as  a  body  is.  God,  then, 
being  immaterial 8  and  uncircumscribed,  has 
not  place.  For  He  is  His  own  place,  filling 
all  things  and  being  above  all  things,  and 
Himself  maintaining  all  things?.  Yet  we 
speak  of  God  having  place  and  the  place 
of  God  where  His  energy  becomes  manifest. 
For  He  penetrates  everything  without  mixing 
with  it,  and  imparts  to  all  His  energy  in  pro- 
portion to  the  fitness  and  receptive  power 
of  each :  and  by  this  I  mean,  a  purity  both 
natural  and  voluntary.  For  the  immaterial 
is  purer  than  the  material,  and  that  which 
is  virtuous  than  that  which  is  linked  with  vice. 
Wherefore  by  the  place  of  God  is  meant  that 
which  has  a  greater  share  in  His  energy  and 
grace.  For  this  reason  the  Heaven  is  His 
throne.  For  in  it  are  the  angels  who  do  His 
will  and  are  always  glorifying  Him  *.  For 
this  is  His  rest  and  the  earth  is  His  footstool2. 
For  in  it  He  dwelt  in  the  flesh  among  men  3. 
And  His  sacred  flesh  has  been  named  the 
foot  of  God.  The  Church,  too,  is  spoken 
of  as  the  place  of  God  :  for  we  have  set  this 
apart  for  the  glorifying  of  God  as  a  sort  of 
consecrated  place  wherein  we  also  hold  con- 
verse with  Him.  Likewise  also  the  places 
in  which  His  energy  becomes  manifest  to  us, 
whether  through  the  flesh  or  apart  from  flesh, 
are  spoken  of  as  the  places  of  God. 

But  it  must  be  understood  that  the  Deity 
is  indivisible,  being  everywhere  wholly  in  His 
entirety  and  not  divided  up  part  by  part  like 
that  which  has  body,  but  wholly  in  everything 
and  wholly  above  everything. 

Marg.  MS.     Concerning  the  place  of  angel  and 
spirit,  and  concerning  the  uncircumscribed. 

The  angel,  although  not  contained  in  place 
with  figured  form  as  is  body,  yet  is  spoken 
of  as  being  in  place  because  he  has  a  men- 
tal presence  and  energises  in  accordance  with 
his  nature,  and  is  not  elsewhere  but  has  his 
mental  limitations  there  where  he  energises. 
For  it  is  impossible  to  energise  at  the  same 
time  in  different  places.  For  to  God  alone 
belongs  the  power  of  energising  everywhere 


3  dvAos  i>v.     Greg.  Naz.,  Oral.  34,  Greg.  Nyss.,  De  anim.  tt 
resurr.,  &c,  speak  of  God  as  nowhere  and  as  everywhere. 
9  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  34.  x  Isai.  vi.  1,  seq. 

2  Isai.  lxvi.  1.  3  Baruch  iii.  38. 


iG 


JOHN    OF    DAMASCUS. 


at  the  same  time.  The  angel  energises  in 
different  places  by  the  quickness  of  his  nature 
and  the  promptness  and  speed  by  which  he 
can  change  his  place:  but  the  Deity,  Who 
is  everywhere  and  above  all,  energises  at  the 
same  time  in  diverse  ways  with  one  simple 
energy. 

Further  the  soul  is  bound  up  with  the  body, 
whole  with  whole  and  not  part  with  part  :  and 
it  is  not  contained  by  the  body  but  contains 
it  as  fire  does  iron,  and  being  in  it  energises 
with  its  own  proper  energies. 

That  which  is  comprehended  in  place  or 
time  or  apprehension  is  circumscribed  :  while 
that  which  is  contained  by  none  of  these  is 
uncircumscribed.  Wherefore  the  Deity  alone 
is  uncircumscribed,  being  without  beginning 
and  without  end,  and  containing  all  things, 
and  in  no  wise  apprehended4.  For  He  alone 
is  incomprehensible  and  unbounded,  within 
no  one's  knowledge  and  contemplated  by 
Himself  alone.  But  the  angel  is  circum- 
scribed alike  in  time  (for  His  being  had 
commencement)  and  in  place  (but  mental 
space,  as  we  said  above)  and  in  apprehension. 
For  they  know  somehow  the  nature  of  each 
other  and  have  their  bounds  perfectly  defined 
by  the  Creator.  Bodies  in  short  are  circum- 
scribed both  in  beginning  and  end,  and  bodily 
place  and  apprehension. 

Marg.  MS.  From  various  sources  concerning 
God  and  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit.  And  concerning  the  Word  and 
the  Spirit. 

The  Deity,  then,  is  quite  unchangeable  and 
invariable.  For  all  things  which  are  not  in 
our  hands  He  hath  predetermined  by  His 
foreknowledge,  each  in  its  own  proper  and 
peculiar  time  and  place.  And  accordingly 
the  Father  judgeth  no  one,  but  hath  given  all 
judgment  to  the  Son  s.  For  clearly  the  Father 
and  the  Son  and  also  the  Holy  Spirit  judged 
as  God.  But  the  Son  Himself  will  descend  in 
the  body  as  man,  and  will  sit  on  the  throne  of 
Glory  (for  descending  and  sitting  require  cir- 
cumscribed body),  and  will  judge  all  the  world 
in  justice. 

All  things  are  far  apart  from  God,  not  in 
place  but  in  nature.  In  our  case,  thoughtful- 
ness,  and  wisdom,  and  counsel  come  to  pass 
and  go  away  as  states  of  being.  Not  so  in 
the  case  of  God  :  for  with  Him  there  is  no 
happening  or  ceasing  to  be  :  for  He  is  in- 
variable and  unchangeable :  and  it  would  not 
be  right  to  speak  of  contingency  in  connection 
with  Him.  For  goodness  is  concomitant  with 
essence.     He  who  longs  alway  after  God,  he 


4  Greg.  Naz,,  Orat.  44. 


5  St.  John  v.  22. 


seeth  Him  :  for  God  is  in  all  things.  Existing 
things  are  dependent  on  that  which  is,  and 
nothing  can  be  unless  it  is  in  that  which  is. 
God  then  is  mingled  with  everything,  main- 
taining their  nature  :  and  in  His  holy  flesh 
the  God-Word  is  made  one  in  subsistence  and 
is  mixed  with  our  nature,  yet  without  con- 
fusion. 

No  one  seeth  the  Father,  save  the  Son  and  the 
Spirit 6. 

The  Son  is  the  counsel  and  wisdom  and 
power  of  the  Father.  For  one  may  not  speak 
of  quality  in  connection  with  God,  from  fear 
of  implying  that  He  was  a  compound  of  es- 
sence and  quality. 

The  Son  is  from  the  Father,  and  derives 
from  Him  all  His  properties  :  hence  He  can- 
not do  ought  of  Himself  t.  For  He  has  not 
energy  peculiar  to  Himself  and  distinct  from 
the  Father8. 

That  God  Who  is  invisible  by  nature  is 
made  visible  by  His  energies,  we  perceive 
from  the  organisation  and  government  of  the 
world  9. 

The  Son  is  the  Father's  image,  and  the 
Spirit  the  Son's,  through  which  Christ  dwelling 
in  man  makes  him  after  his  own  image  r. 

The  Holy  Spirit  is  God,  being  between 
the  unbegotten  and  the  begotten,  and  united 
to  the  Father  through  the  Son2.  We  speak 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
the  mind  of  Christ,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord, 
the  very  Lord3,  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  of 
truth,  of  liberty,  of  wisdom  (for  He  is  the 
creator  of  all  these)  :  filling  all  things  with 
essence,  maintaining  all  things,  filling  the 
universe  with  essence,  while  yet  the  universe 
is  not  the  measure  of  His  power. 

God  is  everlasting  and  unchangeable  es- 
sence, creator  of  all  that  is,  adored  with  pious 
consideration. 

God  is  also  Father,  being  ever  unbegotten, 
for  He  was  born  of  no  one,  but  hath  begotten 
His  co-eternal  Son  :  God  is  likewise  Son, 
being  always  with  the  Father,  born  of  the 
Father  timelessly,  everlastingly,  without  flux 
or  passion,  or  separation  from  Him.  God  is 
also  Holy  Spirit,  being  sanctifying  power, 
subsistential,  proceeding  from  the  Father 
without  separation,  and  resting  in  the  Son, 
identical  in  essence  with  Father  and  Son. 

Word  is  that  which  is  ever  essentially  pre- 
sent with  the  Father.  Again,  word  is  also  the 
natural  movement  of  the  mind,  according  to 
which  it  is  moved  and  thinks  and  considers, 


6  St.  John  vi.  46.  7  Ibid.  v.  30.  8  Greg.,  Orat.  36. 

9  W'isd.  xii.  5.  *  Basil,  Cont.  Run.,  bk.v. 

•  y-itjov  toO  ayevvrjTOV  Kax  tov  ytvvr)TOV,  (cat  Si'  Yiou  t<jI  Uwrpi 
tTvva.TTT6fj.tvov. 
3  auTOKvptoc/. 


EXPOSITION    OF    THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH 


'7 


being  as  it  were  its  own  light  and  radiance. 
Again,  word  is  the  thought  that  is  spoken 
only  within  the  heart.  And  again,  word  is 
the  utterance4  that  is  the  messenger  of  thought. 
God  therefore  is  Word  5  essential  and  enhy- 
postatic :  and  the  other  three  kinds  of  word 
are  faculties  of  the  soul,  and  are  not  contem- 
plated as  having  a  proper  subsistence  of  their 
own.  The  first  of  these  is  the  natural  off- 
spring of  the  mind,  ever  welling6  up  naturally 
out  of  it  :  the  second  is  the  thought :  and  the 
third  is  the  utterance. 

The  Spirit  has  various  meanings.  There 
is  the  Holy  Spirit :  but  the  powers  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  are  also  spoken  of  as  spirits  :  the  good 
messenger  is  also  spirit  :  the  demon  also  is 
spirit  :  the  soul  too  is  spirit  :  and  sometimes 
mind  also  is  spoken  of  as  spirit.  Finally  the 
wind  is  spirit  and  the  air  is  spirit. 

CHAPTER   XIV. 

The  properties  of  the  divine  nature. 

Uncreate,  without  beginning,  immortal,  in- 
finite, eternal,  immaterial ?,  good,  creative,  just, 
enlightening,  immutable,  passionless,  uncir- 
cumscribed,  immeasurable,  unlimited,  undefin- 
ed, unseen,  unthinkable,  wanting  in  nothing, 
being  His  own  rule  and  authority,  all-ruling, 
life-giving,  omnipotent,  of  infinite  power,  con- 
taining and  maintaining  the  universe  and  mak- 
ing provision  for  all:  all  these  and  such  like 
attributes  the  Deity  possesses  by  nature,  not 
having  received  them  from  elsewhere,  but 
Himself  imparting  all  good  to  His  own  crea- 
tions according  to  the  capacity  of  each. 

The  subsistences  dwell  and'  are  established 
firmly  in  one  another.  For  they  are  insepar- 
able and  cannot  part  from  one  another,  but 


4  7rpo(£opiicos  is  absent  in  MSS.  but  added  by  a  second  hand 
in  one  codex. 

5  avaiuihi\<;  re  cart  ko.1  en)7rdoTaTO?.     Against  the  Sabellian 
doctrine,  the  views  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  &c. 

6  Tnryafo/iei'oi'.  t 

7  Text,  to  avAov  :  in  one  codex  there  is  added  as  emendation 
or  explanation,  to  ajffcovv,  to  aavvdtTov. 


keep  to  their  separate  courses  within  one  an- 
other, without  coalescing  or  mingling,  but 
cleaving  to  each  other.  For  the  Son  is  in 
the  Father  and  the  Spirit  :  and  the  Spirit  in 
the  Father  and  the  Son  :  and  the  Father  in 
the  Son  and  the  Spirit,  but  there  is  no  coales- 
cence or  commingling  or  confusion8.  And 
there  is  one  and  the  same  motion  :  for  there 
is  one  impulse  and  one  motion  of  the  three 
subsistences,  which  is  not  to  be  observed  in 
any  created  nature. 

Further  the  divine  effulgence  and  energy, 
being  one  and  simple  and  indivisible,  assuming 
many  varied  forms  in  its  goodness  among  what 
is  divisible  and  allotting  to  each  the  component 
parts  of  its  own  nature,  still  remains  simple 
and  is  multiplied  without  division  among  the 
divided,  and  gathers  and  converts  the  divided 
into  its  own  simplicity  9.  For  all  things  long 
after  it  and  have  their  existence  in  it.  It  gives 
also  to  all  things  being  according  to  their  several 
natures  x,  and  it  is  itself  the  being  of  existing 
things,  the  life  of  living  things,  the  reason  of 
rational  beings,  the  thought  of  thinking  beings. 
But  it  is  itself  above  mind  and  reason  and  life 
and  essence. 

Further  the  divine  nature  has  the  property 
of  penetrating  all  things  without  mixing  with 
them  and  of  being  itself  impenetrable  by  any- 
thing else.  Moreover,  there  is  the  property 
of  knowing  all  things  with  a  simple  knowledge 
and  of  seeing  all  things,  simply  with  His  di- 
vine, all-surveying,  immaterial  eye,  both  the 
things  of  the  present,  and  the  things  of  the 
past,  and  the  things  of  the  future,  before  they 
come  into  being 2.  It  is  also  sinless,  and  can 
cast  sin  out,  and  bring  salvation :  and  all  that 
it  wills,  it  can  accomplish,  but  does  not  will 
all  it  could  accomplish.  For  it  could  destroy 
the  universe  but  it  does  not  will  so  to  do  3. 


8  Greg.  Naz.y  Orat.  1,13  and  40. 

9  Dionys.,  De  div.  nom.,  c.  5. 

1  Text,  KaOuis  e'xn  (piicrecos  :  in  the  margin  of  the  manuscript 

is  cis  (XOVITl. 

2  Dan.  ii.  32. 


3  Greg.,  Orat.  40. 


VOL.  IX. 


BOOK    II. 


CHAPTER   I. 
Concerning  aeon  or  age. 

He  created  the  ages  Who  Himself  was  be- 
fore the  ages,  Whom  the  divine  David  thus 
addresses,  From  age  to  age  Thou  art x.  The 
divine  apostle  also  says,  Through  Whom  He 
created  the  ages  2. 

It  must  then  be  understood  that  the  word 
age  has  various  meanings,  for  it  denotes  many 
things.  The  life  of  each  man  is  called  an 
age.  Again,  a  period  of  a  thousand  years 
is  called  an  age  3.  Again,  the  whole  course 
of  the  present  life  is  called  an  age  :  also  the 
future  life,  the  immortal  life  after  the  resur- 
rection 4,  is  spoken  of  as  an  age.  Again,  the 
word  age  is  used  to  denote,  not  time  nor  yet 
a  part  of  time  as  measured  by  the  movement 
and  course  of  the  sun,  that  is  to  say,  composed 
of  days  and  nights,  but  the  sort  of  temporal 
motion  and  interval  that  is  co-extensive  with 
eternity5.  For  age  is  to  things  eternal  just 
what  time  is  to  things  temporal. 

Seven  ages 6  of  this  world  are  spoken  of, 
that  is,  from  the  creation  of  the  heaven  and 
earth  till  the  general  consummation  and  resur- 
rection of  men.  For  there  is  a  partial  con- 
summation, viz.,  the  death  of  each  man :  but 
there  is  also  a  general  and  complete  consum- 
mation, when  the  general  resurrection  of  men 
will  come  to  pass.  And  the  eighth  age  is  the 
age  to  come. 

Before  the  world  was  formed,  when  there 
was  as  yet  no  sun  dividing  day  from  night, 
there  was  not  an  age  such  as  could  be  mea- 
sured 7,  but  there  was  the  sort  of  temporal 
motion  and  interval  that  is  co-extensive  with 
eternity.  And  in  this  sense  there  is  but  one 
age,  and  God  is  spoken  of  as  alavios 8  and 
irpoaimvios,  for  the  age  or  aeon  itself  is  His 
creation.  For  God,  Who  alone  is  without 
beginning,  is  Himself  the  Creator  of  all  things, 
whether  age  or  any  other  existing  thing.  And 
when  I  say  God,  it  is  evident  that  I  mean  the 
Father  and  His  Only  begotten  Son,  our  Lord, 
Jesus  Christ,  and  His  all-holy  Spirit,  our  one 
God. 


1  Ps.  xc.  2.  2  Hebr.  i.  a. 

3  Arist.,  De  Coelo,  bk.  i,  text  ioo. 

4  St.  Matt.  xii.  32  ;  St.  Luke  vii.  34. 

5  Greg  Naz.,  Orat.  35,  38,  42. 

•  Basil,  De  Struct.,  horn.  2  ;  Greg.  Nat.,  Orat.  44. 

1  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  44. 

8  oiuik.o?,  'eternal,'  but  also  'secular,'  'aeonian,'  '  age-long.' 


But  we  speak  also  of  ages  of  ages,  inasmuch 
as  the  seven  ages  of  the  present  world  include 
many  ages  in  the  sense  of  lives  of  men,  and 
the  one  age  embraces  all  the  ages,  and  the 
present  and  the  future  are  spoken  of  as  age  of 
age.  Further,  everlasting  (i.e.  al&vios)  life  and 
everlasting  punishment  prove  that  the  age  or 
aeon  to  come  is  unending  9.  For  time  will 
not  be  counted  by  days  and  nights  even  after 
the  resurrection,  but  there  will  rather  be  one 
day  with  no  evening,  wherein  the  Sun  of 
Justice  will  shine  brightly  on  the  just,  but 
for  the  sinful  there  will  be  night  profound  and 
limitless.  In  what  way  then  will  the  period 
of  one  thousand  years  be  counted  which,  ac- 
cording to  Origen  *,  is  required  for  the  com- 
plete restoration  ?  Of  all  the  ages,  therefore, 
the  sole  creator  is  God  Who  hath  also  created 
the  universe  and  Who  was  before  the  ages. 

CHAPTER    II. 

Concerning  the  creation. 

Since,  then,  God,  Who  is  good  and  more 
than  good,  did  not  find  satisfaction  in  self- 
contemplation,  but  in  His  exceeding  goodness 
wished  certain  things  to  come  into  existence 
which  would  enjoy  His  benefits  and  share 
in  His  goodness,  He  brought  all  things  out 
of  nothing  into  being  and  created  them,  both 
what  is  invisible  and  what  is  visible.  Yea, 
even  man,  who  is  a  compound  of  the  visible 
and  the  invisible.  And  it  is  by  thought  that 
He  creates,  and  thought  is  the  basis  of  the 
work,  the  Word  filling  it  and  the  Spirit  per- 
fecting it  •. 

CHAPTER    III. 

Concerning  angels. 

He  is  Himself  the  Maker  and  Creator  of 
the  angels  :  for  He  brought  them  out  of  no- 
thing into  being  and  created  them  after  His 
own  image,  an  incorporeal  race,  a  sort  of  spirit 
or  immaterial  fire  :  in  the  words  of  the  divine 
David,  He  maketh  His  ange/s  spirits,  and  His 
ministers  a  flame  of  fire  3  •  and  He  has  de- 
scribed their  lightness  and   the   ardour,  and 


9  Variant,  <cal  anipavTov  Sr)Kot.     In  Regg.  aiuvos  is  absent. 
«  See   his   Contr.   Ceh.,   iv.     Cf.  Justin  Martyr.    Afiol.    i, 
Basil,  Hex.,  horn.  3;  Greg.  Nyss..  Orat.  Cattck.  26,  &c. 

3  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  38,  42  ;  Dionys.,  De  Eccl.  Hier.,  ch.  4. 
3  Ps.  civ.  4. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


19 


heat,  and  keenness  and  sharpness  with  which 
they  hunger  for  God  and  serve  Him,  and  how 
they  are  borne  to  the  regions  above  and  are 
quite  delivered  from  all  material  thought  ♦, 

An  angel,  then,  is  an  intelligent  essence, 
in  perpetual  motion,  with  free-will,  incor- 
poreal, ministering  to  God,  having  obtained 
by  grace  an  immortal  nature  :  and  the  Creator 
alone  knows  the  form  and  limitation  of  its 
essence.  But  all  that  we  can  understand  is, 
that  it  is  incorporeal  and  immaterial.  For  all 
that  is  compared  with  God  Who  alone  is 
incomparable,  we  find  to  be  dense  and  ma- 
terial. For  in  reality  only  the  Deity  is  im- 
material and  incorporeal. 

The  angel's  nature  then  is  rational,  and 
intelligent,  and  endowed  with  free-will,  change- 
able in  will,  or  fickle.  For  all  that  is  created 
is  changeable,  and  only  that  which  is  un- 
created is  unchangeable.  Also  all  that  is 
rational  is  endowed  with  free-will.  As  it  is, 
then,  rational  and  intelligent,  it  is  endowed 
with  free-will :  and  as  it  is  created,  it  is 
changeable,  having  power  either  to  abide  or 
progress  in  goodness,  or  to  turn  towards  evil. 

It  is  not  susceptible  of  repentance  because 
it  is  incorporeal.  For  it  is  owing  to  the  weak- 
ness of  his  body  that  man  comes  to  have  re- 
pentance. 

It  is  immortal,  not  by  natures  but  by  grace6. 
For  all  that  has  had  beginning  comes  also  to 
its  natural  end.  But  God  alone  is  eternal,  or 
rather,  He  is  above  the  Eternal  :  for  He,  the 
Creator  of  times,  is  not  under  the  dominion  of 
time,  but  above  time. 

They  are  secondary  intelligent  lights  derived 
from  that  first  light  which  is  without  begin- 
ning, for  they  have  the  power  of  illumination  ; 
they  have  no  need  of  tongue  or  hearing, 
but  without  uttering  words  1  they  communi- 
cate to  each  other  their  own  thoughts  and 
counsels  8. 

Through  the  Word,  therefore,  all  the  angels 
were  created,  and  through  the  sanctification 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  were  they  brought  to  per- 
fection, sharing  each  in  proportion  to  his 
worth  and  rank  in  brightness  and  grace  9. 

They  are  circumscribed  :  for  when  they  are 
in  the  Heaven  they  are  not  on  the  earth  :  and 
when  they  are  sent  by  God  down  to  the  earth 
they  do  not  remain  in  the  Heaven.  They  are 
not  hemmed  in  by  walls  and  doors,  and  bars 
and  seals,  for  they  are  quite  unlimited.  Un- 
limited, I  repeat,  for  it  is  not  as  they  really 
are  that  they  reveal  themselves  to  the  worthy 


4  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  38.  S  N, 

6  Text,  x*PlTl-     R-  293?>  ""Ta  \apiv. 

7  ifcu  Aovou  iroo<ioDi<rou  :  without  WO 


S  Nttnes.,  ch. 


7  av(V  \6yov  irpo<popiicov  : 

8  Greg.  Naz. ,  Orat.  38. 


ra  \apiv. 
without  word  ofuttcrant*. 
Ibid.  34. 


men  '  to  whom  God  wishes  them  to  appear, 
but  in  a  changed  form  which  the  beholders 
are  capable  of  seeing.  For  that  alone  is 
naturally  and  strictly  unlimited  which  is  un- 
created. For  every  created  thing  is  limited 
by  God  Who  created  it. 

Further,  apart  from  their  essence  they  re- 
ceive the  sanctification  from  the  Spirit  : 
through  the  divine  grace  they  prophesy 2  : 
they  have  no  need  of  marriage  for  they  are 
immortal. 

Seeing  that  they  are  minds  they  are  in 
mental  places 3,  and  are  not  circumscribed 
after  the  fashion  of  a  body.  For  they  have  not 
a  bodily  form  by  nature,  nor  are  they  ex- 
tended in  three  dimensions.  But  to  what- 
ever post  they  may  be  assigned,  there  they 
are  present  after  the  manner  of  a  mind  and 
energise,  and  cannot  be  present  and  ener- 
gise in  various  places  at  the  same  time. 

Whether  they  are  equals  in  essence  or  differ 
from  one  another  we  know  not.  God,  their 
Creator,  Who  knoweth  all  things,  alone  know- 
eth.  But  they  differ 4  from  each  other  in 
brightness  and  position,  whether  it  is  that 
their  position  is  dependent  on  their  bright- 
ness, or  their  brightness  on  their  position : 
and  they  impart  brightness  to  one  another, 
because  they  excel  one  another  in  rank  and 
nature  s.  And  clearly  the  higher  share  their 
brightness  and  knowledge  with  the  lower. 

They  are  mighty  and  prompt  to  fulfil  the 
will  of  the  Deity,  and  their  nature  is  endowed 
with  such  celerity  that  wherever  the  Divine 
glance  bids  them  there  they  are  straightway 
found.  They  are  the  guardians  of  the  divi- 
sions of  the  earth  :  they  are  set  over  nations 
and  regions,  allotted  to  them  by  their  Creator : 
they  govern  all  our  affairs  and  bring  us  suc- 
cour. And  the  reason  surely  is  because  they 
are  set  over  us  by  the  divine  will  and  com- 
mand and  are  ever  in  the  vicinity  of  God  6. 

With  difficulty  they  are  moved  to  evil,  yet 
they  are  not  absolutely  immoveable  :  but  now 
they  are  altogether  immoveable,  not  by  na- 
ture but  by  grace  and  by  their  nearness  to  the 
Only  Good  ?. 

They  behold  God  according  to  their  ca- 
pacity, and  this  is  their  food8. 

They  are  above  us  for  they  are  incorporeal, 
and  are  free  of  all  bodily  passion,  yet  are  not 
passionless  :  for  the  Deity  alone  is  passionless. 


1  Text,  afi'ois.     R.  2930,  aylois. 
■  Theodoret,  Epist.  de  div.  deer.,  ch.  8. 
3  iv  voijTots  icai  tojtois.     Cf.  bk.  i.  17. 

*  See   Greg.   Naz.,   Orat.  34.     And   cf.   Cyril,   Thesaur.  31, 
p.  266  ;  Epiph.,  Hares.  64. 

5  Dionys.,  De  Coel.  Hier.,  ch.  3;  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  34. 

6  Dionys.,  De  Coil.  Hier.,  ch.  9  ;  Greg.,  Orat.  34. 

7  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  38. 

8  Text,  r  >o<J>tJ!/.    Variant,  rpv^ije ,  cf.  Dionys.,  De  CmL  Hitr., 
ch.  7. 


X  2 


20 


JOHN    OF    DAMASCUS. 


They  take  different  forms  at  the  bidding 
of  their  Master,  God,  and  thus  reveal  them- 
selves to  men  and  unveil  the  divine  mysteries 
to  them. 

They  have  Heaven  for  their  dwelling-place, 
And  have  one  duty,  to  sing  God's  praise  and 
carry  out  His  divine  will. 

Moreover,  as  that  most  holy,  and  sacred, 
and  gifted  theologian,  Dionysius  the  Areo- 
pagite  9,  says,  All  theology,  that  is  to  say,  the 
holy  Scripture,  has  nine  different  names  for 
the  heavenly  essences  r.  These  essences  that 
divine  master  in  sacred  things  divides  into 
three  groups,  each  containing  three.  And 
the  first  vgroup,  he  says,  consists  of  those  who 
are  in  God's  presence  and  are  said  to  be  di- 
rectly and  immediately  one  with  Him,  viz., 
the  Seraphim  with  their  six  wings,  the  many- 
eyed  Cherubim  and  those  that  sit  in  the 
holiest  thrones.  The  second  group  is  that 
of  the  Dominions,  and  the  Powers,  and  the 
Authorities  ;  and  the  third,  and  last,  is  that  of 
the  Rulers  and  Archangels  and  Angels. 

Some,  indeed 2,  like  Gregory  the  Theolo- 
gian, say  that  these  were  before  the  crea- 
tion of  other  things.  He  thinks  that  the 
angelic  and  heavenly  powers  were  first  and 
that  thought  was  their  function  3.  Others, 
again,  hold  that  they  were  created  after  the 
first  heaven  was  made,  But  all  are  agreed 
that  it  was  before  the  formation  of  man.  For 
myself,  I  am  in  harmony  with  the  theologian. 
For  it  was  fitting  that  the  mental  essence 
should  be  the  first  created,  and  then  that  which 
can  be  perceived,  and  finally  man  himself,  in 
whose  being  both  parts  are  united. 

But  those  who  say  that  the  angels  are 
creators  of  any  kind  of  essence  whatever  are 
the  mouth  of  their  father,  the  devil.  For 
since  they  are  created  things  they  are  not 
creators.  But  He  Who  creates  and  provides 
for  and  maintains  all  things  is  God,  Who 
alone  is  uncreate  and  is  praised  and  glorified 
in  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Concerning  the  devil  and  demons. 

He  who  from  among  these  angelic  powers 
was  set  over*  the  earthly  realm,  and  into  whose 
hands  God  committed  the  guardianship  of 
the  earth,  was  not  made  wicked  in  nature  but 
was  good,  and  made  for  good  ends,  and  re- 


9  Dionys.,  De  C<r.l.  Hier.,  ch.  6. 

1  But  cf.  August.,  Enchir.,  ch.  8;  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  34; 
Greg.  Ayss.,  Contra  Eunom.,  Orat.  1  ;  Chrysost.,  De  incotn- 
prehcns.,  horn   3,  <Vc. 

2  See  E/i/-h.,  Uteres.  6,  n.  4  and  5  ;  Basil,  Hex.  1  ;  Chrysost., 
%  Horn,  in  Gen.  ;  Theodor.,  Qucest.  3  in  Gen. 

3  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  2. 

4  jrp<0T0(TTanj5.     Cf.  Chrysost.,  Epist.  ad  Ephes.,  hom.  4,  &c. 


ceived  from  his  Creator  no  trace  whatever  of 
evil  in  himself.  But  he  did  not  sustain  the 
brightness  and  the  honour  which  the  Creator 
had  bestowed5  on  him,  and  of  his  free  choice 
was  changed  from  what  was  in  harmony  to 
what  was  at  variance  with  his  nature,  and 
became  roused  against  God  Who  created  him, 
and  determined  to  rise  in  rebellion  against 
Him  6  :  and  he  was  the  first  to  depart  from  good 
and  become  evil  7.  For  evil  is  nothing  else 
than  absence  of  goodness,  just  as  darkness 
also  is  absence  of  light.  For  goodness  is  the 
light  of  the  mind,  and,  similarly,  evil  is  the 
darkness  of  the  mind.  Light,  therefore,  being 
the  work  of  the  Creator  and  being  made  good 
(for  God  saw  all  that  He  made,  and  behold 
they  tv ere  exceeding  good*)  produced  darkness 
at  His  free-will.  But  along  with  him  an  in- 
numerable host  of  angels  subject  to  him  were 
torn  away  and  followed  him  and  shared  in  his 
fall.  Wherefore,  being  of  the  same  nature  9 
as  the  angels,  they  became  wicked,  turning 
away  at  their  own  free  choice  from  good  to 
evil r. 

Hence  they  have  no  power  or  strength 
against  any  one  except  what  God  in  His 
dispensation  hath  conceded  to  them,  as  for 
instance,  against  Job 2  and  those  swine  that 
are  mentioned  in  the  Gospels  3.  But  when 
God  has  made  the  concession  they  do  pre- 
vail, and  are  changed  and  transformed  into 
any  form  whatever  in  which  they  wish  to 
appear. 

Of  the  future  both  the  angels  of  God  and 
the  demons  are  alike  ignorant  :  yet  they 
make  predictions.  God  reveals  the  future 
to  the  angels  and  commands  them  to  pro- 
phesy, and  so  what  they  say  comes  to  pass. 
But  the  demons  also  make  predictions,  some- 
times because  they  see  what  is  happening 
at  a  distance,  and  sometimes  merely  making 
guesses  :  hence  much  that  they  say  is  false 
and  they  should  not  be  believed,  even  al- 
though they  do  often,  in  the  way  we  have 
said,  tell  what  is  true.  Besides  they  know  the 
Scriptures. 

All  wickedness,  then,  and  all  impure  pas- 
sions are  the  work  of  their  mind.  But  while 
the  liberty  to  attack  man  has  been  granted 
to  them,  they  have  not  the  strength  to  over- 
master any  one :  for  we  have  it  in  our  power 
to  receive  or  not  to  receive  the  attack 4. 
Wherefore  there  has   been   prepared   for  the 


5  Text,  c8<op>)<raTO.     R.  1986,  exaPt'0'aT»« 

6  See  Iren.,  bk.  iv.  c.  48,  &c. 

7  Greg.  A'yss.,  Orat.  Catech.,  cp.  6.  8  Gen.  i.  31. 

9  See   Greg.    Xaz.,    Orat.    19,   38;    Chrysost.,  In  S.  Babyl. 
Or.  2  ;  Basil,  In  Jesaiam,  ch.  1,  &c. 

1  Qiti/st.  ad  Antioch.  10.  s  Job  i.  12. 

3  St.  Mark  v.  13. 

4  Vide  lamb].,  De  Myst.,  ch.  11,  sect.  4. 


EXPOSITION    OF    THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


21 


devil  and  his  demons,  and  those  who  follow 
him,  fire  unquenchable  and  everlasting  punish- 
ment 5. 

Note,  further,  that  what  in  the  case  of  man 
is  death  is  a  fall  in  the  case  of  angels.  For 
after  the  fall  there  is  no  possibility  of  re- 
pentance for  them,  just  as  after  death  there 
is  for  men  no  repentance  6. 

CHAPTER   V. 

Concerning  the  visible  creation. 

Our  God  Himself,  Whom  we  glorify  as 
Three  in  One,  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth 
and  all  that  they  contain  7,  and  brought  all 
things  out  of  nothing  into  being  :  some  He 
made  out  of  no  pre-existing  basis  of  matter, 
such  as  heaven,  earth,  air,  fire,  water  :  and 
the  rest  out  of  these  elements  that  He  had 
created,  such  as  living  creatures,  plants,  seeds. 
For  these  are  made  up  of  earth,  and  water, 
and  air,  and  fire,  at  the  bidding  of  the 
Creator. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Concerning  the  Heaven. 

The  heaven  is  the  circumference  of  things  cre- 
ated, both  visible  and  invisible.  For  within  its 
boundary  are  included  and  marked  off  both  the 
mental  faculties  of  the  angels  and  all  the  world 
of  sense.  But  the  Deity  alone  is  uncircum- 
scribed,  filling  all  things,  and  surrounding 
all  things,  and  bounding  all  things,  for  He 
is  above  all  things,  and  has  created  all  things. 

Since 8,  therefore,  the  Scripture  speaks  of 
heaven,  and  heaven  of  heaven  9,  and  heavens 
of  heavens  *,  and  the  blessed  Paul  says  that 
he  was  snatched  away  to  the  third  heaven  % 
we  say  that  in  the  cosmogony  of  the  universe 
we  accept  the  creation  of  a  heaven  which  the 
foreign  philosophers,  appropriating  the  views 
of  Moses,  call  a  starless  sphere.  But  further, 
God  called  the  firmament  also  heaven  3,  which 
He  commanded  to  be  in  the  midst  of  the 
waters,  settinsr  it  to  divide  the  waters  that 
are  above  the  firmament  from  the  waters  that 
are  below  the  firmament.  And  its  nature, 
according  to  the  divine  BasiHus*,  who  is 
versed  in  the  mysteries  of  divine  Scripture, 
is  delicate  as  smoke.  Others,  however,  hold 
that  it  is  watery  in  nature,  since  it  is  set  in 
the  midst  of  the  waters  :  others  say  it  is  com- 
posed of  the  four  elements  :  and  lastly,  others 
speak  of  it  as  a  filth  body,  distinct  from  the 
four  elements  5. 


S  St.  Matt.  xxv.  41. 

'  Nemes.,  De  Nat.  Horn.,  ch.  i.  7  Ps.  cxlvi.  6. 

8  Cf.  Chrysost.,  In  Genes.,  /win.  4 ;  Basil,  Hex.  horn.  3,  &c. 

9  Ps.  cxv.  16.  •  lb.  cxlviii.  4.  2  2  Cor.  xii.  •>.. 
3  Gen.  "..  8.                 4  Basil,  Horn.  1  in  Hexaemeron. 

5  The  Peripatetics.     See  Nemes.,  ch.  5. 


Further,  some  have  thought  that  the  hea- 
ven encircles  the  universe  and  has  the  form 
of  a   sphere,   and    that  everywhere  it   is    the 
highest  point,  and  that  the  centre  of  the  space 
enclosed  by  it  is  the  lowest  part  :  and,  further, 
that  those  bodies  that  are  light  and  airy  are 
allotted    by  the    Creator    the    upper    region : 
while  those  that  are   heavy  and  tend   to  de- 
scend occupy  the  lower  region,  which  is  the 
middle.     The  element,  then,  that  is  lightest 
and  most  inclined  to  soar  upwards  is  fire,  and 
hence   they  hold    that   its   position   is  imme- 
diately after  the  heaven,  and  they  call  it  ether, 
and  alter  it  comes  the  lower  air.     But  earth 
and  water,  which  are  heavier  and  have  more 
of  a  downward    tendency,   are  suspended   in 
the   centre.     Therefore,   taking   them    in   the 
reverse  order,  we  have  in  the  lowest  situation 
earth    and  water:    but  water  is  lighter  than 
earth,  and  hence  is  more  easily  set  in  motion  : 
above  these   on   all    hands,  like  a   covering, 
is  the  circle  of  air,  and  all  round  the  air  is  the 
circle  of  ether,  and  outside  all  is  the  circle  of 
the  heaven. 

Further,  they  say  that  the  heaven  moves 
in  a  circle  and  so  compresses  all  that  is  within 
it,  that  they  remain  firm  and  not  liable  to  fall 
asunder. 

They  say  also  that  there  are  seven  zones 
of  the  heaven6,  one  higher  than  the  other. 
And  its  nature,  they  say,  is  of  extreme  fine- 
ness, like  that  of  smoke,  and  each  zone  con- 
tains one  of  the  planets.  For  there  are  said 
to  be  seven  planets :  Sol,  Luna,  Jupiter, 
Mercury,  Mars,  Venus  vand  Saturn.  But  some- 
times Venus  is  called  Lucifer  and  sometimes 
Vesper.  These  are  called  planets  because 
their  movements  are  the  reverse  of  those 
of  the  heaven.  For  while  the  heaven  and 
all  other  stars  move  from  east  to  west,  these 
alone  move  from  west  to  east.  And  this  can 
easily  be  seen  in  the  case  of  the  moon,  which 
moves  each  evening  a  little  backwards. 

All,  therefore,  who  hold  that  the  heaven 
is  in  the  form  of  a  sphere,  say  that  it  is 
equally  removed  and  distant  from  the  earth 
at  all  points,  whether  above,  or  sideways, 
or  below.  And  by  'below'  and  'sideways' 
1  mean  all  that  comes  within  the  range  of 
our  senses.  For  it  follows  from  what  has 
been  said,  that  the  heaven  occupies  the  whole 
of  the  upper  region  and  the  earth  the  whole 
of  the  lower.  They  say,  besides,  that  the 
heaven  encircles  the  earth  in  the  manner  of 
a  sphere,  and  bears  along  with  it  in  its  most 
rapid  revolutions  sun,  moon  and  stars,  and  that 
when  the  sun  is  over  the  earth  it  becomes  day 
there,  and  when  it  is  under  the  earth  it   is 

6  Basil,  Horn.  3,  in  Hexaemeron. 


22 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


night.     And,  again,  when  the  sun  goes  under 
the  earth  it  is  night  here,  but  day  yonder. 

Others  have  pictured  the  heaven  as  a  hemi- 
sphere This  idea  is  suggested  by  these 
words  of  David,  the  singer  of  God,  Who 
stretchist  out  the  heavens  like  a  curtainT,  by 
which  word  he  clearly  means  a  tent :  and 
by  these  from  the  blessed  Isaiah,  Who  hath 
established  the  heavens  like  a  vault* :  and  also 
because  when  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  set, 
they  make  a  circuit  round  the  earth  from  west 
to  north,  and  so  reach  once  more  the  east  9. 
Still,  whether  it  is  this  way  or  that,  all 
things  have  been  made  and  established  by 
the  divine  command,  and  have  the  di- 
vine will  and  counsel  for  a  foundation  that 
cannot  be  moved.  For  He  Himself  spoke 
and  they  were  made :  He  Himself  commanded 
and  they  were  created.  He  hath  also  established 
them  for  ever  and  ever  :  He  hath  made  a  decree 
which  will  not  pass  x. 

The  heaven  of  heaven,  then,  is  the  first 
heaven  which  is  above  the  firmament  2.  So 
here  we  have  two  heavens,  for  God  called 
the  firmament  also  Heaven  3.  And  it  is  cus- 
tomary in  the  divine  Scripture  to  speak  of  the 
air  also  as  heaven,  because  we  see  it  above  us. 
Bless  Him,  it  says,  all  ye  birds  of  the  heaven, 
meaning  of  the  air.  For  it  is  the  air  and  not 
the  heaven  that  is  the  region  in  which  birds  fly. 
So  here  we  have  three  heavens,  as  the  divine 
Apostle  said  +.  But  if  you  should  wish  to  look 
upon  the  seven  zones  as  seven  heavens  there 
is  no  injury  done  to  the  word  of  truth.  For 
it  is  usual  in  the  Hebrew  tongue  to  speak  of 
heaven  in  the  plural,  that  is,  as  heavens,  and 
when  a  Hebrew  wishes  to  say  heaven  of 
heaven,  he  usually  says  heavens  of  heavens, 
and  this  clearly  means  heaven  of  heaven  s, 
which  is  above  the  firmament,  and  the  waters 
which  are  above  the  heavens,  whether  it  is 
the  air  and  the  firmament,  or  the  seven  zones 
of  the  firmament,  or  the  firmament  itself  which 
are  spoken  of  in  the  plural  as  heavens  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrew  custom. 

All  things,  then,  which  are  brought  into 
existence  are  subject  to  corruption  according 
to  the  law  of  their  nature  6,  and  so  even  the 
heavens  themselves  are  corruptible.  But  by 
the  grace  of  God  they  are  maintained  and  pre- 
served?. Only  the  Deity,  however,  is  by 
nature  without  beginning  and  without  end 8. 
Wherefore  it  has  been  said,  They  will  perish, 
hut  Thou  dost  endure I :  nevertheless,  the 
heavens  will  not  be  utterly  destroyed.     For 

7  Ps.  civ.  a.  8  Is-  xl.  aa. 

t  Chrysost..  Horn.  14  and  17,  ad  llebr. 

•  Ps.  cxlviii.  s,  6.  a  Greg-  Nyss.  dt  opif.  Horn. 
J  Gen.  j.  8.                ♦  a  Cor.  xii.  2.  5  Ps.  cxlviii.  4. 

'  Plato,  Tim.  7  Basil.  Horn.  1  and  3,  in  H  exaemeron. 

*  Just.,  qucrst.  93.  '  Ps.  cii.  26. 


they  will  wax  old  and  be  wound  round  as 
a  covering,  and  will  be  changed,  and  there 
will  be  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth  2. 

For  the  great  part  the  heaven  is  greater 
than  the  earth,  but  we  need  not  investigate 
the  essence  of  the  heaven,  for  it  is  quite  be- 
yond our  knowledge. 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  heavens 
or  the  luminaries  are  endowed  with  life  3. 
For  they  are  inanimate  and  insensible  *.  So 
that  when  the  divine  Scripture  saith,  Let  the 
heavens  rejoice  and  the  earth  be  glad5,  it  is  the 
angels  in  heaven  and  the  men  on  earth  that 
are  invited  to  rejoice.  For  the  Scripture  is 
familiar  with  the  figure  of  personification,  and 
is  wont  to  speak  of  inanimate  things  as  though 
they  were  animate  :  for  example  6,  The  sea  saw- 
it  and  fled:  Jordan  ivas  driven  backT.  And 
again,  What  ailed  thee,  O  thou  sea,  that  thou 
fleddestl  thou,  O  Jordan,  that  thou  was  driven 
back 8  ?  Mountains,  too,  and  hills  are  asked 
the  reason  of  their  leaping  in  the  same  way  as 
we  are  wont  to  say,  the  city  was  gathered  to- 
gether, when  we  do  not  mean  the  buildings,  but 
the  inhabitants  of  the  city :  again,  the  heavens 
declare  the  glory  of  God  9,  does  not  mean  that 
they  send  forth  a  voice  that  can  be  heard 
by  bodily  ears,  but  that  from  their  own  great- 
ness they  bring  before  our  minds  the  power 
of  the  Creator :  and  when  we  contemplate 
their  beauty  we  praise  the  Maker  as  the 
Master-Craftsman  *. 

CHAPTER   VII. 

Concerning  light,  fire,  the  luminaries^ 
sun,  moon  and  stars. 

Fire  is  one  of  the  four  elements,  light 
and  with  a  greater  tendency  to  ascend  than 
the  others.  It  has  the  power  of  burning 
and  also  of  giving  light,  and  it  was  made  by 
the  Creator  on  the  first  day.  For  the 
divine  Scripture  says,  And  God  said,  Let  there 
be  light,  and  there  was  light*.  Fire  is  not 
a  different  thing  from  what  light  is,  as  some 
maintain.  Others  again  hold  that  this  fire 
of  the  universe  is  above  the  air  3  and  call 
it  ether.  In  the  beginning,  then,  that  is  to 
say  on  the  first  day,  God  created  light,  the 
ornament  and  glory  of  the  whole  visible 
creation.  For  take  away  light  and  all  things 
remain  in  undistinguishable  darkness,  in- 
capable of  displaying  their  native  beauty. 
And  God  called  the  light  day,  but  the  darkness 


*  Apoc.  xxi.  i.  3  Cf  August.,  Retract.,  ii.  2. 
4  Basil,  Horn.  13,  in  Hexaemeron.  5  Ps.  xcvi.  11. 
6  Text,  lit  to.     N.  icai  to  aidnnAiv.  7  Ps.  cxiv.  J. 
8  Ibid.  5.                                  9  Ibid.  xix.  1. 

*  Basil,  Horn.  1  and  3,  in  Hexaemeron.  *  Gen.  t.  3. 

3  Text,  vntp.     Variant,  urro,  but  this  do«s  not  agree  with  the 
view  of  the  author  or  the  ancients. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODuX    FAITH. 


23 


He  called  flight*.  Further,  darkness  is  not 
any  essence,  but  an  accident :  for  it  is  simply 
absence  of  light.  The  air,  indeed,  has  not 
light  in  its  essence  s.  It  was,  then,  this  very 
absence  of  light  from  the  air  that  God  called 
darkness  :  and  it  is  not  the  essence  of  air  that 
is  darkness,  but  the  absence  of  light  which 
clearly  is  rather  an  accident  than  an  essence. 
And,  indeed,  it  was  not  night,  but  day,  that 
was  first  named,  so  that  day  is  first  and  after 
that  comes  night.  Night,  therefore,  follows 
day.  And  from  the  beginning  of  clay  till  the 
next  day  is  one  complete  period  of  day  and 
night.  For  the  Scripture  says,  And  the  even- 
ing and  the  morning  were  one  day  6. 

When,  therefore,  in  the  first  three  days  the 
light  was  poured  forth  and  reduced  at  the 
divine  command,  both  day  and  night  came  to 
pass  7.  But  on  the  fourth  day  God  created 
the  great  luminary,  that  is,  the  sun,  to  have 
rule  and  authority 8  over  the  day  :  for  it  is 
by  it  that  day  is  made :  for  it  is  day  when  the 
sun  is  above  the  earth,  and  the  duration  of 
a  day  is  the  course  of  the  sun  over  the  earth 
from  its  rising  till  its  setting.  And  He  also 
created  the  lesser  luminaries,  that  is,  the  moon 
and  the  stars,  to  have  rule  and  authority  * 
over  the  night,  and  to  give  light  by  night. 
For  it  is  night  when  the  sun  is  under  the 
earth,  and  the  duration  of  night  is  the  course 
of  the  sun  under  the  earth  from  its  rising  till 
its  setting.  The  moon,  then,  and  the  stars 
were  set  to  lighten  the  night :  not  that  they 
are  in  the  daytime  under  the  earth,  for  even 
by  day  stars  are  in  the  heaven  over  the  earth  : 
but  the  sun  conceals  both  the  stars  and  the 
moon  by  the  greater  brilliance  of  its  light  and 
prevents  them  from  being  seen. 

On  these  luminaries  the  Creator  bestowed 
the  first-created  light :  not  because  He  was 
in  need  of  other  light,  but  that  that  light 
might  not  remain  idle.  For  a  luminary  is 
not  merely  light,  but  a  vessel  for  containing 
light  \ 

There  are,  we  are  told,  seven  planets 
amongst  these  luminaries,  and  these  move 
in  a  direction  opposite  to  that  of  the  heaven  : 
hence  the  name  planets.  For,  while  they  say 
that  the  heaven  moves  from  east  to  west,  the 
planets  move  from  west  to  east;  but  the 
heaven  bears  the  seven  planets  along  with  it 
by  its  swifter  motion.  Now  these  are  the 
names  of  the  seven  planets :  Luna,  Mercury, 
Venus,    Sol,    Mars,    Jupiter,    Saturn,    and   in 


1  Gen-  i«  S-  S  Basil,  Horn,  a,  in  Hexaemtron. 

t  Sen'  l*.j?"      .  7  Sasil>  Horn.  2.  in  Hexaemerom, 

8  Text,  c^ovcrCav  :  variant.  i(ov<riat. 

1  Variant  here  also,  «fov<ria<r. 

s  Basil,  Horn.  6,  in  Hexaemcron. 


each  zone  of  heaven  is,  we  are  told,  one  of 
these  seven  planets  : 

In  the  first  and  highest  Saturn  fy 

In  the  second  Jupiter  TjL 

In  the  third  Mars  tf 

In  the  fourth  Sol  (J 

In  the  fifth  Venus  Q 

In  the  sixth  Mercury  £J 

In  the  seventh  and  lowest  Luna  (( 

The  course  which  the  Creator  3  appointed 
for  them  to  run  is  unceasing  and  remaineth 
fixed  as  He  established  them.     For  the  divine 
David  says,  The  moon  and  the  stars  which  Thou 
establishedst  4,  and  by  the  word  '  establishedst,' 
he  referred  to  the  fixity  and  unchangeableness 
of  the  order  and  series  granted  to  them  by 
God.     For    He  appointed   them  for  seasons, 
and  signs,  and  days  and  years.     It  is  through 
the   Sun   that   the  four  seasons   are   brought 
about.     And  the  first  of  these  is  spring :  for 
in  it  God  created  all  things  s,  and  even  down 
to  the  present  time  its  presence  is  evidenced 
by  the  bursting  of  the  flowers  into  bud,  and  this 
is  the  equinoctial  period,  since  day  and  night 
each  consist  of  twelve  hours.     It  is  caused 
by  the  sun  rising  in  the  middle,  and  is  mild 
and    increases   the   blood,  and  is  warm  and 
moist,  and  holds  a  position  midway  between 
winter  and  summer,  being  warmer  and  drier 
than  winter,  but  colder  and  moister  than  sum- 
mer.    This  season  lasts  from  March  21st  till 
June  24th.     Next,  when  the  rising  of  the  sun 
moves  towards  more  northerly  parts,  the  season 
of  summer  succeeds,  which  has  a  place  midway 
between    spring  and  autumn,   combining  the 
warmth  of  spring  with  the  dryness  of  autumn  : 
for  it   is   dry  and   warm,    and   increases   the 
yellow  bile.     In  it  falls  the  longest  day,  which 
has  fifteen  hours,  and  the  shortest  night  of 
all,    having   only   nine    hours.     This    season 
lasts    from   June    24th   till    September    25th. 
Then    when    the   sun    again    returns   to    the 
middle,   autumn  takes  the  place  of  summer. 
It  has  a  medium  amount  of  cold  and  heat, 
dryness  and  moisture,  and  holds  a  place  mid- 
way between   summer  and  winter,  combining 
the  dryness  of  summer  with  the  cold  of  winter. 
For  it  is  cold  and  dry,  and  increases  the  black 
bile.     This  season,  again,  is  equinoctial,  both 
day  and  night  consisting  of  twelve  hours,  and 
it   lasts  from  September  25th  till   December 
25th.     And  when  the  rising  of  the  sun  sinks 
to  its  smallest  and  lowest  point,  i.e.  the  south, 
winter  is  reached,  with  its  cold  and  moisture. 
It  occupies  a  place  midway  between  autumn 
and    spring,  combining  the  cold  of  autumn 


3  Text,  6  A7)/xiovpyoc.     Variant,  o  Srniiovpyrja-at. 

*  Ps.  viii.  3.  5  Basil,  Horn.  6,  in  Htxaemem. 


24 


JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS. 


and  the  moisture  of  spring.  In  it  falls  the 
shortest  day,  which  has  only  nine  hours,  and 
the  longest  night,  which  has  fifteen  :  and 
it  lasts  from  December  25th  till  March  21st. 
For  the  Creator  made  this  wise  provision 
that  we  should  not  pass  from  the  extreme 
of  cold,  or  heat,  or  dryness,  or  moisture, 
to  the  opposite  extreme,  and  thus  incur 
grievous  maladies.  For  reason  itself  teaches 
us  the  danger  of  sudden  changes. 

So,  then,  it  is  the  sun  that  makes  the  sea- 
sons, and  through  them  the  year :  it  likewise 
makes  the  days  and  nights,  the  days  when 
it  rises  and  is  above  the  earth,  and  the  nights 
when  it  sets  below  the  earth :  and  it  bestows 
on  the  other  luminaries,  both  moon  and  stars, 
their  power  of  giving  forth  light. 

Further,  they  say  that  there  are  in  the 
heaven  twelve  signs  made  by  the  stars,  and 
that  these  move  in  an  opposite  direction  to 
the  sun  and  moon,  and  the  other  five  planets, 
and  that  the  seven  planets  pass  across  these 
twelve  signs.  Further,  the  sun  makes  a  com- 
plete month  in  each  sign  and  traverses  the 
twelve  signs  in  the  same  number  of  months. 
These,  then,  are  the  names  of  the  twelve  signs 
and  their  respective  months  : — 

The  Ram,  which  receives  the  sun  on  the 

2 1  st  of  March. 
The  Bull,  on  the  23rd  of  April. 

The  Twins,       on  the  24th  of  May. 
The  Crab,         on  the  24th  of  June. 
The  Virgin,      on  the  25th  of  July. 
The  Scales,       on  the  25th  of  September. 
The  Scorpion,  on  the  25th  of  October. 
The  Archer,     on  the  25th  of  November. 
Capricorn,        on  the  25th  of  December. 
Aquarius,  on  the  25th  of  January. 

The  Fish,         on  the  24th  of  February. 

But  the  moon  traverses  the  twelve  signs 
each  month,  since  it  occupies  a  lower  position 
and  travels  through  the  signs  at  a  quicker 
rate.  For  if  you  draw  one  circle  within  an- 
other, the  inner  one  will  be  found  to  be  the 
lesser :  and  so  it  is  that  owing  to  the  moon 
occupying  a  lower  position  its  course  is  shorter 
and  is  sooner  completed. 

Now  the  Greeks  declare  that  all  our  af- 
fairs are  controlled  by  the  rising  and  setting 
and  collision 6  of  these  stars,  viz.,  the  sun 
and  moon  :  for  it  is  with  these  matters  that 
astrology  has  to  do.  But  we  hold  that  we 
get  from  them  signs  of  rain  and  drought,  cold 
and  heat,  moisture  and  dryness,  and  of  the 
various  winds,  and  so  forth  7,  but  no  sign 
whatever   as    to    our  actions.     For   we    have 


'  Text,  <rvyicpov<rews.   Variants,  cruyicpao-eajs  and  o7»y«epi<reu>s. 
7  Basil,  tfom.  6,  in  Hcxaemeron. 


been  created  with  free  wills  by  our  Creator 
and  are  masters  over  our  own  actions.  Indeed, 
if  all  our  actions  depend  on  the  courses  of  the 
stars,  all  we  do  is  done  of  necessity8:  and 
necessity  precludes  either  virtue  or  vice.  But 
if  we  possess  neither  virtue  nor  vice,  we  do 
not  deserve  praise  or  punishment,  and  God, 
too,  will  turn  out  to  be  unjust,  since  He  gives 
good  things  to  some  and  afflicts  others.  Nay, 
He  will  no  longer  continue  to  guide  or  pro- 
vide for  His  own  creatures,  if  all  things  are 
carried  and  swept  along  in  the  grip  of  neces- 
sity. And  the  faculty  of  reason  will  be  super- 
fluous to  us  :  for  if  we  are  not  masters  of 
any  of  our  actions,  deliberation  is  quite  super- 
fluous. Reason,  indeed,  is  granted  to  us 
solely  that  we  might  take  counsel,  and  hence 
all  reason  implies  freedom  of  will. 

And,  therefore,  we  hold  that  the  stars  are 
not  the  causes  of  the  things  that  occur,  nor  of 
the  origin  of  things  that  come  to  pass,  nor  of  the 
destruction  of  those  things  that  perish.  They  are 
rather  signs  of  showers  and  changes  of  air.  But, 
perhaps,  some  one  may  say  that  though  they 
are  not  the  causes  of  wars,  yet  they  are  signs 
of  them.  And,  in  truth,  the  quality  of  the  air 
which  is  produced  r  by  sun,  and  moon,  and 
stars,  produces  in  various  ways  different 
temperaments,  and  habits,  and  dispositions3. 
But  the  habits  are  amongst  the  things  that 
we  have  in  our  own  hands,  for  it  is  reason 
that  rules,  and  directs,  and  changes  them. 

It  often  happens,  also,  that  comets  arise. 
These  are  signs  of  the  death  of  kings  3,  and 
they  are  not  any  of  the  stars  that  were  made 
in  the  beginning,  but  are  formed  at  the  same 
time  by  divine  command  and  again  dissolved4. 
And  so  not  even  that  star  which  the  Magi 
saw  at  the  birth  of  the  Friend  and  Saviour 
of  man,  our  Lord,  Who  became  flesh  for  our 
sake,  is  of  the  number  of  those  that  were 
made  in  the  beginning.  And  this  is  evidently 
the  case  because  sometimes  its  course  was 
from  east  to  west,  and  sometimes  from  north 
to  south  ;  at  one  moment  it  was  hidden,  and 
at  the  next  it  was  revealed  :  which  is  quite 
out  of  harmony  with  the  order  and  nature 
of  the  stars. 

It  must  be  understood,  then,  that  the  moon 
derives  its  light  from  the  sun ;  not  that  God 
was  unable  to  grant  it  light  of  its  own,  but 
in  order  that  rhythm  and  order  may  be  im- 
impressed  upon  nature,  one  part  ruling,  the 
other  being  ruled,  and  that  we  might  thus 
be  taught  to  live  in  community  and  to  share 

8  Netnes.,  dt  Nat.  Horn.,  ch.  34. 

1  Text,  7roioujufVTj.     Variant,  Troeov/xeioi'. 

a  Basil,  Horn.  6,  in  He.iaemeron. 

3  Text,  96vo.tov  SrjAoL'fTa  /jkiiA.  toy.  Variant,  OavaTuiv  fiasU 
Xeu>v  :  also  66.vo.tov,  t\  ava.Sei.ftv  <n;p.cuK>W(7i  fiacri\cuiv. 

4  Basil,  Christi  Nativit. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


25 


our  possessions  with  one  another,  and  to  be 
under  subjection,  first  to  our  Maker  and 
Creator,  our  God  and  Master,  and  then  also 
to  the  rulers  set  in  authority  over  us  by  Him  : 
and  not  to  question  why  this  man  is  ruler 
and  not  I  myself,  but  to  welcome  all  that 
comes  from  God  in  a  gracious  and  reasonable 
spirit. 

The  sun  and  the  moon,  moreover,  suffer 
eclipse,  and  this  demonstrates  the  folly  of 
those  who  worship  the  creature  in  place  of 
the  Creators,  and  teaches  us  how  changeable 
and  alterable  all  things  are.  For  all  things 
are  changeable  save  God,  and  whatever  is 
changeable  is  liable  to  corruption  in  accord- 
ance with  the  laws  of  its  own  nature. 

Now  the  cause  of  the  eclipse  of  the  sun 
is  that  the  body  of  the  moon  is  interposed 
like  a  partition-wall  and  casts  a  shadow,  and 
prevents  the  light  from  being  shed  down 
on  us  6  :  and  the  extent  of  the  eclipse  is  pro- 
portional to  the  size  of  the  moon's  body  that 
is  found  to  conceal  the  sun.  But  do  not 
marvel  that  the  moon's  body  is  the  smaller. 
For  many  declare  that  the  sun  is  many  times 
larger  even  than  the  earth,  and  the  holy 
Fathers  say  that  it  is  equal  to  the  earth  :  yet 
often  a  small  cloud,  or  even  a  small  hill  or 
a  wall  quite  conceals  it. 

The  eclipse  of  the  moon,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  due  to  the  shadow  the  earth  casts  on  it 
■when  it  is  a  fifteen  days'  moon  and  the  sun 
and  moon  happen  to  be  at  the  opposite  poles 
of  the  highest  circle,  the  sun  being  under 
the  earth  and  the  moon  above  the  earth.  For 
the  earth  casts  a  shadow  and  the  sun's  light 
is  prevented  from  illuminating  the  moon,  and 
therefore  it  is  then  eclipsed. 

It  should  be  understood  that  the  moon  was 
made  full  by  the  Creator,  that  is,  a  fifteen 
days'  moon  :  for  it  was  fitting  that  it  should 
be  made  complete  ?.  But  on  the  fourth  day, 
as  we  said,  the  sun  was  created.  Therefore 
the  moon  was  eleven  days  in  advance  of  the 
sun,  because  from  the  fourth  to  the  fifteenth 
day  there  are  eleven  days.  Hence  it  happens 
that  in  each  year  the  twelve  months  of  the 
moon  contain  eleven  days  fewer  than  the 
twelve  months  of  the  sun.  For  the  twelve 
months  of  the  sun  contain  three  hundred  and 
sixty-five  and  a  quarter  days,  and  so  because 
the  quarter  becomes  a  whole,  in  four  years 
an  extra  day  is  completed,  which  is  called  bis- 
sextile. And  that  year  has  three  hundred  and 
sixty-six  days.  The  years  of  the  moon,  on 
the  other  hand,  have  three  hundred  and  fifty- 


5  Rom.  i.  25. 

a  Text,  SiavaSo6rji>a.(.  :  variants,  SiaSoOrjvai  and  5o0ijr«u». 
7  Serer,  Gabal.,  De  opif.  mundi,  III. 


four  days.  For  the  moon  wanes  from  the 
time  of  its  origin,  or  renewal,  till  it  is  fourteen 
and  three-quarter  days'  old,  and  proceeds  to 
wane  till  the  twenty-ninth  and  a  half  day, 
when  it  is  completely  void  of  light.  And  then 
when  it  is  once  more  connected  with  the  sun 
it  is  reproduced  and  renewed,  a  memorial 
of  our  resurrection.  Thus  in  each  year  the 
moon  gives  away  eleven  days  to  the  sun,  and 
so  in  three  years  the  intercalary  month  of  the 
Hebrews  arises,  and  that  year  comes  to  consist 
of  thirteen  months,  owing  to  the  addition  of 
these  eleven  days 8. 

It  is  evident  that  both  sun  and  moon  and 
stars  are  compound  and  liable  to  corruption 
according  to  the  laws  of  their  various  natures. 
But  of  their  nature  we  are  ignorant.  Some, 
indeed,  say  that  fire  when  deprived  of  matter 
is  invisible,  and  thus,  that  when  it  is  quenched 
it  vanishes  altogether.  Others,  again,  say 
that  when  it  is  quenched  it  is  transformed 
into  air  9. 

The  circle  of  the  zodiac  has  an  oblique 
motion  and  is  divided  into  twelve  sections 
called  zodia,  or  signs :  each  sign  has  three 
divisions  of  ten  each,  i.e.  thirty  divisions,  and 
each  division  has  sixty  very  minute  sub- 
divisions. The  heaven,  therefore,  has  three 
hundred  and  sixty-five  degrees  :  the  hemis- 
phere above  the  earth  and  that  below  the 
earth  each  having  one  hundred  and  eighty 
degrees. 

The  abodes  of  the  planets. 
The  Ram  and  the  Scorpion  are  the  abode 
of  Mars  :  the  Bull  and  the  Scales,  of  Venus  *  : 
the  Twins  and  the  Virgin,  of  Mercury  :  the 
Crab,  of  the  Moon  :  the  Lion,  of  the  Sun  : 
the  Archer  and  the  Fish,  of  Jupiter  :  Capri- 
corn and  Aquarius,  of  Saturn. 

Their  altitudes. 

The  Ram  has  the  altitude  of  the  Sun :  the 
Bull,  of  the  Moon  :  the  Crab,  of  Jupiter :  the 
Virgin,  of  Mars  :  the  Scales,  of  Saturn  :  Capri- 
corn, of  Mercury  :  the  Fish,  of  Venus. 

The  phases  of  the  moon. 

It  is  in  conjunction  whenever  it  is  in  the 
same  degree  as  the  sun  :  it  is  born  when 
it  is  fifteen  degrees  distant  from  the  sun : 
it  rises  when  it  is  crescent-shaped,  and  this 
occurs  twice 2,  at  which  times  it  is  sixty 
degrees  distant  from  the  sun  :  it  is  half-full 
twice,  when  it  is  ninety  degrees  from  the  sun : 
twice  it  is  gibbous,  when  it  is  one  hundred 


8  Ibid.  De  opif.  mundi.  III. 

9  A'emes.,  ch.  5.  »  Vide  Porph.,  d*  antra  Nymph. 
2  Text,  Si's.     R.  4  has  Sevrepoc. 


26 


JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS. 


and  twenty  degrees  from  the  sun  :  it  is  twice 
a  full  moon,  giving  full  light,  when  it  is 
a  hundred  and  fifty  degrees  from  the  sun : 
it  is  a  complete  moon  when  it  is  a  hundred 
and  eighty  degrees  distant  from  the  sun.  We 
say  twice,  because  these  phases  occur  both 
when  the  moon  waxes  and  when  it  wanes. 
In  two  and  a  half  days  the  moon  traverses 
each  sign. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
Concerning  air  and  winds. 

Air  is  the  most  subtle  element,  and  is 
moist  and  warm :  heavier,  indeed,  than  fire  : 
but  lighter  than  earth  and  water :  it  is  the 
cause  of  respiration  and  voice  :  it  is  colour- 
less, that  is,  it  has  no  colour  by  nature  :  it 
is  clear  and  transparent,  for  it  is  capable 
of  receiving  light :  it  ministers  to  three  of  our 
senses,  for  it  is  by  its  aid  that  we  see,  hear 
and  smell :  it  has  the  power  likewise  of  re- 
ceiving heat  and  cold,  dryness  and  moisture, 
and  its  movements  in  space  are  up,  down, 
within,  without,  to  the  right  and  to  the  left, 
and  the  cyclical  movement. 

It  does  not  derive  its  light  from  itself,  but 
is  illuminated  by  sun,  and  moon,  and  stars, 
and  fire.  And  this  is  just  what  the  Scripture 
means  when  it  says,  And  darkness  was  upon 
the  deep  3  •  for  its  object  is  to  shew  that  the 
air  has  not  derived  its  light  from  itself,  but 
that  it  is  quite  a  different  essence  from  light. 

And  wind  is  a  movement  of  air  :  or  wind 
is  a  rush  of  air  which  changes  its  name  as 
it  changes  the  place  whence  it  rushes  4. 

Its  place  is  in  the  air.  For  place  is  the 
circumference  of  a  body.  But  what  is  it  that 
surrounds  bodies  but  air?  There  are,  more- 
over, different  places  in  which  the  movement 
of  air  originates,  and  from  these  the  winds  get 
their  names.  There  are  in  all  twelve  winds. 
It  is  said  that  air  is  just  fire  after  it  has  been 
extinguished,  or  the  vapour  of  heated  water. 
At  all  events,  in  its  own  special  nature  the  air 
is  warm,  but  it  becomes  cold  owing  to  the 
proximity  of  water  and  earth,  so  that  the 
lower  parts  of  it  are  cold,  and  the  higher 
warm  s. 

These  then  are  the  winds6:  Caecias,  or 
Meses,  arises  in  the  region  where  the  sun  rises 
in  summer.  Subsolanus,  where  the  sun  rises 
at  the  equinoxes.  Eurus,  where  it  rises  in 
winter.  Africus,  where  it  sets  in  winter.  Fa- 
vonius,  where  it  sets  at  the  equinoxes,  and 
Corus,  or  Olympias,  or  Iapyx,  where  it  sets 
in  summer.     Then  come  Auster  and  Aquilo, 


3  Gen.  La.  4  Sever.  Cabal.,  Horn.  I  in  Hexalm. 

5  Nemes.,  Dt  Nat.  Horn,  i.,  ch.  5. 

6  These  are  absent  in  edit.  Veron. 


whose  blasts  oppose  one  another.  Between 
Aquilo  and  Caecias  comes  Boreas  :  and  be- 
tween Eurus  and  Auster,  Phoenix  or  Euro- 
notus  ;  between  Auster  and  Africus,  Libonotus 
or  Leuconotus  :  and  lastly,  between  Aquilo 
and  Corus,  Thrascias,  or  Cercius,  as  it  is 
called  by  the  inhabitants  of  that  region. 

[These  ?,  then,  are  the  races  which  dwell  at 
the  ends  of  the  world  :  beside  Subsolanus  are 
the  Bactriani  :  beside  Eurus,  the  Indians : 
beside  Phoenix,  the  Red  Sea  and  Ethiopia: 
beside  Libonotus,  the  Garamantes,  who  are 
beyond  Systis  :  beside  Africus,  the  Ethi- 
opians and  the  Western  Mauri:  beside  Fa- 
vonius,  the  columns  of  Hercules  and  the 
beginnings  of  Libya  and  Europe :  beside 
Corus,  Iberia,  which  is  now  called  Spain: 
beside  Thrascia,  the  Gauls  and  the  neigh- 
bouring nations  :  beside  Aquilo,  the  Scythians 
who  are  beyond  Thrace  :  beside  Boreas, 
Pontus,  Maeotis  and  the  Sarmatae :  beside 
Caecias,  the  Caspian  Sea  and  the  Sacai.] 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Concerning  the  waters. 

Water  also  is  one  of  the  four  elements,  the 
most  beautiful  of  God's  creations.  It  is  both 
wet  and  cold,  heavy,  and  with  a  tendency  to 
descend,  and  flows  with  great  readiness.  It 
is  this  the  Holy  Scripture  has  in  view  when 
it  says,  And  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the 
deep.  A?id  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the 
face  of  the  waters  8.  For  the  deep  is  nothing 
else  than  a  huge  quantity  of  water  whose  limit 
man  cannot  comprehend.  In  the  beginning, 
indeed,  the  water  lay  all  over  the  surface  of 
the  earth.  And  first  God  created  the  firma- 
ment to  divide  the  water  above  the  firmament 
from  the  water  below  the  firmament.  For  in 
the  midst  of  the  sea  of  waters  the  firmament 
was  established  at  the  Master's  decree.  And 
out  of  it  God  bade  the  firmament  arise,  and  it 
arose.  Now  for  what  reason  was  it  that  God 
placed  water  above  the  firmament?  It  was 
because  of  the  intense  burning  heat  of  the 
sun  and  ether1.  For  immediately  under  the 
firmament  is  spread  out  the  ether2,  and  the 
sun  and  moon  and  stars  are  in  the  firma- 
ment, and  so  if  water  had  not  been  put  above 
it  the  firmament  would  have  been  consumed 
by  the  heat  3. 

Next,  God  bade  the  waters  be  gathered 
together  into  one  mass  4.    But  when  the  Scrip- 


7  This  paragraph  is  absent  in  almost  all  the  copies. 

8  Gen.  i.  2.  «  See  Basil,  Hexa'em.,  Horn.  3. 
»  Text,  i>(/»)irXuTat.     Variant,  t^ijirAwrat. 

3  Basil,  Horn,  a  in  Hexaem.;  Sever.  Gabal.,  OraU  dt  opific 
mundi. 

4  Gen.  i.  9. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


2/ 


ture  speaks  of  one  mass  it  evidently  does  not 
mean  that  they  were  gathered  together  into 
one  place  :  for  immediately  it  goes  on  to  say, 
And  the  gatherings  of  the  waters  He  called 
seas  s ;  but  the  words  signify  that  the  waters 
were  separated  off  in  a  body  from  the  earth 
into  distinct  groups.  Thus  the  waters  were 
gathered  together  into  their  special  collec- 
tions and  the  dry  land  was  brought  to  view. 
And  hence  arose  the  two  seas  that  surround 
Egypt,  for  it  lies  between  two  seas.  These 
collections  contain6  various  seas  and  moun- 
tains, and  islands,  and  promontories,  and  har- 
bours, and  surround  various  bays  and  beaches, 
and  coastlands.  For  the  word  beach  is  used 
when  the  nature  of  the  tract  is  sandy,  while 
coastland  signifies  that  it  is  rocky  and  deep 
close  into  shore,  getting  deep  all  on  a  sudden. 
In  like  manner  arose  also  the  sea  that  lies 
where  the  sun  rises,  the  name  of  which  is  the 
Indian  Sea  :  also  the  northern  sea  called  the 
Caspian.  The  lakes  also  were  formed  in 
the  same  manner. 

The  ocean,  then,  is  like  a  river  encircling 
the  whole  earth,  and  I  think  it  is  concerning 
it  that  the  divine  Scripture  says,  A  river  went 
out  of  Paradise  7.  The  water  of  the  ocean  is 
sweet  and  potable 8.  It  is  it  that  furnishes 
the  seas  with  water  which,  because  it  stays 
a  long  time  in  the  seas  and  stands  unmoved, 
becomes  bitter  :  for  the  sun  and  the  water- 
spouts draw  up  always  the  finer  parts.  Thus 
it  is  that  clouds  are  formed  and  showers  take 
place,  because  the  filtration  makes  the  water 
sweet. 

This  is  parted  into  four  first  divisions,  that 
is  to  say,  into  four  rivers.  The  name  of 
the  first  is  Pheison,  which  is  the  Indian 
Ganges  ;  the  name  of  the  second  is  Geon, 
which  is  the  Nile  flowing  from  Ethiopia  down 
to  Egypt :  the  name  of  the  third  is  Tigris, 
and  the  name  of  the  fourth  is  Euphrates. 
There  are  also  very  many  other  mighty  rivers 
of  which  some  empty  themselves  into  the  sea 
and  others  are  used  up  in  the  earth.  Thus 
the  whole  earth  is  bored  through  and  mined, 
and  has,  so  to  speak,  certain  veins  through 
which  it  sends  up  in  springs  the  water  it  has 
received  from  the  sea.  The  water  of  the 
spring  thus  depends  for  its  character  on  the 
quality  of  the  earth.  For  the  sea  water  is 
filtered  and  strained  through  the  earth  and 
thus  becomes  sweet.  But  if  the  place  from 
which  the  spring  arises  is  bitter  or  briny,  so 


5  Gen.  i.  io. 

6  Text,  <rvvrt\6r\<ra.v.     R.  2927   has  5i€orijo-ai/ :   Edit.  Veron. 
Reg.  3362  has  o6ev  avvevrr)<rav  :  Colb.  1  has  60ei/  <ivvi<m\. 

7  Gen.  ij.  10. 

8  For  7roTano?   Se  o   y\viri>  v&top  exuv  €<ttC,  reading  noriixov 
KaX  y\vK\i  vSwp  ex<uf  • 


also  is  the  water  that  is  sent  up  9.  Moreover, 
it  often  happens  that  water  which  has  been 
closely  pent  up  bursts  through  with  violence, 
and  thus  it  becomes  warm.  And  this  is  why 
they  send  forth  waters  that  are  naturally  warm. 
By  the  divine  decree  hollow  places  are 
made  in  the  earth,  and  so  into  these  the 
waters  are  gathered.  And  this  is  how  moun- 
tains are  formed.  God,  then,  bade  the  first 
water  produce  living  breath,  since  it  was  to 
be  by  water  and  the  Holy  Spirit  that  moved 
upon  the  waters  in  the  beginning  x,  that  man 
was  to  be  renewed.  For  this  is  what  the 
divine  Basilius  said :  Therefore  it  produced 
living  creatures,  small  and  big  ;  whales  and 
dragons,  fish  that  swim  in  the  waters,  and 
feathered  fowl.  The  birds  form  a  link  be- 
tween water  and  earth  and  air  :  for  they  have 
their  origin  in  the  water,  they  live  on  the 
earth  and  they  fly  in  the  air.  Water,  then, 
is  the  most  beautiful  element  and  rich  in  use- 
fulness, and  purifies  from  all  filth,  and  not 
only  from  the  filth  of  the  body  but  from  that 
of  the  soul,  if  it  should  have  received  the 
grace  of  the  Spirit 2. 

Concerning  the  seas  *. 

The  ^Egean  Sea  is  received  by  the  Helles- 
pont, which  ends  at  Abydos  and  Sestus  :  next, 
the  Propontis,  which  ends  at  Chalcedon  and 
Byzantium  :  here  are  the.  straits  where  the 
Pontus  arises.  Next,  the  lake  of  Maeotis. 
Again,  from  the  beginning  of  Europe  and 
Libya  it  is  the  Iberian  Sea,  which  extends 
from  the  pillars  of  Hercules  to  the  Pyrenees 
mountain.  Then  the  Ligurian  Sea  as  far 
as  the  borders  of  Etruria.  Next,  the  Sar- 
dinian Sea,  which  is  above  Sardinia  and  in- 
clines downwards  to  Libya.  Then  the  Etru- 
rian Sea,  which  begins  at  the  extreme  limits  of 
Liguria  and  ends  at  Sicily.  Then  the  Libyan 
Sea.  Then  the  Cretan,  and  Sicilian,  and 
Ionian,  and  Adriatic  Seas,  the  last  of  which 
is  poured  out  of  the  Sicilian  Sea,  which  is 
called  the  Corinthian  Gulf,  or  the  Alcyonian 
Sea.  The  Saronic  Sea  is  surrounded  by  the 
Sunian  and  Scyllaean  Seas.  Next  is  the 
Myrtoan  Sea  and  the  Icarian  Sea,  in  which 
are  also  the  Cyclades.  Then  the  Carpathian, 
and  Pamphylian,  and  Egyptian  Seas:  and, 
thereafter,  above  the  Icarian  Sea,  the  ^Egean 
Sea  pours  itself  out.  There  is  also  the  coast 
of  Europe  from  the  mouth  of  the  Tanais 
River  to  the  Pillars  of  Hercules,  609,709 
stadia  :  and  that  of  Libya  from  the  Tigris, 
as  far  as  the  mouth  of  the  Canobus,  209,252 


9  Basil,  Horn.  4  in  Hexaem.  »  Gen.  i.  a. 

»  Sever.  Gabal. ,  Orat.  4,  £>e  opific.mundi  :  Basil,  Horn.  8. 
3  This  chapter  is  wanting  in  certain  copies,  Reg.  7,  Colb.  1, 
R.  2930.     In  Cod.  Hil.  it  is  given  after  the  chapter  Un  Creation. 


28 


JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS. 


stadia:  and  lastly,  that  of  Asia  from  the 
Canobus  to  the  Tanais,  which,  including  the 
Gulf,  is  4,111  stadia.  And  so  the  full  extent 
of  the  seaboard  of  the  world  that  we  inhabit 
with  the  gulfs  is  1,309,072  stadia*. 

CHAPTER  X. 
Concerning  earth  and  its  products. 

The  earth  is  one  of  the  four  elements,  dry, 
cold,  heavy,  motionless,  brought  into  being 
by  God,  out  of  nothing  on  the  first  day.  For 
in  the  beginning,  he  said,  God  created  the 
heaven  and  the  earth  s :  but  the  seat  and 
foundation  of  the  earth  no  man  has  been  able 
to  declare.  Some,  indeed,  hold  that  its  seat 
is  the  waters  :  thus  the  divine  David  says,  To 
Him  Who  established  the  earth  on  the  ivaters  6. 
Others  place  it  in  the  air.  Again  some  other 
says,  He  Who  hangeth  the  earth  on  nothing?. 
And,  again,  David,  the  singer  of  God,  says, 
as  though  the  representative  of  God,  /  bear 
up  the  pillars  of  it 8,  meaning  by  "  pillars  " 
the  force  that  sustains  it.  Further,  the  ex- 
pression, He  hath  founded  it  upon  the  seas  9, 
shews  clearly  that  the  earth  is  on  all  hands 
surrounded  with  water.  But  whether  we 
grant  that  it  is  established  on  itself,  or  on 
air  or  on  water,  or  on  nothing,  we  must  not 
turn  aside  from  reverent  thought,  but  must 
admit  that  all  things  are  sustained  and  pre- 
served by  the  power  of  the  Creator. 

In  the  beginning,  then,  as  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture says  ',  it  was  hidden  beneath  the  waters, 
and  was  unwrought,  that  is  to  say,  not  beau- 
tified. But  at  God's  bidding,  places  to  hold 
the  waters  appeared,  and  then  the  mountains 
came  into  existence,  and  at  the  divine  com- 
mand the  earth  received  its  own  proper 
adornment,  and  was  dressed  in  all  manner 
of  herbs  and  plants,  and  on  these,  by  the 
divine  decree,  was  bestowed  the  power  of 
growth  and  nourishment,  and  of  producing 
seed  to  generate  their  like.  Moreover,  at  the 
bidding  of  the  Creator  it  produced  also  all 
manner  of  kinds  of  living  creatures,  creeping 
things,  and  wild  beasts,  and  cattle.  All,  in- 
deed, are  for  the  seasonable  use  of  man  :  but 
of  them  some  are  for  food,  such  as  stags, 
sheep,  deer,  and  such  like  :  others  for  service 
such  as  camels,  oxen,  horses,  asses,  and  such 
like  :  and  others  for  enjoyment,  such  as  apes, 
and  among  birds,  jays  and  parrots,  and  such 
like.  Again,  amongst  plants  and  herbs  some 
are  fruit  bearing,  others  edible,  others  fragrant 
and  flowery,  given  to  us  for  our  enjoyment, 


4  Vide  Strab.  bk.iL  S  Gen.  i.  i. 

•  Ps.  cxxxvi.  6.  7  Job  xxvi.  7. 

8  Ps.  lxxv.  3.  9  Ibid.  xxiv.  2.  '  Gen.  i.  a. 


for  example,  the  rose  and  such  like,  and 
others  for  the  healing  of  disease.  For  there 
is  not  a  single  animal  or  plant  in  which  the 
Creator  has  not  implanted  some  form  of 
energy  capable  of  being  used  to  satisfy  man's 
needs.  For  He  Who  knew  all  things  before 
they  were,  saw  that  in  the  future  man  would 
go  forward  in  the  strength  of  his  own  will,  and 
would  be  subject  to  corruption,  and,  therefore,. 
He  created  all  things  for  hie  seasonable  use,, 
alike  those  in  the  firmament,  and  those  on 
the  earth,  and  those  in  the  waters. 

Indeed,  before  the  transgression  all  things 
were  under  his  power.  For  God  set  him  as 
ruler  over  all  things  on  the  earth  and  in. 
the  waters.  Even  the  serpent 2  was  accus- 
tomed to  man,  and  approached  him  more 
readily  than  it  did  other  living  creatures,  and 
held  intercourse  with  him  with  delightful 
motions  3.  And  hence  it  was  through  it  that 
the  devil,  the  prince  of  evil,  made  his  most 
wicked  suggestion  to  our  first  parents  1  More- 
over, the  earth  of  its  own  accord  used  to 
yield  fruits,  for  the  benefit  of  the  animals  that 
were  obedient  to  man,  and  there  was  neither 
rain  nor  tempest  on  the  earth.  But  after  the 
transgression,  when  he  was  compared  with  the 
unintelligent  cattle  and  became  like  to  them*,, 
after  he  had  contrived  that  in  him  irrational 
desire  should  have  rule  over  reasoning  mind 
and  had  become  disobedient  to  the  Master's 
command,  the  subject  creation  rose  up  against 
him  whom  the  Creator  had  appointed  to 
be  ruler  :  and  it  was  appointed  for  him  that 
he  should  till  with  sweat  the  earth  from  which 
he  had  been  taken. 

But  even  now  wild  beasts  are  not  without 
their  uses,  for,  by  the  terror  they  cause,  they 
bring  man  to  the  knowledge  of  his  Creator 
and  lead  him  to  call  upon  His  name.  And, 
further,  at  the  transgression  the  thorn  sprung 
out  of  the  earth  in  accordance  with  the  Lord's 
express  declaration  and  was  conjoined  with 
the  pleasures  of  the  rose,  that  it  might  lead  us 
to  remember  the  transgression  on  account 
of  which  the  earth  was  condemned  to  bring 
forth  for  us  thorns  and  prickles  6. 

That  this  is  the  case  is  made  worthy  of 
belief  from  the  fact  that  their  endurance 
is  secured  by  the  word  of  the  Lord,  saying, 
Be  fruitful  and  multiply,  and  replenish  the 
earth  ? '. 

Further,  some  hold  that  the  earth  is  in 
the  form  of  a  sphere,  others  that  it  is  in  that 
of  a  cone.     At  all  events  it  is  much  smaller 


»  In  this  John  does  not  follow  Basil  in  his  De  Paradiso. 

3  Basil,  Horn,  de  Parad. 

4  Gen.  iii.  i.        5  Ps.  xlix.  ia.        *  Basil,  Horn,  de  Parad. 
7  Gen.  i.  22. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE   ORTHODOX   FAITH. 


29 


than  the  heaven,  and  suspended  almost  like 
3  point  in  its  midst.  And  it  will  pass  away 
and  be  changed.  But  blessed  is  the  man 
who  inherits  the  earth  promised  to  the  meek8. 

For  the  earth  that  is  to  be  the  possession 
of  the  holy  is  immortal.  Who,  then,  can  fitly 
marvel  at  the  boundless  and  incomprehensible 
wisdom  of  the  Creator  ?  Or  who  can  render 
sufficient  thanks  to  the  Giver  of  so  many 
blessings  9  ? 

[There  are  also  provinces,  or  prefectures, 
of  the  earth  which  we  recognise  :  Europe  em- 
braces thirty  four,  and  the  huge  continent  of 
Asia  has  forty-eight  of  these  provinces,  and 
twelve  canons  as  they  are  called '.] 

CHAPTER    XI. 

Concerning  Paradise. 

Now  when  God  was  about  to  fashion  man 
out  of  the  visible  and  invisible  creation  in  His 
own  image  and  likeness  to  reign  as  king  and 
ruler  over  all  the  earth  and  all  that  it  con- 
tains, He  first  made  for  him,  so  to  speak, 
a  kingdom  in  which  he  should  live  a  life  of 
happiness  and  prosperity  2.  And  this  is  the 
divine  paradise  3,  planted  in  Eden  by  the 
hands  of  God,  a  very  storehouse  of  joy  and 
gladness  of  heart  (for  "Eden"*  means  lux- 
uriousness  s).  Its  site  is  higher  in  the  East 
than  all  the  earth  :  it  is  temperate,  and  the 
air  that  surrounds  it  is  the  rarest  and  purest : 
evergreen  plants  are  its  pride,  sweet  fragrances 
abound,  it  is  flooded  with  light,  and  in  sen- 
suous freshness  and  beauty  it  transcends  ima- 
gination :  in  truth  the  place  is  divine,  a  meet 
home  for  him  who  was  created  in  God's 
image  :  no  creature  lacking  reason  made  its 
dwelling  there  but  man  alone,  the  work  of 
God's  own  hands. 

In  its  midst6  God  planted  the  tree  of  life 
and  the  tree  of  knowledge  ?.  The  tree  of 
knowledge  was  for  trial,  and  proof,  and  ex- 
ercise of  man's  obedience  and  disobedience  : 
and  hence  it  was  named  the  tree  of  the  know- 
ledge of  good  and  evil,  or  else  it  was  because 
to  those  who  partook  of  it  was  given  power 
to  know  their  own  nature.  Now  this  is  a  good 
thing  for  those  who  are  mature,  but  an  evil 
thing  for  the  immature  and  those  whose  appe- 
tites are  too  strong  8,  being  like  solid  food  to 


8  St.  Matt.  v.  5. 

9  Method  ,  Cont.  Orig.  apud  Ej/iph.  Hares.  64. 
»  Only  Cod.  Reg.  3451  has  this  paragraph. 

8  Greg.  Xyss.,  De  opif-  Horn.,  ch.  2. 

3  See  the  treatise  of  Anastas.  II.  Antiocken.,  on  the  Hexae- 
nteron,  bk.  vii. 

*  'ESe/ji.  Edem,  in  the  text.     Basil,  Horn   de  Farad. 

5  See  2  Kings  xix.  12  ;  Isai.  xxxvii.  12 :  Ezek.  xxvii.  23. 

*  See  Chrysost.,  In  Gen.  Horn.  16,  Theodor.,  Qua>st.  27,  &c. 

7  Gen.  ii.  9. 

8  Text,  Ttjc  e<f>e<Tiv  Aixi'OTf'pocs.     Variant   Tt]v  ai<r6ri<nv ,  &c. 


tender  babes  still  in  need  of  milk  9.     For  our 
Creator,  God,  did   not  intend  us  to   be  bur- 
dened  with    care   and   troubled   about   many 
things,  nor  to  take  thought  about,  or  make 
provision  for,  our  own  life.     But  this  at  length 
was    Adam's  fate  :    for  he  tasted  and   knew 
that  he  was  naked  and  made  a  girdle  round 
about  him  :  for  he  took  fig-leaves  and  girded 
himself  about.     But  before  they  took  of  the 
fruit,   They  were  both  naked,  Adam  and  Eve, 
and   were   not   ashamed'1.     For   God    meant 
that  we  should  be  thus  free  from  passion,  and 
this   is    indeed    the    mark    of  a   mind   abso- 
lutely void  of  passion.     Yea,  He  meant  us 
further  to  be  free  from  care  and  to  have  but 
one  work  to  perform,  to  sing  as  do  the  angels, 
without  ceasing  or  intermission,   the  praises 
of  the    Creator,  and  to    delight   in   contem- 
plation of  Him  and  to  cast  all  our  care  on 
Him.     This  is  what  the  Prophet  David  pro- 
claimed to  us  when  He  said,  Cast  thy  burden 
on  the  Lord,  and  He  will  sustain  thee  2.     And, 
again,  in  the  Gospels,  Christ  taught  His  dis- 
ciples saying,    Take  no  thought  for  your  life 
what  ye  shall  eat,  nor  for  your  body  what  ye 
shall  put  on  3.     And  further,  Seek  ye  first  the 
Kingdom  of  God  and  His  righteousness  and  all 
these  things  shall  be  added  unto  you  1     And 
to  Martha  He  said,  Martha,  Martha,  thou  art 
careful  and  troubled  about  many  things:  but  one 
thing  is  needful :    and  Mary  hath  chosen  that 
good  part,  which  shall  not  be  taken  away  from 
her5,  meaning,  clearly,  sitting  at  His  feet  and 
listening  to  His  words. 

The  tree  of  life,  on  the  other  hand,  was 
a  tree  having  the  energy  that  is  the  cause 
of  life,  or  to  be  eaten  only  by  those  who 
deserve  to  live  and  are  not  subject  to  death. 
Some,  indeed,  have  pictured  Paradise  as  a 
realm  of  sense 6,  and  others  as  a  realm  of 
mind.  But  it  seems  to  me,  that,  just  as  man 
is  a  creature,  in  whom  we  find  both  sense 
and  mind  blended  together,  in  like  manner 
also  man's  most  holy  temple  combines  the 
properties  of  sense  and  mind,  and  has  this 
twofold  expression  :  for,  as  we  said,  the  life 
in  the  body  is  spent  in  the  most  divine  and 
lovely  region,  while  the  life  in  the  soul 
is  passed  in  a  place  far  more  sublime  and 
of  more  surpassing  beauty,  where  God  makes 
His  home,  and  where  He  wraps  man  about  as 
with  a  glorious  garment,  and  robes  him  in 
His  grace,  and  delights  and  sustains  him  like 
an  angel  with  the  sweetest  of  all  fruits,  the 
contemplation  of  Himself.  Verily  it  has  been 
fitly  named  the  tree  of  life.     For  since  the 

9  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  38  and  42  :  Method.,  afi  Epiph,  Httrcs.64. 
»  Gen.  ii.  25.  2  Ps.  lv.  22. 

3  St.  Matt.  vi.  25.  *  Ibid.  33.  5  St.  Luke  x.  41,  43. 

*  Nevies.,  de  Nat.  Horn.,  ch.  1. 


30 


JOHN    OF    DAMASCUS. 


life  is  not  cut  short  by  death,  the  sweetness 
of  the  divine  participation  is  imparted  to 
those  who  share  it.  And  this  is,  in  truth, 
what  God  meant  by  every  tree,  saying,  Of 
every  tree  in  Paradise  thou  mayest  freely  eatT. 
For  the  '  every  '  is  just  Himself  in  Whom  and 
through  Whom  the  universe  is  maintained. 
But  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and 
evil  was  for  the  distinguishing  between  the 
many  divisions  of  contemplation,  and  this 
is  just  the  knowledge  of  one's  own  nature, 
which,  indeed,  is  a  good  thing  for  those  who  are 
mature  and  advanced  in  divine  contemplation 
(being  of  itself  a  proclamation  of  the  magnifi- 
cence of  God),  and  have  no  fear  of  falling 8, 
because  they  have  through  time  come  to  have 
the  habit  of  such  contemplation,  but  it  is 
an  evil  thing  to  those  still  young  and  with 
stronger  appetites,  who  by  reason  of  their 
insecure  hold  on  the  better  part,  and  because 
as  yet  they  are  not  firmly  established  in  the 
seat  of  the  one  and  only  good,  are  apt  to  be 
torn  and  dragged  away  from  this  to  the  care 
of  their  own  body. 

Thus,  to  my  thinking,  the  divine  Paradise 
is  twofold,  and  the  God-inspired  Fathers 
handed  down  a  true  message,  whether  they 
taught  this  doctrine  or  that.  Indeed,  it  is  pos- 
sible to  understand  by  every  tree  the  know- 
ledge of  the  divine  power  derived  from  created 
things.  In  the  words  of  the  divine  Apostle, 
For  the  invisible  things  of  Him  from  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  under- 
stood by  the  things  that  are  made  9.  But  of 
all  these  thoughts  and  speculations  the  sub- 
limest  is  that  dealing  with  ourselves,  that  is, 
with  our  own  composition.  As  the  divine 
David  says,  The  knowledge  of  Thee  from  me1, 
that  is  from  my  constitution,  was  made  a 
wonder2.  But  for  the  reasons  we  have  al- 
ready mentioned,  such  knowledge  was  dan- 
gerous for  Adam  who  had  been  so  lately 
created  3. 

The  tree  of  life  too  may  be  understood  as  that 
more  divine  thought  that  has  its  origin  in  the 
world  of  sense,  and  the  ascent  through  that 
to  the  originating  and  constructive  cause  of  all. 
And  this  was  the  name  He  gave  to  every  tree, 
implying  fulness  and  indivisibility,  and  convey- 
ing only  participation  in  what  is  good.  But  by 
the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  we 
are  to  understand  that  sensible  and  pleasurable 
food  which,  sweet  though  it  seems,  in  reality 
brings  him  who  partakes  of  it  into  communion 


*  Gen.  ii.  16.  8  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  38  and  42. 

9  Rom.  i.  20.  •  Ps.  cxxxix.  6. 

a  i8a.vtia<TTta9r)  r)  yviioU  <rov  e(  Cjuov,  Tovria-Tiv,  (K  rrjs  c/x-ijs 
«aTa<rxtuijs.  Basil,  Gregory  Naz.,  Anastasius  II.,  Antiochenus 
and  others  render  it  so,  following  the  LXX.  version,  and  not  the 
Hebrew  lex  I. 

3  Maxim.t  in  Script,  p.  10. 


with  evil.  For  God  says,  Of  every  tree  in 
Paradise  thou  mayest  freely  eat  4.  It  is,  me- 
thinks,  as  if  God  said,  Through  all  My  crea- 
tions thou  art  to  ascend  to  Me  thy  creator, 
and  of  all  the  fruits  thou  mayest  pluck  one, 
that  is,  Myself  who  am  the  true  life :  let  every 
thing  bear  for  thee  the  fruit  of  life,  and  let 
participation  in  Me  be  the  support  of  your 
own  being.  For  in  this  way  thou  wilt  be 
immortal.  But  of  the  tree  of  the  k?iowledge 
of  good  and  evil,  thou  shall  not  eat  of  it :  for 
in  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shall 
surely  die  s.  For  sensible  food  is  by  nature 
for  the  replenishing  of  that  which  gradually 
wastes  away  and  it  passes  into  the  draught 
and  perisheth  :  and  he  cannot  remain  incor- 
ruptible who  partakes  of  sensible  food. 

CHAPTER    XII. 

Concerning  Man. 

In  this  way,  then,  God  brought  into  exist- 
ence mental  essence6,  by  which  I  mean,  angels 
and  all  the  heavenly  orders.  For  these  clearly 
have  a  mental  and  incorporeal  nature  :  "  in- 
corporeal "  I  mean  in  comparison  with  the 
denseness  of  matter.  For  the  Deity  alone 
in  reality  is  immaterial  and  incorporeal.  But 
further  He  created  in  the  same  way  sensible 
essence?,  that  is  heaven  and  earth  and  the 
intermediate  region  ;  and  so  He  created  both 
the  kind  of  being  that  is  of  His  own  nature 
(for  the  nature  that  has  to  do  with  reason  is 
related  to  God,  and  apprehensible  by  mind 
alone),  and  the  kind  which,  inasmuch  as  it 
clearly  falls  under  the  province  of  the  senses, 
is  separated  from  Him  by  the  greatest  interval 
And  it  was  also  fit  that  there  should  be  a  mix- 
ture of  both  kinds  of  being,  as  a  token  of 
still  greater  wisdom  and  of  the  opulence  of 
the  Divine  expenditure  as  regards  natures,  as 
Gregorius,  the  expounder  of  God's  being  and 
ways,  puts  it,  and  to  be  a  sort  of  connecting 
link  between  the  visible  and  invisible  natures 8. 
And  by  the  word  "  fit "  I  mean,  simply  that  it 
was  an  evidence  of  the  Creator's  will,  for  that 
will  is  the  law  and  ordinance  most  meet,  and 
no  one  will  say  to  his  Maker,  "Why  hast  Thou 
so  fashioned  me  ?  "  For  the  potter  is  able  at 
his  will  to  make  vessels  of  various  patterns  out 
of  his  clay  9,  as  a  proof  of  his  own  wisdom. 

Now  this  being  the  case,  He  creates  with 
His  own  hands  man  of  a  visible  nature  and 
an  invisible,  after  His  own  image  and  like- 
ness :  on  the  one  hand  man's  body  He  formed 
of  earth,  and  on  the  other  his  reasoning  and 


4  Gen.  ii.  16.  S  Ibid.  17. 

•  ttjv  foijTrjv  ovtriav    rational  being 

7  rr\v  al(r8r]Trjv  ;  material  being,  being  perceptible  by  tent*. 

8  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  38  and  42.  9  Rom.  ix.  21. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


3* 


thinking  soul T  He  bestowed  upon  him  by 
His  own  inbreathing,  and  this  is  what  we 
mean  by  "  after  His  image."  For  the  phrase 
"after  His  image"  clearly  refers2  to  the  side 
of  his  nature  which  consists  of  mind  and  free 
will,  whereas  "after  His  likeness  "  means  like- 
ness in  virtue  so  far  as  that  is  possible. 

Further,  body  and  soul  were  formed  at  one 
and  the  same  time  s,  not  first  the  one  and  then 
the  other,  as  Origen  so  senselessly  supposes. 

God  then  made  man  without  evil,  upright, 
virtuous,  free  from  pain  and  care,  glorified  with 
every  virtue,  adorned  with  all  that  is  good, 
like  a  sort  of  second  microcosm  within  the 
great  world 4,  another  angel  capable  of  wor- 
ship, compound,  surveying  the  visible  creation 
and  initiated  into  the  mysteries  of  the  realm 
of  thought,  king  over  the  things  of  earth,  but 
subject  to  a  higher  king,  of  the  earth  and  of 
the  heaven,  temporal  and  eternal,  belonging 
to  the  realm  of  sight  and  to  the  realm  of 
thought,  midway  between  greatness  and  low- 
liness, spirit  and  flesh  :  for  he  is  spirit  by 
grace,  but  flesh  by  overweening  pride  :  spirit 
that  he  may  abide  and  glorify  his  Benefactor, 
and  flesh  that  he  may  suffer,  and  suffering 
may  be  admonished  and  disciplined  when  he 
prides  himself  in  his  greatness  s  :  here,  that  is, 
in  the  present  life,  his  life  is  ordered  as  an 
animal's,  but  elsewhere,  that  is,  in  the  age  to 
come,  he  is  changed  and — to  complete  the 
mystery — becomes  deified  by  merely  inclining 
himself  towards  God  ;  becoming  deified,  in 
the  way  of  participating  in  the  divine  glory 
and  not  in  that  of  a  change  into  the  divine 
being  6. 

But  God  made  him  by  nature  sinless,  and 
endowed  him  with  free  will.  By  sinless,  I 
mean  not  that  sin  could  find  no  place  in 
him  (for  that  is  the  case  with  Deity  alone), 
but  that  sin  is  the  result  of  the  free  volition 
he  enjoys  rather  than  an  integral  part  of  his 
nature  7 ;  that  is  to  say,  he  has  the  power  to 
continue  and  go  forward  in  the  path  of  good- 
ness, by  co-operating  with  the  divine  grace, 
and  likewise  to  turn  from  good  and  take  to 
wickedness,  for  God  has  conceded  this  by 
conferring  freedom  of  will    upon   him.     For 


1  ifvx^v  Aoytierji/. 

2  Cf.  Ckrysostom,  Horn,  in  Gen.  9 ;  Anastasius,  Horn,  in 
Hex.  7  ;  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.  II.  ;  Basil,  Horn,  dehorn.  Struct.  1 ; 
Greg.  Nyss.,  De  opif.  horn.,  ch.  16  ;  Iren.,  licer.  v.  8,  &c. 

3  Cf.  Greg.  Naz.,  Oral.  31 ;  Jerome,  Epist.  82  ;  August.,  De 
Genesi,  x.  28,  &c. 

4  iv  hikjjui  (icyav,  is  read  in  Nazianz.  Horn.  38  and  42  :  so 
also  in  Nicetas,  who  says  that  '  the  world  is  small  in  comparison 
with  man,  for  whose  sake  all  was  made.'  But  Combefis  emended 
it. 

5  The  text  read,  T<ii  jieye'flei  </>iAortfioi/neeos*  to  Se  iVa  rrooPx<oi' 
u7rojiijirq<r(Ci)Tcu,  Kai  iraiSeuijrou  £i>ov.  On  the  basis  of  various 
manuscripts  and  the  works  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  it  is  cor- 
rected SO— tea  Tra(TXT7,  *at  Tta.<T\iav,  urrofii/ilTJoxrjTai,  (cal  rrai<5evrjT<u 
ru  /aeye'flei  <piA<m^ou/iei'oe. 

6  Greg.  Naz..  Orat.  38  and  42. 

7  KeaJing,  ovx  u>;  iv  tti  <bv<ret,  for  dAA'  ovk  iv  ttj  <j>v<rti. 


there  is  no  virtue  in  what  is  the  result  of  mere 
force 8. 

The  soul,  accordingly  °,  is  a  living  essence, 
simple,  incorporeal,  invisible  in  its  proper 
nature  to  bodily  eyes,  immortal,  reasoning 
and  intelligent,  formless,  making  use  of  an 
organised  body,  and  being  the  source  of  its 
powers  of  life,  and  growth,  and  sensation, 
and  generation  *,  mind  being  but  its  purest 
part  and  not  in  any  wise  alien  to  it ;  (for 
as  the  eye  to  the  body,  so  is  the  mind  to 
the  soul) ;  further  it  enjoys  freedom  and  vo- 
lition and  energy,  and  is  mutable,  that  is,  it  is 
given  to  change,  because  it  is  created.  All 
these  qualities  according  to  nature  it  has  re- 
ceived of  the  grace  of  the  Creator,  of  which 
grace  it  has  received  both  its  being  and  this 
particular  kind  of  nature. 

Marg.  The  different  applications  of  "  incor- 
poreal." We  understand  two  kinds  of  what  is 
incorporeal  and  invisible  and  formless  :  the 
one  is  such  in  essence,  the  other  by  free  gift : 
and  likewise  the  one  is  such  in  nature,  and  the 
other  only  in  comparison  with  the  denseness 
of  matter.  God  then  is  incorporeal  by  nature, 
but  the  angels  and  demons  and  souls  are  said 
to  be  so  by  free  gift,  and  in  comparison  with 
the  denseness  of  matter. 

Further,  body  is  that  which  has  three  dimen- 
sions, that  is  to  say,  it  has  length  and  breadth 
and  depth,  or  thickness.  And  every  body  is 
composed  of  the  four  elements  ;  the  bodies 
of  living  creatures,  moreover,  are  composed 
of  the  four  humours. 

Now  there  are,  it  should  be  known,  four 
elements  :  earth  which  is  dry  and  cold  :  water 
which  is  cold  and  wet :  air  which  is  wet  and 
warm  :  fire  which  is  warm  and  dry.  In  like 
manner  there  are  also  four  humours,  analogous 
to  the  four  elements  :  black  bile,  which  bears 
an  analogy  to  earth,  for  it  is  dry  and  cold  : 
phlegm,  analogous  to  water,  for  it  is  cold  and 
wet  :  blood,  analogous  to  air  2,  for  it  is  wet 
and  warm  :  yellow  bile,  the  analogue  to  fire, 
for  it  is  warm  and  dry.  Now,  fruits  are  com- 
posed of  the  elements,  and  the  humours  are 
composed  of  the  fruits,  and  the  bodies  of 
living  creatures  consist  of  the  humours  and 
dissolve  back  into  them.  For  every  thing 
that  is  compound  dissolves  back  into  its 
elements. 

Marg.  That  man  has  community  alike  with 
inanimate  things  and  animate  creatures,  whe- 


8  Athan.  lib.  de  inob.  contr.  Apoll. 

9  The  Fathers  objected  to  Aristotle's  definition  of  the  soul  as 
the  ivTe\ixila  wpci-r)}  (riufiaros  <f>vcriKov  bpyaviKOV,  taking  it  to 
imply  that  the  soul  had  no  independent  existence  but  was  dissolved 
with  the  body.    Cicero  explains  it  otherwise,  Tusc.  Quast.,  bk.  1. 

1  Maxim.,  opus  de  Anima. 

2  Supplying  the  words,  t<o  v&ari,  <pvxp°v  Y»P  *a'  vypoi»'  atfia, 
avaKoyovv. 


32 


JOHN    OF    DAMASCUS. 


ther  they  are  devoid  of  or  possess  the  faculty 
of  reason. 

Man,  it  is  to  be  noted,  has  community  with 
things  inanimate,  and  participates  in  the  life 
of  unreasoning  creatures,  and  shares  in  the 
mental  processes  of  those  endowed  with  reason. 
For  the  bond  of  union  between  man  and  in- 
animate things  is  the  body  and  its  composition 
out  of  the  four  elements  :  and  the  bond  be- 
tween man  and  plants  consists,  in  addition 
to  these  things,  of  their  powers  of  nourish- 
ment and  growth  and  seeding,  that  is,  genera- 
tion :  and  finally,  over  and  above  these  links 
man  is  connected  with  unreasoning  animals 
by  appetite,  that  is  anger  and  desire,  and 
sense  and  impulsive  movement. 

There  are  then  five  senses,  sight,  hearing, 
smell,  taste,  touch.  Further,  impulsive  move- 
ment consists  in  change  from  place  to  place, 
and  in  the  movements  of  the  body  as  a  whole, 
and  in  the  emission  of  voice  and  the  drawing 
of  breath.  For  we  have  it  in  our  power  to 
perform  or  refrain  from  performing  these 
actions. 

Lastly,  man's  reason  unites  him  to  incor- 
poreal and  intelligent  natures,  for  he  applies 
his  reason  and  mind  and  judgment  to  every- 
thing, and  pursues  after  virtues,  and  eagerly 
follows  after  piety,  which  is  the  crown  of  the 
virtues.    And  so  man  is  a  microcosm. 

Moreover,  it  should  be  known  that  division 
and  flux  and  changes  are  peculiar  to  the  body 
alone.  By  change,  1  mean  change  in  quality, 
that,  is  in  heat  and  cold  and  so  forth:  by 
flux,  I  mean  change  in  the  way  of  depletion  *, 
for  dry  things  and  wet  things  and  spirit 5  suffer 
depletion,  and  require  repletion  :  so  that  hun- 
ger and  thirst  are  natural  affections.  Again, 
division  is  the  separation  of  the  humours,  one 
from  another,  and  the  partition  into  form  and 
matter  6. 

But  piety  and  thought  are  the  peculiar 
properties  of  the  soul.  And  the  virtues  are 
common  to  soul  and  body,  although  they  are 
referred  to  the  soul  as  if  the  soul  were  making 
use  of  the  body. 

The  reasoning  part,  it  should  be  understood, 
naturally  bears  rule  over  that  which  is  void  of 
reason.  For  the  faculties  of  the  soul  are 
divided  into  that  which  has  reason,  and  that 
which  is  without  reason.  Again,  of  that  which 
is  without  reason  there  are  two  divisions  :  that 
which  does  not  listen  to  reason,  that  is  to  say, 
is  disobedient  to  reason,  and  that  which  listens 
and  obeys  reason.  That  which  does  not  listen 
or  obey  reason  is  the  vital  or  pulsating  faculty, 


J  tojit),  <c«i  ptvo-is,  Kal  fierafioKq. 
*  Nemet.,  at  Nat.  Horn.,  ch.  i. 
6  Nemei.,dt  Nat.  Horn.,  ch.  i. 


S  Or,  breath,  irvtifia. 


and  the  spermatic  or  generative  faculty,  and 
the  vegetative  or  nutritive  faculty:  to  this 
belong  also  the  faculties  of  growth  and  bodily 
formation.  For  these  are  not  under  the  do- 
minion of  reason  but  under  that  of  nature. 
That  which  listens  to  and  obeys  reason,  or* 
the  other  hand  is  divided  into  anger  and 
desire.  And  the  unreasoning  part  of  the 
soul  is  called  in  common  the  pathetic  and 
the  appetitive  ?.  Further,  it  is  to  be  under- 
stood, that  impulsive  movement 8  likewise  be- 
longs to  the  part  that  is  obedient  to  reason. 

The  part  9  which  does  not  pay  heed  to 
reason  includes  the  nutritive  and  generative 
and  pulsating  faculties  :  and  the  name  "  vege- 
tative 9a "  is  applied  to  the  faculties  of  increase 
and  nutriment  and  generation,  and  the  name 
"  vital  "  to  the  faculty  of  pulsation. 

Of  the  faculty  of  nutrition,  then,  there  are 
four  forces  :  an  attractive  force  which  attracts 
nourishment  :  a  retentive  force  by  which  nour- 
ishment is  retained  and  not  suffered  to  be 
immediately  excreted :  an  alterative  force  by 
which  the  food  is  resolved  into  the  humours  : 
and  an  excretive  force,  by  which  the  excess 
of  food  is  excreted  into  the  draught  and  cast 
forth. 

The  forces  again  x,  inherent  in  a  living 
creature  are,  it  should  be  noted,  partly  psy- 
chical, partly  vegetative,  partly  vital.  The 
psychical  forces  are  concerned  with  free  voli- 
tion, that  is  to  say,  impulsive  movement  and 
sensation.  Impulsive  movement  includes 
change  of  place  and  movement  of  the  body 
as  a  whole,  and  phonation  and  respiration. 
For  it  is  in  our  power  to  perform  or  refrain 
from  performing  these  acts.  The  vegetative 
and  vital  forces,  however,  are  quite  outside  the 
province  of  will.  The  vegetative,  moreover, 
include  the  faculties  of  nourishment  and 
growth,  and  generation,  and  the  vital  power 
is  the  faculty  of  pulsation.  For  these  go  on 
energising  whether  we  will  it  or  not. 

Lastly,  we  must  observe  that  of  actual 
things,  some  are  good,  and  some  are  bad. 
A  good  thing  in  anticipation  constitutes  de- 
sire :  while  a  good  thing  in  realisation  con- 
stitutes pleasure.  Similarly  an  evil  thing  in 
anticipation  begets  fear,  and  in  realisation 
it  begets  pain.  And  when  we  speak  of  good 
in  this  connection  we  are  to  be  understood 
to  mean  both  real  and  apparent  good  :  and, 
similarly,  we  mean  real  and  apparent  evil. 


7  ira0r)TiKov  Kai  ope ktikov. 

8  rj  KaB'  6pnr}v  icivr)<Tif. 

9  The  following  three  paragraphs,  as  found  in  manuscripts  and 
the  old  translation,  are  placed  at  the  end  of  ch.  3a,  "  Concerning 
Anger,"  but  do  not  suit  the  context  there. 

9*  Supplying  the  word  4>*>tik6v  from  Nemesius. 
1  Ntmts.,  ch.  23. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


33 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

Concerning  Pleasures. 

There  are  pleasures  of  the  soul  and  pleasures 
of  the  body.  The  pleasures  of  the  soul  are 
those  which  are  the  exclusive  possession  of 
the  soul,  such  as  the  pleasures  of  learning  and 
contemplation.  The  pleasures  of  the  body, 
however,  are  those  which  are  enjoyed  by  soul 
and  body  in  fellowship,  and  hence  are  called 
bodily  pleasures  :  and  such  are  the  pleasures 
of  food  and  intercourse  and  the  like.  But 
one  could  not  find  any  class  of  pleasures2 
belonging  solely  to  the  body  3. 

Again,  some  pleasures  are  true,  others  false. 
And  the  exclusively  intellectual  pleasures  con- 
sist in  knowledge  and  contemplation,  while 
the  pleasures  of  the  body  depend  upon  sensa- 
tion. Further,  of  bodily  pleasures4,  some  are 
both  natural  and  necessary,  in  the  absence 
of  which  life  is  impossible,  for  example  the 
pleasures  of  food  which  replenishes  waste,  and 
the  pleasures  of  necessary  clothing.  Others 
are  natural  but  not  necessary,  as  the  pleasures 
of  natural  and  lawful  intercourse.  For  though 
the  function  that  these  perform  is  to  secure 
the  permanence  of  the  race  as  a  whole,  it 
is  still  possible  to  live  a  virgin  life  apart  from 
them.  Others,  however,  are  neither  natural 
nor  necessary,  such  as  drunkenness,  lust,  and 
surfeiting  to  excess.  For  these  contribute 
neither  to  the  maintenance  of  our  own  lives 
nor  to  the  succession  of  the  race,  but  on  the 
contrary,  are  rather  even  a  hindrance.  He 
therefore  that  would  live  a  life  acceptable 
to  God  must  follow  after  those  pleasures 
which  are  both  natural  and  necessary  :  and 
must  give  a  secondary  place  to  those  which 
are  natural  but  not  necessary,  and  enjoy 
them  only  in  fitting  season,  and  manner,  and 
measure  ;  while  the  others  must  be  altogether 
renounced. 

Those  then  are  to  be  considered  morals 
pleasures  which  are  not  bound  up  with  pain, 
and  bring  no  cause  for  repentance,  and  result 
in  no  other  harm  and  keep  6  within  the  bounds 
of  moderation,  and  do  not  draw  us  far  away 
from  serious  occupations,  nor  make  slaves 
of  us. 

CHAPTER    XIV. 

Concerning  Pain. 

There  are  four  varieties  of  pain,  viz.,  an- 
guish?,  grief8,  envy,  pity.     Anguish    is  pain 


2  Reading,  ovk  av  evpoi  ti?  JSias  t]5oi>ds. 

3  Nemes.,  ch.  18  :  Chrys.,  Horn,  in  Joan.,  74. 

*  See  Chrysostom,  Horn,  injoannem,  74;  Cicero,  De  fin.  ion. 
et  mat.,  1. 

5  Ka\<is,  honourable,  good. 

6  Text,  x^povo-as.     Variant,  rrapaxupovo-a?. 

7  a^os.  8  a^gos. 

VOL.  IX. 


without  utterance  :  grief  is  pain  that  is  heavy 
to  bear  like  a  burden  :  envy  is  pain  over  the 
good  fortune  of  others  :  pity  is  pain  over  the 
evil  fortune  of  others. 

CHAPTER  XV. 

Concerning  Fear. 

Fear  is  divided  into  six  varieties:  viz., 
shrinking  9,  shame,  disgrace,  consternation, 
panic,  anxiety  9a.  Shrinking  9b  is  fear  of  some 
act  about  to  take  place.  Shame  is  fear 
arising  from  the  anticipation  of  blame  :  and 
this  is  the  highest  form  of  the  affection. 
Disgrace  is  fear  springing  from  some  base 
act  already  done,  and  even  for  this  form  there 
is  some  hope  of  salvation.  Consternation  is 
fear  originating  in  some  huge  product  of  the 
imagination.  Panic  is  fear  caused  by  some 
unusual  product  of  the  imagination.  Anxiety 
is  fear  of  failure,  that  is,  of  misfortune  :  for 
when  we  fear  that  our  efforts  will  not  meet 
with  success,  we  suffer  anxiety. 

CHAPTER   XVI. 

Concerning  Anger. 

Anger  is  the  ebullition '  of  the  heart's  blood  9 
produced  by  bilious  exhalation  or  turbidity. 
Hence  it  is  that  the  words  x°M  and  ^o'Xov  3 
are  both  used  in  the  sense  of  anger.  Anger 
is  sometimes  lust  for  vengeance.  For  when 
we  are  wronged  or  think  that  we  are  wronged, 
we  are  distressed,  and  there  arises  this  mix- 
ture of  desire  and  anger. 

There  are  three  forms  of  anger :  rage,  which 
the  Greeks  also  call  x°M  or  ^oW,  n?ji>is  and 
kotos.  When  anger  arises  and  begins  to  be 
roused,  it  is  called  rage  or  x°^n  or  x<>-W. 
Wrath  again  implies  that  the  bile  endures, 
that  is  to  say,  that  the  memory  of  the  wrong 
abides  :  and  indeed  the  Greek  word  for  it,  prj»is, 
is  derived  from  nivav,  and  means  what  abides 
and  is  transferred  to  memory.  Rancour,  on 
the  other  hand,  implies  watching  for  a  suit- 
able moment  for  revenge,  and  the  Greek 
word  for  it  is  kotos  from  Kuo-dat. 
_  Anger  further  is  the  satellite  of  reason,  the 
vindicator  of  desire.  For  when  we  long  after 
anything  and  are  opposed  in  our  desire  by 
some  one,  we  are  angered  at  that  person,  as 
though  we  had  been  wronged :  and  reason 
evidently  deems  that  there  are  just  grounds 
for  displeasure  in  what  has  happened,  in  the 


9  oki*o5,  dread.  9«  ayuivia. 

9b  Nemesius  and  certain  manuscripts  give  these  species  of  fear 
in  a  different  order,  viz.,  dread,  consternation,  panic,  anxiety, 
shame,  disgrace. 

1  (JVo-is,  boiling. 

2  tov  irepi  Kap&iav  aifiaros,  the  blood  about  the  heart. 

3  Semes.,  ch.  21. 


34 


JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS. 


case  of  those  who,  like  us,  have  in  the  natural 
course  of  things  to  guard  their  own  position. 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

Concerning  Imagination. 


Imagination  *  is  a  faculty  of  the  unreasoning 
part  of  the  soul.  It  is  through  the  organs 
of  sense  that  it  is  brought  into  action,  and 
it  is  spoken  of  as  sensation.  And  further, 
what  is  imagined  s  and  perceived  is  that  which 
comes  within  the  scope  of  the  faculty  of 
imagination  and  sensation.  For  example,  the 
sense  of  sight  is  the  visual  faculty  itself,  but 
the  object  of  sight  is  that  which  comes  within 
the  scope  of  the  sense  of  sight,  such  as  a  stone 
or  any  other  such  object.  Further,  an  ima- 
gination is  an  affection  of  the  unreasoning 
part  of  the  soul  which  is  occasioned  by  some 
object  acting  upon  the  sensation.  But  an 
appearance 6  is  an  empty  affection  of  the 
unreasoning  part  of  the  soul,  not  occasioned 
by  any  object  acting  upon  the  sensation. 
Moreover  the  organ  of  imagination  is  the 
anterior  ventricle  of  the  brain. 

CHAPTER   XVIII. 

Concerning  Sensation. 

Sensation  is  that  faculty  of  the  soul  whereby 
material  objects  can  be  apprehended  or  dis- 
criminated. And  the  sensoria  are  the  organs 
or  members  through  which  sensations  are  con- 
veyed. And  the  objects  of  sense  are  the 
things  that  come  within  the  province  of  sensa- 
tion. And  lastly,  the  subject  of  sense  is  the 
living  animal  which  possesses  the  faculty  of 
sensation.  Now  there  are  five  senses,  and 
likewise  five  organs  of  sense. 

The  first  sense  is  sight :  and  the  sensoria 
or  organs  of  sight  are  the  nerves  of  the  brain 
and  the  eyes.  Now  sight  is  primarily  per- 
ception of  colour,  but  along  with  the  colour 
it  discriminates  the  body  that  has  colour,  and 
its  size  and  form,  and  locality,  and  the  inter- 
vening space  and  the  number  i  :  also  whether 
it  is  in  motion  or  at  rest,  rough  or  smooth, 
even  or  uneven,  sharp  or  blunt,  and  finally 
whether  its  composition  is  watery  or  earthy, 
that  is,  wet  or  dry. 

The  second  sense  is  hearing,  whereby  voices 
and  sounds  are  perceived.  And  it  distin- 
guishes these  as  sharp  or  deep,  or  smooth 
or  loud.  Its  organs  are  the  soft  nerves  of  the 
brain,  and  the  structure  of  the  ears.  Further, 
man  and  the  ape  are  the  only  animals  that  do 
not  move  their  ears. 

The  third  sense  is  smell,  which  is  caused  by 


4  QavTaariicov.  S  Or,  presented. 

«  See  Aristotle,  Dt  anima,  1 1 1 .  c.  7.  7  Nemes.,  ch.  71. 


the  nostrils  transmitting  the  vapours  to  the 
brain  :  and  it  is  bounded  by  the  extreme 
limits  of  the  anterior  ventricle  of  the  brain. 
It  is  the  faculty  by  which  vapours  are  per- 
ceived and  apprehended.  Now,  the  most 
generic  distinction  between  vapours  is  whether 
they  have  a  good  or  an  evil  odour,  or  form  an 
intermediate  class  with  neither  a  good  nor 
an  evil  odour.  A  good  odour  is  produced 
by  the  thorough  digestion  in  the  body  of  the 
humours.  When  they  are  only  moderately 
digested  the  intermediate  class  is  formed,  and 
when  the  digestion  is  very  imperfect  or  utterly 
wanting,  an  evil  odour  results. 

The  fourth  sense  is  taste  :  it  is  the  faculty 
whereby  the  humours  are  apprehended  or 
perceived,  and  its  organs  of  sense  are  the 
tongue,  and  more  especially  the  lips,  and  the 
palate  (which  the  Greeks  call  ovpavio-Kas),  and 
in  these  are  nerves  that  come  from  the  brain 
and  are  spread  out,  and  convey  to  the  domi- 
nant part  of  the  soul  the  perception  or  sensa- 
tion they  have  encountered  8.  The  so-called 
gustatory  qualities  of  the  humours  are  these  : — 
sweetness,  pungency,  bitterness,  astringency, 
acerbity,  sourness,  saltness,  fattiness,  stickiness; 
for  taste  is  capable  of  discriminating  all  these. 
But  water  has  none  of  these  qualities,  and 
is  therefore  devoid  of  taste.  Moreover,  astrin- 
gency is  only  a  more  intense  and  exaggerated 
form  of  acerbity. 

The  fifth  sense  is  touch,  which  is  common 
to  all  living  things  9.  Its  organs  are  nerves 
which  come  from  the  brain  and  ramify  all 
through  the  body.  Hence  the  body  as  a 
whole,  including  even  the  other  organs  of 
sense,  possesses  the  sense  of  touch.  Within 
its  scope  come  heat  and  cold,  softness  and 
hardness,  viscosity  and  brittleness  *,  heaviness 
and  lightness  :  for  it  is  by  touch  alone  that 
these  qualities  are  discriminated.  On  the 
other  hand,  roughness  and  smoothness,  dry- 
ness and  wetness,  thickness  and  thinness,  up 
and  down,  place  and  size,  whenever  that  is 
such  as  to  be  embraced  in  a  single  application 
of  the  sense  of  touch,  are  all  common  to  touch 
and  sight,  as  well  as  denseness  and  rareness, 
that  is  porosity,  and  rotundity  if  it  is  small, 
and  some  other  shapes.  In  like  manner  also 
by  the  aid  of  memory  and  thought  perception 
of  the  nearness  of  a  body  is  possible,  and 
similarly  perception  of  number  up  to  two 
or  three,  and  such  small  and  easily  reckoned 
figures.  But  it  is  by  sight  rather  than  touch 
that  these  things  are  perceived. 

The  Creator,  it  is  to  be  noted,  fashioned 


8  Nemes.,  ch.  9.  9  Ibid.,  ch.  8. 

1  £r)P6v  is  added  in  some  MSS.  but  wrongly:  for  it  is  what 
is  perceived  by  touch  alone  that  is  here  spoken  of,  whereas, 
below,  we  are  told  that  dryness  is  recognised  also  by  sight ;  so 
also  in  Nemesius. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


35 


all  the  other  organs  of  sense  in  pairs,  so  that 
if  one  were  destroyed,  the  other  might  fill  its 
place.  For  there  are  two  eyes,  two  ears,  two 
orifices  of  the  nose,  and  two  tongues,  which 
in  some  animals,  such  as  snakes,  are  separate, 
but  in  others,  like  man,  are  united.  But  touch 
is  spread  over  the  whole  body  with  the  excep- 
tion of  bones,  nerves,  nails,  horns,  hairs, 
ligaments,  and  other  such  structures. 

Further,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  sight  is 
possible  only  in  straight  lines,  whereas  smell 
and  hearing  are  not  limited  to  straight  lines 
only,  but  act  in  all  directions.  Touch,  again, 
and  taste  act  neither  in  straight  lines,  nor 
in  every  direction,  but  only  when  each  comes 
near  to  the  sensible  objects  that  are  proper 
to  it. 

CHAPTER    XIX. 

Concerning  Thought. 

The  faculty  of  thought  deals  with  judgments 
and  assents,  and  impulse  to  action  and  dis- 
inclinations, and  escapes  from  action  :  and 
more  especially  with  thoughts  connected  with 
what  is  thinkable,  and  the  virtues  and  the 
different  branches  of  learning,  and  the  theories 
of  the  arts  and  matters  of  counsel  and  choice  2. 
Further,  it  is  this  faculty  which  prophesies 
the  future  to  us  in  dreams,  and  this  is  what 
the  Pythagoreans,  adopting  the  Hebrew  view, 
hold  to  be  the  one  true  form  of  prophecy.  The 
organ  of  thought  then  is  the  mid-ventricle 
of  the  brain,  and  the  vital  spirit  it  contains  3. 

CHAPTER  XX. 

Concerning  Memory. 

The  faculty  of  memory  is  the  cause  *  and 
storehouse  of  remembrance  and  recollection. 
For  memory  is  a  fantasy5  that  is  left  be- 
hind of  some  sensation  and  thought  5  mani- 
festing itself  in  action  ;  or  the  preservation  7 
of  a  sensation  and  thought 8.  For  the  soul 
comprehends  objects  of  sense  through  the 
organs  of  sense,  that  is  to  say,  it  perceives, 
and  thence  arises  a  notion  :  and  similarly 
it  comprehends  the  objects  of  thought  through 
the  mind,  and  thence  arises  a  thought.  It  is 
then  the  preservation  of  the  types  of  these 
notions  and  thoughts  that  is  spoken  of  as 
memory. 

Further,   it  is  worthy  of  remark   that  the 


3  Nemes.,  ch.  n. 

3  Greg.  Nyss.,  De  opif.  Horn.,  ch.  13. 

4  Text,  cutiov.    R.  2930,  ayyelov. 

5  0ai  Taryia. 

*  icai  voijtretas  is  wanting  in  some  MSS-,  nor  is  it  found  in 
Nemesius,  who  borrowed  his  description  from  Origen. 

.7  Text,  awTTjpt'o.  Variant,  o-iopet'a,  a  heaping  up,  "  coacer- 
vatio."  Faber  has  "confirmatio,"  which  is  nearer  tTiorrjpCa, 
co>iserz'afio,wh\ch  is  found  in  Nemesius,  &c. 

8  Nemes.,  ch.  13. 


apprehension  of  matters  of  thought  depends 
on  learning,  or  natural  process  of  thought, 
and  not  on  sensation.  For  though  objects 
of  sense  are  retained  in  the  memory  by  them- 
selves, only  such  objects  of  thought  are  re- 
membered as  we  have  learned,  and  we  have 
no  memory  of  their  essence. 

Recollection  is  the  name  given  to  the 
recovery  of  some  memory  lost  by  forgetful- 
ness.  For  forgetfulness  is  just  loss  of  memory. 
The  faculty  of  imagination  °  then,  having  ap- 
prehended material  objects  through  the  senses, 
transmits  this  to  the  faculty  of  thought  or 
reason  (for  they  are  both  the  same),  and  this 
after  it  has  received  and  passed  judgment  on 
it,  passes  it  on  to  the  faculty  of  memory. 
Now  the  organ  of  memory  is  the  posterior 
ventricle  of  the  brain,  which  the  Greeks  call 
the  napsyKtipaXis,  and  the  vital  spirit  it  con- 
tains. 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

Concerning  Conception  and  Articulation. 

Again  the  reasoning  part  of  the  soul  is 
divided  into  conception  and  articulation. 
Conception  is  an  activity  of  the  soul  origin- 
ating in  the  reason  without  resulting  in  utter- 
ance. Accordingly,  often,  even  when  we  are 
silent  we  run  through  a  whole  speech  in  our 
minds,  and  hold  discussions  in  our  dreams. 
And  it  is  this  faculty  chiefly  which  constitutes 
us  all  reasoning  beings.  For  those  who  are 
dumb  by  birth  or  have  lost  their  voice  through 
some  disease  or  injury,  are  just  as  much 
reasoning  beings.  But  articulation  by  voice 
or  in  the  different  dialects  requires  energy  : 
that  is  to  say,  the  word  is  articulated  by  the 
tongue  and  mouth,  and  this  is  why  it  is  named 
articulation.  It  is,  indeed,  the  messenger  of 
thought,  and  it  is  because  of  it  that  we  are 
called  speaking  beings. 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

Concerning  Passion  and  Energy. 

Passion  is  a  word  with  various  meanings. 
It  is  used  in  regard  to  the  body,  and  refers  to 
diseases  and  wounds,  and  again,  it  is  used  in 
reference  to  the  soul,  and  means  desire  and 
anger.  But  to  speak  broadly  and  generally, 
passion  is  an  animal  affection  which  is  suc- 
ceeded by  pleasure  and  pain.  For  pain  suc- 
ceeds passion,  but  is  not  the  same  thing  as 
passion.  For  passion  is  an  affection  of  things 
without  sense,  but  not  so  pain.  Pain  then 
is  not  passion,  but  the  sensation  of  passion  : 
and  it  must  be  considerable,  that  is  to  say, 


9  to  ^avTcurriKoV,  tkt faculty  of  fantasy. 


Y  2 


36 


JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS. 


it  must  be  great  enough  to  come  within  the 
scope  of  sense. 

Again,  the  definition  of  passions  of  the  soul 
is  this :  Passion  is  a  sensible  activity  of  the 
appetitive  faculty,  depending  on  the  presenta- 
tion to  the  mind  of  something  good  or  bad.  Or 
in  other  words,  passion  is  an  irrational  activity 
of  the  soul,  resulting  from  the  notion  of  some- 
thing good  or  bad.  For  the  notion  of  some- 
thing good  results  in  desire,  and  the  notion  of 
something  bad  results  in  anger.  But  passion 
considered  as  a  class,  that  is,  passion  in  general, 
is  defined  as  a  movement  in  one  thing  caused 
by  another.  Energy,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a 
drastic  movement,  and  by  "  drastic  "  is  meant 
that  which  is  moved  of  itself.  Thus,  anger  is 
the  energy  manifested  by  the  part  of  the  soul 
where  anger  resides,  whereas  passion  involves 
the  two  divisions  of  the  soul,  and  in  addition 
the  whole  body  when  it  is  forcibly  impelled 
to  action  by  anger.  For  there  has  been  caused 
movement  in  one  thing  caused  by  another, 
and  this  is  called  passion. 

But  in  another  sense  energy  is  spoken  of 
as  passion.  For  energy  is  a  movement  in 
harmony  with  nature,  whereas  passion  is  a 
movement  at  variance  with  nature.  Accord- 
ing, then,  to  this  view,  energy  may  be  spoken 
of  as  passion  when  it  does  not  act  in  accord 
with  nature,  whether  its  movement  is  due 
to  itself  or  to  some  other  thing.  Thus,  in 
connection  with  the  heart,  its  natural  pulsation 
is  energy,  whereas  its  palpitation,  which  is  an 
excessive  and  unnatural  movement,  is  passion 
and  not  energy. 

But  it  is  not  every  activity  of  the  passionate 
part  of  the  soul  that  is  called  passion,  but 
only  the  more  violent  ones,  and  such  as  are 
capable  of  causing  sensation  :  for  the  minor 
and  unperceived  movements  are  certainly  not 
passions.  For  to  constitute  passion  there  is 
necessary  a  considerable  degree  of  force,  and 
thus  it  is  on  this  account  that  we  add  to  the 
definition  of  passion  that  it  is  a  sensible 
activity.  For  the  lesser  activities  escape  the 
notice  of  the  senses,  and  do  not  cause  passion. 

Observe  also  that  our  soul  possesses  two- 
fold faculties,  those  of  knowledge,  and  those 
of  life.  The  faculties  of  knowledge  are  mind, 
thought,  notion,  presentation,  sensation  :  and 
the  vital  or  appetitive  faculties  are  will 
and  choice.  Now,  to  make  what  has  been 
said  clearer,  let  us  consider  these  things  more 
closely,  and  first  let  us  take  the  faculties  of 
knowledge. 

Presentation  and  sensation  then  have  al- 
ready been  sufficiently  discussed  above.  It  is 
sensation  that  causes  a  passion,  which  is  called 
presentation,  to  arise  in  the  soul,  and  from  pre- 
sentation comes  notion.     Thereafter  thought, 


weighing  the  truth  or  falseness  of  the  notion, 
determines  what  is  true:  and  this  explains 
the  Greek  word  for  thought,  Bidvom,  which 
is  derived  from  8iavo«i>,  meaning  to  think  and 
discriminate.  That,  however,  which  is  judged  r 
and  determined  to  be  true,  is  spoken  of  as 
mind. 

Or  to  put  it  otherwise  :  The  primary  activity 
of  the  mind,  observe,  is  intelligence,  but  in- 
telligence applied  to  any  object  is  called  a 
thought,  and  when  this  persists  and  makes  on 
the  mind  an  impression  of  the  object  of 
thought,  it  is  named  reflection,  and  when 
reflection  dwells  on  the  same  object  and  puts 
itself  to  the  test,  and  closely  examines  the 
relation  of  the  thought  to  the  soul,  it  gets  the 
name  prudence.  Further,  prudence,  when  it 
extends  its  area  forms  the  power  of  reasoning, 
and  is  called  conception,  and  this  is  defined 
as  the  fullest  activity  of  the  soul,  arising  in 
that  part  where  reason  resides,  and  being  de- 
void of  outward  expression  :  and  from  it  pro- 
ceeds the  uttered  word  spoken  by  the  tongue. 
And  now  that  we  have  discussed  the  faculties 
of  knowledge,  let  us  turn  to  the  vital  or 
appetitive  faculties. 

It  should  be  understood  that  there  is  im- 
planted in  the  soul  by  nature  a  faculty  of 
desiring  that  which  is  in  harmony  with  its 
nature,  and  of  maintaining  in  close  union 
all  that  belongs  essentially  to  its  nature  :  and 
this  power  is  called  will  or  diXqms.  For 
the  essence  both  of  existence  and  of  living 
yearns  after  activity  both  as  regards  mind  and 
sense,  and  in  this  it  merely  longs  to  realise  its 
own  natural  and  perfect  being.  And  so  this 
definition  also  is  given  of  this  natural  will : 
will  is  an  appetite,  both  rational  and  vital, 
depending  only  on  what  is  natural.  So  that 
will 2  is  nothing  else  than  the  natural  and 
vital  and  rational  appetite  of  all  things  that 
go  to  constitute  nature,  that  is,  just  the  simple 
faculty.  For  the  appetite  of  creatures  without 
reason,  since  it  is  irrational,  is  not  called  will. 

Again  fiovXrjais  or  wish  is  a  sort  of  natural 
will,  that  is  to  say,  a  natural  and  rational 
appetite  for  some  definite  thing.  For  there 
is  seated  in  the  soul  of  man  a  faculty  of 
rational  desire.  When,  then,  this  rational  de- 
sire directs  itself  naturally  to  some  definite 
object  it  is  called  wish.  For  wish  is  rational 
desire  and  longing  for  some  definite  thing. 

Wish,  however,  is  used  both  in  connection 
with  what  is  within  our  power,  and  in  con- 
nection with  what  is  outside  our  power,  that 
is,  both  with  regard  to  the  possible  and  the 
impossible.  For  we  wish  often  to  indulge 
lust  or  to  be  temperate,  or  to  sleep  and  the 


»  Cf.  i  Cor.  i.  io. 


*  Max.  ad  Marin,  et  ad  Incert.  p.  98. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


37 


like,  and  these  are  within  our  power  to  accom- 
plish, and  possible.  But  we  wish  also  to  be 
kings,  and  this  is  not  within  our  power,  or  we 
wish  perchance  never  to  die,  and  this  is  an 
impossibility. 

The  wish  3,  then,  has  reference  to  the  end 
alone,  and  not  to  the  means  by  which  the  end 
is  attained.  The  end  is  the  object  of  our  wish, 
for  instance,  to  be  a  king  or  to  enjoy  good 
health:  but  the  means  by  which  the  end  is 
attained,  that  is  to  say,  the  manner  in  which 
we  ought  to  enjoy  good  health,  or  reach  the 
rank  of  king,  are  the  objects  of  delibera- 
tion4. Then  after  wish  follow  inquiry  and 
speculation  (ftrrjo-is  and  o-K^iy),  and  after 
these,  if  the  object  is  anything  within  our 
power,  comes  counsel  or  deliberation  (ftovXr) 
or  ftov\tv<rfs) :  counsel  is  an  appetite  for  in- 
vestigating lines  of  action  lying  within  our 
own  power.  For  one  deliberates,  whether 
one  ought  to  prosecute  any  matter  or  not, 
and  next,  one  decides  which  is  the  better,  and 
this  is  called  judgment  (KptViy).  Thereafter, 
one  becomes  disposed  to  and  forms  a  liking 
for  that  in  favour  of  which  deliberation  gave 
judgment,  and  this  is  called  inclination  (yvaprj). 
For  should  one  form  a  judgment  and  not 
be  disposed  to  or  form  a  liking  for  the  object 
of  that  judgment,  it  is  not  called  inclination. 
Then,  again,  after  one  has  become  so  disposed, 
choice  or  selection  (Trpoalpea-is  and  eViAoy//) 
comes  into  play.  For  choice  consists  in  the 
choosing  and  selecting  of  one  of  two  possi- 
bilities in  preference  to  the  other.  Then  one 
is  impelled  to  action,  and  this  is  called  im- 
pulse {opw) :  and  thereafter  it  is  brought  into 
employment,  and  this  is  called  use  (xprju-is). 
The  last  stage  after  we  have  enjoyed  the  use 
is  cessation  from  desire. 

In  the  case,  however,  of  creatures  without 
reason,  as  soon  as  appetite  is  roused  for  any- 
thing, straightway  arises  impulse  to  action. 
For  the  appetite  of  creatures  without  reason 
is  irrational,  and  they  are  ruled  by  their 
natural  appetite.  Hence,  neither  the  names 
of  will  or  wish  are  applicable  to  the  appetite 
of  creatures  without  reason.  For  will  is  ra- 
tional, free  and  natural  desire,  and  in  the  case 
of  man,  endowed  with  reason  as  he  is,  the 
natural  appetite  is  ruled  rather  than  rules. 
For  his  actions  are  free,  and  depend  upon 
reason,  since  the  faculties  of  knowledge  and 
life  are  bound  up  together  in  man.  He  is  free 
in  desire,  free  in  wish,  free  in  examination 
and  investigation,  free  in  deliberation,  free  in 
judgment,  free  in  inclination,  free  in  choice, 


3  to  /3ovAtjtov. 

*  Max.  Dial,  cunt  Pyrrh.  tt  Epist.  i  ad  Marin. 


free  in  impulse,  and  free  in  action  where  that 
is  in  accordance  with  nature. 

But  in  the  case  of  God  s,  it  is  to  be  remem- 
bered, we  speak  of  wish,  but  it  is  not  correct 
to  speak  of  choice.  For  God  does  not  de- 
liberate, since  that  is  a  mark  of  ignorance, 
and  no  one  deliberates  about  what  he  knows. 
But  if  counsel  is  a  mark  of  ignorance,  surely 
choice6  must  also  be  so.  God,  then,  since 
He  has  absolute  knowledge  of  everything, 
does  not  deliberate  ?. 

Nor  in  the  case  of  the  soul  of  the   Lord 
do  we  speak  of  counsel  or  choice,  seeing  that 
He  had  no  part  in  ignorance.     For,  although 
He  was  of  a  nature  that  is  not  cognisant  of  the 
future,  yet  because  of  His  oneness  in  subsist- 
ence  with    God   the   Word,   He    had   know- 
ledge of  all  things,  and  that  not  by  grace,  but, 
as  we  have  said,  because  He  was  one  in  sub- 
sistence3.    For  He  Himself  was   both   God 
and   Man,    and    hence    He   did    not    possess 
the  will  that  acts  by  opinion  9  or  disposition. 
While  He  did  possess  the  natural  and  simple 
will  which  is  to  be  observed  equally  in  all 
the  personalities  of  men,  His  holy  soul  had 
not  opinion  x  (or,  disposition)  that  is  to  say, 
no  inclination  opposed  to  His  divine  will,  nor 
aught  else  contrary  to  His  divine  will.     For 
opinion  (or,  disposition)  differs  as  persons  dif- 
fer, except  in  the  case  of  the  holy  and  simple 
and  uncompound  and  indivisible  Godhead 2. 
There,  indeed,  since  the  subsistences  are  in 
nowise  divided   or  separated,  neither   is  the 
object  of  will  divided.     And  there,  since  there 
is  but  one  nature,  there-  is  also  but  one  natural 
will.     And  again,  since  the   subsistences  are 
unseparated,  the  three  subsistences  have  also 
one  object  of  will,  and  one  activity.     In  the 
case  of  men,  however,  seeing  that  their  nature 
is  one,  their  natural  will  is  also  one,  but  since 
their  subsistences  3  are  separated  and  divided 
from  each  other,  alike  in  place  and  time,  and 
disposition  to  things,   and  in  many  other  re- 
spects, for  this  reason  their  acts  of  will  and 
their  opinions  are  different.     But  in  the  case 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  since  He  possesses 
different   natures,    His   natural   wills,    that    is, 
His  volitional  faculties  belonging  to  Him   as 
God  and  as  Man  are  also  different.    But  since 
the  subsistence  is  one,  and  He  Who  exercises 


5  Thomas  Aquinas  (i — 2,  Qucest.  4,  a.  1  and  2)  lays  down  the 
position,  in  accordance  with  John  of  Damascus,  that  there  is  no 
''counsel"  in  God  qnatenus  est  appetitiis  inquisitivus.  but  that 
there  is  quantum  ad  certitudhwni  judicii.  Basil  (Hexaem. 
Horn,  i),  arguing  against  the  ancient  philosophers  who  taught 
that  the  world  was  made  an-poatpeVus,  affirms  "  counsel"  in  God 
in  the  latter  sense. 

6  Max.,  Epist.  1  ad  Marin. 

7  Text,  6  Si  ©ebs  jrai/TO.  ti<5ujs  anKui';,  ov  jiou,\eveT<u.  Various 
reading  is,  6  Se  fe)eos  ^d^Ta  aioais  an-Aios  (3ovAc7at. 

8  Max.,  Dial,  cum  Pyrrh. 

9  Sib  ov&i  yvui/JLiKuv  ei\e  fc'A))jUa.  l  yvuifxriv. 

2  v.  infr.,  lib.  iii.  ch.  14.  3  Or,  personalities. 


JOHN    OF    DAMASCUS. 


the  will  is  one,  the  object  of  the  will4,  that  is, 
the  gnomic  will 5,  is  also  one,  His  human  will 
evidently  following  His  divine  will,  and  willing 
that  which  the  divine  will  willed  it  to  will. 

Further  note,  that  will  (WAr/cns)  and  wish 
(PovXtjo-is)  are  two  different  things :  also  the 
object  of  will  (r6  6e\r)r6v)  and  the  capacity 
for  will  (6(\i]TiKnv),  and  the  subject  that  exercises 
will  (6  de\u>v),  are  all  different.  For  will  is  just 
the  simple  faculty  of  willing,  whereas  wish 
is  will  directed  to  some  definite  object.  Again, 
the  object  of  will  is  the  matter  underlying 
the  will,  that  is  to  say,  the  thing  that  we  will : 
for  instance,  when  appetite  is  roused  for  food. 
The  appetite  pure  and  simple,  however,  is 
a  rational  will.  The  capacity  for  will,  more- 
over, means  that  which  possesses  the  volitional 
faculty,  for  example,  man.  Further,  the  sub- 
ject that  exercises  will  is  the  actual  person 
who  makes  use  of  will. 

The  word  to  deX^a,  it  is  well  to  note,  some- 
times denotes  the  will,  that  is,  the  volitional 
faculty,  and  in  this  sense  we  speak  of  natural 
will :  and  sometimes  it  denotes  the  object 
of  will,  and  we  speak  of  will  (deXrma  yvapiKov) 
depending  on  inclination  6. 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

Concerning  Energy. 

All  the  faculties  7  we  have  already  dis- 
cussed, both  those  of  knowledge  and  those 
of  life,  both  the  natural  and  the  artificial,  are, 
it  is  to  be  noted,  called  energies.  For  energy  8 
is  the  natural  force  and  activity  of  each  es- 
sence :  or  again,  natural  energy  is  the  activity 
innate  in  every  essence  :  and  so,  clearly,  things 
that  have  the  same  essence  have  also  the 
same  energy,  and  things  that  have  different 
natures  have  also  different  energies.  For  no 
essence  can  be  devoid  of  natural  energy. 

Natural  energy  again  is  the  force  in  each 
essence  by  which  its  nature  is  made  manifest. 
And  again :  natural  energy  is  the  primal, 
eternally-moving  force  of  the  intelligent  soul : 
that  is,  the  eternally-moving  word  of  the  soul, 
ndiich  ever  springs  naturally  from  it.  And  yet 
again  :  natural  energy  9  is  the  force  and  activity 
of  each  essence  which  only  that  which  is  not 
lacks. 

But  actions 9*  are  also  called  energies:  for 

4  Text,  BeKryrov,  as  given  by  Faber.   Variant,  6f\tiTiic6v. 

5  to  ytxaixiKov  tfe'Aij/xa,  the  will  of  individual  opinion,  or,  the 
dispositional  will. 

6  Or,  acting  by  opinion,  or  disposition. 

7  Anast.  Sin.  in'OSrjy.,  from  Greg.  Nyss.,  p.  44  ;  Clem.  Alex. 
*p.  Max.,  p.  151 

m  8  The  Greek  ivepyeia.  being  a  term  with  a  large  connotation 
is  explained  as  meaning  in  different  cases  operation  (operatio), 
action  (actio),  and  act  (actus).  Nemesius  defines  actio  as  operatio 
rationalis,  actus  as  perfectio  potent  in. 

9  Cf.  Anast.  Sin.  in  'OSr/yds,  p.  43;  John  of  Darn.,  Dialect. 
C.  30;  Greg.  Nyss.,  in  Maximus,  II.,  p.  155. 

9»  irpafeis.  So  n-pafis  is  defined  as  «i/c'py«ia  Aoyixij  in  the  fol- 
lowing chapter. 


instance,  speaking,  eating,  drinking,  and  such 
like.  The  natural  affections  9b  also  are  often 
called  energies,  for  instance,  hunger,  thirst, 
and  so  forth r.  And  yet  again,  the  result 
of  the  force  is  also  often  called  energy. 

Things  are  spoken  of  in  a  twofold  way 
as  being  potential  and  actual.  For  we  say 
that  the  child  at  the  breast  is  a  potential 
scholar,  for  he  is  so  equipped  that,  if  taught, 
he  will  become  a  scholar.  Further,  we  speak 
of  a  potential  and  an  actual  scholar,  meaning 
that  the  latter  is  versed  in  letters,  while  the 
former  has  the  power  of  interpreting  letters, 
but  does  not  put  it  into  actual  use  :  again, 
when  we  speak  of  an  actual  scholar,  we  mean 
that  he  puts  his  power  into  actual  use,  that  is 
to  say,  that  he  really  interprets  writings. 

It  is,  therefore,  to  be  observed  that  in  the 
second  sense  potentiality  and  actuality  go 
together ;  for  the  scholar  is  in  the  one  case 
potential,  and  in  the  other  actual. 

The  primal  and  only  true  energy  of  nature 
is  the  voluntary  or  rational  and  indepin  lent 
life  which  constitutes  our  humanity.  I  know 
not  how  those  who  rob  the  Lord  of  this  can 
say  that  He  became  man  2. 

Energy  is  drastic  activity  of  nature  :  and  by 
drastic  is  meant  that  which  is  moved  of  itself. 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

Concerning  what  is   Voluntary  and 
what  is  Involuntary. 

The  voluntary  3  implies  a  certain  definite 
action,  and  so-called  involuntariness  also  im- 
plies a  certain  definite  action.  Further,  many 
attribute  true  involuntariness  not  only  to  suf- 
fering, but  even  to  action.  We  must  then 
understand  action  to  be  rational  energy.  Ac- 
tions are  followed  by  praise  or  blame,  and 
some  of  them  are  accompanied  with  pleasure 
and  others  with  pain ;  some  are  to  be  desired 
by  the  actor,  others  are  to  be  shunned  :  further, 
of  those  that  are  desirable,  some  are  always 
so,  others  only  at  some  particular  time.  And 
so  it  is  also  with  those  that  are  to  be  shunned. 
Again,  some  actions  enlist  pity  and  are  pardon- 
able, others  are  hateful  and  deserve  punish- 
ment. Voluntariness,  then,  is  assuredly  fol- 
lowed by  praise  or  blame,  and  renders  the 
action  pleasurable  and  desirable  to  the  actor, 
either  for  all  time  or  for  the  moment  of  its 
performance.  Involuntariness,  on  the  other 
hand,  brings  merited  pity  or  pardon  in  its 
train,  and  renders  the  act  painful  and  unde- 


9>>  ii  ir<£07).      Cf.  Instit.  Elem.,  c.  9;    Greg.  Nyst.,   Cant 
Eunom.,  v.  p.  170. 

1  Max.,  Dial,  cum  Pyrrh. 

3  Greg.  Nyss.  ap.  Max.,  p.  155. 

3  Cf.  Greg.  Nyss.,  in  Maxim.;   Nemes.,  ch.  29. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


39 


sirable  to  the  doer,  and  makes  him  leave  it  in 
a  state  of  incompleteness  even  though  force 
is  brought  to  bear  upon  him. 

Further,  what  is  involuntary  depends  in 
part  on  force  and  in  part  on  ignorance.  It 
depends  on  force  when  the  creative  beginning 
or  cause  is  from  without,  that  is  to  say,  when 
one  is  forced  by  another  without  being  at 
all  persuaded,  or  when  one  does  not  con- 
tribute to  the  act  on  one's  own  impulse,  or 
does  not  co-operate  at  all,  or  do  on  one's 
own  account  that  which  is  exacted  by  force  ♦. 
Thus  we  may  give  this  definition:  "An  in- 
voluntary act  is  one  in  which  the  beginning 
is  from  without,  and  where  one  does  not 
contribute  at  all  on  one's  own  impulse  to 
that  to  which  one  is  forced."  And  by  begin- 
ning we  mean  the  creative  cause.  An  in- 
voluntary act  depends,  on  the  other  hand, 
on  ignorance,  when  one  is  not  the  cause  of 
the  ignorance  one's  self,  but  events  just  so 
happen.  For,  if  one  commits  murder  while 
drunk,  it  is  an  act  of  ignorance,  but  yet  not 
involuntary  5 ;  for  one  was  one's  self  responsi- 
ble for  the  cause  of  the  ignorance,  that  is 
to  say,  the  drunkenness.  But  if  while  shoot- 
ing at  the  customary  range  one  slew  one's 
father  who  happened  to  be  passing  by,  this 
would  be  termed  an  ignorant  and  involuntary 
act. 

As,  then,  that  which  is  involuntary  is  in  two 
parts,  one  depending  on  force,  the  other  on 
ignorance,  that  which  is  voluntary  is  the  oppo- 
site of  both.  For  that  which  is  voluntary 
is  the  result  neither  of  force  nor  of  ignorance  6. 
A  voluntary  act,  then,  is  one  of  which  the 
beginning  or  cause  originates  in  an  actor,  who 
knows  each  individual  circumstance  through 
which  and  in  which  the  action  takes  place. 
By  "  individual  "  is  meant  what  the  rhetori- 
cians call  circumstantial  elements :  for  in- 
stance, the  actor,  the  sufferer,  the  action 
(perchance  a  murder),  the  instrument,  the 
place,  the  time,  the  manner,  the  reason  of 
the  action. 

Notice  that  there  are  certain  things  that 
occupy  a  place  intermediate  between  what 
is  voluntary  and  what  is  involuntary.  Al- 
though they  are  unpleasant  and  painful  we 
welcome  them  as  the  escape  from  a  still 
greater  trouble ;  for  instance,  to  escape  ship- 
wreck we  cast  the  cargo  overboard  7. 

Notice  also  that  children  and  irrational 
creatures  perform  voluntary  actions,  but  these 
do  not  involve  the  exercise  of  choice  :  further, 
all  our  actions  that  are  done  in  anger  and 
without   previous   deliberation   are   voluntary 


*  N ernes.,  ch.  30. 


5  Ibid.,  ch.  31. 
7  Ibid.,  ch.  30. 


6  Ibid.,  ch.  32. 


actions,  but  do  not  in  the  least  involve  free 
choice8.  Also,  if  a  friend  suddenly  appears 
on  the  scene,  or  if  one  unexpectedly  lights  on 
a  treasure,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned  it 
is  quite  voluntary,  but  there  is  no  question 
of  choice  in  the  matter.  For  all  these  things 
are  voluntary,  because  we  desire  pleasure 
from  them,  but  they  do  not  by  any  means 
imply  choice,  because  they  are  not  the  result 
of  deliberation.  And  deliberation  must  as- 
suredly precede  choice,  as  we  have  said  above. 

CHAPTER   XXV. 

Concerning  what  is  in  our  own  power,  that  is, 
concerning  Free-will  9. 

The  first  enquiry  involved  in  the  consider- 
ation of  free-will,  that  is,  of  what  is  in  our  own 
power,  is  whether  anything  is  in  our  power  »  : 
for  there  are  many  who  deny  this.  The 
second  is,  what  are  the  things  that  are  in  our 
power,  and  over  what  things  do  we  have 
authority?  The  third  is,  what  is  the  reason 
for  which  God  Who  created  us  endued  us 
with  free-will?  So  then  we  shall  take  up  the 
first  question,  and  firstly  we  shall  prove  that 
of  those  things  which  even  our  opponents 
grant,  some  are  within  our  power.  And  let 
us  proceed  thus. 

Of  all  the  things  that  happen,  the  cause 
is  said  to  be  either  God,  or  necessity,  or  fate, 
or  nature,  or  chance,  or  accident.  But  God's 
function  has  to  do  with  essence  and  provi- 
dence :  necessity  deals  with  the  movement 
of  things  that  ever  keep  to  the  same  course: 
fate  with  the  necessary  accomplishment  of  the 
things  it  brings  to  pass  (for  fate  itself  implies 
necessity)  :  nature  with  birth,  growth,  de- 
struction, plants  and  animals ;  chance  with 
what  is  rare  and  unexpected.  For  chance 
is  defined  as  the  meeting  and  concurrence 
of  two  causes,  originating  in  choice  but  bring- 
ing to  pass  something  other  than  what  is 
natural :  for  example,  if  a  man  finds  a  treasure 
while  digging  a  ditch2 :  for  the  man  who  hid 
the  treasure  did  not  do  so  that  the  other  might 
find  it,  nor  did  the  finder  dig  with  the  purpose 
of  finding  the  treasure  :  but  the  former  hid 
it  that  he  might  take  it  away  when  he  wished, 
and  the  other's  aim  was  to  dig  the  ditch  : 
whereas  something  happened  quite  different 
from  what  both  had  in  view.  Accident  again 
deals  with  casual  occurrences  that  take  place 
among  lifeless  or  irrational  things,  apart  from 
nature  and  art.  This  then  is  their  doctrine. 
Under  which,  then,  of  these  categories  are  we 
to  bring  what  happens  through  the  agency  of 


8  Nemcs.,  ch.  33. 

1  Neines.,  ch.  39. 

2  Text,  ra<t>pov.     Variant,  ra^ioi' 


9  tou  aiiTf  Jouo-iou.   See  also  HI.  3*. 


40 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


man,  if  indeed  man  is  not  the  cause  and 
beginning  of  actions?  for  it  would  not  be 
right  to  ascribe  to  God  actions  that  are  some- 
times base  and  unjust :  nor  may  we  ascribe 
these  to  necessity,  for  they  are  not  such  as 
ever  continue  the  same  :  nor  to  fate,  for  fate 
implies  not  possibility  only  but  necessity  : 
nor  to  nature,  for  nature's  province  is  animals 
and  plants  :  nor  to  chance,  for  the  actions  of 
men  are  not  rare  and  unexpected  :  nor  to 
accident,  for  that  is  used  in  reference  to  the 
casual  occurrences  that  take  place  in  the 
world  of  lifeless  and  irrational  things.  We 
are  left  then  with  this  fact,  that  the  man  who 
acts  and  makes  is  himself  the  author  of  his 
own  works,  and  is  a  creature  endowed  with 
free-will. 

Further,  if  man  is  the  author  of  no  action, 
the  faculty  of  deliberation  is  quite  superfluous: 
for  to  what  purpose  could  deliberation  be  put 
if  man  is  the  master  of  none  of  his  actions  ? 
for  all  deliberation  is  for  the  sake  of  action. 
But  to  prove  that  the  fairest  and  most  precious 
of  man's  endowments  is  quite  superfluous 
would  be  the  height  of  absurdity.  If  then 
man  deliberates,  he  deliberates  with  a  view 
to  action.  For  all  deliberation  is  with  a  view 
to  and  on  account  of  action. 

CHAPTER   XXVI. 

Concerning  Events*. 

Of  events  s,  some  are  in  our  hands,  others 
are  not.  Those  then  are  in  our  hands  which 
we  are  free  to  do  or  not  to  do  at  our  will, 
that  is  all  actions  that  are  done  voluntarily 
(for  those  actions  are  not  called  voluntary 
the  doing  of  which  is  not  in  our  hands),  and 
in  a  word,  all  that  are  followed  by  blame  or 
praise  and  depend  on  motive  and  law.  Strictly 
all  mental6  and  deliberative  acts  are  in  our 
hands.  Now  deliberation  is  concerned  with 
equal  possibilities  :  and  an  '  equal  possibility ' 
is  an  action  that  is  itself  within  our  power  and 
its  opposite,  and  our  mind  makes  choice  of 
the  alternatives,  and  this  is  the  origin  of 
action.  The  actions,  therefore,  that  are  in  our 
hands  are  these  equal  possibilities  :  e.g.  to 
be  moved  or  not  to  be  moved,  to  hasten  or 
not  to  hasten,  to  long  for  unnecessaries  or  not 
to  do  so,  to  tell  lies  or  not  to  tell  lies,  to  give 
or  not  to  give,  to  rejoice  or  not  to  rejoice  as 
fits  the  occasion,  and  all  such  actions  as  imply 
virtue  or  vice  in  their  performance,  for  we 
are  free  to  do  or  not  to  do  these  at  our 
pleasure.      Amongst   equal   possibilities   also 


3  Text,  7rpd£eu$.     MSS.  trpa£ewi/,  as  in  Nemesius. 

4  irepi  tu>v  -yivo\i.iviDV .  5  Nemes.,  ch.  40. 
'  To  \\lv\lKa.  navra. 


are  included  the  arts,  for  we  have  it  in  our 
power  to  cultivate  these  or  not  as  we  please. 

Note,  however,  that  while  the  choice  of 
what  is  to  be  done  is  ever  in  our  power,  the 
action  itself  often  is  prevented  by  some  dis- 
pensation of  the  divine  Providence  ?. 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

Concerning  the  reason  of  our  endowment 
with  Free-will. 

We  hold,  therefore,  that  free-will 8  comes  on 
the  scene  at  the  same  moment  as  reason,  and 
that  change  and  alteration  are  congenital  to 
all  that  is  produced.  For  all  that  is  produced 
is  also  subject  to  changed  For  those  things 
must  be  subject  to  change  whose  production 
has  its  origin  in  change.  And  change  consists 
in  being  brought  into  being  out  of  nothing, 
and  in  transforming  a  substratum  of  matter 
into  something  different.  Inanimate  things, 
then,  and  things  without  reason  undergo  the 
afore-mentioned  bodily  changes,  while  the 
changes  of  things  endowed  with  reason  de- 
pend on  choice.  For  reason  consists  of  a 
speculative  and  a  practical  part.  The  specu- 
lative part  is  the  contemplation  of  the  nature 
of  things,  and  the  practical  consists  in  deliber- 
ation and  defines  the  true  reason  for  what 
is  to  be  done.  The  speculative  side  is  called 
mind  or  wisdom,  and  the  practical  side  is 
called  reason  or  prudence.  Every  one,  then, 
who  deliberates  does  so  in  the  belief  that  the 
choice  of  what  is  to  be  done  lies  in  his  hands, 
that  he  may  choose  what  seems  best  as  the 
result  of  his  deliberation,  and  having  chosen 
may  act  upon  it.  And  if  this  is  so,  free-will 
must  necessarily  be  very  closely  related  to 
reason.  For  either  man  is  an  irrational  being, 
or,  if  he  is  rational,  he  is  master  of  his  acts 
and  endowed  with  free-will.  Hence  also 
creatures  without  reason  do  not  enjoy  free- 
will :  for  nature  leads  them  rather  than  they 
nature,  and  so  they  do  not  oppose  the  natural 
appetite,  but  as  soon  as  their  appetite  longs 
after  anything  they  rush,  headlong  after  it. 
But  man,  being  rational,  leads  nature  rather 
than  nature  him,  and  so  when  he  desires 
aught  he  has  the  power  to  curb  his  appetite 
or  to  indulge  it  as  he  pleases.  Hence  also 
creatures  devoid  of  reason  are  the  subjects 
neither  of  praise  nor  blame,  while  man  is  the 
subject  of  both  praise  and  blame 1. 

Note  also  that  the  angels,  being  rational, 
are  endowed  with  free-will,  and,  inasmuch  as 
they  are  created,  are  liable  to  change.     This 


7  Nemes.,  ch.  37. 

8  This  is  supplied  by  Combefis  from  Nemesius. 

9  Nemes.,  ch.  41. 

1  This  sentence  is  omitted  in  Basil  and  some  MSS. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


4i 


in  fact  is  made  plain  by  the  devil  who,  al- 
though made  good  by  the  Creator,  became 
of  his  own  free-will  the  inventor  of  evil,  and 
by  the  powers  who  revolted  with  him2,  that 
is  the  demons,  and  by  the  other  troops  of 
angels  who  abode  in  goodness. 

CHAPTER   XXVIII. 
Concerning  what  is  not  in  our  hands. 

Of  things  that  are  not  in  our  hands  some 
have  their  beginning  or  cause  in  those  that 
are  in  our  power,  that  is  to  say,  the  recom- 
penses of  our  actions  both  in  the  present  and 
in  the  age  to  come,  but  all  the  rest  are  de- 
pendent on  the   divine  will.     For  the  origin 
of  all  things  is  from  God,  but  their  destruc- 
tion has  been  introduced  by  our  wickedness 
for  our  punishment  or  benefit.     For  God  did 
not  create  death,  neither  does  He  take  delight 
in  the  destruction  of  living  things  3.    But  death 
is  the  work  rather  of  man,  that  is,  its  origin 
is  in  Adam's  transgression,  in  like  manner  as 
all  other  punishments.     But  all  other  things 
must  be  referred  to  God.     For  our  birth  is 
to  be  referred  to  His  creative  power  ;   and 
our  continuance  to  His  conservative  power  ; 
and  our  government  and  safety  to  His  provi- 
dential power;  and  the  eternal  enjoyment  of 
good  things  by  those  who  preserve  the  laws 
of  nature  in  which  we  are  formed  is  to  be 
ascribed  to   His  goodness.     But  since  some 
deny  the  existence  of  Providence,  let  us  further 
devote  a  few  words  to  the  discussion  of  Provi- 
dence. 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 
Concerning  Providence. 

Providence,  then,  is  the  care  that  God  takes 
over  existing  things.  And  again  :  Providence 
is  the  will  of  God  through  which  all  existing 
things  receive  their  fitting  issue!  But  if 
Providence  is  God's  will,  according  to  true 
reasoning  all  things  that  come  into  being 
through  Providence  must  necessarily  be  both 
most  fair  and  most  excellent,  and  such  that 
they  cannot  be  surpassed.  For  the  same 
person  must  of  necessity  be  creator  of  and 
provider  for  what  exists  :  for  it  is  not  meet 
nor  fitting  that  the  creator  of  what  exists  and 
the  provider  should  be  separate  persons.  For 
in  that  case  they  would  both  assuredly  be 
deficient,  the  one  in  creating,  the  other  in 
providing  s.  God  therefore  is  both  Creator 
and  Provider,  and  His  creative  and  preserving 
and  providing  power  is  simply  His  good-will. 
For  whatsoever  the  Lord  pleased  that  did  He 


a  Nemesius  speaks  of  this  at  greater  length. 

3  Wisd.  i.  13.  *  Nemes.,  ch.  43.  S  Ibid.,  ch.  42. 


in  heaven  and  in  earth6,  and  no  one  resisted 
His  willT.  He  willed  that  all  things  should 
be  and  they  were.  He  wills  the  universe 
to  be  framed  and  it  is  framed,  and  all  that 
He  wills  comes  to  pass. 

That  He  provides,  and  that  He  provides 
excellently 8,  one  can  most  readily  perceive 
thus.  God  alone  is  good  and  wise  by  nature. 
Since  then  He  is  good,  He  provides  :  for  he 
who  does  not  provide  is  not  good.  For  even 
men  and  creatures  without  reason  provide  for 
their  own  offspring  according  to  their  nature, 
and  he  who  does  not  provide  is  blamed. 
Again,  since  He  is  wise,  He  takes  the  best 
care  over  what  exists. 

When,  therefore,  we  give  heed  to  these 
things  we  ought  to  be  filled  with  wonder  at 
all  the  works  of  Providence,  and  praise  them 
all  9,  and  accept  them  all  without  enquiry, 
even  though  they  are  in  the  eyes  of  many 
unjust,  because  the  Providence  of  God  is 
beyond  our  ken  and  comprehension,  while 
our  reasonings  and  actions  and  the  future  are 
revealed  to  His  eyes  alone.  And  by  "all" 
I  mean  those  that  are  not  in  our  hands  :  for 
those  that  are  in  our  power  are  outside  the 
sphere  of  Providence  and  within  that  of  our 
Free-will. 

Now  the  works  of  Providence  are  partly 
according  to  the  good -will2  (of  God)  and 
partly  according  to  permission  3.  Works  of 
good-will  include  all  those  that  are  undeniably 

good,  while  works  of  permission  are +. 

For  Providence  often  permits  the  just  man  to 
encounter  misfortune  in  order  that  he  may 
reveal  to  others  the  virtue  that  lies  concealed 
within  him  s,  as  was  the  case  with  Job 6.  At 
other  times  it  allows  something  strange  to  be 
done  in  order  that  something  great  and  mar- 
vellous might  be  accomplished  through  the 
seemingly-strange  act,  as  when  the  salvation 
of  men  was  brought  about  through  the  Cross. 
In  another  way  it  allows  the  pious  man  to 
suffer  sore  trials  in  order  that  he  may  not 
depart  from  a  right  conscience  nor  lapse  into 
pride  on  account  of  the  power  and  grace 
granted  to  him,  as  was  the  case  with  Paul  ?. 

One  man  is  forsaken  for  a  season  with  a  view 
to  another's  restoration,  in  order  that  others 
when  they  see  his  state  may  be  taught  a 
lesson 8,  as  in  the  case  of  Lazarus  and  the 
rich  man  °.    For  it  belongs  to  our  nature  to  be 

6  Ps.  cxxxv.  6.         7  Rom.  ix.  19.        _  8  Nemes.,  ch.  44. 
9  The  words  navra  inaivslv  are  wanting  in  Cod.  R.  2  and  in 
Nemes.,  ch.  44. 

2  kolt  eiiSoKiav.  3  Kara.  <ruyxupr)<rii'. 

4  There  is  a  hiatus  here  in  Edit.  Veron.  and  in  Cod.  R.  2927. 
Various  readings  are  found  in  other  MSS.,  some  with  no  sense 
and  others  evidently  supplied  by  librarians.  It  is  best  supplied 
from  Nemesius,  ch.  44,  rr\%  Si  avyxoiprjo-eus  jroAAa  tifirj,  "  but 
there  are  many  forms  of  concession." 

5  Nemes.,  ch.  44-  6  Job  i.  ix.  7  2  Cor.  xii.  7. 
8  Nemes.,  ch.  44.                                   9  St.  Luke  xvi.  19. 


42 


JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS. 


cast  down  when  we  see  persons  in  distress. 
Another  is  deserted  by  Providence  in  order 
that  another  may  be  glorified,  and  not  for  his 
own  sin  or  that  of  his  parents,  just  as  the  man 
who  was  blind  from  his  birth  ministered  to  the 
glory  of  the  Son  of  Man  *.  Again  another  is 
permitted  to  suffer  in  order  to  stir  up  emulation 
in  the  breasts  of  others,  so  that  others  by  mag- 
'nifying  the  glory  of  the  sufferer  may  resolutely 
welcome  suffering  in  the  hope  of  future  glory 
and  the  desire  for  future  blessings,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  martyrs.  Another  is  allowed  to 
fall  at  times  into  some  act  of  baseness  in  order 
that  another  worse  fault  may  be  thus  corrected, 
as  for  instance  when  God  allows  a  man  who 
takes  pride  in  his  virtue  and  righteousness  to 
fall  away  into  fornication  in  order  that  he  may 
be  brought  through  this  fall  into  the  percep- 
tion of  his  own  weakness  and  be  humbled  and 
approach  and  make  confession  to  the  Lord. 

Moreover,  it  is  to  be  observed 2  that  the 
choice  of  what  is  to  be  done  is  in  our  own 
hands3 :  but  the  final  issue  depends,  in  the  one 
case  when  our  actions  are  good,  on  the  co- 
operation of  God,  Who  in  His  justice  brings 
help  according  to  His  foreknowledge  to  such 
as  choose  the  good  with  a  right  conscience, 
and,  in  the  other  case  when  our  actions  are 
to  evil,  on  the  desertion  by  God,  Who  again 
in  His  justice  stands  aloof  in  accordance  with 
His  foreknowledge  ♦. 

Now  there  are  two  forms  of  desertion  :  for 
there  is  desertion  in  the  matters  of  guidance 
and  training,  and  there  is  complete  and  hope- 
less desertion.  The  former  has  in  view  the 
restoration  and  safety  and  glory  of  the  sufferer, 
or  the  rousing  of  feelings  of  emulation  and 
imitation  in  others,  or  the  glory  of  God :  but 
the  latter  is  when  man,  after  God  has  done  all 
that  was  possible  to  save  him,  remains  of  his 
own  set  purpose  blind  and  uncured,  or  rather 
incurable,  and  then  he  is  handed  over  to  utter 
destruction,  as  was  Judas 5.  May  God  be 
gracious  to  us,  and  deliver  us  from  such  de- 
sertion. 

Observe  further  that  the  ways  of  God's 
providence  are  many,  and  they  cannot  be 
explained  in  words  nor  conceived  by  the  mind. 

And  remember  that  all  the  assaults  of  dark 
and  evil  fortune  contribute  to  the  salvation 
of  those  who  receive  them  with  thankfulness, 
and  are  assuredly  ambassadors  of  help. 

Also  one  must  bear  in  mind6  that  God's 
original  wish  was  that  all  should  be  saved  and 


1  St.  John  ix.  i.  a  Nemes.,  ch.  37. 

3  Cf.  Nemes.,  0  97 ;  also  Cicero's  statement  on  Providence 
is  the  Academ.  Quest. 

*  See  the  reference  in  Migne.  5  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  24. 

6  SeeCnrysostom,  Horn.  1,  in  Episl  ad  Ep^t  and  Hof?  *8, 
in  F.pist.  ail  Hebraos. 


come  to  His  Kingdom  7.  For  it  was  not  for 
punishment  that  He  formed  us  but  to  share 
in  His  goodness,  inasmuch  as  He  is  a  good 
God.  But  inasmuch  as  He  is  a  just  God,. 
His  will  is  that  sinners  should  suffer  punish- 
ment. 

The  first  then  is  called  God's  antecedent 
will  and  pleasure,  and  springs  from  Himself,, 
while  the  second  is  called  God's  consequent 
will  and  permission,  and  has  its  origin  in  us. 
And  the  latter  is  two-fold ;  one  part  dealing 
with  matters  of  guidance  and  training,  and 
having  in  view  our  salvation,  and  the  other 
being  hopeless  and  leading  to  our  utter  punish- 
ment, as  we  said  above.  And  this  is  the 
case  with  actions  that  are  not  left  in  our 
hands8. 

But  of  actions  that  are  in  our  hands  the 
good  ones  depend  on  His  antecedent  good- 
will and  pleasure,  while  the  wicked  ones 
depend  neither  on  His  antecedent  nor  on 
His  consequent  will,  but  are  a  concession 
to  free-will.  For  that  which  is  the  result 
of  compulsion  has  neither  reason  nor  virtue 
in  it.  God  9  makes  provision  for  all  creation 
and  makes  all  creation  the  instrument  of  His 
help  and  training,  yea  often  even  the  demons 
themselves,  as  for  example  in  the  cases  of  Job 
and  the  swine x. 

CHAPTER  XXX. 

Concerning  Prescience  and  Predestination. 

We  ought  to  understand2  that  while  God 
knows  all  things  beforehand,  yet  He  does  not 
predetermine  all  things  3.  For  He  knows  be- 
forehand those  things  that  are  in  our  power, 
but  He  does  not  predetermine  them.  For  it 
is  not  His  will  that  there  should  be  wicked- 
ness nor  does  He  choose  to  compel  virtue. 
So  that  predetermination  is  the  work  of  the 
divine  command  based  on  fore-knowledge*. 
But  on  the  other  hand  God  predetermines 
those  things  which  are  not  within  our  power 
in  accordance  with  His  prescience.  For 
already  God  in  His  prescience  has  pre-judged 
all  things  in  accordance  with  His  goodness 
and  justice. 

Bear  in  mind,  too  s,  that  virtue  is  a  gift  from 
God  implanted  in  our  nature,  and  that  He 
Himself  is  the  source  and  cause  of  all  good. 


7  i  Tim.  ii.  4. 

8  These  words  are  wanting  in  two  MSS. 

9  This  last  sentence  is  absent  in  one  Codex. 
1  St.  Matt.  viii.  ^oseag. 

a  Chrys .,  Horn.  12  in  Epist.  ad  Ephes. 

3  Cf.  Maximus,  Vita,  n.  Z;Just.  Martyr,  Apol.  1;  Tatian, 
Or.  ad  Grwcos ;  Origen,  Ep.  ad  Rom.  1  ;  Jerome,  on  Ezek.  C. 
xxiv.,  &c. 

4  Act ■  S.  Max. 

5  Cf.  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.,  bit.  vi.  ;  Jeromt,  on  Ep.  ad  Gal., 
ch.  1  ;  G—.?.  Naz.,  Carmen  de  virt.  hum. 


EXPOSITION    OF  THE   ORTHODOX   FAITH. 


43 


and  without  His  co-operation  6  and  help  we 
cannot  will  or  do  any  good  thing.  But  we 
have  it  in  our  power  either  to  abide  in  virtue 
and  follow  God,  Who  calls  us  into  ways  of 
virtue,  or  to  stray  from  paths  of  virtue,  which 
is  to  dwell  in  wickedness,  and  to  follow  the 
devil  who  summons  but  cannot  compel  us. 
For  wickedness  is  nothing  else  than  the  with- 
drawal of  goodness,  just  as  darkness  is  nothing 
else  than  the  withdrawal  of  light  While  then 
we  abide  in  the  natural  state  we  abide  in  virtue, 
but  when  we  deviate  from  the  natural  state, 
that  is  from  virtue,  we  come  into  an  unnatural 
state  and  dwell  in  wickedness?. 

Repentance  is  the  returning  from  the  un- 
natural into  the  natural  state,  from  the  devil 
■to  God,  through  discipline  and  effort. 

Man  then  the  Creator  made  male,  giving 
him  to  share  in  His  own  divine  grace,  and 
bringing  him  thus  into  communion  with  Him- 
self :  and  thus  it  was  that  he  gave  in  the 
manner  of  a  prophet  the  names  to  living 
things,  with  authority  as  though  they  were 
given  to  be  his  slaves.  For  having  been 
endowed  with  reason  and  mind,  and  free-will 
after  the  image  of  God,  he  was  fitly  entrusted 
with  dominion  over  earthly  things  by  the 
common  Creator  and  Master  of  all. 

But  since  God  in  His  prescience8  knew 
that  man  would  transgress  and  become  liable 
to  destruction,  He  made  from  him  a  female 
to  be  a  help  to  him  like  himself;  a  help, 
indeed,  for  the  conservation  of  the  race  after 
the  transgression  from  age  to  age  by  genera- 
tion. For  the  earliest  formation  is  called 
'making'  and  not  'generation.'  For  'mak- 
ing '  is  the  original  formation  at  God's  hands, 
while  '  generation '  is  the  succession  from 
each  other  made  necessary  by  the  sentence 
of  death  imposed  on  us  on  account  of  the 
transgression. 

This  man  He  9  placed  in  Paradise,  a  home 
that  was  alike  spiritual  and  sensible.  For  he 
lived  in  the  body  on  the  earth  in  the  realm  of 
sense,  while  he  dwelt  in  the  spirit  among  the 
angels,  cultivating  divine  thoughts,  and  being 
supported  by  them  :  living  in  naked  simplicity 
a  life  free  from  artificiality,  and  being  led  up 
through  His  creations  to  the  one  and  only 
Creator,  in  Whose  contemplation  he  found 
joy  and  gladness  x. 


6  Cf.  Clem.  Alex.,  Quis  dives  salvetur;  Greg.  Naz.,  Oral.  31  ; 
Chrysost.,  Horn.  45  in  Jotiim.,  Horn,  in  Ep.  ad  Heir.  xii.  2, 
Horn.  15  in  Ep.  ad  Rom. ;  Cyril,  De  ador.  in  Spir.  et  ver.,  p.  25  '; 
Petavius,  Dogm.,  vol.  i.,  bk.  ix.  c.  4,  &c. 

7  Cf.  infra,  bk.  iii.  ch.  14. 

8  6  irpoyvuHTTr)?  ©eos.  See  Athanas.,  in  Psalm  1  ;  Chrysost. 
in  Horn.  18  in  Gen.;  Greg.  Nyss.,  De  opif.  horn.;  At/ta>ias., 
Minor,  Quest.  50  ad  Antioch.;  Tliomas  Aquinas  I.,  Qucest.  98, 
Art.  1. 

9  Greg.  Nyts,,  De  opif.,  ch.  20. 

1  Text,  evfypaivoti.fvo';.     Variant,  o,eu.vvi>6iJLsvo<;. 


When  therefore  He  had  furnished  his  nature 
with  free-will,  He  imposed  a  law  on  him,  not 
to  taste  of  the  tree  of  knowledge.  Concerning 
this  tree,  we  have  said  as  much  as  is  necessary 
in  the  chapter  about  Paradise,  at  least  as 
much  as  it  was  in  our  power  to  say.  And 
with  this  command  He  gave  the  promise  that, 
if  he  should  preserve  the  dignity  of  the  soul 
by  giving  the  victory  to  reason,  and  acknow- 
ledging his  Creator  and  observing  His  com- 
mand, he  should  share  eternal  blessedness 
and  live  to  all  eternity,  proving  mightier  than 
death  :  but  if  forsooth  he  should  subject  the 
soul  to  the  body,  and  prefer  the  delights 
of  the  body,  comparing  himself  in  ignorance 
of  his  true  dignity  to  the  senseless  beasts  V 
and  shaking  off  his  Creator's  yoke,  and  neg- 
lecting His  divine  injunction,  he  will  be  liable 
to  death  and  corruption,  and  will  be  com- 
pelled to  labour  throughout  a  miserable  life. 
For  it  was  no  profit  to  man  to  obtain  incorrup- 
tion  while  still  untried  and  unproved,  lest  he 
should  fall  into  pride  and  under  the  judgment 
of  the  devil.  For  through  his  incorruption 
the  devil,  when  he  had  fallen  as  the  result 
of  his  own  free  choice,  was  firmly  established 
in  wickedness,  so  that  there  was  no  room  for 
repentance  and  no  hope  of  change  :  just  as, 
moreover,  the  angels  also,  when  they  had  made 
free  choice  of  virtue  became  through  grace 
immoveably  rooted  in  goodness. 

It  was  necessary,  therefore,  that  man  should 
first  be  put  to  the  test  (for  man  untried  and 
unproved  3  would  be  worth  nothing  -*),  and 
being  made  perfect  by  the  trial  through  the 
observance  of  the  command  should  thus  re- 
ceive incorruption  as  the  prize  of  his  virtue. 
For  being  intermediate  between  God  and 
matter  he  was  destined,  if  he  kept  the  com- 
mand, to  be  delivered  from  his  natural  relation 
to  existing  things  and  to  be  made  one  with 
God's  estate,  and  to  be  immoveably  established 
in  goodness,  but,  if  he  transgressed  and  inclined 
the  rather  to  what  was  material,  and  tore  his 
mind  from  the  Author  of  his  being,  I  mean 
God,  his  fate  was  to  be  corruption,  and  he 
was  to  become  subject  to  passion  instead  of 
passionless,  and  mortal  instead  of  immortal, 
and  dependent  on  connection  and  unsettled 
generation.  And  in  his  desire  for  life  he 
would  cling  to  pleasures  as  though  they  were 
necessary  to  maintain  it,  and  would  fearlessly 
abhor  those  who  sought  to  deprive  him  of 
these,  and  transfer  his  desire  from  God  to 
matter,  and  his  anger  from  the  real  enemy 
of  his   salvation  to  his  own   brethren.     The 


a  Ps.  xlix.  12. 

3  dSoKt/xo?  ;  in  Cod.  /?.  i  a.&oKi^a.<nov. 

•»  This  parenthesis  is  absent  in  almost  all  codices  and  in  tha 
trnnslntions  of  Faber,  Arc. 


44 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


envy  of  the  s  devil  then  was  the  reason  of 
man's  fall.  For  that  same  demon,  so  full 
of  envy  and  with  such  a  hatred  of  good, 
would  not   suffer   us   to  enjoy  the  pleasures 

S  Cf.  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  38  and  42;  Cyril  Alex.,  Cont.  An- 
throp.,  I.  8  ;  A  nasi.  II.  Antioch.,  Hexaem.  vi.  ;  Ckrytott.,  Horn. 
10  in  Ej>.  ad  Rom.,  Horn.  5  in  EJ>.  ad  E/ts.,  &c. 


of  heaven,  when  he  himself  was  kept  below 
on  account  of  his  arrogance,  and  hence  the 
false  one  tempts  miserable  man  with  the  hope 
of  Godhead,  and  leading  him  up  to  as  great 
a  height  of  arrogance  as  himself,  he  hurls  him 
down  into  a  pit  of  destruction  just  as  deep. 


BOOK    III. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Concerning  the  Divine  (Economy  and  God's 
care  over  us,  and  concerning  our  salvation. 

Man,  then,  was  thus  snared  by  the  assault 
of  the   arch-fiend,   and    broke   his   Creator's 
command,  and  was  stripped  of  grace  and  put 
jff  his    confidence   with   God,    and    covered 
himself  with  the  asperities  of  a  toilsome  life 
(for  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  fig  -  leaves  x) ; 
and  was  clothed  about  with  death,  that   is, 
mortality  and  the  grossness  of  flesh  (for  this  is 
what  the  garment  of  skins  signifies) ;  and  was 
banished  from  Paradise  by  God's  just  judg- 
ment, and  condemned   to  death,   and  made 
subject  to   corruption.     Yet,  notwithstanding 
all   this,  in    His   pity,   God,  Who   gave   him 
his  being,  and  Who  in  His  graciousness  be- 
stowed on  him  a   life  of  happiness,  did  not 
disregard   man 2.     But  He  first   trained  him 
in    many    ways    and    called    him    back,    by 
groans    and    trembling,    by    the    deluge    of 
water,   and   the   utter  destruction   of  almost 
the  whole  race3,  by  confusion  and  diversity 
of  tongues f,  by  the  rule5  of  angels  6,  by  the 
burning    of    cities7,   by   figurative   manifesta- 
tions of  God,  by  wars  and  victories  and  de- 
feats,   by   signs    and   wonders,    by   manifold 
faculties,   by  the  law  and  the  prophets :    for 
by  all  these  means   God   earnestly  strove  to 
emancipate   man    from    the   wide-spread   and 
enslaving  bonds  of  sin,  which  had  made  life 
such  a  mass  of  iniquity,  and  to  effect  man's 
return  to  a  life  of  happiness.     For  it  was  sin 
that  brought  death  like   a  wild   and   savage 
beast  into  the  world  8  to  the  ruin  of  the  human 
life      But   it   behoved   the    Redeemer   to   be 
without  sin,  and  not  made  liable  through  sin 
to  death,  and  further,  that  His  nature  should 
be  strengthened  and  renewed,  and  trained  by 
labour   and    taught   the  way  of  virtue  which 
leads  away  from  corruption  to  the  life  eternal 
and,  in  the  end,  is  revealed  the  mighty  ocean 
of  love  to  man  that  is  about  Him  9.     For  the 
very  Creator  and  Lord  Himself  undertakes  a 
struggle  x  in  behalf  of  the  work  of  His  own 


»  Gen.  iii.  7 ;  cf.  Greg.  Nat.,  Orat.  38  and  42  ;  Greg.  Nyss., 
Orat.  Cateck.  c.  8. 

3  Text,  ffapeiSei/.     Variant,  ncpicl&ev.  3  Gen.  vi.  13. 

4  Ibid.  xi.  7.  5  tTTKTTacria.  care,  or  dominion. 
6  Gen.  xviii.  1  seqq.  7  Ibid    xix.  1  scqq. 

8  Wisd.  ii.  24.  9  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  12  and  38, 

1  Text,  ird\rjv.    Variant,  rrXd&Lv,  cf.  "  plasmatiouem  "  (Paber,). 


hands,  and  learns  by  toil  to  become  Master. 
And  since  the  enemy  snares  man  by  the  hope 
of  Godhead,  he  himself  is  snared  in  turn  by  the 
screen  of  flesh,  and  so  are  shown  at  once  the 
goodness  and  wisdom,  the  justice  and  might 
of  God.     God's  goodness  is  revealed  in  that 
He  did  not  disregard  2  the  frailty  of  His  own 
handiwork,   but  was  moved  with  compassion 
for  him  in  his  fall,  and   stretched  forth   His 
hand  to  him  :  and  His  justice  in  that  when 
man  was  overcome  He  did  not  make  another 
victorious  over  the  tyrant,  nor  did  He  snatch 
man  by  might  from  death,  but  in  His  goodness 
and  justice  He  made  him,  who  had  become 
through  his  sins  the  slave  of  death,  himself 
once   more   conqueror   and   rescued   like  by 
like,  most   difficult  though   it   seemed :    and 
His  wisdom  is  seen  in  His  devising  the  most 
fitting  solution  of  the  difficulty3.     For  by  the 
good  pleasure  of  our  God  and  Father,   the 
Only-begotten  Son   and   Word   of   God   and 
God,  Who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  God  and 
Father4,  of  like  essence  with  the  Father  and 
the   Holy  Spirit,  Who  was   before  the  ages, 
Who  is  without  beginning  and  was  in  the  begin- 
ning, Who  is  in  the  presence  of  the  God  and 
Father,  and  is  God  and  made  in  the  form  of 
Gods,  bent   the   heavens   and   descended  to 
earth  :  that  is  to  say,  He  humbled  without  hu- 
miliation His  lofty  station  which  yet  could  not 
be  humbled,  and  condescends  to  His  servants  6, 
with   a    condescension    ineffable    and   incom- 
prehensible :    (for   that   is   what   the  descent 
signifies).     And  God   being  perfect  becomes 
perfect    man,   and   brings   to   perfection    the 
newest  of  all  new  things  ?,  the  only  new  thing 
under  the  Sun,  through  which  the  boundless 
might  of  God  is  manifested.    For  what  greater 
thing  is  there,  than  that  God  should  become 
Man  ?    And  the  Word  became  flesh  without 
being  changed,  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  Mary 
the  holy  and  ever-virgin  one,  the  mother  of 
God.     And  He  acts  as  mediator  between  God 
and   man,    He   the   only  lover  of  man  con- 
ceived  in  the  Virgin's  chaste  womb   without 
will8  or  desire,  or  any  connection  with  man 
or   pleasurable  generation,    but    through    the 


»  Text,  irapei'Se.     Variant,  ircpielSfv. 

3  Greg-  A'yss.,  Orat.  Cathec,  ch   20  et  seqq. 

4  St.  John  i.  18.  5  Phil.  ii.  6. 

6  "Condescends  to  His  servants"  is  absent  in  some  MSS. 

7  Eccles.  i.  10.  8  G>cg.  Nyss.,  Cat.  ch.  16. 


46 


JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS. 


Holy  Spirit  and  the  first  offspring  of  Adam. 
And  He  becomes  obedient  to  the  Father 
Who  is  like  unto  us,  and  finds  a  remedy  for 
our  disobedience  in  what  He  had  assumed 
from  us,  and  became  a  pattern  of  obedience 
to  us  without  which  it  is  not  possible  to  obtain 
salvation  8. 

CHAPTER   II. 

Concerning  the  manner  in  which  the  Words 
was  conceived,  and  concerning  His  divine  in- 
carnation. 

The  angel  of  the  Lord  was  sent  to  the  holy 
Virgin,  who  was  descended  from  David's  line  '. 
For  it  is  evident  that  our  Lord  sprang  out 
of  Judah,  of  which  tribe  no  one  turned  his 
attention  to  the  altar 2,  as  the  divine  apostle 
said :  but  about  this  we  will  speak  more 
accurately  later.  And  bearing  glad  tidings  to 
her,  he  said,  Hail  thou  highly  favoured  one, 
the  Lord  is  with  thee  3.  And  she  was  troubled 
at  his  word,  and  the  angel  said  to  her,  Fear 
not,  Mary,  for  thou  hast  found  favour  with 
God,  and  shalt  bring  forth  a  Son  and  shall  call 
His  name  Jesus  4 ;  for  He  shall  save  His 
people  from  their  sins 5.  Hence  it  comes 
that  Jesus  has  the  interpretation  Saviour. 
And  when  she  asked  in  her  perplexity,  Hoiv 
can  this  be,  seeing  L  know  ?wt  a  man  6  ?  the 
angel  again  answered  her,  The  Holy  Spirit 
shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Highest  shall  overshadow  thee.  Therefore  also 
that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee  7 
shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God3.  And  she  said 
to  him,  Behold  the  handmaid  of  the  Lord: 
be  it  unto  me  according  to  Thy  word  9. 

So  then,  after  the  assent  of  the  holy  Virgin, 
the  Holy  Spirit  descended  on  her,  according 
to  the  word  of  the  Lord  .which  the  angel  spake, 
purifying  her x,  and  granting  her  power  to  re- 
ceive the  divinity  of  the  Word,  and  likewise 
power  to  bring  forth  2.  And  then  was  she 
overshadowed  3  by  the  enhypostatic  Wisdom 
and  Power  of  the  most  high  God,  the  Son 
of  God  Who  is  of  like  essence  with  the 
Father  as  of  Divine  seed,  and  from  her  holy 
and  most  pure  blood  He  formed  flesh  ani- 
mated with  the  spirit  of  reason  and  thought, 
the  first-fruits  of  our  compound  nature  *:  not 
by  procreation  but  by  creation  through  the 
Holy  Spirit :  not  developing  the  fashion  of  the 

8  Athan.,  De  salut.  adv.  Christi. 

9  Text,  toC  Advov.  Variant,  tov  ©eou  Aoyou :  so  Dei  Verbi 
(Faber). 

1  St.  Luke  i.  27.  2  Hebr.  vii.  14.  3  St.  Luke  i.  28. 

4  Ibid.  30,  31.  5  St.  Matt.  i.  21.  6  St.  Luke  L  34. 

7  "  Of  thee"  is  wanting  in  some  MSS.  8  St.  Luke  i.  35. 

9  Ibid.  38.  1  Ibid.  27,  28. 

3  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  38  and  42. 

3  Cf.  Athan.,  Ep.  ad  Scrap.,  De  Spirit u  Sane  to  ;  Greg.  Nyss., 
Contr.  Apoll.  6,  25;  Ru/inus,  Exp.  Symb.  ;  Tertullian,  De 
Cmrnt  Christi  and  Contr.  Prax. ;  Hilary,  De  Trin.  II.  26. 

*  Ban'!,  Christi  Nativ. 


body  by  gradual  additions  but  perfecting  it 
at  once,  He  Himself,  the  very  Word  of  God, 
standing  to  the  flesh  in  the  relation  of  sub- 
sistence. For  the  divine  Word  was  not  made 
one  with  flesh  that  had  an  independent  pre- 
existence5,  but  taking  up  His  abode  in  the 
womb  of  the  holy  Virgin,  He  unreservedly 
in  His  own  subsistence  took  upon  Himself 
through  the  pure  blood  of  the  eternal  Virgin 
a  body  of  flesh  animated  with  the  spirit  of 
reason  and  thought,  thus  assuming  to  Him- 
self the  first-fruits  of  man's  compound  nature, 
Himself,  the  Word,  having  become  a  sub- 
sistence in  the  flesh.  So  that 6  He  is  at  once 
flesh,  and  at  the  same  time  flesh  of  God  the 
Word,  and  likewise  flesh  animated,  possessing 
both  reason  and  thought  7.  Wherefore  we 
speak  not  of  man  as  having  become  God,  but 
of  God  as  having  become  Man8.  For  being 
by  nature  perfect  God,  He  naturally  became 
likewise  perfect  Man  :  and  did  not  change 
His  nature  nor  make  the  dispensation  9  an 
empty  show,  but  became,  without  confusion 
or  change  or  division,  one  in  subsistence  with 
the  flesh,  which  was  conceived  of  the  holy 
Virgin,  and  animated  with  reason  and  thought, 
and  had  found  existence  in  Him,  while  He 
did  not  change  the  nature  of  His  divinity  into 
the  essence  of  flesh,  nor  the  essence  of  flesh 
into  the  nature  of  His  divinity,  and  did  not 
make  one  compound  nature  out  of  His  divine 
nature  and  the  human  nature  He  had  as- 
sumed J. 

CHAPTER  III. 

Concerning  Christ's  two  natures,  in  opposition 
to  those  who  hold  that  He  has  only  one 2. 

For  the  two  natures  were  united  with  each 
other  without  change  or  alteration,  neither 
the  divine  nature  departing  from  its  native 
simplicity,  nor  yet  the  human  being  either 
changed  into  the  nature  of  God  or  reduced 
to  non-existence,  nor  one  compound  nature 
being  produced  out  of  the  two.  For  the  com- 
pound nature  3  cannot  be  of  the  same  essence 
as  either  of  the  natures  out  of  which  it  is 
compounded,  as  made  one  thing  out  of 
others  :  for  example,  the  body  is  composed 
of  the  four  elements,  but  is  not  of  the  same 
essence  as  fire  or  air,  or  water  or  earth,  nor 
does  it  keep  these  names.  If,  therefore,  after 
the  union,  Christ's  nature  was,  as  the  heretics 


5  Cyril,  Apolog.  5  and  8  anathem. 

6  Cf.  Greg.  Naz.,  1  Ep.  adCledon;  Cyril,  1  Ep.  ad  Nestor. ; 
Theodor.,  Ep.  ad  Joan.  Antioch.,  &c. 

7  Cyril.,  Epist.  ad  Monach.  8  Procl.,  Epist.  2  ad  Arm. 
9  rr\v  oiKorojut'ai-,  the  asconomy,  the  Incarnation. 

1  Cod.  R.   2428  adds   here  some   statements   taken  from  the 
Dissertation  against  the  Nestorians. 

2  Kara  JAovo<t>v<riT<i)v  :  these  words  are  absent  in  MSS. 

3  Cf.  Eulogius  and  also  Polemon  in  the  Collect.  Contr.  Sevf 
rianos. 


EXPOSITION   OF   THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


47 


hold,  a  compound  unity,  He  had  changed 
from  a  simple  into  a  compound  nature 4, 
and  is  not  of  the  same  essence  as  the  Father 
Whose  nature  is  simple,  nor  as  the  mother, 
who  is  not  a  compound  of  divinity  and  hu- 
manity. Nor  will  He  then  be  in  divinity  and 
humanity  :  nor  will  He  be  called  either  God 
or  Man,  but  simply  Christ  :  and  the  word 
Christ  will  be  the  name  not  of  the  subsistence, 
but  of  what  in  their  view  is  the  one  nature. 

We,  however,  do  not  give  it  as  our  view 
that  Christ's  nature  is  compound,  nor  yet  that 
He  is  one  thing  made  of  other  things  and  dif- 
fering from  them  as  man  is  made  of  soul  and 
body,  or  as  the  body  is  made  of  the  four  ele- 
ments, but  hold  s  that,  though  He  is  constituted 
of  these  different  parts  He  is  yet  the  same6. 
For  we  confess  that  He  alike  in  His  divinity 
and  in  His  humanity  both  is  and  is  said  to 
be  perfect  God,  the  same  Being,  and  that  He 
consists  of  two  natures,  and  exists  in  two  na- 
tures 7.  Further,  by  the  Avord  "  Christ "  we 
understand  the  name  of  the  subsistence,  not 
in  the  sense  of  one  kind,  but  as  signifying  the 
existence  of  two  natures.  For  in  His  own 
person  He  anointed  Himself;  as  God  anoint- 
ing His  body  with  His  own  divinity,  and  as 
Man  being  anointed.  For  He  is  Himself 
both  God  and  Man.  And  the  anointing  is 
the  divinity  of  His  humanity.  For  if  Christ, 
being  of  one  compound  nature,  is  of  like 
essence  to  the  Father,  then  the  Father  also 
must  be  compound  and  of  like  essence  with 
the  flesh,  which  is  absurd  and  extremely  blas- 
phemous 8. 

How,  indeed,  could  one  and  the  same 
nature  come  to  embrace  opposing  and  essen- 
tial differences?  For  how  is  it  possible  that 
the  same  nature  should  be  at  once  created 
and  uncreated,  mortal  and  immortal,  circum- 
scribed and  uncircumscribed  ? 

But  if  those  who  declare  that  Christ  has 
mly  one  nature  should  say  also  that  that 
lature  is  a  simple  one,  they  must  admit  either 
that  He  is  God  pure  and  simple,  and  thus 
reduce  the  incarnation  to  a  mere  pretence, 
or  that  He  is  only  man,  according  to  Nes- 
torius.  And  how  then  about  His  being  "  per- 
fect in  divinity  and  perfect  in  humanity"? 
And  when  can  Christ  be  said  to  be  of  two 
natures,  if  they  hold  that  He  is  of  one  com- 
posite nature  after  the  union  ?  For  it  is  surely 
clear  to  every  one  that  before  the  union  Christ's 
nature  was  one. 


4  Max.  Epist.  ad  Joan,  cubic,  p.  279. 

5  Ibid.  p.  286. 

6  ef  kripiav  t<x  aiira.    Cod.  R.  3  reads  TaSr«.     See  also  Cyril, 
Ep.  2  ad  Success. 

7  Cf.  Niceph.  Call.,  Hist,  xviii.  46. 
Fithg  .  apud  Max.,  t.  ii.  p.  145. 


But  this  is  what  leads  the  heretics  9  astray, 
viz.,  that  they  look  upon  nature  and  subsist- 
ence as  the  same  thing  '.  For  when  we  speak 
of  the  nature  of  men  as  one2,  observe  that 
in  saying  this  we  are  not  looking  to  the 
question  of  soul  and  body.  For  when  we 
compare  together  the  soul  and  the  body  it 
cannot  be  said  that  they  are  of  one  nature. 
But  since  there  are  very  many  subsistences  of 
men,  and  yet  all  have  the  same  kind  of  na- 
ture 3 :  for  all  are  composed  of  soul  and  body, 
ami  all  have  part  in  the  nature  of  the  soul, 
and  possess  the  essence  of  the  body,  and  the 
common  form  :  we  speak  of  the  one  nature  of 
these  very  many  and  different  subsistences; 
while  each  subsistence,  to  wit,  has  two  na- 
tures, and  fulfils  itself  in  two  natures,  namely, 
soul  and  body. 

But 4  a  common  form  cannot  be  admitted 
in  the  case  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  For 
neither  was  there  ever,  nor  is  there,  nor  will 
there  ever  be  another  Christ  constituted  of 
deity  and  humanity,  and  existing  in  deity  and 
humanity  at  once  perfect  God  and  perfect 
man.  And  thus  in  the  case  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  we  cannot  speak  of  one.  nature 
made  up  of  divinity  and  humanity,  as  we  do 
in  the  case  of  the  individual  made  up  of  soul 
and  body5.  For  in  the  latter  case  we  have 
to  do  with  an  individual,  but  Christ  is  not  an 
individual.  For  there  is  no  predicable  form 
of  Christlihood,  so  to  speak,  that  He  possesses. 
And  therefore  we  hold  that  there  has  been  a 
union  of  two  perfect  natures,  one  divine  and 
one  human  ;  not  with  disorder  or  confusion, 
or  intermixture6,  or  commingling,  as  is  said 
by  the  God-accursed  Dioscorus  and  by  Euty- 
ches  7  and  Severus,  and  all  that  impious  com- 
pany :  and  not  in  a  personal  or  relative  man- 
ner, or  as  a  matter  of  dignity  or  agreement  in 
will,  or  equality  in  honour,  or  identity  in  name, 
or  good  pleasure,  as  Nestorius,  hated  of  God, 
said,  and  Diodorus  and  Theodorus  of  Mop- 
suestia,  and  their  diabolical  tribe :  but  by  syn- 
thesis, that  is,  in  subsistence,  without  change 
or  confusion  or  alteration  or  difference  or 
separation,  and  we  confess  that  in  two  perfect 
natures  there  is  but  one  subsistence  of  the 
Son  of  God  incarnate8;  holding  that  there 
is    one    and   the    same    subsistence    belong- 


9  Cf.  Sever.,  Ep.  2  ad  Joannetn. 

*  A  nasi.  Sinaita,  in  'OSrjyu,  ch.  9;  Leontius,  contr.  Nisi,  et 
Eutych. 

2  Greg.  Naz.,  Ep.  ad  Cled.,  1. 

3  t'ov  avTov  iTTiSix0VTai  Aoyof  Trj?  <pv<reu>t;  ;  perhaps — all 
admit  the  same  account  0/  the  nature, — all  can  be  dealt  with 
in  the  same  way  in  respect  of  nature. 

4  Leontius,  Contr.  Sev.  et  Eutych.  Max.  loc.  cit.,  p.  277. 

5  Reading  iocnrep  iirl  oro/aov,  &c.  These  words  are  omitted 
in  Cod.  S.  Hit.  Reg.  10,  Colb.  3,  and  N. 

6  tj  <rvyKpa<rtv,  rj  avaKpaaiv.     The  MSS.  omit  the  latter. 

7  The  word  Ewtvx7)?.  however,  is  omitted  by  the  best  copies. 

8  Prod.,  Epist.  2  ad  Arm. 


48 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


ing  to  His  divinity  and  His  humanity,  and 
granting  that  the  two  natures  are  preserved 
in  Him  after  the  union,  but  we  do  not  hold 
that  each  is  separate  and  by  itself,  but  that 
they  are  united  to  each  other  in  one  com- 
pound subsistence.  For  we  look  upon  the 
union  as  essential,  that  is,  as  true  and  not  ima- 
ginary. We  say  that  it  is  essential  °,  moreover, 
not  in  the  sense  of  two  natures  resulting  in 
one  compound  nature,  but  in  the  sense  of  a 
true  union  of  them  in  one  compound  subsist- 
ence of  the  Son  of  God,  and  we  hold  that  their 
essential  difference  is  preserved.  For  the 
created  remaineth  created,  and  the  uncreated, 
uncreated  :  the  mortal  remaineth  mortal ;  the 
immortal,  immortal :  the  circumscribed,  cir- 
cumscribed :  the  uncircumscribed,  uncircum- 
scribed :  the  visible,  visible :  the  invisible, 
invisible.  '*  The  one  part  is  all  glorious  with 
wonders :  while  the  other  is  the  victim  of 
insults  x." 

Moreover,  the  Word  appropriates  to  Him- 
self the  attributes  of  humanity  :  for  all  that 
pertains  to  His  holy  flesh  is  His :  and  He 
imparts  to  the  flesh  His  own  attributes  by 
way  of  communication  2  in  virtue  of  the  inter- 
penetration  of  the  parts  3  one  with  another, 
and  the  oneness  according  to  subsistence,  and 
inasmuch  as  He  Who  lived  and  acted  both  as 
God  and  as  man,  taking  to  Himself  either 
form  and  holding  intercourse  with  the  other 
form,  was  one  and  the  same  4.  Hence  it  is 
that  the  Lord  of  Glory  is  said  to  have  been 
crucified 5,  although  His  divine  nature  never 
endured  the  Cross,  and  that  the  Son  of  Man 
is  allowed  to  have  been  in  heaven  before  the 
Passion,  as  the  Lord  Himself  said 6.  For  the 
Lord  of  Glory  is  one  and  the  same  with  Him 
Who  is  in  nature  and  in  truth  the  Son  of  Man, 
that  is,  Who  became  man,  and  both  His  won- 
ders and  His  sufferings  are  known  to  us,  al- 
though His  wonders  were  worked  in  His  divine 
capacity,  and  His  sufferings  endured  as  man. 
For  we  know  that,  just  as  is  His  one  subsist- 
ence, so  is  the  essential  difference  of  the  na- 
ture preserved.  For  how  could  difference  be 
preserved  if  the  very  things  that  differ  from 
one  another  are  not  preserved  ?  For  differ- 
ence is  the  difference  between  things  that 
differ.  In  so  far  as  Christ's  natures  differ 
from  one  another,  that  is,  in  the  matter  of 
essence,  we  hold  that  Christ  unites  in  Him- 
self two  extremes :  in  respect  of  His  divinity 


9  Greg:  Naz-,  Horn.  5.    See  also  John's  Dialect.,  65. 

1  Leo  papa,  Epist.  10,  ch.  4. 

-  KaTa  toi/  ai'7i66<re<os  Tpoirov,  in  the  way  of  a  communication 
*/ properties. 

3  iia.  it\v  eis  aAAr)A.a  rotv  /iepuii'  ircpixupqcrii'.  See  Ltont., 
D*  Sect.,  7,  Contr.  Nest,  et  Eutych.,  I. 

*  Leo  papa,  Epist.  10,  ch.  4.  Si  Cor.  ii.  8. 

6  St.  John  iii.  13. 


He  is  connected  with  the  Father  and  the 
Spirit,  while  in  respect  of  His  humanity  He 
is  connected  with  His  mother  and  all  man- 
kind. And  in  so  far  as  His  natures  are 
united,  we  hold  that  He  differs  from  the 
Father  and  the  Spirit  on  the  one  hand,  and 
from  the  mother  and  the  rest  of  mankind  on 
the  other.  For  the  natures  are  united  in 
His  subsistence,  having  one  compound  sub- 
sistence, in  which  He  differs  from  the  Father 
and  the  Spirit,  and  also  from  the  mother 
and  us. 

CHAPTER   IV. 

Concerning  the  manner  of  the  Mutual 
Communication  8. 

Now  we  have  often  said  already  that  es- 
sence is  one  thing  and  subsistence  another, 
and  that  essence  signifies  the  common  and 
general  form0  of  subsistences  of  the  same 
kind,  such  as  God,  man,  while  subsistence 
marks  the  individual,  that  is  to  say,  Father, 
Son,  Holy  Spirit,  or  Peter,  Paul.  Observe, 
then,  that  the  names,  divinity  and  humanity, 
denote  essences  or  natures  :  while  the  names, 
God  and  man,  are  applied  both  in  connection 
with  natures,  as  when  we  say  that  God  is  in- 
comprehensible essence,  and  that  God  is  one, 
and  with  reference  to  subsistences,  that  which 
is  more  specific  having  the  name  of  the  more 
general  applied  to  it,  as  when  the  Scripture 
says,  Therefore  God,  thy  God,  hath  anointed 
thee  \  or  again,  There  was  a  certain  man  in 
the  land  of  Uz2,  for  it  was  only  to  Job  that 
reference  was  made. 

Therefore,  in  the  case  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  seeing  that  we  recognise  that  He 
has  two  natures  but  only  one  subsistence 
compounded  of  both,  when  we  contemplate 
His  natures  we  speak  of  His  divinity  and 
His  humanity,  but  when  we  contemplate  the 
subsistence  compounded  of  the  natures  we 
sometimes  use  terms  that  have  reference  to 
His  double  nature,  as  "Christ,"  and  "at 
once  God  and  man,"  and  "  God  Incarnate ; " 
and  sometimes  those  that  imply  only  one 
of  His  natures,  as  "  God  "  alone,  or  "  Son  of 
God,"  and  "man"  alone,  or  "Son  of  Man;" 
sometimes  using  names  that  imply  His  lofti- 
ness and  sometimes  those  that  imply  His 
lowliness.  For  He  Who  is  alike  God  and 
man  is  one,  being  the  former  from  the  Father 
ever  without3  cause,  but  having  become  the 
latter  afterwards  for  His  love  towards  man*. 


8  Cf.  Athan.,  De  Salut.  adv.  Christi;  Greg.  Nat.,  Orat.  38; 
Greg.  Nyss.,  Contr.  Apoll. ;  Leont.,  Contr.  Nestor,  et  Eutych., 
bk.  1  ;    Thomas  Aquinas,  III.,  quast.  16,  art.  4,  5. 

9  i\hos,form,  class,  species. 

«  Ps.  xlv.  7.  »  Jobi.  x. 

3  oei  avatriui  ix  Uarpot.  *  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  33. 


EXPOSITION   OF   THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


49 


When,  then,  we  speak   of  His  divinity  we 
do  not  ascribe  to  it  the  properties  of  humanity. 
For  we  do  not  say  that  His  divinity  is  subject 
to    passion    or  created.      Nor,  again,   do  we 
predicate  of  His  flesh  or  of  His  humanity  the 
properties  of  divinity  :  for  we  do  not  say  that 
His  flesh  or  His  humanity  is  uncreated.     But 
when   we  speak   of  His  subsistence,  whether 
we  give  it  a  name  implying  both  natures,  or 
one  that  refers  to  only  one  of  them,  we  still 
attribute  to  it  the  properties  of  both  natures. 
For  Christ,  which  name  implies  both  natures, 
is  spoken  of  as  at  once  God  and  man,  created 
and  uncreated,  subject  to  suffering  and  incap- 
able of  suffering  :  and  when  He  is  named  Son 
of  God  and  God,  in  reference  to  only  one  of 
His  natures,  He  still  keeps  the  properties  of 
the  co-existing  nature,  that  is,  the  flesh,  being 
spoken   of  as  God  who    suffers,   and  as  the 
Lord  of  Glory  crucified s,  not  in   respect   of 
His  being  God  but  in  respect  of  His  being 
at  the  same  time  man.     Likewise  also  when 
He  is  called  Man  and  Son  of  Man,  He  still 
keeps  the  properties  and  glories  of  the  divine 
nature,  a  child  before  the  ages,  and  man  who 
knew  no  beginning ;   it  is  not,   however,   as 
child  or  man  but  as  God  that  He  is  before 
the  ages,  and  became  a  child  in  the  end.    And 
this  is  the  manner  of  the  mutual  communi- 
cation,  either  nature  giving  in    exchange  to 
the  other  its  own  properties  through  the  iden- 
tity of  the  subsistence  and  the  interpenetration 
of  the  parts  with  one  another.     Accordingly 
we  can  say  of  Christ :  This  our  God  was  seen 
upon  the  earth  and  lived  amongst  men 6,  and 
This  man  is  uncreated  and  impassible  and  un- 
circumscribed. 

CHAPTER  V. 

Concerning  the  number  of  the  Natures. 

In  the  case,  therefore,  of  the  Godhead  ?  we 
confess  that  there  is  but  one  nature,  but  hold 
that  there  are  three  subsistences  actually  exist- 
ing, and  hold  that  all  things  that  are  of  nature 
and  essence  are  simple,  and  recognise  the 
difference  of  the  subsistences  only  in  the  three 
properties  of  independence  of  cause  and  Fa- 
therhood, of  dependence  on  cause  and  Son- 
ship,  of  dependence  on  cause  and  procession8. 
And  we  know  further  that  these  are  indivisible 
and  inseparable  from  each  other  and  united 
into  one,  and  interpenetrating  one  another 
without    confusion.      Yea,   I    repeat,   united 


without  confusion,  for  they  are  three  although 
united,  and  they  are  distinct,  although  insepar- 
able.    For  although  each  has  an  independent 
existence,  that  is  to  say,  is  a  perfect  subsistence 
and  has  an  individuality  of  its  own,  that  is, 
has  a  special  mode  of  existence,  yet  they  are 
one  in  essence  and  in  the  natural  properties, 
and  in  being  inseparable  and  indivisible  from 
the   Father's  subsistence,  and  they  both  are 
and  are  said  to  be  one  God.     In  the  very  same 
way,  then,  in  the  case  of  the  divine  and  inef- 
fable dispensation  9,  exceeding  all  thought  and 
comprehension,  I  mean  the  Incarnation  of  the 
One  God  the  Word  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  and 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  we  confess  that  there 
are  two  natures,  one  divine  and  one  human, 
joined  together  with  one  another  and  united 
in  subsistence x,  so  that  one  compound  sub- 
sistence is   formed  out  of  the  two  natures : 
but  we  hold  that   the   two  natures  are  still 
preserved,  even  after  the  union,  in  the  one 
compound    subsistence,    that   is,  in   the   one 
Christ,  and  that  these  exist  in  reality  and  have 
their  natural  properties;   for  they  are  united 
without  confusion,  and  are  distinguished  and 
enumerated   without   being   separable.      And 
just  as  the  three    subsistences   of  the  Holy 
Trinity  are  united  without  confusion,  and  are 
distinguished  and  enumerated  without  being 
separable2,  the  enumeration  not  entailing  di- 
vision or  separation  or  alienation  or  cleavage 
among  them  (for  we  recognise  one  God  the 
Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit),  so  in 
the    same   way   the    natures    of  Christ   also, 
although  they  are  united,  yet  are  united  with- 
out confusion  ;   and  although  they  interpene- 
trate one  another,  yet  they  do  not  permit  of 
change  or  transmutation  of  one  into  the  others. 
For  each  keeps  its  own  natural  individuality 
strictly  unchanged.     And  thus  it  is  that  they 
can  be  enumerated  without  the  enumeration 
introducing  division.     For  Christ,  indeed,  is 
one,  perfect  both  in  divinity  and  in  humanity. 
For  it  is  not  the  nature  of  number  to  cause 
separation  or  unity,  bu*  its  nature  is  to  indi- 
cate the  quantity  of  what  <s  enumerated, whether 
these  are  united   or  separated  :   for  we  have 
unity,  for  instance,  when  fifty  stones  compose 
a  wall,  but  we  have  separation  when  the  fifty 
stones  lie  on  the  ground ;  and  again,  we  have 
unity   when    we    speak    of  coal   having    two 
natures,  namely,  fire  and  wood,  but  we  have 
separation   in  that  the   nature  of  fire  is   one 
thing,  and  the  nature  of  wood  another  thing ; 


5  i  Cor.  ii.  8. 

'  Baruch  iii.  38  :  these  words  are  absent  in  many  MSS. 

7  Leant.,  Rtsp.  ad  argum.  Sever. 

*  For  (cai  Tjj  airiarj)  <cai  viVjj,  xai  tjj  aLrtarp  <cai  eicnoptvTjj 
we  get  xai  tjj  ainaTticjf,  koX  vliejj,  <cai  nopevrfj  in  Cod.  Colb.  I, 
Cod.  Reg.  3,  and  so  Kaber  also. 

VOL.  IX 


9  otKOi'ojii'at,  incarnation. 

«  Leant.,  Kesp.  ad  argum.  Sever. 

*  See  Leont.,  Act.  7.  DeSect.,  with  reference  to  one  of  the 
arguments  ol  the  Nestorians  ;  also  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  36;  Max., 
Ep.  1  ad  Joan.  Cubic. 

3  In/r.  ch.  vii. :  Basil,  Spirt.  4?  awi  Bit.  Dt  Spir.  Sonet 
ch.  17 


50 


JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS. 


for  these  things  are  united  and  separated  not 
by  number,  but  in  another  way.  So,  then,  just 
as  even  though  the  three  subsistences  of  the 
Godhead  are  united  with  each  other,  we  can- 
not speak  of  them  as  one  subsistence  because 
we  should  confuse  and  do  away  with  the  dif- 
ference between  the  subsistences,  so  also  we 
cannot  speak  of  the  two  natures  of  Christ 
as  one  nature,  united  though  they  are  in 
subsistence,  because  we  should  then  confuse 
and  do  away  with  and  reduce  to  nothing  the 
difference  between  the  two  natures. 

CHAPTER   VI. 

That  in  one  of  its  subsistences  the  divine  nature 
is  united  in  its  entirety  to  the  human  nature, 
in  its  entirety  and  not  only  part  to  fart. 

What  is  common  and  general  is  predicated 
of  the  included  particulars.  Essence,  then,  is 
common  as  being  a  form  *,  while  subsistence 
is  particular.  It  is  particular  not  as  though 
it  had  part  of  the  nature  and  had  not  the 
rest,  but  particular  in  a  numerical  sense,  as 
being  individual.  For  it  is  in  number  and 
not  in  nature  that  the  difference  between  sub- 
sistences is  said  to  lie.  Essence,  therefore, 
is  predicated  of  subsistence,  because  in  each 
subsistence  of  the  same  form  the  essence  is 
perfect.  Wherefore  subsistences  do  not  differ 
from  each  other  in  essence  but  in  the  accidents 
which  indeed  are  the  characteristic  properties, 
but  characteristic  of  subsistence  and  not  of 
nature.  For  indeed  they  define  subsistence 
as  essence  along  with  accidents.  So  that  the 
subsistence  contains  both  the  general  and 
the  particular,  and  has  an  independent  ex- 
istence5, while  essence  has  not  an  independent 
existence  but  is  contemplated  in  the  sub- 
sistences. Accordingly  when  one  of  the  sub- 
sistences suffers,  the  whole  essence,  being 
capable  of  suffering  6,  is  held  to  have  suffered 
in  one  of  its  subsistences  as  much  as  the 
subsistence  suffered,  but  it  does  not  neces- 
sarily follow,  however,  that  all  the  subsistences 
of  the  same  class  should  suffer  along  with 
the  suffering  subsistence. 

Thus,  therefore,  we  confess  that  the  nature 
of  the  Godhead  is  wholly  and  perfectly  in 
each  of  its  subsistences,  wholly  in  the  Father, 
wholly  in  the  Son,  and  wholly  in  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Wherefore  also  the  Father  is  perfect 
God,  the  Son  is  perfect  God,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  perfect  God.  In  like  manner,  too, 
in  the  Incarnation  of  the  Trinity  of  the  One 
God  the  Word  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  we  hold 


*  it&os,  form,  class,  species. 

5  These  words  are  found  only  in  Cod.  Reg.  2927. 

6  The  words  oixria  n-af>>jr>)  and  ncirovSe  are  omitted  in  some 
editions. 


that  in  one  of  its  subsistences  the  nature  of  the 
Godhead  is  wholly  and  perfectly  united  with 
the  whole  nature  of  humanity,  and  not  part 
united  to  part  7.  The  divine  Apostle  in  truth 
says  that  in  Him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily 8,  that  is  to  say  in  His  flesh. 
And  His  divinely-inspired  disciple,  Dionysius, 
who  had  so  deep  a  knowledge  of"  things  divine, 
said  that  the  Godhead  as  a  whole  had  fellow- 
ship with  us  in  one  of  its  own  subsistences  9. 
But  we  shall  not  be  driven  to  hold  that  all  the 
subsistences  of  the  Holy  Godhead,  to  wit  the 
three,  are  made  one  in  subsistence  with  all  the 
subsistences  of  humanity.  For  in  no  other 
respect  did  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
take  part  in  the  incarnation  of  God  the  Word 
than  according  to  good  will  and  pleasure.  But 
we  hold  that  to  the  whole  of  human  nature 
the  whole  essence  of  the  Godhead  was  united. 
For  God  the  Word  omitted  none  of  the  things 
which  He  implanted  in  our  nature  when  He 
formed  us  in  the  beginning,  but  took  them 
all  upon  Himself,  body  and  soul  both  intel- 
ligent and  rational,  and  all  their  properties. 
For  the  creature  that  is  devoid  of  one  of  these 
is  not  man.  But  He  in  His  fulness  took  upon 
Himself  me  in  my  fulness,  and  was  united 
whole  to  whole  that  He  might  in  His  grace 
bestow  salvation  on  the  whole  man.  For  what 
has  not  been  taken  cannot  be  healed1. 

The  Word  of  God 2,  then,  was  united  to 
flesh  through  the  medium  of  mind  which  is 
intermediate  between  the  purity  of  God  and 
the  grossness  of  flesh  3.  For  the  mind  holds 
sway  over  soul  and  body,  but  while  the  mind 
is  the  purest  part  of  the  soul  God  is  that  of 
the  mind.  And  when  it  is  allowed  *  by  that 
which  is  more  excellent,  the  mind  of  Christ 
gives  proof  of  its  own  authority  s,  but  it  is 
under  the  dominion  of  and  obedient  to  that 
which  is  more  excellent,  and  does  those  things 
which  the  divine  will  purposes. 

Further  the  mind  has  become  the  seat  of 
the  divinity  united  with  it  in  subsistence,  just 
as  is  evidently  the  case  with  the  body  too, 
not  as  an  inmate  6,  which  is  the  impious  error 
into  which  the  heretics  fall  when  they  say 
that  one  bushel  cannot  contain  two  bushels, 
for  they  are  judging  what  is  immaterial  by 
material  standards.  How  indeed  could  Christ 
be  called  perfect  God  and  perfect  man,  and  be 
said  to  be  of  like  essence  with  the  Father  and 


7  Against  Arius,  Apollinaris.  and  the  Severians. 

8  Col.  ii.  9.  9  Dion.,  De  div.  nom.,  ch.  x. 

1  A  than.,  De  salut.  adv.  Christ:    Greg.  Naz.,  Epist.  I  ad 
Cled.  et  Orat.  i  :  Cyril,  in  John  viii. 

2  C(.  Greg.  Naz-,  Orat.  i,  &c. 

3  Greg.,  Orat.  I,  38 — 51. 

4  jrtpix<opeiTai  iiiro  tou  KpeirTOVOf. 

5  In/r.,  ch.  xviii. 

6  oil   o-iivoi/cos.       It  is  proposed  to  read  avni  ovvoikos,  or 
cos  otji'oikos. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


5i 


with  us,  if  only  part  of  the  divine  nature  is 
joined  in  Him  to  part  of  the  human  nature  ?? 

We  hold,  moreover,  that  our  nature  has 
been  raised  from  the  dead  and  has  ascended 
to  the  heavens  and  taken  its  seat  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  Father  :  not  that  all  the  persons 
of  men  have  risen  from  the  dead  and  taken 
their  seat  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  but 
that  this  has  happened  to  the  whole  of  our 
nature  in  the  subsistence  of  Christ 8.  Verily 
the  divine  Apostle  says,  God  hath  raised  us  up 
together  and  made  us  sit  together  in  Chris t?. 

And  this  further  we  hold,  that  the  union  took 
place  through  common  essences.  For  every  es- 
sence is  common  to  the  subsistences  contained 
in  it,  and  there  cannot  be  found  a  partial  and 
particular  nature,  that  is  to  say,  essence  :  for 
otherwise  we  would  have  to  hold  that  the  same 
subsistences  are  at  once  the  same  and  dif- 
ferent in  essence,  and  that  the  Holy  Trinity 
in  respect  of  the  divinity  is  at  once  the  same 
and  different  in  essence.  So  then  the  same 
nature  is  to  be  observed  in  each  of  the  sub- 
sistences, and  when  we  said  that  the  nature 
of  the  word  became  flesh,  as  did  the  blessed 
Athanasius  and  Cyrillus,  we  mean  that  the 
divinity  was  joined  to  the  flesh.  Hence  we 
cannot  say  "The  nature  of  the  Word  suf- 
fered;" for  the  divinity  in  it  did  not  suffer, 
but  we  say  that  the  human  nature,  not  by  any 
means,  however,  meaning T  all  the  subsistences 
of  men,  suffered  in  Christ,  and  we  confess  fur- 
ther that  Christ  suffered  in  His  human  nature. 
So  that  when  we  speak  of  the  nature  of  the 
Word  we  mean  the  Word  Himself.  And  the 
Word  has  both  the  general  element  of  essence 
and  the  particular  element  of  subsistence. 

CHAPTER   VII. 

Concerning  the  one  compound  subsistence  of 
God  the  Word. 

We  hold  then  that  the  divine  subsistence 
of  God  the  Word  existed  before  all  else  and  is 
without  time  and  eternal,  simple  and  uncom- 
pound,  uncreated,  incorporeal,  invisible,  in- 
tangible, uncircumscribed,  possessing  all  the 
Father  possesses,  since  He  is  of  the  same  es- 
sence with  Him,  differing  from  the  Father's 
subsistence  in  the  manner  of  His  generation 
and  the  relation  of  the  Father's  subsistence, 
being  perfect  also  and  at  no  time  separated 
from  the  Father's  subsistence  :  and  in  these 
last  days,  without  leaving  the  Father's  bosom, 
took  up  His  abode  in  an  uncircumscribed 
manner  in  the  womb  of  the  holy  Virgin,  with- 


out the  instrumentality  of  seed,  and  in  an 
incomprehensible  manner  known  only  to  Him- 
self, and  causing  the  flesh  derived  from  the 
holy  Virgin  to  subsist  in  the  very  subsistence 
that  was  before  all  the  ages. 

So  then  He  was  both  in  all  things  and 
above  all  things  and  also  dwelt  in  the  womb 
of  the  holy  Mother  of  God,  but  in  it  by  the 
energy  of  the  incarnation.  He  therefore  be- 
came flesh  and  He  took  upon  Himself  thereby 
the  first-fruits  of  our  compound  nature2,  viz., 
the  flesh  animated  with  the  intelligent  and 
rational  soul,  so  that  the  very  subsistence  of 
God  the  Word  was  changed  into  the  subsistence 
of  the  flesh,  and  the  subsistence  of  the  Word, 
which  was  formerly  simple,  became  compound', 
yea  compounded  of  two  perfect  natures,  di- 
vinity and  humanity,  and  bearing  the  charac- 
teristic and  distinctive  property  of  the  divine 
Sonship  of  God  the  Word  in  virtue  of  which  it 
is  distinguished  from  the  Father  and  the  Spirit, 
and  also  the  characteristic  and  distinctive  pro- 
perties of  the  flesh,  in  virtue  of  which  it  differs 
from  the  Mother  and  the  rest  of  mankind, 
bearing  further  the  properties  of  the  divine 
nature  in  virtue'  of  which  it  is  united  to  the 
Father  and  the  Spirit,  and  the  marks  of  the 
human  nature  in  virtue  of  which  it  is  united 
to  the  Mother  and  to  us.  And  further  it 
differs  from  the  Father  and  the  Spirit  and  the 
Mother  and  us  in  being  at  once  God  and  man. 
For  this  we  know  to  be  the  most  special  pro- 
perty of  the  subsistence  of  Christ. 

Wherefore  we  confess  Him,  even  after  the 
incarnation,  the  one  Son  of  God,  and  likewise 
Son  of  Man,  one  Christ,  one  Lord,  the  only- 
begotten  Son  and  Word  of  God,  one  Lord 
Jesus.  We  reverence  His  two  generations,  one 
from  the  Father  before  time  and  beyond  cause 
and  reason  and  time  and  nature,  and  one  in 
the  end  for  our  sake,  and  like  to  us  and  above 
us;  for  our  sake  because  it  was  for  our  sal- 
vation, like  to  us  in  that  He  was  man  born  of 
woman  *  at  full  time  s,  and  above  us  because  it 
was  not  by  seed,  but  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
the  Holy  Virgin  Mary  6,  transcending  the  laws 
of  parturition.  We  proclaim  Him  not  as  God 
only,  devoid  of  our  humanity,  nor  yet  as  man 
only,  stripping  Him  of  His  divinity,  nor  as  two 
distinct  persons,  but  as  one  and  the  same,  at 
once  God  and  man,  perfect  God  and  perfect 
man,  wholly  God  and  wholly  man,  the  same 
being  wholly  God,  even  though  He  was  also 


7  Greg.,  Epist.  i  ad  Cled. 

8  A  than..,  De  salut.  adv.  Christ.  9  Ephes.  ii.  t, 
1  Text,  vire^aiVoi<TCf.     Variant,  e/i^atVo/iee. 


»  awapxyv  toO  t)fifT€pov  <pvpap.a.T<K.    ,       ,  , 

3  avvQrrov  yeve<rBai.    rrji'   JTpoTcpof    i.n\rjv   ovtrav   tow    Aoyc* 
viroaraoiv,  (xvi'derov  Se  eie  &vo  re\fi<Dv  4>vctuiv. 

4  Text,    icai    \p6via    Kvrj<reu>s.     Various    readings,    «u    rpoircp 
<cvJjcreu>?  :  xal  ^po^f  KaL  Kvijcrei  •  KaL  w^y  kvjjovcos. 

5  Cf.   Ruf,  Expos.  Symb.;    Epiph.,  in  the  epilogue  to  hi* 
De  Ha-r. ;  Joan.  Scyth.,  Epist-  Diouys.  4. 

6  Mapias  is  absent  in  most  MSS. 


Z  2 


K2 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


flesh  and  wholly  man,  even  though  He  was  also 
most  high  God.  And  by  "  perfect  God  "  and 
"  perfect  man  "  we  mean  to  emphasize  the  ful- 
ness and  unfailingness  of  the  natures  :  while 
by  "  wholly  God "  and  "  wholly  man "  we 
mean  to  lay  stress  on  the  singularity  and 
individuality  of  the  subsistence. 

And  we  confess  also  that  there  is  one  in- 
carnate nature  of  God  the  Word,  expressing 
by  the  word  "  incarnate  7  "  the  essence  of  the 
flesh,  according  to  the  blessed  Cyril8.  And 
so  the  Word  was  made  flesh  and  yet  did  not 
abandon  His  own  proper  immateriality  :  He 
became  wholly  flesh  and  yet  remained  wholly 
uncircumscribed.  So  far  as  He  is  body  He  is 
diminished  and  contracted  into  narrow  limits, 
but  inasmuch  as  He  is  God  He  is  uncircum- 
scribed, His  flesh  not  being  coextensive  with 
His  uncircumscribed  divinity. 

He  is  then  wholly  perfect  God,  but  yet  is 
not  simply  9  God  :  for  He  is  not  only  God  but 
also  man.  And  He  is  also  wholly *  perfect 
man  but  not  simply2  man,  for  He  is  not  only 
man  but  also  God.  For  "simply2"  here  has 
reference  to  His  nature,  and  "wholly1"  to 
His  subsistence,  just  as  "  another  thing " 
would  refer  to  nature,  while  "  another  3  "  would 
refer  to  subsistence  4. 

But  observe5  that  although  we  hold  that 
the  natures  of  the  Lord  permeate  one  another, 
yet  we  know  that  the  permeation  springs  from 
the  divine  nature.  For  it  is  that  that  pene- 
trates and  permeates  all  things,  as  it  wills, 
while  nothing  penetrates  it :  and  it  is  it,  too, 
that  imparts  to  the  flesh  its  own  peculiar 
glories,  while  abiding  itself  impassible  and 
without  participation  in  the  affections  of  the 
flesh.  For  if  the  sun  imparts  to  us  his  en- 
ergies and  yet  does  not  participate  in  ours, 
how  much  the  rather  must  this  be  true  of 
the  Creator  and  Lord  of  the  Sun  6. 

CHAPTER   VIII. 

In  reply  to  those  who  ask  whether  7  the  natures 
of  the  Lord  are  brought  under  a  continuous 
or  a  discontinuous  quantity  8. 

If  any  one  asks  concerning  the  natures  of 
the  Lord  if  they  are  brought  under  a  con- 


7  Expositio  fidei  a  Patribus  Nicanis  contra  Paul.  Santos.  III. 
/>.  cone.  Ephes. 

8  Commonit.  ad '  Eulog.  et  Epist.  2  ad  Success.  ;  cf.  supr. 
ch.  vi.  et  in/r.  ch.  xi. 

9  oAos  ixiv  ovv  ecrTL  ®ebs  Te'Aeiot,  oiix  oKov  Si  Otos. 
1  iJAos.  3  r'iAoi'. 

3  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  51. 

4  The  following  is  added  in  R.  2927  :  iv  wao-i  /xev  Jiv,  Kal 
vwep  to.  navTa,  Kal  cv  Tfl  yao*Tpi  ttjs  0eo/A*jTopo5,  aAA'  tv  ravTiq 
T«,  tvtpyeUf  T»js  crapKuxrewj.     This  is  assuredly  an  interpolation. 

5  v.  supr.  ch.  iii.  6  I.eontius  de  sectis,  Act.  3. 

7  Directed  against  the  Severians.  See  Eeont.,  £>e  Sect,, 
Att.  7  ;  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  37. 

8  vrro   to  o-ui>ex«s   itaaov  avayovrai   ai   toO   KvpCov  (puceis,    r) 

VTTO  TO  SlwpuTfAt  VOV. 


tinuous  or  discontinuous  quantity  9,  we  will  say 
that  the  natures  of  the  Lord  are  neither  one 
body  nor  one  superficies  ',  nor  one  line,  nor 
time,  nor  place,  so  as  to  be  reduced  to  a 
continuous  quantity.  For  these  are  the  things 
that  are  reckoned  continuously. 

Further  note  that  number  deals  with  things 
that  differ,  and  it  is  quite  impossible  to  enu- 
merate things  that  differ  from  one  another  in 
no  respect :  and  just  so  far  as  they  differ  are 
they  enumerated  :  for  instance,  Peter  and  Paul 
are  not  counted  separately  in  so  far  as  they 
are  one.  For  since  they  are  one  in  respect 
of  their  essence  they  cannot  be  spoken  of  as 
two  natures,  but  as  they  differ  in  respect  of 
subsistence  they  are  spoken  of  as  two  sub- 
sistences. So  that  number  deals  with  differ- 
ences, and  just  as  the  differing  objects  differ 
from  one  another  so  far  they  are  enumerated. 

The  natures  of  the  Lord,  then,  are  united 
without  confusion  so  far  as  regards  subsistence, 
and  they  are  divided  without  separation  ac- 
cording to  the  method  and  manner  of  differ- 
ence. And  it  is  not  according  to  the  manner 
in  which  they  are  united  that  they  are  enumer- 
ated, for  it  is  not  in  respect  of  subsistence  that 
we  hold  that  there  are  two  natures  of  Christ : 
but  according  to  the  manner  in  which  they 
are  divided  without  separation  they  are  enu- 
merated, for  it  is  in  respect  of  the  method  and 
manner  of  difference  that  there  are  two  natures 
of  Christ.  For  being  united  in  subsistence 
and  permeating  one  another,  they  are  united 
without  confusion,  each  preserving  throughout 
its  own  peculiar  and  natural  difference.  Hence, 
since  they  are  enumerated  according  to  the 
manner  of  difference,  and  that  alone,  they 
must  be  brought  under  a  discontinuous  quan- 
tity. 

Christ,  therefore 2,  is  one,  perfect  God  and 
perfect  man  :  and  Him  we  worship  along  with 
the  Father  and  the  Spirit,  with  one  obeisance, 
adoring  even  His  immaculate  flesh  and  not 
holding  that  the  flesh  is  not  meet  for  worship  : 
for  in  fact  it  is  worshipped  in  the  one  sub- 
sistence of  the  Word,  which  indeed  became 
subsistence  for  it.  But  in  this  we  do  not  do 
homage  to  that  which  is  created.  For  we 
worship  Him,  not  as  mere  flesh,  but  as  flesh 
united  with  divinity,  and  because  His  two 
natures  are  brought  under  the  one  person 
and  one  subsistence  of  God  the  Word.  I  fear 
to  touch  coal  because  of  the  fire  bound  up 
with  the  wood.  I  worship  the  twofold  nature 
of  Christ  because  of  the  divinity  that  is  in 
Him   bound   up   with   flesh.     For   I   do   not 


•  Text,  avayovTtu,     Variants,  ai>a<pipoivTO  and  SiaQepoivro. 

1  fita  eTTKpdi'eia. 

2  Cyril,  De  Anath.  8  cant.  Theod. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


53 


introduce  a  fourth  person  3  into  the  Trinity. 
God  forbid  !  but  I  confess  one  person  of  God 
the  Word  and  of  His  flesh,  and  the  Trinity 
remains  Trinity,  even  after  the  incarnation  of 
the  Word. 

In  reply 4  to  those  who  ask  whether  the  two 
natures  are  brought  muter  a  continuous  or 
a  discontinuous  quantity. 

The  natures  of  the  Lord  are  neither  one 
body  nor  one  superficies,  nor  one  line,  nor 
place,  nor  time,  so  as  to  be  brought  under 
a  continuous  quantity :  for  these  are  the 
things  that  are  reckoned  continuously.  But 
the  natures  of  the  Lord  are  united  without 
confusion  in  respect  of  subsistence,  and  are 
divided  without  separation  according  to  the 
method  and  manner  of  difference.  And  ac- 
cording to  the  manner  in  which  they  are 
united  they  are  not  enumerated.  For  we 
do  not  say  that  the  natures  of  Christ  are 
two  subsistences  or  two  in  respect  of  sub- 
sistence. But  according  to  the  manner  in 
which  they  are  divided  without  division,  are 
they  enumerated.  For  there  are  two  natures 
according  to  the  method  and  manner  of  differ- 
ence. For  being  united  in  subsistence  and 
permeating  one  another  they  are  united  with- 
out confusion,  neither  having  been  changed 
into  the  other,  but  each  preserving  its  own 
natural  difference  even  after  the  union.  For 
that  which  is  created  remained  created,  and 
that  which  is  uncreated,  uncreated.  By  the 
manner  of  difference,  then,  and  in  that  alone, 
they  are  enumerated,  and  thus  are  brought  un- 
der discontinuous  quantity.  For  things  which 
differ  from  each  other  in  no  respect  cannot  be 
enumerated,  but  just  so  far  as  they  differ  are  they 
enumerated  ;  for  instance,  Peter  and  Paul  are 
not  enumerated  in  those  respects  in  which 
they  are  one  :  for  being  one  in  respect  of  their 
essence  they  are  not  two  natures  nor  are  they 
so  spoken  of.  But  inasmuch  as  they  differ 
in  subsistence  they  are  spoken  of  as  two  sub- 
sistences. So  that  difference  is  the  cause  of 
number. 

CHAPTER   IX. 

In  reply  to  the  question  whether  there  is  any 
Nature  that  has  no  Subsistence. 

For  although  5  there  is   no   nature  without 
subsistence,   nor  essence   apart   from   person 


3  The  Apiillinarians  attacked  the  orthodox  as  ai>6pu>iro\d.Tpai, 
man-worshippers,  and  as  making  the  Trinity  a  Quaternity  by 
their  doctrine  of  two  perfect  natures  in  Chiist.  See  Greg.  Naz., 
Ep.  i  ad  Cied.  ;  Atkanas.,  Ep.  ad  Epictel.  ;  Anastas.  Antioch., 
De  Operutionibus  ;  Cyril,  Contr.  Nestor,  i. 

*  See  Migne  on  the  position  of  this  seciion. 

5  Another  allegation  of  the  Severian  party  is  in  view  here. 
See  Leont.,  De  Sect.,  Act.  7,  Contr.  Nestor,  et  Eutych.  I.  ;  John 
of  Dam.,  Dialect-  29. 


(since  in  truth  it  is  in  persons  and  subsistences 
that  essence  and  nature  are  to  be  contem- 
plated), yet  it  does  not  necessarily  follow 
that  the  natures  that  are  united  to  one  an- 
other in  subsistence  should  have  each  its 
own  proper  subsistence.  For  after  they  have 
come  together  into  one  subsistence,  it  is 
possible  that  neither  should  they  be  without 
subsistence,  nor  should  each  have  its  own 
peculiar  subsistence,  but  that  both  should 
have  one  and  the  same  subsistence6.  For 
since  one  and  the  same  subsistence  of  the 
Word  has  become  the  subsistence  of  the  na- 
tures, neither  of  them  is  permitted  to  be 
without  subsistence,  nor  are  they  allowed 
to  have  subsistences  that  differ  from  each 
other,  or  to  have  sometimes  the  subsistence 
of  this  nature  and  sometimes  of  that,  but 
always  without  division  or  separation  they 
both  have  the  same  subsistence — a  subsist- 
ence which  is  not  broken  up  into  parts  or 
divided,  so  that  one  part  should  belong  to 
this,  and  one  to  that,  but  which  belongs 
wholly  to  this  and  wholly  to  that  in  its 
absolute  entirety.  For  the  flesh  of  God  the 
Word  did  not  subsist  as  an  independent  sub- 
sistence, nor  did  there  arise  another  subsistence 
besides  that  of  God  the  Word,  but  as  it  existed 
in  that  it  became  rather  a  subsistence  which 
subsisted  in  another,  than  one  which  was  an 
independent  subsistence.  Wherefore,  neither 
does  it  lack  subsistence  altogether,  nor.  yet 
is  there  thus  introduced  into  the  Trinity  an- 
other subsistence. 

CHAPTER  X. 

Concerning  the  Trisagium  ("  the  Thrice  Holy  "). 

This  being  so  7,  we  declare  that  the  addi- 
tion which  the  vain-minded  Peter  the  Fuller 
made  to  the  Trisagium  or  "Thrice  Holy" 
Hymn  is  blasphemous8;  for  it  introduces  a 
fourth  person  into  the  Trinity,  giving  a  separ- 
ate place  to  the  Son  of  God,  Who  is  the  truly 
subsisting  power  of  the  Father,  and  a  separate 
place  to  Him  Who  was  crucified  as  though  He 
were  different  from  the  "  Mighty  One,"  or 
as  though  the  Holy  Trinity  was  considered 
passible,  and  the  Father  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  suffered  on  the  Cross  along  with 
the  Son.  Have  done  with  this  blasphemous  9 
and  nonsensical  interpolation  !  For  we  hold 
the  words  "  Holy  God  "  to  refer  to  the 
Father,  without  limiting  the  title  of  divinity 
to  Him  alone,  but  acknowledging  also  as  God 
the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit :  and  the  words 


*  Leont.,  De  sect.,  Act  7. 

7  Dam.,  Epist.  adjord.  Archim. 

8  Text,  3Ao(t0i)/jlo>'.     Variant,  (3Aa<r$Tjf*tW. 


54 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


"Holy  and  Mighty"  we  ascribe  to  the  Son, 
without  stripping  the  Father  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  might :  and  the  words  "  Holy  and 
Immortal "  we  attribute  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
without  depriving  the  Father  and  the  Son 
of  immortality.  For,  indeed,  we  apply  all 
the  divine  names  simply  and  unconditionally 
to  each  of  the  subsistences  in  imitation  of  the 
divine  Apostle's  words  :  But  to  us  there  is  but 
one  God,  the  Father,  of  Whom  are  all  things, 
and  we  in  Him  :  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ  by 
Whom  are  all  things,  and  we  by  Him  1  2. 
And,  nevertheless,  we  follow  Gregory  the 
Theologian  3  when  he  says,  "  But  to  us  there 
is  but  one  God,  the  Father,  of  Whom  are  all 
things,  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through 
Whom  are  all  things,  and  one  Holy  Spirit, 
in  Whom  are  all  things  : "  for  the  words  "  of 
Whom  "  and  "  through  Whom "  and  "  in 
Whom  "  do  not  divide  the  natures  (for  neither 
the  prepositions  nor  the  order  of  the  names 
could  ever  be  changed),  but  they  characterise 
the  properties  of  one  unconfused  nature.  And 
this  becomes  clear  from  the  fact  that  they  are 
once  more  gathered  into  one,  if  only  one  reads 
with  care  these  words  of  the  same  Apostle, 
Of  Him  and  through  Him  and  in  Him  are 
all  things :  to  Him  be  the  glory  for  ever  and 
ever.     Amen 4. 

For  that  the  "  Trisa^ium "  refers  not  to 
the  Son  alone5,  but  to  the  Holy  Trinity, 
the  divine  and  saintly  Athanasius  and  Basil 
and  Gregory,  and  all  the  band  of  the  divinely- 
inspired  Fathers  bear  witness :  because,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  by  the  threefold  holiness 
the  Holy  Seraphim  suggest  to  us  the  three 
subsistences  of  the  superessential  Godhead. 
,  But  by  the  one  Lordship  they  denote  the 
one  essence  and  dominion  of  the  supremely- 
divine  Trinity.  Gregory  the  Theologian  of 
a  truth  says 6,  "  Thus,  then,  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  which  is  completely  veiled  by  the 
Seraphim,  and  is  glorified  with  three  conse- 
crations, meet  together  in  one  lordship  and 
one  divinity."  This  was  the  most  beautiful 
and  sublime  philosophy  of  still  another  of 
our  predecessors. 

Ecclesiastical  historians  ?,  then,  say  that 
once  when  the  people  of  Constantinople  were 
offering  prayers  to  God  to  avert  a  threatened 
calamity8,  during  Proclus'  tenure  of  the  office 


1  i  Cor.  viii.  5. 

2  These  words  which  refer  to  the  Holy  Spirit  are  absent  in 
R.  2930  and  in  1  Cor.  viii.,  but  are  present  in  other  Codices  and  in 
Basil,  De  Spirit.  Sancto,  and  in  Greg.  Nazianz.,  Orat.  30,  and 
further  in  the  Damascene  himself  in  Parallel,  and  elsewuere,  and 
could  not  be  omitted  here. 

3  Orat.  39.  4  Rom.  xi.  36. 
S  Vid.  Epist.  ad  Jordan. 

'  Orat.  42.  at  the  beginning. 

1  Epist.  ad  Pctrum  Pullonem  ;  Theoph.,  Ad  Am.  5930k 

•  See  Ni&tph.  Call.,  Hist,  xviii.  51. 


of  Archbishop,  it  happened  that  a  boy  was 
snatched  up  from  among  the  people,  and 
was  taught  by  angelic  teachers  the  "  Thrice 
Holy"  Hymn,  "Thou  Holy  God,  Holy  and 
Mighty  One,  Holy  and  Immortal  One,  have 
mercy  upon  us :  "  and  when  once  more  he  was 
restored  to  earth,  he  told  what  he  had  learned, 
and  all  the  people  sang  the  Hymn,  and  so 
the  threatened  calamity  was  averted.  And 
in  the  fourth  holy  and  great  CEcumenical 
Council,  I  mean  the  one  at  Chalcedon,  we 
are  told  that  it  was  in  this  form  that  the 
Hymn  was  sung ;  for  the  minutes  of  this 
holy  assembly  so  record  it  9.  It  is,  there- 
fore, a  matter  for  laughter  and  ridicule  that 
this  "  Thrice  Holy  "  Hymn,  taught  us  by  the 
angels,  and  confirmed  by  the  averting  of 
calamity  x,  ratified  and  established  by  so  great 
an  assembly  of  the  holy  Fathers,  and  sung 
first  by  the  Seraphim  as  a  declaration  of  the 
three  subsistences  of  the  Godhead,  should  be 
mangled  and  forsooth  emended  to  suit  the 
view  of  the  stupid  Fuller  as  though  he  were 
higher  than  the  Seraphim.  But  oh  !  the  arro- 
gance !  not  to  say  folly  !  But  we  say  it  thus, 
though  demons  should  rend  us  in  pieces, 
"  Do  Thou,  Holy  God,  Holy  and  Mighty 
One,  Holy  and  Immortal  One,  have  mercy 
upon  us." 

CHAPTER  XI. 

Concerning  the  Nature  as  viewed  in  Species 
and  in  Individual,  and  concerning  the  dif- 
ference between  Union  and  Incarnation:  and 
how  this  is  to  be  understood,  "  The  one  Na- 
ture of  God  the  Word  Incarnate." 

Nature  2  is  regarded  either  abstractly  as  a 
matter  of  pure  thoughts  (for  it  has  no  inde- 
pendent existence):  or  commonly  in  all  sub- 
sistences of  the  same  species  as  their  bond  of 
union,  and  is  then  spoken  of  as  nature  viewed 
in  species  :  or  universally  as  the  same,  but 
with  the  addition  of  accidents,  in  one  sub- 
sistence, and  is  spoken  of  as  nature  viewed  in 
the  individual,  this  being  identical  with  nature 
viewed  in  species  ♦.  God  the  Word  Incarnate, 
therefore,  did  not  assume  the  nature  that  is 
regarded  as  an  abstraction  in  pure  thought 
(for  this  is  not  incarnation,  but  only  an  impos- 
ture and  a  figment  of  incarnation),  nor  the 
nature   viewed   in   species   (for    He    did   not 


9  Cone.  Cltal.,  Act.  i,  at  the  end. 

«  In  Cod.  S.  Hil.  is  written  above  the  line  17  (JtTjAarov  opyiije 
iraiicrei,  which  explains  the  author's  meaning. 

2  Nicepk.  Call.,  Hist,  xviii.  51,  speaks  of  this  Hymn  and  alsa 
the  4>ok  lAopdf  as  coming  from  the  Apostles  themselves.  The 
writer  of  the  Life  of  Basil,  supposed  to  be  Amphilochius  of  Ico- 
nium,  declares  that  the  Trisagium  was  recited  by  Basil  at  Nica?a. 

3  y\  1//1AJ7  dttopia  KaravotLTat.. 

4  This  division  is  absent  in  some  copies  and  is  not  restored. 
in  the  old  translation,  but  is  not  superfluous. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


55 


assume  all  the  subsistences)  :  but  the  nature 
viewed  in  the  individual,  which  is  identical 
with  that  viewed  in  species.  For  He  took  on 
Himself  the  elements  of  our  compound  nature, 
and  these  not  as  having  an  independent  exist- 
ence or  as  being  originally  an  individual,  and 
in  this  way  assumed  by  Him,  but  as  existing 
in  His  own  subsistence.  For  the  subsistence 
of  God  the  Word  in  itself  became  the  subsist- 
ence of  the  flesh,  and  accordingly  "the  Word 
became  flesh  s  "  clearly  without  any  change, 
and  likewise  the  flesh  became  Word  without 
alteration,  and  God  became  man.  For  the 
Word  is  God,  and  man  is  God,  through  having 
one  and  the  same  subsistence.  And  so  it  is 
possible  to  speak  of  the  same  thing  as  being 
the  nature  of  the  Word  and  the  nature  in 
the  individual.  For  it  signifies  strictly  and 
exclusively  neither  the  individual,  that  is,  the 
subsistence,  nor  the  common  nature  of  the 
subsistences,  but  the  common  nature  as  viewed 
and  presented  in  one  of  the  subsistences. 

Union,  then,  is  one  thing,  and  incarnation 
is  something  quite  different.  For  union  sig- 
nifies only  the  conjunction,  but  not  at  all  that 
with  which  union  is  effected.  But  incarna- 
tion (which  is  just  the  same  as  if  one  said 
"  the  putting  on  of  man's  nature  ")  signifies 
that  the  conjunction  is  with  flesh,  that  is  to 
say,  with  man,  just  as  the  heating  of  iron6 
implies  its  union  with  fire.  Indeed,  the 
blessed  Cyril  himself,  when  he  is  interpret- 
ing the  phrase,  "  one  nature  of  God  the 
Word  Incarnate,"  says  in  the  second  epistle 
to  Sucensus,  '  For  if  we  simply  said  '  the  one 
nature  of  the  Word  '  and  then  were  silent,  and 
did  not  add  the  word  'incarnate,'  but,  so  to 
speak,  quite  excluded  the  dispensation  7,  there 
would  be  some  plausibility  in  the  question 
they  feign  to  ask,  '  If  one  nature  is  the  whole, 
what  becomes  of  the  perfection  in  humanity, 
or  how  has  the  essence  8  like  us  come  to  exist  ?' 
But  inasmuch  as  the  perfection  in  humanity 
and  the  disclosure  of  the  essence  like  us  are 
conveyed  in  the  word  'incarnate,'  they  must 
cease  from  relying  on  a  mere  straw."  Here, 
then,  he  placed  the  nature  of  the  Word  over 
nature  itself.  For  if  He  had  received  nature 
instead  of  subsistence,  it  would  not  have  been 
absurd  to  have  omitted  the  "  incarnate."  For 
when  we  say  simply  one  subsistence  of  God 
the  Word,  we  do  not  err  9.  In  like  manner, 
also,  Leontius  the  Byzantine  *  considered  this 
phrase  to  refer  to  nature,  and  not  to  subsist- 
ence.    But   in   the  Defence  which  he  wrote 


5  St.  John  i.  14. 

6  tov  o-i&rjpov  is  absent  in  some  codices  and  also  in  the  old 
translation. 

7  it)v  oiKOvoixiav,  tht  incarnation. 

8  t)  ko.6'  rjMa?  oiicria. 

9  Supr.  ch.  6  and  7.  »  Leont.,  De  sect.  Act.  b. 


in  reply  to  the  attacks  that  Theodoret  made 
on  the  second  anathema,  the  blessed  Cyril a 
says  this  :  "  The  nature  of  the  Word,  that  is, 
the  subsistence,  which  is  the  Word  itself." 
So  that  "the  nature  of  the  Word"  means 
neither  the  subsistence  alone,  nor  "the  com- 
mon nature  of  the  subsistence,"  but  "  the 
common  nature  viewed  as  a  whole  in  the 
subsistence  of  the  Word." 

It  has  been  said,  then,  that  the  nature  of 
the  Word  became  flesh,  that  is,  was  united 
to  flesh  :  but  that  the  nature  of  the  Word 
suffered  in  the  flesh  we  have  never  heard 
up  till  now,  though  we  have  been  taught  that 
Christ  suffered  in  the  flesh.  So  that  "  the 
nature  of  the  Word"  does  not  mean  "the 
subsistence."  It  remains,  therefore,  to  say 
that  to  become  flesh  is  to  be  united  with 
the  flesh,  while  the  Word  having  become 
flesh  means  that  the  very  subsistence  of  the 
Word  became  without  change  the  subsistence 
of  the  flesh.  It  has  also  been  said  that  God 
became  man,  and  man  God.  For  the  Word 
which  is  God  became  without  alteration  man. 
But  that  the  Godhead  became  man,  or  be- 
came flesh,  or  put  on  the  nature  of  man, 
this  we  have  never  heard.  This,  indeed,  we 
have  learned,  that  the  Godhead  was  united 
to  humanity  in  one  of  its  subsistences,  and 
it  has  been  stated  that  God  took  on  a  differ- 
ent form  or  essence3,  to  wit  our  own.  For 
the  name  God  is  applicable  to  each  of  the 
subsistences,  but  we  cannot  use  the  term  God- 
head in  reference  to  subsistence.  For  we  are 
never  told  that  the  Godhead  is  the  Father 
alone,  or  the  Son  alone,  or  the  Holy  Spirit 
alone.  For  "Godhead"  implies  "nature," 
while  "Father"  implies  subsistence,  just  as 
"  Humanity"  implies  nature,  and  "Peter"  sub- 
sistence. But  "  God  "  indicates  the  common 
element  of  the  nature,  and  is  applicable  deri- 
vatively to  each  of  the  subsistences,  just  as 
"  man  "  is.  For  He  Who  has  divine  nature 
is  God,  and  he  who  has  human  nature  is  man. 

Besides  all  this,  notice  *  that  the  Father 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  take  no  part  at  all  in 
the  incarnation  of  the  Word,  except  in  con- 
nection with  the  miracles,  and  in  respect  of 
good  will  and  purpose. 

CHAPTER   XII. 

That  the  holy  Virgin  is  the  Mother  of  God:  an 
argument  directed  against  the  Nestorians. 

Moreover  we  proclaim  the  holy  Virgin  to  be 


»  Cyril,  Defens.  II.,  Anath.  cont.  Thtod. 

3  6  ®eb?  f£op<j>oCr<u,  r)TOi  ovaiouTai  to  dAXdrpiov.  Gregory 
of  Nazianzum  in  his  Carmen  used  the  term  oii<riovo-0<u  of  thi 
Word  after  the  assumption  of  our  nature.  See  also  Dionyt., 
De  div.  nam.,  ch.  a  ;  Ep.  ad  Carmen,  4  ;  &c. 

4  Dion.,  De  div.  nam.,  ch.  b. 


56 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


in  strict  truth  s  the  Mother  of  God  6.  For  inas- 
much as  He  who  was  born  of  her  was  true 
God,  she  who  bare  the  true  God  incarnate  is 
the  true  mother  of  God.  For  we  hold  that 
God  was  born  of  her,  not  implying  that  the 
divinity  of  the  Word  received  from  her  the 
beginning  of  its  being,  but  meaning  that  God 
the  Word  Himself,  Who  was  begotten  of  the 
Father  timelessly  before  the  ages,  and  was 
with  the  Father  and  the  Spirit  without  begin- 
ning and  through  eternity,  took  up  His  abode 
in  these  last  days  for  the  sake  of  our  salvation 
in  the  Virgin's  womb,  and  was  without  change 
made  flesh  and  born  of  her.  For  the  holy 
Virgin  did  not  bare  mere  man  but  true  God  : 
and  not  mere  God  but  God  incarnate,  Who 
did  not  bring  down  His  body  from  Heaven, 
nor  simply  passed  through  the  Virgin  as  chan- 
nel, but  received  from  her  flesh  of  like  essence 
to  our  own  and  subsisting  in  Himself*.  For 
if  the  body  had  come  down  from  heaven  and 
had  not  partaken  of  our  nature,  what  would 
have  been  the  use  of  His  becoming  man? 
For  the  purpose  of  God  the  Word  becoming 
man8  was  that  the  very  same  nature,  which 
had  sinned  and  fallen  and  become  corrupted, 
should  triumph  over  the  deceiving  tyrant  and 
so  be  freed  from  corruption,  just  as  the  divine 
apostle  puts  it,  For  since  by  man  came  death,  by 
man  came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead '°. 
If  the  first  is  true  the  second  must  also 
be  true. 

Although  ',  however,  he  says,  The  first  Adam 
is  of  the  earth  earthy  ;  the  second  Adam  is  the 
Lord  from  Heaven 2,  he  does  not  say  that 
His  body  is  from  heaven,  but  emphasises  the 
fact  that  He  is  not  mere  man.  For,  mark,  he 
called  Him  both  Adam  and  Lord,  thus  in- 
dicating His  double  nature.  For  Adam  is, 
being  interpreted,  earth-born  :  and  it  is  clear 
that  man's  nature  is  earth-born  since  he  is 
formed  from  earth,  but  the  title  Lord  signifies 
His  divine  essence. 

And  again  the  Apostle  says  :  God  sent  forth 
His  only-begotten  Son,  made  of  a  woman  3.  He 
did  not  say  "  made  by  a  woman."  Wherefore 
the  divine  apostle  meant  that  the  only-begotten 
Son  of  God  and  God  is  the  same  as  He  who 
was  made  man  of  the  Virgin,  and  that  He  who 
was  born  of  the  Virgin  is  the  same  as  the  Son 
of  God  and  God. 

But  He  was  born  after  the  bodily  fashion 
inasmuch  as  He  became  man,  and  did  not 
take  up  His  abode  in  a  man  formed  before- 
hand, as  in  a  prophet,  but  became  Himself 


5  See  especially  Greg.  No*.,  Ep.  i  ad  CUd.;   Theod.,  Heir, 
fab.,  v.  18. 

6  Greg.  Naz. ,  Epist.  I.  ad  Cledan.  7  Ibid. 

8  Infr.  ch.  18.  9  t  Cor.  xv.  ai.  «  Greg.  Naz.,  ibid. 

3  i  Cor.  xv.  47.  3  GaL  iv.  4. 


in  essence  and  truth  man,  that  is  He  caused 
flesh  animated  with  the  intelligent  and  reason- 
able to  subsist  in  His  own  subsistence,  and 
Himself  became  subsistence  for  it.  For  this 
is  the  meaning  of  "  made  of  a  woman."  For 
how  could  the  very  Word  of  God  itself  have 
been  made  under  the  law,  if  He  did  not  be- 
come man  of  like  essence  with  ourselves  ? 

Hence  it  is  with  justice  and  truth  that  we 
call  the  holy  Mary  the  Mother  of  God.  For 
this  name  embraces  the  whole  mystery  of  the 
dispensation.  For  if  she  who  bore  Him  is  the 
Mother  of  God,  assuredly  He  Who  was  born 
of  her  is  God  and  likewise  also  man.  For 
how  could  God,  Who  was  before  the  ages,  have 
been  born  of  a  woman  unless  He  had  become 
man?  For  the  son  of  man  must  clearly  be 
man  himself.  But  if  He  Who  was  born  of 
a  woman  is  Himself  God,  manifestly  He  Who 
was  born  of  God  the  Father  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  of  an  essence  that  is  divine  and 
knows  no  beginning,  and  He  Who  was  in  the 
last  days  born  of  the  Virgin  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  of  an  essence  that  has  beginning 
and  is  subject  to  time,  that  is,  an  essence 
which  is  human,  must  be  one  and  the  same. 
The  name  in  truth  signifies  the  one  subsist- 
ence and  the  two  natures  and  the  two  gener- 
ations of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

But  we  never  say  that  the  holy  Virgin  is  the 
Mother  of  Christ4  because  it  was  in  order  to 
do  away  with  the  title  Mother  of  God,  and  to 
bring  dishonour  on  the  Mother  of  God,  who 
alone  is  in  truth  worthy  of  honour  above  all 
creation,  that  the  impure  and  abominable  Ju- 
daizing  Nestorius 5,  that  vessel  of  dishonour, 
invented  this  name  for  an  insult6.  For  David 
the  king,  and  Aaron,  the  high  priest,  are  also 
called  Christ  7,  for  it  is  customary  to  make 
kings  and  priests  by  anointing  :  and  besides 
every  God-inspired  man  may  be  called  Christ, 
but  yet  he  is  not  by  nature  God  :  yea,  the 
accursed  Nestorius  insulted  Him  Who  was 
born  of  the  Virgin  by  calling  Him  God- 
bearer8.  May  it  be  far  from  us  to  speak  of 
or  think  of  Him  as  God-bearer  only  9,  Who 
is  in  truth  God  incarnate.  For  the  Word 
Himself  became  flesh,  having  been  in  truth 
conceived  of  the  Virgin,  but  coming  forth  as 
God  with  the  assumed  nature  which,  as  soon 
as  He  was  brought  forth  into  being,  was 
deified  by  Him,  so  that  these  three  things 
took  place  simultaneously,  the  assumption  of 
our  nature,   the  coming  into  being,  and  the 


<  XptcTTOToicos,  as  opposed  to  fcoroteoc. 

S  Cyril,  ad  Monachos,  Epist.  i. 

*  <us  t;njpeafofifciji'  is  absent  in  Vegelinus. 

7  i.e.  Anointed  One. 

8  fletxdopos,    Deigerus.      See  Greg.  Not.,  Ep}.  a,  ad  Cled. 
Basil,  De  Spir.  Sane,  ch.  5,  &c. 

9  Cyril,  cont.  Nest.,  blc  1. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


57 


deification  of  the  assumed  nature  by  the 
Word.  And  thus  it  is  that  the  holy  Virgin 
is  thought  of  and  spoken  of  as  the  Mother 
of  God,  not  only  because  of  the  nature  of  the 
Word,  but  also  because  of  the  deification  of 
man's  nature,  the  miracles  of  conception  and 
of  existence  being  wrought  together,  to  wit, 
the  conception  the  Word,  and  the  existence  of 
the  flesh  in  the  Word  Himself.  For  the  very 
Mother  of  God  in  some  marvellous  manner 
was  the  means  of  fashioning  the  Kramer  of  all 
things  and  of  bestowing  manhood  on  the  God 
and  Creator  of  all,  Who  deified  the  nature  that 
He  assumed,  while  the  union  preserved  those 
things  that  were  united  just  as  they  were 
united,  that  is  to  say,  not  only  the  divine 
nature  of  Christ  but  also  His  human  nature, 
not  only  that  which  is  above  us  but  that  which 
is  of  us.  For  He  was  not  first  made  like  us 
and  only  later  became  higher  than  us,  but 
ever x  from  His  first  coming  into  being  He 
existed  with  the  double  nature,  because  He 
existed  in  the  Word  Himself  from  the  be- 
ginning of  the  conception.  Wherefore  He  is 
human  in  His  own  nature,  but  also,  in  some 
marvellous  manner,  of  God  and  divine.  More- 
over He  has  the  properties  of  the  living  flesh : 
for  by  reason  of  the  dispensation  2  the  Word 
received  these  which  are,  according  to  the 
order  of  natural  motion,  truly  natural  3. 

CHAPTER   XIII. 

Concerning  the  properties  of  the  two  Natures. 

Confessing,  then,  the  same  Jesus  Christ, 
our  Lord,  to  be  perfect  God  and  perfect  man, 
we  hold  that  the  same  has  all  the  attributes 
of  the  Father  save  that  of  being  ingenerate, 
and  all  the  attributes  of  the  first  Adam, 
save  only  his  sin,  these  attributes  being  body 
and  the  intelligent  and  rational  soul ;  and  fur- 
ther that  He  has,  corresponding  to  the  two 
natures,  the  two  sets  of  natural  qualities  be- 
longing to  the  two  natures :  two  natural  voli- 
tions, one  divine  and  one  human,  two  natural 
energies,  one  divine  and  one  human,  two  na- 
tural free-wills,  one  divine  and  one  human, 
and  two  kinds  of  wisdom  and  knowledge,  one 
divine  and  one  human.  For  being  of  like 
essence  with  God  and  the  Father,  He  wills 
and  energises  freely  as  God,  and  being  also 
of  like  essence  with  us  He  likewise  wills  and 
energises  freely  as  man.  For  His  are  the 
miracles  and  His  also  are  the  passive  states. 


1  i»i  U  absent  in  Vegelinus. 

*  oiKovoiiCai  Aoyoj,  by  reason  of  the  incarnation. 

Reading  yivofxtii,  for  which  Cod.  R.  2930  gives  virfn>\ov. 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

Concerning  the  volitions  and  free-wills  of  our 
Lord  fesus  Christ. 

Since,  then,  Christ  has  two  natures,  we  hold 
that  He  has  also  two  natural  wills  and  two 
natural  energies.  But  since  His  two  natures 
have  one  subsistence,  we  hold  that  it  is  one 
and  the  same  person  who  wills  and  energises 
naturally  in  both  natures,  of  which,  and  in 
which,  and  also  which  is  Christ  our  Lord : 
and  moreover  that  He  wills  and  energises 
without  separation  but  as  a  united  whole. 
For  He  wills  and  energises  in  either  form  in 
close  communion  with  the  other*.  For  things 
that  have  the  same  essence  have  also  the  same 
will  and  energy,  while  things  that  are  different 
in  essence  are  different  in  will  and  energy  s ; 
and  vice  versa,  things  that  have  the  same  will 
and  energy  have  the  same  essence,  while 
things  that  are  different  in  will  and  energy 
are  different  in  essence. 

Wherefore  6  in  the  case  of  the  Father  and 
Son  and  Holy  Spirit  we  recognise,  from  their 
sameness  in  will  and  energy,  their  sameness 
in  nature.  But  in  the  case  of  the  divine  dis- 
pensation 7  we  recognise  from  their  difference 
in  will  and  energy  the  difference  of  the  two 
natures,  and  as  we  perceive  the  difference 
of  the  two  natures  we  confess  that  the  wills 
and  energies  also  are  different.  For  just  as 
the  number  of  the  natures  of  one  and  the 
same  Christ,  when  considered  and  spoken  of 
with  piety,  do  not  cause  a  division  of  the  one 
Christ  but  merely  bring  out  the  fact  that  the 
difference  between  the  natures  is  maintained 
even  in  the  union,  so  it  is  with  the  number 
of  wills  and  energies  that  belong  essentially 
to  His  natures.  (For  He  was  endowed  with 
the  powers  of  willing  and  energising  in  both 
natures,  for  the  sake  of  our  salvation.)  It 
does  not  introduce  division  :  God  forbid  !  but 
merely  brings  out  the  fact  that  the  differences 
between  them  are  safe-guarded  and  preserved 
even  in  the  union.  For  we  hold  that  wills  and 
energies  are  faculties  belonging  to  nature,  not 
to  subsistence ;  I  mean  those  faculties  of  will 
and  energy  by  which  He  Who  wills  and  ener- 
gises does  so.  For  if  we  allow  that  they 
belong  to  subsistence,  we  will  be  forced  to  say 
that  the  three  subsistences  of  the  Holy  Trinity 
have  different  wills  and  different  energies. 

For  it  is  to  be  noted  8  that  willing  and  the 
manner  of  willing  are  not  the  same  thing. 
For  to  will   is  a  faculty   of  nature,  just   as 


4  Leo,  Epist.  10,  ad  Flavian. 

5  Max.,  Disp.  cum  Pyrrno, 

6  Supr.,  bk.  ii.  ch.  22. 

7  oixoeo^ia?,  incarnation. 

8  Max.,  Dial,  cum  Pyrrho  ;  Anatt.  in  'OS-ifyte,  ch.  6,  p.  40. 


58 


JOHN   OF  DAMASCUS. 


seeing  is,  for  all  men  possess  it ;  but  the 
manner  of  willing  does  not  depend  on  nature 
but  on  our  judgment,  just  as  does  also  the 
manner  of  seeing,  whether  well  or  ill.  For  all 
men  do  not  will  in  the  same  way,  nor  do  they 
all  see  in  the  same  way.  And  this  also  we 
will  grant  in  connection  with  energies.  For 
the  manner  of  willing,  or  seeing,  or  energising, 
is  the  mode  of  using  the  faculties  of  will  and 
sight  and  energy,  belonging  only  to  him  who 
uses  them,  and  marking  him  off  from  others 
by  the  generally  accepted  difference. 

Simple  willing  then  is  spoken  of  as  volition 
or  the  faculty  of  will  9,  being  a  rational  pro- 
pension  *  and  natural  will ;  but  in  a  particular 
way  willing,  or  that  which  underlies  volition, 
is  the  object  of  will 2,  and  will  dependent  on 
judgments.  Further  that  which  has  innate 
in  it  the  faculty  of  volition  is  spoken  of  as 
capable  of  willing*  :  as  for  instance  the  divine 
is  capable  of  willing,  and  the  human  in  like 
manner.  But  he  who  exercises  volition,  that 
is  to  say  the  subsistence,  for  instance  Peter, 
is  spoken  of  as  willing. 

Since,  thens,  Christ  is  one  and  His  sub- 
sistence is  one,  He  also  Who  wills  both  as 
God  and  as  man  is  one  and  the  same.  And 
since  He  has  two  natures  endowed  with  voli- 
tion, inasmuch  as  they  are  rational  (for  what- 
ever is  rational  is  endowed  with  volition  and 
free-will),  we  shall  postulate  two  volitions  or 
natural  wills  in  Him.  For  He  in  His  own 
person  is  capable  of  volition  in  accordance 
with  both  His  natures.  For  He  assumed  that 
faculty  of  volition  which  belongs  naturally 
to  us.  And  since  Christ,  Who  in  His  own 
person  wills  according  to  either  nature,  is  one, 
we  shall  postulate  the  same  object  of  will  in 
His  case,  not  as  though  He  wills  only  those 
things  which  He  willed  naturally  as  God  (for 
it  is  no  part  of  Godhead  to  will  to  eat  or  drink 
and  so  forth),  but  as  willing  also  those  things 
which  human  nature  requires  for  its  support  6, 
and  this  without  involving  any  opposition  in 
judgment,  but  simply  as  the  result  of  the 
individuality  of  the  natures.  For  then  it  was 
that  He  thus  willed  naturally,  when  His 
divine  volition  so  willed  and  permitted  the 
flesh  to  suffer  and  do  that  which  was  proper 
to  it. 

But  that  volition  is  implanted  in  man  by 
nature  i  is  manifest  from  this.  Excluding  the 
divine  life,  there  are  three  forms  of  life  :  the 
vegetative,  the  sentient,  and  the  intellectual. 

•  to  fiiv  an-Aut  Otktiv,  0tkT)<rit,  t/toi  i]  oVAijriicr)  ovya/i.if. 

•  opc£ic. 

•  6(  Atjtoi/,  willed,  the  thing  willed. 

3  0i\rjna  yvuifUKov,  dispositional  volition,  will  of  judgment. 

4  eeAr/Tiicov,  volitive.  Volitivum,  volitive,  is  the  Scholastic 
translation  0eArjTi»c6V. 

5  Max.,  Dial,  cum  Pyrrh.  6  Max.,  ibid. 
7  Max.,  ibid. 


The  properties  of  the  vegetative  life  are  the 
functions  of  nourishment,  and  growth,  and 
production  :  that  of  the  sentient  life  is  im- 
pulse :  and  that  of  the  rational  and  intellectual 
life  is  freedom  of  will.  If,  then,  nourishment 
belongs  by  nature  to  the  vegetative  life  and 
impulse  to  the  sentient,  freedom  of  will  by 
nature  belongs  to  the  rational  and  intellectual 
life.  But  freedom  of  will  is  nothing  else  than 
volition.  The  Word,  therefore,  having  be- 
come flesh,  endowed  with  life  and  mind  and 
free-will,  became  also  endowed  with  volition. 

Further,  that  which  is  natural  is  not  the 
result  of  training :  for  no  one  learns  how 
to  think,  or  live,  or  hunger,  or  thirst,  or  sleep. 
Nor  do  we  learn  how  to  will  :  so  that  willing 
is  natural. 

And  again:  if  in  the  case  of  creatures  devoid 
of  reason  nature  rules,  while  nature  is  ruled 
in  man  who  is  moved  of  his  own  free-will  and 
volition,  it  follows,  then,  that  man  is  by 
nature  endowed  with  volition. 

And  again:  if  man  has  been  made  after  the 
image  of  the  blessed  and  super-essential  God- 
head, and  if  the  divine  nature  is  by  nature 
endowed  with  free-will  and  volition,  it  follows 
that  man,  as  its  image,  is  free  by  nature  and 
volitive8.  For  the  fathers  defined  freedom  as 
volition  9. 

And  further :  if  to  will  is  a  part  of  the  nature 
of  every  man  and  not  present  in  some  and 
absent  in  others,  and  if  that  which  is  seen 
to  be  common  to  all  is  a  characteristic  feature 
of  the  nature  that  belongs  to  the  individuals 
of  the  class,  surely,  then,  man  is  by  nature 
endowed  with  volition  io. 

And  once  more :  if  the  nature  receives 
neither  more  nor  less,  but  all  are  equally 
endowed  with  volition  and  not  some  more 
than  others,  then  by  nature  man  is  endowed 
with  volition  io.  So  that  since  man  is  by  nature 
endowed  with  volition,  the  Lord  also  must 
be  by  nature  endowed  with  volition,  not  only 
because  He  is  God,  but  also  because  He 
became  man.  For  just  as  He  assumed  our 
nature,  so  also  He  has  assumed  naturally  our 
will.  And  in  this  way  the  Fathers  said  that 
He  formed  our  will  in  Himself". 

If  the  will  is  not  natural,  it  must  be  either 
hypostatic  or  unnatural.  But  if  it  is  hypo- 
static, the  Son  must  thus,  forsooth,  have  a 
different  will  from  what  the  Father  has  :  for 
that  which  is  hypostatic  is  characteristic 
of  subsistence  only.  And  if  it  is  unnatural, 
will   must   be  a  defection  from   nature  :    for 


8  6tKr)TiK<Ss,  endowed  with  volition. 

9  fle'Arjo-iS,  will.  10  6tkr)Tiic6f. 

11  icai  Kara  tovto  oi  TlaTtpts  to  i\f/.irnpav  iv  iavr<f  twjt<uo"<u 
avTov  e<f>r)(ra.i>  St  Arj/xa  :  and  according  to  this  the  Fathers  said 
that  He  typified,  moulded,  had  the  form  of  our  will  in  Himself. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


59 


what  is  unnatural  is  destructive  of  what  is 
natural. 

The  God  and  Father  of  all  things  wills 
either  as  Father  or  as  God.  Now  if  as  Father, 
His  will  will  be  different  from  that  of  the  Son, 
for  the  Son  is  not  the  Father.  But  if  as  God, 
the  Son  is  God  and  likewise  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  God,  and  so  volition  is  part  of  His  nature, 
that  is,  it  is  natural. 

Besides  ",  if  according  to  the  view  of  the 
Fathers,  those  who  have  one  and  the  same 
will  have  also  one  and  the  same  essence,  and 
if  the  divinity  and  humanity  of  Christ  have 
one  and  the  same  will,  then  assuredly  these 
have  also  one  and  the  same  essence. 

And  again  :  if  according  to  the  view  of  the 
Fathers  the  distinction  between  the  natures 
is  not  seen  in  the  single  will,  we  must  either, 
when  we  speak  of  the  one  will,  cease  to  speak 
of  the  different  natures  in  Christ  or,  when  we 
speak  of  the  different  natures  of  Christ,  cease 
to  speak  of  the  one  will. 

And  further x,  the  divine  Gospel  says,  The 
Lord  came  into  the  borders  of  Tyre  and  Sidon 
and  entered  into  a  house,  and  would  have  no 
man  knozv  it ;  but  He  could  not  be  hid*.  If, 
then,  His  divine  will  is  omnipotent,  but  yet, 
though  He  would,  He  could  not  be  hid,  surely 
it  was  as  man  that  He  would  and  could  not, 
and  so  as  man  He  must  be  endowed  with 
volition. 

And  once  again  3}  the  Gospel  tells  us  that, 
He,  having  come  into  the  place,  said  '  /  thirst '  .• 
and  they  gave  Him  some  vinegar  mixed  with  gall, 
and  when  He  had  tasted  it  He  would  not  drink  4. 
If,  then,  on  the  one  hand  it  was  as  God  that 
He  suffered  thirst  and  when  He  had  tasted 
would  not  drink,  surely  He  must  be  subject 
to  passion  s  also  as  God,  for  thirst  and  taste 
are  passions  6.  But  if  it  was  not  as  God  but 
altogether  as  man  that  He  was  athirst,  like- 
wise as  man  He  must  be  endowed  with  vo- 
lition 7. 

Moreover,  the  blessed  Paul  the  Apostle 
says,  He  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the 
death  of  the  cross  8.  But  obedience  is  subjec- 
tion of  the  real  will,  not  of  the  unreal  will. 
For  that  which  is  irrational  is  not  said  to 
be  obedient  or  disobedient  ?.  But  the  Lord 
having  become  obedient  to  the  Father,  be- 
came so  not  as  God  but  as  man.     For  as  God 


12  Greg.  Nyss.,  Cont.  Apollin.  and  others,  Act.  to,  sext.  syn. 
1  Max.,  Agalho  pap.  Epist.  Syn.  in  VI.  Syn.,  Act.  4. 
a  St.  Mark  vii.  24.  3  Max.,  ibid. 

4  St.  Matt,  xxvii.  33  and  34  ;  St.  John  xix.  28  and  29. 

5  ip.ira.erjs,  passible,  sensible,  possessed  of  sensibility. 

6  7ra#os,  sensibility. 

7  In  N.  is  added:  Kal  el  iv  rjj  T)|*e'pa  tou  n-aflous  \eyef 
Darep,  «t  Sviklt'ov,  vaoeKSeria  to  ironjpioi'  touto  air'  ip-ov.  UAtjv 
ovx  <i«  eyw  SeKut,  aAA  u»s  <rv.  'l&oii  Svo  flcAijo-eis,  Scikt)  ap.a  Kal 
av6puiriin). 

»  Phil.  ii.  8.  9  Max.,  ut  supr. 


He  is  not  said  to  be  obedient  or  disobedient. 
For  these  things  are  of  the  things  that  are 
under  one's  hand  ',  as  the  inspired  Gregorius 
said 2.  Wherefore,  then,  Christ  is  endowed 
with  volition  as  man. 

While,  however,  we  assert  that  will  is  natural, 
we  hold  not  that  it  is  dominated  by  necessity, 
but  that  it  is  free.  For  if  it  is  rational,  it 
must  be  absolutely  free.  For  it  is  not  only 
the  divine  and  uncreated  nature  that  is  free 
from  the  bonds  of  necessity,  but  also  the 
intellectual  and  created  nature.  And  this  is 
manifest  :  for  God,  being  by  nature  good  and 
being  by  nature  the  Creator  and  by  nature 
God,  is  not  all  this  of  necessity.  For  who 
is  there  to  introduce  this  necessity? 

It  is  to  be  observed  further  3,  that  free- 
dom of  will  is  used  in  several  senses,  one  in 
connection  with  God,  another  in  connection 
with  angels,  and  a  third  in  connection  with 
men.  For  used  in  reference  to  God  it  is 
to  be  understood  in  a  superessential  manner, 
and  in  reference  to  angels  it  is  to  be  taken 
in  the  sense  that  the  election  is  concomi- 
tant with  the  state*,  and  admits  of  the  in- 
terposition of  no  interval  of  time  at  all  :  for 
whde  the  angel  possesses  free-will  by  nature, 
he  uses  it  without  let  or  hindrance,  having 
neither  antipathy  on  the  part  of  the  body 
to  overcome  nor  any  assailant.  Again,  used 
in  reference  to  men,  it  is  to  be  taken  in  the 
sense  that  the  state  is  considered  to  be  an- 
terior in  time  to  the  election.  For  man  is 
free  and  has  free-will  by  nature,  but  he  has 
also  the  assault  of  the  devil  to  impede  him 
and  the  motion  of  the  body  :  and  thus  through 
the  assault  and  the  weight  of  the  body,  elec- 
tion comes  to  be  later  than  the  state. 

If,  then,  Adam  s  obeyed  of  his  own  will 
and  ate  of  his  own  will,  surely  in  us  the  will 
is  the  first  part  to  suffer.  And  if  the  will 
is  the  first  to  suffer,  and  the  Word  Incarnate 
did  not  assume  this  with  the  rest  of  our 
nature,  it  follows  that  we  have  not  been  freed 
from  sin. 

Moreover,  if  the  faculty  of  free-will  which 
is  in  nature  is  His  work  and  yet  He  did  not 
assume  it,  He  either  condemned  His  own 
workmanship  as  not  good,  or  grudged  us  the 
comfort  it  brought,  and  so  deprived  us  of  the 
full  benefit,  and  shewed  that  He  was  Himself 
subject  to  passion  since  He  was  not  willing 
or  not  able  to  work  out  our  perfect  salvation. 

Moreover,  one  cannot  speak  of  one  com- 


•  Tuiv  vtto  \e ipa  yap  ravra. 

*  Orat.  36,  some  distance  from  the  beginning. 

3  Max.,  Disp.  cum  Pyrrh. 

4  cos  o-ui'Tp«xo<'<'',)S  t;/  «£ct  TTJs  n-poxctp'o-eiot,  tht  choice,  or 
decision,  being  synchronous  with  the  moral  disposition. 

5  Max.,  Disp.  cum  Pyrrh. 


6o 


JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS. 


pound  thing  made  of  two  wills  in  the  same 
way  as  a  subsistence  is  a  composition  of  two 
natures.  Firstly  because  the  compositions  are 
of  things  in  subsistence  {hypostasis),  not  of 
things  viewed  in  a  different  category,  not  in 
one  proper  to  them6:  and  secondly,  because  if 
we  speak  of  composition  of  wills  and  energies, 
we  will  be  obliged  to  speak  of  composition 
of  the  other  natural  properties,  such  as  the 
uncreated  and  the  created,  the  invisible  and 
the  visible,  and  so  on.  And  what  will  be 
the  name  of  the  will  that  is  compounded 
out  of  two  wills?  For  the  compound  cannot 
be  called  by  the  name  of  the  elements  that 
make  it  up.  For  otherwise  we  should  call 
that  which  is  compounded  of  natures  nature 
and  not  subsistence.  And  further,  if  we  say 
that  there  is  one  compound  will  in  Christ,  we 
separate  Him  in  will  from  the  Father,  for 
the  Father's  will  is  not  compound.  It  re- 
mains, therefore,  to  say  that  the  subsistence 
of  Christ  alone  is  compound  and  common, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  natures  so  also  in  that 
of  the  natural  properties. 

And  we  cannot  ?,  if  we  wish  to  be  accurate, 
speak  of  Christ  as  having  judgment  (yvco^) 
and  preference8.  For  judgment  is  a  disposi- 
tion with  reference  to  the  decision  arrived  at 
after  investigation  and  deliberation  concerning 
something  unknown,  that  is  to  say,  after 
counsel  and  decision.  And  after  judgment 
comes  preferences,  which  chooses  out  and 
selects  the  one  rather  than  the  other.  But 
the  Lord  being  not  mere  man  but  also  God, 
and  knowing  all  things,  had  no  need  of  inquiry 
and  investigation,  and  counsel,  and  decision, 
and  by  nature  made  whatever  is  good  His 
own  and  whatever  is  bad  foreign  to  Him  l. 
For  thus  says  Isaiah  the  prophet,  Before  the 
child  shall  kfiow  to  prefer  the  evil,  he  shall  choose 
the  good  ;  because  before  the  child  knows  good  or 
evil,  he  refuses  wickedness  by  choosing  the  good  3. 
For  the  word  "before"  proves  that  it  is  not 
with  investigation  and  deliberation,  as  is  the 
way  with  us,  but  as  God  and  as  subsisting  in 
a  divine  manner  in  the  flesh,  that  is  to  say, 
being  united  in  subsistence  to  the  flesh,  and 
because  of  His  very  existence  and  all-embrac- 
ing knowledge,  that  He  is  possessed  of  good 
in  His  own  nature.  For  the  virtues  are 
natural  qualities  3,  and  are  implanted  in  all  by 
nature  and  in  equal  measure,  even  if  we  do 
not  all  in  equal  measure  employ  our  natural 
energies.    By  the  transgression  we  were  driven 


'  wpuTOv  tiiv,  oti  al  <rvv6t<reif  twv  iv  viroaTa.aei  ovtuiv,  koX 
tit  rmv  CTc'p<j>  A6yu>,  *ai  ovk  i&itp  Btupovnevuv  fiat. 

7  Max.,  Dial,  cum  Pyrrh.  8  Max.,  Epist.  ad  Marin. 

9  Trpoaipco-iv. 

*  Basil,  on  Ps.  xliv.,  or  rather  on  Isaiah  vii. 

2  Is.  vii.  i6,  sec,  LXX. 

3  <t>v<rixai  jj.iv  yap  tl(riv  ai  apercu  ;  cf.  Cicero,  Dc  leg.  I. 


from  the  natural  to  the  unnatural  ♦.  But  the 
Lord  led  us  back  from  the  unnatural  into  the 
natural s.  For  this  is  what  is  the  meaning  of 
in  our  image,  after  our  likeness6.  And  the 
discipline  and  trouble  of  this  life  were  not 
designed  as  a  means  for  our  attaining  virtue 
which  was  foreign  to  our  nature,  but  to  enable 
us  to  cast  aside  the  evil  that  was  foreign  and 
contrary  to  our  nature  :  just  as  on  laboriously 
removing  from  steel  the  rust  which  is  not 
natural  to  it  but  acquired  through  neglect, 
we  reveal  the  natural  brightness  of  the  steel. 

Observe  further  that  the  word  judgment 
(yv-j>fj.Tj)  is  used  in  many  ways  and  in  many 
senses.  Sometimes  it  signifies  exhortation  : 
as  when  the  divine  apostle  says,  Now  concern- 
ing virgins  I  have  no  commandment  of  the  Lord  ; 
yet  J  give  my  judgment  ? :  sometimes  it  means 
counsel,  as  when  the  prophet  David  says,  They 
have  taken  crafty  counsel  against  Thy  people  8  .• 
sometimes  it  means  a  decree,  as  when  we  read 
in  Daniel,  Concerning  whom  (or,  what)  went 
this  shameless  decree  forth  9  /  At  other  times 
it  is  used  in  the  sense  of  belief,  or  opinion, 
or  purpose,  and,  to  put  it  shortly,  the  word 
judgment  has  twenty-eight1  different  mean- 
ings. 

CHAPTER  XV. 

Concerning  the  energies  in  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ. 

We  hold,  further,  that  there  are  two  ener- 
gies a  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  For  He 
possesses  on  the  one  hand,  as  God  and  being 
of  like  essence  with  the  Father,  the  divine 
energy,  and,  likewise,  since  He  became  man 
and  of  like  essence  to  us,  the  energy  proper 
to  human  nature  3. 

But  observe  that  energy  and  capacity  for 
energy,  and  the  product  of  energy,  and  the 
agent  of  energy,  are  all  different.  Energy  is 
the  efficient  (fyacn-iAcr})  and  essential  activity  of 
nature  :  the  capacity  for  energy  is  the  nature 
from  which  proceeds  energy  :  the  product  of 
energy  is  that  which  is  effected  by  energy  :  and 
the  agent  of  energy  is  the  person  or  subsistence 
which  uses  the  energy.  Further,  sometimes 
energy  is  used  in  the  sense  of  the  product  of 
energy,  and  the  product  of  energy  in  that  of 
energy,  just  as  the  terms  creation  and  creature 
are  sometimes  transposed.  For  we  say  "all 
creation,"  meaning  creatures. 


4  Sufir.,  bk.  ii.,  ch.  30.  5  Max.,  Dial,  cum  Pyrrh. 

6  Gen.  i.  26.  7  1  Cor.  vii.  25.  8  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  3. 

9  Dan.  ii.  15.  irtpi  rivot  i£ijK6ti>  r)  •yvup-Tj  tj  avaiSr^t  octtj. 
In  our  A.V.,  Why  is  the  decree  so  hasty  from  the  king*. 

1  Text,  Kara.  «t<cotri  okt£»  :  Variants,  Kara  koivov,  xura  7roAv, 
secundum  multa  (old  trans.),  and  secundum  plurima  (Faber> 
Maximus  gave  28  meanings  of  •yvtifij. 

a  Cf.  Attatt.,  De  operationibus,  I.  ;  Joan.  Scyth,  Con.  Stvtr. 
VIII.,  &c. 

3  Supr.  bk.  ii. :  Max.,  Dial,  cum  Pyrrh. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


61 


Note  also  that  energy  is  an  activity  and  is 
energised  rather  than  energises  :  as  Gregory 
the  Theologian  says  in  his  thesis  concerning 
the  Holy  Spirit4:  "If  energy  exists,  it  must 
manifestly  be  energised  and  will  not  energise  : 
and  as  soon  as  it  has  been  energised,  it  will 
cease." 

Life  itself,  it  should  be  observed,  is  energy, 
yea,  the  primal  energy  of  the  living  creature  : 
and  so  is  the  whole  economy  of  the  living 
creature,  its  functions  of  nutrition  and  growth, 
that  is,  the  vegetative  side  of  its  nature,  and 
the  movement  stirred  by  impulse,  that  is,  the 
sentient  side,  and  its  activity  of  intellect  and 
free-will.  Energy,  moreover,  is  the  perfect 
realisation  of  power.  If,  then,  we  contem- 
plate all  these  in  Christ,  surely  we  must  also 
hold  that  He  possesses  human  energy. 

The  first  thought5  that  arises  in  us  is  called 
energy  :  and  it  is  simple  energy  not  involving 
any  relationship,  the  mind  sending  forth  the 
thoughts  peculiar  to  it  in  an  independent  and 
invisible  way,  for  if  it  did  not  do  so  it  could 
not  justly  be  called  mind.  Again,  the  reve- 
lation and  unfolding  of  thought  by  means 
of  articulate  speech  is  said  to  be  energy.  But 
this  is  no  longer  simple  energy  that  involves 
no  relationship,  but  it  is  considered  in  rela- 
tion as  being  composed  of  thought  and  speech. 
Further,  the  very  relation  which  he  who  does 
anything  bears  to  that  which  is  brought  about 
is  energy  :  and  the  very  thing  that  is  effected 
is  called  energy  6.  The  first  belongs  to  the 
soul  alone,  the  second  to  the  soul  making 
use  of  the  body,  the  third  to  the  body  ani- 
mated by  mind,  and  the  last  is  the  effect  7. 
For  the  mind  sees  beforehand  what  is  to  be 
and  then  performs  it  thus  by  means  of  the 
body.  And  so  the  hegemony  belongs  to  the 
soul,  for  it  uses  the  body  as  an  instrument, 
leading  and  restraining  it.  But  the  energy  of 
the  body  is  quite  different,  for  the  body  is  led 
and  moved  by  the  soul.  And  with  regard  to 
the  effect,  the  touching  and  handling  and,  so 
to  speak,  the  embrace  of  what  is  effected, 
belong  to  the  body,  while  the  figuration  and 
formation  belong  to  the  soul.  And  so  in 
connection  with  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
power  of  miracles  is  the  energy  of  His  divi- 
nity, while  the  work  of  His  hands  and  the 
willing  and  the  saying,  /  will,  be  thou  clean  8, 
are  the  energy  of  His  humanity.  And  as  to 
the  effect,  the  breaking  of  the  loaves'9,  and  the 
fact  that  the  leper  heard  the  "  I  will,"  belong  to 
His  humanity,  while  the  multiplication  of  the 


*  Orat.  37,  near  the  beginning. 

5  Anast.  Antioch.,  De  operationibus. 

6  icat  avrb  to  anoTfAovfJ^uov  ',  cf.  Max.,  ad  M&rin,  II. 

7  Max.  torn.  ii..  Dogma*,  ad  Marin.,  p.  124. 

8  St.  Matt.  viii.  3.  9  St.  John  vi.  11. 


loaves  and  the  purification  of  the  leper  be- 
long to  His  divinity.  For  through  both,  that 
is  through  the  energy  of  the  body  and  the 
energy  of  the  soul,  He  displayed  one  and  the 
same,  cognate  and  equal  divine  energy.  For 
just  as  we  saw  that  His  natures  were  united 
and  permeate  one  another,  and  yet  do  not 
deny  that  they  are  different  but  even  enu- 
merate them,  although  we  know  they  are 
inseparable,  so  also  in  connection  with  the 
wills  and  the  energies  we  know  their  union, 
and  we  recognise  their  difference  and  enu- 
merate them  without  introducing  separation. 
For  just  as  the  flesh  was  deified  without 
undergoing  change  in  its  own  nature,  in  the 
same  way  also  will  and  energy  are  deified 
without  transgressing  their  own  proper  limits. 
For  whether  He  is  the  one  or  the  other,  He  is 
one  and  the  same,  and  whether  He  wills  and 
energises  in  one  way  or  the  other,  that  is  as 
God  or  as  man,  He  is  one  and  the  same. 

We  must,  then,  maintain  that  Christ  has 
two  energies  in  virtue  of  His  double  nature. 
For  things  that  have  diverse  natures,  have  also 
different  energies,  and  things  that  have  diverse 
energies,  have  also  different  natures.  And  so 
conversely,  things  that  have  the  same  nature 
have  also  the  same  energy,  and  things  that 
have  one  and  the  same  energy  have  also  one 
and  the  same  essence  *,  which  is  the  view  of 
the  Fathers,  who  declare  the  divine  meaning2. 
One  of  these  alternatives,  then,  must  be  true  : 
either,  if  we  hold  that  Christ  has  one  energy, 
we  must  also  hold  that  He  has  but  one 
essence,  or,  if  we  are  solicitous  about  truth, 
and  confess  that  He  has  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Gospels  and  the  Fathers  two 
essences,  we  must  also  confess  that  He  has 
two  energies  corresponding  to  and  accom- 
panying them.  For  as  He  is  of  like  essence 
with  God  and  the  Father  in  divinity,  He  will 
be  His  equal  also  in  energy.  And  as  He  like- 
wise is  of  like  essence  with  us  in  humanity 
He  will  be  our  equal  also  in  energy.  For 
the  blessed  Gregory,  bishop  of  Nyssa,  says  3, 
"  Things  that  have  one  and  the  same  energy, 
have  also  absolutely  the  same  power."  For 
all  energy  is  the  effect  of  power.  But  it 
cannot  be  that  uncreated  and  created  nature 
have  one  and  the  same  nature  or  power  or 
energy.  But  if  we  should  hold  that  Christ 
has  but  one  energy,  we  should  attribute  to  the 
divinity  of  the  Word  the  passions  of  the 
intelligent  spirit,  viz.  fear  and  grief  and 
anguish. 

If  they  should  say*,  indeed,  that  the  holy 


•  See  Act.  10  sextae  synodi. 

2  Text,  Oejjybpous.     Variant,  0co4>6povt. 

3  Orat.  de  natura  et  hyp.     Also  in  Basil.  43. 

4  Max.,  Dial,  cum  Pyrrh, 


62 


JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS. 


Fathers  said  in  their  disputation  concerning 
the  Holy  Trinity,  "  Things  that  have  one  and 
the  same  essence  have  also  one  and  the  same 
energy,  and  things  which  have  different  es- 
sences have  also  different  energies,"  and  that 
it  is  not  right  to  transfer  to  the  dispensation 
what  has  reference  to  matters  of  theology,  we 
shall  answer  that  if  it  has  been  said  by  the 
Fathers  solely  with  reference  to  theology,  and 
if  the  Son  has  not  even  after  the  incarnation 
the  same  energy  as  the  Father  s?  assuredly  He 
cannot  have  the  same  essence.  But  to  whom 
shall  we  attribute  this,  My  Father  worketh 
hitherto  and  I  work  6  :  and  this,  What  things 
soever  He  seeth  the  Father  doing,  these  also 
doeth  the  Son  likewise  "> :  and  this,  If  ye  believe 
not  Me,  believe  My  works 8 ;  and  this,  The 
work  which  I  do  bear  witness  concerning  Me  9  : 
and  this,  As  the  Father  raised  up  the  dead 
and  quickeneth  them,  even  so  the  Son  quickeneth 
whom  He  will'1.  For  all  these  shew  not  only 
that  He  is  of  like  essence  to  the  Father  even 
after  the  incarnation,  but  that  He  has  also  the 
same  energy. 

And  again  :  if  the  providence  that  embraces 
all  creation  is  not  only  of  the  Father  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  but  also  of  the  Son  even 
after  the  incarnation,  assuredly  since  that  is 
energy,  He  must  have  even  after  the  incarna- 
tion the  same  energy  as  the  Father. 

But  if  we  have  learnt  from  the  miracles 
that  Christ  has  the  same  essence  as  the  Father, 
and  since  the  miracles  happen  to  be  the  energy 
of  God,  assuredly  He  must  have  even  after 
the  incarnation  the  same  energy  as  the  Father. 

But,  if  there  is  one  energy  belonging  to  both 
His  divinity  and  His  humanity,  it  will  be  com- 
pound, and  will  be  either  a  different  energy 
from  that  of  the  Father,  or  the  Father,  too, 
will  have  a  compound  energy.  But  if  the 
Father  has  a  compound  energy,  manifestly  He 
must  also  have  a  compound  nature. 

But  if  they  should  say  that  together  with 
energy  is  also  introduced  personality2,  we 
shall  reply  that  if  personality  is  introduced 
along  with  energy,  then  the  true  converse 
must  hold  good  that  energy  is  also  introduced 
along  with  personality ;  and  there  will  be  also 
three  energies  of  the  Holy  Trinity  just  as  there 
are  three  persons  or  subsistences,  or  there  will 
be  one  person  and  one  subsistence  just  as 
there  is  only  one  energy.  Indeed,  the  holy 
Fathers  have  maintained  with  one  voice  that 
things  that  have  the  same  essence  have  also 
the  same  energy. 

But  further,  if  personality  is  introduced 
along    with    energy,   those   who    divine    that 


5  Max.,  Dial,  cum  Pyrrk.       «  St.  John  v.  17.       7  Ibid.  19. 
«  Ibid.  x.  38.        9  Ibid.  v.  36.         '  Ibid.  21.         *  Max.,  ibid. 


neither  one  nor  two  energies  of  Christ  are 
to  be  spoken  of,  do  not  maintain  that  either 
one  or  two  persons  of  Christ  are  to  be 
spoken  of. 

Take  the  case  of  the  flaming  sword  ;  just 
as  in  it  the  natures  of  the  fire  and  the  steel 
are  preserved  distinct  3,  so  also  are  their  two 
energies  and  their  effects.  For  the  energy 
of  the  steel  is  its  cutting  power,  and  that 
of  the  fire  is  its  burning  power,  and  the  cut 
is  the  effect  of  the  energy  of  the  steel,  and 
the  burn  is  the  effect  of  the  energy  of  the 
fire :  and  these  are  kept  quite  distinct  in  the 
burnt  cut,  and  in  the  cut  burn,  although 
neither  does  the  burning  take  place  apart 
from  the  cut  after  the  union  of  the  two, 
nor  the  cut  apart  from  the  burning:  and 
we  do  not  maintain  on  account  of  the  two- 
fold natural  energy  that  there  are  two  flam- 
ing swords,  nor  do  we  confuse  the  essen- 
tial difference  of  the  energies  on  account  of 
the  unity  of  the  flaming  sword.  In  like  man- 
ner also,  in  the  case  of  Christ,  His  divinity 
possesses  an  energy  that  is  divine  and  om- 
nipotent while  His  humanity  has  an  energy 
such  as  is  our  own.  And  the  effect  of  His 
human  energy  was  His  taking  the  child  by 
the  hand  and  drawing  her  to  Himself,  while 
that  of  His  divine  energy  was  the  restoring 
of  her  to  life  4.  For  the  one  is  quite  distinct 
from  the  other,  although  they  are  inseparable 
from  one  another  in  theandric  energy.  But 
if,  because  Christ  has  one  subsistence,  He 
must  also  have  one  energy,  then,  because 
He  has  one  subsistence,  He  must  also  have 
one  essence. 

And  again :  if  we  should  hold  that  Christ 
has  but  one  energy,  this  must  be  either  divine 
or  human,  or  neither.  But  if  we  hold  that 
it  is  divine s,  we  must  maintain  that  He  is 
God  alone,  stripped  of  our  humanity.  And 
if  we  hold  that  it  is  human,  we  shall  be  guilty 
of  the  impiety  of  saying  that  He  is  mere  man. 
And  if  we  hold  that  it  is  neither  divine  nor 
human,  we  must  also  hold  that  He  is  neither 
God  nor  man,  of  like  essence  neither  to  the 
Father  nor  to  us.  For  it  is  as  a  result  of  the 
union  that  the  identity  in  hypostasis  arises, 
but  yet  the  difference  between  the  natures 
is  not  done  away  with.  But  since  the  differ- 
ence between  the  natures  is  preserved,  mani- 
festly also  the  energies  of  the  natures  will  be 
preserved.  For  no  nature  exists  that  is  lack- 
ing in  energy. 

If  Christ  our  Master  6  has  one  energy,  it 
must   be   either  created   or   uncreated  ;    for 


3  Maxim.,  lib.  De  duab.  vol.  et  Dial,  cum  Pyrrk, 

4  St.  Luke  viii.  54  ;  Max.,  Dial,  cum  Pyrrh. 

5  Max.,  ibid.  6  Max.,  ibid. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX   FAITH. 


63 


between  these  there  is  no  energy,  just  as 
there  is  no  nature.  If,  then,  it  is  created, 
it  will  point  to  created  nature  alone,  but  if 
it  is  uncreated,  it  will  betoken  uncreated 
essence  alone.  For  that  which  is  natural 
must  completely  correspond  with  its  nature  : 
for  there  cannot  exist  a  nature  that  is  defec- 
tive. But  the  energy  '  that  harmonises  with  na- 
ture does  not  belong  to  that  which  is  external : 
and  this  is  manifest  because,  apart  from  the 
energy  that  harmonises  with  nature,  no  nature 
can  either  exist  or  be  known.  For  through 
that  in  which  each  thing  manifests  its  energy, 
the  absence  of  change  confirms  its  own  proper 
nature. 

If  Christ  has  one  energy,  it  must  be  one 
and  the  same  energy  that  performs  both 
divine  and  human  actions.  But  there  is  no 
existing  thing  which  abiding  in  its  natural 
state  can  act  in  opposite  ways  :  for  fire  does 
not  freeze  and  boil,  nor  does  water  dry  up 
and  make  wet.  How  then  could  He  Who 
is  by  nature  God,  and  Who  became  by  nature 
man,  have  both  performed  miracles,  and  en- 
dured passions  with  one  and  the  same  energy? 

If,  then,  Christ  assumed  the  human  mind, 
that  is  to  say,  the  intelligent  and  reasonable 
soul,  undoubtedly  He  has  always  thought, 
and  will  think  for  ever.  But  thought  is  the 
energy  of  the  mind  :  and  so  Christ,  as  man, 
is  endowed  with  energy,  and  will  be  so  for 
ever. 

Indeed,  the  most  wise  and  great  and  holy 
John  Chrysostom  says  in  his  interpretation 
of  the  Acts,  in  the  second  discourse8,  "One 
would  not  err  if  he  should  call  even  His 
passion  action  :  for  in  that  He  suffered  all 
things,  He  accomplished  that  great  and  mar- 
vellous work,  the  overthrow  of  death,  and 
all  His  other  works." 

If  all  energy  is  defined  as  essential  move- 
ment of  some  nature,  as  those  who  are  versed 
in  these  matters  say,  where  does  one  perceive 
any  nature  that  has  no  movement,  and  is  com- 
pletely devoid  of  energy,  or  where  does  one 
find  energy  that  is  not  movement  of  natural 
power?  But,  as  the  blessed  Cyril  says 9,  no 
one  in  his  senses  could  admit  that  there 
was  but  one  natural  energy  of  God  and 
His  creation  K  It  is  not  His  human  nature 
that  raises  up  Lazarus  from  the  dead,  nor  is 
it  His  divine  power  that  sheds  tears  :  for  the 
shedding  of  tears  is  peculiar  to  human  nature 
while  the  life  is  peculiar  to  the  enhypostatic 


7  Text,  i)  Se  Kara.  <f>v<rtv  ivepyeia.     Variant,  ei  Si. 
•  Horn.  1. 

9  £hes-'  xxxii  '  ch*  2  '<  Act-  ioi  sextae  Synodi. 

1  The  Monotheletes  made  much  of  the  case  of  the  raising  of 
the  daughterof  Jairus.  See  Cyril,  In  Joan.,  p.  35!  ;  Max.,  Dial, 
cum  Pyrrk.,  Epist.  ad  Nicand.,  Epist.  ad  Mon.  Sicil. ;  Scho- 
liast in  Collect,  cont.  Severum,  ch.  20. 


life.  But  yet  they  are  common  the  one 
to  the  other,  because  of  the  identity  in 
subsistence.  For  Christ  is  one,  and  one  also 
is  His  person  or  subsistence,  but  yet  He 
has  two  natures,  one  belonging  to  His  hu- 
manity, and  another  belonging  to  His  divinity. 
And  the  glory,  indeed,  which  proceeded  na- 
turally from  His  divinity  became  common  to 
both  through  the  identity  in  subsistence,  and 
again  on  account  of  His  flesh  that  which  was 
lowly  became  common  to  both.  For  He  Who 
is  the  one  or  the  other,  that  is  God  or  man,  is 
one  and  the  same,  and  both  what  is  divine 
and  what  is  human  belong  to  Himself.  For 
while  His  divinity  performed  the  miracles, 
they  were  not  done  apart  from  the  flesh,  and 
while  His  flesh  performed  its  lowly  offices, 
they  were  not  done  apart  from  the  divinity. 
For  His  divinity  was  joined  to  the  suffering 
flesh,  yet  remaining  without  passion,  and  en- 
dured the  saving  passions,  and  the  holy  mind 
was  joined  to  the  energising  divinity  of  the 
Word,  perceiving  and  knowing  what  was 
being  accomplished. 

And  thus  His  divinity  communicates  its  own 
glories  to  the  body  while  it  remains  itself 
without  part  in  the  sufferings  of  the  flesh. 
For  His  flesh  did  not  suffer  through  His  di- 
vinity in  the  same  way  that  His  divinity  en- 
ergised through  the  flesh.  For  the  flesh  acted 
as  the  instrument  of  His  divinity.  Although, 
therefore,  from  the  first  conception  there  was 
no  division  at  all  between  the  two  forms2,  but 
the  actions  of  either  form  through  all  the 
time  became  those  of  one  person,  nevertheless 
we  do  not  in  any  way  confuse  those  things 
that  took  place  without  separation,  but  recog- 
nise from  the  quality  of  its  works  what  sort 
of  form  anything  has. 

Christ,  then,  energises  according  to  both 
His  natures  3,  and  either  nature  energises  in 
Him  in  communion  with  the  other,  the  Word 
performing  through  the  authority  and  power  of 
its  divinity  all  the  actions  proper  to  the  Word, 
i.e.  all  acts  of  supremacy  and  sovereignty, 
and  the  body  performing  all  the  actions  proper 
to  the  body,  in  obedience  to  the  will  of  the 
Word  that  is  united  to  it,  and  of  whom  it 
has  become  a  distinct  part.  For  He  was 
not  moved  of  Himself  to  the  natural  pas- 
sions *,  nor  again  did  He  in  that  way  recoil 
from  the  things  of  pain,  and  pray  for  release 
from  them,  or  suffer  what  befel  from  without, 
but  He  was  moved  in  conformity  with  His 
nature,  the  Word  willing  and  allowing  Him 
ceconomicallys  to  suffer  that,  and  to  do  the 


a  oiKoi/ofiis,  in  incarnate  form.  3  Leo,  Epist.  cit. 

,  *  °y  7*p,  *^1  ia-VTOv  irpos  ii  tpvcriKa.  naOr)  tiji/  6pfijji<  ciroteiTO, 
ovS   avTT)i/  tK  tuiv  Au;r7)pa>i/  aif>opiJ.qi>  icai  Trapairi)<riv. 
5  The  term  is  nopiprj,  as  in  Phil.  ii.  6,  7. 


64 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


things  proper  to   Him,  that  the  truth  might 
be  confirmed  by  the  works  of  nature. 

Moreover,  just  as  6  He  received  in  His  birth 
of  a  virgin  superessential  essence,  so  also  He 
revealed  His  human  energy  in  a  superhuman 
way,  walking  with  earthly  feet  on  unstable 
water,  not  by  turning  the  water  into  earth, 
out  by  causing  it  in  the  superabundant  power 
of  His  divinity  not  to  flow  away  nor  yield 
beneath  the  weight  of  material  feet.  For  not 
in  a  merely  human  way  did  He  do  human 
things :  for  He  was  not  only  man,  but  also 
God,  and  so  even  His  sufferings  brought  life 
and  salvation :  nor  yet  did  He  energise  as 
God,  strictly  after  the  manner  of  God,  for  He 
was  not  only  God,  but  also  man,  and  so  it 
was  by  touch  and  word  and  such  like  that  He 
worked  miracles. 

But  if  any  one  '  should  say,  "We  do  not  say 
that  Christ  has  but  one  nature,  in  order  to  do 
away  with  His  human  energy,  but  we  do  so  be- 
cause 8  human  energy,  in  opposition  to  divine 
energy,  is  called  passion  (nurdo?),"  we  shall  an- 
swer that,  according  to  this  reasoning,  those  also 
who  hold  that  He  has  but  one  nature  do  not 
maintain  this  with  a  view  to  doing  away  with 
His  human  nature,  but  because  human  nature 
in  opposition  to  divine  nature  is  spoken  of 
as  passible  (nadr)TiKr]).  But  God  forbid  that 
we  should  call  the  human  activity  passion, 
when  we  are  distinguishing  it  from  divine 
energy.  For,  to  speak  generally,  of  nothing 
is  the  existence  recognised  or  defined  by  com- 
parison or  collation.  If  it  were  so,  indeed, 
existing  things  would  turn  out  to  be  mutually 
the  one  the  cause  of  the  other.  For  if  the 
human  activity  is  passion  because  the  divine 
activity  is  energy,  assuredly  also  the  human  na- 
ture must  be  wicked  because  the  divine  nature 
is  good,  and,  by  conversion  and  opposition, 
if  the  divine  activity  is  called  energy  because 
the  human  activity  is  called  passion,  then  also 
the  divine  nature  must  be  good  because  the 
human  nature  is  bad.  And  so  all  created 
things  must  be  bad,  and  he  must  have  spoken 
falsely  who  said,  And  God  saw  every  thing 
that  He  had  made,  and,  behold,  it  was  very 
good '9. 

We,  therefore,  maintain J  that  the  holy 
Fathers  gave  various  names  to  the  human 
activity  according  to  the  underlying  notion. 
For  they  called  it  power,  and  energy,  and  dif- 
ference, and  activity,  and  property,  and  quality, 
and  passion,  not  in  distinction  from  the  divine 
activity,  but  power,  because  it  is  a  conservative 


*  Dion.,  ch.  2,  De  div.  notn.  et  Epist.  4. 
1  Max.,  Dial,  cum  Pyrrh. 

*  See  the  reply  of  Maximus  in  the  Dialogue  cum  Pyrrh. 
9  Gen.  i.  31. 

1  Max.,  Opusc.  Polem.,  pp.  31,  32. 


and  invariable  force  ;  and  energy,  because  it  is 
a  distinguishing  mark,  and  reveals  the  abso- 
lute similaritv  between  all  things  of  the  same 
class  ;  and  difference,  because  it  distinguishes  ; 
and  activity,  because  it  makes  manifest ;  and 
property,  because  it  is  constituent  and  belongs 
to  that  alone,  and  not  to  any  other ;  and 
quality,  because  it  gives  form ;  and  passion, 
because  it  is  moved.  For  all  things  that  are 
of  God  and  after  God  suffer  in  respect  of 
being  moved,  forasmuch  as  they  have  not 
in  themselves  motion  or  power.  Therefore, 
as  has  been  said,  it  is  not  in  order  to  dis- 
tinguish the  one  from  the  other  that  it  has 
been  named,  but  it  is  in  accordance  with  the 
plan  implanted  in  it  in  a  creative  manner  by 
the  Cause  that  framed  the  universe.  Where- 
fore, also,  when  they  spoke  of  it  along  with 
the  divine  nature  they  called  it  energy.  For 
he  who  said,  "  For  either  form  energises 
close  communion  with  the  other  2,"  did  some- 
thing quite  different  from  him  who  said,  And 
when  He  had  fasted  forty  days,  He  was  after- 
wards an  hungered  * :  (for  He  allowed  His  na- 
ture to  energise  when  it  so  willed,  in  the  way 
proper  to  itself'*,)  or  from  those  who  hold 
there  is  a  different  energy  in  Him  or  that 
He  has  a  twofold  energy,  or  now  one  energy 
and  now  another5.  For  these  statements 
with  the  change  in  terms  sa  signify  the  two 
energies.  Indeed,  often  the  number  is  indi- 
cated both  by  change  of  terms  and  by  speak- 
ing of  them  as  divine  and  human  6.  For  the 
difference  is  difference  in  differing  things,  but 
how  do  things  that  do  not  exist  differ? 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

In  reply  to  those  who  say  ?,  "  If  man  has  two 
natures  and  two  energies,  Christ  must  be 
held  to  have  three  natures  and  as  many 
energies." 

Each  individual  man,  since  he  is  composed 
of  two  natures,  soul  and  body,  and  since  these 
natures  are  unchangeable  in  him,  could  ap- 
propriately be  spoken  of  as  two  natures  :  for 
he  preserves  even  after  their  union  the  natu- 
ral properties  of  either.  For  the  body  is  not 
immortal,  but  corruptible ;  neither  is  the  soul 
mortal,  but  immortal :  and  the  body  is  not 
invisible  nor  the  soul  visible  to  bodily  eyes : 
but  the  soul  is  rational  and  intellectual,  and 
incorporeal,  while  the  body  is  dense  and 
visible,  and  irrational.  But  things  that  are 
opposed  to  one  another  in  essence  have  not 


•  Leo,  Epist.  10.  3  St.  Matt.  iv.  a. 

4  Nyss.,  adv.  Apoll.  5  Chrysost.,  Horn,  in  S.  Thorn, 

5»  Si'  acTwm/iiaj.  6  Cyril,  in  Joan.,  bk.  viiu 

7  This  is  directed  to  another  argument  of  the  Severians.     Cf. 
Leont.,  De  Sect.,  j,  Conlr.  Nest,  et  Eutych.,  I. 


EXPOSITION   OF   THE   ORTHODOX   FAITH. 


65 


one   nature,   and,  therefore,    soul   and    body 
cannot  have  one  essence 

And  again:  if  man  is  a  rational  and  mortal 
animal,  and  every  definition  is  explanatory 
of  the  underlying  natures,  and  the  rational 
is  not  the  same  as  the  mortal  according  to 
the  plan  of  nature,  man  then  certainly  cannot 
have  one  nature,  according  to  the  rule  of 
his  own  definition. 

But  if  mail  should  at  any  time  be  said  to 
have  one  nature,  the  word  'nature"  is  here 
used  instead  of  "  species,"  as  when  we  say 
that  man  does  not  differ  from  man  in  any 
difference  of  nature.  But  since  all  men  are 
fashioned  in  the  same  way,  and  are  composed 
of  soul  and  body,  and  each  has  two  distinct 
natures,  they  are  all  brought  under  one  defini- 
tion. And  this  is  not  unreasonable,  for  the 
holy  Athanasius  spake  of  all  created  things 
as  having  one  nature  forasmuch  as  they  were 
all  produced,  expressing  himself  thus  in  his 
Oration  against  those  who  blasphemed  the 
Holy  Spirit :  "  That  the  Holy  Spirit  is  above 
all  creation,  and  different  from  the  nature  of 
things  produced  and  peculiar  to  divinity,  we 
mav  again  perceive.  For  whatever  is  seen 
to  be  common  to  many  things,  and  not  more 
in  one  and  less  in  another,  is  called  essence  8. 
Since,  then,  every  man  is  composed  of  soul 
and  body,  accordingly  we  speak  of  man  as 
having  one  nature.  But  we  cannot  speak 
of  our  Lord's  subsistence  as  one  nature :  for 
each  nature  preserves,  even  after  the  union, 
its  natural  properties,  nor  can  we  find  a  class 
of  Christs.  For  no  other  Christ  was  born 
both  of  divinity  and  of  humanity  to  be  at  once 
God  and  man." 

And  again  :  man's  unity  in  species  is  not 
the  same  thing  as  the  unity  of  soul  and  body 
in  essence.  For  man's  unity  in  species  makes 
clear  the  absolute  similarity  between  all  men, 
while  the  unity  of  soul  and  body  in  essence 
is  an  insult  to  their  very  existence,  and  re- 
duces them  to  nothingness:  for  either  the 
one  must  change  into  the  essence  of  the  other, 
or  from  different  things  something  different 
must  be  produced,  and  so  both  would  be 
changed,  or  if  they  keep  to  their  own  proper 
limits  there  must  be  two  natures.  For,  as 
regards  the  nature  of  essence  the  corporeal 
is  not  the  same  as  the  incorporeal.  There- 
lore,  although  holding  that  man  has  one 
nature,  not  because  the  essential  quality  of 
his  soul  and  that  of  his  body  are  the  same, 
but  because  the  individuals  included  under 
the  species  are  exactly  the  same,  it  is  not 
necessary  for  us  to  maintain  that  Christ  also 


has  one  nature,  for  in  this  case  there  is  no 
species  embracing  many  subsistences. 

Moreover,  every  compound  9  is  said  to 
be  composed  of  what  immediately  composes 
it.  For  we  do  not  say  that  a  house  is  com- 
posed of  earth  and  water,  but  of  bricks  and 
timber.  Otherwise,  it  would  be  necessary  to 
speak  of  man  as  composed  of  at  least  five 
things,  viz.,  the  four  elements  and  soul.  And 
so  also,  in  the  case  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
we  do  not  look  at  the  parts  of  the  parts,  but 
at  those  divisions  of  which  He  is  immediately 
composed,  viz.,  divinity  and  humanity 

And  further,  if  by  saying  that  man  has  two 
natures  we  are  obliged  to  hold  that  Christ 
has  three,  you,  too,  by  saying  that  man  is  com- 
posed of  two  natures  must  hold  that  Christ 
is  composed  of  three  natures:  and  it  is  just 
the  same  with  the  energies.  For  energy  must 
correspond  with  nature :  and  Gregory  the 
Theologian  bears  witness  that  man  is  said  to 
have  and  has  two  natures,  saying,  "  God  and 
man  are  two  natures,  since,  indeed,  soul  and 
body  also  are  two  natures  I."  And  in  his 
discourse  "  Concerning  Baptism  "  he  says, 
"  Since  we  consist  of  two  parts,  soul  and  body, 
the  visible  and  the  invisible  nature,  the  purifi- 
cation is  likewise  twofold,  that  is,  by  water 
and  Spirit '." 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

Concerning  the  deification  of  the  fiature  of  our 
Lord's  flesh  and  of  His  will. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  3  that  the  flesh  of  the 
Lord  is  not  said  to  have  been  deified  and 
made  equal  to  God  and  God  in  respect  of 
any  change  or  alteration,  or  transformation, 
or  confusion  of  nature  :  as  Gregory  the  Theo- 
logian *  says,  "Whereof  the  one  deified,  and 
the  other  was  deified,  and,  to  speak  boldly, 
made  equal  to  God  :  and  that  which  anointed 
became  man,  and  that  which  was  anointed  be- 
came God5."  For  these  words  do  not  mean 
any  change  in  nature,  but  rather  the  ceconomi- 
cal  union  (I  mean  the  union  in  subsistence  by 
virtue  of  which  it  was  united  inseparably  with 
God  the  Word),  and  the  permeation  of  the  na- 
tures through  one  another,  just  as  we  saw  that 
burning  permeated  the  steel.  For,  just  as  we 
confess  that  God  became  man  without  change 
or  alteration,  so  we  consider  that  the  flesh 
became  God  without  change.  For  because 
the  Word  became  flesh,  He  did  not  overstep 
the  limits  of  His  own  divinity  nor  abandon 


8  Epist.  %  ad  Strap.,  towards  the  end;    Cclltct.,  as  above 
t.  19. 

VOL.  IX.  a  a 


9  Anast.,  Collect.,  ch.  19.  '  Epist.  i,  ad  Cledon. 

3  Orat.  4.  not  far  from  the  beginning. 

3  Cf.  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  38.  39,  42,  51;  Niceph.,  C.P.  mdv. 
£p.  Euseb.,  c.  50;  Euthym.,  Panopl.,  II.  7. 

4  Greg.,  Orat.  42. 

5  Id.,  Orat.  39  ;  Max.  bk.  De  duabus  voluntatibus. 


66 


JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS. 


the  divine  glories  that  belong  to  Him  :  nor, 
on  the  other  hand,  was  the  flesh,  when  deified, 
changed  in  its  own  nature  or  in  its  natural  pro- 
perties. For  even  after  the  union,  both  the 
natures  abode  unconfused  and  their  proper- 
ties unimpaired.  But  the  flesh  of  the  Lord 
received  the  riches  of  the  divine  energies 
through  the  purest  union  with  the  Word,  that 
is  to  say,  the  union  in  subsistence,  without 
entailing  the  loss  of  any  of  its  natural  attri- 
butes. For  it  is  not  in  virtue  of  any  energy 
of  its  own  but  through  the  Word  united  to  it, 
that  it  manifests  divine  energy :  for  the  flam- 
ing steel  burns,  not  because  it  has  been  en- 
dowed in  a  physical  way  with  burning  energy, 
but  because  it  has  obtained  this  energy  by  its 
union  with  fire  6. 

Wherefore  the  same  flesh  was  mortal  by 
reason  of  its  own  nature  and  life-giving  through 
its  union  with  the  Word  in  subsistence.  And 
we  hold  that  it  is  just  the  same  with  the 
deification  of  the  will  i ;  for  its  natural  activity 
was  not  changed  but  united  with  His  divine 
and  omnipotent  will,  and  became  the  will 
of  God,  made  man  8.  And  so  it  was  that, 
though  He  wished,  He  could  not  of  Himself 
escape?,  because  it  pleased  God  the  Word 
that  the  weakness  of  the  human  will,  which 
was  in  truth  in  Him,  should  be  made  manifest. 
But  He  was  able  to  cause  at  His  will  the 
cleansing  of  the  leper  r,  because  of  the  union 
with  the  divine  will. 

Observe  further,  that  the  deification  of  the 
nature  and  the  will  points  most  expressly  and 
most  directly  both  to  two  natures  and  two 
wills.  For  just  as  the  burning  does  not  change 
into  fire  the  nature  of  the  thing  that  is  burnt, 
but  makes  distinct  both  what  is  burnt,  and 
what  burned  it,  and  is  indicative  not  of  one 
but  of  two  natures,  so  also  the  deification 
does  not  bring  about  one  compound  nature 
but  two,  and  their  union  in  subsistence.  Gre- 
gory the  Theologian,  indeed,  says,  "Whereof 
the  one  deified,  the  other  was  deified 2,"  and 
by  the  words  "  whereof,"  "  the  one,"  "  the 
other,"  he  assuredly  indicates  two  natures. 

CHAPTER   XVIII. 

Further   concerning  volitions    and  free -wills : 
minds,  too,  and  knoivledges  and  wisdoms. 

When  we  say  that  Christ  is  perfect  God3 
and  perfect  man,  we  assuredly  attribute  to 
Him  all  the  properties  natural  to  both  the 
lather   and   mother.     For  He   became   man 


6  Max  ,  E/iist.  ad  Nicandr.  7  Greg-  Naz. ,  Orat.  36. 

8  Ibid.  35,  p.  595.  9  St.  Mark  vii.  24. 

1  St.  Matt.  viii.  3.  a  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat   42. 

3  Again. t  the  Apollinarians  and  the  Monothdetes.    Cf.  Max., 
Ut  su//a,  11    p.  151. 


in  order  that  that  which  was  overcome  might 
overcome.  For  He  Who  was  omnipotent  did 
not  in  His  omnipotent  authority  and  might 
lack  the  power  to  rescue  man  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  tyrant.  But  the  tyrant  would 
have  had  a  ground  of  complaint  if,  after  He 
had  overcome  man,  God  should  have  used 
force  against  him.  Wherefore  God  in  His 
pity  and  love  for  man  wished  to  reveal  fallen 
man  himself  as  conqueror,  and  became  man 
to  restore  like  with  like. 

But  that  man  is  a  rational  and  intelligent 
animal,  no  one  will  deny.  How,  then,  could 
He  have  become  man  if  He  took  on  Himself 
flesh  without  soul,  or  soul  without  mind  ? 
For  that  is  not  man.  Again,  what  benefit 
would  His  becoming  man  have  been  to  us 
if  He  Who  suffered  first  was  not  saved,  nor 
renewed  and  strengthened  by  the  union  with 
divinity?  For  that  which  is  not  assumed  is 
not  remedied.  He,  therefore,  assumed  the 
whole  man,  even  the  fairest  part  of  him,  which 
had  become  diseased,  in  order  that  He  might 
bestow  salvation  on  the  whole.  And,  indeed, 
there  could  never  exist  a  mind  that  had  not 
wisdom  and  was  destitute  of  knowledge.  For 
if  it  has  not  energy  or  motion,  it  is  utterly 
reduced  to  nothingness. 

Therefore,  God  the  Word*,  wishing  to  re- 
store that  which  was  in  His  own  image,  be- 
came man.  But  what  is  that  which  was  in 
His  own  image,  unless  mind?  So  He  gave 
up  the  better  and  assumed  the  worse.  For 
mind 5  is  in  the  border-land  between  God  and 
flesh,  for  it  dwells  indeed  in  fellowship  with 
the  flesh,  and  is,  moreover,  the  image  of  God. 
Mind,  then,  mingles  with  mind,  and  mind 
holds  a  place  midway  between  the  pureness 
of  God  and  the  denseness  of  flesh.  For  if 
the  Lord  assumed  a  soul  without  mind,  He 
assumed  the  soul  of  an  irrational  animal. 

But  if  the  Evangelist  said  that  the  Word 
was  made  flesh  6,  note  that  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture sometimes  a  man  is  spoken  of  as  a  soul, 
as,  for  example,  with  seventy-five  souls  came 
Jacob  into  Egypt1 :  and  sometimes  a  man  is 
spoken  of  as  flesh,  as,  for  example,  All  flesh 
shall  see  the  salvation  of  Gods.  And  accord- 
ingly the  Lord  did  not  become  flesh  without 
soul  or  mind,  but  man.  He  says,  indeed, 
Himself,  Why  seek  ye  to  kill  Me,  a  Man  that 
hath  told  you  the  truth  9 1  He,  therefore, 
assumed  flesh  animated  with  the  spirit  of 
reason   and    mind,  a   spirit   that  holds   sway 


4  Greg.  Naz.,  Carm.  sen.  adv.  Apollin.,  Epist.  added.,  and 
elsewhere. 

5  Sue  also  ch.  6  above,  and  Gregory's  lines  against  the  ApoU 
linarians. 

6  St.  John  i.  14. 

7  Gen.  xlvi.  27,  ap.  LXX. ;  Acts  vii.  14. 

8  Is.  xl._s  ;  St.  Luke  iii.  6.  °  St.  John  riti.  40. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


67 


over  the  flesh  but  Is  itself  under  the  dominion 
of  the  divinity  of  the  Word. 

So,  then,  He  had  by  nature,  both  as  God 
and  as  man,  the  power  of  will.  But  His 
human  will  was  obedient  and  subordinate  to 
His  divine  will,  not  being  guided  by  its  own 
inclination,  but  willing  those  things  which 
the  divine  will  willed.  For  it  was  with  the 
permission  of  the  divine  will  that  He  suffered 
by  nature  what  was  proper  to  Him r.  For 
when  He  prayed  that  He  might  escape  the 
death,  it  was  with  His  divine  will  naturally 
willing  and  permitting  it  that  He  did  so  pray 
and  agonize  and  fear,  and  again  when  His 
divine  will  willed  that  His  human  will  should 
choose  the  death,  the  passion  became  volun- 
tary to  Him  2.  For  it  was  not  as  God  only, 
but  also  as  man,  that  He  voluntarily  sur- 
rendered Himself  to  the  death.  And  thus 
He  bestowed  on  us  also  courage  in  the  face 
of  death.  So,  indeed,  He  said  before  His 
saving  passion,  Fa/he?;  if  it  be  possible,  let  this 
cup  pass  from  Me*,"  manifestly  as  though 
He  were  to  drink  the  cup  as  man  and  not 
as  God.  It  was  as  man,  then,  that  He  wished 
the  cup  to  pass  from  Him  :  but  these  are  the 
words  of  natural  timidity.  Nevertheless,  He 
said,  not  My  will,  that  is  to  say,  not  in  so  far 
as  I  am  of  a  different  essence  from  Thee, 
but  Thy  will  be  done*,  that  is  to  say,  My  will 
and  Thy  will,  in  so  far  as  I  am  of  the  same 
essence  as  Thou.  Now  these  are  the  words 
of  a  brave  heart.  For  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord, 
since  He  truly  became  man  in  His  good 
pleasure,  on  first  testing  its  natural  weakness 
was  sensible  of  the  natural  fellow-suffering 
involved  in  its  separation  from  the  body,  but 
being  strengthened  by  the  divine  will  it  again 
grew  bold  in  the  face  of  death.  For  since 
He  was  Himself  wholly  God  although  also 
man,  and  wholly  man  although  also  God, 
He  Himself  as  man  subjected  in  Himself 
and  by  Himself  His  human  nature  to  God 
and  the  Father,  and  became  obedient  to 
the  Father,  thus  making  Himself  the  most 
excellent  type  and  example  for  us. 

Of  His  own  free-will,  moreover,  He  exer- 
cised His  divine  and  human  will.  For  free- 
will is  assuredly  implanted  in  every  rational 
nature.  For  to  what  end  would  it  possess 
reason,  if  it  could  not  reason  at  its  own  free- 
will? For  the  Creator  hath  implanted  even 
in  the  unreasoning  brutes  natural  appetite 
to  compel  them  to  sustain  their  own  nature. 
For  devoid  of  reason,  as  they  are,  they  cannot 
guide  their  natural  appetite  but  are  guided 


»  Sophron.,  Epist.  Synod. 

3  See  Cyril,  In  Joann.,  ch.  x. 

a  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  39  ;  St.  Luke  xxii.  22. 


4  Ibid. 


by  it.  And  so,  as  soon  as  the  appetite  for 
anything  has  sprung  up,  straightway  arises 
also  the  impulse  for  action.  And  thus  they 
do  not  win  praise  or  happiness  for  pursuing 
virtue,  nor  punishment  for  doing  evil.  But 
the  rational  nature,  although  it  does  possess 
a  natural  appetite,  can  guide  and  train  it 
by  reason  wherever  the  laws  of  nature  are 
observed.  For  the  advantage  of  reason  con- 
sists in  this,  the  free-will,  by  which  we  mean 
natural  activity  in  a  rational  subject.  Where- 
fore in  pursuing  virtue  it  wins  praise  and 
happiness,  and  in  pursuing  vice  it  wins  punish- 
ment. 

So  that  the  soul  s  of  the  Lord  being  moved 
of  its  own  free-will  willed,  but  willed  of  its 
free-will  those  things  which  His  divine  will 
willed  it  to  will.  For  the  flesh  was  not  moved 
at  a  sign  from  the  Word,  as  Moses  and  all 
the  holy  men  were  moved  at  a  sign  from 
heaven.  But  He  Himself,  Who  was  one  and 
yet  both  God  and  man,  willed  according  to 
both  His  divine  and  His  human  will.  Where- 
fore it  was  not  in  inclination  but  rather  in 
natural  power  that  the  two  wills  of  the  Lord 
differed  from  one  another.  For  His  divine 
will  was  without  beginning  and  all-effecting, 
as  having  power  that  kept  pace  with  it,  and 
free  from  passion ;  while  His  human  will  had 
a  beginning  in  time,  and  itself  endured  the 
natural  and  innocent  passions,  and  was  not 
naturally  omnipotent.  But  yet  it  was  omni- 
potent because  it  truly  and  naturally  had  its 
origin  in  the  God- Word. 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

Concerning  the  theandric  energy. 

When  the  blessed  Dionysius6  says  that 
Christ  exhibited  to  us  some  sort  of  novel 
theandric  energy  7,  he  does  not  do  away  with 
the  natural  energies  by  saying  that  one  energy 
resulted  from  the  union  of  the  divine  with 
the  human  energy  :  for  in  the  same  way  we 
could  speak  of  one  new  nature  resulting  from 
the  union  of  the  divine  with  the  human 
nature.  For,  according  to  the  holy  Fathers, 
things  that  have  one  energy  have  also  one 
essence.  But  he  wished  to  indicate  the  novel 
and  ineffable  manner  in  which  the  natural 
energies  of  Christ  manifest  themselves,  a  man- 
ner befitting  the  ineffable  manner  in  which 
the  natures  of  Christ  mutually  permeate  one 
another,  and  further  how  strange  and  wonder- 
ful and,  in  the  nature  of  things,  unknown  was 
His  life  as   man  8,  and  lastly  the  manner  of 

5  Max.,  Dial,  cum  Pyrrh.  ;  Greg.  Naz-,  Ef.  I,  ad Cledon. 

6  Dionys.,  Epist.  4,  ad  Caium. 

7  See  Severus,  Ep.  3,  ad  Joann.  Hegum.  ;  Anastas.  Sinai:., 
Hodegus,  p.  240.  8  Max.,  Dial,  cum  Pyrrh. 


A  a  2 


68 


JOHN    OF    DAMASCUS. 


the  mutual  interchange  arising  from  the  in- 
effable union.  For  we  hold  that  the  energies 
are  not  divided  and  that  the  natures  do  not 
energise  separately,  but  that  each  conjointly 
in  complete  community  with  the  other  ener- 
gises with  its  own  proper  energy  9.  For  the 
human  part  did  not  energise  merely  in  a 
human  manner,  for  He  was  not  mere  man  ; 
nor  did  the  divine  part  energise  only  after 
the  manner  of  God,  for  He  was  not  simply 
God,  but  He  was  at  once  God  and  man.  For 
just  as  in  the  case  of  natures  we  recognise 
both  their  union  and  their  natural  difference, 
so  is  it  also  with  the  natural  wills  and  en- 
ergies. 

Note,  therefore,  that  in  the  case  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  we  speak  sometimes  of 
His  two  natures  and  sometimes  of  His  one 
person  :  and  the  one  or  the  other  is  referred 
to  one  conception.  For  the  two  natures  are 
one  Christ,  and  the  one  Christ  is  two  natures. 
Wherefore  it  is  all  the  same  whether  we  say 
"  Christ  energises  according  to  either  of  His 
natures,"  or  "  either  nature  energises  in  Christ 
in  communion  with  the  other."  The  divine 
nature,  then,  has  communion  with  the  flesh 
in  its  energising,  because  it  is  by  the  good 
pleasure  of  the  divine  will  that  the  flesh  is 
permitted  to  suffer  and  do  the  things  proper 
to  itself,  and  because  the  energy  of  the  flesh 
is  altogether  saving,  and  this  is  an  attribute 
not  of  human  but  of  divine  energy.  On  the 
other  hand  the  flesh  has  communion  with  the 
divinity  of  the  Word  in  its  energising,  because 
the  divine  energies  are  performed,  so  to  speak, 
through  the  organ  of  the  body,  and  because 
He  Who  energises  at  once  as  God  and  man 
is  one  and  the  same. 

Further  observe J  that  His  holy  mind  also 
performs  its  natural  energies,  thinking  and 
knowing  that  it  is  God's  mind  and  that  it  is 
worshipped  by  all  creation,  and  remembering 
the  times  He  spent  on  earth  and  all  He  suf- 
fered, but  it  has  communion  with  the  divinity 
of  the  Word  in  its  energising  and  orders  and 
governs  the  universe,  thinking  and  knowing 
and  ordering  not  as  the  mere  mind  of  man, 
but  as  united  in  subsistence  with  God  and 
acting  as  the  mind  of  God. 

This,  then,  the  theandric  energy  makes 
plain  that  when  God  became  man,  that  is 
when  He  became  incarnate,  both  His  human 
energy  was  divine,  that  is  deified,  and  not 
without  part  in  His  divine  energy,  and  His 
divine  energy  was  not  without  part  in  His 
human    energy,  but    either  was    observed    in 


9  Leo,  Epist.  i  ad  Flav. 

1  Perhaps  from  Joann.  Scythop.,  bk.  viii. ;  cf.  Niceph.,  C.  P. 
Antirrn.,  1 1 1 .  59. 


conjunction  with  the  other.  Now  this  manner 
of  speaking  is  called  a  periphrasis,  viz.,  when 
one  embraces  two  things  in  one  statement 2. 
For  just  as  in  the  case  of  the  flaming  sword 
we  speak  of  the  cut  burn  as  one,  and  the  burnt 
cut  as  one,  but  still  hold  that  the  cut  and 
the  burn  have  different  energies  and  different 
natures,  the  burn  having  the  nature  of  fire  and 
the  cut  the  nature  of  steel,  in  the  same  way 
also  when  we  speak  of  one  theandric  energy 
of  Christ,  we  understand  two  distinct  eneigies 
of  His  two  natures,  a  divine  energy  belonging 
to  His  divinity,  and  a  human  energy  belonging 
to  His  humanity. 

CHAPTER  XX. 

Concerning  the  natural  and  innocent  passions  2a. 

We  confess  3,  then,  that  He  assumed  all  the 
natural  and  innocent  passions  of  man.  For 
He  assumed  the  whole  man  and  all  man's 
attributes  save  sin.  For  that  is  not  natural, 
nor  is  it  implanted  in  us  by  the  Creator,  buc 
arises  voluntarily  in  our  mode  of  life  as  the 
result  of  a  further  implantation  by  the  devil, 
though  it  cannot  prevail  over  us  by  force. 
For  the  natural  and  innocent  passions  are 
those  which  are  not  in  our  power,  but  which 
have  entered  into  the  life  of  man  owing  to 
the  condemnation  by  reason  of  the  trans- 
gression ;  such  as  hunger,  thirst,  weariness, 
labour,  the  tears,  the  corruption,  the  shrink- 
ing from  death,  the  fear,  the  agony  with  the 
bloody  sweat,  the  succour  at  the  hands  of 
angels  because  of  the  weakness  of  the  nature, 
and  other  such  like  passions  which  belong  by 
nature  to  every  man. 

All,  then,  He  assumed  that  He  might 
sanctify  all.  He  was  tried  and  overcame  in 
order  that  He  might  prepare  victory  for  us 
and  give  to  nature  power  to  overcome  its 
antagonist,  in  order  that  nature  which  was 
overcome  of  old  might  overcome  its  former 
conqueror  by  the  very  weapons  wherewith  it 
had  itself  been  overcome. 

The  wicked  one*,  then,  made  his  assault 
from  without,  not  by  thoughts  prompted  in- 
wardly, just  as  it  was  with  Adam.  For  it  was 
not  by  inward  thoughts,  but  by  the  serpent 
that  Adam  was  assailed.  But  the  Lord  re- 
pulsed the  assault  and  dispelled  it  like  vapour, 
in  order  that  the  passions  which  assailed  him 
and  were  overcome  might  be  easily  subdued 
by  us,  and  that  the  new  Adam  should  save 
the  old. 


2  Max.,  Dogm.  ad  Marin.,  p.  43. 
21  Or,  sensibilities. 

3  Cf.  Greg.  .Vyss.,  Contr.  Apoll. ;  Leant.,  De  Sect.,  Act.  10; 
Anastas.,  Hodegus,  13,  &c. 

*  Cf.  Atnanas.,  De  Salut.  Adventu  Christi. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


69 


Of  a  truth  our  natural  passions  were  in 
harmony  with  nature  and  above  nature  in 
Christ.  For  they  were  stirred  in  Him  after 
a  natural  manner  when  He  permitted  the  flesh 
to  suffer  what  was  proper  to  it :  but  they  were 
above  nature  because  that  which  was  natural 
did  not  in  the  Lord  assume  command  over 
the  will.  For  no  compulsion  is  contemplated 
in  Him  but  all  is  voluntary.  For  it  was  with 
His  will  that  He  hungered  and  thirsted  anil 
feared  and  died. 

CHAPTER   XXI. 

Concerning  ignorance  and  servitude. 

He  assumed,  it  is  to  be  noted 5,  the  ignorant 
and  servile  nature6.  For  it  is  man's  nature 
to  be  the  servant  of  God,  his  Creator,  and  he 
does  not  possess  knowledge  of  the  future.  If, 
then,  as  Gregory  the  Theologian  holds,  you 
are  to  separate  the  realm  of  sight  from  the 
realm  of  thought,  the  flesh  is  to  be  spoken  of 
as  both  servile  and  ignorant,  but  on  account 
of  the  identity  of  subsistence  and  the  insepar- 
able union  the  soul  of  the  Lord  was  enriched 
with  the  knowledge  of  the  future  as  also  with 
the  other  miraculous  powers.  For  just  as  the 
flesh  of  men  is  not  in  its  own  nature  life-giving, 
while  the  flesh  of  our  Lord  which  was  united 
in  subsistence  with  God  the  Word  Himself, 
although  it  was  not  exempt  from  the  mortality 
of  its  nature,  yet  became  life-giving  through 
its  union  in  subsistence  with  the  Word,  and 
we  may  not  say  that  it  was  not  and  is  not  for 
ever  life-giving  :  in  like  manner  His  human 
nature  does  not  in  essence  possess  the  know- 
ledge of  the  future,  but  the  soul  of  the  Lord 
through  its  union  with  God  the  Word  Himself 
and  its  identity  in  subsistence  was  enriched, 
as  I  said,  with  the  knowledge  of  the  future  as 
well  as  with  the  other  miraculous  powers. 

Observe  further  ^  that  we  may  not  speak 
of  Him  as  servant.  For  the  words  servitude 
and  mastership  are  not  marks  of  nature  but 
indicate  relationship,  to  something,  such  as 
that  of  fatherhood  and  sonship.  For  these  do 
not  signify  essence  but  relation. 

It  is  just  as  we  said,  then,  in  connection  with 
ignorance,  that  if  you  separate  with  subtle 
thoughts,  that  is,  with  fine  imaginings,  the 
created  from  the  uncreated,  the  flesh  is  a  ser- 
vant, unless  it  has  been  united  with  God  ,the 
Word8.     But  how  can  it  be  a  servant  when 


5  Greg-  Naz.,  Orat.  36. 

6  Photius,  Cod.  230  ;  Eulog.,  bk.  x.,  Ep.  35 ;  Sop/iron.,  Ep. 
ad  Serg. ;   Leant.,  De  Sect.,  Act.  10. 

7  Cf.  Sop/iron.,  Ep.  ad.  Serg.,  who  refers  to  the  Duliani 
'Aov\iavoi);  the  opinions  of  Felix  anil  Elipandas,  condemned 
at  the  Synod  of  Frankfort;  and  Thomas  Aquinas,  HI.,  Qutest. 
20,  Art.  1. 

8  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  24- 


t  is  once  united  in  subsistence?  For  since 
Christ  is  one,  He  cannot  be  His  own  servant 
and  Lord.  For  these  are  not  simple  predica- 
tions but  relative.  Whose  servant,  then,  could 
He  be  ?  His  Father's  ?  The  Son,  then,  would 
not  have  all  the  Father's  attributes,  if  He  is 
the  Father's  servant  and  yet  in  no  respect  His 
own.  Besides,  how  could  the  apostle  say  con- 
cerning us  who  were  adopted  by  Him,  So  that 
you  are  no  longer  a  servant  but  a  son  9,  if  indeed 
He  is  Himself  a  servant  ?  The  word  servant, 
then,  is  used  merely  as  a  title,  though  not  in 
the  strict  meaning :  but  for  our  sakes  He 
assumed  the  form  of  a  servant  and  is  called 
a  servant  among  us.  For  although  He  is 
without  passion,  yet  for  our  sake  He  was  the 
servant  of  passion  and  became  the  minister 
of  our  salvation.  Those,  then,  who  say  that 
He  is  a  servant  divide  the  one  Christ  into 
two,  just  as  Nestorius  did.  But  we  declare 
Him  to  be  Master  and  Lord  of  all  creation, 
the  one  Christ,  at  once  God  and  man,  and 
all-knowing.  For  in  Him  are  all  the  treasures 
of  wisdom  and  knowledge,  I  fie  hidden  treasures  '. 

CHAPTER   XXII. 

Concerning  His  growth. 

He  is,  moreover,  said  to  grow  in  wisdom  and 
age  and  grace  2,  increasing  in  age  indeed  and 
through  the  increase  in  age  manifesting  the 
wisdom  that  is  in  Him  3 ;  yea,  further,  making 
men's  progress  in  wisdom  and  grace,  and  the 
fulfilment  of  the  Father's  goodwill,  that  is  to 
say,  men's  knowledge  of  God  and  men's  sal- 
vation, His  own  increase,  and  everywhere 
taking  as  His  own  that  which  is  ours.  But 
those  who  hold  that  He  progressed  in  wisdom 
and  grace  in  the  sense  of  receiving  some  addi- 
tion to  these  attributes,  do  not  say  that  the 
union  took  place  at  the  first  origin  of  the  flesh, 
nor  yet  do  they  give  precedence  to  the  union 
in  subsistence,  but  giving  heed  +  to  the  foolish 
Nestorius  they  imagine  some  strange  relative 
union  and  mere  indwelling,  understanding 
neither  what  they  say  nor  whereof  they  ajjirm  5. 
For  if  in  truth  the  flesh  was  united  with  God 
the  Word  from  its  first  origin,  or  rather  if 
it  existed  in  Him  and  was  identical  in  sub- 
sistence with  Him,  how  was  it  that  it  was  not 
endowed  completely  with  all  wisdom  and 
grace  ?  not  that  it  might  itself  participate  in 
the  grace,  nor  share  by  grace  in  what  belonged 
to  the  Word,  but  rather  by  reason  of  the  union 
in  subsistence,  since  both  what  is  human  and 

9  Gal.  iv.  7.  i  Col.  ii.  3.  a  St.  Luke  ii.  52. 

3  Athanas.,  Contr.  Arian.,  bk.  iv.  ;  Greg.  Naz.,  Ep.  I.  ad 
Cled.,  and  Orat.  20;  Cyril,  Contr.  Nest.,  bk.  iii. ;  Greg.  Nyss.. 
Contr.  Apoll.,  II.  28,  &c. 

4  Text  has  ireidonu  :  surely  it  should  be  ireidonevoi. 

5  1  Tim.  i.  1. 


7o 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


what  is  divine  belong  to  the  one  Christ,  and 
that  He  Who  was  Himself  at  once  God  and 
man  should  pour  forth  like  a  fountain  over 
the  universe  His  grace  and  wisdom  and  pleni- 
tude of  every  blessing. 

CHAPTER    XXIII. 
Concerning  His  Fear. 

The  word  fear  has  a  double  meaning.  For 
fear  is  natural  when  the  soul  is  unwilling  to  be 
separated  from  the  body,  on  account  of  the 
natural  sympathy  and  close  relationship  im 
planted  in  it  in  the  beginning  by  the  Creator, 
which  makes  it  fear  and  struggle  against  death 
and  pray  for  an  escape  from  it.  It  may  be 
defined  thus :  natural  fear  is  the  force  whereby 
we  cling  to  being  with  shrinking  6.  For  if  all 
things  were  brought  by  the  Creator  out  of 
.nothing  into  being,  they  all  have  by  nature 
a  longing  after  being  and  not  after  non-being. 
Moreover  the  inclination  towards  those  things 
that  support  existence  is  a  natural  property 
of  them.  Hence  God  the  Word  when  He 
became  man  had  this  longing,  manifesting,  on 
the  one  hand,  in  those  things  that  support 
existence,  the  inclination  of  His  nature  in 
desiring  food  and  drink  and  sleep,  and  having 
in  a  natural  manner  made  proof  of  these  things, 
while  on  the  other  hand  displaying  in  those 
things  that  bring  corruption  His  natural  dis- 
inclination in  voluntarily  shrinking  in  the  hour 
of  His  passion  before  the  face  of  death.  For 
although  what  happened  did  so  according  to 
the  laws  of  nature,  yet  it  was  not,  as  in  our 
case,  a  matter  of  necessity.  For  He  willingly 
and  spontaneously  accepted  that  which  was 
natural.  So  that  fear  itself  and  terror  and 
agony  belong  to  the  natural  and  innocent  pas- 
sions and  are  not  under  the  dominion  of  sin. 

Again,  there  is  a  fear  which  arises  from 
treachery  of  reasoning  and  want  of  faith,  and 
ignorance  of  the  hour  of  death,  as  when  we 
are  at  night  affected  by  fear  at  some  chance 
noise.  This  is  unnatural  fear,  and  may  be 
thus  defined  :  unnatural  fear  is  an  unexpected 
shrinking.  This  our  Lord  did  not  assume. 
Hence  He  never  felt  fear  except  in  the  hour 
of  His  passion,  although  He  often  experienced 
a  feeling  of  shrinking  in  accordance  with  the 
dispensation.  For  He  was  not  ignorant  of 
the  appointed  time. 

But  the  holy  Athanasius  in  his  discourse 
against  Apollinarius  says  that  He  did  actually 
feel  fear.  "  Wherefore  the  Lord  said :  Now 
is  My  soul  troubled"].  The  '  now  '  indeed  means 
just  'when  He  willed,'  but  yet  points  to  what 
actually  was.     For  He  did  not  speak  of  what 


*  Max.,  Dial,  cum  Pyrrh. 


7  St.  John  xii.  27. 


was  not,  as  though  it  were  present,  as  if  the 
things  that  were  said  only  apparently  hap- 
pened. For  all  things  happened  naturally 
and  actually."  And  again,  after  some  other 
matters,  he  says,  "  In  nowise  does  His  divinity 
admit  passion  apart  from  a  suffering  body, 
nor  yet  does  it  manifest  trouble  and  pain 
apart  from  a  pained  and  troubled  soul,  nor 
does  it  suffer  anguish  and  offer  up  prayer 
apart  from  a  mind  that  suffered  anguish  and 
offered  up  prayer.  For,  although  these  oc- 
currences were  not  due  to  any  overthrow  of 
nature,  yet  they  took  place  to  shew  forth 
His  real  being  8."  The  words  "  these  occur- 
rences were  not  due  to  any  overthrow  of  His 
nature,"  prove  that  it  was  not  involuntarily 
that  He  endured  these  things. 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

Concerning  our  Lord's  Praying. 

Prayer  is  an  uprising  of  the  mind  to  God 
or  a  petitioning  of  God  for  what  is  fitting. 
How  then  did  it  happen  that  our  Lord  offered 
up  prayer  in  the  case  of  Lazarus,  and  at  the 
hour  of  His  passion  ?  For  His  holy  mind 
was  in  no  need  either  of  any  uprising  towards 
God,  since  it  had  been  once  and  for  all  united 
in  subsistence  with  the  God  Word,  or  of  any 
petitioning  of  God.  For  Christ  is  one.  But 
it  was  because  He  appropriated  to  Himself 
our  personality  and  took  our  impress  on  Him- 
self, and  became  an  ensample  for  us,  and 
taught  us  to  ask  of  God  and  strain  towards 
Him,  and  guided  us  through  His  own  holy 
mind  in  the  way  that  leads  up  to  God.  For 
just  as  He  9  endured  the  passion,  achieving 
for  our  sakes  a  triumph  over  it,  so  also  He 
offered  up  prayer,  guiding  us,  as  I  said,  in  the 
way  that  leads  up  to  God,  and  "fulfilling  all 
righteousness1"  on  our  behalf,  as  He  said 
to  John,  and  reconciling  His  Father  to  us, 
and  honouring  Him  as  the  beginning  and 
cause,  and  proving  that  He  is  no  enemy 
of  God.  For  when  He  said  in  connection 
with  Lazarus,  Father,  I  thank  Thee  that  Thou 
hast  heard  Me.  And  I  knoiv  that  Thou  hearest 
Me  always,  but  because  of  the  people  which  stand 
by  I  said  it,  that  they  may  believe  that  Thou 
hast  sent  Me  2,  is  it  not  most  manifest  to  all 
that  He  said  this  in  honour  of  His  Father 
as  the  cause  even  of  Himself,  and  to  shew 
that  He  was  no  enemy  of  God  3  ? 

Again,  when  he  said,  Father,  if  it  be  possible, 
let  this  cup  pass  from  Me :  yet,  not  as  I  will 


8  S.  Athanas.,  Dc  salutari  adventu  Christi,  contra  Afioliina* 
rem,  towards  the  end. 

9  St.  .Matt.,  Greg.  Naz  ,  Orat.  36.  »  St.  Matt.  iii.  15. 

2  St.  John  xi.  42. 

3  Greg.  .Vaz.,  Orat.  42  ;  Chyrs.,  Horn.  63  in  Joan. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


71 


but  as  Thou  wilt  4,  is  it  not  clear  to  all  s  that 
He  said-  this  as  a  lesson  to  us   to  ask   help 
in   our  trials  only  from   God,  and   to  prefer 
'      God's  will  to  our  own,  and  as  a  proof  that  He 
did  actually  appropriate  to  Himself  the  attri- 
butes of  our  nature,  and  that  He  did  in  truth 
possess  two  wills,  natural,  indeed,  and  corre- 
sponding with  His  natures  but  yet  in  no  wise 
opposed  to  one  another?     "Father"  implies 
that  He  is  of  the  same  essence,  but  "  if  it 
be  possible"  does   not    mean  that   He  was 
in  ignorance  (for  what  is  impossible  to  God  ?), 
but  serves  to   teach  us  to  prefer  God's  will 
to   our   own.     For  that  alone   is  impossible 
which  is  against  God's  will  and  permission  6. 
"But  not  as  I   will  but  as  Thou  wilt,"  for 
inasmuch   as   He   is    God,   He   is    identical 
with   the    Father,   while   inasmuch   as   He  is 
man,  He  manifests  the  natural  will   of  man- 
kind.    For  it  is  this  that  naturally  seeks  escape 
from  death. 

Further,  these  words,  Mv  God,  My  God, 
why  hast  Thou  forsaken  Mei ,  He  said  as 
making  our  personality  His  own8.  For  nei- 
ther would  God  be  regarded  with  us  as  His 
Father,  unless  one  were  to  discriminate  with 
subtle  imaginings  of  the  mind  between  that 
which  is  seen  and  that  which  is  thought,  nor 
was  He  ever  forsaken  by  His  divinity  :  nay, 
it  was  we  who  were  forsaken  and  disregarded! 
So  that  it  was  as  appropriating  our  personality 
that  He  offered  these  prayers?. 


one  of  us.     Such   is    the   meaning  in    which 
this  phrase  is  to  be  taken  :  Being  made  a  curse 
for  our  sakes  3. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

Concerning  the  Appropriation. 
It  is  to  be  observed  x  that  there  are  two 
appropriations  2 :    one  that  is  natural  and  es- 
sential, and  one  that  is  personal  and  relative. 
The  natural  and  essential  one  is  that  by  which 
our  Lord  in  His  love  for  man  took  on  Himself 
our  nature  and  all  our  natural  attributes,  be- 
coming in  nature  and  truth  man,  and  making 
trial  of  that  which  is  natural :  but  the  personal 
and  relative  appropriation  is  when  any  one 
assumes  the  person  of  another  relatively,  for 
instance,  out  of  pity  or  love,  and  in  his  place 
utters  words  concerning  him  that  have  no  con- 
nection with  himself.     And  it  was  in  this  way 
that  our  Lord   appropriated   both   our   curse 
and  our  desertion,  and  such  other  things  as 
are    not  natural :    not  that   He  Himself  was 
or  became  such,  but  that  He  took  upon  Him- 
self our  personality  and   ranked  Himself  as 


4  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  39.         S  Chyrs.  in  Cat.  in  St.  Matt.  xxvi. 
6  Greg.,  Oral.  36.  7  St.  Matt,  xxvii.  46. 

8  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  36;  Cyril,  Dt  recta  Jide ;    Athanas., 
Qontr.  Artan.,  bk.  iv. 

9  Greg.  Nyss.,  Orat.  38. 

«  Max.  ad  Marin,  in  tolut.  x  dubit.  Theod. 

•  Greg.  Nax.,  Orat.  36  ;  Athanat.,  De  Saiut.  adv.  Chriiti. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

Concerning  the   Passion  of  our  Lord's   body, 

and  the  Impassibility  of  His  divinity. 

The  Word  of  God  then  itself  endured  all 
in  the  flesh,  while  His  divine  nature  which 
alone  was  passionless  remained  void  of  pas- 
sion. For  since  the  one  Christ,  Who  is  a 
compound  of  divinity  and  humanity,  and 
exists  in  divinity  and  humanity,  truly  suffered, 
that  part  which  is  capable  of  passion  suffered' 
as  it  was  natural  it  should,  but  that  part  which 
was  void  of  passion  did  not  share  in  the 
suffering.  For  the  soul,  indeed,  since  it  is 
capable  of  passion  shares  in  the  pain  and 
suffering  of  a  bodily  cut,  though  it  is  not 
cut  itself  but  only  the  body  :  but  the  divine 
part  which  is  void  of  passion  does  not  share 
in  the  suffering  of  the  body. 

Observe,   further  4,  that   we   say  that   God 
suffered   in    the   flesh,    but    never    that    His 
divinity   suffered   in    the  flesh,  or   that    God 
suffered  through  the  flesh.     For  if,  when  the 
sun   is  shining  upon  a  tree,  the  axe  should 
cleave  the   tree,  and,    nevertheless,   the  sun 
remains   uncleft   and  void  of  passion,  much 
more  will  the  passionless  divinity  of  the  Word, 
united  in   subsistence    to    the   flesh,   remain 
void   of  passion    when   the   body   undergoes 
passion  s.     And  should  any  one  pour   water 
over  flaming  steel,  it  is  that  which  naturally 
suffers  by  the  water,  I  mean,  the  fire,   that 
is  quenched,  but  the  steel  remains  untouched 
(for  it  is  not  the  nature  of  steel  to  be  destroyed 
by  water) :  much  more,  then,  when  the  flesh 
suffered  did  His  only  passionless  divinity  es- 
cape all  passion  although  abiding  inseparable 
from  it.     For  one  must  not  take  the  examples 
too   absolutely  and    strictly:    indeed,  in    the 
examples,    one    must   consider   both  what  is 
like  and  what  is    unlike,  otherwise  it  would 
not  be  an   example.     For,  if  they  were  like 
in  all  respects  they  would  be  identities,  and 
not  examples,  and  all  the  more  so  in  dealing 
with    divine    matters.     For  one    cannot   find 
an  example  that  is  like  in  all  respects  whether 
we  are  dealing  with  theology  or  the  dispensa- 
tion. 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

Concerning  the  fact  that   the  divinity  of  the 
Word  remained  inseparable  from  the  soul 


3  Gal.  iii.  15.  4  Photiut,  Ced.  46. 

5  A  than.,  De  salut.  adv.  Chritti. 


72 


JOHN    OF    DAMASCUS. 


and  the  body,  even  at  our  Lord's  death,  and 
that  His  subsistence  continued  one. 

Since  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  without 
sin  (for  He  committed  no  sin,  He  Who  took 
away  the  sin  of  the  world,  nor  tvas  there  any 
deceit  found  in  His  mouth6)  He  was  not  sub- 
ject to  death,  since  death  came  into  the  world 
through  sin  ?.  He  dies,  therefore,  because 
He  took  on  Himself  death  on  our  behalf, 
and  He  makes  Himself  an  ottering  to  the 
Father  for  our  sakes.  For  we  had  sinned 
against  Him,  and  it  was  meet  that  He  should 
receive  the  ransom  for  us,  and  that  we  should 
thus  be  delivered  from  the  condemnation. 
God  forbid  that  the  blood  of  the  Lord  should 
have  been  offered  to  the  tyrant 8.  Wherefore 
death  approaches,  and  swallowing  up  the  body 
as  a  bait  is  transfixed  on  the  hook  of  divinity, 
and  after  tasting  of  a  sinless  and  life-giving 
body,  perishes,  and  brings  up  again  all  whom 
of  old  he  swallowed  up.  For  just  as  darkness 
disappears  on  the  introduction  of  light,  so 
is  death  repulsed  before  the  assault  of  life, 
and  brings  life  to  all,  but  death  to  the  de- 
stroyer. 

Wherefore,  although  9  He  died  as  man  and 
His  Holy  Spirit  was  severed  from  His  im- 
maculate body,  yet  His  divinity  remained 
inseparable  from  both,  I  mean,  from  His 
soul  and  His  body,  and  so  even  thus  His 
one  hypostasis  was  not  divided  into  two 
hypostases.  For  body  and  soul  received 
simultaneously  in  the  beginning  their  being  in 
the  subsistence^  of  the  Word,  and  although 
they  were  severed  from  one  another  by  death, 
yet  they  continued,  each  of  them,  having  the 
one  subsistence  of  the  Word.  So  that  the  one 
subsistence  of  the  Word  is  alike  the  subsist- 
ence of  the  Word,  and  of  soul  and  body. 
For  at  no  time  had  either  soul  or  body  a 
separate  subsistence  of  their  own,  different 
from  that  of  the  Word,  and  the  subsistence 
of  the  Word  is  for  ever  one,  and  at  no  time 
two.  So  that  The  subsistence  of  Christ  is 
always  one.  For,  although  the  soul  was 
separated  from  the  body  topically,  yet  hy- 
postatically  they  were  united  through  the 
Word. 

CHAPTER  XXVIII, 

Concerning  Corruption  and  Destruction. 

The  word  corruption1  has  two  meanings2. 
For  it  signifies  all  the  human  sufferings,  such 


6  Is.  liii.  9  ;  St.  John  i.  29.  7  Rom.  v.  12. 

8  Greg.,  Orat.  t,->. 

9  Cf.  Epipli.,  Uteres.  69;  Greg.  Nyss.,  Contr.  Eunom.,  II. 
p.  55-  .     , 

9a  v.-roovacris,  hypostasis. 

«  Leant.  De  >  io,  and  Dial.  cont.  Aphthartodoc. 

3  .liinst  Sinai t.,  Hodegus,  p.  295. 


as  hunger,  thirst,  weariness,  the  piercing  with 
nails,  death,  that  is,  the  separation  of  soul 
and  body,  and  so  forth.  In  this  sense  we 
say  that  our  Lord's  body  was  subject  to  cor- 
ruption. For  He  voluntarily  accepted  all 
these  things.  But  corruption  means  also  the 
complete  resolution  of  the  body  into  its  con- 
stituent elements,  and  its  utter  disappearance, 
which  is  spoken  of  by  many  preferably  as 
destruction.  The  body  of  our  Lord  did  not 
experience  this  form  of  corruption,  as  the 
prophet  David  says,  For  Thou  wilt  not  leave 
my  soul  in  hell,  neither  wilt  Thou  suffer  Thine 
holy  one  to  see  corruption  3. 

Wherefore  to  say,  with  that  foolish  Julianus 
and  Gaianus,  that  our  Lord's  body  was  incor- 
ruptible, in  the  first  sense  of  the  word,  before 
His  resurrection  is  impious.  For  if  it  were 
incorruptible  it  was  not  really,  but  only  ap- 
parently, of  the  same  essence  as  ours,  and 
what  the  Gospel  tells  us  happened,  viz.  the 
hunger,  the  thirst,  the  nails,  the  wound  in  His 
side,  the  death,  did  not  actually  occur.  But 
if  they  only  apparently  happened,  then  the 
mystery  of  the  dispensation  is  an  imposture 
and  a,  sham,  and  He  became  man  only  in 
appearance,  and  not  in  actual  fact,  and  we 
are  saved  only  in  appearance,  and  not  in 
actual  fact.  But  God  forbid,  and  may  those 
who  so  say  have  no  part  in  the  salvation'*. 
But  we  have  obtained  and  shall  obtain  the 
true  salvation.  But  in  the  second  meaning- 
of  the  word  "corruption,"  we  confess  that 
our  Lord's  body  is  incorruptible,  that  is,  in- 
destructible, for  such  is  the  tradition  of  the 
inspired  Fathers.  Indeed,  after  the  resurrec- 
tion of  our  Saviour  from  the  dead,  we  say 
that  our  Lord's  body  is  incorruptible  even 
in  the  first  sense  of  the  word.  For  our  Lord 
by  His  own  body  bestowed  the  gifts  both 
of  resurrection  and  of  subsequent  incorruption 
even  on  our  own  body,  He  Himself  having 
become  to  us  the  firstfruits  both  of  resurrec- 
tion and  incorruption,  and  of  passionless- 
ness  s.  For  as  the  divine  Apostle  says,  This 
corruptible  must  put  on  incori  up t ion  6. 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 

Concerning  the  Descent  to   Hades. 

The  soul  7  when  it  was  deified  descended 
into  Hades,  in  order  that,  just  as  the  Sun 
of  Righteousness8  rose  for  those  upon  the 
earth,  so  likewise  He  might  bring  light  to 
those   who   sit   under  the    earth   in    darkness 


3  Ps.  xvi.  io.  4  Anast.  Sinait.,  Hodegus,  p.  293. 

5  1  Cor.  xv.  20.  6  Ibid.  53. 

7  Cf.  Kit/..  Expos.  Symbol.  Apost. ;  \assian,  Contr.  Nestor. 
bk.  vi.  ;  Cyril,  Catech.  14. 

8  Mal.'iv.  2. 


EXPOSITION   OF   THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


73 


and  shadow  of  death  9 :  in  order  that  just 
as  He  brought  the  message  of  peace  to  those 
upon  the  earth,  and  of  release  to  the  prisoners, 
and  of  sight  to  the  blind  r,  and  became  to 
those  who  believed  the  Author  of  everlasting 
salvation  and  to  those  who  did  not  believe 
a  reproach  of  their  unbelief2,  so   He   might 

•  Is.  ix.  a.        *  Is.  Ixi.  i ;  St.  Luke  iv.  19.        •  1  Pet.  iii.  19. 


become  the  same  to  those  in  Hades  3  :  That 
every  knee  should  bow  to  Him,  of  things  in 
heaven,  and  things  in  earth  and  things  under 
the  earth  *.  And  thus  after  He  had  freed 
those  who  had  been  bound  for  ages,  straight- 
way He  rose  again  from  the  dead,  shewing 
us  the  way  of  resurrection. 


3  Iren.,  iv.  45  ;  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  42. 


*  Phil.  ii. 


BOOK    IV. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Concerning  what  fottou'ed  the  Resurrection. 

After  Christ  was  risen  from  the  dead  He 
laid  aside  all  His  passions,  I  mean  His  cor- 
ruption or  hunger  or  thirst  or  sleep  or  weari- 
ness or  such  like.  For,  although  He  did 
taste  food  after  the  resurrection  r,  yet  He  did 
not  do  so  because  it  Avas  a  law  of  His  nature 
(for  He  felt  no  hunger\  but  in  the  way  of 
ceconomy,  in  order  that  He  might  convince 
us  of  the  reality  of  the  resurrection,  and  that 
it  was  one  and  the  same  flesh  which  suffered 
and  rose  again 2.  But  He  laid  aside  none 
of  the  divisions  of  His  nature,  neither  body 
nor  spirit,  but  possesses  both  the  body  and 
the  soul  intelligent  and  reasonable,  volitional 
and  energetic,  and  in  this  wise  He  sits  at 
the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  using  His  will 
both  as  God  and  as  man  in  behalf  of  our 
salvation,  energising  in  His  divine  capacity 
to  provide  for  and  maintain  and  govern 
all  things,  and  remembering  in  His  human 
capacity  the  time  He  spent  on  earth,  while 
all  the  time  He  both  sees  and  knows  that 
He  is  adored  by  all  rational  creation.  For 
His  Holy  Spirit  knows  that  He  is  one  in 
substance  with  God  the  Word,  and  shares 
as  Spirit  of  God  and  not  simply  as  Spirit  the 
worship  accorded  to  Him.  Moreover,  His 
ascent  from  earth  to  heaven,  and  again,  His 
descent  from  heaven  to  earth,  are  manifesta- 
tions of  the  energies  of  His  circumscribed 
body.  For  He  shall  so  come  again  to  you, 
saith  he,  in  like  manner  as  ye  have  seen  Him 
go  into  Heaven  3. 

CHAPTER  II. 

Concerning  the  sitting  at  the  right  hand 
of  the  Father. 

We  hold,  moreover,  that  Christ  sits  in  the 
body  at  the  right  hand  of  God  the  Father, 
but  we  do  not  hold  that  the  right  hand  of  the 
Father  is  actual  place.  For  how  could  He 
that  is  uncircumscribed  have  a  right  Land 
limited  by  place  ?  Right  hands  and  left  hands 
belong   to    what   is  circumscribed.      But  we 

»  St.  Luke  xxiv.  43. 

«   Theodor. ,  Dial,  i ;  Greg.  Nat.,  Oral.  49,  Ep.  1  ad  CUd. 

3  Acts  1.  1 1. 


understand  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  to 
be  the  glory  and  honour  of  the  Godhead 
in  which  the  Son  of  God,  who  existed  as  God 


before  the  ages, 
Father,  amd    in 


and  is  of  like  essence  to  the 
the  end  became  flesh,  has 
a  seat  in  the  body,  His  flesh  sharing  in  the 
glory.  For  He  along  with  His  flesh  is  adored 
with  one  adoration  by  all  creation  ♦. 

CHAPTER  III. 

In  reply  to  those  who  say  s,  "  If  Christ  has  two 
natures,  either  ye  do  service  to  the  creature  in 
worshipping  created  nature,  or  ye  say   that 
there  is  one  nature  to  be  worshipped,   and 
another  not  to  be  worshipped" 
Along  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
we  worship  the  Son  of  God,  Who  was  incor- 
poreal before  He  took  on  humanity,  and  now 
in  His  own  person  is  incarnate  and  has  be- 
come man  though  still  being  also  God.     His 
flesh,  then,  in  its  own  nature6,  if  one  were  to 
make  subtle  mental  distinctions  between  what 
is  seen  and  what  is  thought,  is  not  deserving 
of  worship  since  it  is  created.     But  as  it  is 
united  with  God  the  Word,  it  is  worshipped 
on  account  of  Him  and   in  Him.     For  just 
as  the  king  deserves  homage  alike  when  un- 
robed and  when  robed,  and  just  as  the  purple 
robe,   considered    simply  as   a   purple    robe, 
is  trampled  upon  and  tossed  about,  but  after 
becoming  the  royal  dress  receives  all  honour 
and  glory,  and  whoever  dishonours  it  is  gener- 
ally condemned  to    death :    and   again,  just 
as  wood  in  itself?  is  not  of  such  a  nature  that 
it  cannot  be  touched,  but  becomes  so  when 
fire  is  applied  to  it,  and  it  becomes  charcoal, 
and  yet  this  is  not  because  of  its  own  nature, 
but  because  of  the  fire  united  to  it,  and  the 
nature  of  the  wood  is   not  such  as   cannot 
be  touched,  but  rather  the  charcoal  or  burning 
wood  :  so  also  the  flesh,  in  its  own  nature, 
is  not  to  be  worshipped,   but  is  worshipped 
in  the  incarnate  God   Word,  not  because  of 
itself,  but  because  of  its  union  in  subsistence 
with  God  the  Word.     And  we  do  not  say  that 

4  Athan.  Jun.,  p.  45,  ad  Ant.;   Basil,  De  Spiritu  Sancto, 
ch.  6. 

5  Asainst  the   Apollinarians,   &c.     Cf.   Greg.  Nat.,  Ep.  ad 
Cled.,  11. 

6  Athan.,  bk.  i.,  Cant.  Apoll.  Epist.  ad  Adelph,  Fpiphatu 
A  near.,  §  51. 

7  A  simile  much  used  by  the  Fathers  :  cf.  tupr.,  bk.  iii.,  ch.  8» 


EXPOSITION   OF  THE   ORTHODOX   FAITH. 


7: 


we  worship  mere  flesh,  but  God's  flesh,  that  J 
is,  God  incarnate. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Why  it  7vas  the  Son  of  God,  and  not  the  Father 
or  the  Spirit,  that  became  man  :  and  what 
having  become  man  He  achieved. 

The  Father  is  Father 8  and  not  Son  9 :  the 
Son  is  Son  and  not  Father:  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  Spirit  and  not  Father  or  Son.  For  the  in- 
dividuality?11' is  unchangeable.  How,  indeed, 
could  individuality  continue  to  exist  at  all 
if  it  were  ever  changing  and  altering?  Where- 
fore the  Son  of  God  became  Son  of  Man 
in  order  that  His  individuality  might  endure. 
For  since  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  He  became 
Son  of  Man,  being  made  flesh  of  the  holy 
Virgin  and  not  losing  the  individuality  of 
Son  ship  *. 

Further,  the  Son  of  God  became  man,  in 
order  that    He  might  again  bestow  on    man 
that  favour  for  the  sake  of  which  He  created 
him.     For    He   created   him    after    His    own 
image,  endowed  with  intellect  and   free-will, 
and  after   His  own   likeness,  that  is  to  say, 
perfect  in  all  virtue  so  far  as  it  is  possible  for 
man's   nature  to  attain  perfection.     For  the 
following  properties  are,  so  to  speak,  marks 
of  the  divine  nature  :  viz.  absence  of  care  and 
distraction  and  guile,  goodness,  wisdom,  jus- 
tice,  freedom  from  all  vice.     So  then,  after 
He  had  placed  man  in  communion  with  Him- 
self (for  having  made  him  for  incorruption 2, 
He   led    him    up   through    communion    with 
Himself  to   incorruption),    and   when  more- 
over, through  the  transgression  of  the  com- 
mand we  had  confused  and   obliterated  the 
marks  of  the  divine  image,  and  had  become 
evil,    we   were    stripped   of   our   communion 
with   God   (for    what   communion    hath   light 
with  darkness  3?):  and  having  been  shut  out 
from  life  we  became  subject  to  the  corruption 
of  death  :  yea,  since  He  gave  us  to  share  in 
the  better  part,  and  we  did  not  keep  it  secure, 
He  shares  in  the  inferior  part,   1  mean  our 
own  nature,  in   order  that  through   Himself 
and  in  Himself  He  might  renew  that  which 
was  made  after  His  image  and  likeness,  and 
might  teach  us,  too,  the  conduct  of  a  virtuous 
life,  making  through  Himself  the  way  thither 
easy  for  us,  and  might  by  the  communication 
of  life  deliver  us  from  corruption,  becoming 


8  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  37  ;  Ful?.,  Defid.  ad  Petrum  ;  Thomas 
Aquinas,  III.,  qua-st.  3,  Art.  6. 

9  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  39.  .  .       . 
9»  V)  iSto-ns,  Latin,  p>oprietas,  the  propriety,  that  which  is 

distinctive  of  each.  .     , 

1  Text,  koX.  ovk  eico-ras  njs  vticrjs  iSionjTos.     K.  1  has,  (cat  ovk 

€fe<m)  ttjs  oiKEias  iSibTJjTos,  and  the  old  trans,  is  "  et  non  sece^sit 

A  propria  proprietate.' 

a  Wisd.  ii.  23.  3  2  Cor.  vi.  14. 


Himself  the  firstfruits  of  our  resurrection, 
and  might  renovate  the  useless  and  worn 
vessel  calling  us  to  the  knowledge  of  God 
that  He  might  redeem  us  from  the  tyranny 
of  the  devil,  and  might  strengthen  and  teach 
us  how  to  overthrow  the  tyrant  throu-h 
patience  and  humility*. 

The  worship  of  demons  then  has  ceased  : 
creation    has  been   sanctified    by  the   divine 
blood  :  altars  and  temples  of  idols  have  been 
overthrown,  the  knowledge  of  God  has  been 
implanted    in  men's    minds,   the  co-essential 
Trinity,  the  uncreate  divinity,  one  true  God, 
Creator  and  Lord  of  all  receives  men's  ser- 
vice :  virtues  are  cultivated,  the  hope  of  resur- 
rection has  been  granted  through  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  the  demons  shudder  at  those 
men  who  of  old  were  under  their  subjection. 
And  the  marvel,  indeed,   is  that  all  tiis  has 
been  successfully  brought  about  through  His 
cross  and   passion   and   death.     Throughout 
all  the  earth   the   Gospel  of  the  knowledge 
of    God    has    been    preached ,    no    wars   or 
weapons  or  armies  being   used  to  rout  the 
enemy,  but  only  a  few,  naked,  poor,  illiterate, 
persecuted    and    tormented   men,    who    with 
their  lives  in  their  hands,  preached  Him  Who 
was  crucified  in  the  flesh  and  died,  and  who 
became  victors  over  the  wise  and  powerful. 
For  the  omnipotent  power  of  the  Cross  ac- 
companied them.      Death  itself,  which  once 
was  man's  chiefest  terror,  has  been  overthrown, 
and  now  that  which  was  once  the  object  of 
hate  and  loathing  is  preferred  to  life.     These 
are  the   achievements  of  Christ's   presence: 
these  are  the  tokens  of  His  power.     For  it 
was  not  one  people  that  He  saved,  as  when 
through  Moses  He  divided  the  sea  and  de- 
livered Israel  out  of  Egypt  and  the  bondage 
of  Pharaohs;    nay,   rather    He   rescued    all 
mankind   from   the  corruption  of   death   and 
the  bitter  tyranny  of  sin  :  not  leading  them 
by  force  to  virtue,  not  overwhelming  them 
with  earth  or  burning  them  with  fire,  or  order- 
ing the  sinners  to  be  stoned,  but  persuading 
men  by  gentleness  and  long-suffering  to  choose 
virtue  and  vie   with    one   another,  and  find 
pleasure   in  the  struggle  to  attain   it.     For, 
formerly,  it  was  sinners  who  were  persecuted, 
and  yet  they  clung  all  the  closer  to  sin,  and 
sin  was  looked  upon  by  them  as  their  God  : 
but   now    for  the    sake   of  piety  and    virtue 
men  choose  persecutions  and  crucifixions  and 
death. 

Hail !  O  Christ,  the  Word  and  Wisdom  and 
Power  of  God,  and  God  omnipotent  !  What 
can  we  helpless  ones  give  Thee  in  return  for 


*  Athan.,  De  Incarn.  ;  Cyril,  In  Joan.,  bk.  i. 
5  Ex.  xiv.  16. 


76 


JOHN   OF    DAMASCUS. 


all  these  good  gifts  ?  For  all  are  Thine,  and 
Thou  askest  naught  from  us  save  our  salva- 
tion, Thou  Who  Thyself  art  the  Giver  of  this, 
and  yet  art  grateful  to  those  who  receive  it, 
through  Thy  unspeakable  goodness.  Thanks 
be  to  Thee  Who  gave  us  life,  and  granted 
us  the  grace  of  a  happy  life,  and  restored  us 
to  that,  when  we  had  gone  astray,  through 
Thy  unspeakable  condescension. 

CHAPTER  V. 

In  reply  to  those  who  ask  if  Christ's  subsistence 
is  create  or  wicreate. 

The  subsistence  6  of  God  the  Word  before 
the  Incarnation  was  simple  and  uncompound, 
and  incorporeal  and  uncreate  :  but  after  it 
became  flesh,  it  became  also  the  subsistence 
of  the  flesh,  and  became  compounded  of  di- 
vinity which  it  always  possessed,  and  of  flesh 
which  it  had  assumed :  and  it  bears  the 
properties  of  the  two  natures,  being  made 
known  in  two  natures  :  so  that  the  one  same 
subsistence  is  both  uncreate  in  divinity  and 
create  in  humanity,  visible  and  invisible.  For 
otherwise  we  are  compelled  either  to  divide 
the  one  Christ  and  speak  of  two  subsistences, 
or  to  deny  the  distinction  between  the  na- 
tures and  thus  introduce  change  and  con- 
fusion. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Concerning  the  question,  when  Christ  was 
called. 

The  mind  was  not  united  with  God  the  Word, 
as  some  falsely  assert  ?,  before  the  Incarnation 
by  the  Virgin  and  from  that  time  called  Christ. 
That  is  the  absurd  nonsense  of  Origen 8,  who 
lays  down  the  doctrine  of  the  priority  of  the 
existence  of  souls.  But  we  hold  that  the 
Son  and  Word  of  God  became  Christ  after 
He  had  dwelt  in  the  womb  of  His  holy  ever- 
virgin  Mother,  and  became  flesh  without 
change,  and  that  the  flesh  was  anointed  with 
divinity.  For  this  is  the  anointing  of  hu- 
manity, as  Gregory  the  Theologian  says  9. 
And  here  are  the  words  of  the  most  holy 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  which  he  wrote  to  the 
Emperor  Theodosius  *  :  "  For  I  indeed  hold 
that  one  ought  to  give  the  name  Jesus  Christ 
neither  to  the  Word  that  is  of  God  if  He  is 
without  humanity,  nor  yet  to  the  temple  born 
of  woman  if  it  is  not  united  with  the  Word. 
For  the  Word  that  is  of  God  is  understood 
to  be   Christ  when  united  with  humanity  in 


6  viroo-Tao-is,  hypostasis. 

7  See  Sophr. ,  Ep.  ad  Serg. ;  Origen,  Jltpl  apx<ov,  II.  6  ;  Ruf., 
Expos.  Sytnb.,  ice. 

8  Origen,  Ilepi  a.p\u>v,  blc.  ii.,  ch.  6. 

»  Oral.  36,  near  the  end.  *  Edit.  Paris,  p.  25. 


ineffable  manner  in  the  union  of  the  ceco- 
nomy2."  And  again,  he  writes  to  the  Em- 
presses thus  3 :  "Some  hold  that  the  name 
'  Christ '  is  rightly  given  to  the  Word  that 
is  begotten  of  God  the  Father,  to  Him 
alone,  and  regarded  separately  by  Himself. 
But  we  have  not  been  taught  so  to  think 
and  speak.  For  when  the  Word  became 
flesh,  then  it  was,  we  say,  that  He  was  called 
Christ  Jesus.  For  since  He  was  anointed 
with  the  oil  of  gladness,  that  is  the  Spirit, 
by  Him  Who  is  God  and  Father,  He  is  for 
this  reason  *  called  Christ.  But  that  the 
anointing  was  an  act  that  concerned  Him  as 
man  could  be  doubted  by  no  one  who  is 
accustomed  to  think  rightly."  Moreover,  the 
celebrated  Athanasius  says  this  in  his  dis- 
course "  Concerning  the  Saving  Manifesta- 
tion :  "  "The  God  Who  was  before  the  sojourn 
in  the  flesh  was  not  man,  but  God  in  God, 
being  invisible  and  without  passion,  but  when 
He  became  man,  He  received  in  addition  the 
name  of  Christ  because  of  the  flesh,  since, 
indeed,  passion  and  death  follow  in  the  train 
of  this  name." 

And  although  the  holy  Scripture  4  says, 
Therefore  God,  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee 
with  the  oil  of  gladness  5,  it  is  to  be  observed 
that  the  holy  Scripture  often  uses  the  past 
tense  instead  of  the  future,  as  for  example 
here  :  Thereafter  He  was  seen  upo:i  the  earth 
and  dwelt  among  men  6.  For  as  yet  God  was 
not  seen  nor  did  He  dwell  among  men  when 
this  was  said.  And  here  again  :  By  the  rivers 
of  Babylon,  there  we  sat  down  ;  yea  we  wept  ?. 
For  as  yet  these  things  had  not  come  to  pass. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

In  anstver  to  those  who  enquire  whether  the 
holy  Mother  of  God  bore  two  natures,  and 
whether  two  natures  hung  upon  the  Cross. 

dytvTjTou  and  y(vr)Tov,  written  with  one  '  v  '  8 
and  meaning  uncreated  and  created,  refer  to 

nature  :    but  dykvvr)Tov  and   yevvrjrov,    that   is   to 

say,  unbegotten  and  begotten,  as  the  double 
1  v '  indicates,  refer  not  to  nature  but  to  sub- 
sistence. The  divine  nature  then  is  dyivrjrot, 
that  is  to  say,  uncreate,  but  all  things  that 
come  after  the  divine  nature  are  yevrjra,  that 
is,  created.  In  the  divine  and  uncreated 
nature,  therefore,  the  property  of  being 
dyfWTjTov  or  unbegotten  is  contemplated  in 
the  Father  (for  He  was  not  begotten),  that 
of  being  ycim/rov  or  begotten  in  the  Son  (for 
He  has  been  eternally  begotten  of  the  Father), 

a  ko.6'  evuxriv  oiKovopuKriv,  in  the  union  of  the  Incarnation. 
3  Edit.  Paris,  p.  54.  *  P.S.  xlv.  7. 

5  Some  copies  omit  the  last  five  words.  6  Bar.  iii.  38. 

7  Ps.  exxxvii.  i.  8  Supr.,  bk.  i.  ch.  9. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


77 


•md  that  of  procession  in  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Moreover  of  each  species  of  living  creatures, 
the  first  members  were  nyeWr/rabut  not  dyeVijra  : 
for  they  were  brought  into  being  by  their 
Maker,  but  were  not  the  offspring  of  creatures 
like  themselves.  For  yevto-is  is  creation,  while 
yevvrjvis  or  begetting  is  in  the  case  of  God  the 
origin  of  a  co-essential  Son  arising  from  the 
Father  alone,  and  in  the  case  of  bodies,  the 
origin  of  a  co-essential  subsistence  arising 
from  the  contact  of  male  and  female.  And 
thus  we  perceive  that  begetting  refers  not 
to  nature  but  to  subsistence  9.  For  if  it  did 
refer  to  nature,  to  yeuvrjrov  and  to  dyewriTov,  i.e. 
the  properties  of  being  begotten  and  unbe- 
gotten,  could  not  be  contemplated  in  one 
and  the  same  nature.  Accordingly  the  holy 
Mother  of  God  bore  a  subsistence  revealed 
in  two  natures;  being  begotten  on  the  one 
hand,  by  reason  of  its  divinity,  of  the  Father 
timelessly,  and,  at  last,  on  the  other  hand, 
being  incarnated  of  her  in  time  and  born 
in  the  flesh. 

But  if  our  interrogators  should  hint  that  He 
Who  is  begotten  of  the  holy  Mother  of  God 
is  two  natures,  we  reply,  "  Yea  !  He  is  two 
natures :  for  He  is  in  His  own  person  God 
and  man.  And  the  same  is  to  be  said  con- 
cerning the  crucifixion  and  resurrection  and 
ascension.  For  these  refer  not  to  nature  but 
to  subsistence.  Christ  then,  since  He  is  in 
two  natures,  suffered  and  was  crucified  in  the 
nature  that  was  subject  to  passion.  For  it 
was  in  the  flesh  and  not  in  His  divinity  that 
He  hung  upon  the  Cross.  Otherwise,  let 
them  answer  us,  when  we  ask  if  two  natures 
died.  No,  we  shall  say.  And  so  two  natures 
were  not  crucified  but  Christ  was  begotten, 
that  is  to  say,  the  divine  Word  having  become 
man  was  begotten  in  the  flesh,  was  crucified 
in  the  flesh,  suffered  in  the  flesh,  while  His 
divinity  continued  to  be  impassible." 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

How   the  Only-begotten  Son  of  God  is   called 
first-born. 

He  who  is  first  begotten  is  called  first- 
born f,  whether  he  is  only-begotten  or  the 
first  of  a  number  of  brothers.  If  then  the 
Son  of  God  was  called  first-born,  but  was  not 
called  Only-begotten,  we  could  imagine  that 
He  was  the  first  born  of  creatures,  as  being 
a  creature 2.  But  since  He  is  called  both 
first-born  and  Only-begotten,  both  senses 
must  be  preserved  in  His  case.     We  say  that 


9  Eut/iym.,  p.  2,  tit.  8. 

i  See  the  Scholiast  on  Gregory  Nyssenus  in  Cod.  Reg.  3451. 

2  yid.  apud  Greg.  Nyss.,  bk.  iii.,  contr.  Eunom. 


He  is  first-born  of  all  creations  since  both  He 
Himself  is  of  God  and  creation  is  of  God,  but 
as  He  Himself  is  born  alone  and  timelessly 
of  the  essence  of  God  the  Father,  He  may 
with  reason  be  called  Only-begotten  Son,  first- 
born and  not  first-created.  For  the  creation 
was  not  brought  into  being  out  of  the  essence 
of  the  Father,  but  by  His  will  out  of  nothing  ■*. 
And  He  is  called  First-born  among  manv 
brethren  s,  for  although  being  Only-begotten, 
He  was  also  born  of  a  mother.  Since,  indeed, 
He  participated  just  as  we  ourselves  do  in 
blood  and  flesh  and  became  man,  while  we 
too  through  Him  became  sons  of  God,  being 
adopted  through  the  baptism,  He  Who  is 
by  nature  Son  of  God  became  first-born 
amongst  us  who  were  made  by  adoption 
and  grace  sons  of  God,  and  stand  to  Him 
in  the  relation  of  brothers.  Wherefore  He 
said,  /  ascend  unto  My  Father  and  your 
Father6.  He  did  not  say  "our  Father,"  but 
"  My  Father,"  clearly  in  the  sense  of  Father 
by  nature,  and  "your  Father,"  in  the  sense 
of  Father  by  grace.  And  "  My  God  and  your 
God  7."  He  did  not  say  "our  God,"  but 
"  My  God  :  "  and  if  you  distinguish  with  sub- 
tle thought  that  which  is  seen  from  that  which 
is  thought,  also  "your  God,"  as  Maker  and 
Lord. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Concerning  Faith  and  Baptism. 

We  confess  one  baptism  for  the  remission 
of  sins  and  for  life  eternal.  For  baptism  de- 
clares the  Lord's  death.  We  are  indeed 
"  buried  with  the  Lord  through  baptism 8," 
as  saith  the  divine  Apostle.  So  then,  as  our 
Lord  died  once  for  all,  we  also  must  be  bap- 
tized once  for  all,  and  baptized  according 
to  the  Word  of  the  Lord,  In  the  Natne  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit1*,  being  taught  the  confession  in  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.  Those  %  then,  who, 
after  having  been  baptized  into  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Spirit,  and  having  been  taught  that 
there  is  one  divine  nature  in  three  subsist- 
ences, are  rebaptized,  these,  as  the  divine 
Apostle  says,  crucify  the  Christ  afresh.  For  it 
is  impossible,  he  saith,  for  those  tvho  were  once 
enlightened,  &*c,  to  renew  them  again  unto 
repentance :  seeing  they  crucify  to  themselves 
the  Christ  afresh,  and  put  Him  to  an  open 
shame 2.      But     those    who    were    not    bap- 


3  Col.  115-         *  A  than-,  Expos.  Fidti.        5  Rom.  viii.  29. 

6  St.  Juhn  xx.  17.  7  Ibid.  8  Col.  ii.  12. 

9  St.  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 

1  See  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.,  bk.  i.  ;  Basil,  Ep.  ad  Amphiloch. 
2;  Irenceus,  i.  8;  J'heodor.,  Hcer.  fab.  c.  12;  Euseb.,  Hist. 
Eccles..  vii.  9;   Trullan  Canon  95  ;   J'ertull.,  Ve  Bapt..  c   1,  &c 

=  Heb.  vi.  4. 


73 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


tized  into  the  Holy  Trinity,  these  must  be 
baptized  again.  For  although  the  divine 
Apostle  says  :  Into  Christ  and  into  His  death 
were  we  baptized '3,  he  does  not  mean  that  the 
invocation  of  baptism  must  be  in  these  words, 
but  that  baptism  is  an  image  of  the  death 
of  Christ.  For  by  the  three  immersions'*, 
baptism  signifies  the  three  days  of  our  Lord's 
entombment  5.  The  baptism  then  into  Christ 
means  that  believers  are  baptized  into  Him. 
We  could  not  believe  in  Christ  if  we  were  not 
taught  confession  in  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit 6.  For  Christ  is  the  Son  of  the  Living 
God  7,  Whom  the  Father  anointed  with  the 
Holy  Spirit8;  in  the  words  of  the  divine 
David,  Therefore  God,  thy  God,  hath  anointed 
thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows  9. 
And  Isaiah  also  speaking  in  the  person  of  the 
Lord  says,  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me 
because  He  hath  anointed  me  \  Christ,  how- 
ever, taught  His  own  disciples  the  invocation 
and  said,  Baptizing  them  in  the  Name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit 2. 
For  since  Christ  made  us  for  incorruption  3  4? 
and  we  transgressed  His  saving  command. 
He  condemned  us  to  the  corruption  of  death 
in  order  that  that  which  is  evil  should  not 
be  immortal,  and  when  in  His  compassion 
He  stooped  to  His  servants  and  became  like 
us,  He  redeemed  us  from  corruption  through 
His  own  passion.  He  caused  the  fountain 
of  remission  to  well  forth  for  us  out  of  His 
holy  and  immaculate  side  s,  water  for  our 
regeneration,  and  the  washing  away  of  sin 
and  corruption ;  and  blood  to  drink  as  the 
hostage  of  life  eternal.  And  He  laid  on  us 
the  command  to  be  born  again  of  water  and 
of  the  Spirit6,  through  prayer  and  invocation, 
the  Holy  Spirit  drawing  nigh  unto  the  water  7. 
For  since  man's  nature  is  twofold,  consisting 
of  soul  and  body,  He  bestowed  on  us  a  two- 
fold purification,  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit : 
the  Spirit  renewing  that  part  in  us  which 
is  after  His  image  and  likeness,  and  the  water 
by  the  grace  of  the  Spirit  cleansing  the  body 
from  sin  and  delivering  it  from  corruption, 
the  water  indeed  expressing  the  image  of 
death,  but  the  Spirit  affording  the  earnest  of 
life. 

For  from  the  beginning  the  Spirit  of  God 
moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters  8,  and  anew 

3  Rom.  vi.  3. 

4  See  Basil,  De  Spir.  Sand.,  c.  28,  and  Ep.  39;  Jerome, 
Contr.  Lucif.;  Theodor.,  Har.  III.  4;  Socrates,  Hist.  c.  23; 
Sotomen,  Hist.  VI.  26. 

5  Ana. ,  Qutrst.  ad  Antioch. 

«  Basil.,  Dt  Baft.,  bk.  i.  ch.  12.  7  St.  Matt.  xvi.  xo. 

8  Acts  x.  38.  9  Ps.  xiv.  7.  '  Is.  lxi.  1. 

3  St.  Matt,  xxviii    19 

3  Text,   «7r'   ai>9apcriav.      Variant,    in'   arj>9ap(rin  ;   old   inter- 
pretation, '  in  incorruption.'  4  Method.,  De  Resurr. 
5  St.  John  .\ix.  34.            6  ibid.  iij.  s.  7  Greg.,  Orat.  48. 
8  Gen.  1.  2. 


the  Scripture  witnesseth  that  water  has  the 
power  of  purification  9.  In  the  time  of  Noah 
God  washed  away  the  sin  of  the  world  by 
water *.  By  water  every  impure  person  is 
purified  2,  according  to  the  law,  even  the  very 
garments  being  washed  with  water.  Elias 
shewed  forth  the  grace  of  the  Spirit  mingled 
with  the  water  when  he  burned  the  holocaust 
by  pouring  on  water  3.  And  almost  every- 
thing is  purified  by  water  according  to  the 
law  :  for  the  things  of  sight  are  symbols  of 
the  things  of  thought.  The  regeneration,  how- 
ever, takes  place  in  the  spirit :  for  faith  has 
the  power  of  making  us  sons  (of  God 4),  crea- 
tures as  we  are,  by  the  Spirit,  and  of  leading 
us  into  our  original  blessedness. 

The  remission  of  sins,  therefore,  is  granted 
alike  to  all  through  baptism  :  but  the  grace 
of  the  Spirit  is  proportional  to  the  faith  and 
previous  purification.  Now,  indeed,  we  re- 
ceive the  firstfruits  of  the  Holy  Spirit  through 
baptism,  and  the  second  birth  is  for  us  the 
beginning  and  seal  and  security  and  illumi- 
nation s  of  another  life. 

It  behoves  us,  then,  with  all  our  strength 
to  steadfastly  keep  ourselves  pure  from  filth y 
works,  that  we  may  not,  like  the  dog  returning; 
to  his  vomit6,  make  ourselves  again  the  slaves 
of  sin.  For  faith  apart  from  works  is  dead, 
and  so  likewise  are  works  apart  from  faith  7. 
For  the  true  faith  is  attested  by  works. 

Now  we  are  baptized  8  into  the  Holy  Trinity 
because  those  things  which  are  baptized  have 
need  of  the  Holy  Trinity  for  their  mainten- 
ance and  continuance,  and  the  three  sub- 
sistences cannot  be  otherwise  than  present, 
the  one  with  the  other.  For  the  Holy  Trinity 
is  indivisible. 

The  first  baptism  9  was  that  of  the  flood 
for  the  eradication  of  sin.  The  second  x  was 
through  the  sea  and  the  cloud  :  for  the  cloud 
is  the  symbol  of  the  Spirit  and  the  sea  of  the 
water2.  The  third  baptism  was  that  of  the 
Law :  for  every  impure  person  washed  him- 
self with  water,  and  even  washed  his  garments, 
and  so  entered  into  the  camp  3.  The  fourth  •» 
was  that  of  John5,  being  preliminary  and 
leading  those  who  were  baptized  to  repent- 
ance, that  they  might   believe  in   Christ:   /, 


9  Lev.  xv.  io.  '  Gen.  vi.  17. 

2  Text,  KaSaiperax.  Variant  in  many  Codices  is  iicaBaipeTo 
On  one  margin  is,  17  cKeiea0apTO. 

3  III.  Reg.  xviii.  32. 

4  irto"Ti5  yap  vIoBctcIv  0i5e. 

5  Text,  </iwTio-fio«r,  illumination.  In  R.  2626  is  added,  icai 
ayiao>ibs,  which  Faber  translates,"  et  illuminatio  et  sanctilicatio." 
In  R.  2924,  ayiaovios  is  read  instead  of  <ptuTi<rij.6$. 

6  2  Pet.  ii   22.  7  James  ii.  26. 

8  Greg.  Xaz  ,  Orat.  40;  A  than,  ad  Strap.  De  Spir.  Sancto. 

9  Greg.  Tfieol.,  Orat.  39.  «  Gen.  vii.  17. 
2  1  Cor.  x.  1.                        3  Lev.  xiv.  8. 

4  Greg..  Orat-  40;  Basil.  Horn,  de  Bapt.  ;  Chrys.  in  Matt. 
Horn.  10,  and  others. 

5  Cf.  Basil,  De  Bapt.,  1.2. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX   FAITH. 


79 


indeed,  he  said,  baptize  you  with  water ;  but 
He  that  cometh  after  me,  He  will  baptize  you 
in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  in  fire6.  Thus  John's 
purification  with  water  was  preliminary  to 
receiving  the  Spirit.  The  fifth  was  the 
baptism  of  our  Lord,  whereby  He  Himself 
was  baptized.  Now  He  is  baptized  not  as 
Himself  requiring  purification  but  as  making 
my  purification  His  own,  that  He  may  break 
the  heads  of  the  dragons  on  the  water  ?,  that 
He  may  wash  away  sin  and  bury  all  the  old 
Adam  in  water,  that  He  may  sanctify  the 
Baptist,  that  He  may  fulfil  the  Law,  that  He 
may  reveal  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  that 
He  may  become  the  type  and  ensample  to 
us  of  baptism.  But  we,  too,  are  baptized 
in  the  perfect  baptism  of  our  Lord,  the  bap- 
tism by  water  and  the  Spirit.  Moreover8, 
Christ  is  said  to  baptize  with  fire  :  because 
in  the  form  of  flaming  tongues  He  poured 
forth  on  His  holy  disciples  the  grace  of  the 
Spirit  :  as  the  Lord  Himself  says,  Jolin  truly 
baptized  with  water:  but  ye  shall  be  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with  fire,  not  many 
days  hence  9  .•  or  else  it  is  because  of  the  bap- 
tism of  future  fire  wherewith  we  are  to  be 
chastised1.  The  sixth  is  that  by  repentance 
and  tears,  which  baptism  is  truly  grievous. 
The  seventh  is  baptism  by  blood  and  martyr- 
dom 2,  which  baptism  Christ  Himself  under 
went  in  our  behalf3,  He  Who  was  too  august 
and  blessed  to  be  defiled  with  any  later  stains  4. 
The  eighth  s  is  the  last,  which  is  not  saving, 
but  which  destroys  evil6:  for  evil  and  sin 
no  longer  have  sway  :  yet  it  punishes  with- 
out end  7. 

Further,  the  Holy  Spirit8  descended  in  bodily 
form  as  a  dove,  indicating  the  firstfruits  of 
our  baptism  and  honouring  the  body  :  since 
even  this,  that  is  the  body,  was  God  by  the 
deification ;  and  besides  the  dove  was  wont 
formerly  to  announce  the  cessation  of  the 
flood.  But  to  the  holy  Apostles  He  came 
down  in  the  form  of  fire  9  :  for  He  is  God,  and 
God  is  a  consuming  fire1. 

Olive  oil  *  is  employed  in  baptism  as  signi- 
ficant of  our  anointing3,  and  as  making  us 
anointed,  and  as  announcing  to  us  through 
the  Holy  Spirit  God's  pity:  for  it  was  the 
fruit  of  the  olive  that  the  dove  brought  to 
those  who  were  saved  from  the  flood  *. 


6  St.  Matt.  iii.  n. 

8  Greg  Naz.,  Orat.  40. 

1  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  40. 

4  Text,  (i>9  Al'ai'  .  .   .  O<T0V. 

5  Greg  Naz.,  Orat.  40. 


7  Ps.  lxxiv.  13. 

9  Ai  t^  i.  5. 
2  Id.  ibid.         3  St.  Lukexii.  50. 
Variant!;,  otrwi'  and  "  k  li. 
6  Sse  Basil,  De  Spir.  Sand.,  c.  13. 

7  oil  aruiTi')piov,   aAAa  77J?   /xii/   Kaxias  ava-LperiKOV   ovk  m  yap 
<caxia  Kai  ay-apTia.  iroKiTeverar   koKol'^ov  Se  aTeAcVTTJTa. 

8  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  39. 

9  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  44 :  Acts  ii.  3.  «  Dent.  iv.  24. 

2  Cf.,  Allah.,  De  Cousens,  bk.  iii.,  c.  16;    Cyril  of  /erus., 
Catech.  Myst.  2.  _         ... 

3  Reading,  x/uW-     Variant,  \apiv.  *  Gen-  V1"-  "• 


John  was  baptized,  putting  his  hand  upon 
the  divine  head  of  his  Master,  and  with  his 
own  blood. 

It  does  not  behove  s  us  to  delay  baptism 
when  the  faith  of  those  coming  forward  is 
testified  to  by  works.  For  he  that  cometh 
forward  deceitfully  to  baptism  will  receive 
condemnation  rather  than  benefit. 

CHAPTER    X. 

Concerning  Faith. 

Moreover,  faith  is  twofold.  For  faith 
cometh  by  hearing*1.  For  by  hearing  the  di- 
vine Scriptures  we  believe  in  the  teaching 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  same  is  perfected 
by  all  the  things  enjoined  by  Christ,  believing 
in  work,  cultivating  piety,  and  doing  the 
commands  of  Him  Who  restored  us.  For 
he  that  believeth  not  according  to  the  tra- 
dition of  the  Catholic  Church,  or  who  hath 
intercourse  with  the  devil  through  strange 
works,  is  an  unbeliever. 

But  again,  faith  is  the  substance  of  things 
hoped  for,  the  evidence  of  things  not  seenT, 
or  undoubting  and  unambiguous  hope  alike 
of  what  God  hath  promised  us  and  of  the 
good  issue  of  our  prayers.  The  first,  there- 
fore, belongs  to  our  will,  while  the  second 
is  of  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit. 

Further,  observe  that  by  baptism  we  cut  8 
off  all  the  covering  which  we  have  worn  since 
birth,  that  is  to  say,  sin,  and  become  spiritual 
Israelites  and  God's  people. 

CHAPTER   XI. 

Concerning  the  Cross  and  liere  further 
concerning  Faith. 

The  word  '  Cross '  is  foolishness  to  those 
that  perish,  but  to  us  ivho  are  saved  it  is  the 
power  of  God 9.  For  he  that  is  spiritual judgeth 
all  things,  but  the  ?iatural  man  receiveth  not 
the  things  of  the  Spirit1.  For  it  is  foolishness 
to  those  who  do  not  receive  in  faith  and  who 
do  not  consider  God's  goodness  and  omni- 
potence, but  search  out  divine  things  with 
human  and  natural  reasonings.  For  all  the 
things  that  are  of  God  are  above  nature  and 
reason  and  conception.  For  should  any  one 
consider  how  and  for  what  purpose  God 
brought  all  things  out  of  nothing  into  being, 
and  aim  at  arriving  at  that  by  natural  reason- 
ings, he  fails  to  comprehend  it.  For  know- 
ledge of  this  kind  belongs  to  spirits  and 
demons.  But  if  any  one,  under  the  guidance 
of  faith,  should  consider  the  divine  goodness 


5  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  40. 
7  Heb.  xi.  1. 
9  1  Cor.  i.  23. 


6  Rom.  x.  17. 
8  ■ntpni^voy.itia.,  circumcise 
»  Ibid   ti.  14,  15- 


So 


JOHN    OF    DAMASCUS. 


and  omnipotence  and  truth  and  wisdom  and 
justice,  he  will  find  all  things  smooth  and 
even,  and  the  way  straight.  But  without 
faith  it  is  impossible  to  be  saved2.  For  it  is 
by  faith  that  all  things,  both  human  and 
spiritual,  are  sustained.  For  without  faith 
neither  does  the  farmer  3  cut  his  furrow,  nor 
does  the  merchant  commit  his  life  to  the 
raging  waves  of  the  sea  on  a  small  piece 
of  wood,  nor  are  marriages  contracted  nor 
any  other  step  in  life  taken.  By  faith  we 
consider  that  all  things  were  brought  out 
of  nothing  into  being  by  God's  power.  And 
we  direct  all  things,  both  divine  and  human, 
by  faith.  Further,  faith  is  assent  free  from 
all  meddlesome  inquisitiveness4. 

Every  action,  therefore,  and  performance  of 
miracles  by  Christ  are  most  great  and  divine 
and  marvellous  :  but  the  most  marvellous  of 
all  is  His  precious  Cross.  For  no  other  thing 
has  subdued  death,  expiated  the  sin  of  the 
first  parent 5,  despoiled  Hades,  bestowed  the 
resurrection,  granted  the  power  to  us  of  con- 
temning the  present  and  even  death  itself, 
prepared  the  return  to  our  former  blessedness, 
opened  the  gates  of  Paradise 6,  given  our 
nature  a  seat  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and 
made  us  the  children  and  heirs  of  God  ?,  save 
the  Cross  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  For  by 
the  Cross  8  all  things  have  been  made  right. 
So  many  of  us,  the  apostle  says,  as  were 
baptized  into  Christ,  were  baptized  into  His 
death  9,  and  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized 
into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ '.  Further, 
Christ  is  the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom 
of  God*.  Lo  !  the  death  of  Christ,  that  is, 
the  Cross,  clothed  us  with  the  enhypostatic 
wisdom  and  power  of  God.  And  the  power 
of  God  is  the  Word  of  the  Cross,  either 
because  God's  might,  that  is,  the  victory  over 
death,  has  been  revealed  to  us  by  it,  or  be- 
cause, just  as  the  four  extremities  of  the  Cross 
are  held  fast  and  bound  together  by  the  bolt 
in  the  middle,  so  also  by  God's  power  the 
height  and  the  depth,  the  length  and  the 
breadth,  that  is,  every  creature  visible  and 
invisible,  is  maintained  3. 

This  was  given  to  us  as  a  sign  on  our 
forehead,  just  as  the  circumcision  was  given 
to  Israel :  for  by  it  we  believers  are  separated 
and  distinguished  from  unbelievers.  This  is 
the  shield  and  weapon  against,  and  trophy 
over,  the  devil.  This  is  the  seal  that  the 
destroyer   may  not    touch  you *,    as   saith   the 


2  Heb.  xi.  6.  3  Basil,  in  Ps.  cxv.  4  Basil,  cit.  loc. 

5  Text,  rrp07raTopo5  a/xapria.     Variant,  7rpoiroT.  'ASafi  ajuapT. 

6  Text,  rivoi\8r\aa.v.      Valiant,  y\voiy7\aav. 

7  Cyril,  Hier.  catech.  i.  14. 

•  Text,  Sta  <7raupov.      Variant,  Si  oiiToO. 

9  Rom.  vi.  3.  1  Gal.  iii.  27.  2  Cor.  i.  34. 

3  Basil,  in  Is.  xi.  4   Exod.  xii    23. 


Scripture.  This  is  the  resurrection  of  those 
lying  in  death,  the  support  of  the  standing, 
the  staff  of  the  weak,  the  rod  of  the  flock,  the 
safe  conduct  of  the  earnest,  the  perfection 
of  those  that  press  forwards,  the  salvation  of 
soul  and  body,  the  aversion  of  all  things  evil, 
the  patron  of  all  things  good,  the  taking  away 
of  sin,  the  plant  of  resurrection,  the  tree  of 
eternal  life. 

So,  then,  this  same  truly  precious  and  august 
tree5,  on  which  Christ  hath  offered  Himself 
as  a  sacrifice  for  our  sakes,  is  to  be  worshipped 
as  sanctified  by  contact  with  His  holy  body  and 
blood  ;  likewise  the  nails,  the  spear,  the  clothes, 
His  sacred  tabernacles  which  are  the  manger, 
the  cave,  Golgotha,  which  bringeth  salvation  6, 
the  tomb  which  giveth  life,  Sion,  the  chief 
stronghold  of  the  churches  and  the  like,  are 
to  be  worshipped.  In  the  words  of  David, 
the  father  of  God  ?,  We  shall  go  into  His  taber- 
nacles, we  shall  worship  at  the  place  where  His 
feet  stood8.  And  that  it  is  the  Cross  that  is 
meant  is  made  clear  by  what  follows,  Arise, 
O  Lord,  into  Thy  Rest  9.  For  the  resurrection 
comes  after  the  Cross.  For  if  of  those  things 
which  we  love,  house  and  couch  and  garment, 
are  to  be  longed  after,  how  much  the  rather 
should  we  long  after  that  which  belonged  to 
God,  our  Saviour ',  by  means  of  which  we  are 
in  truth  saved. 

Moreover  we  worship  even  the  image  of  the 
precious  and  life-giving  Cross,  although  made 
of  another  tree,  not  honouring  the  tree  (God 
forbid)  but  the  image  as  a  symbol  of  Christ. 
For  He  said  to  His  disciples,  admonishing 
them,  Then  shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son 
of  Man  in  Heaven  2,  meaning  the  Cross.  And 
so  also  the  angel  of  the  resurrection  said  to  the 
woman,  Ye  seek  Jesus  of  Nazareth  which  was 
crucified*.  And  the  Apostle  said,  We  preach 
Christ  crucified*.  For  there  are  many  Christs 
and  many  Jesuses,  but  one  crucified.  He 
does  not  say  speared  but  crucified.  It  be- 
hoves us,  then,  to  worship  the  sign  of  Christ  \ 
For  wherever  the  sign  may  be,  there  also  will 
He  be.  But  it  does  not  behove  us  to  worship 
the  material  of  which  the  image  of  the  Cross 
is  composed,  even  though  it  be  gold  or  precious 
stones,  after  it  is  destroyed,  if  that  should 
happen.  Everything,  therefore,  that  is  dedi- 
cated to  God  we  worship,  conferring  the  ador- 
ation on  Him. 

The  tree  of  life  which  was  planted  by  God 
in    Paradise   prefigured   this  precious   Cross. 


5  Cf.  Cyril,  Contr.  Jul.,  bk.  vi. 

6  Text,  6  ropyo0ds,  o  tram/pio?.     Variant,  6  oravpdt 

7  6  deoirarutp  Aa/3i5.     Cf.  Dionysiaster,  Ep.  8. 

8  Ps   cxxxii.  7.  9  Ibid.  8. 
»  Text,  2coT»jpo5.     Variant,  <rravp6<;. 

2  St.  Matt.  xxiv.  30.         3  St.  Mark  xvi.  6  *  1  Co 

5  Text.  XpKTTou.     Variant,  irrnvnn' . 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


Si 


For  since  death  was  by  a  tree,  it  was  fitting 
that  life  and  resurrection  should  be  bestowed 
by  a  tree6.  Jacob,  when  He  worshipped  the 
top  of  Joseph's  staff,  was  the  first  to  image  the 
Cross,  and  when  he  blessed  his  sons  with 
crossed  hands  ?  he  made  most  clearly  the  sign 
of  the  cross.  Likewise  8  also  did  Moses'  rod, 
when  it  smote  the  sea  in  the  figure  of  the 
cross  and  saved  Israel,  while  it  overwhelmed 
Pharaoh  in  the  depths ;  likewise  also  the 
hands  stretched  out  crosswise  and  routing 
Amalek  ;  and  the  bitter  water  made  sweet  by 
a  tree,  and  the  rock  rent  and  pouring  forth 
streams  of  water  9,  and  the  rod  that  meant 
for  Aaron  the  dignity  of  the  high  priesthood  J  : 
and  the  serpent  lifted  in  triumph  on  a  tree 
as  though  it  were  dead 2,  the  tree  bringing 
salvation  to  those  who  in  faith  saw  their 
enemy  dead,  just  as  Christ  was  nailed  to  the 
tree  in  the  flesh  of  sin  which  yet  knew  no  sin  3. 
The  mighty  Moses  cried  •*,  You  will  see  your 
life  hanging  on  the  tree  before  your  eyes,  and 
Isaiah  likewise,  /  have  spread  out  my  hands  all 
the  day  unto  a  faithless  and  rebellious  people  5. 
But  may  we  who  worship  this  6  obtain  a  part 
in  Christ  the  crucified.     Amen. 

CHAPTER   XII. 
Concerning  Worship  toivards  the  East. 

It  is  not  without  reason  or  by  chance  that 
we  worship  towards  the  East.  But  seeing  that 
we  are  composed  of  a  visible  and  an  invisible 
nature,  that  is  to  say,  of  a  nature  partly  of 
spirit  and  partly  of  sense,  we  render  also 
a  twofold  worship  to  the  Creator;  just  as  we 
sing  both  with  our  spirit  and  our  bodily  lips, 
and  are  baptized  with  both  water  and  Spirit, 
and  are  united  with  the  Lord  in  a  twofold 
manner,  being  sharers  in  the  mysteries  and  in 
the  grace  of  the  Spirit. 

Since,  therefore,  God  ?  is  spiritual  light 8,  and 
Christ  is  called  in  the  Scriptures  Sun  of  Right- 
eousness "  and  Dayspring 2,  the  East  is  the 
direction  that  must  be  assigned  to  His  wor- 
ship. For  everything  good  must  be  assigned 
to  Him  from  Whom  every  good  thing  arises. 
Indeed  the  divine  David  also  says,  Sing  unto 
God,  ye  kingdoms  of  the  earth  :  O  sing  praises 
unto  the  Lord:  to  Him  that  rideth  upon  the 
Heavens  of  heavens  towards  the  East  3.     More- 


6  Gen.  ii.  and  iii.  1  Heb.  zi.  »i. 

8  Auct.,  Qucrst.  ad  Ant  lock.,  9,  63. 

9  Num.  xx.  »  ExoX  iv.  *  Ibid. 
3  Text,  ovk  elSvia.     Variant,  eiSioj. 

*  Iren.,  bk.  v.,  c'18.  5  Isai.  lxv.  2. 

6  Text,  touto.     Variants,  tovtov  and  tovtu. 

7  Basil,  De  Sfir.  Sanct.,  c.  27;  Aicuin,  De  Trin.  ii.  5; 
IVal.  Strabo,  De  reb.  ecciet.,  c.  4;  Hon.  August.,  Gemma 
Animcr.  c.  950. 

8  1  St.  John  L  5.  »  Mai.  iv.  2. 

=  Zach.  iii.  8,  vi.  12 ;  St.  Luke  i.  78.  3  Ps.  Ixviii.  32,  33. 


over  the  Scripture  also  says,  And  God  planted 
a  garden  eastward  in  Eden  ;  and  there  He  put 
the  man  whom  He  had  formed  *  :  and  when  he 
had  transgressed  His  command  He  expelled 
him  and  made  him  to  dwell  over  against  the 
delights  of  Paradise  s,  which  clearly  is  the 
West.  So,  then,  we  worship  God  seeking  and 
striving  after  our  old  fatherland.  Moreover 
the  tent  of  Moses6  had  its  veil  and  mercy 
seat?  towards  the  East.  Also  the  tribe  of 
Judah  as  the  most  precious  pitched  their 
camp  on  the  East8.  Also  in  the  celebrated 
temple  of  Solomon  the  Gate  of  the  Lord  was 
placed  eastward.  Moreover  Christ,  when  He 
hung  on  the  Cross,  had  His  face  turned  to- 
wards the  West,  and  so  we  worship,  striving 
after  Him.  And  when  He  was  received  again 
into  Heaven  He  was  borne  towards  the  East, 
and  thus  His  apostles  worship  Him,  and  thus 
He  will  come  again  in  the  way  in  which  they 
beheld  Him  going  towards  Heaven  9  ;  as  the 
Lord  Himself  said,  As  the  lightning  cometh  out 
of  the  East  and  shineth  1  even  unto  the  West,  so 
also  shall  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Afan  be  2. 

So,  then,  in  expectation  of  His  coming  we 
worship  towards  the  East.  But  this  tradition 
of  the  apostles  is  unwritten.  For  much  that 
has  been  handed  down  to  us  by  tradition  is 
unwritten  3. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

Concerning  the  holy  and  immaculate  Mysteries 
of  the  Lord. 

God4  Who  is  good  and  altogether  good  and 
more  than  good,  Who  is  goodness  throughout, 
by  reason  of  the  exceeding  riches  of  His  good- 
ness did  not  suffer  Himself,  that  is  His  nature, 
only  to  be  good,  with  no  other  to  participate 
therein,  but  because  of  this  He  made  first  the 
spiritual  and  heavenly  powers  :  next  the  visi- 
ble and  sensible  universe  :  next  man  with  his 
spiritual  and  sentient  nature.  All  things,  there- 
fore, which  he  made,  share  in  His  goodness  in 
respect  of  their  existence.  For  He  Himself  is 
existence  to  all,  since  all  things  that  are,  are  in 
Him  s,  not  only  because  it  was  He  that  brought 
them  out  of  nothing  into  being,  but  because 
His  energy  preserves  and  maintains  all  that  He 
made  :  and  in  especial  the  living  creatures. 
For  both  in  that  they  exist  and  in  that  they 


4  Gen.  ii.  8. 

5  Text,  bv  TrapafSavTo.  i£<apt.o~tv,  airfvavrl  Te  tov  T\apaS(i<rov 
T-ijs  Tpv<pf)S  KartoKitTev.  Valiants,  bv  napapdvTa,  ttjs  Tpvipij?  efco- 
purev,  and  bv  irapafSavra,  tov  TrapaSeiaov  Trjs  Tpv^rjs  c.;:wpicrtK, 
airivavTi  Te  tov  rrapaceicrov  KaTioKiatv. 

6  Levit.  xvi.  14.  7  Ibid.  2.  8  Num.  ii.  3. 
9  Acts  i.  11. 

1  Text,  (paiverai..  Variant,  4iBAvti.  The  old  translation  givef 
occupat.  2  St   Matt.  xxiv.  27. 

3  Basil,  De  Spiritu  Sancto,  ch.  27. 

4  Greg.  Xaz.,  Oral.  42:  Dion.  De  div.  nom.,  ch.  3. 

5  Rom.  xi.  36. 


VOL.  IX. 


Bb 


$2 


JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS. 


enjoy  life  they  share  in  His  goodness.  But 
in  truth  tho<=e  of  them  that  have  reason  have 
a  still  greater  share  in  that,  both  because  of 
what  has  been  already  said  and  also  be- 
cause of  the  very  reason  which  they  possess. 
For  they  are  somehow  more  clearly  akin  to 
Him,  even  though  He  is  incomparably  higher 
than  they. 

Man,  however,  being  endowed  with  reason 
and  free  will,  received  the  power  of  continuous 
union  with  God  through  his  own  choice,  if 
indeed  he  should  abide  in  goodness,  that  is  in 
obedience  to  his  Maker.  Since,  however,  he 
transgressed  the  command  of  his  Creator  and 
became  liable  to  death  and  corruption,  the 
Creator  and  Maker  of  our  race,  because  of  His 
bowels  of  compassion,  took  on  our  likeness, 
becoming  man  in  all  things  but  without  sin, 
and  was  united  to  our  nature  6.  For  since  He 
bestowed  on  us  His  own  image  and  His  own 
spirit  and  we  did  not  keep  them  safe,  He  took 
Himself  a  share  in  our  poor  and  weak  nature, 
in  order  that  He  might  cleanse  us  and  make  us 
incorruptible,  and  establish  us  once  more  as 
partakers  of  His  divinity. 

For  it  was  fitting  that  not  only  the  first-fruits 
of  our  nature  should  partake  in  the  higher  good 
but  every  man  who  wished  it,  and  that  a  second 
birth  should  take  place  and  that  the  nourish- 
ment should  be  new  and  suitable  to  the  birth, 
and  thus  the  measure  of  perfection  be  attained. 
Through  His  birth,  that  is,  His  incarnation, 
and  baptism  and  passion  and  resurrection,  He 
delivered  our  nature  from  the  sin  of  our  first 
parent  and  death  and  corruption,  and  became 
the  first-fruits  of  the  resurrection,  and  made 
Himself  the  way  and  image  and  pattern,  in 
order  that  we,  too,  following  in  His  footsteps, 
may  become  by  adoption  what  He  is  Himself 
by  nature?,  sons  and  heirs  of  God  and  joint  heirs 
with  Him  8.  He  gave  us  therefore,  as  I  said, 
a  second  birth  in  order  that,  just  as  we  who 
are  born  of  Adam  are  in  his  image  and  are  the 
heirs  of  the  curse  and  corruption,  so  also  being 
born  of  Him  we  may  be  in  His  likeness  and 
heirs 9  of  His  incorruption  and  blessing  and 
glory. 

Now  seeing  that  this  Adam  is  spiritual,  it 
was  meet  that  both  the  birth  and  likewise  the 
food  should  be  spiritual  too,  but  since  we  are 
of  a  double  and  compound  nature,  it  is  meet 
that  both  the  birth  should  be  double  and  like- 
wise the  food  compound.  We  were  therefore 
given  a  birth  by  water  and  Spirit :  I  mean,  by 
the  holy  baptism  1  :  and  the  food  is  the  very 


6  Heb.  ii.  17.  7  Rom.  vii.  17. 

3  \aiiant,  <pv<rci  Kai  xXripovofioi   rrjs  avroi)   yevutfieSa  \dptTOt, 
#cai  avTou  mot,  Kai  (TvyK\y}fiOv6fXOL. 

9  Text,  Kkr\povoii.ri<Tu>it.(v.     Variant,  KKT\povonT)(iavT*t. 
1  C/irj/s.  in  Matt.,  Horn.  83  ;  St.  John  iii.  3. 


bread  of  life,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Who  came 
down  from  heaven  2.  For  when  He  was  about 
to  take  on  Himself  a  voluntary  death  for  our 
sakes,  on  the  night  on  which  He  gave  Himself 
up,  He  laid  a  new  covenant  on  His  holy  dis- 
ciples and  apostles,  and  through  them  on  all 
who  believe  on  Him.  In  the  upper  chamber, 
then,  of  holy  and  illustrious  Sion,  after  He  had 
eaten  the  ancient  Passover  with  His  disciples 
and  had  fulfilled  the  ancient  covenant,  He 
washed  His  disciples'  feet  3  in  token  of  the  holy 
baptism.  Then  having  broken  bread  He  gave 
it  to  them  saying,  Take,  eat,  this  is  My  body 
broken  for  you  for  the  remission  of  sins  *.  Like- 
wise also  He  took  the  cup  of  wine  nnd  water 
and  gave  it  to  them  saying,  Drink  ye  all  of  it : 
for  this  is  My  blood,  the  blood  of  the  New 
Testament  which  is  shed  for  you  for  the  remission 
of  sins.  This  do  ye  i?i  remembrance  of  Me.  For 
as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup. 
ye  do  shejv  the  death  of  the  Son  of  man  and 
confess  His  resurrection  until  He  come  '. 

If  then  the  Word  of  God  is  quick  and  ener- 
gising6, and  the  Lord  did  all  that  He  willed  7 ; 
if  He  said,  Let  there  be  light  and  there  was 
light,  let  there  be  a  firmament  and  thee  was 
a  firmament8;  if  the  heavens  were  established 
by  the  Word  of  the  Lord  and  all  the  host  of 
them  by  the  breath  of  His  mouth  9-  if  the 
heaven  and  the  earth,  water  and  fire  and  air 
and  the  whole  glory  of  these,  and,  in  sooth, 
this  most  noble  creature,  man,  were  perfected 
by  the  Word  of  the  Lord ;  if  God  the  Word  of 
His  own  will  became  man  and  the  pure  and  un- 
defiled  blood  of  the  holy  and  ever-virginal  One 
made  His  flesh  without  the  aid  of  seed  r,  can 
He  not  then  make  the  bread  His  body  and  the 
wine  and  water  His  blood?  He  said  in  the 
beginning,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  grass',  and 
even  until  this  present  day,  when  the  rain 
comes  it  brings  forth  its  proper  fruits,  urged  on 
and  strengthened  by  the  divine  command. 
God  said,  This  is  My  body,  and  This  is  My 
blood,  and  this  do  ye  in  remembrance  of  Me.  And 
so  it  is  at  His  omnipotent  command  until  He 
come :  for  it  was  in  this  sense  that  He  said 
until  He  come:  and  the  overshadowing  power 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  becomes  through  the  invo- 
cation the  rain  to  this  new  tillage  3.  For  just  as 
God  made  all  that  He  made  by  the  energy  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  60  also  now  the  energy  of  the 


»  St.  John  vi.  48.  3  Ibid.  xiii. 

4  St.  Mitt.  xxvi.  26;  Liturg.  S.Jacobi. 

5  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  27,  28  ;  St.  Mark  xiv.  22—24;  St.  Luke  xxii. 
19,  20  ;  1  Cor.  xi.  24 — 26. 

6  Heb.  iv.  12.  7  Ps.  exxxv.  6.  8  Gen.  i.  3  and  6. 
9  Ps.  xxxiii.  6. 

.   Ka.80.pa.  koX  aixw ixi)7 a  oi/xara  iavTiZ. 
.  Kadapuiv  koX  o.LiOJii.TJTioi'  ai/iaTiop  iavrif. 


1  Text,     Kai     TO.    T7JS 

Variant,  ko.1  (k  tuiv  T»js 

2  Gen.  i.  11. 

3  Iren.,  bk.   iv.,  ch 


35;    Fulg.,  Ad  Monim.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  6', 


Chrys.,  De  prod.  Judce;  Greg.  Nyss.,  Catech.,  &c. 


EXPOSITION   OF   THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


83 


Spirit  performs  those  things  that  are  super- 
natural and  which  it  is  not  possible  to  com- 
prehend unless  by  faith  alone.  How  shall  this 
be,  said  the  holy  Virgin,  seeing  I  know  not  a 
man?  And  the  archangel  Gabriel  answered 
her:  The  Holy  Spirit  shall  come  upon  thee,  and 
the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee*. 
And  now  you  ask,  how  the  bread  became 
Christ's  body  and  the  wine  and  water  Christ's 
blood.  And  I  say  unto  thee,  "  The  Holy  Spirit 
is  present  and  does  those  things  which  surpass 
reason  and  thought." 

Further,  bread  and  wine5  are  employed  :  for 
God  knoweth  man's  infirmity :  for  in  general 
man  turns  away  discontentedly  from  what  is 
not  well-worn  by  custom :  and  so  with  His 
usual  indulgence  He  performs  His  supernatural 
works  through  familiar  objects  :  and  just  as,  in 
the  case  of  baptism,  since  it  is  man's  custom 
to  wash  himself  with  water  and  anoint  himself 
with  oil,  He  connected  the  grace  of  the  Spirit 
with  the  oil  and  the  water  and  made  it  the 
water  of  regeneration,  in  like  manner  since  it  is 
man's  custom  to  eat  and  to  drink  water  and 
wine6,  He  connected  His  divinity  with  these  and 
made  them  His  body  and  blood  in  order  that 
we  may  rise  to  what  is  supernatural  through 
what  is  familiar  and  natural. 

The  body  which  is  born  of  the  holy  Virgin  is 
in  truth  body  united  with  divinity,  not  that  the 
body  which  was  received  up  into  the  heavens 
descends,  but  that  the  bread  itself  and  the  wine 
are  changed  into  God's  body  and  blood  7.  But 
if  you  enquire  how  this  happens,  it  is  enough 
for  you  to  learn  that  it  was  through  the  Holy 
Spirit,  just  as  the  Lord  took  on  Himself  flesh 
that  subsisted  in  Him  and  was  born  of  the  holy 
Mother  of  God  through  the  Spirit.  And  we 
know  nothing  further  save  that  the  Word  of 
God  is  true  and  energises  and  is  omnipotent, 
but  the  manner  of  this  cannot  be  searched  out8. 
But  one  can  put  it  well  thus,  that  just  as  in 
nature  the  bread  by  the  eating  and  the  wine 
and  the  water  by  the  drinking  are  changed  into 
the  body  and  blood  of  the  eater  and  drinker, 
and  do  not  9  become  a  different  body  from  the 
former  one,  so  the  bread  of  the  table •  and 
the  wine  and  water  are  supernaturally  changed 
by  the  invocation  and  presence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and 
are  not  two  but  one 2  and  the  same. 


4  St.  Luke  i.  34,  35.  S  Nyss.,  Orat.,  Catech.,  ch.  37. 

6  Clem.,  Constit.,  bk.  viii. ;  Justin  Martyr.,  Apol.  i.  ;   Iren., 

T.  2- 

1  Greg.  Nyss.,  Orat.  Catech.,  c.  37. 

8  Simile  Nyss.  loc.  cit.  9  ov  is  absent  in  some  MSS. 

1  The  Greek  is  6  ttjs  irpofleVewy  oii'os,  the  bread  0/  the  pro- 
thesis.  It  is  rendered  panis propositionis  in  the  old  translations. 
These  phrases  designate  the  Shewbread  in  the  LXX.  and  the 
Vu.g.ite.  The  n-potfeo-is  is  explained  as  a  smaller  table  placed 
on  the  right  side  of  the  altar,  on  which  the  priests  make  ready 
tlie  bread  and  the  cup  fur  consecration.     See  the  note  in  Migne. 

'  See  Aiceph.,  C.P.,  Antirr.  ii.  3. 


Wherefore  to  those  who  partake  worthily 
with  faith,  it  is  for  the  remission  of  sins  and  for 
life  everlasting  and  for  the  safe-guarding  of 
soul  and  body ;  but  to  those  who  partake  un- 
worthily without  faith,  it  is  for  chastisement  and 
punishment,  just  as  also  the  death  of  the  Lord 
became  to  those  who  believe  life  and  incorrup- 
tion  for  the  enjoyment  of  eternal  blessedness, 
while  to  those  who  do  not  believe  and  to  the 
murderers  of  the  Lord  it  is  for  everlasting 
chastisement  and  punishment. 

The  bread  and  the  wine  are  not  merely 
figures  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  (God 
forbid!)  but  the  deified  body  of  the  Lord 
itself:  for  the  Lord  has  said,  "This  is  My 
body,"  not,  this  is  a  figure  of  My  body :  and 
"  My  blood,"  not,  a  figure  of  My  blood.  And 
on  a  previous  occasion  He  had  said  to  the 
Jews,  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man 
and  drink  His  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you. 
For  My  flesh  is  meat  indeed  and  My  blood  is 
drink  indeed.  And  again,  He  that  eateth  Me, 
shall  live  3  4. 

Wherefore  with  all  fear  and  a  pure  conscience 
and  certain  faith  let  us  draw  near  and  it  will 
assuredly  be  to  us  as  we  believe,  doubting 
nothing.  Let  us  pay  homage  to  it  in  all  purity 
both  of  soul  and  body  :  for  it  is  twofold.  Let 
us  draw  near  to  it  with  an  ardent  desire,  and 
with  our  hands  held  in  the  form  of  the  cross  s 
let  us  receive  the  body  of  the  Crucified  One  : 
and  let  us  apply  our  eyes  and  lips  and  brows 
and  partake  of  the  divine  coal,  in  order  that 
the  fire  of  the  longing,  that  is  in  us,  with  the 
additional  heat  derived  from  the  coal  may 
utterly  consume  our  sins  and  illumine  our 
hearts,  and  that  we  may  be  inflamed  and  deified 
by  the  participation  in  the  divine  fire.  Isaiah 
saw  the  coal 6.  But  coal  is  not  plain  wood  but 
wood  united  with  fire  :  in  like  manner  also  the 
bread  of  the  communion  ^  is  not  plain  bread 
but  bread  united  with  divinity.  But  a  body  8 
which  is  united  with  divinity  is  not  one  nature, 
but  has  one  nature  belonging  to  the  body  and 
another  belonging  to  the  divinity  that  is  united 
to  it,  so  that  the  compound  is  not  one  nature 
but  two. 

With  bread  and  wine  Melchisedek,  the  priest 
of  the  most  high  God,  received  Abraham  on 
his  return  from  the  slaughter  of  the  Gentiles'. 
That  table  pre-imaged  this  mystical  table,  just 
as  that  priest  was  a  type  and  image  of  Christ, 
the  true  high-priest x.  For  thou  art  a  priest  for 
ever  after  the  order  of  Melchisedek 3.     Of  this 


3  St.  John  vi.  si— 55. 

4  C,uyr\v  cuwviov  is  added  in  many  MSS. 

5  Cyril  Hierosol.,  Cat.  My  stag.  5  ;   Chrys.  Horn.  3  in  Bpitt. 
ad  Efhes.  ;   Trull,  can.  101. 

6  Is.  vi.  6.  7  See  Cyril  Alex,  on  Isaiah  vi. 
8  Vide  Basil,  ibid.            9  Gen.  xiv.  18. 

1  Lev.  xiv.  »  Ps.  ex.  4. 


Kb 


84 


JOHN    OF    DAMASCUS. 


bread  the  show-bread  was  an  image  3.  This 
surely  is  that  pure  and  bloodless  sacrifice 
which  the  Lord  through  the  prophet  said  is 
offered  to  Him  from  the  rising  to  the  setting 
of  the  sun  4. 

The  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  making 
for  the  support  of  our  soul  and  body,  without 
being  consumed  or  suffering  corruption,  not 
miking  for  the  draught  (God  forbid  !)  but 
for  our  being  and  preservation,  a  protection 
against  all  kinds  of  injury,  a  purging  from  all 
uncleanness:  should  one  receive  base  gold,  they 
purify  it  by  the  critical  burning  lest  in  the 
future  we  be  condemned  with  this  world.  They 
purify  from  diseases  and  all  kinds  of  calami- 
ties ;  according  to  the  words  of  the  divine 
Apostle5,  For  if  we  would  judge  ourselves,  we 
should  not  be  judged.  But  when  we  are  judged, 
we  are  chastened  of  the  Lord,  that  we  should  not 
be  condemned  with  the  world.  This  too  is 
what  he  says,  So  that  he  that  partaketh  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  unworthily,  eateth  and 
drinketh  damnation  to  himself6.  Being  purified 
by  this,  we  are  united  to  the  body  of  Christ  and 
to  His  Spirit  and  become  the  body  of  Christ. 

This  bread  is  the  first-fruits7  of  the  future 
bread  which  is  tTnovaios,  i.e.  necessary  for 
existence.  For  the  word  eirioicriov  signifies 
either  the  future,  that  is  Him  Who  is  for  a 
future  age,  or  else  Him  of  Whom  we  partake 
fct  ?be  preservation  of  our  essence.  Whether 
then  ii  is  i»  this  sense  or  that,  it  is  fitting  to 
speak  so  of  tht  Lord's  body.  For  the  Lord's 
flesh  is  life-giving  spirit  because  it  was  conceiv- 
ed of  the  life-giving  Spirit.  For  what  is  born 
of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.  But  I  do  not  say  this 
to  take  away  the  nature  of  the  body,  but  I  wish 
to  make  clear  its  life-giving  and  divine  power8. 

But  if  some  persons  called  the  bread  and  the 
wine  antitypes  9  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Lord,  as  did  the  divinely  inspired  Basil,  they 
said  so  not  after  the  consecration  but  before 
the  consecration,  so  calling  the  offering  itself. 

Participation  is  spoken  of;  for  through  it 
we  partake  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus.  Com- 
munion, too,  is  spoken  of,  and  it  is  an  actual 
communion,  because  through  it  we  have  com- 
munion with  Christ  and  share  in  His  flesh  and 
His  divinity:  yea,  we  have  communion  and  are 
united  with  one  another  through  it.  For  since 
we  partake  of  one  bread,  we  all  become  one 
body  of  Christ  and  one  blood,  and  members 
one  of  another,  being  of  one  body  with  Christ. 

With  all  our  strength,  therefore,  let  us 
beware  lest  we  receive  communion  from  or 
grant  it  to  heretics  ;    Give  not  that  -which   is 


3   Text,  ei/coi'tfov.  Variant,  e ikoh'£ov<ti. 

*  Mai.  i.  ii.  5  i  Cor.  xi.  31,  32. 

*  Ibid.  29.  7  Cyril,  lac.  cit 

*  St.  John  vi.  63  9  Anmlas.,  Uodcgus,  ch.  23. 


holy  unto  the  dogs,  saith  the  Lord,  neither  cast 
ye  your  pearls  before  swine1,  lest  we  become 
partakers  in  their  dishonour  and  con  demnat'O  i. 
For  if  union  is  in  truth  with  Christ  and  with 
one  another,  we  are  assuredly  voluntarily 
united  also  with  all  those  who  partake  with 
us.  For  this  union  is  effected  voluntarily  and 
not  against  our  inclination.  For  we  are  all 
one  body  because  we  partake  of  the  one  bread, 
as  the  divine  Apostle  says2. 

Further,  antitypes  of  future  things  are 
spoken  of,  not  as  though  they  were  not  in 
reality  Christ's  body  and  blood,  but  that  now 
through  them  we*  partake  of  Christ's  divinity, 
while  then  we  shall  partake  mentally  3  through 
the  vision  alone. 

CHAPTER   XIV. 

Concerning  our  Lord's  genealogy  and  concerning 
the  holy  Mother  of  God 4. 

Concerning  the  holy  and  much-lauded  ever- 
virgin  one,  Mary,  the  Mother  of  God,  we  have 
said  something  in  the  preceding  chapters, 
bringing  forward  what  was  most  opportune, 
viz.,  that  strictly  and  truly  she  is  and  is  called 
the  Mother  of  God.  Now  let  us  fill  up  the 
blanks.  For  she  being  pre-ordained  by  the 
eternal  prescient  counsel  of  God  and  imaged 
forth  and  proclaimed  in  diverse  images  and 
discourses  of  the  prophets  through  the  Holy 
Spirit,  sprang  at  the  pre-determined  time  from 
the  root  of  David,  according  to  the  promises 
that  were  made  to  him.  For  the  Lord  hath 
sworn,  He  saith  in  truth  to  David,  LLe  will  not 
turn  from  it :  of  the  fruit  oj  Thy  body  will 
L  set  upon  Thy  throne 5.  And  again,  Once 
have  L  sworn  by  My  holiness,  that  L  will  not 
lie  unto  David.  His  seed  shall  endure  for  ever, 
and  His  throne  as  the  sun  before  Me.  Lt  shall 
be  established  for  ever  as  the  moon,  and  as 
a  faithful  witness  in  heaven6.  And  Isaiah 
says  :  And  there  shall  come  out  a  rod  out  of 
the  stem  of  Jesse  and  a  branch  shall  grow  out 
of  his  roots  t . 

But  that  Joseph  is  descended  from  the 
tribe  of  David  is  expressly  demonstrated  by 
Matthew  and  Luke,  the  most  holy  evange- 
lists. But  Matthew  derives  Joseph  from  David 
through  Solomon,  while  Luke  does  so  through 
Nathan ;  while  over  the  holy  Virgin's  origin 
both  pass  in  silence. 

One  ought  to  remember  that  it  was  not 
the  custom  of  the  Hebrews  nor  of  the  divine 
Scripture  to  give  genealogies  of  women  ;  and 


'  St.  Matt.  vii.  6.  2  i  Cor.  x.  17. 

3  Text,  K>>jru>s  Sia  |uoi'r|?  rijs  ©fas  :  yorjrii;  is  wanting  in  some 
Reg.  2928  having  Sia  /abi^s  T»js  ©ei'as  ei>u><reui$. 

4  In  Reg.  2423  is  added  xai  'Iioa-ijc/)  toO  fii'rjcrTopo?. 

5  Ps.  exxxii.  11.         6  Ibid,  lxxxix.  35,  36,  37.         7  Is.  xi.  1. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


8; 


the  law  was  to  prevent  one  tribe  seeking  wives 
from  another8.  And  so  since  Joseph  was 
descended  from  the  tribe  of  David  and  was 
o  just  man  (for  this  the  divine  Gospel  testifies), 
he  would  not  have  espoused  the  holy  Virgin 
contrary  to  the  law  ;  he  would  not  have  taken 
her  unless  she  had  been  of  the  same  tribe8". 
It  was  sufficient,  therefore,  to  demonstrate  the 
descent  of  Joseph. 

One  ought  also  to  observe  9  this,  that  the 
law  was  that  when  a  man  died  without  seed, 
this  man's  brother  should  take  to  wife  the  wife 
of  the  dead  man  and  raise  up  seed  to  his 
brother  '.  The  offspring,  therefore,  belonged 
by  nature  to  the  second,  that  is,  to  him  that 
begat  it,  but  by  law  to  the  dead. 

Born  then  of  the  line  of  Nathan,  the  son 
of  David,  Devi  begat  Melchi 2  and  Panther : 
Panther  begat  Barpanther,  so  called.  This 
Barpanther  begat  Joachim :  Joachim  begat 
the  holy  Mother  of  God  3  4.  And  of  the  line 
of  Solomon,  the  son  ot  David,  Mathan  had 
a  wife5  of  whom  he  begat  Jacob.  Now  on 
the  death  of  Mathan,  Melchi,  of  the  tribe  of 
Nathan,  the  son  of  Devi  and  brother  of 
Panther,  married  the  wife  of  Mathan,  Jacob's 
mother,  of  whom  he  begat  Heli.  Therefore 
Jacob  and  Heli  became  brothers  on  the 
mother's  side,  Jacob  being  of  the  tribe  of 
Solomon  and  Heli  of  the  tribe  of  Nathan. 
Then  Heli  of  the  tribe  of  Nathan  died  child- 
less, and  Jacob  his  brother,  of  the  tribe  of 
Solomon,  took  his  wife  and  raised  up  seed 
to  his  brother  and  begat  Joseph.  Joseph, 
therefore,  is  by  nature  the  son  of  Jacob, 
of  the  line  of  Solomon,  but  by  law  he  is  the 
son  of  Heli  of  the  line  of  Nathan. 

Joachim  then6  took  to  wife  that  revered 
and  praiseworthy  woman,  Anna.  But  just  as 
the  earlier  Anna  ?,  who  was  barren,  bore 
Samuel  by  prayer  and  by  promise,  so  also 
this  Anna  by  supplication  and  promise  from 
God  bare  the  Mother  of  God  in  order  that 
she  might  not  even  in  this  be  behind  the 
matrons  of  fame 8.  Accordingly  it  was  grace 
(for  this  is  the  interpretation  of  Anna)  that 
bore  the  lady  :  (for  she  became  truly  the  Dady 
of  all  created  things  in  becoming  the  Mother 
of  the  Creator).  Further,  Joachim  9  was  born 
in  the  house  of  the  Probatica ',  and  was 
brought  up  to  the  temple.     Then  planted  in 


8  Num.  xxxvi.  6  seqq.  8a  aKijirrpov. 

9  Cf.  Julius  Afric,  Ep.  ad  Aristidem,  cited  in  Euseiius, 
Hist.  Eccles.  i   7. 

1   i>  j  at.  xxv.  5.  *  See  the  note  in  Migne. 

3  Text,  tt)i"  ayiav  ®cotokov.     Variant,  ttji/  ayiav ' \vvav. 

4  St.  Luke  iii.  24  seqq. 

5  R.  2926  adds  "Ethan,"  the  name  being  taken  from  Julius 
.Africanus. 

0  Kbiph..  Hares.  79.  7  1  Sam.  i.  2. 

8  Greg.  .\yss.,  Oral,  in  nativ.  Doin.  :  Eustath.  in  Hexaem. 

9  E/ip.h.,  Hares.  79. 

1  7-qs  TTpopartKrji,  the  Sheep-gate. 


the  House  of  God  and  increased  by  the  Spirit, 
like  a  fruitful  olive  tree,  she  became  the  home 
of  every  virtue,  turning  her  mind  away  from 
every  secular  and  carnal  desire,  and  thus 
keeping  her  soul  as  well  as  her  body  virginal, 
as  was  meet  for  her  who  was  to  receive  God 
into  her  bosom  :  for  as  He  is  holy,  He  finds 
rest  among  the  holy2.  Thus,  therefore,  she 
strove  after  holiness,  and  was  declared  a  holy 
and  wonderful  temple  fit  for  the  most  hign 
God. 

Moreover,  since  the  enemy  of  our  salvation 
was  keeping  a  watchful  eye  on  virgins,  ac- 
cording to  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  who  said, 
Behold  a  virgin  shall  conceive  and  bare  a  Son 
and  shall  call  His  name  Emmanuel,  which  is, 
being  inteipreted,  *  God  with  us3,'  in  order  that 
he  who  taketh  the  wise  in  their  own  craftiness  ♦ 
may  deceive  him  who  always  glorieth  in  his 
wisdom,  the  maiden  is  given  in  marriage  to 
Joseph  by  the  priests,  a  new  book  to  him 
who  is  versed  in  letters 5 :  but  the  marriage 
was  both  the  protection  of  the  virgin  and 
the  delusion  of  him  who  was  keeping  a  watch- 
ful eye  on  virgins.  But  when  the  fulness  of 
time  was  come,  the  messenger  of  the  Dord 
was  sent  to  her,  with  the  good  news  of  our 
Lord's  conception.  And  thus  she  conceived 
the  Son  of  God,  the  hypostatic  power  of 
the  Father,  not  of  the  will  of  the  flesh  nor 
of  the  will  of  man  6,  that  is  to  say,  by  con- 
nection and  seed,  but  by  the  good  pleasure 
of  the  Father  and  co-operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  She  ministered  to  the  Creator  in  that 
He  was  created,  to  the  Fashioner  in  that  He 
was  fashioned,  and  to  the  Son  of  God  and 
God  in  that  He  was  made  flesh  and  became 
man  from  her  pure  and  immaculate  flesh  and 
blood,  satisfying  the  debt  of  the  first  mother. 
For  just  as  the  latter  was  formed  from  Adam 
without  connection,  so  also  did  the  former 
bring  forth  the  new  Adam,  who  was  brought 
forth  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  partu- 
rition and  above  the  nature  of  generation. 

For  He  who  was  of  the  Father,  yet  without 
mother,  was  born  of  woman  without  a  father's 
co-operation.  And  so  far  as  He  was  born  of 
woman,  His  birth  was  in  accordance  with  the 
laws  of  parturition,  while  so  far  as  He  had 
no  father,  His  birth  was  above  the  nature 
of  generation  :  and  in  that  it  was  at  the  usual 
time  (for  He  was  born  on  the  completion 
of  the  ninth  month  when  the  tenth  was 
just  beginning),  His  birth  was  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  of  parturition,  while  in  that 
it  was  painless  it  was  above  the  laws  of 
generation.     For,  as  pleasure  did  not  precede 


*  Ps.  xviii.  25,  26. 

3  Is.  vii.  14  :  St.  Matt.  i.  23. 

5  Is.  xxix.  11. 


*  1  Cor.  iii.  19;  Job  v.  13. 

6  St.  John  i.  13. 


S6 


JOHN    OF    DAMASCUS. 


it,   pain   did    not  follow  it,  according  to  the 
prophet    who    says,   Before   she   travailed,   she . 
brought  forth,  and  again,  before  her  pain  came  : 
she  was  delivered  of  a  man-child^.     The  Son  j 
of  God  incarnate,  therefore,  was  born  of  her, 
not  a  divinely-inspired  8  man  but  God  incarnate  ;  j 
not  a  prophet  anointed  with  energy  but  by  the 
presence  of  the  anointing  One  in   His   com- 
pleteness, so  that  the  Anointer  became  man 
and  the  Anointed  God,   not  by  a  change  of! 
nature  but  by  union  in  subsistence.     For  the  I 
Anointer  and  the  Anointed  were  one  and  the  i 
same,  anointing  in  the  capacity  of  God  Him- 
self as    man.     Must  there   not    therefore    be  j 
a  Mother  of  God  who  bore  God  incarnate? 
Assuredly   she   who    played    the    part  of  the 
Creator's  servant  and  mother  is  in  all  strict- 
ness and  truth   in  reality  God's  Mother  and 
Lady   and    Queen    over    all    created    things. 
But  just   as    He    who   was   conceived    kept 
her  who  conceived  still  virgin,  in  like  manner 
also  He  who  was  born  preserved  her  virginity 
intact,  only  passing  through  her  and  keeping 
her    closed  9.     The   conception,    indeed,    was 
through   the  sense   of  hearing,  but  the  birth 
through    the    usual    path    by    which    children 
come,  although  some  tell  tales  of  His  birth 
through  the  side  of  the  Mother  of  God.     For 
it  was  not  impossible  for  Him  to  have  come 
by  this  gate,  without  injuring  her  seal  in  any 
way. 

The  ever-virgin  One  thus  remains  even  after 
the  birth  still  virgin,  having  never  at  any  time 
up  till  death  consorted  with  a  man.  For 
although  it  is  written,  A7id  knew  her  not  till 
she  had  brought  forth  her  first-born  Son  %  yet 
note  that  he  who  is  first-begotten  is  first-born, 
even  if  he  is  only-begotten.  For  the  word 
"  first-born"  means  that  he  was  born  first, 
but  does  not  at  all  suggest  the  birth  of 
others.  And  the  word  "  till "  signifies  the 
limit  of  the  appointed  time  but  does  not 
exclude  the  time  thereafter.  For  the  Lord 
says,  And  lo,  I  am  7vith  you  always,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world2,  not  meaning 
thereby  that  He  will  be  separated  from  us 
after  the  completion  of  the  age.  The  divine 
apostle,  indeed,  says,  And  so  shall  we  ever  be 
with  the  Lord*,  meaning  after  the  general 
resurrection. 

For  could  it  be  possible  that  she,  who  had 
borne  God  and  from  experience  of  the  sub- 
sequent events  had  come  to  know  the  miracle, 
should  receive  the  embrace  of  a  man.  God 
forbid  !  It  is  not  the  part  of  a  chaste  mind 
to  think  such  thoughts,  far  less  to  commit 
such  acts. 


7  Is.  lxvi.  7. 
•  St.  Matt.  i.  25. 


6  0i  iii(, opos 
2  Ibid    xxviii.  20. 


9  Ezck.  xliv.  3. 
3  1  'Ihess.  iv.  17. 


But  this  blessed  woman,  who  was  deemed 
worthy  of  gifts  that  are  supernatural,  suffered 
those  pains,  which  she  escaped  at  the  birth, 
in  the  hour  of  the  passion,  enduring  from 
motherly  sympathy  the  rending  of  the  bowels, 
and  when  she  beheld  Him,  Whom  she  knew 
to  be  God  by  the  manner  of  His  generation, 
killed  as  a  malefactor,  her  thoughts  pierced 
her  as  a  sword,  and  this  is  the  meaning  of 
this  verse  :  Yea,  a  sword  shall  pierce  through 
thy  own  soul  also  *  s.  But  the  joy  of  the 
resurrection  transforms  the  pain,  proclaiming 
Him,  Who  died  in  the  flesh,  to  be  God. 

CHAPTER   XV. 

Concerning  the  honour  due  to  the  Saints  and 
their  remains. 

To  the  saints  honour  must  be  paid  as  friends 
of  Christ,  as  sons  and  heirs  of  God  :  in  the 
words  of  John  the  theologian  and  evangelist, 
As  many  as  received  Him,  to  them  gave  He  power 
to  become  sons  of  God6.  So  that  they  are  no- 
longer  servants,  but  sons :  and  if  sons,  also  heirs, 
heirs  of  God  and  joint  heirs  with  Christ  i  :  and 
the  Lord  in  the  holy  Gospels  says  to  His 
apostles,  Ye  are  My  friends*.  Henceforth  1 
call  you  not  servants,  for  the-servani  knowetk 
not  what  his  lord  doeih  9.  And  further,  if  the 
Creator  and  Lord  of  all  things  is  called  also 
King  of  Kings  and  Lord  of  Lords  '  and  God 
of  Gods,  surely  also  the  saints  are  gods  and 
lords  and  kings.  For  of  these  God  is  and 
is  called  God  and  Lord  and  King.  For 
I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  He  said  to  Moses, 
the  God  of  Isaac  and  the  God  of  Jacob 2. 
And  God  made  Moses  a  god  to  Pharaoh  3. 
Now  I  mean  gods  and  kings  and  lords  not 
in  nature,  but  as  rulers  and  masters  of  their 
passions,  and  as  preserving  a  truthful  likeness 
to  the  divine  image  according  to  which  they 
were  made  (for  the  image  of  a  king  is  also 
called  king),  and  as  being  united  to  God  of 
their  own  free-will  and  receiving  Him  as  an 
indweller  and  becoming  by  grace  through  par- 
ticipation with  Him  what  He  is  Himself  by- 
nature.  Surely,  then,  the  worshippers  and 
friends  and  sons  of  God  are  to  be  held  in 
honour?  For  the  honour  shewn  to  the  most 
thoughtful  of  fellow-servants  is  a  proof  of  good 
feeling  towards  the  common  Master  4. 

These  are  made  treasuries  and  pure  habi- 
tations of  God :    For  I  will  dwell  in  them, 


4  St.  Lukeii.  35.  m  .-•»_-> 

5  In  R.  2926  is  added,  onep  ovrjj  irpociprjKfv  o  ©eoSox<K  ivittuVt. 

6  St.  John  1.  12.  7  Gal.  iv.  7  :  Rom.  viii.  17. 

8  St.  John  xv.  14.  9  Ibid.  15.  «  Apoc.  xix.  r6. 

»  Ex.  iii.  6.  3  Ibid.  vii.  1. 

*  Basil,  Orat.  in  40  Martyr. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE    ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


87 


said  God,  and  walk  in  them,  and  I  will  be 
their  God*.  The  divine  Scripture  likewise 
saith  that  the  souls  of  the  just  are  in  God's 
hand6  and  death  cannot  lay  hold  of  them. 
For  death  is  rather  the  sleep  of  the  saints  than 
their  death.  For  they  travailed  in  this  life  and 
shall  to  the  end?,  and  Precious  in  the  sight  0/ 
the  Lord  is  the  death  of  His  saints 8.  What, 
then,  is  more  precious  than  to  be  in  the  hand 
of  God?  For  God  is  Life  and  Light,  and 
those  who  are  in  God's  hand  are  in  life  and 
light. 

Further,  that  God  dwelt  even  in  their  bodies 
in  spiritual  wise8",  the  Apostle  tells  us,  saying, 
Know  ye  not  that  your  bodies  are  the  temples 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  dwelling  in  you?9}  and  The 
Lord  is  that  Spirit l,  and  If  any  one  destroy 
the  temple  of  God,  him  will  God  destroy'2. 
Surely,  then,  we  must  ascribe  honour  to  the 
living  temples  of  God,  the  living  tabernacles 
of  God.  These  while  they  lived  stood  with 
confidence  before  God. 

The  Master  Christ  made  the  remains  of 
the  saints  to  be  fountains  of  salvation  to  us, 
pouring  forth  manifold  blessings  and  abound- 
ing in  oil  of  sweet  fragrance  :  and  let  no  one 
disbelieve  this  3.  For  if  water  burst  in  the 
desert  from  the  steep  and  solid  rock  at  God's 
will  *  and  from  the  jaw-bone  of  an  ass  to 
quench  Samson's  thirst  s,  is  it  incredible  that 
fragrant  oil  should  burst  forth  from  the  martyrs' 
remains?  By  no  means,  at  least  to  those 
who  know  the  power  of  God  and  the  honour 
which  He  accords  His  saints. 

In  the  law  every  one  who  toucheth  a  dead 
body  was  considered  impure6,  but  these  are 
not  dead.  For  from  the  time  when  He  that 
is  Himself  life  and  the  Author  of  life  was 
reckoned  among  the  dead,  we  do  not  call 
those  dead  who  have  fallen  asleep  in  the  hope 
of  the  resurrection  and  in  faith  on  Him.  For 
how  could  a  dead  body  work  miracles  ?  How, 
therefore,  are  demons  driven  off  by  them, 
diseases  dispelled,  sick  persons  made  well, 
the  blind  restored  to  sight,  lepers  purified, 
temptations  and  troubles  overcome,  and  how 
does  every  good  gift  from  the  Father  of  lights  ' 
come  down  through  them  to  those  who  pray 
with  sure  faith?  How  much  labour  would 
you  not  undergo  to  find  a  patron  to  introduce 
you  to  a  mortal  king  and  speak  to  him  on 
your  behalf?  Are  not  those,  then,  worthy 
of  honour  who  are  the  patrons  of  the  whole 
race,  and  make  intercession  to  God  for  us? 
Yea,  verily,  we  ought  to  give  honour  to  them 


5  Levit   xxvi.  za:  a  Cor.  vi.  16. 

7  Ps.  xl.  g{  10.  8  luid.  cxvi.  15. 

9  1  Cor.  iii.  16.  *  2  Cor.  lii.  17. 

3  Aster.,  Horn,  in  SS.  Mart. 

5  Judg.  xv.  17.  *  Num.  xlx.  ti 


*  Wisd.  iii.  I. 

"•    Gia  TOU   VOV. 

3  i  Cor.  iii.  17. 
4  Ex.  xvii.  6. 

7  J  as.  i.  17. 


by  raising    temples    to    God    in    their   name, 
bringing  them   fruit-offerings,  honouring  their 
memories  and  taking  spiritual  delight  in  them, 
in  order  that  the  joy  of  those  who  call  on  us 
may  be  ours,  that  in  our  attempts  at  worship 
we  may  not  on  the  contrary  cause  them  offence. 
For  those  who  worship  God  will  take  pleasure 
in  those  things  whereby  God  is  worshipped, 
while    His   shield-bearers   will    be    wroth    at 
those   things    wherewith    God   is   wroth.     In 
psalms   and    hymns  and   spiritual   songs8,   in 
contrition  and   in  pity  for  the  needy,  let  us 
believers'  worship  the  saints,  as  God  also  is 
most  worshipped  in  such  wise.     Let  us  raise 
monuments  to  them  and  visible  images,  and 
let  us  ourselves  become,  through  imitation  of 
their  virtues,   living  monuments  and    images 
of  them.     Let  us  give  honour  to  her  who  bore 
God  as  being  strictly  and  truly  the  Mother  of 
God.     Let  us  honour  also  the  prophet  John 
as   forerunner  and    baptist ',  as   apostle   and 
martyr,  For  among  them  that  are  born  of  women 
there  hath  not  risen  a  greater  than  John  the 
Baptist*,  as  saith  the  Lord,  and  he  became 
the  first  to  proclaim  the  Kingdom.     Let  us 
honour  the  apostles  as  the  Lord's  brothers, 
who   saw   Him    face   to   face  and  ministered 
to  His  passion,  for  whom  God  the  Father  did 
foreknow   He  also  did  predestinate  to  be  con- 
formed to  the  image  of  His  Son  3,  first  apostles ; 
second  prophets  «,  third  pastors  and  teachers  K 
Let  us  also  honour  the  martyrs  of  the  Lord 
chosen    out    of   every   class,    as    soldiers    of 
Christ   who   have   drunk    His  cup  and  were 
then  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  His  life- 
bringing  death,  to  be  partakers  of  H's  passion 
and  glory:    of  whom  the  leader  is   Stephen, 
the  first  deacon  of  Christ  and  apostle  and  first 
martyr.     Also  let  us  honour  our  holy  fathers, 
the    God-possessed    ascetics,   whose    struggle 
was  the  longer  and  more  toilsome  one  of  the 
conscience  :  who  wandered  about  in  sheepskins 
and  goatskins ,  being  destitute,  afflicted,  tormented; 
they  wandered  in  deserts  and  in  mountains  and 
in  dens  and  caves  of  the  earth,  of  whom   the 
world  was  not  worthy  6.     Let  us  honour  those 
who  were  prophets  before  grace,  the  patriarchs 
and  just  men  who  foretold  the  Lord's  coming. 
Let  us  carefully  review  the  life  of  these  men, 
and  let  us  emulate  their  faith  1  and  love  and 
hope  and  zeal  and  way  of  life,  and  endurance 
of  sufferings  and  patience  even  to   blood,  in 
order  that  we  may  be  sharers  with  them  in 
their  crowns  of  glory. 


8  Ephes.  v.  19. 

9  Text,  ffKTToi.     Variant,  iri<TT«i  in  Reg.  i. 

1  Almost  all  read  to*  irpoSpo/iOy  Twai  viji-,  wf  npo<f>r)T7)vt  ftc 
9  St.  Matt.  xi.  11.  3  Rum.  viii.  29. 

4  1  Cor.  xii.  24.  5  Ephes.  iv.  n. 

6  Hebr.  xi.  37,  38.  7  IOid.  xiii.  7. 


as 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

Concerning  Images*. 

But  since  some  9  find  fault  with  us  for  wor- 
shipping and  honouring  the  image  of  our 
Saviour  and  that  of  our  Lady,  and  those,  too, 
of  the  rest  of  the  saints  and  servants  of  Christ, 
let  them  remember  that  in  the  beginning  God 
created  man  after  His  own  image  x.  On  what 
grounds,  then,  do  we  shew  reverence  to  each 
other  unless  because  we  are  made  after  God's 
image?  For  as  Basil,  that  much-versed  ex- 
pounder of  divine  things,  says,  the  honour 
given  to  the  image  passes  over  to  the  proto- 
type2. Now  a  prototype  is  that  which  is 
imaged,  from  which  the  derivative  is  obtained. 
Why  was  it  that  the  Mosaic  people  honoured 
on  all  hands  the  tabernacle3  which  bore  an 
image  and  type  of  heavenly  things,  or  rather 
of  the  whole  creation  ?  God  indeed  said  to 
Moses,  Look  that  thou  make  them  after  their 
pattern  which  was  shewed  thee  in  the  mount*. 
The  Cherubim,  too,  which  o'ershadow  the 
mercy  seat,  are  they  not  the  work  of  men's 
hands  s?  What,  further,  is  the  celebrated 
temple  at  Jerusalem?  Is  it  not  hand-made 
and  fashioned  by  the  skill  of  men6? 

Moreover  the  divine  Scripture  blames  those 
who  worship  graven  images,  but  also  those 
who  sacrifice  to  demons.  The  Greeks  sacri- 
ficed and  the  Jews  also  sacrificed :  but  the 
Greeks  to  demons  and  the  Jews  to  God.  And 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Greeks  was  rejected  and 
condemned,  but  the  sacrifice  of  the  just  was 
very  acceptable  to  God.  For  Noah  sacrificed, 
and  God  smelled  a  sweet  savour  7,  receiving  the 
fragrance  of  the  right  choice  and  good-will 
towards  Him.  And  so  the  graven  images  of 
the  Greeks,  since  they  were  images  of  deities, 
were  rejected  and  forbidden. 

But  besides  this  who  can  make  an  imitation 
of  the  invisible,  incorporeal,  uncircumscribed, 
formless  God  ?  Therefore  to  give  form  to  the 
Deity  is  the  height  of  folly  and  impiety.  And 
hence  it  is  that  in  the  Old  Testament  the  use 
of  images  was  not  common.  But  after  God  8 
in  His  bowels  of  pity  became  in  truth  man  for 
our  salvation,  not  as  He  was  seen  by  Abraham 
in  the  semblance  of  a  man,  nor  as  He  was  seen 
by  the  prophets,  but  in  being  truly  man,  and 
after  He  lived  upon  the  earth  and  dwelt  among 
men  9,  worked  miracles,  suffered,  was  crucified, 


8  Some  MSS.  have  the  title  "Concerning  the  adoration  of  the 
august  and  holy  images,"  or  "Concerning  the  holy  and  sacred 
images,"  or  "Concerning  holy  iinayus." 

9  Cf.  Petavius,  Theol.  Dogrn.  xv.,  ch.  12. 
1  Cen.  i.  26. 

»  Basil,  De  Spir.  Sancto,  ch.  18.  3  Ex.  xxxiii.  to. 

4  Ibid.  xxv.  40:  Heb.  viii.  5.  5  Ex.  xxv.  18. 

6  1  Kings  viii. 

7  Gen.  viii.  21.  8  St.  John  i.  14;  Tit.  iii.  4. 
9  B%r.  iii.  38. 


rose  again  and  was  taken  back  to  Heaven,  since 
all  these  things  actually  took  place  and  were 
seen  by  men,  they  were  written  for  the  remem- 
brance and  instruction  of  us  who  were  not 
alive  at  that  time  in  order  that  though  we  saw 
not,  we  may  still,  hearing  and  believing,  obtain 
the  blessing  of  the  Lord.  But  seeing  that  not 
every  one  has  a  knowledge  of  letters  nor  time 
for  reading,  the  Fathers  gave  their  sanction  to 
depicting  these  events  on  images  as  being  acts 
of  great  heroism,  in  order  that  they  should 
form  a  concise  memorial  of  them.  Often, 
doubtless,  when  we  have  not  the  Lord's  pas- 
sion in  mind  and  see  the  image  of  Christ's 
crucifixion,  His  saving  passion  is  brought  back 
to  remembrance,  and  we  fall  down  and  worship 
not  the  material  but  that  which  is  imaged  : 
just  as  we  do  not  worship  the  material  of 
which  the  Gospels  are  made,  nor  the  material 
of  the  Cross,  but  that  which  these  typify.  For 
wherein  does  the  cross,  that  typifies  the  Lord, 
differ  from  a  cross  that  does  not  do  so  ?  It 
is  just  the  same  also  in  the  case  of  the  Mother 
of  the  Lord.  For  the  honour  which  we  give 
to  her  is  referred  to  Him  Who  was  made  of 
her  incarnate.  And  similarly  also  the  brave 
acts  of  holy  men  stir  us  up  to  be  brave  and  to 
emulate  and  imitate  their  valour  and  to  glorify 
God.  For  as  we  said,  the  honour  that  is  given 
to  the  best  of  fellow-servants  is  a  proof  of 
good-will  towards  our  common  Lady,  and  the 
honour  rendered  to  the  image  passes  over  to 
the  prototype r.  But  this  is  an  unwritten 
tradition2,  just  as  is  also  the  worshipping  to- 
wards the  East  and  the  worship  of  the  Cross, 
and  very  many  other  similar  things. 

A  certain  tale  3,  too,  is  told 4,  how  that  when 
Augaruss  was  king  over  the  city  of  the  Edes- 
senes,  he  sent  a  portrait  painter  to  paint  a  like- 
ness of  the  Lord,  and  when  the  painter  could 
not  paint  because  of  the  brightness  that  shone 
from  His  countenance,  the  Lord  Himself  put 
a  garment  over  His  own  divine  and  life-giving 
face  and  impressed  on  it  an  image  of  Himself 
and  sent  this  to  Augarus,  to  satisfy  thus  his 

desire. 

Moreover  that  the  Apostles  handed  down 
much  that  was  unwritten,  Paul,  the  Apostle 
of  the  Gentiles,  tells  us  in  these  words  :  There- 
fore, brethren,  standfast  and  hold  the  traditions 
which  ye  have  been  taught  of  us,  whether  by 
word  or  by  epistle 6.  And  to  the  Corinthians 
he  writes,  Now  I  praise  you,  brethren,  that  ye 
remember  me  in  all  things,  and  keep  the  tradi- 
tions as  I  have  delivered  them  to  you  ?." 


i  Basil,  in  40  Mart. :  also  De  Spir.  Sancto,  ch.  aj. 

2  Cf.  August.,  Contr.  Donatist.,  bk.  tv. 

3  Evagr.,  Hist-  iv.,  ch.  27. 

4  Procop-,  De  Be  His,  ii.  ch.  12 


5  i.e.  Abgarus. 


6  2  Thess.  ii.  15. 


7  1  Cor.  xi.  a. 


EXPOSITION   OF   THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


89 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

Concerning  Scripture  8. 

It  is  one  and  the  same  God  Whom  both  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testament  proclaim,  Who  is 
praised  and  glorified  in  the  Trinity  :  I  am 
come,  saith  the  Lord,  not  to  destroy  the  law  but 
to  fulfil  it  °.  For  He  Himself  worked  out  our 
salvation  for  which  all  Scripture  and  all  mys- 
tery exists.  And  again,  Search  the  Scriptures 
for  they  are  they  that  t  stify  of  Me  *.  And  the 
Apostle  says,  God,  Who  at  sundry  tunes  and  in 
diverse  manners  spake  in  time  past  unto  the 
fjihers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days 
spoken  unto  us  by  His  Son 2.  Through  the 
Holy  Spirit,  therefore,  both  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  the  evangelists  and  apostles  and 
pastors  and  teachers,  spake. 

All  Scripture,  then,  is  given  by  inspiration  of 
God  and  is  also  assuredly  profitable*.  Wherefore 
to  search  the  Scriptures  is  a  work  most  fair  and 
most  profitable  for  souls.  For  just  as  the  tree 
planted  by  the  channels  of  waters,  so  also 
the  soul  watered  by  the  divine  Scripture  is 
enriched  and  gives  fruit  in  its  season  4,  viz. 
orthodox  belief,  and  is  adorned  with  evergreen 
leafage,  I  mean,  actions  pleasing  to  God. 
For  through  the  Holy  Scriptures  we  are 
trained  to  action  that  is  pleasing  to  God, 
and  untroubled  contemplation.  For  in  these 
we  find  both  exhortation  to  every  virtue  and 
dissuasion  from  every  vice.  If,  therefore,  we 
are  lovers  of  learning,  we  shall  also  be  learned 
in  many  things.  For  by  care  and  toil  and 
the  grace  of  God  the  Giver,  all  things  are 
accomplished.  For  every  one  that  asketh  re- 
ceiveth,  and  he  that  seeketh  findeth,  and  to  him 
that  knocketh  it  shall  be  opened*.  Wherefore 
let  us  knock  at  that  very  fair  garden  of  the 
Scriptures,  so  fragrant  and  sweet  and  bloom- 
ing, with  its  varied  sounds  of  spiritual  and 
divinely-inspired  birds  ringing  all  round  our 
ears,  laying  hold  of  our  hearts,  comforting  the 
mourner,  pacifying  the  angry  and  filling  him 
with  joy  everlasting  :  which  sets  our  mind  on 
the  gold-gleaming,  brilliant  back  of  the  divine 
dove  6,  whose  bright  pinions  bear  up  to  the 
only-begotten  Son  and  Heir  of  the  Husband- 
man 7  of  that  spiritual  Vineyard  and  bring  us 
through  Him  to  the  Father  of  Lights  8.  But 
let  us  not  knock  carelessly  but  rather  zealously 
and  constantly  :  lest  knocking  we  grow  weary. 
For  thus  it  will  be  opened  to  us.  If  we  read 
once  or  twice  and  do  not  understand  what  we 
read,  let  us  not  grow  weary,  but  let  us  persist, 
let  us  talk  much,  let  us  enquire.     For  ask  thy 

*  This  chapter  is  wasting  in  Cod.  R.  3547.      9  St.  Matt.  v.  17. 
1  St.  John  v.  39.  a  Heb.  i.  1,  2.  3  2  Tim.  iii.  16. 

4  Ps.  1.  3.  5  St.  Luke  xi.  io:  6  Ps.  lxviii.  13. 


7  St.  Matt.  xxi.  37. 


Jas.  i.  17 


Father,  he  saith,  and  He  will  shew  thee:  thy 
elders  and  they  will  tell  thee  9.  For  there  is  not 
in  every  man  that  knoivledge '.  Let  us  draw 
of  the  fountain  of  the  garden  perennial  and 
purest  waters  springing  into  life  eternal 2. 
Here  let  us  luxuriate,  let  us  revel  insatiate  : 
for  the  Scriptures  possess  inexhaustible  grace. 
But  if  we  are  able  to  pluck  anything  profitable 
from  outside  sources,  there  is  nothing  to  for- 
bid that.  Let  us  become  tried  money-dealers, 
heaping  up  the  true  and  pure  gold  and  dis- 
carding the  spurious.  Let  us  keep  the  fairest 
sayings  but  let  us  throw  to  the  dogs  absurd 
gods  and  strange  myths  :  for  we  might  prevail 
most  mightily  against  them  through  them- 
selves. 

Observe,  furthers,  that  there  are  two  and 
twenty  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  one  for 
each  letter  of  the  Hebrew  tongue.  For  there 
are  twenty-two  letters  of  which  five  are  double, 
and  so  they  come  to  be  twenty-seven.  For 
the  letters  Caph,  Mem,  Nun,  Pe  4,  Sade  are 
double.  And  thus  the  number  of  the  books 
in  this  way  is  twenty-two,  but  is  found  to  be 
twenty-seven  because  of  the  double  character 
of  five.  For  Ruth  is  joined  on  to  Judges,  and 
the  Hebrews  count  them  one  book  :  the  first 
and  second  books  of  Kings  are  counted  one  : 
and  so  are  the  third  and  fourth  books  of  Kings  : 
and  also  the  first  and  second  of  Paraleipomena  : 
and  the  first  and  second  of  Esdra.  In  this 
way,  then,  the  books  are  collected  together 
in  four  Pentateuchs  and  two  others  remain 
over,  to  form  thus  the  canonical  books.  Five 
of  them  are  of  the  Law,  viz.  Genesis,  Exodus, 
Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy.  This  which 
is  the  code  of  the  Law,  constitutes  the  first 
Pentateuch.  Then  comes  another  Pentateuch, 
the  so-called  Grapheia  s,  or  as  they  are  called  by 
some,  the  Hagiographa,  which  are  the  follow- 
ing :  Jesus  the  Son  of  Nave  6,  Judges  along  with 
Ruth,  first  and  second  Kings,  which  are  one 
book,  third  and  fourth  Kings,  which  are  one 
book,  and  the  two  books  of  the  Paraleipomena  i 
which  are  one  book.  This  is  the  second  Pen- 
tateuch. The  third  Pentateuch  is  the  books 
in  verse,  viz.  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs  of  Solo- 
mon, Ecclesiastes  of  Solomon  and  the  Song 
of  Songs  of  Solomon.  The  fourth  Pentateuch 
is  the  Prophetical  books,  viz.  the  twelve  pro- 
phets constituting  one  book,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel,  Daniel.  Then  come  the  two  books 
of  Esdra  made  into  one,  and  Esther 8.     There 


9  Deut.  xxxii.  7.  «  1  Cor.  via.  7.  a  St.  John  iv.  14. 

3  Cyril  Hicros.,  Cat.  4  ;  Epiphan.,  De  pond,  et  mens. 

4  Many  copies  read  Phi. 

5  Writings.  6  Joshua  the  Son  of  Nun. 

7  Chronicles. 

8  R.  2428  reads  ical  r)  'Ioi/Jifl,  <cai  tj  'EcrSijp  :  so  also  in  Cod. 
S.  Hit.,  but  Epiphanius  does  not  mention  the  book  of  Judith, 
nor  does  the  text  require  it. 


90 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


are  also  the  Panaretus,  that  is  the  Wisdom  of 
Solomon,  and  the  Wisdom  of  Jesus,  which  was 
published  in  Hebrew  by  the  father  of  Sirach, 
and  afterwards  translated  into  Greek  by  his 
grandson,  Jesus,  the  Son  of  Sirach.  These 
are  virtuous  and  noble,  but  are  not  counted 
nor  were  they  placed  in  the  ark. 

The  New  Testament  contains  four  gospels, 
that  according  to  Matthew,  that  according  to 
Mark,  that  according  to  Luke,  that  according 
to  John  :  the  Acts  of  the  Holy  Apostles  by 
Luke  the  Evangelist :  seven  catholic  epistles, 
viz.  one  of  James,  two  of  Peter,  three  of  John, 
one  of  Jude  :  fourteen  letters  of  the  Apostle 
Paul :  the  Revelation  of  John  the  Evangelist : 
the  Canons  9  of  the  holy  apostles x,  by  Clement. 

CHAPTER   XVIII. 

Regarding  the  things  said  concerning  Christ. 

The  things  said  concerning  Christ  fall 
into  four  generic  modes.  For  some  fit  Him 
even  before  the  incarnation,  others  in  the 
union,  others  after  the  union,  and  others  after 
the  resurrection.  Also  of  those  that  refer  to 
the  period  before  the  incarnation  there  are  six 
modes :  for  some  of  them  declare  the  union 
of  nature  and  the  identity  in  essence  with  the 
Father,  as  this,  /  and  My  Father  are  one 2  : 
also  this,  He  that  hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the 
Father  3 :  and  this,  Who  being  in  the  form 
of  God*,  and  so  forth.  Others  declare  the 
perfection  of  subsistence,  as  these,  Son  of  God, 
and  the  Express  Image  of  His  person s,  and 
Messenger  of  great  counsel.  Wonderful  Coun- 
sellor-6,  and  the  like. 

Again,  others  declare  the  indwelling  ?  of  the 
subsistences  in  one  another,  as,  /  am  in  the 
Father  and  the  Father  in  Me  8 ;  and  the  in- 
j parable  foundations,  as,  for  instance,  the 
Word,  Wisdom,  Power,  Effulgence.  For  the 
word  is  inseparably  established  in  the  mind 
(and  it  is  the  essential  mind  that  I  mean),  and 
so  also  is  wisdom,  and  power  in  him  that 
is  powerful,  and  effulgence  in  the  light,  all 
springing  forth  from  these  x. 

And  others  make  known  the  fact  of  His 
origin  from  the  Father  as  cause,  for  instance, 
x\ly  Father  is  greater  than  I2.  For  from 
Him  He  derives  both  His  being  and  all  that 
He  has  3;  His  being  was  by  generative  and 
not  by  creative  means,  as,/  came  forth  from  the 


9  R.   2428  reads  «cai  en-ioroAai  Wo  fiia  K\ijp.evTOf,  probably 
&a  interpolation. 

«   Trull.,  Can.  2;  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccles.  vi.,  ch.  23,  &c. 

3  St.  John  x.  30.  3  Ibid,  xiv   9.  *  Phil.  ii.  6. 

5  Heb.  i.  3.  b  Is.  ix.  6. 

7  n-epixwpijo-if.  8  St.  John  xiv.  10. 

9  TJfy  aveKtjtoiTiqTOu  i&pvtrtv. 

1  Cyril,  Thes.,  bk.  xxxiv.,  p.  341.  a  St.  John  xiv.  38. 

3  Grt   No*.,  Orat.  36,  and  other  Greeks. 


Father  and  am  come  4,  and  /  live  by  the  Father  '->. 
But  all  that  He  hath  is  not  His  by  free  gift  or 
by  teaching,  but  in  a  causal  sense,  as,  The  Son 
can  do  nothing  of  Himself  but  what  He  seeth 
the  Father  do6.  For  if  the  Father  is  not, 
neither  is  the  Son.  For  the  Son  is  of  the 
Father  and  in  the  Father  and  with  the  Father, 
and  not  after?  the  Father.  In  like  manner 
also  what  He  doeth  is  of  Him  and  with  Him. 
For  there  is  one  and  the  same,  not  similar  but 
the  same,  will  and  energy  and  power  in  the 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit. 

Moreover,  other  things  are  said  as  though  the 
Father's  good-will  was  fulfilled  8  through  His 
energy,  and  not  as  through  an  instrument  or  a 
servant,  but  as  through  His  essential  and  hy- 
postatic Word  and  Wisdom  and  Power,  because 
but  one  action  9  is  observed  in  Father  and  Son, 
as  for  example,  All  things  were  made  by  Him  9% 
and  He  sent  His  Word  and  healed  them  %  and 
That  they  mav  believe  that  Thou  hast  sent  Me*. 

Some,  again,  have  a  prophetic  sense,  and 
of  these  some  are  in  the  future  tense :  for 
instance,  He  shall  co?ne  openly  3,  and  this  from 
Zechariah,  Behold,  thy  King  cometh  unto  thee*, 
and  this  from  Micah,  Behold,  the  Lord  cotneth 
out  of  His  place  and  will  come  down  and  tread 
upon  the  high  places  of  the  earth 5.  But  others, 
though  future,  are  put  in  the  past  tense,  as, 
for  instance,  This  is  our  God:  Therefore  He 
was  seen  upon  the  earth  and  dwelt  among  ?nen  6, 
and  The  Lord  created  me  in  the  beginning  of 
His  ways  for  His  works'!,  and  Wherefore  God, 
thy  God,  anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness 
above  thy  fellows*,  and  such  like. 

The  things  said,  then,  that  refer  to  the 
period  before  the  union  will  be  applicable  to 
Him  even  after  the  union  :  but  those  that 
refer  to  the  period  after  the  union  will  not  be 
applicable  at  all  before  the  union,  unless 
indeed  in  a  prophetic  sense,  as  we  said. 
Those  that  refer  to  the  time  of  the  union  have 
three  modes.  For  when  our  discourse  deals 
with  the  higher  aspect,  we  speak  of  the  deifica- 
tion of  the  flesh,  and  H  is  assumption  of  the  Word 
and  exceeding  exaltation,  and  so  forth,  making 
manifest  the  riches  that  are  added  to  the  flesh 
from  the  union  and  natural  conjunction  with 
the  most  high  God  the  Word.  And  when  our 
discourse  deals  with  the  lower  aspect,  we 
speak  of  the  incarnation  of  God  the  Word, 
11  is  becoming  man,  His  emptying  of  Himself, 
His  poverty,  His  humility.  For  these  and 
such  like  are  imposed  upon  the   Word   and 


4  St.  John  xvi.  28.  5  Ibid.  vi.  57.  6  Ibid.  v.  19. 

7  Text,  /itro.      Various  reading,  Kara. 

8  Text,  rr\T)povncva.     Variant,  wh-qpovpevr)*. 

9  Kivt]<r<.v,  motion.  9»  St.  John  xi.  42.  *  Ps.  cvu.  20. 
*  St.  John  xvii.  2.             3  Ps.  1.  3.             *  Zech.  ix.  9. 

5  Mic.  i.  3.       6  Bar.  iii.  38.       7  Prov.  viii.  22.       »  ps.  xiv.  7. 


EXPOSITION   OF  THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


9i 


God  through  His  admixture  with  humanity. 
When  again  we  keep  both  sides  in  view  at  the 
same  time,  we  speak  of  union,  community, 
anointing,  natural  conjunction,  conformation 
and  the  like.  The  former  two  modes,  then, 
have  their  reason  in  this  third  mode.  For 
through  the  union  it  is  made  clear  what  either 
has  obtained  from  the  intimate  junction  with 
and  permeation  through  the  other.  For  through 
the  union  9  in  subsistence  the  flesh  is  said  to  be 
deified  and  to  become  God  and  to  be  equally 
God  with  the  Word  ;  and  God  the  Word  is  said 
to  be  made  flesh,  and  to  become  man,  and  is 
called  creature  and  last *  :  not  in  the  sense 
that  the  two  natures  are  converted  into  one 
compound  nature  (for  it  is  not  possible  for  the 
opposite  natural  qualities  to  exist  at  the  same 
time  in  one  nature) 2,  but  in  the  sense  that 
the  two  natures  are  united  in  subsistence  and 
permeate  one  another  without  confusion  or 
transmutation  The  permeation  3  moreover  did 
not  come  of  the  flesh  but  of  the  divinity :  for 
it  is  impossible  that  the  flesh  should  permeate 
through  the  divinity :  but  the  divine  nature 
once  permeating  through  the  flesh  gave  also 
to  the  flesh  the  same  ineffable  power  of  per- 
meation*; and  this  indeed  is  what  we  call 
union. 

Note,  too,  that  in  the  case  of  the  first  and 
second  modes  of  those  that  belong  to  the 
period  of  the  union,  reciprocation  is  observed. 
For  when  we  speak  about  the  flesh,  we  use  the 
terms  deification  and  assumption  of  the  Word 
and  exceeding  exaltation  and  anointing.  For 
these  are  derived  from  divinity,  but  are  ob- 
served in  connection  with  the  flesh.  And 
when  we  speak  about  the  Word,  we  use  the 
terms  emptying,  incarnation,  becoming  man, 
humility  and  the  like  :  and  these,  as  we  said, 
are  imposed  on  the  Word  and  God  through 
the  flesh.  For  He  endured  these  things  in 
person  of  His  own  free-will. 

Of  the  things  that  refer  to  the  period 
after  the  union  there  are  three  modes.  The 
first  declares  His  divine  nature,  as,  I  am  in  the 
Father  and  the  Father  in  Me  s,  and  /  and  the 
Father  are  one6:  and  all  those  things  which  are 
affirmed  of  Him  before  His  assumption  of 
humanity,  these  will  be  affirmed  of  Him  even 
after  His  assumption  of  humanity,  with  this 
exception,  that  He  did  not  assume  the  flesh 
and  its  natural  properties. 

The  second  declares  His  human  nature,  as, 
Now  ye  seek  to  kill  Me,  a  man  that  hath 
told  you  the  truth  ?,  and  Even  so  must  the  Son 
of  Man  be  lifted  uj>8,  and  the  like. 

9  Greg.  Naz.,  C       t.  39.  «  Is.  xlviii.  13. 

»  Supr.  bk.  iii.,  en.  2. 

3  O.,  inhabitation,  mutual  indwelling. 

4  Trept-xuipoixra.  5  St.  John  xiv.  1.  *   Ibid.  X.  30. 

7  Ibid.  vii.  19;  viii.  40.  8  Ibid.  iii.  14. 


Further,  of  the  statements  made  and  written 
about  Christ  the  Saviour  after  the  manner  of 
men,  whether  they  deal  with  sayings  or  actions, 
there  are  six  modes.  For  some  of  them  were 
done  or  said  naturally  in  accordance  with 
the  incarnation  ;  for  instance,  His  birth  from 
a  virgin,  His  growth  and  progress  with  age, 
His  hunger,  thirst,  weariness,  fear,  sleep,  pierc- 
ing with  nails,  death  and  all  such  like  natural 
and  innocent  passions  9.  For  in  all  these  there 
is  a  mixture  of  the  divine  and  human,  although 
they  are  held  to  belong  in  reality  to  the  body, 
the  divine  suffering  none  of  these,  but  pro- 
curing through  them  our  salvation. 

Others  are  of  the  nature  of  ascription  9a,  as 
Christ's  question,  Where  have  ye  laid  Lazarus  *  / 
His  running  to  the  fig-tree,  His  shrinking, 
that  is,  His  drawing  back,  His  praying,  and 
His  making  as  though  He  would  have  gone 
further2.  For  neither  as  God  nor  as  man  was 
He  in  need  of  these  or  similar  things,  but  only 
because  His  form  was  that  of  a  man  as  necessity 
and  expediency  demanded  3.  For  example,  the 
praying  was  to  shew  that  He  is  not  opposed 
to  God,  for  He  gives  honour  to  the  Father  as 
the  cause  of  Himself4  :  and  the  question  was 
not  put  in  ignorance  but  to  shew  that  He  is 
in  truth  man  as  well  as  God  s  •  and  the  draw- 
ing back  is  to  teach  us  not  to  be  impetuous 
nor  to  give  ourselves  up. 

Others  again  are  said  in  the  manner  of 
association  and  relation  sa}  as,  My  God,  My 
God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  Me 6  ?  and  He 
hath  made  Him  to  be  sin  for  us,  Who  knew  no 
sin  7,  and  being  made  a  curse  for  us8 ;  also,  Then 
shall  the  Son  also  Himself  be  subject  unto  Him 
that  put  all  things  under  Him  9.  For  neither 
as  God  nor  as  man  *  was  He  ever  forsaken  by 
the  Father,  nor  did  He  become  sin  or  a  curse, 
nor  did  He  require  to  be  made  subject  to  the 
Father.  For  as  God  He  is  equal  to  the  Father 
and  not  opposed  to  Him  nor  subjected  to 
Him  ;  and  as  God,  He  was  never  at  any  time 
disobedient  to  His  Begetter  to  make  it  neces- 
sary for  Him  to  make  Him  subject 2.  Appro- 
priating, then,  our  person  and  ranking  Him- 
self with  us,  He  used  these  words.  For  we 
are  bound  in  the  fetters  of  sin  and  the  curse 
as  faithless  and  disobedient,  and  therefore  for- 
saken. 

Others  are  said  by  reason  of  distinction 
in  thought.  For  if  you  divide  in  thought 
things  that  are  inseparable  in  actual  truth, 
to  cut   the   flesh  from   the  Word,   the  terms 

9  Vide  supr.,  bk.  iii.,  ch.  ai,  32,  23. 

9»  it pocrnoir](T is,  feigning.  l  St.  John  xi.  34. 

2  St.  Luke  xxiv.  ?8.  3  Greg.  Naz.,  Oral.  36. 

4  Supr.  bk.  iii.  24. 

5  Text,  y.na.  roii  elvan  0«6s.     Variant,  /icu-ai. 

5'  oixtiwixcs  <cat  aiai^opa.  6  St.  Matt,  xxvii.  46. 

7  2  Cor.  v.  21.  b  Gal.  iii.  13.  9  1  Cor.  xv.  at. 

*  Greg.  Naz.,  Oral.  36.  *  Ibid. 


92 


JOHN    OF    DAMASCUS. 


'servant'  and  'ignorant'  are  used  of  Him, 
for  indeed  He  was  of  a  subject  and  ignorant 
nature,  and  except  that  it  was  united  with 
God  the  Word,  His  flesh  was  servile  and 
ignorant  3.  But  because  of  the  union  in  sub- 
sistence with  God  the  Word  it  was  neither 
servile  nor  ignorant.  In  this  way,  too,  He 
called  the  Father  His  God. 

Others  again  are  for  the  purpose  of  reveal- 
ing Him  to  us  and  strengthening  our  faith,  as, 
And  now,  O  Father,  glorify  Thou  Me  with  the 
glory  which  I  had  with  Thee,  before  the  world 
was*.  For  He  Himself  was  glorified  and  is 
glorified,  but  His  glory  was  not  manifested 
nor  confirmed  to  us.  Also  that  which  the 
apostle  said,  Declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with 
power,  according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  by 
the  resurrection  from  the  dead5.  For  by  the 
miracles  and  the  resurrection  and  the  coming 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  it  was  manifested  and  con- 
firmed to  the  world  that  He  is  the  Son  of 
God 6.  And  this  too  ?,  The  Child  grew  in 
wisdom  and  grace  8. 

Others  again  have  reference  to  His  appro- 
priation of  the  personal  life  of  the  Jews,  in 
numbering  Himself  among  the  Jews,  as  He 
saith  to  the  Samaritan  woman,  Ye  worship 
ye  know  not  what :  we  know  what  we  worship, 
for  salvation  is  of  the  Jews  °. 

The  third  mode  is  one  which  declares  the 
one  subsistence  and  brings  out  the  dual  nature  : 
for  instance,  A?id  I  live  by  the  Father :  so  he 
that  eateth  Me,  even  he  shall  live  by  Me I.  And 
this :  I  go  to  My  Father  and  ye  see  Me  no 
more 2.  And  this  :  They  would  not  have  cru- 
cified the  Lord  of  Glory  3.  And  this  :  And 
no  man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven  but  He 
that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son 
of  Man  which  is  in  heaven  •*,  and  such  like. 

Again,  of  the  affirmations  that  refer  to  the 
period  after  the  resurrection  some  are  suit- 
able to  God,  as,  Baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost5,  for  here  '  Son  '  is  clearly  used  as  God; 
also  this,  And  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world6,  and  other  similar 
ones.  For  He  is  with  us  as  God.  Others 
are  suitable  to  man,  as,  They  held  Him  by  the 
feef,  and  There  they  will  see  Me%,  and  so 
forth. 

Further,  of  those  referring  to  the  period 
after  the  Resurrection  that  are  suitable  to 
man  there  are  different  modes.  For  some 
did  actually  take  place,  yet  not  according  to 


nature  9,  but  according  to  dispensation,  in  order 
to  confirm  the  fact  that  the  very  body,  which 
suffered,  rose  again  ;  such  are  the  weals,  the 
eating  and  the  drinking  after  the  resurrection. 
Others  took  place  actually  and  naturally,  as 
changing  from  place  to  place  without  trouble 
and  passing  in  through  closed  gates.  Others 
have  the  character  of  simulation l,  as,  He 
made  as  though  He  would  have  gone  further  '■'. 
Others  are  appropriate  to  the  double  nature, 
as,  /  ascend  unto  My  Father  and  your  Father, 
and  My  God  and  your  God  3,  and  The  King  of 
Glory  shall  come  in  4,  and  He  sat  dowti  on 
the  right  hand  of  the  majesty  on  High 5. 
Finally  others  are  to  be  understood  as  though 
He  were  ranking  Himself  with  us,  in  the 
manner  of  separation  in  pure  thought,  as,  My 
God  and  your  God3. 

Those  then  that  are  sublime  must  be  assigned 
to  the  divine  nature,  which  is  superior  to  pas- 
sion and  body :  and  those  that  are  humble 
must  be  ascribed  to  the  human  nature  ;  and 
those  that  are  common  must  be  attributed 
to  the  compound,  that  is,  the  one  Christ,  Who 
is  God  and  man.  And  it  should  be  under- 
stood that  both  belong  to  one  and  the  same 
Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord.  For  if  we  know 
what  is  proper  to  each,  and  perceive  that  both 
are  performed  by  one  and  the  same,  we  shall 
have  the  true  faith  and  shall  not  go  astray. 
And  from  all  these  the  difference  between  the 
united  natures  is  recognised,  and  the  fact  6  that, 
as  the  most  godly  Cyril  says,  they  are  not 
identical  in  the  natural  quality  of  their  divinity 
and  humanity.  But  yet  there  is  but  one  Son  and 
Christ  and  Lord  :  and  as  He  is  one,  He  has 
also  but  one  person,  the  unity  in  subsistence 
being  in  nowise  broken  up  into  parts  by 
the  recognition  of  the  difference  of  the 
natures. 

CHAPTER    XIX. 

That  God  7  is  not  the  cause  of  evils. 

It  is  to  be  observed 8  that  it  is  the  custom 
in  the  Holy  Scripture  to  speak  of  God's  per- 
mission as  His  energy,  as  when  the  apostle 
says  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Hath  not 
the  potter  power  over  the  clay,  of  the  same  lump 
to  make  one  vessel  unto  honour  and  another  unto 
dishonour")?  And  for  this  reason,  that  He 
Himself  makes  this  or  that.  For  He  is 
Himself  alone  the  Maker  of  all  things  ;  yet 
it  is  not  He  Himself  that  fashions  noble  or 
ignoble    things,    but   the   personal  choice   of 


4  St.  John  xvii.  5. 


3  Supr.,  bk.  iii.  ch.  21. 

5  Rom.  i.  4. 

*  Chrysost.,  Horn.  1  in  Epist.  ad  Rom.,  and  others. 

7  St.  Luke  ii.  40.  8  Text,  x*P""i.     Reg.  1,  <rvvi6ti. 
9  St.  John  iv.  22.               «  Ibid.  xvi.  io._  a  Ibid. 

3  1  Cor   ii.  8.  4  St.  John  iii.  13. 

S  St.  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  6  Ibid.  20.  7  Ibid.  9. 

8  Ibid.  10. 


9  Kara  ($>v<tiv.  *  (<Ta  npoanoirjcriv. 

2  St.  Luke  xxiv.  28.  3  St.  John  xx.  17. 

4  Ps.  xxiv.  7.  5  Heb.  1.  3. 

6  Epist.  apologetica  ad  Acacium  Melitinct  Episcopum. 

7  Against  Platonists,  Gnostics,  and  Manicheans. 

8  Damasc.  Dial.  cont.  Manich.  9  Rom.  ix.  21. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


93 


es-.h  one1.  And  this  is  manifest  from  what 
me  same  Apostle  says  in  the  Second  Epistle 
to  Timothy,  In  a  great  house  there  are  not  only 
vessels  of  gold  and  of  silver,  but  also  of  wood  and 
of  earth  :  and  some  to  honour  and  some  to  dis- 
honour. If  a  man  therefore  purge  himself  from 
these,  he  shall  be  a  vessel  unto  honour  sanctified, 
and  meet  for  the  master's  use,  and  prepared  unto 
every  good  work  2.  And  it  is  evident  that  the 
purification  must  be  voluntary :  for  //  a  man, 
he  saith, purge  himself.  And  the  consequent  an- 
tistrophe  responds,  "  If  a  man  purge  not  him- 
self he  will  be  a  vessel  to  dishonour,  unmeet 
for  the  master's  use  and  fit  only  to  be  broken 
in  pieces."  Wherefore  this  passage  that  we 
have  quoted  and  this,  God  hath  concluded  them 
all  in  unbelief  3,  and  this,  God  hath  given  them 
the  spirit  of  slumber,  eyes  that  they  should  not 
see,  and  ears  that  they  should  not  hear*,  all 
these  must  be  understood  not  as  though  God 
Himself  were  energising,  but  as  though  God 
were  permitting,  both  because  of  free-will  and 
because  goodness  knows  no  compulsion. 

His  permission,  therefore,  is  usually  spoken 
of  in  the  Holy  Scripture  as  His  energy  and 
work.  Nay,  even  when  He  says  that  God 
creates  evil  things,  and  that  there  is  no  evil 
in  a  city  that  the  Lord  hath  not  done,  he  does 
not  mean  by  these  words  s  that  the  Lord  is  the 
cause  of  evil,  but  the  word  '  evil 6 '  is  used  in 
two  ways,  with  two  meanings.  For  sometimes 
it  means  what  is  evil  by  nature,  and  this  is  the 
opposite  of  virtue  and  the  will  of  God :  and 
sometimes  it  means  that  which  is  evil  and 
oppressive  to  our  sensation,  that  is  to  say, 
afflictions  and  calamities.  Now  these  are 
seemingly  evil  because  they  are  painful,  but 
in  reality  are  good.  For  to  those  who  under- 
stand they  become  ambassadors  of  conversion 
and  salvation.  The  Scripture  says  that  of 
these  God  is  the  Author. 

It  is,  moreover,  to  be  observed  that  of  these, 
too,  we  are  the  cause:  for  involuntary  evils 
are  the  offspring  of  voluntary  ones  ?. 

This  also  should  be  recognised,  that  it  is 
usual  in  the  Scriptures  for  some  things  that 
ought  to  be  considered  as  effects  to  be  stated 
in  a  causal  sense  8,  as,  Against  Thee,  Thee  only, 
have  I  sinned  and  done  this  evil  in  Thy  sight, 
that  Thou  mightest  be  justified  when  Thou 
speakest,  and  prevail when  Thou  judgesf*.  For 
the  sinner  did  not  sin  in  order  that  God  might 
prevail,  nor  again  did  God  require  our  sin  in 
order   that   He   might   by  it  be   revealed   as 


i  Basil,  Homil.  Quod  Deus  nan  sit  auct.  ntalorum. 
2  2  Tim.  ii.  20,  21.  3  Rom.  xi.  32. 

4  Is.  xxix.  10;  Rom   xi.  8  5  Amos  111.  6. 

6  Text,  SKreti^aTOf.     Variant,  &v<ren4>aTOv. 

7  Text,  tu>v  yap   (Kovaiuv  kokZiv   ii  aieovffia,   «C 
has  tuv  axovaCdiv  to  exovo'ta. 

8  Basil,  lac.  cit.  9  Ps.  h.  4. 


victor r.  For  above  comparison  He  wins 
the  victor's  prize  against  all,  even  against 
those  who  are  sinless,  being  Maker,  in- 
comprehensible, uncreated,  and  possessing 
natural  and  not  adventitious  glory.  But  it 
is  because  when  we  sin  God  is  not  unjust  in 
His  anger  against  us;  and  when  He  pardons 
the  penitent  He  is  shewn  victor  over  our 
wickedness.  But  it  is  not  for  this  that  we  sin, 
but  because  the  thing  so  turns  out.  It  is  just 
as  if  one  were  sitting  at  work  and  a  friend 
stood  near  by,  and  one  said,  My  friend  came 
in  order  that  I  might  do  no  work  that 
day.  The  friend,  however,  was  not  present 
in  order  that  the  man  should  do  no  work, 
but  such  was  the  result.  For  being  occupied 
with  receiving  his  friend  he  did  not  work. 
These  things,  too,  are  spoken  of  as  effects 
because  affairs  so  turned  out.  Moreover,  God 
does  not  wish  that  He  alone  should  be  just, 
but  that  all  should,  so  far  as  possible,  be  made 
like  unto  Him. 

CHAPTER   XX. 

That  there  are  not  two  Kingdoms. 

That  there  are  not  two  kingdoms 2,  one 
good  and  one  bad,  we  shall  see  from  this. 
For  good  and  evil  are  opposed  to  one  another 
and  mutually  destructive,  and  cannot  exist 
in  one  another  or  with  one  another.  Each 
of  them,  therefore,  in  its  own  division  will 
belong  to  the  whole,  and  firsts  they  will  be 
circumscribed,  not  by  the  whole  alone  but 
also  each  of  them  by  part  of  the  whole. 

Next  I  ask  ♦,  who  it  is  that  assigns  s  to  each 
its  place.  For  they  will  not  affirm  that  they 
have  come  to  a  friendly  agreement  with,  or 
been  reconciled  to,  one  another.  For  evil 
is  not  evil  when  it  is  at  peace  with,  and 
reconciled  to,  goodness,  nor  is  goodness  good 
when  it  is  on  amicable  terms  with  evil.  But 
if  He  Who  has  marked  off  to  each  of  these 
its  own  sphere  of  action  is  something  different 
from  them,  He  must  the  rather  be  God. 

One  of  two  things  indeed  is  necessary, 
either  that  they  come  in  contact  with  and 
destroy  one  another,  or  that  there  exists  some 
intermediate  place  where  neither  goodness 
nor  evil  exists,  separating  both  from  one  an- 
other, like  a  partition.  And  so  there  will  be 
no  longer  two  but  three  kingdoms. 

Again,  one  of  these  alternatives  is  necessary, 
either  that  they  are  at  peace,  which  is  quite 
incompatible  with  evil  (for  that  which  is  at 
peace  is  not  evil),  or  they  are  at  strife,  which 


R.  2930 


•  A  than.,  Cont.  GtnUt. 


*  j/iici)tt)«  is  sometimes  absent. 
3  Atkan.,  Cont.  omnes  luerct. 

*  Damasc,  Dial.  Cont.  Manich. 

5  Text,  a.iroTty.von*vos.     Variants,  a*OTCfxo>«i'o«  and  «tror«p4> 


94 


JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS. 


is  incompatible  with  goodness  (for  that  which 
is  at  strife  is  not  perfectly  good),  or  the  evil 
is  at  strife  and  the  good  does  not  retaliate, 
but  is  destroyed  by  the  evil,  or  they  are  ever 
in  trouble  and  distress  6,  which  is  not  a  mark 
of  goodness.  There  is,  therefore,  but  one 
kingdom,  delivered  from  all  evil. 

But  if  this  is  so,  they  say,  whence  comes 
evil  ?  ?  For  it  is  quite  impossible  that  evil 
should  originate  from  goodness.  We  answer, 
then,  that  evil  is  nothing  else  than  absence 
of  goodness  and  a  lapsing8  from  what  is 
natural  into  what  is  unnatural  :  for  nothing 
evil  is  natural.  For  all  things,  whatsoever 
God  made,  are  very  good  9,  so  far  as  they 
were  made  :  if,  therefore,  they  remain  just  as 
they  were  created,  they  are  very  good,  but 
when  they  voluntarily  depart  from  what  is 
natural  and  turn  to  what  is  unnatural,  they 
slip  into  evil. 

By  nature,  therefore,  all  things  are  servants 
of  the  Creator  and  obey  Him.  Whenever, 
then,  any  of  His  creatures  voluntarily  rebels 
and  becomes  disobedient  to  his  Maker,  he 
introduces  evil  into  himself.  For  evil  is  not 
any  essence  nor  a  property  of  essence,  but 
an  accident,  that  is,  a  voluntary  deviation 
from  what  is  natural  into  what  is  unnatural, 
which  is  sin. 

Whence,  then,  comes  sin x  ?  It  is  an  inven- 
tion of  the  free-will  of  the  devil.  Is  the  devil, 
then,  evil?  In  so  far  as  he  was  brought  into 
existence  he  is  not  evil  but  good.  For  he 
was  created  by  his  Maker  a  bright  and  very 
brilliant  angel,  endowed  with  free-will  as 
being  rational.  But  he  voluntarily  departed 
from  the  virtue  that  is  natural  and  came  into 
the  darkness  of  evil,  being  far  removed  from 
God,  Who  alone  is  good  and  can  give  life 
and  light.  For  from  Him  every  good  thing 
derives  its  goodness,  and  so  far  as  it  is  separ- 
ated from  Him  in  will  (for  it  is  not  in  place), 
it  falls  into  evil. 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

The  purpose  8  for  which  God  in  His  foreknow- 
ledge created  persons  who  would  sin  and  not 
repent. 

God  in  His  goodness  3  brought  what  exists 
into  being  out  of  nothing,  and  has  foreknow- 
ledge of  what  will  exist  in  the  future.  If, 
therefore,  they  were  not  to  exist  in  the  future, 
they  would  neither  be  evil  in  the  future  nor 


6  Text.  KaKovaBai.     Variant,  KaKOvxcivOa-i- 

7  Basil,  Horn.  Deum  non  esse  caus.  mal. 

8  Text,  7rapa6po/x>j.     Variant,  m-apa-pom;,  cf.  infra. 

9  Gen.  i.  31. 

1  Basil.  Horn.  Deum  non  esse  caus.  mat. 

*  Jer.,  Contr.  Pelag..  bk.  iii. 

3  Daiitasc,  Dialog,  contra  Manick. 


would  they  be  foreknown.  For  knowledge 
is  of  what  exists  and  foreknowledge  is  of  what 
will  surely  exist  in  the  future.  For  simple 
being  comes  first  and  then  good  or  evil 
being.  But  if  the  very  existence  of  those, 
who  through  the  goodness  of  God  are  in  the 
future  to  exist,  were  to  be  prevented  by  the 
fact  that  they  were  to  become  evil  of  their 
own  choice,  evil  would  have  prevailed  over 
the  goodness  of  God.  Wherefore  God  makes 
all  His  works  good,  but  each  becomes  of  its 
own  choice  good  or  evil.  Although,  then,  the 
Lord  said,  Good  were  it  for  that  man  that  he 
had  never  been  born  *,  He  said  it  in  condemna- 
tion not  of  His  own  creation  but  of  the  evil 
which  His  own  creation  had  acquired  by  his 
own  choice  and  through  his  own  heedlessness. 
For  the  heedlessness  that  marks  man's  judg- 
ment made  His  Creator's  beneficence  of  no 
profit  to  him.  It  is  just  as  if  any  one,  when 
he  had  obtained  riches  and  dominion  from 
a  king,  were  to  lord  it  over  his  benefactor,  who, 
when  he  has  worsted  him,  will  punish  him  as 
he  deserves,  if  he  should  see  him  keeping 
hold  of  the  sovereignty  to  the  end. 

CHAPTER   XXII. 
Concerning  the  law  of  God  and  the  law  of  sin. 

The  Deity  is  good  and  more  than  good, 
and  so  is  His  will.  For  that  which  God 
wishes  is  good.  Moreover  the  precept,  which 
teaches  this,  is  law,  that  we,  holding  by  it, 
may  walk  in  light  s :  and  the  transgression  of 
this  precept  is  sin,  and  this  continues  to  exist 
on  account  of  the  assault  of  the  devil  and  our 
unconstrained  and  voluntary  reception  of  it6. 
And  this,  too,  is  called  law  7. 

'  And  so  the  law  of  God,  settling  in  our  mind, 
draws  it  towards  itself  and  pricks  our  con- 
science. And  our  conscience,  too,  is  called 
a  law  of  our  mind.  Further,  the  assault  of 
the  wicked  one,  that  is  the  law  of  sin,  settling 
in  the  members  of  our  flesh,  makes  its  assault 
upon  us  through  it.  For  by  once  voluntarily 
transgressing  the  law  of  God  and  receiving 
the  assault  of  the  wicked  one,  we  gave  entrance 
to  it,  being  sold  by  ourselves  to  sin.  Where- 
fore our  body  is  readily  impelled  to  it.  And 
so  the  savour  and  perception  of  sin  that  is 
stored  up  in  our  body,  that  is  to  say,  lust  and 
pleasure  of  the  body,  is  law  in  the  members 
of  our  flesh. 

Therefore  the  law  of  my  mind,  that  is,  the 
conscience,  sympathises  with  the  law  of  God, 
that  is,  the  precept,  and  makes  that  its  will. 
But  the  law  of  sin  8,  that  is  to  say,  the  assault 


4  St.  Mark  xiv.  »i.  5  i  St.  John  t  7. 

6  Rom.  vii.  23.  7  Rom.  vii.  1--.  «  Ibid.  23. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


05 


made  through  the  law  that  is  in  our  members, 
or  through  the  lust  and  inclination  and  move- 
ment of  the  body  and  of  the  irrational  part 
of  the  soul,  is  in  opposition  to  the  law  of  my 
mind,  that  is  to  conscience,  and  takes  me 
captive  (even  though  I  make  the  law  of  (!od 
my  will  and  set  my  love  on  it,  and  make  not 
sin  my  will),  by  reason  of  commixture  9  :  and 
through  the  softness  of  pleasure  and  the  lust 
of  the  body  and  of  the  irrational  part  of  the 
soul,  as  I  said,  it  leads  me  astray  and  induces 
me  to  become  the  servant  of  sin.  But  what 
the  law  could  not  do,  in  that  it  zvas  weak 
through  the  flesh,  God,  sending  His  own  Son 
in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  (for  He  assumed 
flesh  but  not  sin)  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh, 
that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  ful- 
filled in  us  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh  but 
in  the  Spirit1.  For  the  Spirit  helpeth  our 
infirmities2  and  affordeth  power  to  the  law 
of  our  mind,  against  the  law  that  is  in  our 
members.  For  the  verse,  we  know  not  what 
we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought,  but  the  Spirit 
itself  maketh  intercession  with  groanings  that 
cannot  be  uttered*,  itself  teacheth  us  what  to 
pray  for.  Hence  it  is  impossible  to  carry  out 
the  precepts  of  the  Lord  except  by  patience 
and  prayer. 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

Against  the  Jews  on  the  question  of  the 
Sabbath. 

The  seventh  day  is  called  the  Sabbath  and 
signifies  rest.  For  in  it  God  7-estedfrom  all  His 
works*,  as  the  divine  Scripture  says  :  and  so 
the  number  of  the  days  goes  up  to  seven  and 
then  circles  back  again  and  begins  at  the  first. 
This  is  the  precious  number  with  the  Jews, 
God  having  ordained  that  it  should  be  held 
in  honour,  and  that  in  no  chance  fashion  but 
with  the  imposition  of  most  heavy  penalties 
for  the  transgression  s.  And  it  was  not  in 
a  simple  fashion  that  He  ordained  this,  but 
for  certain  reasons  understood  mystically  by 
the  spiritual  and  clear-sighted6. 

So  far,  indeed,  as  I  in  my  ignorance  know, 
to  begin  with  inferior  and  more  dense  things, 
God,  knowing  the  denseness  of  the  Israelites 
and  their  carnal  love  and  propensity  towards 
matter  in  everything,  made  this  law :  first, 
in  order  that  the  servant  and  the  cattle  should 
rest  7  as  it  is  written,  for  the  righteous  man  re- 


9  Text,  Kara  avanpaaiv.  Variants,  ava.Kpi<riv,  avaK\i<jiv.  The 
old  translation  is  'secundum  anacrasin,'  i.e.  'contractionem,  refu- 
sionem  per  laevitatem  voluptalis:'  Faber  has  •  secundum  c  n- 
tradiciiunem  per  suadelain  voluptalis.'  The  author's  uieani 
that  owing  to  rhe  conjunction  of  mind  with  body,  the  law  of  sin 
is  mixed  with  all  the  members, 

■  Rom.  viii.  3,  4.  *  Ibid.  26.  3  Ibid. 

4  Gen.  ii.  2.  '  Ex-  *'»•  6  ;  Num.  xv.  35. 

6  Greg.  Naz.,  Ormt.  44.  '  Deut.  v.  14. 


s;ardeth  the  life  of  his  beast3 :  next,  in  order  that 
when  they  take  their  ease  from  the  distraction 
of  material  things,  they  may  gather  together 
unto  God,  spending  the  whole  of  the  seventh 
day  in  psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs 
and  the  study  of  the  divine  Scriptures  and 
resting  in  God.  For  when  9  the  law  did  not 
exist  and  there  was  no  divinely-inspired  Scrip- 
ture, the  Sabbath  was  not  consecrated  to  God. 
15ut  when  the  divinely-inspired  Scripture  was 
given  by  Moses,  the  Sabbath  was  consecrated 
to  God  in  order  that  on  it  they,  who  do  not 
dedicate  their  whole  life  to  God,  and  who 
do  not  make  their  desire  subservient  to  the 
Master  as  though  to  a  Father,  but  are  like 
foolish  servants,  may  on  that  day  talk  much 
concerning  the  exercise  of  it,  and  may  abstract 
a  small,  truly  a  most  insignificant,  portion  of 
their  life  for  the  service  of  God,  and  this  from 
fear  of  the  chastisements  and  punishments 
which  threaten  transgressors.  For  the  law 
is  not  made  for  a  righteous  man  but  for  the 
unrighteous'1.  Moses,  of  a  truth,  was  the  first 
to  abide  fasting  with  God  for  forty  days  and 
again  for  another  forty2,  and  thus  doubtless 
to  afflict  himself  with  hunger  on  the  Sabbaths 
although  the  law  forbade  self-affliction  on  the 
Sabbath.  But  if  they  should  object  that  this 
took  place  before  the  law,  what  will  they  say 
about  Elias  the  Thesbite  who  accomplished 
a  journey  of  forty  days  on  one  meal3?  For 
he,  by  thus  afflicting  himself  on  the  Sabbaths 
not  only  with  hunger  but  with  the  forty  days' 
journeying,  broke  the  Sabbath  :  and  yet  God, 
Who  gave  the  law,  was  not  wroth  with  him  but 
shewed  Himself  to  him  on  Choreb  as  a  reward 
for  his  virtue.  And  what  will  they  say  about 
Daniel?  Did  he  not  spend  three  weeks  with- 
out food*?  And  again,  did  not  all  Israel 
circumcise  the  child  on  the  Sabbath,  if  it 
happened  to  be  the  eighth  day  after  birth  5  ? 
And  do  they  not  hold  the  great  fast  which 
the  law  enjoins  if  it  falls  on  the  Sabbath6? 
And  further,  do  not  the  priests  and  the  Levites 
profane  the  Sabbath  in  the  works  of  the  taber- 
nacle 7  and  yet  are  held  blameless  ?  Yea,  if 
an  ox  should  fall  into  a  pit  on  the  Sabbath, 
he  who  draws  it  forth  is  blameless,  while  he 
who  neglects  to  do  so  is  condemned8.  And 
did  not  all  the  Israelites  compass  the  walls 
of  Jericho  bearing  the  Ark  of  God  for  seven 
days,  in  which  assuredly  the  Sabbath  wa? 
included  9. 

As  I  said1,  therefore,  for   the   purpose   of 

8  Prov.  xii.  io.      9  Epipk.,  Exp.  Fid.,  n.  22.       «  1  Tim.  i.  o- 

2  Ex.  xxiv.  18  :  xxxiv.  28.  3  1  Kings  xix.  8. 

4  Dan.  x.  2.  5  Gen.  xvii.  12.  6  Lev.  xvi.  31 

7  St.  Matt.  xii.  5. 

8  Epifih.,  Haris.yo.n.  32,  etHar.n.  Ziseqq.:  A  than.,  h 
circuvi.  et  Sabb. 

9  Jo- 


96 


JOHN   OF   DAMASCUS. 


securing  leisure  to  worship  God  in  order  that 
they  might,  both  servant  and  beast  of  burden, 
devote  a  very  small  share  to  Him  and  be  at 
rest,  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  was  de- 
vised for  the  carnal  that  were  still  childish  and 
in  the  bonds  of  the  elements  of  the  world2,  and 
unable  to  conceive  of  anything  beyond  the 
body  and  the  letter.  But  when  the  fulness  of 
the  time  was  come,  God  sent  forth  His  Onlv- 
b;  gotten  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under 
the  laiv,  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the 
law  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons3. 
For  to  as  many  of  us  as  received  Him,  He  gave 
power  to  become  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that 
believe  on  Him  ♦.  So  that  we  are  no  longer 
servants  but  sons  s.«  no  longer  under  the  law 
but  under  grace  :  no  longer  do  we  serve  God 
in  part  from  fear,  but  we  are  bound  to  dedicate 
to  Him  the  whole  span  of  our  life,  and  cause 
that  servant,  I  mean  wrath  and  desire,  to  cease 
from  sin  and  bid  it  devote  itself  to  the  service 
of  God,  always  directing  our  whole  desire 
towards  God  and  arming  our  wrath  against 
the  enemies  of  God  :  and  likewise  we  hinder 
that  beast  of  burden,  that  is  the  body,  from 
the  servitude  of  sin,  and  urge  it  forwards  to 
assist  to  the  uttermost  the  divine  precepts. 

These  are  the  things  which  the  spiritual 
law  of  Christ  enjoins  on  us  and  those  who 
'observe  that  become  superior  to  the  law  of 
Moses.  For  when  that  which  is  perfect  is 
come,  then  that  which  is  in  part  shall  be  done 
away6 :  and  when  the  covering  of  the  law, 
that  is,  the  veil,  is  rent  asunder  through  the 
crucifixion  of  the  Saviour,  and  the  Spirit  shines 
forth  with  tongues  of  fire,  the  letter  shall  be 
done  away  with,  bodily  things  shall  come  to 
an  end,  the  law  of  servitude  shall  be  fulfilled, 
and  the  law  of  liberty  be  bestowed  on  us. 
Yea?  we  shall  celebrate  the  perfect  rest  of 
human  nature,  I  mean  the  day  after  the  resur- 
rection, on  which  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  Author 
of  Life  and  our  Saviour,  shall  lead  us  into 
the  heritage  promised  to  those  who  serve 
God  in  the  spirit,  a  heritage  into  which  He 
entered  Himself  as  our  forerunner  after  He 
rose  from  the  dead,  and  whereon,  the  gates 
of  Heaven  being  opened  to  Him,  He  took 
His  seat  in  bodily  form  at  the  right  hand 
of  the  Father,  where  those  who  keep  the 
spiritual  law  shall  also  come. 

What  belongs  to  us8,  therefore,  who  walk 
by  the  spirit  and  not  by  the  letter,  is  the 
complete  abandonment  of  carnal  things,  the 
spiritual  service  and  communion  with  God. 
For  ciicumcision  is  the  abandonment  of 
carnal    pleasure    and     of    whatever   is    super- 


2  Gal.  iv.  3. 
5  Gai.  iv.  7. 


3  Ibid.  4,  5. 
6  I  Cor.  xiii.  10. 
«  Ibid. 


4  St.  John  i.  12. 
7  A  than.,  loc.  cit. 


fluous  and  unnecessary.  For  the  foreskin 
is  nothing  else  than  the  skin  which  if  super- 
fluous to  the  organ  of  lust.  And,  indeed, 
every  pleasure  which  does  not  arise  from 
God  nor  is  in  God  is  superfluous  to  pleasure  : 
and  of  that  the  foreskin  is  the  type.  The 
Sabbath,  moreover,  is  the  cessation  from  sin  ; 
so  that  both  things  happen  to  be  one,  and 
so  both  together,  when  observed  by  those 
who  are  spiritual,  do  not  bring  about  any 
breach  of  the  law  at  all. 

Further,  observe 9  that  the  number  seven 
denotes  all  the  present  time,  as  the  most  wise 
Solomon  says,  to  give  a  portion  to  seven  and 
also  to  eight1.  And  David2,  the  divine  singer 
when  he  composed  the  eighth  psalm,  sang 
of  the  future  restoration  after  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead.  Since  the  Law,  therefore, 
enjoined  that  the  seventh  day  should  be 
spent  in  rest  from  carnal  things  and  devoted 
to  spiritual  things,  it  was  a  mystic  indication 
to  the  true  Israelite  who  had  a  mind  to  see 
God,  that  he  should  through  all  time  offer 
himself  to  God  and  rise  higher  than  carnal 
things. 

CHAPTER    XXIV. 

Concerning  Virginity. 

Carnal  men  abuse  virginity  3,  and  the 
pleasure-loving  bring  forward  the  following 
verse  in  proof,  Cursed  be  every  one  that 
raise th  not  up  seed  in  Israel*.  But  we,  made 
confident  by  God  the  Word  that  was  made 
flesh  of  the  Virgin,  answer  that  virginity  was 
implanted  in  man's  nature  from  above  and 
in  the  beginning.  For  man  was  formed  of 
virgin  soil.  From  Adam  alone  was  Eve 
created.  In  Paradise  virginity  held  sway. 
Indeed,  Divine  Scripture  tells  that  both  Adam 
and  Eve  were  naked  and  were  not  ashamed5. 
But  after  their  transgression  they  knew  that 
they  were  naked,  and  in  their  shame  they 
sewed  aprons  for  themselves6.  And  when, 
after  the  transgression,  Adam  heard,  dust 
thou  art  and  unto  dust  shall  thou  return  7, 
when  death  entered  into  the  world  by  reason 
of  the  transgression,  then  Adam  knew  Eve 
his  wife,  and  she  conceived  and  bare  seeds. 
So  that  to  prevent  the  wearing  out  and 
destruction  of  the  race  by  death,  marriage 
was  devised  that  the  race  of  men  may  be  pre- 
served through  the  procreation  of  children  9. 

But  they  will  perhaps  ask,  what  then  is  the 
meaning  of  "male  and  female1,"  and  "Be 
fruitful  and  multiply?"  In  answer  we  shall 
say  that  "  Be  fruitful  and  multiply  2  "  does  not 

9  Greg.  Naz  ,  Orat.  42.  «  Eccl.  xi.  2.  2  Ps.  xvi. 

3  Vide  bk.  ii.  co.  30.  «  Dent  5  Gen.  ii.  23. 

6  Ibid.  iv.  7.  7  Ibid.  10. 

8  Gen.  iv.  1.  9  (,,,•;    .V       .,  Dc  opif.,  horn.  16. 

1  Gen.  i.  37.  3  Ibid.  i.  28. 


EXPOSITION   OF   THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


97 


altogether  refer  to  the  multiplying  by  the 
marriage  connection.  For  God  had  power 
to  multiply  the  race  also  in  different  ways,  if 
they  kept  the  precept  unbroken  3  to  the  end4. 
But  God,  Who  knoweth  all  things  before  they 
have  existence,  knowing  in  His  foreknowledge 
that  they  would  fall  into  transgression  in  the 
future  and  be  condemned  to  death,  anticipated 
this  and  made  "  male  and  female,"  and  bade 
them  "be  fruitful  and  multiply."  Let  us, 
then,  proceed  on  our  way  and  see  the  glories5 
of  virginity  :  and  this  also  includes  chastity. 

Noah  when  he  was  commanded  to  enter 
the  ark  and  was  entrusted  with  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  seed  of  the  world  received  this 
command,  Go  in,  saith  the  Lord,  thou  and 
thy  sons,  and  thy  wife,  and  thy  sons'  wives6. 
He  separated  them  from  their  wives  ?  in  order 
that  with  purity  they  might  escape  the  flood 
and  that  shipwreck  of  the  whole  world-  After 
the  cessation  of  the  flood,  however,  He  said, 
Go  forth  of  the  ark,  thou  and  thy  sons,  and  thy 
wife,  and  thy  sons'  wives*.  Lo,  again,  marriage 
is  granted  for  the  sake  of  the  multiplication 
of  the  race.  Next,  Elias,  the  fire-breathing 
charioteer  and  sojourner  in  heaven  did  not 
embrace  celibacy,  and  yet  was  not  his  virtue 
attested  by  his  super-human  ascension *  ?  Who 
closed  the  heavens?  Who  raised  the  dead 2  ? 
Who  divided  Jordan  3  ?  Was  it  not  the  vir- 
ginal Elias  ?  And  did  not  Elisha,  his  disciple, 
after  he  had  given  proof  of  equal  virtue,  ask 
and  obtain  as  an  inheritance  a  double  portion 
of  the  grace  of  the  Spirit  *  ?  What  of  the  three 
youths  ?  Did  they  not  by  practising  virginity 
become  mightier  than  fire,  their  bodies  through 
virginity  being  made  proof  against  the  fire  5  ? 
And  was  it  not  Daniel's  body  that  was  so 
hardened  by  virginity  that  the  wild  beasts' 
teeth  could  not  fasten  in  it6.  Did  not  God, 
when  He  wished  the  Israelites  to  see  Him, 
bid  them  purify  the  body  ?  ?  Did  not  the 
priests  purify  themselves  and  so  approach  the 
temple's  shrine  and  offer  victims?  And  did 
not  the  law  call  chastity  the  great  vow? 

The  precept  of  the  law,  therefore,  is  to  be 
taken  in  a  more  spiritual  sense.  For  there  is 
spiritual  seed  which  is  conceived  through  the 
love  and  fear  of  God  in  the  spiritual  womb, 
travailing  and  bringing  forth  the  spirit  of 
salvation.  And  in  this  sense  must  be  under- 
stood this  verse  :  Blessed  is  he  who  hath  seed 
in  Zion  and  posterity  in  Jerusalem.     For  does 


3  Text,  anapaxapaKTov.    Variant,  dn-apeyxapaxTov ,  old  trans. 
in  iruransmutationem." 

4  Vid  supr.,  bk.  ii.  ch.  30. 

5  Text,  aujjj/uaTa=  increases.     We  have  read  av\y)\i.a.ra.. 

6  Gen.  vi.  18  ;  vii.  I.  7  Cf.  Chrys-,  Horn.  28  on  Genesis. 

6  Gen  viii.  16. 

1  2  Kings  ii.  11.  a  Ibid.  iv.  34.  3  Ibid.  11.  14- 

4  Ibid.  ii.  9.  .5  Dan.  iii.  20.  6  Ibid.  vi.  16. 

7  Ex.  xix.  15  :  Num.  vi.  a. 


it  mean  that,  although  he  be  a  whoremonger 
and  a  drunkard  and  an  idolater,  he  is  still 
blessed  if  only  he  hath  seed  in  Sion  and 
posterity  in  Jerusalem?  No  one  in  his  senses 
will  say  this. 

Virginity  is  the  rule  of  life  among  the 
angels,  the  property  of  all  incorporeal  nature. 
This  we  say  without  speaking  ill  of  marriage  : 
God  forbid  !  (for  we  know  that  the  Lord 
blessed  marriage  by  His  presence8,  and  we 
know  him  who  said,  Marriage  is  honourable 
and  the  bed  undefled1),  but  knowing  that  vir- 
ginity is  better  than  marriage,  however  good. 
For  among  the  virtues,  equally  as  among  the 
vices,  there  are  higher  and  lower  grades.  We 
know  that  all  mortals  after  the  first  parents 
of  the  race  are  the  offspring  of  marriage.  For 
the  first  parents  were  the  work  of  virginity 
and  not  of  marriage.  But  celibacy  is,  as 
we  said,  an  imitation  of  the  angels.  Where- 
fore virginity  is  as  much  more  honourable 
than  marriage,  as  the  angel  is  higher  than 
man.  But  why  do  I  say  angel?  Christ  Him- 
self is  the  glory  of  virginity,  who  was  not  only- 
begotten  of  the  Father  without  beginning  or 
emission  or  connection,  but  also  became  man 
in  our  image,  being  made  flesh  for  our  sakes 
of  the  Virgin  without  connection,  and  mani- 
festing in  Himself  the  true  and  perfect  vir- 
ginity. Wherefore,  although  He  did  not  enjoin 
that  on  us  by  law  (for  as  He  said,  all  men 
cannot  receive  this  saying  2),  yet  in  actual  fact 
He  taught  us  that  and  gave  us  strength  for 
it.  For  it  is  surely  clear  to  every  one  that 
virginity  now  is  flourishing  among  men. 

Good  indeed  is  the  procreation  of  children 
enjoined  by  the  law,  and  good  is  marriage  3 
on  account  of  fornications,  for  it  does  away 
with  these  4,  and  by  lawful  intercourse  does  not 
permit  the  madness  of  desire  to  be  enflamed 
into  unlawful  acts.  Good  is  marriage  for  those 
who  have  no  continence  :  but  that  virginity  is 
better  which  increases  the  fruitfulness  of  the 
soul  and  offers  to  God  the  seasonable  fruit 
of  prayer.  Marriage  is  honourable  and  the 
bed  undefiled,  but  whoremongers  and  adulterers 
God  will  judge  s. 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

Concerning  the  Circumcision. 

The  Circumcision6  was  given  to  Abraham 
before  the  law,  after  the  blessings,  after  the 
promise,  as  a  sign  separating  him  and  his 
offspring  and  his  household  from  the  Gentiles 
with  whom  he  lived  ?.     And  this  is  evident 8, 


2  St.  Matt.  xix.  ii. 
4  i  Cor.  vii.  a. 


8  St.  John  ii.  I.  *  Heb.  xiii.  4. 

3  Simeon  Thess.,  De  initiat.,  ch.  33 

5  Heb.  xiii.  4. 

6  Just.  Martyr.,  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  p.  241. 

7  Gen.  xvii.  10.  8  Chrys.,  Horn.  39  in  Gen 


VOL.  IX. 


C  C 


93 


JOHN    OF   DAMASCUS. 


for  when  the  Israelites  passed  forty  years  alone 
by  themselves  in   the   desert,   having  no  in- 
tercourse  with  any  other  race,  all  that  were 
born   in  the  desert  were  uncircumcised :  but 
when  Joshua  9  led   them  across  Jordan,  they 
were  circumcised,  and  a  second  law  of  circum- 
cision was  instituted.     For  in  Abraham's  time 
the  law  of  circumcision  was  given,  and  for  the 
forty  years  in  the  desert  it  fell  into  abeyance. 
And  again  for  the  second  time  God  gave  the 
law  of  circumcision  to  Joshua,  after  the  cross- 
ing of  Jordan,  according  as  it  is  written  in  the 
book  of  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun  :  At  that  time 
the  Lard-  said  unto  Joshua,  Make  thee  knives  of 
stone  from  the  sharp  rock,   and  assemble  and 
circumcise  the  sons  of  Israel  a  second  time  1 ; 
and   a   little  later  :  For  the  children  of  Israel 
walked  forty  and  two2  years  in  the  wilderness 
of  Battaris  3,  till  all  the  people  that  were  men 
of  war,  which  came  out  of  Egypt,  were  uncir- 
cumcised,  because  they  obeyed  not  the  voice  of  the 
Lord:    unto  whom  the   Lord   sware   that   He 
would  not  sheio  them  the  good  land,  which  the 
Lord  sware  unto  their  fathers  that  He  would 
give  them,  a  land  that  floweth  with  milk  and 
honey.     And  their  children,   whom   He   raised 
up  in  their  stead,  them  Joshua  circumcised  ;  for 
they  were  tincircumcised,   because  they  had  not 
circumcised  them  by  the  way*.     So  that  the  cir- 
cumcision was  a  sign,  dividing  Israel  from  the 
Gentiles  with  whom  they  dwelt. 

It  was,  moreover,  a  figure  of  baptism  s.  For 
just  as  the  circumcision  does  not  cut  off 
a  useful  member  of  the  body  but  only  a  use- 
less superfluity,  so  by  the  holy  baptism  we 
are  circumcised  from  sin,  and  sin  clearly  is, 
so  to  speak,  the  superfluous  part  of  desire  and 
not  useful  desire.  For  it  is  quite  impossible 
that  any  one  should  have  no  desire  at  all  nor 
ever  experience  the  taste  of  pleasure.  But 
the  useless  part  of  pleasure,  that  is  to  say, 
useless  desire  and  pleasure,  it  is  this  that  is 
sin  from  which  holy  baptism  circumcises  us, 
giving  us  as  a  token  the  precious  cross  on  the 
brow,  not  to  divide  us  from  the  Gentiles  (for 
all  the  nations  received  baptism  and  were 
sealed  with  the  sign  of  the  Cross),  but  to 
distinguish  in  each  nation  the  faithful  from 
the  faithless.  Wherefore,  when  the  truth  is 
revealed,  circumcision  is  a  senseless  figure  and 
shade.  So  circumcision  is  now  superfluous 
and  contrary  to  holy  baptism.  For  he  7vho  is 
circi/tnciscd  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law  °. 
Further,   the   Lord  was  circumcised  that  He 

9  Text, 'Irjtrous.  »  Josh.  v.  2.  2  Ibid.  6. 

3  Text,  BaTTapi-ri'Si  as  in  MSS.  ;  but  in  Bib.  Sixt.  naSPapei- 
TiSt  is  to  be  read.  The  de-,ert  in  which  the  Israelites  dwelt  is 
called  "  per  antonomasiam  ''  Madbara,  from  the  Hebrew  ""Q"f£» 
desert. 

*  Josh.  v.  6,  7. 

S  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  40.    At/tan.,  De  Sab.  et  circ. 

•  Gal.  v.  a. 


might  fulfil  the  law :  and  He  fulfilled  the 
whole  law  and  observed  the  Sabbath  that  He 
might  fulfil  and  establish  the  law  ?.  Moreover 
after  He  was  baptized  and  the  Holy  Spirit  had 
appeared  to  men.  descending  on  Him  in  the 
form  of  a  dove,  from  that  time  the  spiritual 
service  and  conduct  of  life  and  the  Kingdom 
of  Heaven  was  preached. 

CHAPTER   XXVI. 

Concerning-  the  Antichrist*. 

It  should  be  known  that  the  Antichrist  is 
bound  to  come.  Every  one,  therefore,  who 
confesses  not  that  the  Son  of  God  came  in 
the  flesh  and  is  perfect  God  and  became 
perfect  man,  after  being  God,  is  Antichrist  9, 
But  in  a  peculiar  and  special  sense  he  who 
comes  at  the  consummation  of  the  age  is 
called  Antichrist  *.  First,  then,  it  is  requisite 
that  the  Gospel  should  be  preached  among 
all  nations,  as  the  Lord  said 2,  and  then  he 
will  come  to  refute  the  impious  Jews.  For 
the  Lord  said  to  them :  /  am  come  in  My 
Father's  name  and  ye  receive  Me  not :  if  another 
shall  come  in  his  own  name,  him  ye  will  receive  3. 
And  the  apostle  says,  Because  they  received  not 
the  love  of  the  truth  that  they  might  be  saved, 
for  this  cause  God  shall  send  them  a  strong 
delusion  that  they  should  believe  a  lie  :  that  they 
all  might  be  damned  who  believed  not  the  truth, 
but  had  pleasure  in  unrighteousness*.  The 
Jews  accordingly  did  not  receive  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  who  was  the  Son  of  God  and 
God,  but  receive  the  impostor  who  calls  him- 
self God  5.  For  that  he  will  assume  the  name 
of  God,  the  angel  teaches  Daniel,  saying  these 
words,  Neither  shall  he  regard  the  God  of  his 
fathers^.  And  the  apostle  says:  Let  no  man 
deceive  you  by  any  means :  for  that  day  shall 
not  come  except  there  come  a  falling  away  first, 
and  that  man  of  sin  be  revealed,  the  son  of 
perditiofi :  who  opposeth  and  exalteth  himself 
above  all  that  is  called  God  or  that  is  wor- 
shipped, so  that  he  sttteth  in  the  temple  of  God ' , 
shewing  himself  that  he  is  God;  in  the  temple 
of  God  he  said  ;  not  our  temple,  but  the  old 
Jewish  temple8.  For  he  will  come  not  to  us 
but  to  the  Jews  :  not  for  Christ  or  the  things 
of  Christ :  wherefore  he  is  called  Antichrist  9. 

First,  therefore,  it  is  necessary  that  the 
Gospel  should  be  preached  among  all  na- 
tions1:   And   then   shall   that  wicked  one  be 

7  St.  Matt.  v.  17.  8  See  the  note  in  Mign«. 

9  1  St.  John  ii.  22. 

1  Iren.,  bk.  v.  ch.  25  :  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  47. 

2  St.  Matt.  xxiv.  14.  3  St.  John  v.  43. 

4  2  Thess.  ii    10,  n,  12. 

5  Chrys.,  Horn.  4  in  Epist.  2  Thess.  6  Dan.  xi.  37. 

7  2  Thess.  ii.  3,  4.  8  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Cat.  15. 

9  Iren..  Cyril  Hieros.,  Catech.  15  :  Greg.  .Vaz-  loc.  cit. 
1  St.  Matt.  xxv.  u. 


EXPOSITION    OF   THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


99 


revealed,  even  him  whose  coming  is  after  the 
working  of  Satan  with  all  poiver  and  signs 
and  lying  wonders*,  with  all  deceivableness 
of  unrighteousness  in  them  that  perish,  whom 
the  Lord  shall  consume  with  the  word  of  His 
mouth  and  shall  destroy  tvith  the  brightness  of 
His  coming's.  The  devil  himself4,  therefore, 
does  not  become  man  in  the  way  that  the 
Lord  was  made  man.  God  forbid  !  but  he  be- 
comes man  as  the  offspring  of  fornication  and 
receiveth  all  the  energy  of  Satan.  For  God, 
foreknowing  the  strangeness  of  the  choice  that 
he  would  make,  allows  the  devil  to  take  up 
his  abode  in  him  s. 

He  is,  therefore,  as  we  said,  the  offspring 
of  fornication  and  is  nurtured  in  secret,  and 
on  a  sudden  he  rises  up  and  rebels  and 
assumes  rule.  And  in  the  beginning  of  his 
rule,  or  rather  tyranny,  he  assumes  the  role 
of  sanctity6.  But  when  he  becomes  master 
he  persecutes  the  Church  of  God  and  displays 
all  his  wickedness.  But  he  will  come  with 
signs  and  lying  wonders  ?,  fictitious  and  not 
real,  and  he  will  deceive  and  lead  away  from 
the  living  God  those  whose  mind  rests  on  an 
unsound  and  unstable  foundation,  so  that  even 
the  elect  shall,  if  it  be  possible,  be  made  to 
stumble  8. 

But  Enoch  and  Elias  the  Thesbite  shall  be 
sent  and  shall  turn  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  to 
the  children  9,  that  is,  the  synagogue  to  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  preaching  of  the 
apostles :  and  they  will  be  destroyed  by  him. 
And  the  Lord  shall  come  out  of  heaven,  just  as 
the  holy  apostles  beheld  Him  going  into  heaven, 
perfect  God  and  perfect  man,  with  glory  and 
power,  and  will  destroy  the  man  of  lawlessness, 
the  son  of  destruction,  with  the  breath  of  His 
mouth  *.  Let  no  one,  therefore,  look  for  the 
Lord  to  come  from  earth,  but  out  of  Heaven, 
as  He  himself  has  made  sure  a. 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

Concerning  the  Resurrection. 

We  believe  also  in  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead.  For  there  will  be  in  truth,  there  will 
be,  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  by  resur- 
rection we  mean  resurrection  of  bodies  '.  For 
resurrection  is  the  second  state  of  that  which 
has  fallen.  For  the  souls  are  immortal,  and 
hence  how  can  they  rise  again  ?     For  if  they 


a  Text   has   n-e'patri   \fievSovt,   instead    of   the    received    text, 
rcpotTi  ipfv&ovs,  cf.  in/r. 

3  2  Thess.  ii.  8,  9,  10.  *  Jerome  on  Daniel,  ch.  vii. 

5  Chrys.,  Horn.  3  in  2  Thess. 

6  Text,  aytoirvia)!'.     Variants,  a.ya8ia<ruvy\v,  iiiccuocrvwjk.     Old 
trans.  "'  justitiam,"  but  Faber  has  "  bonilatem." 

7  2  Thess.  ii.  9.  8  St.  Matt.  xxiv.  24. 

9  Mai.  iv.  6 :  Apoc.  xL  3.  *  Acts  L  is. 

2  2  Thess.  ii.  8. 

3  1  Cor.  xv.  35—44. 


define  death  as  the  separation  of  soul  and 
body,  resurrection  surely  is  the  re-union  of 
soul  and  body,  and  the  second  state  of  the 
living  creature  that  has  suffered  dissolution  and 
downfall  1  It  is,  then,  this  very  body,  which 
is  corruptible  and  liable  to  dissolution,  that 
will  rise  again  incorruptible.  For  He,  who 
made  it  in  the  beginning  of  the  sand  of  the 
earth,  does  not  lack  the  power  to  raise  it  up 
again  after  it  has  been  dissolved  again  and 
returned  to  the  earth  from  which  it  was  taken, 
in  accordance  with  the  reversal  of  the  Creator's 
judgment. 

For  if  there  is  no  resurrection,  let  us  eat 
and  drink  s  j  let  us  pursue  a  life  of  pleasure 
and  enjoyment.  If  there  is  no  resurrection, 
wherein  do  we  differ  from  the  irrational  brutes  ? 
If  there  is  no  resurrection,  let  us  hold  the 
wild  beasts  of  the  field  happy  who  have  a  life 
free  from  sorrow.  If  there  is  no  resurrection, 
neither  is  there  any  God  nor  Providence,  but 
all  things  are  driven  and  borne  along  of  them- 
selves. For  observe  how  we  see  most  righteous 
men  suffering  hunger  and  injustice  and  receiv- 
ing no  help  in  the  present  life,  while  sinners 
and  unrighteous  men  abound  in  riches  and 
every  delight.  And  who  in  his  senses  would 
take  this  for  the  work  of  a  righteous  judgment 
or  a  wise  providence  ?  There  must  be,  there- 
fore, there  must  be,  a  resurrection.  For  God 
is  just  and  is  the  rewarder  of  those  who  submit 
patiently  to  Him.  Wherefore  if  it  is  the  soul 
alone  that  engages  in  the  contests  of  virtue, 
it  is  also  the  soul  alone  that  will  receive  the 
crown.  And  if  it  were  the  soul  alone  that 
revels  in  pleasures,  it  would  also  be  the  soul 
alone  that  would  be  justly  punished.  But 
since  the  soul  does  not  pursue  either  virtue 
or  vice  separate  from  the  body,  both  together 
will  obtain  that  which  is  their  just  due. 

Nay,  the  divine  Scripture  bears  witness  that 
there  will  be  a  resurrection  of  the  body.  God 
in  truth  says  to  Moses  after  the  flood,  Even 
as  the  green  herb  have  1  given  you  all  things. 
But  flesh  with  the  life  thereof,  which  is  the 
blood  thereof,  shall  ye  not  eat.  And  surely  your 
blood  of  your  lives  will  I  require  ;  at  the  hand 
of  every  beast  will  I  require  it,  and  at  the  hand 
of  every  man's  brother  will  I  require  the  life 
of  man.  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  for  his 
blood  his  own  shall  be  shed,  for  in  the  image  of 
God  made  J  man6.  How  will  He  require  the 
blood  of  man  at  the  hand  of  every  beast, 
unless  because  the  bodies  of  dead  men  will 
rise  again?  For  not  for  man  will  the  beasts 
die. 

And  again  to  Moses,  I  am  the  God  of  Abra- 


S  Is. 


*  Epist.  in  Ancor.  «.  89  :  Method.,  Contr.  Orig. 
xxii.  13  :  1  Cor.  xv.  32.  °  Gen.  ix.  3,  4,  5,  < 


IOO 


JOHN    OF    DAMASCUS. 


ham,  the  God  of  Isaac  and  the  God  of  Jacob  : 
God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead  (that  is,  those 
who  are  dead  and  will  be  no  more),  but  of  the 
livings,  whose  souls  indeed  live  in  His  hand8, 
but  whose  bodies  will  again  come  to  life 
through  the  resurrection.  And  David,  sire  of 
the  Divine,  says  to  God,  Thou  takest  away 
their  breath,  they  die  and  return  to  their  dust  9. 
See  how  he  speaks  about  bodies.  Then  he 
subjoins  this,  Thou  sendest  forth  Thy  Spirit, 
they  are  created :  and  Thou  renewest  the  face  of 
the  earth  l. 

Further  Isaiah  says  :  The  dead  shall  rise 
a  vain,  and  they  that  are  in  the  graves  shall 
awake2.  And  it  is  clear  that  the  souls  do  not 
lie  in  the  graves,  but  the  bodies. 

And  again,  the  blessed  Ezekiel  says:  And 
it  was  as  I  prophesied,  and  behold  a  shaking 
and  the  bones  came  together,  bone  to  his  bone, 
each  to  its  own  joint:  and  when  I  beheld,  lo, 
the  sinews  ca7ne  up  upon  them  and  the  flesh 
grew  and  rose  up  on  them  and  the  skin  colored 
them  above  3.  And  later  he  teaches  how  the 
spirits  came  back  when  they  were  bidden. 

And  divine  Daniel  also  says  :  And  at  that 
time  shall  Michael  stand  up,  the  great  prince 
which  standeth  for  the  children  of  thy  people : 
and  there  shall  be  a  time  of  trouble,  such  trouble 
as  never  was  since  there  was  a  nation  on  the 
earth  even  to  that  same  time.  And  at  that  time 
thy  people  shall  be  delivered,  every  one  that  shall 
be  found  written  in  the  book.  And  many  of 
them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall 
aivake :  some  to  everlasting  life  atid  some  to 
shame  and  everlasting  contempt.  And  they 
that  be  wise  shall  shine  as  the  brightness  of  the 
firmament,  and  out  of  the  multitude  of  the  fust 
shall  shine  like  stars  into  the  ages  and  beyond*. 
The  words,  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust 
of  the  earth  shall  awake,  clearly  shew  that 
there  will  be  a  resurrection  of  bodies.  For 
no  one  surely  would  say  that  the  souls  sleep 
in  the  dust  of  the  earth. 

Moreover,  even  the  Lord  in  the  holy  Gos- 
pels clearly  allows  that  there  is  a  resurrection 
of  the  bodies.  For  they  that  are  in  the  graves, 
He  says,  shall  hear  His  voice  and  shall  come 
forth  :  they  that  have  done  good  unto  the  resur- 
rection of  life,  and  they  that  have  done  evil  unto 
the  resurrectioti  of  damnation*.  Now  no  one 
in  his  senses  would  ever  say  that  the  souls  are 
in  the  graves. 

But  it  was  not  only  by  word,  but  also  by 
deed,  that  the  Lord  revealed  the  resurrection 
of  the  bodies.  First  He  raised  up  Lazarus, 
even  after  he  had  been  dead  four  days,  and 


7  Ex.  iii.  6:  St.  Matt.  xxii.  3^. 
9  Ps.  civ.  29.  »  Ibid.  30. 

3  Ez.  xxxvii.  7.       4  Dan.  xii.  1,  2,  3. 


8  Wisd.  iii.  1. 
2  Is.  xxvi.  18. 
5  St.  John  v.  28,  29. 


was  stinking6.  For  He  did  not  raise  the  soul 
without  the  body,  but  the  body  along  with  the 
soul  :  and  not  another  body  but  the  very  one 
that  was  corrupt.  For  how  could  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead  man  have  been  known 
or  believed  if  it  had  not  been  established 
by  his  characteristic  properties?  But  it  was 
in  fact  to  make  the  divinity  of  His  own  nature 
manifest  and  to  confirm  the  belief  in  His  own 
and  our  resurrection,  that  He  raised  up 
Lazarus  who  was  destined  once  more  to  die. 
And  the  Lord  became  Himself  the  fir.^t-fruits 
of  the  perfect  resurrection  that  is  no  longer 
subject  to  death.  Wherefore  also  the  divine 
Apostle  Paul  said  :  If  the  dead  rise  not,  then 
is  not  Christ  raised.  And  if  Christ  be  nut 
raised,  our  faith  is  vain :  we  are  yet  in  our 
sins  7.  And,  Now  is  Christ  risen  from  the 
dead  and  become  the  first-fruits  of  them  that 
slept 8,  and  the  first-born  from  the  dead 9/  and 
again,  For  if  we  believe  that  Jesus  died  and 
rose  again,  even  so  them  also  which  sleep  in 
Jesus  will  God  bring  with  Him  r.  Even  so, 
he  said,  as  Christ  rose  again.  Moreover,  that 
the  resurrection  of  the  Lord  was  the  union 
of  uncorrupted  body  and  soul  (for  it  was 
these  that  had  been  divided)  is  manifest : 
for  He  said,  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three 
days  I  will  raise  it  up2.  And  the  holy  Gospel 
is  a  trustworthy  witness  that  He  spoke  of  His 
own  body.  Handle  Me  and  see,  the  Lord  said 
to  His  own  disciples  when  they  were  thinking 
that  they  saw  a  spirit,  that  it  is  I  Myself,  and 
thai  I  am  not  changed  $:  for  a  spirit  hath  not 
flesh  or  bones,  as  ye  see  Me  have*.  And  when 
He  had  said  this  He  shewed  them  His  hands 
and  His  side,  and  stretched  them  forward  for 
Thomas  to  touch  s.  Is  not  this  sufficient  to 
establish  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  bodies  ? 

Again  the  divine  apostle  says,  For  this  cor- 
ruptible must  put  on  incorruption,  and  this  mor- 
tal must  put  on  immortality  6.  And  again  :  It 
is  sown  in  corruption,  it  is  raised  in  incorrup- 
tion ;  it  is  sown  in  weakness,  it  is  raised  in 
power:  it  is  sown  in  dishonour,  it  is  raised 
in  glory  :  it  is  sown  a  natural  body  (that  is  to 
say,  crass  and  mortal),  it  is  raised  a  spiritual 
body  7,  such  as  was  our  Lord's  body  after  the 
resurrection  which  passed  through  closed 
doors,  was  unwearying,  had  no  need  of  food, 
or  sleep,  or  drink.  For  they  will  be,  saith  the 
Lord,  as  the  angels  of  Gods :  there  will  no 
longer  be  marriage  nor  procreation  of  chil- 
dren. The  divine  apostle,  in  truth,  says, 
For  our  conversation  is  in  heaven,  from  whence 


6  St.  John  xi.  39—44.  7  1  Cor.  xv.  16,  17.  8  Ibid.  20. 
9  Col.  i.  18.  *  1  Thess.  iv.  14.  2  St.  John  ii.  19. 
3  St.  Luke  xxiv.  37.                            4  Ibid.  xxiv.  39. 

S   St.  John  xx.  27.  6  1  Cor.  xv.  35. 

7  1  Cor.  xv.  42.  44-  8  St.  Mark  x,i    2;. 


EXPOSITION    OF  THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH. 


IOI 


also  we  look  for  the  Saviour,  the  Lord  Jesus, 
Who  shall  change  our  vile  body  that  it  may 
be  fashioned  like  unto  His  glorious  body  s>  .•  not 
meaning  change  into  another  form  (God  for- 
bid !),  but  rather  the  change  from  corruption 
into  incorruption  *. 

But  some  one  will  say,  How  are  the  dead  raised 
up  ?  Oh,  what  disbelief !  Oh,  what  folly  ! 
Will  He,  Who  at  His  solitary  will  changed 
earth  into  body,  Who  commanded  the  little 
drop  of  seed  to  grow  in  the  mother's  womb 
and  become  in  the  end  this  varied  and  mani- 
fold organ  of  the  body,  not  the  rather  raise  up 
again  at  His  solitary  will  that  which  was  and 
is  dissolved  ?  And  with  what  body  do  they 
come2  ?  Thou  fool,  if  thy  hardness  will  not  per- 
mit you  to  believe  the  words  of  God,  at  least  be- 
lieve His  works  3.  For  that  which  thou  sowest 
is  not  quickened  except  it  die*.  And  that  which 
thou  sowest,  thou  sowest  not  that  body  that  shall 
be,  but  bare  grain,  it  may  chance  of  wheat  or  of 
some  other  grain.  But  God  giveth  it  a  body 
as  it  hath  pleased  Him,  and  to  every  seed  his 
ozvn  body  s.  Benold,  therefore,  how  the  seed 
is  buried  in  the  furrows  as  in  tombs.  Who 
is   it   that  giveth   them   roots  and  stalk  and 

9  Philip,  iii.  20,  21. 

*  Nyss. ,  loc.  citat. ;  Epiph. ,  Hctru.  vi.  4.        a  1  Cor.  xv.  35. 

S  Epiph.,  Ancor.,  n.  93.  4  1  Cor.  xv.  35. 

<  Ibid.  36,  37.  38. 


leaves  and  ears  and  the  most  delicate  beards  ? 
Is  it  not  the  Maker  of  the  universe  ?  Is  it  not 
at  the  bidding  of  Him  Who  hath  contrived 
all  things?  Believe,  therefore,  in  this  wise, 
even  that  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  will 
come  to  pass  at  the  divine  will  and  sign.  For 
He  has  power  that  is  able  to  keep  pace  with 
His  will. 

We  shall  therefore  rise  again,  our  souls 
being  once  more  united  with  our  bodies, 
now  made  incorruptible  and  having  put  off 
corruption,  and  we  shall  stand  beside  the 
awful  judgment-seat  of  Christ :  and  the  devil 
and  his  demons  and  the  man  that  is  his,  that 
is  the  Antichrist  and  the  impious  and  the  sin- 
ful, will  be  given  over  to  everlasting  lire  :  not 
material  fire 6  like  our  fire,  but  such  fire 
a'i  God  would  know.  But  those  who  have 
done  good  will  shine  forth  as  the  sun  with  the 
mgels  into  life  eternal,  with  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  ever  seeing  Him  and  being  in  His 
sight  and  deriving  unceasing  joy  from  Him, 
praising  Him  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  throughout  the  limitless  ages  of  ages  ?. 
Amen. 


6  See  Migne's  Preface  to  John's  Dial.,  Contr.  Manickao*. 

7  In  R.  2924  is  read  :  iv  t<<>  Kvpi'u)  T)fiiav,  <5  7rpe7rei  rrao-a  £o£c, 
■n/u.7),  Kal  Tpooxuiojoxs,  viiv  /cai  aei,  icai.  eis  tovs  aiaivas  tu>v  aiwfwr. 
'A/tijif.  In  2928  :  671  avrai  7T(je'irei  56|o,  rt/xr)  tcai  irpo<ncvmif<nt,  vi* 
cai  aci,  &C. 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   PASSAGES. 


PACK 

PAGE 

rAGB 

PAGB 

Genesis  i.  I     • 

.  .   28 

Deuteronomy  iv.  6.      4 

Proverbs  viii.  22. 

.     28 

St. Matthew  xxvi.  24  42 

i.  2  .     .    . 

.  27. 28 

iv.  24    .    . 

•    12,  79 

xii.  10    .     . 

•     95 

xxvi.  26     .     . 

.        82 

i.  3  •    •    • 

.    22,  82 

v.  14     .     . 

•     •     95 

xxii.  28      .     . 

1 

xxvi.  39      .    . 

67,    71 

i.  5  .     .    . 

.   •   23 

xxv.    5   .     . 

.     .     86 

ECCLRSIASTES  i.    IO 

•    45 

xxvii.  46    . 

71.   91 

i.  6  .    .    . 

.   .    82 

xxxii.  7      . 

.     .     89 

xi.  2 .     .     .     . 

.     96 

xxviii.  9     . 

.        92 

i.  8  .    .    . 

.    21,  22 

Joshua  iii    1   . 

.    •    95 

Isaiah  vi.  i     .    . 

•     15 

xxviii.  19      7J 

,   78,   92 

i.  io     .    . 

.   .    27 

v.  2  .     .    . 

.    .     98 

vi.  6     .     .    • 

•     83 

xxviii.  20    . 

.     .     86 

i.  II      .     . 

.  .   82 

v.  6,  7   .    . 

.    .     98 

vii.  14  .    .    . 

.    85 

St.  Mark  v.  3 

20 

i.  22       .    . 

.  .  28 

Judges  xv.  17  . 

.    .    87 

vii.  16  .     .     • 

.     60 

vii.  24    .     . 

.    .     66 

i.  26      .    . 

.  .  60 

1  Samuel  i.  2  . 

.    .     85 

ix.  2      .     •     . 

.     73 

xiv.  21  .     .     , 

.     94 

i.  27      .     . 

.  .  96 

1  Kings  viii.  1 

.     .     88 

ix.  6      .    .    • 

.     9° 

xiv.  22 — 24 

.     .     82 

i.  28      .    . 

.    .     88 

xviii.  32 

.     .     78 

xi.  1      .     •     • 

.     84 

xvi.  6    . 

.     80 

i-  31       •    • 

.  20,  94 

xix.  8     . 

.     .    96 

xxii.  13      .     . 

.     96 

St.  Luke  i.  34,  3 

5    •     83 

i.  32       .     . 

.     .     64 

2  Kings  ii.  9—1 

\      •     97 

xxvi.  18      .     • 

.  100 

i.  78      ... 

.     81 

ii.  2       .    . 

•     •     95 

iv.  34    .     . 

.     •     97 

xxix.  I .     a     • 

.     85 

ii.  35     •     •     - 

.     86 

ii.  8       .     . 

.    .     81 

Job  i.  1    .    .    . 

.     .    48 

xxix.  10      .     • 

.     93 

ii.  40     .    , 

.     .    92 

ii.  9      •    • 

•    .     29 

i.  11      .    . 

.     .     41 

xxxvii.  12  .     • 

.     29 

ii.  52     .     .     , 

.     .     69 

ii.  10     .     . 

.     .     27 

i.  12      .    . 

•    .     20 

xl.  5      ... 

.     66 

iii.  6     .     .    , 

.     66 

ii.  16     .     . 

.     .     30 

v.  13     .    . 

.     •    85 

xlviii.  12    .     . 

.    90 

iii.  24    .     .     , 

,    .     85 

ii.  23      .    . 

.    .     96 

xxxiii.  4     . 

.    •       6 

liii.  9     .     .     . 

•     72 

iv.  19    .     .    , 

•     73 

ii.  25      .     . 

•     .      29 

Psalms  i.  3      . 

.    .     9° 

lxi.  i      .     .     . 

73.78 

vii.  4     .     . 

.    .     18 

iii.  I      •    • 

.  .   28 

viii.  3    .     . 

.     .     23 

lxv.  2    .     .     . 

.     80 

x.  41,  42    .     , 

.     25 

iii.  7      .     • 

•     •     45 

xvi.  1     .     . 

.     •    96 

Ixvi.  1    .     .     . 

.     15 

xi.  10    .     .     , 

,     .     89 

iv.  1       .    . 

.     .     96 

xvi.  10  .     . 

.    .     12 

Ixvi.  7  .     .     . 

.     86 

xii.  50  .     .     , 

.     .     79 

iv.  7      .     * 

.     .     96 

xviii.  25,  26 

.    .     85 

Ezekiel  xxxvii.  7 

.   100 

xvi.  19  .     . 

.     .     41 

iv.  19   .     • 

.     .     96 

xix.  1    .     . 

•     .     22 

Daniel  ii.  15  .    . 

.    60 

xxii.  19      •     , 

.     82 

vi.  13    .    • 

•     .     45 

xxiv.  2  .     . 

.    .     28 

ii.  22     .     .    . 

.     17 

xxii.  22      .     , 

.     .     67 

vi.  17    .     . 

.     .     76 

xxiv.  7  .     . 

.    .     92 

iii.  20    .    .     . 

.     97 

xxiv.  13     .     . 

.     IOD 

vi.  18    .    . 

•    •    97 

xxxiii.  6     . 

.     .    82 

vi.  16     .     .    . 

.     97 

xxiv.  28     . 

■     9L92 

vii.  I      .     • 

•    •    97 

xl.  9,  10     . 

.     .     87 

xi.  37    .     .     . 

.    98 

St.  John  i.  13 

.        85 

vii.  17    .     • 

.    .     78 

xiv.  7     48, 

76,  78,  90 

xii.  1—3    .     . 

.  100 

i.  14     .     . 

55.  88 

viii.  II.     • 

•    •     79 

xlix.  12 .     . 

.  28,43 

Amos  iii.  6  .    .    . 

•    93 

i.  12     .    .     . 

86,  96 

viii.  21  .     • 

.    .    88 

1.  3  •     •     • 

.     .     90 

Micah  i.  3  .     .    . 

.     90 

i.  18      .     . 

■     1,  45 

ix.  3—6     • 

•    .     99 

Ii-  4  •    •     • 

•    •    93 

Zechariah  iii.  8  . 

.     81 

i.  29      .     . 

.     •     72 

xiv.  18  .     • 

.    .    83 

Iv.  22    .     . 

•     •    29 

vi.  12    .     .     . 

.     81 

ii.  1       ... 

.     .     97 

xvii.  10       • 

•    •    97 

Ixviii.  13    . 

.    .     89 

ix.  9      ... 

.     90 

ii.  19    .    •     . 

.   100 

xviii.  I  .    • 

•    •    45 

lxviii.  32,  33 

.    .     81 

Malachi  i.  ii.     . 

.     84 

iii.  5      .     . 

.     .     7^ 

xix.  I    .     • 

.    .    45 

lxxiv.  13    . 

.    •     79 

iv.  2      ... 

72,81 

iii.  13    .    . 

•  48,  92 

xlvi   27 

.     .     66 

Ixxv.  3  .     . 

.    .    28 

iv.  6      ... 

.    91 

iii.  14    .    •    . 

•     9i 

Exodus  iii.  6  . 

86,  100 

lxxxiii.  3    . 

.    .     60 

St.  Matthew  i.  2' 

.     85 

iv.  11    .    • 

,     .     89 

iii.  14    .    • 

.    .     12 

Ixxxix.  35 — 

37    •    84 

i- 25      .    .     . 

.     86 

iv.  22    .     .     , 

.     .     92 

iv.  1      .     • 

•    .     81 

xc.  2      .     . 

.    .     18 

iii.  II    .    •     • 

.     79 

v.  7  .    .     . 

.     .     90 

vii.  1     .     • 

.     .    86 

xcvi.  11 

•    .     22 

iii.  15    .    •    • 

.     7o 

v.  19     .    .    , 

.     9.  90 

xii.  23  .    • 

•    .    80 

cii.  26  .     • 

•    .    22 

iv.  2      •    •    . 

.     64 

T.   28,   29    .       , 

.   100 

xiii.  6   .    • 

•    •    95 

civ.  2     .    • 

•    .     22 

v.  5  .     .   '.     . 

.     29 

v.  30     .     . 

.     .     16 

xiv.  16  .     . 

•    •    75 

civ.  4     ,     . 

.    .     18 

v.  17     .    .     . 

88,  89 

v.  39     .    • 

.    .     89 

xvii.  6    .    • 

.    .    87 

civ.  29  .     • 

•     .  100 

vi.  25    .    •     . 

•     29 

v.  43     •     •    « 

.     98 

xix.  15   .    • 

.    .    97 

civ.  30  .    . 

•    .       6 

vi.  33   •    •    • 

•     29 

vi.  46    .     . 

,    .     16 

xxiv.  18      • 

•    •    95 

cvii.  20      • 

•    .     90 

vii.  6     .     •    • 

.     84 

vi.  48    .     . 

.    .     82 

xxv.  18.     . 

.    .    88 

ex.  4      .     . 

.    .     83 

viii.  3    .    .     . 

.    66 

vi-  51—55      - 

.     83 

xxxiii.  IO   . 

.    .     88 

cxiv.  3,  5  . 

•     .     22 

xi.  II    .     •     • 

•     87 

vi.  57    •     • 

.     .     90 

xxxiv.  28    . 

.    .    95 

cxv.  16  .     . 

•       .       21 

xi.  27    .     .    . 

.       1 

vii.  19  .     . 

.     •     9i 

Leviticus  xiv.  i 

.    .    83 

cxvi.  15      . 

.      .       87 

xii.  5    .     .     . 

•    95 

viii.  40.     . 

66,  91 

xiv.  8     .    . 

.    •    78 

exxxii.  7,  8 

.      .      80 

xii.  32   .     .     . 

.     iS 

x.  30      .     . 

•   9°,  9' 

xv.  2,  14    . 

.    .    81 

exxxii.  11   . 

.       .       84 

xvi.  16.      .     . 

.     78 

xi.  34    •     • 

•     •     91 

xvi.  31  .     . 

•    •    95 

exxxv.  6     . 

.       . 

xviii.  19     •     • 

.       6 

xi.  39—44 

.   100 

xxii.  12.     • 

•    •    97 

6, 

28,   41,   82 

xix.  11  .     •     • 

.     97 

xi.  42    .     .3c 

>,  70,  90 

Numbers  ii.  3  . 

.    .    81 

exxxvii.  1  . 

.       .       76 

xxii.  32      .     • 

.   100 

xii.  27  .     . 

.     .     70 

vi.  2           . 

•    •    97 

exxxix.  6    . 

.      .       30 

xxiv.  14     .     . 

.     99 

xiii.  I    .     .    , 

■     .     82 

xi.  12    .     . 

.     .    87 

cxlvi.  6 .     . 

.      .       21 

xxiv.  43      .     • 

.     14 

xiv.  I     .     . 

.    .     91 

xv.  35  .     . 

•     •    95 

cxlviii.  4     . 

•       •       21 

xxv.   14.        .     • 

.     98 

xiv.  9    .     ,    , 

•     .     90 

xxx  vi.  6     . 

.    .     85 

cxlviii.  5,  6 

.      .      72 

xxv.  41        .      . 

.     21 

xiv.  10  .     . 

.     .     90 

104 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   PASSAGES. 


PAGE 

PAGE 

PAGE 

FAGB 

St.  John  xiv.  ] 

[I   .        .        II 

Romans  x.  17  .    , 

.     79    2  Cor.  iii.  17    .    , 

,        .       87 

Hebrews  iv.  12    .    .    82 

xiv.  28  . 

.     .       9 

xi.  8 .    .    , 

«    •    93 

V.    21        .       .       , 

•        91 

vi.  4      .     . 

.    .    77 

xv.  14,  15 

.    .    86 

xi.  21    .     •    , 

.     92 

vi.  26    .     .     , 

.        87 

xi.  1       .     , 

.     •     79 

xv.  26    .     , 

.    .      8 

xi.  32    .     • 

93 

xii.  2,  7 

.       41 

xi.  6      .     . 

.     .    80 

xvi.    10.     , 

.    .     92 

xi.  36    .     . 

54,  81 

Gai.atians  iii.  13 

•        91 

xi.  37,  38  . 

.     .     87 

xvi.  28 .     , 

•    .     90 

1  Cor.  i.  10     .     . 

•     36 

iii.  15    .     .     . 

•        71 

xiii.  4    .     . 

.     •    97 

xvii.  2    .     , 

.    .    9° 

i.  23      .    .     . 

79,  x° 

iv.  3—7     .     . 

.     96 

xiii.  7     .     , 

.    •     87 

xvii.  3  .     , 

•     •       4 

i.  24      .     . 

.     6,  80 

iv.  7      .     .     . 

69,  86 

James  i.  17  .     , 

.    .     82 

xvii.  5   .     , 

.     .     92 

ii.  8       .     .     . 

.     48 

Ephesians  iii.  14, 

15       8 

ii.  26      .     , 

.    .    78 

xix.  34  .     . 

.     .     78 

ii.  11     . 

.       1 

iv.  11    .     .     . 

•     45 

I  Peter  iii.  19 

•     •    .     73 

xx.  17    .     . 

•    77-  92 

ii.  14,  15     .     . 

.     79 

v.  19     .     . 

•     87 

2  Peter  ii.  22  , 

.     .    78 

xx.  19   .     , 

.     .      11 

iii.  17    .     . 

•     87 

Philippians  ii.  6 

.     90 

1  John  i.  5  .     . 

.     .     81 

xxii  27  . 

,    .     .    100 

iii.  19—25      . 

•    85 

ii.  8       .     .     . 

•     59 

i.  7  •     •    • 

•     •     94 

Acts  i.  5 

■     •    •     79 

vi.  14    .     .     , 

•    75 

ii.  20      .     .     . 

•     73 

ii.  22 

.    .     98 

i.  11       .    . 

.   81,  99 

vii.  2     .     .     , 

•     97 

iii.  20,  21  .     . 

.  101 

Revelation  xi 

•3      •     99 

i.  21      .     , 

.     •     74 

vii.  25  .     .     , 

.    .     60 

COLOSSIANS  i.    IS 

•     74 

xix.  16  . 

.     .     .    86 

vii.  14  .    , 

.    .     66 

viii.  7    .     ,    < 

.    .     89 

i.  17      .     . 

.     .     14 

xxL  I     . 

,    .    .    22 

x.  38     .     . 

.    .     78 

x.  1  .     .     • 

.    .    78 

i.  18      .     . 

.     .  100 

xxviii.  19  , 

.    •     77 

x.  17      .      •     < 

.    .     84 

ii.  3  .     .     . 

,    .     69 

Romans  i.  4 
i.  20,  21     , 

.     .    .    92 
.    .    3° 

xi.  2       .     •     < 
xi.  24     .     . 

.    .     88 

ii.  12     .     . 
1  Thf.ss.  iv.  14     . 

.    •     77 
.  100 

.    .     86 

i.  25      .    . 

.    .     25 

xi.  31,  32   .    , 

,     .    84 

2  Thess.  ii.  3,  4 

,    .    98 

v.  12     .    , 

,    .    .     72 

xii.  24    .     . 

.     .    87 

ii.  8 — 10    . 

■    •     99 

Wisdom  i.  13 

>    •    •    41 

vi.  3.      .     , 

,    .    .    78 

xiii.  5    .     . 

•     54 

ii.  9  .     .    . 

-     •    99 

ii.  23    .    . 

•    •    75 

vii.  17   .     , 

•    .     82 

xiii.  10  .     . 

96,  100 

ii.  10 — 12  . 

.    .     98 

ii.  24    .     . 

•    •    65 

vii.  23    .     . 

,    .     .    94 

xv.  1 6,  17  . 

.    .  100 

1  Timothy  i.  9 

.    .    95 

iii.  1      .     . 

87,  100 

vii.  25   .     , 

•     •    94 

xv.  20    .     . 

•    •    77 

ii.  4  .     .    . 

.     42 

xii.  5     . 

.    .    16 

viii.  3     . 

.    .    .    95 

xv.  28    .     . 

■    •     97 

2  Timothy  iii.  16 

.    89 

viii.  9     . 

,    .     .     11 

xv.  35  .     . 

[OO,  101 

Titus  iii.  4  .     . 

.     88 

2  Maccabees  x.  5     .     12 

viii.  17  .    < 

.    .     .     86 

xv.  36   .     .     , 

.  101 

Hebrews  i.  1  .    « 

.     89 

Baruch  iii.  38 

•  15,  78, 

viii.  20 .     , 

"    .    •    95 

xv.  42 — 44 

,     .  100 

1*   2     •      •      • 

.   19,  89 

88,  90 

viii.  29  . 

.    •  77,  87 

xv.  53  .    .    . 

-    .    77 

ii.  17    .    • 

.    .    82 

ia.  19    . 

.    .    .    41 

INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


Abgarus  of  Edessa,  88 

Aeon,  1 8 

Age,  1 8 

Air,  26 

Angels,  their  nature,  18;  rational 
beings,  possessed  of  mind  and 
freedom  of  will,  incorporeal,  not 
susceptible  of  repentance,  im- 
mortal, secondary  intelligences, 
created  through  the  Word,  per- 
fected through  the  Spirit,  cir- 
cumscribed, whether  equal  in 
essence  or  different  ?,  varying  in 
glory,  position,  &c,  serving  God, 
beholding  God,  19;  heaven  their 
dwelling-place,  when  created?, 
ignorant,  their  relation  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  future,  their 
knowledge  of  Scripture,  20 ;  fall 
in  the  case  of  the  angels,  and 
death  in  that  of  man,  21 

Anger,  33 

Antichrist,  98,  99 

Appropriation,  71 

Arius,  11 

Articulation,  34 

Athanasius,  54 

Augarus,  88 

Baptism,  77,  78       ^ 

Basil,  88 

Body,  nature  of,  3  ;  the  fifth  body, 

3,  31 ;   the  resurrection  of  the 

body,  99,  100 

Chalcedon,  Council  of,  54 

Christ,  the  Word,  eternal,  begotten 
of  God,  4;  subsistent  in  God, 
of  same  nature  with  God,  yet 
distinct  in  subsistence,  5 ;  es- 
sential image  of  God,  begotten 
of  God  without  beginning,  6; 
His  generation,  His  relation  to 
God  illustrated  by  analogies  of 
light,  fire,  &c,  8;  meaning  of 
terms  'Son,'  'Effulgence,'  'im- 
press,' '  only-begotten,'  &c,  8  ; 
neither  posterior  nor  inferior  to 
the  Father  save  in  regard  to 
causation,  9  ;  not  separated 
from  God  as  Arius  put  it,  II ; 
two  natures  in  Christ,  464  74  ; 
sense  of  the  word  '  Christ,'  47  ; 
session  at  God's  right  hand,  27; 
errors  of  Dioscurus,  Eutyches, 
Nestorius,  Uiodorus,  Theodore, 
Severus,  47  ;  nature  of  His  di- 
vinity and  of  His  humanity,  48  ; 
mutual  communication  of  na- 
tures, 48 ;  properties  of  divinity 
noi  in  humanity,  properties  of 
humanity  not  in  divinity,  pro- 
perties of  both  natures  ascribed 

VOL.  IX. 


to  the  person  or  subsistence  whe- 
ther called  Christ,  Son  of  God 
or  God,  Man  or  Son  of  Man, 
49  ;  number  of  natures,  49  ;  na- 
ture of  God  wholly  in  Christ, 
50;  the  one,  compound  subsis- 
tence, 51  ;  permeation  of  one 
nature  by  the  other,  52 ;  pro- 
perties of  the  two  natures,  56 ; 
volitions  of  Christ,  56,  66;  judg- 
ment in  Christ,  59 ;  His  ener- 
gies, 60  ;  deification  of  the  na- 
ture of  His  flesh  and  of  his  will, 
65  ;  the  theandric  energy,  67 ; 
what  passions  or  sensibilities  to 
be  ascribed  to  Him,  68 ;  in 
what  sense  ignorance  and  servi- 
tude, 69  ;  His  growth,  69  ;  His 
fear,  70 ;  His  praying,  70  ;  the 
passion  of  His  body  and  the 
impassibility    of    His    divinity, 

71  ;  His  divinity  inseparable 
from  His  body  and  His  Spirit, 

72  ;  His  descent  to  Hades,  72  ; 
resurrection,  74,  99;  objections 
to  assertion  of  two  natures,  74  ; 
questions  about  the  two  natures, 
76  ;  His  call,  76 ;  why  called 
'First-born,'  79;  the  different 
things  said  of  Christ  in  Scrip- 
ture and  their  distinctions,  90 — 
92 

Chrysostom,  63 
Circumcision,  97 
Comets,  24 
Conception,  35 
Corruption,  72 
Creation,  18,  21 
Cross,  79,  80 
Cyril,  52,  76 

Deification  of  Christ's  flesh  and  will, 

65 

Demons,  origin  and  nature,  20  ;  re- 
lation to  knowledge  of  the  fu- 
ture, 20  ;  source  of  evil,  20 

Descent  to  Hades,  72 

Destruction,  72 

Devil,  origin,  nature  of,  &c,  20 

Diodorus,  47 

Dionysius,  26,  67 

Dioscurus,  47 

Divine  Nature,  properties  of  the,  16 ; 
Person,  Subsistence  in  the,  17  ; 
relations  of  Persons  in  the,  17, 
&c. 

Earth,  28 

Eclipses,  25 

Elements,  31 

Energy,  different  senses  of,  35,  36, 

38  ;  the  theandric,  67 
Essence,  definition  of,  &c.,48,  49,  52 

Dd 


Eternal,  meaning  of,  18 
Eutyches,  47 
Events,  40 
Evil,  problem  of,  93,  94 

Faith,  77,  79 

Fear,  33 

Fifth  body,  31 

Fire,  its  nature,  &c,  22 

Foreknowledge,  94 

Freedom  of  will,  its  nature,  39; 
reason  for  man's  endowment 
with  it,  46;  definition  of  it,  58  ; 
different  senses  of  term,  59 

Gaianus,  72 

Genealogy  of  Christ,  84 — 86 

God,  incomprehensible,  1,  3;  His 
existence  how  made  known,  1  ; 
Cause  of  all  good,  1  ;  how  far 
knowable,  1  ;  One  essence  in 
three  subsistences,  2  ;  proofs  of 
His  Being,  3;  infinite,  4;  proof 
that  God  is  One,  4 ;  simple 
and  uncompound,  12 ;  His 
names  and  their  meaning,  12, 
14;  anthropomorphic  terms 
applied  to  God,  13 ;  God  as 
Mind,  Reason,  Spirit,  Wisdom, 
Power,  14 ;  uncircumscribed, 
15  ;  idea  of  place  as  used  of 
God,  15  ;  God  not  the  cause  of 
evil,  93  ;  His  foreknowledge, 
94 ;  sin  and  His  foreknow- 
ledge of  it,  94 

Gregory  the  Theologian,  20,  54,  61, 
65,76 

Hades,  descent  to,  72 

Heaven,   definition   of  it,    different 

views  of  it,  different  zones,  22  ; 

'heaven  of  heavens,'  22;    not 

endowed  with  life,  22 
Heavenly  essences,  20 
Hypostasis,   Christ's   create  or  un» 

create  ?  76 

Images,  80 ;  worship  of,  80,  88 

Imagination,  34 

Incarnation,   45 ;    why  of  Son,  and 

not  of  Father  or  Spirit  ?  75 
Involuntary,  38 

Julianus,  72 

Law,  94 

Light,  its  nature,  22  ;   its  creation, 

23 
Luminaries,  23 

Man,  his  creation  and  nature,  30 ; 
his  uprightness,  his  soul,  31  ; 
his  reason  and  faculties,  32 


io6 


INDEX   OF  SUBJECTS. 


Memory,  34 

Moon,   nature  of,  &c,   23;    Greek 

idea  of  its  influence,  24;  phases 

of,  25 
Mother  of  God,  55,  56 
Mysteries,  81 


Nature,  definition  of,  48  ;  nature  as 
in  species  and  as  in  individual, 
54 

Nestorius,  47 

New  Testament,  90 

OEconomy,  the  Divine,  45 
Oil,  use  of,  78 
Old  Testament,  89 

Pain,  33 

Paradise,  29 

Passions,  35,  36 

Perichoresis,  90,  91 

Persons  in  the  Godhead,  their  rela- 
tions, mutual  indwelling,  &c., 
71 

Peter  the  Fuller,  53 

Planets,  23,  25 

Pleasures,  33 

Predestination,  42,  43 

Prescience,  42,  43 

Probatike,  the,  85 

Providence,  definition  and  works  of 
4« 


Relics,  honour  due  to,  86 
Remission  of  sin,  78 
Resurrection,  74,  99 — 101 

Sabbath,  95 

Sacrament  of  Lord's  Supper,  81—85 

Saints,  honour  due  to,  86 

Scripture,  89,  90 

Seas,  the  various,  74 

Seasons,  23 

Sensation,  34 

Session  of  Christ    at    God's    right 
hand,  27 

Severus,  47 

Sheepgate,  the,  85 

Sin,  94 

Soul,  34 

Spirit,  the  Holy,  knows  the  things 
of  God ;    Spirit  of  God  and  of 
the  Word  ;    of  distinct  subsist- 
ence ;  coeternal  with  the  Father 
and  the  Word,  5;    derived  of 
Father,  yet  not  by  generation, 
9  5  to  be  adored  equally  with  the 
Father  and  the  Word,  9;  pro- 
ceeding, not  begotten,  10 ;  mean- 
ing of  the  word   'Spirit,'  16; 
descent  of  Spirit,  79 
Stars,  29 
Sun,  23,  24 

Theandric  energy,  67 
Theistic  proofs,  3, 46 


Theodosius,  76 

Thought,  35 

Tree  of  life,  29,  30,  80 

Trinity,  doctrine  of,  2  ;  One  Father 
ingenerate,  One  Son  begotten, 
One  Spirit  proceeding;  relations 
of  Divine  Subsistences ;  three 
differing  only  in  hypostatic  or 
personal  properties,  10  ;  neither 
composition  nor  confusion  in; 
what  is  meant  by  Father,  Son, 
and  Spirit,  10;  unity  and  dis- 
tinction in  the  Trinity,  49 

Trisagion,  the,  53 

Union,  how  related  to  Incarnation. 
55 

Virgin    Mary,    her    Virginity,    86; 

Mother  of  God,  55,  56 
Virginity,  96 
Voluntary,  38,  39 

Waters,  creation  and  nature  of,  26 ; 

divisions  of,  27 
Will,  36,  37 

Wlsh>  36,  37 

Word,   meaning  of  term,  analogical 

force  of,  &c,  17 
Worship,  of  images,  80,  88 ;  relics, 

saints,    &c,    86;    towards    the 

East,  81 

Zodiac,  35 


Date 

Due 

Library  Bureau 

Cat.  no.    1137 

WELLESLEY  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 


3  5002  03044  4330 


BR    60    . S42    1890    9 


A  Select  library  of  Nicene 
and  puBt-Nicene  fathers  of 


P