The Five Theological Orations — Oration 31 (Fifth Theological Oration)

The Fifth Theological Oration: On the Holy Spirit.

The Fifth Theological Oration. On the Holy Spirit.

Such then is the account of the Son, and in this manner He has escaped those who would stone Him, passing through the midst of them. For the Word is not stoned, but throws stones when He pleases, and uses a sling against wild beasts—that is, against words—when they approach the Mount in an unholy way. But they go on to ask, "What do you have to say about the Holy Spirit? Where are you getting this strange God you're bringing in upon us, about whom Scripture is silent?" Even those who are moderate concerning the Son speak this way. And just as we see with roads and rivers that they split apart from one another and then join together again, so it happens in this case too, through the excess of impiety, that people who disagree on everything else have some points of agreement here, so that you can never tell for certain either where they are in agreement or where they are in conflict.

I. Such then is the account of the Son, and in this manner He has escaped those who would stone Him, passing through the midst of them. For the Word is not stoned, but casts stones when He pleases; and uses a sling against wild beasts–that is, words–approaching the Mount in an unholy way. But, they go on, what have you to say about the Holy Ghost? From whence are you bringing in upon us this strange God, of Whom Scripture is silent? And even they who keep within bounds as to the Son speak thus. And just as we find in the case of roads and rivers, that they split off from one another and join again, so it happens also in this case, through the superabundance of impiety, that people who differ in all other respects have here some points of agreement, so that you never can tell for certain either where they are of one mind, or where they are in conflict.

Now the subject of the Holy Spirit presents a special difficulty, not only because when these people have grown tired in their arguments about the Son, they fight with even greater intensity against the Spirit (since it seems absolutely necessary for them to have some target on which to express their impiety, or life would seem to them no longer worth living), but also because we ourselves, worn out by the flood of their questions, find ourselves in somewhat the same condition as people who have lost their appetite. Just as those who have developed a distaste for one particular kind of food shrink from all food, so we in the same way have developed an aversion to all debates. Yet may the Spirit grant it to us, and then the discussion will proceed, and God will be glorified. Well then, we will leave to others who have worked on this subject for us as well as for themselves, just as we have worked on it for them, the task of carefully examining and distinguishing in how many senses the word Spirit or the word Holy is used and understood in Holy Scripture, with the evidence appropriate to such an investigation, and of showing how besides these the combination of the two words—I mean, Holy Spirit—is used in a distinctive sense. But we will turn our attention to the rest of the subject.

II. Now the subject of the Holy Spirit presents a special difficulty, not only because when these men have become weary in their disputations concerning the Son, they struggle with greater heat against the Spirit (for it seems to be absolutely necessary for them to have some object on which to give expression to their impiety, or life would appear to them no longer worth living), but further because we ourselves also, being worn out by the multitude of their questions, are in something of the same condition with men who have lost their appetite; who having taken a dislike to some particular kind of food, shrink from all food; so we in like manner have an aversion from all discussions. Yet may the Spirit grant it to us, and then the discourse will proceed, and God will be glorified. Well then, we will leave to others who have worked upon this subject for us as well as for themselves, as we have worked upon it for them, the task of examining carefully and distinguishing in how many senses the word Spirit or the word Holy is used and understood in Holy Scripture, with the evidence suitable to such an enquiry; and of showing how besides these the combination of the two words–I mean, Holy Spirit–is used in a peculiar sense; but we will apply ourselves to the remainder of the subject.

Those who are angry with us for supposedly introducing a strange or added God—namely, the Holy Spirit—and who fight so fiercely for the letter of Scripture, should know that they are afraid where there is nothing to fear. I want them to understand clearly that their love for the letter is merely a cover for their impiety, as will be shown later when we refute their objections as thoroughly as we can. But we have such confidence in the Deity of the Spirit whom we worship that we will begin our teaching about His Godhead by applying to Him the Names that belong to the Trinity, even if some people think we are too bold. The Father was the True Light which enlightens every man coming into the world. The Son was the True Light which enlightens every man coming into the world. The Other Comforter was the True Light which enlightens every man coming into the world. Was and Was and Was, but Was One Thing. Light three times repeated, but One Light and One God. This is what David pictured to himself long before when he said, "In Your Light shall we see Light." And now we have both seen and proclaim briefly and plainly the doctrine of God the Trinity, understanding it as out of Light (the Father), Light (the Son), in Light (the Holy Spirit). Whoever rejects it, let him reject it; and whoever does evil, let him do evil; we proclaim what we have understood. We will go up onto a high mountain and will shout, if we are not heard below; we will exalt the Spirit; we will not be afraid—or if we are afraid, it will be of keeping silent, not of proclaiming.

III. They then who are angry with us on the ground that we are bringing in a strange or interpolated God, viz.:–the Holy Ghost, and who fight so very hard for the letter, should know that they are afraid where no fear is; and I would have them clearly understand that their love for the letter is but a cloak for their impiety, as shall be shown later on, when we refute their objections to the utmost of our power. But we have so much confidence in the Deity of the Spirit Whom we adore, that we will begin our teaching concerning His Godhead by fitting to Him the Names which belong to the Trinity, even though some persons may think us too bold. The Father was the True Light which lightens every man coming into the world. The Son was the True Light which lightens every man coming into the world. The Other Comforter was the True Light which lightens every man coming into the world. Was and Was and Was, but Was One Thing. Light thrice repeated; but One Light and One God. This was what David represented to himself long before when he said, In Your Light shall we see Light. And now we have both seen and proclaim concisely and simply the doctrine of God the Trinity, comprehending out of Light (the Father), Light (the Son), in Light (the Holy Ghost). He that rejects it, let him reject it; and he that does iniquity, let him do iniquity; we proclaim that which we have understood. We will get us up into a high mountain, and will shout, if we be not heard, below; we will exalt the Spirit; we will not be afraid; or if we are afraid, it shall be of keeping silence, not of proclaiming.

IV. If there was ever a time when the Father did not exist, then there was a time when the Son did not exist. If there was ever a time when the Son did not exist, then there was a time when the Spirit did not exist. If the One existed from the beginning, then the Three existed from the beginning as well. If you deny the One, I am bold enough to say that you do not establish the other Two either. For what value is there in an incomplete Godhead? Or better yet, what kind of Godhead can there be if it is not perfect? And how can it be perfect if it lacks something necessary for perfection? And surely something is lacking if it does not have holiness, and how could it have holiness if it were without the Spirit? For either holiness is something different from Him, and if so, let someone tell me what they think it is; or if it is the same thing as the Spirit, how is He not from the beginning—as if it were better for God to be at one time imperfect and lacking the Spirit? If He is not from the beginning, He is on the same level as I am, even if slightly before me in time; for we would both be separated from Godhead by time. If He is on the same level as I am, how can He make me God, or join me to Godhead?

IV. If ever there was a time when the Father was not, then there was a time when the Son was not. If ever there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not. If the One was from the beginning, then the Three were so too. If you throw down the One, I am bold to assert that you do not set up the other Two. For what profit is there in an imperfect Godhead? Or rather, what Godhead can there be if It is not perfect? And how can that be perfect which lacks something of perfection? And surely there is something lacking if it has not the Holy, and how would it have this if it were without the Spirit? For either holiness is something different from Him, and if so let some one tell me what it is conceived to be; or if it is the same, how is it not from the beginning, as if it were better for God to be at one time imperfect and apart from the Spirit? If He is not from the beginning, He is in the same rank with myself, even though a little before me; for we are both parted from Godhead by time. If He is in the same rank with myself, how can He make me God, or join me with Godhead?

Or rather, let me discuss Him with you starting from a slightly earlier point, since we have already covered the Trinity. The Sadducees completely denied the existence of the Holy Spirit, just as they denied Angels and the Resurrection, rejecting—I don't know on what basis—the significant testimonies about Him in the Old Testament. Among the Greeks, those who are more inclined to speak about God and who come closest to our position have formed some understanding of Him, it seems to me, though they have disagreed about His name and have called Him the Mind of the World, or the External Mind, and similar things. But among the wise men in our own tradition, some have understood Him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God, and some have been uncertain what to call Him, out of reverence for Scripture, they say, as though Scripture did not make the matter clear either way. Therefore they neither worship Him nor dishonor Him, but take up a neutral position—or rather a very miserable one—toward Him. Among those who consider Him to be God, some hold this view only in their minds, while others dare to say so openly as well. I have even heard of some who are more clever still and try to measure Deity. These agree with us that there are Three, but they have separated Them from one another so completely that they make One of Them infinite in both ousia and power, the second infinite in power but not in ousia, and the third limited in both. In this way they imitate in a different form those who call Them the Creator, the Co-operator, and the Minister, and believe that the same order and rank that belongs to these names also applies as a hierarchy in reality.

V. Or rather, let me reason with you about Him from a somewhat earlier point, for we have already discussed the Trinity. The Sadducees altogether denied the existence of the Holy Spirit, just as they did that of Angels and the Resurrection; rejecting, I know not upon what ground, the important testimonies concerning Him in the Old Testament. And of the Greeks those who are more inclined to speak of God, and who approach nearest to us, have formed some conception of Him, as it seems to me, though they have differed as to His Name, and have addressed Him as the Mind of the World, or the External Mind, and the like. But of the wise men amongst ourselves, some have conceived of him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call Him, out of reverence for Scripture, they say, as though it did not make the matter clear either way. And therefore they neither worship Him nor treat Him with dishonour, but take up a neutral position, or rather a very miserable one, with respect to Him. And of those who consider Him to be God, some are orthodox in mind only, while others venture to be so with the lips also. And I have heard of some who are even more clever, and measure Deity; and these agree with us that there are Three Conceptions; but they have separated these from one another so completely as to make one of them infinite both in essence and power, and the second in power but not in essence, and the third circumscribed in both; thus imitating in another way those who call them the Creator, the Co-operator, and the Minister, and consider that the same order and dignity which belongs to these names is also a sequence in the facts.

VI. But we cannot enter into any discussion with those who do not even believe in His existence, nor with the Greek babblers (for we would not be enriched in our argument with the oil of sinners). With the others, however, we will argue as follows. The Holy Spirit must certainly be conceived of either as belonging to the category of the Self-existent, or as belonging to that of the things which are contemplated in another. Those who are skilled in such matters call the first class Substance and the second Accident. Now if He were an Accident, He would be an Activity of God, for what else, or of whom else, could He be, since this is what most avoids composition? And if He is an Activity, He will be effected but will not effect, and will cease to exist as soon as He has been effected, for this is the nature of an Activity. How is it then that He acts and says such and such things, and defines, and is grieved, and is angered, and has all the qualities that clearly belong to one that moves, and not to movement? But if He is a Substance and not an attribute of Substance, He will be conceived of either as a creature of God, or as God. For anything between these two—whether having nothing in common with either, or being a compound of both—not even those who invented the goat-stag could imagine. Now, if He is a creature, how do we believe in Him, how are we made perfect in Him? For it is not the same thing to believe in a thing and to believe about it. The one belongs to Deity, the other to—anything. But if He is God, then He is neither a creature, nor a thing made, nor a fellow servant, nor any of these lowly appellations.

VI. But we cannot enter into any discussion with those who do not even believe in His existence, nor with the Greek babblers (for we would not be enriched in our argument with the oil of sinners). With the others, however, we will argue thus. The Holy Ghost must certainly be conceived of either as in the category of the Self-existent, or as in that of the things which are contemplated in another; of which classes those who are skilled in such matters call the one Substance and the other Accident. Now if He were an Accident, He would be an Activity of God, for what else, or of whom else, could He be, for surely this is what most avoids composition? And if He is an Activity, He will be effected, but will not effect and will cease to exist as soon as He has been effected, for this is the nature of an Activity. How is it then that He acts and says such and such things, and defines, and is grieved, and is angered, and has all the qualities which belong clearly to one that moves, and not to movement? But if He is a Substance and not an attribute of Substance, He will be conceived of either as a Creature of God, or as God. For anything between these two, whether having nothing in common with either, or a compound of both, not even they who invented the goat-stag could imagine. Now, if He is a creature, how do we believe in Him, how are we made perfect in Him? For it is not the same thing to believe IN a thing and to believe About it. The one belongs to Deity, the other to–anything. But if He is God, then He is neither a creature, nor a thing made, nor a fellow servant, nor any of these lowly appellations.

Here is the paragraph rewritten in clear, modern English:

Go ahead—the floor is yours. Fire away; make your argument. Either He is completely Unbegotten, or He is Begotten. If He is Unbegotten, then there are two unoriginated beings. If He is Begotten, you must make another distinction. He is begotten either by the Father or by the Son. If by the Father, then there are two Sons, and they are brothers. You can even make them twins if you want, or make one older and the other younger, since you're so fond of physical categories. But if by the Son, then someone will say we're looking at a grandson God, which couldn't be more absurd. For my part, though, if I saw the need for the distinction, I would acknowledge the facts without being afraid of the terms. Just because the Son is the Son in some higher sense (since we couldn't otherwise indicate that He is of God and consubstantial), it doesn't follow that all the terms from this lower world and our human relationships must be applied to the Godhead. Or perhaps by the same reasoning you'd consider our God to be male because He is called God and Father, and that Deity is feminine because of the grammatical gender of the word, and Spirit neuter because it has nothing to do with generation. But if you were foolish enough to say, like the old myths and fables, that God begot the Son through a marriage with His own Will, we would be introduced to the hermaphrodite god of Marcion and Valentinus who invented these strange aeons.

VII. There–the word is with you. Let the slings be let go; let the syllogism be woven. Either He is altogether Unbegotten, or else He is Begotten. If He is Unbegotten, there are two Unoriginates. If he is Begotten, you must make a further subdivision. He is so either by the Father or by the Son. And if by the Father, there are two Sons, and they are Brothers. And you may make them twins if you like, or the one older and the other younger, since you are so very fond of the bodily conceptions. But if by the Son, then such a one will say, we get a glimpse of a Grandson God, than which nothing could be more absurd. For my part however, if I saw the necessity of the distinction, I should have acknowledged the facts without fear of the names. For it does not follow that because the Son is the Son in some higher relation (inasmuch as we could not in any other way than this point out that He is of God and Consubstantial), it would also be necessary to think that all the names of this lower world and of our kindred should be transferred to the Godhead. Or maybe you would consider our God to be a male, according to the same arguments, because he is called God and Father, and that Deity is feminine, from the gender of the word, and Spirit neuter, because It has nothing to do with generation; But if you would be silly enough to say, with the old myths and fables, that God begot the Son by a marriage with His own Will, we should be introduced to the Hermaphrodite god of Marcion and Valentinus who imagined these newfangled Æons.

Since we don't accept your first division—which claims there's no middle ground between Begotten and Unbegotten—your Brothers and Grandsons immediately collapse along with your grand scheme. When the first link of a complicated chain breaks, everything connected to it breaks too and vanishes from your theological system. Tell me, where will you place that which Proceeds? This concept has appeared between the two terms of your division and was introduced by a better theologian than you—our Savior himself. Or have you perhaps removed that word from your Gospels for the sake of your Third Testament? The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Because He proceeds from that Source, He is not a creature. Because He is not begotten, He is not a Son. And because He exists between the Unbegotten and the Begotten, He is God. So, escaping the trap of your logical arguments, He has revealed himself as God, stronger than your divisions. What then is Procession? You tell me what the Unbegottenness of the Father is, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit. Then we'll both be mad for prying into God's mystery. And who are we to do these things? We can't even see what lies at our feet, or count the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of Eternity—much less enter into the Depths of God and give an account of that Nature which is so unspeakable and beyond all words.

VIII. But since we do not admit your first division, which declares that there is no mean between Begotten and Unbegotten, at once, along with your magnificent division, away go your Brothers and your Grandsons, as when the first link of an intricate chain is broken they are broken with it, and disappear from your system of divinity. For, tell me, what position will you assign to that which Proceeds, which has started up between the two terms of your division, and is introduced by a better Theologian than you, our Saviour Himself? Or perhaps you have taken that word out of your Gospels for the sake of your Third Testament, The Holy Ghost, which proceeds from the Father; Who, inasmuch as He proceeds from That Source, is no Creature; and inasmuch as He is not Begotten is no Son; and inasmuch as He is between the Unbegotten and the Begotten is God. And thus escaping the toils of your syllogisms, He has manifested himself as God, stronger than your divisions. What then is Procession? Do you tell me what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God. And who are we to do these things, we who cannot even see what lies at our feet, or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of Eternity, much less enter into the Depths of God, and supply an account of that Nature which is so unspeakable and transcending all words?

What then, they say, is lacking in the Spirit that prevents Him from being a Son? For if nothing were lacking, He would be a Son. We assert that nothing is lacking—for God has no deficiency. Rather, the difference in how they are manifested, if I may put it that way, or more precisely in their mutual relations to one another, has produced the difference in their names. Indeed, it is not some deficiency in the Son that prevents His being Father (for Sonship is not a deficiency), and yet He is not Father. Following this same reasoning, there must be some deficiency in the Father regarding His not being Son. For the Father is not Son, and yet this is not due to any deficiency or subordination of ousia. Rather, the very fact of being Unbegotten or Begotten or Proceeding has given the name Father to the First, Son to the Second, and to the Third—the One of whom we are speaking—the name Holy Spirit, so that the distinction of the three hypostases may be preserved in the one physis and dignity of the Godhead. For the Son is not Father, since the Father is one, but He is what the Father is. Nor is the Spirit Son because He is from God, since the Only-begotten is one, but He is what the Son is. The Three are one in Godhead, and the one is Three in properties, so that the Unity is not Sabellian, nor does the Trinity support the current heretical distinction.

IX. What then, say they, is there lacking to the Spirit which prevents His being a Son, for if there were not something lacking He would be a Son? We assert that there is nothing lacking–for God has no deficiency. But the difference of manifestation, if I may so express myself, or rather of their mutual relations one to another, has caused the difference of their Names. For indeed it is not some deficiency in the Son which prevents His being Father (for Sonship is not a deficiency), and yet He is not Father. According to this line of argument there must be some deficiency in the Father, in respect of His not being Son. For the Father is not Son, and yet this is not due to either deficiency or subjection of Essence; but the very fact of being Unbegotten or Begotten, or Proceeding has given the name of Father to the First, of the Son to the Second, and of the Third, Him of Whom we are speaking, of the Holy Ghost that the distinction of the Three Persons may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the Godhead. For neither is the Son Father, for the Father is One, but He is what the Father is; nor is the Spirit Son because He is of God, for the Only-begotten is One, but He is what the Son is. The Three are One in Godhead, and the One Three in properties; so that neither is the Unity a Sabellian one, nor does the Trinity countenance the present evil distinction.

What then? Is the Spirit God? Most certainly. Well then, is He Consubstantial? Yes, if He is God. My opponent says, "Grant me that there spring from the same Source One who is a Son, and One who is not a Son, and these of One ousia with the Source, and I admit a God and a God." No, if you will grant me that there is another God and another physis of God I will give you the same Trinity with the same name and facts. But since God is One and the Supreme Nature is One, how can I present to you the likeness? Or will you seek it again in lower regions and in your own surroundings? It is very shameful, and not only shameful, but very foolish, to take from things below a guess at things above, and from a fluctuating nature at the things that are unchanging, and as Isaiah says, to seek the Living among the dead. But yet I will try, for your sake, to give you some assistance for your argument, even from that source. I think I will pass over other points, though I might bring forward many from animal studies, some generally known, others only known to a few, of what nature has contrived with wonderful skill in connection with the generation of animals. For not only are likes said to beget likes, and things diverse to beget things diverse, but also likes to be begotten by things diverse, and things diverse by likes. And if we may believe the story, there is yet another mode of generation, when an animal is self-consumed and self-begotten. There are also creatures which depart in some way from their true natures, and undergo change and transformation from one creature into another, by a magnificence of nature. And indeed sometimes in the same species part may be generated and part not; and yet all of one ousia; which is more like our present subject. I will just mention one fact of our own nature which everyone knows, and then I will pass on to another part of the subject.

X. What then? Is the Spirit God? Most certainly. Well then, is He Consubstantial? Yes, if He is God. Grant me, says my opponent, that there spring from the same Source One who is a Son, and One who is not a Son, and these of One Substance with the Source, and I admit a God and a God. Nay, if you will grant me that there is another God and another nature of God I will give you the same Trinity with the same name and facts. But since God is One and the Supreme Nature is One, how can I present to you the Likeness? Or will you seek it again in lower regions and in your own surroundings? It is very shameful, and not only shameful, but very foolish, to take from things below a guess at things above, and from a fluctuating nature at the things that are unchanging, and as Isaiah says, to seek the Living among the dead. But yet I will try, for your sake, to give you some assistance for your argument, even from that source. I think I will pass over other points, though I might bring forward many from animal history, some generally known, others only known to a few, of what nature has contrived with wonderful art in connection with the generation of animals. For not only are likes said to beget likes, and things diverse to beget things diverse, but also likes to be begotten by things diverse, and things diverse by likes. And if we may believe the story, there is yet another mode of generation, when an animal is self-consumed and self-begotten. There are also creatures which depart in some sort from their true natures, and undergo change and transformation from one creature into another, by a magnificence of nature. And indeed sometimes in the same species part may be generated and part not; and yet all of one substance; which is more like our present subject. I will just mention one fact of our own nature which every one knows, and then I will pass on to another part of the subject.

What was Adam? A creature of God. What then was Eve? A fragment of the creature. And what was Seth? The begotten of both. Does it seem to you that creature and fragment and begotten are the same thing? Of course not. But were not these persons consubstantial? Of course they were. So here we have a clear case where different persons can have the same ousia. I say this not to attribute creation or division or any bodily property to the Godhead (don't let any of your word-fighters attack me again for this), but so that I may examine in these examples, as on a stage, things that can only be grasped by the mind. For it is impossible to trace out any image that corresponds exactly to the full extent of the truth. But they say, what is the point of all this? Isn't one an offspring and the other something else from the One? Didn't both Eve and Seth come from the one Adam? And were they both begotten by him? No—one was a fragment of him, and the other was begotten by him. And yet both were one and the same thing; both were human beings; no one will deny that. Will you then give up your argument against the Spirit, that He must be either entirely begotten or else cannot be consubstantial or be God, and admit from human examples that our position is possible? I think it would be good for you to do so, unless you are determined to be very quarrelsome and to fight against what has been demonstrated.

XI. What was Adam? A creature of God. What then was Eve? A fragment of the creature. And what was Seth? The begotten of both. Does it then seem to you that Creature and Fragment and Begotten are the same thing? Of course it does not. But were not these persons consubstantial? Of course they were. Well then, here it is an acknowledged fact that different persons may have the same substance. I say this, not that I would attribute creation or fraction or any property of body to the Godhead (let none of your contenders for a word be down upon me again), but that I may contemplate in these, as on a stage, things which are objects of thought alone. For it is not possible to trace out any image exactly to the whole extent of the truth. But, they say, what is the meaning of all this? For is not the one an offspring, and the other a something else of the One? Did not both Eve and Seth come from the one Adam? And were they both begotten by him? No; but the one was a fragment of him, and the other was begotten by him. And yet the two were one and the same thing; both were human beings; no one will deny that. Will you then give up your contention against the Spirit, that He must be either altogether begotten, or else cannot be consubstantial, or be God; and admit from human examples the possibility of our position? I think it will be well for you, unless you are determined to be very quarrelsome, and to fight against what is proved to demonstration.

But, he says, who in ancient or modern times ever worshipped the Spirit? Who ever prayed to him? Where is it written that we ought to worship him or to pray to him, and where have you gotten this teaching of yours? We will give the more complete explanation later, when we discuss what is unwritten. For now it is enough to say that it is in the Spirit that we worship and in the Spirit that we pray. For Scripture says, "God is a Spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in Spirit and in truth." And again, "We do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself makes intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered," and "I will pray with the Spirit and I will pray with the understanding also"—that is, in the mind and in the Spirit. Therefore, to adore or to pray to the Spirit seems to me to be simply the Spirit himself offering prayer or adoration to himself. And what godly or learned person would disapprove of this? For in fact the adoration of One is the adoration of the Three, because of the equality of honor and Deity among the Three. So I will not be frightened by the argument that all things are said to have been made by the Son, as if the Holy Spirit were also one of these things. For it says "all things that were made," not simply "all things." For the Father was not made, nor were any of the things that were not made. Prove that he was made, and then assign him to the Son and number him among the creatures. But until you can prove this, you will gain nothing for your impiety from this comprehensive phrase. For if he was made, it was certainly through Christ—I myself would not deny that. But if he was not made, how can he be either one of the "all things" or made through Christ? Stop dishonoring the Father in your opposition to the Only-begotten (for it is no real honor to present him with a creature while robbing him of what is more valuable, a Son), and stop dishonoring the Son in your opposition to the Spirit. For he is not the maker of a fellow servant, but he is glorified with one of co-equal honor. Do not rank any part of the Trinity with yourself, lest you fall away from the Trinity. Do not cut off from either the one and equally august nature, because if you overthrow any of the Three you will have overthrown the whole. Better to take a limited view of the Unity than to venture on a complete impiety.

XII. But, he says, who in ancient or modern times ever worshipped the Spirit? Who ever prayed to Him? Where is it written that we ought to worship Him, or to pray to Him, and whence have you derived this tenet of yours? We will give the more perfect reason hereafter, when we discuss the question of the unwritten; for the present it will suffice to say that it is the Spirit in Whom we worship, and in Whom we pray. For Scripture says, God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth. And again,–We know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit Itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered; and I will pray with the Spirit and I will pray with the understanding also; –that is, in the mind and in the Spirit. Therefore to adore or to pray to the Spirit seems to me to be simply Himself offering prayer or adoration to Himself. And what godly or learned man would disapprove of this, because in fact the adoration of One is the adoration of the Three, because of the equality of honour and Deity between the Three? So I will not be frightened by the argument that all things are said to have been made by the Son; as if the Holy Spirit also were one of these things. For it says all things that were made, and not simply all things. For the Father was not, nor were any of the things that were not made. Prove that He was made, and then give Him to the Son, and number Him among the creatures; but until you can prove this you will gain nothing for your impiety from this comprehensive phrase. For if He was made, it was certainly through Christ; I myself would not deny that. But if He was not made, how can He be either one of the All, or through Christ? Cease then to dishonour the Father in your opposition to the Only-begotten (for it is no real honour, by presenting to Him a creature to rob Him of what is more valuable, a Son), and to dishonour the Son in your opposition to the Spirit. For He is not the Maker of a Fellow servant, but He is glorified with One of co-equal honour. Rank no part of the Trinity with yourself, lest thou fall away from the Trinity; cut not off from Either the One and equally august Nature; because if you overthrow any of the Three you will have overthrown the whole. Better to take a meagre view of the Unity than to venture on a complete impiety.

Our argument has now reached its main point. I am saddened that a problem which was long settled and had yielded to faith is now being raised again. Yet we must stand against these babblers and not allow judgment to go unopposed, since we have the Word on our side and are defending the cause of the Spirit. They say: if there is God and God and God, how is it that there are not three Gods, or how is it that what is glorified is not a plurality of first principles? Who are these people saying this? Those who have arrived at a more complete godlessness, or even those who have taken a halfway position—I mean those who are moderate in some sense regarding the Son. For my argument is directed partly against both groups together, and partly against these latter in particular. Here is what I say in response: What right have you who worship the Son, even though you have rejected the Spirit, to call us believers in three gods? Are you not believers in two gods? For if you also deny the worship of the Only Begotten, you have clearly aligned yourself with our opponents. And why should we treat you gently as if you were not entirely lost? But if you do worship Him and are thus far on the path of salvation, we will ask you what reasons you have to offer for your belief in two gods, if you are charged with it. If you have any wisdom in you, answer and open up a way of answering for us as well. For the very same reasoning you use to reject a charge of belief in two gods will be sufficient for us against a charge of belief in three gods. And in this way we will win our case by using you, our accusers, as our defenders—than which nothing could be more generous.

XIII. Our argument has now come to its principal point; and I am grieved that a problem that was long dead, and that had given way to faith, is now stirred up afresh; yet it is necessary to stand against these praters, and not to let judgment go by default, when we have the Word on our side, and are pleading the cause of the Spirit. If, say they, there is God and God and God, how is it that there are not Three Gods, or how is it that what is glorified is not a plurality of Principles? Who is it who say this? Those who have reached a more complete ungodliness, or even those who have taken the secondary part; I mean who are moderate in a sense in respect of the Son. For my argument is partly against both in common, partly against these latter in particular. What I have to say in answer to these is as follows:–What right have you who worship the Son, even though you have revolted from the Spirit, to call us Tritheists? Are not you Ditheists? For if you deny also the worship of the Only Begotten, you have clearly ranged yourself among our adversaries. And why should we deal kindly with you as not quite dead? But if you do worship Him, and are so far in the way of salvation, we will ask you what reasons you have to give for your ditheism, if you are charged with it? If there is in you a word of wisdom answer, and open to us also a way to an answer. For the very same reason with which you will repel a charge of Ditheism will prove sufficient for us against one of Tritheism. And thus we shall win the day by making use of you our accusers as our Advocates, than which nothing can be more generous.

XIV. What is our quarrel and dispute with both? For us there is One God, because the Godhead is One, and everything that proceeds from Him is referred back to One, though we believe in Three Persons. For one is not more God and another less God; nor is One before and another after; nor are They divided in will or separated in power; nor can you find here any of the qualities that belong to divisible things; but the Godhead is, to put it briefly, undivided in separate Persons; and there is one mingling of Light, like three suns joined to each other. So when we look at the Godhead, or the First Cause, or the Monarchia, what we conceive is One; but when we look at the Persons in whom the Godhead dwells, and at Those who timelessly and with equal glory have their Being from the First Cause—there are Three whom we worship.

XIV. What is our quarrel and dispute with both? To us there is One God, for the Godhead is One, and all that proceeds from Him is referred to One, though we believe in Three Persons. For one is not more and another less God; nor is One before and another after; nor are They divided in will or parted in power; nor can you find here any of the qualities of divisible things; but the Godhead is, to speak concisely, undivided in separate Persons; and there is one mingling of Light, as it were of three suns joined to each other. When then we look at the Godhead, or the First Cause, or the Monarchia, that which we conceive is One; but when we look at the Persons in Whom the Godhead dwells, and at Those Who timelessly and with equal glory have their Being from the First Cause–there are Three Whom we worship.

What about this, they might say: don't the Greeks also believe in one Godhead, as their more sophisticated philosophers claim? And humanity is one for us too—the entire human race—yet they have many gods, not One, just as there are many human beings. But in this case the shared nature has a unity that exists only in thought, and the individual persons are separated from each other by great distances in time, disposition, and power. For we are not only composite beings but also beings in conflict, both with one another and within ourselves. We don't even remain completely the same for a single day, let alone a whole lifetime, but are constantly flowing and changing in both body and soul. Perhaps the same could be said of the angels and all that higher nature which is second only to the Trinity, although they are to some degree simple and more firmly established in goodness because of their closeness to the highest Good.

XV. What of that, they will say perhaps; do not the Greeks also believe in one Godhead, as their more advanced philosophers declare? And with us Humanity is one, namely the entire race; but yet they have many gods, not One, just as there are many men. But in this case the common nature has a unity which is only conceivable in thought; and the individuals are parted from one another very far indeed, both by time and by dispositions and by power. For we are not only compound beings, but also contrasted beings, both with one another and with ourselves; nor do we remain entirely the same for a single day, to say nothing of a whole lifetime, but both in body and in soul are in a perpetual state of flow and change. And perhaps the same may be said of the Angels and the whole of that superior nature which is second to the Trinity alone; although they are simple in some measure and more fixed in good, owing to their nearness to the highest Good.

The gods the Greeks worship—and what they themselves call daemons—do not need us to accuse them. They are convicted by the testimony of their own theologians: some are described as subject to passion, some as given to factional strife, and filled with countless evils and changes. They are portrayed in opposition not only to one another but even to their first causes, whom they call Oceanus and Tethys and Phanes, among several other names. And last of all there is a certain god who hated his own children because of his lust for power, and swallowed them all up out of greed so that he might become the father of all men and gods—whom he miserably devoured and then vomited up again. And if these are merely myths and fables, as they claim in order to escape the shameful nature of the story, what will they say about the teaching that all things are divided into three parts, and that each god presides over a different part of the universe, having a distinct province as well as a distinct rank? But our faith is not like this, nor is this the portion of Jacob, says my Theologian. Rather, each of these Persons possesses unity with that which is united to it no less than with itself, because of the identity of ousia and power. This is our account of the unity, as far as we have grasped it. If this account is the true one, let us thank God for the glimpse He has granted us; if it is not, let us seek for a better.

XVI. Nor do those whom the Greeks worship as gods, and (to use their own expression) dæmons, need us in any respect for their accusers, but are convicted upon the testimony of their own theologians, some as subject to passion, some as given to faction, and full of innumerable evils and changes, and in a state of opposition, not only to one another, but even to their first causes, whom they call Oceani and Tethyes and Phanetes, and by several other names; and last of all a certain god who hated his children through his lust of rule, and swallowed up all the rest through his greediness that he might become the father of all men and gods whom he miserably devoured, and then vomited forth again. And if these are but myths and fables, as they say in order to escape the shamefulness of the story, what will they say in reference to the dictum that all things are divided into three parts, and that each god presides over a different part of the Universe, having a distinct province as well as a distinct rank? But our faith is not like this, nor is this the portion of Jacob, says my Theologian. But each of these Persons possesses Unity, not less with that which is United to it than with itself, by reason of the identity of Essence and Power. And this is the account of the Unity, so far as we have apprehended it. If then this account is the true one, let us thank God for the glimpse He has granted us; if it is not let us seek for a better.

As for the arguments with which you would overthrow the Union we support, I do not know whether to say you are joking or serious. For what kind of argument is this? Things of one essence, you say, are counted together, and by "counted together" you mean they are collected into one number. But things which are not of one essence are not counted this way—so that you cannot avoid speaking of three gods, according to this reasoning, while we run no risk of it at all, since we assert that they are not consubstantial. And so with a single word you have freed yourselves from trouble and gained a destructive victory, for in fact you have done something like what people do when they hang themselves for fear of death. For in order to save yourselves trouble in defending the Monarchia, you have denied the Godhead and abandoned the question to your opponents. But for my part, even if labor is necessary, I will not abandon the Object of my adoration. And yet on this point I cannot see where the difficulty is.

XVII. As for the arguments with which you would overthrow the Union which we support, I know not whether we should say you are jesting or in earnest. For what is this argument? Things of one essence, you say, are counted together, and by this counted together, you mean that they are collected into one number. But things which are not of one essence are not thus counted…so that you cannot avoid speaking of three gods, according to this account, while we do not run any risk at all of it, inasmuch as we assert that they are not consubstantial. And so by a single word you have freed yourselves from trouble, and have gained a pernicious victory, for in fact you have done something like what men do when they hang themselves for fear of death. For to save yourselves trouble in your championship of the Monarchia you have denied the Godhead, and abandoned the question to your opponents. But for my part, even if labor should be necessary, I will not abandon the Object of my adoration. And yet on this point I cannot see where the difficulty is.

You say that things of one essence are counted together, but things that are not consubstantial are reckoned one by one. Where did you get this idea from? From what teachers of doctrine or mythology? Don't you realize that every number expresses the quantity of what is included under it, not the nature of the things themselves? But I am so old-fashioned, or perhaps I should say so unlearned, as to use the word "three" for that number of things, even if they differ in nature, and to use "one and one and one" in a different way for so many units, even if they are united in ousia, looking not so much at the things themselves as at the quantity of the things being counted. But since you hold so very closely to the letter (although you are arguing against the letter), please take your proofs from this source. There are in the Book of Proverbs three things which go well—a lion, a goat, and a rooster—and to these is added a fourth, a king making a speech before the people. I'm passing over the other sets of four that are counted up there, even though they are things of various natures. And I find in Moses two Cherubim counted individually. But now, according to your terminology, could the former things be called three, when they differ so greatly in their nature, or could the latter be treated as units when they are so closely connected and of one nature? For if I were to speak of God and Mammon as two masters, reckoned under one heading, when they are so very different from each other, I would probably be laughed at even more for such a way of counting together.

XVIII. You say, Things of one essence are counted together, but those which are not consubstantial are reckoned one by one. Where did you get this from? From what teachers of dogma or mythology? Do you not know that every number expresses the quantity of what is included under it, and not the nature of the things? But I am so old fashioned, or perhaps I should say so unlearned, as to use the word Three of that number of things, even if they are of a different nature, and to use One and One and One in a different way of so many units, even if they are united in essence, looking not so much at the things themselves as at the quantity of the things in respect of which the enumeration is made. But since you hold so very close to the letter (although you are contending against the letter), pray take your demonstrations from this source. There are in the Book of Proverbs three things which go well, a lion, a goat, and a cock; and to these is added a fourth;–a King making a speech before the people, to pass over the other sets of four which are there counted up, although things of various natures. And I find in Moses two Cherubim counted singly. But now, in your technology, could either the former things be called three, when they differ so greatly in their nature, or the latter be treated as units when they are so closely connected and of one nature? For if I were to speak of God and Mammon, as two masters, reckoned under one head, when they are so very different from each other, I should probably be still more laughed at for such a connumeration.

But in my view, he says, those things are said to be counted together and of the same ousia whose names also correspond, as Three Men or Three gods, but not Three this and that. What does this concession amount to? It suits someone laying down the law about names, not someone asserting the truth. For I also will assert that Peter and James and John are not three or consubstantial, so long as I cannot say Three Peters or Three Jameses or Three Johns. For what you have reserved for common names we demand also for proper names, in accordance with your arrangement—or else you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you assume for yourself. What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has dared to count under one number things which are not consubstantial, though you say this should be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would say that these are consubstantial? Second, because he has not been consistent in the way he has used his terms—for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself reject in the case of Deity? What have you to say about the Crab, which may mean either an animal, or an instrument, or a constellation? And what about the Dog, now terrestrial, now aquatic, now celestial? Do you not see that three crabs or dogs are spoken of? Why of course it is so. Well then, are they therefore of one ousia? No one but a fool would say that. So you see how completely your argument from counting together has broken down and is refuted by all these instances. For if things that are of one ousia are not always counted under one number, and things not of one ousia are thus counted, and the pronunciation of the name once for all is used in both cases, what advantage do you gain towards your doctrine?

XIX. But to my mind, he says, those things are said to be connumerated and of the same essence of which the names also correspond, as Three Men, or Three gods, but not Three this and that. What does this concession amount to? It is suitable to one laying down the law as to names, not to one who is asserting the truth. For I also will assert that Peter and James and John are not three or consubstantial, so long as I cannot say Three Peters, or Three Jameses, or Three Johns; for what you have reserved for common names we demand also for proper names, in accordance with your arrangement; or else you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you assume for yourself. What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity? What have you to say about the Crab, which may mean either an animal, or an instrument, or a constellation? And what about the Dog, now terrestrial, now aquatic, now celestial? Do you not see that three crabs or dogs are spoken of? Why of course it is so. Well then, are they therefore of one substance? None but a fool would say that. So you see how completely your argument from connumeration has broken down, and is refuted by all these instances. For if things that are of one substance are not always counted under one numeral, and things not of one substance are thus counted, and the pronunciation of the name once for all is used in both cases, what advantage do you gain towards your doctrine?

I will also look at this additional point, which is relevant to our discussion. One and one added together make two, and two divided again becomes one and one—this is perfectly clear. However, if elements that are added together must be consubstantial (as your theory demands), and those that are separate must be heterogeneous, then it follows that the same things must be both consubstantial and heterogeneous. No, I laugh at your "counting before" and your "counting after," which you take such pride in, as if the actual facts depended on the order of the names. If this were true, then by the same logic—since the same things are counted in Holy Scripture sometimes in an earlier place and sometimes in a later place because of the equality of their nature—what would prevent them from being both more honorable and less honorable than themselves? I say the same thing about the names "God" and "Lord," and about the prepositions "of whom," "by whom," and "in whom," which you use to describe the Deity for us according to technical rules, assigning the first to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Spirit. What would you have done if each of these expressions were consistently assigned to each person? The fact is that they are used of all the persons, as is clear to those who have studied the question, yet even so you make them the basis for such inequality of both nature and dignity. This is enough for anyone who has any sense at all. But since it is difficult for you, once you have attacked the Spirit, to stop your assault—and you are instead like a wild boar pushing your quarrel to the bitter end and throwing yourself on the knife until you have taken the entire wound in your own chest—let us continue to see what further argument you have left.

XX. I will look also at this further point, which is not without its bearing on the subject. One and One added together make Two; and Two resolved again becomes One and One, as is perfectly evident. If, however, elements which are added together must, as your theory requires, be consubstantial, and those which are separate be heterogeneous, then it will follow that the same things must be both consubstantial and heterogeneous. No: I laugh at your Counting Before and your Counting After, of which you are so proud, as if the facts themselves depended upon the order of their names. If this were so, according to the same law, since the same things are in consequence of the equality of their nature counted in Holy Scripture, sometimes in an earlier, sometimes in a later place, what prevents them from being at once more honourable and less honourable than themselves? I say the same of the names God and Lord, and of the prepositions Of Whom, and By Whom, and In Whom, by which you describe the Deity according to the rules of art for us, attributing the first to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Ghost. For what would you have done, if each of these expressions were constantly allotted to Each Person, when, the fact being that they are used of all the Persons, as is evident to those who have studied the question, you even so make them the ground of such inequality both of nature and dignity. This is sufficient for all who are not altogether wanting in sense. But since it is a matter of difficulty for you after you have once made an assault upon the Spirit, to check your rush, and not rather like a furious boar to push your quarrel to the bitter end, and to thrust yourself upon the knife until you have received the whole wound in your own breast; let us go on to see what further argument remains to you.

Over and over again you throw at us the silence of Scripture. But that this is not a strange doctrine or an afterthought, but rather something acknowledged and plainly set forth both by the ancients and by many in our own time, has already been demonstrated by many people who have treated this subject and who have handled the Holy Scriptures—not carelessly or as a mere pastime, but going beneath the letter and looking into the inner meaning. They have been counted worthy to see the hidden beauty and have been illuminated by the light of knowledge. However, we in our turn will briefly prove it as far as we can, so as not to seem overly curious or improperly ambitious by building on another's foundation. But since the fact that Scripture does not very clearly or very often call Him God in explicit words (as it does first the Father and afterwards the Son) becomes for you an occasion for blasphemy and this excessive wordiness and impiety, we will free you from this problem by a short discussion of things and names, and especially of their use in Holy Scripture.

XXI. Over and over again you turn upon us the silence of Scripture. But that it is not a strange doctrine, nor an afterthought, but acknowledged and plainly set forth both by the ancients and many of our own day, is already demonstrated by many persons who have treated of this subject, and who have handled the Holy Scriptures, not with indifference or as a mere pastime, but have gone beneath the letter and looked into the inner meaning, and have been deemed worthy to see the hidden beauty, and have been irradiated by the light of knowledge. We, however in our turn will briefly prove it as far as may be, in order not to seem to be over-curious or improperly ambitious, building on another's foundation. But since the fact, that Scripture does not very clearly or very often write Him God in express words (as it does first the Father and afterwards the Son), becomes to you an occasion of blasphemy and of this excessive wordiness and impiety, we will release you from this inconvenience by a short discussion of things and names, and especially of their use in Holy Scripture.

Some things do not exist but are spoken of; others exist but are not spoken of; some neither exist nor are spoken of, and some both exist and are spoken of. Do you want me to prove this? I'm ready to do so. According to Scripture, God sleeps and wakes, is angry, walks, and has the Cherubim as His throne. But when did He become subject to emotion, and have you ever heard that God has a body? This, then, is not actually fact but a figure of speech. We have applied names drawn from our own nature and understanding to describe God's attributes. His remaining silent and distant from us, and seemingly not caring for us for reasons known to Himself, is what we call His sleeping, because our own sleep is a state of inactivity. And again, His sudden turning to do us good is waking up, because waking is the end of sleep, just as divine visitation is the end of His turning away. When He punishes, we say He is angry, because for us punishment results from anger. His working, now in one place and now in another, we call walking, because walking is moving from one place to another. His resting among the holy hosts, and seemingly delighting to dwell among them, is His sitting and being enthroned—this too we derive from ourselves, for God rests nowhere as He does upon the saints. His swift movement is called flying, His watchful care is called His face, His giving and bestowing is His hand, and in short, every other power or activity of God has been depicted for us through some bodily image.

XXII. Some things have no existence, but are spoken of; others which do exist are not spoken of; some neither exist nor are spoken of, and some both exist and are spoken of. Do you ask me for proof of this? I am ready to give it. According to Scripture God sleeps and is awake, is angry, walks, has the Cherubim for His Throne. And yet when did He become liable to passion, and have you ever heard that God has a body? This then is, though not really fact, a figure of speech. For we have given names according to our own comprehension from our own attributes to those of God. His remaining silent apart from us, and as it were not caring for us, for reasons known to Himself, is what we call His sleeping; for our own sleep is such a state of inactivity. And again, His sudden turning to do us good is the waking up; for waking is the dissolution of sleep, as visitation is of turning away. And when He punishes, we say He is angry; for so it is with us, punishment is the result of anger. And His working, now here now there, we call walking; for walking is change from one place to another. His resting among the Holy Hosts, and as it were loving to dwell among them, is His sitting and being enthroned; this, too, from ourselves, for God rests nowhere as He does upon the Saints. His swiftness of moving is called flying, and His watchful care is called His Face, and his giving and bestowing is His hand; and, in a word, every other of the powers or activities of God has depicted for us some other corporeal one.

Again, where do you get your terms "Unbegotten" and "Unoriginate"—those two strongholds of your position—or where do we get our term "Immortal"? Show me these exact words in Scripture, or we will either set them aside or erase them as not found in Scripture. Then you would be defeated by your own principle, since the names you depend on would be overthrown, along with the defensive wall you trusted in. Isn't it clear that these terms come from passages that imply them, even though the actual words don't appear? What are these passages? "I am the first, and I am the last, and before Me there was no God, neither shall there be after Me." Everything that depends on that "Am" supports my position, because it has neither beginning nor ending. When you accept that nothing exists before Him and that He has no older cause, you have implicitly granted Him the titles "Unbegotten" and "Unoriginate." And to say that He has no end of being is to call Him "Immortal" and "Indestructible." So the first pairs I mentioned are explained this way. But what are the things that neither exist in reality nor are spoken of? That God is evil; that a sphere is square; that the past is present; that man is not a compound being. Have you ever known anyone so foolish as to dare either to think or to claim any such thing? It remains to show what things both exist in reality and are spoken of: God, Man, Angel, Judgment, Vanity (namely, arguments like yours), and the undermining of faith and emptying of the mystery.

XXIII. Again, where do you get your Unbegotten and Unoriginate, those two citadels of your position, or we our Immortal? Show me these in so many words, or we shall either set them aside, or erase them as not contained in Scripture; and you are slain by your own principle, the names you rely on being overthrown, and therewith the wall of refuge in which you trusted. Is it not evident that they are due to passages which imply them, though the words do not actually occur? What are these passages?–I am the first, and I am the last, and before Me there was no God, neither shall there be after Me. For all that depends on that Am makes for my side, for it has neither beginning nor ending. When you accept this, that nothing is before Him, and that He has not an older Cause, you have implicitly given Him the titles Unbegotten and Unoriginate. And to say that He has no end of Being is to call Him Immortal and Indestructible. The first pairs, then, that I referred to are accounted for thus. But what are the things which neither exist in fact nor are said? That God is evil; that a sphere is square; that the past is present; that man is not a compound being. Have you ever known a man of such stupidity as to venture either to think or to assert any such thing? It remains to show what are the things which exist, both in fact and in language. God, Man, Angel, Judgment, Vanity (viz., such arguments as yours), and the subversion of faith and emptying of the mystery.

Since there is so much difference between terms and things, why are you such a slave to the letter, a partisan of Jewish wisdom, and a follower of syllables at the expense of realities? If I said twice five or twice seven and you concluded from my words that I meant ten or fourteen, or if when you spoke of a rational and mortal animal I understood you to mean man, would you think I was talking nonsense? Surely not, because I would merely be repeating your own meaning. Words do not belong more to the person who speaks them than to the person who prompted them. Just as in this case I would be looking not so much at the terms used but at the thoughts they convey, so too if I found something else either not at all or not clearly expressed in the words of Scripture to be included in the meaning, I would not avoid giving it expression out of fear of your sophisticated wordplay about terms. In this way, then, we shall hold our own against the semi-orthodox—among whom I may not count you. Since you deny the titles of the Son, which are so many and so clear, it is quite evident that even if you learned many more and clearer ones you would not be moved to reverence. But now I will take up the argument again from a bit further back and show you, clever as you are, the reason for this entire system of secrecy.

XXIV. Since, then, there is so much difference in terms and things, why are you such a slave to the letter, and a partisan of the Jewish wisdom, and a follower of syllables at the expense of facts? But if, when you said twice five or twice seven, I concluded from your words that you meant Ten or Fourteen; or if, when you spoke of a rational and mortal animal, that you meant Man, should you think me to be talking nonsense? Surely not, because I should be merely repeating your own meaning; for words do not belong more to the speaker of them than to him who called them forth. As, then, in this case, I should have been looking, not so much at the terms used, as at the thoughts they were meant to convey; so neither, if I found something else either not at all or not clearly expressed in the Words of Scripture to be included in the meaning, should I avoid giving it utterance, out of fear of your sophistical trick about terms. In this way, then, we shall hold our own against the semi-orthodox–among whom I may not count you. For since you deny the Titles of the Son, which are so many and so clear, it is quite evident that even if you learnt a great many more and clearer ones you would not be moved to reverence. But now I will take up the argument again a little way further back, and show you, though you are so clever, the reason for this entire system of secresy.

Throughout the entire period of human history, there have been two major transformations in how people lived, which are also called two Testaments or, because of their widespread significance, two Earthquakes. The first moved people from idols to the Law, the second from the Law to the Gospel. And the Gospel teaches us about a third earthquake, which is from this world to the one that cannot be shaken or moved. The two Testaments are similar in this way: the change did not happen suddenly or at the first attempt. Why not? We need to understand this point. It was so that we would not be forced, but rather persuaded to change. Nothing that is forced lasts, like streams or trees held back by force. But what is voluntary is more lasting and secure. The forced option belongs to whoever uses force, while the voluntary one is truly ours. One comes from God's gentleness, the other from tyrannical power. Therefore, God did not think it right to help people against their will, but to do good to those who are willing. So like a teacher or doctor, He partly removed and partly permitted ancestral customs, allowing some small things that gave pleasure, just as doctors do with their patients so they will take their medicine by cleverly mixing it with something pleasant. It is not easy to change habits that tradition and practice have made respectable. For example, the first Testament cut off idol worship but allowed sacrifices to continue. The second abolished sacrifices but did not forbid circumcision. Then, once people had accepted these initial restrictions, they also gave up what had been permitted to them—first the sacrifices, then circumcision. They became Jews instead of Gentiles, and Christians instead of Jews, being gradually led into the Gospel through these incremental changes. Paul proves this point, for at one time he practiced circumcision and followed legal purification, but he progressed until he could say, "Brothers, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?" His earlier actions belonged to the temporary arrangement, his later ones to maturity.

XXV. There have been in the whole period of the duration of the world two conspicuous changes of men's lives, which are also called two Testaments, or, on account of the wide fame of the matter, two Earthquakes; the one from idols to the Law, the other from the Law to the Gospel. And we are taught in the Gospel of a third earthquake, namely, from this Earth to that which cannot be shaken or moved. Now the two Testaments are alike in this respect, that the change was not made on a sudden, nor at the first movement of the endeavour. Why not (for this is a point on which we must have information)? That no violence might be done to us, but that we might be moved by persuasion. For nothing that is involuntary is durable; like streams or trees which are kept back by force. But that which is voluntary is more durable and safe. The former is due to one who uses force, the latter is ours; the one is due to the gentleness of God, the other to a tyrannical authority. Wherefore God did not think it behooved Him to benefit the unwilling, but to do good to the willing. And therefore like a Tutor or Physician He partly removes and partly condones ancestral habits, conceding some little of what tended to pleasure, just as medical men do with their patients, that their medicine may be taken, being artfully blended with what is nice. For it is no very easy matter to change from those habits which custom and use have made honourable. For instance, the first cut off the idol, but left the sacrifices; the second, while it destroyed the sacrifices did not forbid circumcision. Then, when once men had submitted to the curtailment, they also yielded that which had been conceded to them; in the first instance the sacrifices, in the second circumcision; and became instead of Gentiles, Jews, and instead of Jews, Christians, being beguiled into the Gospel by gradual changes. Paul is a proof of this; for having at one time administered circumcision, and submitted to legal purification, he advanced till he could say, and I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? His former conduct belonged to the temporary dispensation, his latter to maturity.

In this case I may compare the situation of theology, except that it works in the opposite direction. In the illustration I just used, the change happened through successive subtractions, but here perfection is reached through additions. Here is how it works. The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly but the Son more obscurely. The New Testament revealed the Son and hinted at the deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit himself dwells among us and gives us a clearer demonstration of himself. It was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, to openly proclaim the Son. Nor was it safe, when the Son's deity was not yet accepted, to burden us further—if I may use such a bold expression—with the Holy Spirit. Otherwise people might, like those fed beyond their strength or like those with eyes too weak to look at the sun's light, risk losing even what was within their capacity. Instead, through gradual additions and, as David says, ascents and advances and progress from glory to glory, the light of the Trinity would shine on those who were becoming more enlightened. For this reason, I believe, the Spirit gradually came to dwell in the disciples, measuring himself out to them according to their capacity to receive him—at the beginning of the Gospel, after the Passion, after the Ascension—perfecting their powers by being breathed upon them and appearing in fiery tongues. Indeed, Jesus declared him little by little, as you will learn if you read more carefully. "I will ask the Father," he says, "and he will send you another Comforter, even the Spirit of Truth." He said this so he would not seem to be a rival God or to speak to them by another authority. Again, "He shall send him," but "in my Name." He leaves out "I will ask" but keeps "shall send," then again, "I will send"—his own dignity. Then "shall come"—the authority of the Spirit.

XXVI. To this I may compare the case of Theology except that it proceeds the reverse way. For in the case by which I have illustrated it the change is made by successive subtractions; whereas here perfection is reached by additions. For the matter stands thus. The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun's light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory, the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated. For this reason it was, I think, that He gradually came to dwell in the Disciples, measuring Himself out to them according to their capacity to receive Him, at the beginning of the Gospel, after the Passion, after the Ascension, making perfect their powers, being breathed upon them, and appearing in fiery tongues. And indeed it is little by little that He is declared by Jesus, as you will learn for yourself if you will read more carefully. I will ask the Father, He says, and He will send you another Comforter, even the spirit of Truth. This He said that He might not seem to be a rival God, or to make His discourses to them by another authority. Again, He shall send Him, but it is in My Name. He leaves out the I will ask, but He keeps the Shall send, then again, I will send,–His own dignity. Then shall come, the authority of the Spirit.

You see lights breaking upon us gradually, and there is an order to theology which we should keep—neither proclaiming things too suddenly nor keeping them hidden until the end. The first approach would be unscientific, the second atheistical. The first would shock outsiders, the second would alienate our own people. I will add another point to what I have said, one which may have occurred to others but which I believe is a fruit of my own thinking. Our Savior had some things which He said could not be borne at that time by His disciples, even though they were filled with many teachings—perhaps for the reasons I have mentioned—and therefore these things were hidden. And again He said that all things would be taught to us by the Spirit when He came to dwell among us. One of these things, I believe, was the Deity of the Spirit Himself, made clear later when such knowledge would be timely and able to be received after our Savior's resurrection, when it would no longer be met with disbelief because of its marvelous character. For what greater thing than this did He either promise, or the Spirit teach—if indeed anything is to be considered great and worthy of the Majesty of God, which was either promised or taught?

XXVII. You see lights breaking upon us, gradually; and the order of Theology, which it is better for us to keep, neither proclaiming things too suddenly, nor yet keeping them hidden to the end. For the former course would be unscientific, the latter atheistical; and the former would be calculated to startle outsiders, the latter to alienate our own people. I will add another point to what I have said; one which may readily have come into the mind of some others, but which I think a fruit of my own thought. Our Saviour had some things which, He said, could not be borne at that time by His disciples (though they were filled with many teachings), perhaps for the reasons I have mentioned; and therefore they were hidden. And again He said that all things should be taught us by the Spirit when He should come to dwell amongst us. Of these things one, I take it, was the Deity of the Spirit Himself, made clear later on when such knowledge should be seasonable and capable of being received after our Saviour's restoration, when it would no longer be received with incredulity because of its marvellous character. For what greater thing than this did either He promise, or the Spirit teach. If indeed anything is to be considered great and worthy of the Majesty of God, which was either promised or taught.

This, then, is my position on these things, and I hope it will always be my position and that of everyone dear to me: to worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—three prosopa, one Godhead, undivided in honor and glory and ousia and kingdom, as one of our own inspired philosophers who recently departed demonstrated. Let anyone who thinks otherwise, or who follows the mood of the times, being of one mind at one time and of another at another, and thinking wrongly about the highest matters, not see the rising of the morning star, as Scripture says, nor the glory of its brightness. For if He is not to be worshiped, how can He deify me through baptism? But if He is to be worshiped, surely He is an object of worship, and if an object of worship He must be God; the one is linked to the other, a truly golden and saving chain. And indeed from the Spirit comes our new birth, and from the new birth our new creation, and from the new creation our deeper knowledge of the dignity of Him from whom it is derived.

XXVIII. This, then, is my position with regard to these things, and I hope it may be always my position, and that of whosoever is dear to me; to worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, Three Persons, One Godhead, undivided in honour and glory and substance and kingdom, as one of our own inspired philosophers not long departed showed. Let him not see the rising of the Morning Star, as Scripture says, nor the glory of its brightness, who is otherwise minded, or who follows the temper of the times, at one time being of one mind and of another at another time, and thinking unsoundly in the highest matters. For if He is not to be worshipped, how can He deify me by Baptism? But if He is to be worshipped, surely He is an Object of adoration, and if an Object of adoration He must be God; the one is linked to the other, a truly golden and saving chain. And indeed from the Spirit comes our New Birth, and from the New Birth our new creation, and from the new creation our deeper knowledge of the dignity of Him from Whom it is derived.

This is what someone can say who accepts the silence of Scripture on this matter. But now a flood of testimonies will come upon you, from which the Deity of the Holy Spirit will be shown—to all who are not extremely foolish or complete enemies of the Spirit—to be most clearly recognized in Scripture. Consider these facts: Christ is born; the Spirit is his forerunner. He is baptized; the Spirit bears witness. He is tempted; the Spirit leads him up. He works miracles; the Spirit accompanies them. He ascends; the Spirit takes his place. What great things that belong to the idea of God are not within his power? What titles that belong to God are not applied to him, except only Unbegotten and Begotten? For it was necessary that the distinctive properties of the Father and the Son remain unique to them, so there would be no confusion in the Godhead which brings all things, even disorder itself, into proper arrangement and good order. Indeed, I tremble when I think of the abundance of titles, and how many Names those who attack the Spirit are outraging. He is called the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Mind of Christ, the Spirit of the Lord, and himself the Lord, the Spirit of Adoption, of Truth, of Liberty; the Spirit of Wisdom, of Understanding, of Counsel, of Might, of Knowledge, of Godliness, of the Fear of God. For he is the Maker of all these, filling all with his essence (ousia), containing all things, filling the world in his essence (ousia), yet incapable of being comprehended in his power by the world; good, upright, princely by nature not by adoption; sanctifying, not sanctified; measuring, not measured; shared, not sharing; filling, not filled; containing, not contained; inherited, glorified, reckoned with the Father and the Son; held out as a threat; the Finger of God; fire like God (to manifest, as I understand it, his consubstantiality); the Creator-Spirit, who by Baptism and by Resurrection creates anew; the Spirit who knows all things, who teaches, who blows where and to whatever extent he wishes; who guides, speaks, sends forth, separates, is angry or tempted; who reveals, illumines, gives life, or rather is the very Light and Life; who makes Temples; who deifies; who perfects so as even to anticipate Baptism, yet after Baptism to be sought as a separate gift; who does all things that God does; divided into fiery tongues; dividing gifts; making Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers; understanding manifold, clear, piercing, undefiled, unhindered, which is the same as most wise and varied in his actions; and making all things clear and plain; and of independent power, unchangeable, Almighty, all-seeing, penetrating all spirits that are intelligent, pure, most subtle (the Angel hosts, I think); and also all prophetic spirits and apostolic in the same manner but not in the same places, for they lived in different places—thus showing that he is uncircumscribed.

XXIX. This, then, is what may be said by one who admits the silence of Scripture. But now the swarm of testimonies shall burst upon you from which the Deity of the Holy Ghost shall be shown to all who are not excessively stupid, or else altogether enemies to the Spirit, to be most clearly recognized in Scripture. Look at these facts:–Christ is born; the Spirit is His Forerunner. He is baptized; the Spirit bears witness. He is tempted; the Spirit leads Him up. He works miracles; the Spirit accompanies them. He ascends; the Spirit takes His place. What great things are there in the idea of God which are not in His power? What titles which belong to God are not applied to Him, except only Unbegotten and Begotten? For it was needful that the distinctive properties of the Father and the Son should remain peculiar to Them, lest there should be confusion in the Godhead Which brings all things, even disorder itself, into due arrangement and good order. Indeed I tremble when I think of the abundance of the titles, and how many Names they outrage who fall foul of the Spirit. He is called the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Mind of Christ, the Spirit of The Lord, and Himself The Lord, the Spirit of Adoption, of Truth, of Liberty; the Spirit of Wisdom, of Understanding, of Counsel, of Might, of Knowledge, of Godliness, of the Fear of God. For He is the Maker of all these, filling all with His Essence, containing all things, filling the world in His Essence, yet incapable of being comprehended in His power by the world; good, upright, princely, by nature not by adoption; sanctifying, not sanctified; measuring, not measured; shared, not sharing; filling, not filled; containing, not contained; inherited, glorified, reckoned with the Father and the Son; held out as a threat; the Finger of God; fire like God; to manifest, as I take it, His consubstantiality); the Creator-Spirit, Who by Baptism and by Resurrection creates anew; the Spirit That knows all things, That teaches, That blows where and to what extent He lists; That guides, talks, sends forth, separates, is angry or tempted; That reveals, illumines, quickens, or rather is the very Light and Life; That makes Temples; That deifies; That perfects so as even to anticipate Baptism, yet after Baptism to be sought as a separate gift; That does all things that God does; divided into fiery tongues; dividing gifts; making Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers; understanding manifold, clear, piercing, undefiled, unhindered, which is the same thing as Most wise and varied in His actions; and making all things clear and plain; and of independent power, unchangeable, Almighty, all-seeing, penetrating all spirits that are intelligent, pure, most subtle (the Angel Hosts I think); and also all prophetic spirits and apostolic in the same manner and not in the same places; for they lived in different places; thus showing that He is uncircumscript.

Those who say and teach these things, and who moreover call Him another Paraclete in the sense of another God, who know that blasphemy against Him alone cannot be forgiven, and who branded Ananias and Sapphira with such fearful infamy for having lied to the Holy Spirit—what do you think of these men? Do they proclaim the Spirit to be God, or something else? Really, you must be extraordinarily dull and far from the Spirit if you have any doubt about this and need someone to teach you. So important and so vivid are His names. Why is it necessary to lay before you the testimony contained in the very words? And whatever is said in more lowly fashion in this case as well—such as that He is Given, Sent, Divided; that He is the Gift, the Bounty, the Inspiration, the Promise, the Intercession for us, and any other expressions of this sort, not to go into further detail—is to be referred to the First Cause, so that it may be shown from Whom He is, and so that people may not in heathen fashion admit three Principles. For it is equally impious to confuse the Persons with the Sabellians, or to divide the Natures with the Arians.

XXX. They who say and teach these things, and moreover call Him another Paraclete in the sense of another God, who know that blasphemy against Him alone cannot be forgiven, and who branded with such fearful infamy Ananias and Sapphira for having lied to the Holy Ghost, what do you think of these men? Do they proclaim the Spirit God, or something else? Now really, you must be extraordinarily dull and far from the Spirit if you have any doubt about this and need some one to teach you. So important then, and so vivid are His Names. Why is it necessary to lay before you the testimony contained in the very words? And whatever in this case also is said in more lowly fashion, as that He is Given, Sent, Divided; that He is the Gift, the Bounty, the Inspiration, the Promise, the Intercession for us, and, not to go into any further detail, any other expressions of the sort, is to be referred to the First Cause, that it may be shown from Whom He is, and that men may not in heathen fashion admit Three Principles. For it is equally impious to confuse the Persons with the Sabellians, or to divide the Natures with the Arians.

I have thought about this matter very carefully and examined it from every angle, trying to find some illustration of this crucial subject. But I have been unable to discover anything on earth that can be compared to the nature of the Godhead. Even when I did find some small similarity, it mostly slipped away from me and left me stuck down here with my example. I imagined an eye, a fountain, and a river—as others have done before me—to see whether the first might correspond to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Spirit. In these there is no separation in time, and they are not torn apart from their connection with each other, even though they seem to be divided into three distinct forms. But I was worried, first of all, that I would be presenting a Godhead that flows and cannot stand still. Second, I was concerned that this illustration would suggest a merely numerical unity. For the eye, the spring, and the river are numerically one thing, even though they appear in different forms.

XXXI. I have very carefully considered this matter in my own mind, and have looked at it in every point of view, in order to find some illustration of this most important subject, but I have been unable to discover anything on earth with which to compare the nature of the Godhead. For even if I did happen upon some tiny likeness it escaped me for the most part, and left me down below with my example. I picture to myself an eye, a fountain, a river, as others have done before, to see if the first might be analogous to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Ghost. For in these there is no distinction in time, nor are they torn away from their connection with each other, though they seem to be parted by three personalities. But I was afraid in the first place that I should present a flow in the Godhead, incapable of standing still; and secondly that by this figure a numerical unity would be introduced. For the eye and the spring and the river are numerically one, though in different forms.

I thought again about the sun, a ray, and light. But here too I had a fear that people might get the idea of composition in the Uncompounded Nature, like the composition that exists in the sun and the things that are in the sun. Second, I worried that we might give ousia to the Father but deny hypostasis to the Others, making Them merely Powers of God that exist in Him but are not Personal. For neither the ray nor the light is another sun—they are only emanations from the sun and qualities of its ousia. And I feared we might thus, as far as the illustration goes, attribute both Being and Not-being to God, which would be even more monstrous. I have also heard that someone has proposed an illustration like this: a ray of the sun flashing on a wall and trembling with the movement of moisture that the beam has picked up in midair, and then, being blocked by the hard surface, has created a strange quivering. For it quivers with many rapid movements and is not more one than it is many, nor more many than one, because through the swiftness of its uniting and separating it disappears before the eye can catch it.

XXXII. Again I thought of the sun and a ray and light. But here again there was a fear lest people should get an idea of composition in the Uncompounded Nature, such as there is in the Sun and the things that are in the Sun. And in the second place lest we should give Essence to the Father but deny Personality to the Others, and make Them only Powers of God, existing in Him and not Personal. For neither the ray nor the light is another sun, but they are only effulgences from the Sun, and qualities of His essence. And lest we should thus, as far as the illustration goes, attribute both Being and Not-being to God, which is even more monstrous. I have also heard that some one has suggested an illustration of the following kind. A ray of the Sun flashing upon a wall and trembling with the movement of the moisture which the beam has taken up in mid air, and then, being checked by the hard body, has set up a strange quivering. For it quivers with many rapid movements, and is not one rather than it is many, nor yet many rather than one; because by the swiftness of its union and separating it escapes before the eye can see it.

I cannot make use of even this analogy, because it is very clear what causes the ray to move, but there is nothing prior to God that could set Him in motion. He is Himself the Cause of all things, and He has no prior Cause. Also, in this case there is again a suggestion of things like composition, diffusion, and an unsettled and unstable nature—none of which we can attribute to the Godhead. In short, there is nothing in these illustrations that provides my mind with a stable point from which to consider the Object I am trying to represent to myself, unless one generously accepts one aspect of the image while rejecting the rest. Finally, then, it seems best to me to abandon the images and shadows, since they are deceptive and fall very far short of the truth. Instead, I will hold to the more reverent conception and rely on few words, using the guidance of the Holy Spirit, keeping to the end as my true comrade and companion the enlightenment I have received from Him, and passing through this world to persuade all others also to the best of my ability to worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the One Godhead and Power. To Him belongs all glory and honor and might for ever and ever. Amen.

XXXIII. But it is not possible for me to make use of even this; because it is very evident what gives the ray its motion; but there is nothing prior to God which could set Him in motion; for He is Himself the Cause of all things, and He has no prior Cause. And secondly because in this case also there is a suggestion of such things as composition, diffusion, and an unsettled and unstable nature…none of which we can suppose in the Godhead. In a word, there is nothing which presents a standing point to my mind in these illustrations from which to consider the Object which I am trying to represent to myself, unless one may indulgently accept one point of the image while rejecting the rest. Finally, then, it seems best to me to let the images and the shadows go, as being deceitful and very far short of the truth; and clinging myself to the more reverent conception, and resting upon few words, using the guidance of the Holy Ghost, keeping to the end as my genuine comrade and companion the enlightenment which I have received from Him, and passing through this world to persuade all others also to the best of my power to worship Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the One Godhead and Power. To Him belongs all glory and honour and might for ever and ever. Amen.