Yannaras, Christos (b. 1935)

see Contemporary Orthodox Theology

Appendix

Foundational Documents of Orthodox Theology

Contents

1 Creed of Nicea 650–1

2 Creed of Constantinople 651–2

3 Documents of the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus 652–9

4 The Definition of Faith of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon 659–60

5 The Definition of Faith of the Fifth Ecumenical Council of

Constantinople 660–70

6 The Definition of Faith of the Sixth Ecumenical Council 671–3

7 The Definition of Faith of the Seventh Ecumenical Council 674–6

8 The Five Theological Orations of St. Gregory of Nazianzus

(the Theologian) 676–734

9 Excerpts from the “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”

by St. John of Damascus 734–71

These documents are adapted from the source collections presented in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church (series 2), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids; and T&T Clark, Edinburgh. Especially NPNF: vol. 7, 1893 (St. Gregory of Nazianzus), vol. 9, 1899 (St. John of Damascus), and vol. 14, 1900 (Seven Ecumenical Councils). Texts modern­ized and clarified by the editor. Original text and all secondary references related to it can be accessed from www.ccel.org/fathers.html.

Introduction

The range of the Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodoxy is immense in both geographical and temporal terms. Its topical coverage, from the front of the alphabet to the end, allows for easy access for a researcher on any major theme that they may wish to follow up. This appendix tries to offer more. It is attached to the main body of the articles, in a sense as if it were the words of the ancients themselves (indeed, that is chiefly in what it consists) telling of the Orthodox faith directly, viva voce, rather than having it presented by contemporary commentators and exegeted in historical context. Both things, of course, are useful and necessary, and should complement one another invaluably. But if someone were to ask, “What are the essential primary texts of the Orthodox faith?” it might be easy enough to answer that here in this appendix one will meet with a good collection of them. Not all of them, by any means, but a representative sample of what the major theologians and dogmatic bishops (fathers) of the early church thought were essential architectural elements of the building.

The proper answer to what are the essential primary documents of Orthodoxy would be: the gospels, the Old Testament, the liturgical and sacramental texts used in worship, the statements and definitions of the ecumenical councils, the canons and disciplinary decisions of the great councils of the church, and the writings that have been afforded “patristic” status by the church over the generations (whether those were writings of sub­apostolic times, patristic-era theologies, or even writings of considerably later saints and doctors, whose opinions and decisions have been widely held among the Orthodox to affirm and express authentic Orthodox attitudes and values). In that list the biblical material has pride of place of course (see “Tradition” in the encyclopedia articles) and the conciliar and patristic materials are regarded as fundamental commentary upon it. The liturgical prayers and hymns, gathered together over the centuries as the church corporately worshipped, have a unique ethos and character for revealing the essential spirit of Orthodoxy. Here the old Latin adage holds true still: Lex orandi, lex credendi (the rule of prayer is the rule of faith). The text of the liturgy is widely accessible (numerous versions of it are freely available on the Worldwide Web, for example). It was composed at the dawn of the life of the church and reached its polished form in the golden age of patristic theology. The liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, or St. Basil, or St. James, to take the main instances, are replete with prayers of extreme beauty, simplicity, and profundity. There are also several available examples of “Orthodox prayer books” extant; three common and useful instances giving a broad coverage of typical Orthodox prayers being those from St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, New York, St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, Pennsylvania, and the Fellowship handbook of the Society of Sts. Alban and Sergius, Oxford. Another, of my own editing, also appears later this year with Paraclete Press. Perusing such a book of devotional materials shows, as it were, the inside of the cathedral: just as important for giving a true ethos, but often not as monumental or awe-inspiring as the outside facade.

For such reasons I have not included any of what might be called “devotional” material here (if that is not too weak a word for such essential theology). Instead, the appendix offers the main historical line of “dogmatic” literature that Orthodoxy advanced before itself as it made its way through the first eight centuries of its existence. This material was often set out in the face of major controversies and crises (clashes of theological schools, or Christian cities) and is (obviously) not in the mood for any further argument. It more or less claps its hands and calls for a stop. Then it teaches. It sets out what is to be held and affirmed in the churches. This is why (from the Greek word dogma, meaning teaching) it is “dogmatic theology” in essence: the theology of the Orthodox Church: then, as now.

The first exemplar of this basic Orthodox dogmatics has to be the Nicene Creed. This began life as a prayer for catechumens as they approached baptism. The fathers elevated it, after an early and great internal crisis known as Arianism, as a common prayer that summed up the faith. It has remained as an “ecumenical” (the word signifies meriting worldwide attention) standard of Christian faith ever since. The Nicene Creed is the tent pole of this appendix. The second creed that follows it, that of Constantinople I (381), is a commentary upon it, extending and clarifying the doctrine of the Trinity. It is this later statement which is popularly called the “Nicene Creed” (since the fathers of the council of 381 used the statement of 325 as their starting point). After this follows the Ektheseis (Formal Statements) of all the great and ecumenical councils up to the seventh and last of them at Nicea in 787. The historical contexts of the councils can be read up, separately, in the articles. But it is invaluable to have these core documents here at first hand also. In addition to the seven councils, the appendix contains the work of the three fathers whose dogmatic theologies most succinctly digested classical Orthodox theology. St. Cyril of Alexandria summed up and systematized his predecessor, the great Athanasius. The work of St. Gregory the Theologian (of Nazianzus), whose Five Theological Orations (Orats. 27–31) were once regarded as sufficient in themselves to present to a student the whole ethos of the theology of the church, is a classic of trinitarian, pneumatological, and anthropological doctrine. Lastly, we add the work (in selections) of St. John of Damascus. This 8th-century scholar and monk, hymnographer and politician, was a major source of inspiration even for Aquinas; and served the function in the East of synopsizing almost every aspect of theological inquiry into an ordered form in his great Treatise On the Orthodox Faith. Sections from this have been included to cover Chris- tology and Trinity, but also a wider range of questions such as God’s providence over the world, the nature of angels, what the sacraments are, why icons and relics of the saints matter, and what honor is due to the Blessed Virgin Mary. John wrote in the midst of the ascent of Islam in the Eastern Christian provinces of the Middle East and felt pressed by the decline of the church that he had already seen forced upon the conquered Christian cities of Syria and Egypt. His work has the character of a synopsis of authentic Orthodox faith as if, before a coming storm, one urgently needed to “batten down the hatches.” It was a masterly summing up by one of the great fathers, and one of the leading scholastics among them. It has always been a core text of Orthodox theological schools ever since its appearance in the 8th century. While John is seen as the most authentic synopsizer of all the patristic writers on the widest range of other subjects, Cyril is regarded by the church as the paragon of christological teaching, the “Seal of the Fathers”; and Gregory is seen as the deepest of the trinitarian masters (the “Theologian” par excellence).

There I leave it. There are many other things that could have gone in, but where would have been the end? The so-called “symbolical books” (largely 18th-century responses to problems and challenges raised by Orthodoxy’s encounter with an expanding Post­Tridentine Catholicism, as well as with Lutheranism and Calvinism first appearing on Orthodox horizons) might have deserved an appearance, but then again there are many today who raise an eyebrow at these documents (once so proudly advanced in the Baroque and Early Modern eras as definitive statements of Orthodox faith, as distinct from Catholic and Protestant positions) because, simply put, the apologetic context colored these statements of Orthodoxy perhaps too much. Sometimes the very terms of the arguments were unconsciously too heavily conditioned by the affairs, interests, and controversies of the West. Some have even called this era of the symbolical books a kind of Babylonian Captivity of Orthodox thought. It is not that their doctrine is being controverted of late; rather, their modes of expression, their range, and their tonality.

The present appendix therefore represents purely the classical formulations of the first eight centuries of the church. It contains the main seam of the gold mine, as it were. It is dense material, not given to much dialogue, entirely didactic and non-compromising in its form. It arises from the context of an ancient school, not a modern one, where we are accustomed now to learn through dialogue, questioning, and perhaps querulous dissent. This ancient teaching (didache) refuses to leave the doctrinal tradition of the Christians open to any doubt. It is didache with a rhetorical thump on the table, as was the manner of most ancient teaching situations. The word “dogma” in those days carried no negative connotations, as it might do today to listeners who grew up in the teaching traditions of the Humanities. We ought to imagine the material being presented here more in the manner of an early medical school lecture, where the class is still expected to write down the basic information, preferably without diverging from it, at all. Though it is far from easy material, it collectively comprises a veritable foundation course in the core teachings of the Orthodox Christian faith. It will also be recognized as the foundational elements of all the Western Churches too. Anyone interested in understanding the foundations of the Christian Church ought to be familiar with this material; and it is in this spirit that the appendix is offered, as the capstone and completion, as it were, of these volumes of contemporary research. I have used the material as it was collated and edited by scholars collaborating from Oxford University and Union Theological Seminary in the 19th century: that great collection of patristic texts known as the Post-Nicene Fathers series, and still in common use today, widely accessible on the Worldwide Web, and down­loadable in full (even with notes and references, which I have here omitted). The translations found there, however, have “drooped” with the weight of time. Some of those venerable texts (notably the Theological Orations of St. Gregory) were in hardly comprehensible English versions to begin with. So I have thoroughly modernized all of them as I have selected them, with a view to making them clear, comprehensible, endowed with the grace of their (very) elegant Greek originals. The little polish added deoxidizes them sufficiently to allow us to see that there are even several jokes in the writings of these major saints. They breathe, graciously, even while teaching about “That Life which is the light of all humanity” (Jn. 1.4).

John A. McGuckin

1 The Creed of the Council of Nicea, 325 (First Ecumenical Council)

The Ekthesis (Formal Statement) of the Synod at Nicea

We believe in One God

The Father, All-Powerful Master [Pantokrator],

The Maker of all things that are visible and invisible; And in One Lord Jesus Christ,

The Son of God,

The Only Begotten [Monogenes] of His Father,

Of the being [ Ousia] of the Father,

God from God,

Light from Light,

True God from True God,

Begotten [gennethenta] not made,

The same in being [homoousios] as the Father;

And by him all things were made,

All things in Heaven, and all on earth.

For us humans and for the sake of our salvation He came down [from the heavens],

And was incarnate [sarkothenta], and was made a man [enanthropesenta].

He suffered, and on the third day he rose again,

And he ascended into heaven.

And he shall come again to judge both the living and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit.

The Credal Anathemas

Whosoever shall say that “there was a time when he was not”

Or that before he was begotten he was;

Or that he was made of things that once were not;

Or that he is of a different substance or essence [heteras ousias];

Or that he is a creature;

Or is subject to change or alteration [treptos];

All that say such things – the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

2 The Nicene Creed in the Edition of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, 381

I believe in one God, the Father All Powerful Master,

The Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God,

Begotten of the Father before all Ages;

Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not Created,

Of one Being with the Father Through Whom all things were made.

Who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven And was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,

And became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

And He rose on the third day, in accordance with the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

And He will come again in glory to judge the living and dead.

His Kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,

Who proceeds from the Father,

Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets.

In One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come. Amen.

3 The Documents Defining the Faith Issuing from the Third Ecumenical Council, Ephesus, 431

St. Cyril of Alexandria’s First Letter to Nestorius, Endorsed by the Ephesine Council (Excerpt)

The holy and mighty Synod therefore said that the Only-begotten Son himself, Begotten by Nature of God the Father, Very God of Very God, Light of Light, him through whom the Father made all things, himself came down and was made Flesh and became Man, suffered, rose the third day, and ascended into the Heavens. And so, these words and doctrines we also must follow, considering what the “Word of God made Flesh and Man” might signify. For we do not say that the Nature of the Word was changed and made into flesh, nor that it was changed into a whole man, of soul and body: but we affirm this rather, that the Word having personally united to himself flesh ensouled with reasonable soul, in an ineffable and incomprehensible way, was made Man and was called Son of Man, not in respect of God’s favor only or his will [kata thelesin monen e eudokian], nor yet by adding person to person. But, although the natures which are gathered together into true Union are diverse, even so there is One Christ and Son out of both, not implying the diversity of natures was rendered void because of the Union, but rather that the Godhead and Manhood make up One Lord and Son through their indescribable and ineffable consilience to Unity.

This is why it is said, that although he had his being from before the ages and was begotten of the Father, he was also born in accordance with the flesh, born of a woman; meaning not that His Divine Nature received the beginning of its Being in the holy Virgin, nor that a second birth was needed on its own account, along with his birth from the Father. For it would be both idle and foolish to say that he who is before every age and is Co-eternal with the Father, needed a second beginning of his Being. But since for us and for our salvation, the Word having united Human Nature to himself personally, came forth of a woman, he is accordingly said to have been born in the flesh. For it was not a mere man that was first born of the holy Virgin, and then consequently the Word of God came down upon this man; On the contrary, united from the very womb, he himself is said to have undergone birth in the Flesh, and is said to have made that birth of his own Flesh his very own. This is why we say that he both suffered and rose again, not as meaning that God the Word suffered in his own nature either lashes, or piercings of nails, or the other wounds (for the Godhead is impassible because it is also incorporeal), but since that which had been made his own body suffered these things, so it is that he is said to suffer for us; since the Impassible One was in the suffering body. In the same way we also conceive of his Death. For the Word of God is by Nature Immortal and Incorruptible and is both Life and Life-giving: but since his own Body by the grace of God (as Paul says) tasted death for every man, he himself is said to have suffered death for us; not meaning as though he had experienced death as far as pertains to his own Nature (for it would be off the point to say or think this) but because (as I said earlier) his flesh had tasted death. So too, when his Flesh was raised, the Resurrection is said to be his own, not as though he had fallen into decay (God forbid!) but because it was his body that was raised. This is how we confess One Christ and Lord; not as if co-worshipping a man alongside the Word, in order that we do not introduce even a hint of separation by adding the prefix “co” [syn]. No, we say that we worship One and the Same, because the body is not alien to the Word, that body with which he sits down with the Father; not as though two sons sat with the Father but only One, in union with his own Flesh. And if we reject the concept of personal [hypostatic] union as either being impossible or as unseemly, we shall lapse into confessing two sons; and then we will of necessity split him apart and say that the one is man by himself, honored with the title of Son; and another, separate, is the Word of God, who naturally possesses both the name and reality of Sonship.

We must, therefore, never divide the One Lord Jesus Christ into two sons, for it will not help the correct expression of the Faith so to do; even if one should still allege the unity of persons. For the Scripture did not say that the Word united to himself the person of a man, but says rather that the Word was made flesh. And the Word’s being made flesh means nothing else than that he partook of flesh and blood, like ourselves, and made our body his own and came forth as a man of a woman, even so never casting away his existence as God and his birth from God the Father; but even while assuming flesh he remained what he was.

This is what the utterance of the Orthodox faith everywhere declares to us. This is what we shall find the holy Fathers thought. For this reason they made bold to call the holy Virgin Mother of God [ Theotokos]: not meaning that the nature of the Word or his Godhead took its beginning of existence from the holy Virgin, but rather that in the holy body endowed with a rational soul that was born of her, which the Word personally united to himself, the very Word is said to have been born after the flesh.

I write these things to you out of love in Christ and I encourage you as a brother and adjure you before Christ and the elect Angels, to agree to these ideas, and teach them along with us, so that the peace of the Churches may be preserved intact and that the bond of harmony and of love should abide indissoluble among the priests of God.

St. Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius (Excerpt)

The Council of 431 endorsed the theology of the Third Letter but held back from synodically endorsing the contents of the Twelve Anathemas appended to its end. The substance of the Twelve Anathemas was subsequently endorsed at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, which elevated Cyril as the “Seal” of the Fathers, and the Orthodox Church’s leading christological articulator.

We have subjoined to this our letter the things that you must hold and teach and those things from which thou must abstain: for what follows is the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which all the Orthodox Bishops throughout the West and East adhere:

We believe in One God the Father, All Powerful Master, Maker of all things visible and invisible, and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, Begotten of the Father, that is of the Essence [ousia] of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten not made, Consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made, both those that are in Heaven and those that are on earth, who for us and for our salvation came down and was made flesh and was made man; suffered and rose on the third day, ascended into the Heavens, and comes again to judge the living and the dead; And in the Holy Spirit.

And as for those that say: There was a time when He was not, and: Before He was begotten He was not, and: He was made of things that are not, or that say that the Son of God is of some other Hypostasis or Essence, or is subject to change or variation ... these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

Following in all respects the confessions of the holy Fathers which they have made through the Holy Spirit who was speaking within them, and tracing out the aim of their ideas and, as it were, setting off along the royal road, we say that the Only Begotten Son of God himself, who was begotten of the very being of the Father, who is True God of True God, Light of Light, he through whom all things were made, both those in Heaven and those on earth, having for our salvation come down and abased himselfand emptied himself out, was the one who was made flesh and made man. In other words, having taken flesh of the holy Virgin and made it his own from the womb, he underwent birth as we do, and came forth as man of a woman; not losing what he was, but even though he assumed flesh and blood, even so remaining what he was, that is God by nature and in truth. We do not say that the flesh was turned into the nature of Godhead nor that the ineffable nature of God the Word was borne aside into the nature of the flesh; for it is unchangeable and invariable, ever abiding wholly the same, in accordance with the Scriptures. And so, he was seen, even as a baby and in swaddling clothes, and though he was in the lap of the Virgin that bore him, he was even so filling the Creation as God, and sitting alongside the Father. For the Godhead is without quantity and size and will not endure limitation.

And so, confessing that the Word was personally [hypostatically] united to flesh, we worship One Son and Lord Jesus Christ. We do not set apart or parse up Man and God, as though they were connected with each other only by the unity of dignity and authority (for this would be empty speech and nothing more). But neither do we call the Word of God a separate Christ, and likewise the one that was born of the woman another separate, as if he were a different Christ. No, we know only One Christ, the Word of God the Father together with his own flesh (for he was anointed as Man along with us, even though he himself gives out the Spirit to those who are worthy of it, and does so without reserve, as the blessed Evangelist John tells us [Jn. 3.34]). Nor do we say that the Word of God dwelt in the one who was born of the holy Virgin as if indwelling a mere man, in case Christ might be imagined as only a God-clothed human being. For even though “The Word dwelt among us,” [Jn. 1.14] and dwelt in Christ too, nonetheless it is said that “All the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in him” [Col. 2.9]. Similarly we do not imagine that when he was made Flesh, this indwelling was comparable to the way he is said to dwell in the saints, but rather that he was united in a natural way but not turned into flesh, he made the indwelling of such a kind as the soul of a man might be said to have in relation to its own body.

There is, therefore, only One Christ, and Son, and Lord; not as though this meant a man had a simple connection with God on the level of a unity of dignity or of authority (for equality of honor does not unite natures, and indeed Peter and John were of equal honor one with another, insofar as they were both Apostles and holy disciples, but even so the two were not one), nor do we reckon the mode of connecting in terms of juxta­position (for this is not sufficient to describe a natural unity). Nor do we imagine it in terms of an external participation, in the sense that it is written that “We who are joined to the Lord, become one spirit with Him” [1Cor. 6.17 ]. On the contrary, we refuse the term “connection” as being insufficient to express the Union. But this does not mean we call the Word of God the Father, the God or the Lord of Christ, again so that we do not blatantly cut in two the single Christ and Son and Lord; for then we would incur the charge of blasphemy, as making him God and Lord of himself. For the Word of God united (as we already before said) in a personal way to the flesh, is God of all, and rules over all, but is himself neither servant nor lord of himself. It would be both silly and blasphemous to say or think this. For he called the Father his God [Jn. 20.17], even though he is God by nature and of God’s very being. We know, of course, that along with being God, he also became Man (who is under God, according to the Law that befits the nature of the humanity) but how can he be God or Lord of himself? It follows, then, that it is as Man and insofar as relates to the degree of the kenotic “emptying out,” that he says that he stands alongside us under God. In just the same way was he placed under the Law too, even though he himself spoke the Law and, as God, is the Lawgiver.

Moreover, we refuse to say of Christ, “For the sake of him that bore, I reverence that which is borne; for the sake of the Invisible I worship that which can be seen.” Apart from this, it is a terrible thing to say: “He that is assumed shares the name of God with him that assumed him.” For whoever speaks like this once again cuts Christ into two, and sets the man apart by himself and a God likewise: and such a person manifestly denies the union, on the basis of which we rule out that one is worshipped alongside another, or one is nominally given divine titles alongside the other thought of as encompassing him. We, however, understand quite simply that there is one Christ Jesus, the Only Begotten Son, worshipped with a single worship, together with his own flesh. And we confess that it is the Son begotten of God the Father, that is the Only-Begotten God himself, even though he is impassible in his own nature, who has suffered for us in the flesh [1Pet. 4.1] in accordance with the Scriptures. And we say that he was in his crucified body making the sufferings of his own flesh into his very own in an impassible manner. And by the grace of God he tasted death [Heb. 2.9] for the sake of every one, even though he was by nature, himself both Life and Resurrection [Jn. 11.25]. For (as we said earlier) in order that he might become the Firstborn of the Dead [Col. 1.18] and the First Fruits of those who slept [1Cor. 15.20], and might make a way for human nature to return to incorruptibility by the grace of God, he trampled down death with his ineffable power in his own flesh first of all. He tasted death on behalf of every man, and lived again after three days, having despoiled Hades; so that even though the Resurrection of the Dead [1Cor. 15.21] can be said to have been accomplished through man, even so we conceive that the Word of God was made Man and that it is through him that the power of Death has been unraveled. And he shall come finally as One Son and Lord in the glory of the Father, to judge the world in righteousness [Acts 17.31], as it is written.

We also feel it necessary to add this as well: for we declare the Death in the flesh of the Only-Begotten Son of God, who is Jesus Christ, and we confess His coming to life from the dead and his assumption into Heaven, and thus we celebrate the unbloody liturgy in the churches, and thereby approach to the mystic blessings, and are sanctified, changed into participants of the holy flesh and precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. This does not happen as though we were receiving common flesh (God forbid!) nor yet the flesh of a man who has been sanctified and was connected with the Word in terms of a unity of dignity, or someone who enjoyed a type of divine Indwelling; no, but rather as receiving the truly life-giving and very-own flesh of the Word himself. For since the Word is God and Life by nature, since he became One with his own Flesh, He rendered that flesh Life-giving. So that even though he might say to us: “Truly truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood” [Jn. 6.53], we do not thereby understand this flesh to be the same as one of us (for how can a man’s flesh be life-giving in its own nature?) but on the contrary, as something that has truly become the very own flesh of him who for our sakes both became, and was named, the Son of Man.

In addition we do not ascribe the words of our Savior in the Gospels to two different hypostases or persons (for the one and only Christ is not two-fold, even though he can be conceived to have been composed out of two diverse things that were gathered into an inseparable unity, in just the same way as a human being can be conceived as composed of soul and body, but is not thereby two-fold, but is rather One from out of both). On the contrary we think correctly, and we maintain that both the human and the divine expressions [of the Gospels] have been spoken by one and the same. For when he says in a divine manner about himself: “whoever has seen me has seen the Father,” [Jn. 14.9] or again: “I and the Father are one” [Jn. 10.30], we are led to think of his divine and ineffable nature, wherein he is truly one with his own Father by reason of identity of essence, and the “Image and impress and brightness of his Glory” [Heb. 1.3]. But on the other hand, when he accepts the limits of human nature and thus addresses the Jews, saying: “Now are you seeking to kill me, a man who has told you the truth” [Jn. 8.40], here, we recognize no less he who is truly God the Word in equality and likeness ofthe Father, even though he is in the limits ofhis humanity. For if, as we ought, we believe that he is God by nature, and that he was thereby made flesh, or rather made man endowed with a reasonable soul, then why on earth would one feel ashamed of his words, if they are spoken in a manner appropriate to a man? For if he despised words that betoken humanness, who was it that compelled him in the first place to become a man like us? Why would he scorn words that fit the experience of the human emptiness when he elected to abase himself in a voluntary emptying-out for our sake? This is why we must attribute all the sayings in the Gospels, to one person, one incarnate hypostasis of the Word: for there is only one Lord Jesus Christ, according to Scriptures.

And even though he can be called the “Apostle and High Priest of our confession” [Heb. 3.1], insofar as he ministers to God the Father the confession of our faith which we offer to him, and through him to God the Father, and to the Holy Spirit also; even so we affirm once more that he is by nature the Only Begotten Son of God. Accordingly we do not assign to a man, different to him, the name of priesthood and its reality. For he himself became the Mediator of God and Man ^{1 Tim. 2.5}, and the Reconciler to Peace, who offered himself to God the Father like an odor of a sweet savor. This is why he also said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, holocaust sin-sacrifices were not pleasing to you, but you preferred to prepare a body for me. This is why I said: Behold I am coming ! In the scroll of the book it stands written that I should do your will O God” [Heb. 10.5–7, as derived from Ps. 40.6–8]. For he offered his own Body on our behalf as an odor of a sweet savor. He did not offer it on his own behalf. For what offering or sacrifice would he need for his own self, since he is far above all sin, as God? For even if all had sinned and fell short of the glory of God [Rom. 3.23], simply because humans are inclined to stray aside, and man’s nature is sick from the disease of sin; even so, this is not the case with him. We may well have fallen short of his glory: but how can we doubt that it was for our sake, on our account, that the True One was sacrificed? And to reply to this that he must have offered himself for both his own sake as well as for ours, will certainly incur the charge of blasphemy. For he has not transgressed in any way at all; nor has he committed any sin; and so what offering did he need to bring for himself when there was no sin to which an offering rightly pertains?

And when he says of the Spirit: “He shall glorify me” [Jn. 16.14], we also understand this in the correct way, as not denoting him as Christ and Son, taking glory from the Holy Spirit, as if from outside. For his Spirit is not superior to him or above him. It was to demonstrate his own Godhead that he used his own Spirit for the work of mighty deeds, and this is what he means when he says that he is glorified by him. It is just as if one of us, for example, were to refer to his own faculties of strength or understanding, and say that they will be our glory. For even though the Spirit exists in his own person, and is conceived of discretely, insofar as he is the Spirit, and is not the Son, even so the Spirit is not alien from Christ, for he is called the Spirit of Truth [Jn. 15.26], and Christ himself is the Truth [Jn. 14.6], and the Spirit proceeds from him, just as it does from God the Father. The Spirit worked miracles even through the hands of the holy Apostles after our Lord Jesus Christ had gone up into heaven, and in doing so glorified him. What is more, he himself worked through his own Spirit, and so it was believed that he was God by nature. This is why he said: “He shall take of what is mine, and declare it to you” [Jn. 16.14]. This is why we do not say that the Spirit is wise and mighty on account of participation [methexis] because the truth is that he is all-perfect and stands in need of nothing good, but we say this on account of him being the Spirit of the Father’s own Wisdom and Might, who is none other than the Son. For it is the Son who is Wisdom and Might personified.

And since the holy Virgin bore in the flesh he who was God hypostatically united to the flesh, this is the reason that we say that she is also Mother of God [ Theotokos]. This does not mean that the nature of the Word took a beginning of its existence from flesh, for “It was in the beginning and the Word was God, and the Word was with God” [Jn. 1.1], and is himself the Maker of the Ages, co-eternal with the Father and the Creator of all things. No, what it means, as we have explained earlier, is that he personally united human nature to himself and underwent fleshly birth from the very womb. This was not done out of necessity or for the sake of something his own nature required, as if needing a temporal birth in the last times of the world; no, it was done in order to bless the very beginning of our being. It was done so that once a woman bore him united to the flesh, the curse against our whole race could finally be stopped, that curse which sends our earthly bodies down into death. Through him those words uttered against us: “In sorrow shall you bear children” [Gen. 3.16], were abolished, and he revealed as true that saying of the prophet: “Death in its might has been swallowed up, and God wiped away every tear from every face.” [Is. 25.8 LXX]. This is the reason too that we speak according to the economy, and say that he also blessed marriage, and when invited to Cana of Galilee went there along with the holy Apostles.

All these things we have been taught to hold by the holy Apostles and Evangelists and all the God-inspired Scripture, and by the true confession of the blessed Fathers. To all of them Your Reverence [Nestorius] should also give his assent and agreement, without any subterfuge.

I have added as an appendix to this Letter the things which it is necessary for Your Holiness to condemn:

The Twelve Anathemas

1 If any one will not confess that Emmanuel is truly God, and that the holy Virgin is therefore the Mother of God (since she bore in the flesh, the Word of God made Flesh); Let him be Anathema.

2 If any one will not confess that the Word of God the Father has been hypostatically united to flesh and that he is One Christ together with his own flesh, the selfsame God and Man; Let him be Anathema.

3 If any one should divide the persons of the One Christ after the union, connecting them with only a connection of dignity, or authority, or influence; and not rather with a natural consilience into unity; Let him be Anathema.

4 If any one should ascribe as to two persons or Hypostases, the sayings in the Gospels and Apostolic writings, spoken either of Christ by the saints or by him of himself; and should refer some to a man conceived of by himself apart from the Word of God, and ascribe others as more divinely appropriate to the Word of God the Father alone; Let him be Anathema.

5 If any one should dare to say that Christ is a God-bearing man, and not rather that he is truly God insofar as he is the Only Son by nature, since the Word has been made flesh, and has shared in blood and flesh like us [Heb. 2.14]; Let him be Anathema.

6 If any one should say that the Word of God the Father is the God or Lord of Christ, and does not rather confess that the same one is both God and Man, insofar as the Word has been made flesh, according to the Scriptures; Let him be Anathema.

7 If anyone should say that Jesus was humanly energized by God the Word and that the Glory of the Only-Begotten was wrapped about him, as from a different being than he; Let him be Anathema.

8 If any one should dare to say that the man that was assumed ought to be co-worshipped with God the Word and co-glorified and co-named God as one standing in another (for the prefix “co-”, so repeatedly added, forces our imagination) but rather does not honor Emmanuel with a single worship and attribute to him a single doxology, insofar as the Word has been made flesh; Let him be Anathema.

9 If any one should say that the One Lord Jesus Christ has been glorified by the Spirit, and used his Power as though it were that of someone different, and has received from the Spirit the power of working against unclean spirits and of accomplishing divine signs upon men; but does not rather say that the Spirit is his very own, through whom he has accomplished the divine signs; Let him be Anathema.

10 The Divine Scripture says that Christ has been made the High Priest and Apostle of our confession [Heb. 3.1] and he has offered himself for us as an odor of sweet savor to God the Father. If any one, therefore, should say that it was not the true Word of God who was made our High Priest and Apostle when he was made flesh and became man as we are, but rather that it was a man of a woman, different from himself and other than he, who was made the priest: or if any one should say he offered the sacrifice on his own behalf too and not simply for our sake alone (for he who does not know sin needed no offering); Let him be Anathema.

11 If any one will not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving and that it is the true flesh of the true Word of God the Father, but says instead that it belongs to another than he, someone connected with the Word in terms of dignity or as possessed of a divine indwelling only; but will not say rather that it is life-giving (as we said) because it has been made the very flesh of the Word who is powerfully able to give life to all things; Let him be Anathema.

12 If any one will not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and was made First-born of the Dead; insofar as he is, as God, both Life and Life-giving; Let him be Anathema.

4 The Tomos (Conciliar Definition of Faith) of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, 451

Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, consisting of a reasonable soul and [human] body, consubstantial with the Father with regard to his Godhead, and consubstantial with us in regard to his humanity; “Made in all things like us,” sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the ages according to His Godhead; but “in these last days” “for us and for our salvation” born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to His humanity. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only- begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures that are united unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, and inseparably; and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one person and subsistence, not as separated or divided into two persons, but rather that there is one and the same Son and Only- Begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets of old have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers has delivered to us.

And so, insofar as we have expressed these things with the greatest accuracy and attention, the holy Ecumenical Synod defines that no one shall be permitted to bring forward a different faith, nor to write one, or to put one together, or to speculate on one, or to teach one to others. Whoever shall dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or teach or deliver a different creed to those who wish to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, either from among the pagans, or the Jews or any one of the heresies, if they be bishops or clerics let them be deposed; the bishops from the episcopate, and the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laity let them be anathematized.

After the reading of the definition, all the most religious bishops thereupon cried out: “This is the Faith of the Fathers!” ... “This is the faith of the Apostles!” “This is where we all stand.” “This is what we all profess.”

5 The Conciliar Decree and Anathemata of the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, 553: Against the Three Chapters

We learn from the parable in the Gospel, that our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ distributes talents to each person according to their ability, and at the appropriate time demands an account of the work that has been done by each. If he to whom only one talent was entrusted was condemned because he did not develop it, but only kept it safe; then how much greater and more horrible a judgment will that person be subject to, who not only is he negligent in his own affairs, but even lays down a stumbling-block and scandal in the way of others? Since it is obvious to all the faithful that whenever any question concerning the faith arises, not only that an irreverent man should be condemned, but so too anyone who has the power to make things right but will not exercise himself in that task. It is for this reason, then, that we who have had entrusted to us the office of ruling the Lord’s church, fearing the curse which hangs over those who negligently perform the Lord’s work, make haste to keep the good seed of faith pure from the weeds of wickedness which are being sown by the enemy.

When, therefore, we saw that the followers of Nestorius were attempting to introduce their wickedness into the church of God through the vile Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and through his wicked writings; and even through those same things which Theodoret wrote, and through the vile epistle which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian; then moved by all these sights we rose up for the correction of what was going on, and assembled in this royal city called here by the will of God and the command of the most religious Emperor.

It came to pass that the most reverent [Pope] Vigilius then resident in this royal city, was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three Chapters, and even though he had often condemned them verbally as well as in writing, nevertheless afterwards he also gave his agreement in writing to be present at the Synod, there to examine with us the Three Chapters, so that a suitable definition of the right faith might be set forth by us collectively. Moreover the most pious Emperor, according to what had seemed good between us, exhorted both him and ourselves to meet together, because it is only fitting that the priesthood should only impose a common faith after common discussion. On this account we petitioned his reverence to fulfil his written promises; for it was not right that the scandal with regard to these Three Chapters should go any further, or that the Church of God should be disturbed by it. Accordingly we brought to his remem­brance the great examples left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers. For although the grace of the Holy Spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles, to the extent that none of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work, even so they proved unwilling to make definitive statements on the question that had then been raised in relation to the circumcision of the Gentiles, until after having gathered together they had confirmed their own individual opinions by the testimony of the divine Scriptures. By this means they arrived unanimously at this conclusion, which they wrote to the Gentiles: “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things, that you should abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.”

But it is also common knowledge that the Holy Fathers too, who in previous times met in the four holy councils, following the example of the ancients, have by a common discussion, disposed of the heresies and new problems by a fixed decree, because when the matter in dispute was presented by each side, as a result of common discussion the light of truth expelled the darkness of falsehood. Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are disputations concerning the faith, since each one needs the help of their neighbor, as we read in the Proverbs of Solomon: “A brother helping his brother shall be exalted like a walled city; and he shall be as strong as a well- founded kingdom.” And again in Ecclesiastes it says: “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labor.” So also the Lord himself says: “Truly I say to you that if two of you shall agree upon earth about anything they need, they shall have it from my Father who is in heaven. For wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

Nevertheless, even when he had been often invited by us all, and when the most glorious judges had been sent to him by the most religious Emperor, Vigilius promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters. And when we heard this answer, we had the Apostle’s admonition in mind, that “Each one must give an account of himself to God” and we feared that judgment which hangs over those who scandalize even one of the least important, being aware also how much worse it must be to give offense to an Emperor who is so deeply Christian, and even to the people, and to all the churches. Moreover we called to mind what was said by God to Paul: “Do not be afraid, but speak out, and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one can harm you.” Therefore, we gathered together in synod, and before doing anything else we briefly confessed that we hold that faith which our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, delivered to his holy Apostles, and through them to the holy churches, the same which they, who after them were holy fathers and doctors, handed down to the people entrusted to them.

We confessed, therefore, that we hold, preserve, and declare to the holy churches that confession of faith which the 318 holy Fathers set forth more fully, those who were gathered together at Nicea, who handed down the holy creed. And we agree also with the 150 gathered together at Constantinople who set forth our faith, who followed that same confession of Nicea and explained it. And we follow the 200 holy Fathers gathered for the profession of the same faith in the first Council of Ephesus; as well as the same things that were defined by the 630 gathered at Chalcedon for the profession of the very same faith, which they themselves both followed and taught. As for those who from time to time have been condemned or anathematized by the catholic church, and by the aforesaid four councils, we confessed that we ourselves hold them condemned and anathematized. And after we had thus made our profession of faith we began the examination of the Three Chapters.

First we brought under review the matter of Theodore of Mopsuestia; and when all the blasphemies contained in his writings were made manifest, we wondered at the long- suffering of God, that the tongue and mind which had framed such blasphemies were not immediately consumed by the divine fire. And we never would have permitted the reader of the aforementioned blasphemies to go any further (since we were afraid of the anger of God hearing them read out on record, since each blasphemy surpassed its predecessor in the magnitude of its impiety and shook the minds of the hearer from their foundations) except for the fact that we understood that certain people who gloried in such wickedness required to be put to the confusion which would result from having these things brought to light.

So it was that all of us, moved with indignation by these blasphemies against God, both during and after their reading, broke forth into denunciations and anathematisms against Theodore, as if he had been living and present. “O Lord be merciful,” we cried, “For not even devils have dared to utter such things against you. O intolerable tongue! O the depravity of the man! O that high hand he lifted up against His Creator!” For the wretched man who had promised to know the Scriptures, had no recollection of the words of the Prophet Hosea: “Woe to them! For they have fled from me: they have become notorious because they were impious in regard to me, and spoke iniquities against me, and when they had thought them out, they spoke violent things against me. Therefore shall they fall in the snare by reason of the wickedness of their own tongues. Their contempt shall turn against themselves: because they have transgressed my cove­nant and have acted impiously against my laws.” To these curses the impious Theodore is justly subject. For he rejected the prophecies concerning Christ and hastened to destroy, insofar as he had the power to do it, the great mystery of the economy of our salvation. He attempted in many ways to show the divine words to be nothing but fables, for the amusement of the gentiles, and he spurned the other prophetic announcements made against the impious, especially that which the divine Habakkuk spoke about those who teach falsely, “Woe to that man who gives his neighbor strong drink, that gives the bottle to him to make him drunk so that he can look upon His nakedness,” a reference that signifies their doctrines full of darkness which are altogether foreign to the light.

And why do we need to add anything further? For anyone can take up the heretical writings of the impious Theodore or those chapters which we took from him to place in our synodical Acts, and find there the incredible foolishness and detestable things which he said. As for ourselves, we are afraid to proceed further with them, or to call to mind these infamies.

On that occasion we had read to us the things that had been written by the holy Fathers against him and his foolishness which exceeded that of all prior heretics, and in addition the Histories and the imperial laws that declared his impiety from early times. Even after all this there were some who defended his impiety, protecting the damaging things he uttered against his Creator, who said that it was not right to anathematize him after death. Even though we knew the ecclesiastical tradition concerning the impious, that even after death heretics should be anathematized, we nevertheless thought it only right that we should look into that question, and so it was that we found in the records how many different heretics had been anathematized after death. It was thus manifest to us in many ways that those who were advancing this position simply did not care for the judgment of God, or the Apostolic announcements, or the patristic tradition. So we would like to ask of them what they have to say in relation to the Lord’s saying about himself: “Whoever has believed in him, is not judged: but whoever does not believe is already judged, because he has refused to believe in the name of the Only Begotten Son of God,” or about that exclamation of the Apostle: “Even if we or an angel from heaven were to preach to you another gospel than the one we have preached to you, let it be anathema: As we have said, so now I say again – if anyone preach to you another gospel than the one you have received, let him be anathema.” For when the Lord says: “Such a person is judged already,” and when the Apostle is ready to anathematize even an angel if they should teach anything different from what we have preached, then how can even the most audacious persons presume to say that these words refer only to the living? Is it that they are ignorant? Or is it not rather the case that they are pretending ignoranignorance of the fact that the judgment of anathema is nothing else than that a declaration of alienation from God? For the heretic, although he may not have been verbally anathematized by anyone, nevertheless he is truly anathematized, because he has separated himself from the true life by his wickedness.

And what answer do they have to give when scripture says, “A man that is a heretic you should reject after the first and second corrections. And know that such a man is perverse, and sins, and is self-condemned.” In accordance with these words Cyril of blessed memory, in the books which he wrote against Theodore, said as follows: “They are to be avoided who are in the grasp of such awful crimes whether they be among the living or not. For it is necessary always to flee from whatever is harmful, and not to have respect of persons, but to consider instead what is pleasing to God.” And again the same Cyril of holy memory, writing to John, bishop of Antioch, and to the synod assembled in that city concerning Theodore who had been anathematized together with Nestorius, says this: “It was therefore necessary to keep a brilliant festival, since every voice which agreed with the blasphemies of Nestorius had been cast out no matter whose. For it proceeded against all those who held these same opinions or had at one time held them, which is exactly what we and your holiness have said: We anathematize those who say that there are two Sons and two Christs. For as we have repeatedly stated, Christ, the Son and Lord, whom we preach, as the wise St. Paul says, is One single reality even as he was begotten as man.” And also in his Letter to Alexander and Martinian and John and Paregorius and Maximus (presbyters and monastic fathers, and the solitaries attached to them), he says this: “The holy synod of Ephesus, gathered together according to the will of God against the Nestorian perfidy, condemned him with a just and keen sentence along with the empty words of those who might afterwards embrace (or whoever had in times past embraced) the same opinions as he had. The synod laid a condemnation of same severity against those who presumed to say or write any comparable thing. For it is logical that if a single person is condemned for such profane vacuity of speech, the sentence is not merely individual but generically applies to all similar heresies or calumnies, which that kind of person utters against the pious doctrines of the Christ: whoever worships two Sons, for example, or whoever divides the indivisible, or intro­duces the crime of man-worship into both heaven and earth. For along with us on earth the holy hosts of the heavenly spirits adore one single Lord Jesus Christ.” In addition to this, several letters of Augustine, of most religious memory, who shone forth resplendent among the African bishops, were read at the synod, showing that it was quite proper that heretics should be anathematized after death. And this ecclesiastical tradition, the other most reverend bishops of Africa have preserved: and the holy Roman Church itself has anathematized certain bishops after their death, even though they had not been accused of any falling from the faith during the course of their lives. In relation to each instance we hold the evidence in our hands.

But since the disciples of Theodore and his impiety, who are so manifestly enemies of the truth, have attempted to exegete certain passages of Cyril of holy memory and of Proclus, as though they had originally been written in favor of Theodore, it is the appropriate moment to apply to them the words of the prophet when he says: “The ways of the Lord are right and the righteous walk in accordance with them; but the wicked falter in them.” For these people have received what was once fittingly and rightly composed by the holy Fathers in a wicked manner, and have quoted them as if to make an excuse for their sins. The Fathers do not deliver Theodore from anathema, even if they seem to do so, but what they have done is economically to use certain expressions on account of those who once defended Nestorius and his impiety, so that they might draw them away from their error, and to lead them into perfection and teach them to reject not only Nestorius, the disciple of that impiety, but also Theodore who was His teacher. This is why in their economical teachings the Fathers show their intention on this same point, namely that Theodore should also be anathematized; a point that has been abundantly demonstrated by us in the synodical acts out of the writings of Cyril and Proclus of holy memory, in relation to the condemnation of Theodore and his wickedness. The same kind of economy is found in divine Scripture too: for it is evident that Paul the Apostle made use of it in the beginning of his ministry, in relation to those who had been brought up as Jews, for then he circumcised Timothy, so that by this economy and condescension he might lead such people on to perfection. But afterwards he strictly forbade circumcision, writing to the Galatians as follows: “Behold, I Paul say to you, that if you become circumcised Christ will be of no use to you at all.”

We found out that the supporters of Theodore had done that which heretics often do, namely cut up the writings of the holy Fathers so as to intrude and jumble up with them certain falsities of their own. This was how they tried, by citing a letter of Cyril of holy memory as though using a patristic testimony, to liberate the aforementioned impious Theodore from anathema. But the matter was revealed when the mutilated text was read in its original order, for the truth of the affair was then perfectly evident, and the lie was unmasked by the collation of the truth. In all these things, those who perpetrated such vanities trusted in falsehood, as the scripture says: “They trust in falsehood, and speak vanity; they conceive grief and bring forth iniquity, weaving a spider’s web.”

And so, after we had so passed judgment on Theodore and his impiety, we took care to have proclaimed and inserted in the synodical acts a few of those propositions which had been scandalously written by Theodoret against the Orthodox faith and against the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril and against the first council of Ephesus. We included also certain things written by him in defence of the heretics Theodore and Nestorius, for the peace of mind of the reader; so that all might know that these men had been justly cast out and anathematized. In the third place the Letter which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, was brought up for examination, and we found that this too deserved a public hearing. When it was read out, its impiety was immediately manifest to all. And so it was right to formalize a condemnation and anathematization of these “Three Chapters” that we have been speaking about, since even to the present time there has been some question on the subject. Because the defenders of the impious Theodore and Nestorius continued scheming in various ways to rehabilitate these persons and their heresy, and were arguing that this impious letter of Ibas, which praised and defended Theodore and Nestorius and their false teaching, had been received by the holy Council of Chalcedon, we thought it necessary to show that the holy synod was altogether free of the impiety which was contained in that letter. We wanted it to be clear that those who claimed the contrary did not do so with any approval from this holy council, but on the contrary only confirmed their own wickedness under the title of this script. And it was also shown in the synodical acts that in former times Ibas had been accused because of the very impiety which was contained in this same letter; namely first of all by Proclus, of holy memory, the bishop of Constantinople, and then afterwards by Theodosius, of pious memory, and by Flavian, who was ordained bishop in succession to Proclus, who delegated the examination of the matter to Photius, the bishop of Tyre, and to Eustathius, bishop of the city of Beirut. After this the same Ibas, who had been found guilty, was deposed from his see. These are the facts of the case, so how can anyone dare to say that this impious letter was received by the holy council of Chalcedon and that the holy council of Chalcedon entirely agreed with it? Nevertheless, so that these calumniators of the holy council of Chalcedon may have no further opportunity afforded them, we ordered the decisions of the holy synods to be publicly proclaimed, namely Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon, especially the Epistles of Cyril of blessed memory and those of Leo, of pious memory, former Pope of Old Rome. And since we learned from these sources that nothing written by anyone else ought to be received unless it had been proven to agree with the Orthodox faith of the holy Fathers, we then interrupted our proceedings so as to recite also that definition of the faith which was proclaimed by the holy council of Chalcedon, in order that we might compare the things in Ibas’ Epistle with this decree. As soon as we had done this, it was perfectly clear that the contents of the epistle were entirely contradictory to those of the definition. For the definition was in harmony with the single unchanging faith set out also by the 318 holy Fathers (of Nicea) and also by the 150 (of Constantinople I) and by those who assembled at the first synod at Ephesus (431). But that impious letter, on the other hand, was full of the blasphemies of the heretics Theodore and Nestorius, and defended them, calling them doctors, while at the same time calling the holy Fathers heretics.

We made all of these things manifest to all, and stated that we had no intention of superseding the Fathers of the first and second synods, which the followers of Theodore and Nestorius had cited as supporting their position. But once we had read them along with the other synods, and had examined their contents, we adjudicated that the aforesaid Ibas should not be permitted to be received unless he anathematized Nestorius and his impious teachings, which were actually defended in that epistle. All the reverent bishops agreed to this, as they did in relation to those other two writings (of Theodore and Theodoret) which some had been trying to apply. In the case of Theodoret, the bishops responded by requiring the anathematization of all those things of which he stood accused. Since they were willing to accept Ibas as long as the impiety contained in his letter was renounced, and as long as he concurred with the definition of faith adopted by the council, how can his supporters now try to make out that this impious letter was received by the same holy council (of Chalcedon)? For as we have been taught: “What fellowship is there between righteousness and unrighteousness? And what com­munion does light have with darkness? And what concord does Christ have with Belial? Or what relation does a believer have with a non-believer? And what agreement does the temple of God have with idols?”

And so, having so set out in detail all our proceedings, let us state again that we confess that we receive the four holy Synods, that is, the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon, and we have taught, and continue to teach all the things that they defined in relation to the one faith. As for those who do not receive these things, we account them to be alienated from the catholic Church. In addition, we condemn and anathematize, together with all the other heretics who have been condemned and anathematized by the same four holy Synods, and by the holy catholic and apostolic church, Theodore the former bishop of Mopsuestia, along with all his impious writings. We do the same in regard to those things which Theodoret impiously wrote against the Orthodox faith, and against the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril, and against the first Synod of Ephesus, and also those things which he wrote in defense of Theodore and Nestorius. In addition to these texts we also anathematize the impious Epistle which Ibas is said to have written to Maris, the Persian, which denies that God the Word was incarnate of the holy Mother of God, and Ever-Virgin Mary, and which accuses Cyril of holy memory (who taught the truth) of being heretic; charging him as holding the same sentiments as Apollinaris, and blaming the first synod of Ephesus for deposing Nestorius without examination or enquiry, and calling the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril heretical, and contrary to the Orthodox faith, all the while defending Theodore and Nestorius, along with their impious dogmas and writings. For this reason, therefore, we anathematize the Three Chapters we have been speaking of; namely, the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, with his execrable writings; the things which Theodoret impiously wrote; and the impious Letter which is said to be from the hand of Ibas. And with this we also include all their defenders, and those who have written or continue still to write in defense of them, and those who dare to say that these men are correct, and those who have defended or still attempt to defend their impiety by appending to it the names of the holy Fathers, or that of the holy Council of Chalcedon.

We have thus settled all these matters with the fullest exactitude. We bear in mind the promises made respecting the holy church, and who it was that said that “The gates of hell shall never prevail against her” (meaning the deadly tongues of heretics) and we also remember what was said in prophecy about the church by Hosea: “I will betroth you to myself in faithfulness, and you shall know the Lord.” And so we number along with the devil, that father of lies, the unbridled tongues and texts of heretics who persevered in their wickedness even to death, and we apply that scripture to them: “Behold, you have all kindled a fire, and have caused the flame of the fire to grow strong. So you shall walk in the light of your fire, and in the flame which you have kindled.” As for our part, we have received the commandment to encourage the faithful with Orthodox doctrine, and to speak to the heart of Jerusalem, that is, the church of God, that it should “Act rightly, make haste to sow in righteousness, and reap the fruit of life.”

Kindling for ourselves the light of knowledge from the holy Scriptures, and the doctrine of the Fathers, finally we have considered it necessary to sum up in selected chapters of our own this matter of the declaration of truth as well as the condemnation of the heretics and their wickedness.

The Chapters of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II, 553

1. If anyone will not confess that the nature or essence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one, as also is their force and power; [and if anyone will not confess] the consub- stantial Trinity, one Godhead to be worshipped in three subsistences or Persons: Let him be anathema. For there is only one God: even the Father from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit in whom are all things.

2. If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one timeless and bodiless, from all eternity from the Father; the other in these last days, when he came down from heaven and was made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and Ever-Virgin, and was born of her: Let him be anathema.

3. If anyone should say that the wonder-working Word of God is one [person] and the Christ that suffered is another; or should say that God the Word was with the woman-born Christ, or was in him as one person [dwelling] in another, instead of affirming that he was one and the same, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate and made man; or if anyone should say that his miracles and the sufferings which he voluntarily endured in the flesh were not of the same [person]: Let him be anathema.

4. If anyone should say that the union of the Word of God with man was only a matter of grace, or energy, or dignity, or equality of honor, or authority, or relation, or effect, or power, or according to God’s favor (in the sense that God the Word was pleased with a man, or that he loved him for his own sake, as the senseless Theodore said); or [if anyone should say that the union is] merely a similarity of title as the Nestorians understand it, who call even the Word of God Jesus and Christ, and honorifically ascribe to “the man” the names of Christ and Son, but all the time are evidently referring to two persons, and being disingenuous about the fact that they are only really ascribing the glory, dignity, and worship, to one of those persons, and one of those Christs; Or if anyone will not acknowledge in accordance with the teaching of the holy Fathers, that the union of God the Word is made with flesh animated by a reasonable and living soul, and that such union is made synthetically and hypostatically, and that therefore there is only one person, and that person our Lord Jesus Christ, who is one of the Holy Trinity: then let him be anathema.

Now, as a matter of fact the word union [Henosis] has many possible meanings, and the partisans of Apollinaris and Eutyches have affirmed that these natures are confounded with one another, and have asserted a union produced by the mixture of both. On the other hand the followers of Theodore and Nestorius have delighted in the separation of the natures, and have taught only a union of relationship. Meanwhile the holy church of God, condemns equally the wickedness of both sorts of heresies, recognizing the union of God the Word with the flesh synthetically, that is to say, hypostatically. For in the mystery of Christ the synthetical union not only preserves those natures which are united in an unconfused manner, but also allows for no separation between them.

5. If anyone understands the expression “One single Person of our Lord Jesus Christ” in the following sense: that it signifies the union of several hypostases, or if such a person attempts in this way to introduce into the mystery of Christ two hypostases, or two persons, and, after having effectively introduced two persons, speaks of one person only as a matter of dignity, honor or worship (a thing which both Theodore and Nestorius have foolishly written); Or if anyone should calumniate the holy Council of Chalcedon, and pretend that it employed the term [one hypostasis] in this heretical sense; Or if anyone will not recognize that the Word of God is united with the flesh hypostatically, and this is the reason why there is only one hypostasis and only one person, and this is exactly how the holy Council of Chalcedon professed the single person of our Lord Jesus Christ: then let him be anathema.

For since one of the Holy Trinity, God the Word himself, has been made man, the Holy Trinity has by no means been increased by the addition of another person or hypostasis.

6. If anyone will not affirm the holy, glorious, and Ever-Virgin Mary, to be truly the Mother of God in the exact sense of those words, but only in a false or a relative sense, believing that she bore only a simple man and that God the Word was not made incarnate of her, but rather that the Incarnation of God the Word resulted solely from the fact that he united himself to a human being who was born from her; Or if anyone shall calumniate the holy synod of Chalcedon as though it had affirmed the Virgin to be Mother of God [Theotokos] in the heretical sense Theodore meant it; Or if anyone should call her the “Mother of a man” [Anthropotokos] or the “Mother of Christ” [Christotokos], as if Christ were not himself God; Or if anyone will not confess that she is exactly and truly the Mother of God, since God the Word (who before all the ages was begotten of the Father) was in these last days made flesh and born of her; Or if anyone will not confess that it was exactly in this sense that the holy Synod of Chalcedon professed her to be the Mother of God: then let him be anathema.

7. If anyone using the expression “In two natures” does not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the divinity and in the humanity, so as to designate by that expression a difference of natures out of which an ineffable union is unconfusedly made; a union in which the nature of the Word was not changed into that of the flesh, nor the nature of the flesh changed into that of the Word, for each remained what it was by nature, and the union was a hypostatic one; Or if anyone shall take the expression [union] in relation to the Christ mystery in a sense that separates the parties, or while recognizing the two natures in the One Lord Jesus, God the Word made man, such a person does not rest content with taking in a theoretical manner the differentiation of the natures which compose him (a difference which is not destroyed by the union between them, for one is composed of the two and the two are in one), but rather makes use of the number [two] to effect a division between the natures or to make of them discretely separate persons: then let him be anathema.

8. If anyone should use the expression “Out of two natures” to confess that a union was made of the Godhead and of the Humanity, or should use the expression “The One Enfleshed Nature of God the Word,” and will not understand those expressions in the way the holy Fathers have taught, to the effect that a hypostatic union was made between the divine and human natures, from which is the single Christ; but rather attempts to introduce from these expressions the concept of one nature or substance derived from the Godhead and manhood of Christ; then let him be anathema.

For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was hypostatically united [to humanity] we do not mean to profess that a mutual confusion of natures occurred, but we understand, rather, that while each nature remained what it was, the Word was united to the flesh. And this is why there is one Christ, who is both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as regards his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as regards his manhood. And so whoever it is that divides or separates the mystery of the divine Economy of Christ, or whoever introduces confusion into that mystery, they are equally condemned and anathematized by the church of God.

9. If anyone shall take the expression “Christ ought to be worshipped in his two natures” in the sense that they wished to introduce two adorations; one in particular reference to God the Word and the other in relation to the man; Or if anyone wanting to get rid of the flesh, or to mix up together the divinity and the humanity, should speak outrageously about one single nature or essence [physis and ousia] of the united natures, and worships Christ in this way, instead of venerating God the Word made man, together with his flesh, with a single adoration, just as the holy church has taught from the beginning: then let him be anathema.

10. If anyone will not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in the flesh is true God, and the Lord of Glory, and one of the Holy Trinity: then let him be anathema.

11. If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all the other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy catholic and apostolic Church, and by the aforementioned four holy synods; Or if anyone does not anathematize all those who have held, and still hold, and even now persist in their impiety so as to adhere to the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.

12. If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who has said that the Word of God is one person, but that Christ is another person, troubled by the sufferings of the soul and the desires of the flesh, and separated only a small degree above our inferior condition, who improves by his advancement in good works and becomes irreproachable in his manner of life, and as a mere man was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and so obtained by this baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit, and became worthy of Sonship, and worthy to be worshipped by reference to the person of God the Word (just as one worships the image of an emperor) and that he became, after the resurrection, unchangeable in his thoughts and altogether sinless; moreover, that same impious Theodore who also said that the union of God the Word with Christ is like to that which the Apostle said to exist between a man and his wife, “The two shall be in one flesh”; for the same [Theodore] has dared, among numerous other blasphemies, to say that when after the resurrection the Lord breathed upon his disciples, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” he did not really give them the Holy Spirit, but breathed on them only as a sign; he likewise has said that the profession of faith made by Thomas when after the resurrection he touched the hands and the side of the Lord, namely “My Lord and my God,” was not said in reference to Christ, but that Thomas, filled with wonder at the miracle of the resurrection, was thereby addressing thanks to the God who had raised up Christ; and moreover (which is still more scandalous) this same Theodore in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles compares Christ to Plato, Mani, Epicurus and Marcion, and says that like each of these men, once having discovered his doctrine, had given the name Christians to his disciples; If, therefore, anyone shall defend this most impious Theodore and his impious writings, in which he vomits the blasphemies mentioned above, and countless others besides against our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ, and if anyone does not anathematize him or his impious writings, as well as all those who protect or defend him, or who assert that his exegesis is orthodox, or who write in favor ofhim and ofhis impious works, or those who share the same opinions, or those who have shared them and still continue unto the end in this heresy: let him be anathema.

13. If anyone shall defend the impious writings of Theodoret, directed against the true faith and against the first holy synod of Ephesus and against St. Cyril and his Twelve Anathemas, and [defends] that which he has written in defense of the impious Theodore and Nestorius, and of others having the same opinions as the aforesaid Theodore and Nestorius; if anyone admits them or their impiety, or shall give the name of heretic to the doctors of the Church who profess the hypostatic union of God the Word; and if anyone does not anathematize these impious writings and those who have held or who hold these sentiments, and all those who have written contrary to the true faith or against St. Cyril and his Twelve Chapters, and who die in their impiety: let him be anathema.

14. If anyone shall defend that letter which Ibas is said to have written to Maris the Persian, in which he denies that the Word of God incarnate of Mary, the Holy Mother of God and Ever- Virgin, was made man, but says that a mere man was born of her, whom he styles a Temple, as though the Word of God was one person and the man another person; in which letter also he accuses St. Cyril of being a heretic, when in fact he teaches the right faith of the Christians, and there charges him with writing things like the wicked Apollinaris; in addition to this he vituperates the first holy council of Ephesus, asserting that it deposed Nestorius indiscrimi­nately and without examination. The aforesaid impious epistle styles the Twelve Chapters of Cyril of blessed memory, impious and contrary to the right faith and defends Theodore and Nestorius and their impious teachings and writings; And so, if anyone shall defend that epistle [of Ibas] and shall not anathematize it and those who defend it and say that it is right or that a part of it is right, or if anyone shall defend those who have written or shall write in its favor, or in defense of the impieties which are contained in it, as well as those who shall presume to defend it or the impieties which it contains, in the name of the Holy Fathers or of the Holy Synod of Chalcedon, and shall insist on supporting these offenses: let him be anathema.

6 The Statement of the Sixth Ecumenical Council,

Constantinople III, 681

The Definition of Faith

The holy, great, and ecumenical synod which has been assembled by the grace of God, through the Sacra of the most religious, faithful, and mighty Sovereign Constantine, in this God-protected and royal city of Constantinople, the New Rome, in the Hall of the imperial Palace, named the Troullos (Great Domed Hall), has decreed as follows:

The only-begotten Son, and Word of God the Father, who was made man, who was in all things like us though without sin, Christ our true God, has expressly declared in the words of the Gospel, “I am the light of the world; whoever follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” And again: “My peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you.” Our most gentle Emperor, the champion of Orthodoxy, and opponent of evil doctrines, being reverentially led by this doctrine of peace spoken by our God, and thus having convened this present holy and ecumenical assembly, has assembled together the judgment of the entire Church. For this reason, our holy and ecumenical synod has driven away the impious error which had prevailed for a certain time until the present, and has kept strictly to the path of the holy and approved Fathers, and has thus reverently given its full assent to the five holy and ecumenical Synods (that is to say, the 318 holy Fathers who assembled in Nicea against the raging Arius; and the next in Constantinople of the 150 God-inspired ones who withstood Macedonius the Spirit- Fighter, and the impious Apollinaris; and also the first Synod in Ephesus of the 200 venerable ones convened against Nestorius the Judaizer; and that of Chalcedon of the 630 God-inspired fathers convened against Eutyches and Dioscorus the enemies of God. And in addition to these, to the most recent one, that is the Fifth holy synod assembled in this city, against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret aimed against the Twelve Chapters of the celebrated Cyril, and the Epistle which was said to be written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, a synod that set out to universally renew the ancient decrees of religion, and chase away the impious doctrines of irreligion. And this our own holy and ecumenical God-inspired synod has set its seal to the Creed which was put forth by the 318 Fathers, and later reverently confirmed by the 150, which the other holy synods also cordially received and ratified for the abolition of every soul-destroying heresy.

[There follow the Nicene and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creeds]

Furthermore, the holy and ecumenical synod confesses that this reverent and orthodox creed of the divine grace ought to have been sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the Orthodox faith. But the author of evil (the same who, in the beginning, used the serpent to bring the poison of death upon the human race), has never ceased his labors, and even in this age has found suitable instruments for working out his will: by this we mean Theodore, who was bishop ofPharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops ofthis royal city, and in addition Honorius who was Pope ofOld Rome, Cyrus bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple. The evil one has actively employed all of them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of “one will” and “one operation” in the two natures of Christ our true God, who is one of the Holy Trinity. In this way he has disseminated among the orthodox the novelties of a heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius. He has endeavored craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously arguing that his flesh which was endowed with a rational soul was devoid of will or operation. For this reason Christ our God raised up our faithful Emperor, as a New David, having found him a man after his own heart, who as it is written, “Has not suffered his eyes to sleep nor his eyelids to slumber,” until he has found a perfect declaration of Orthodoxy from this our God-assembled and holy synod. As it is said in the words of our God: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

So it is that the present holy and ecumenical synod also faithfully receives and salutes with uplifted hands the suggestion sent to our most pious and faithful Emperor Constantine by the most holy and blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, which named and rejected those who taught or preached one will and one operation in the economy of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God. And it has similarly adopted the other synodical suggestion which was sent by the Council held under the presidency of the same most holy Pope, composed of 125 God-beloved Bishops, addressed to his God-instructed Serene Majesty, as being fully in harmony with the holy Council of Chalcedon and with the Tome of the most holy and blessed Leo, Pope of Old Rome, which was originally addressed to St. Flavian, which this Council, in its turn, designated as a “Pillar of Orthodox Faith”; for it also agrees with the Synodical Letters written by blessed Cyril against the impious Nestorius and addressed to the Oriental Bishops.

So it is that, following the five holy Ecumenical Councils and the holy and approved Fathers, with one voice we define that our Lord Jesus Christ must be confessed as true God and true man, one of the holy and consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, perfect in deity and perfect in humanity, true God and true man, subsisting of a reasonable soul and human body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity and consub- stantial with us as regards his humanity; in all things like to us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before all ages according to his divinity, but who in these last days for us men and for our salvation was made man of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, who is strictly and properly the Mother of God according to the flesh. We confess one and the same Christ, our Lord, the only-begotten Son, recognized unconfusedly, unchangeably, inseparably and indivisibly in two natures, the peculiarities of each nature not being lost by the union but rather the proprieties of each one being preserved, concurring in one person and in one subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Only-Begotten Son of God, the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ; just as the prophets of old have taught us and as our Lord Jesus Christ himself has instructed us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. In defining all this, we likewise declare that in him there are, indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, and unconfusedly, two natural wills and two natural operations according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And these two natural wills are not contrary to one another (God forbid!) as the wicked heretics assert; because his human will follows after his divine and omnipotent will, never as a resisting and reluctant entity, but rather in true submission. For it was fitting that the flesh should only be moved in subjection to the divine will, as the most wise Athanasius taught. For as his flesh is called, and indeed is, the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called, and is, the proper will of God the Word. It is, as he himself says: “I came down from heaven, not that I might do my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me!” And here he calls his own will, the will of his flesh, insofar as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified, but rather continued in its own state and nature, so also his human will, even though it was deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory the Theologian: “His will is not contrary to God but is altogether deified.”

And so, we glorify two natural operations existing indivisibly, immutably, unconfusedly, and inseparably in the same Lord Jesus Christ our true God; that is to say a divine operation and a human operation, according to the divine preacher Leo, who most distinctly asserts as follows: “For each form does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it; the Word, that is, doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh.” And so we refuse to admit one natural operation in God and in the creature, because we will not exalt into the divine essence that which is created; nor will we bring down the glory of the divine nature to that place suited to a creature. We recognize the miracles and the sufferings as belonging to one and the same [person], but as appropriate to one or the other nature out of which he is, and in which he subsists, as Cyril admirably puts it.

And so, preserving the unconfusedness and indivisibility, we briefly make this whole confession, believing our Lord Jesus Christ to be one of the Trinity and our true God. After the incarnation we say that his two natures shone forth in his single subsistence in which he both performed the miracles and endured the sufferings through the whole of his economic engagement, and he did not do this in appearance only but in true actuality, because of the difference of nature which must be recognized in the same person, for although they are joined together even so each nature wills and does the things that are proper to it, acting together indivisibly and unconfusedly. This is why we confess that there are two wills and two operations which very appropriately concur in him for the salvation of the human race.

Since we have formulated these things with all diligence and care, we define that it shall never be permissible for anyone henceforth to bring forward, or to write, or compose, or think, or teach, a different faith. Whoever shall presume to compose or propose a different faith, or to teach a different creed or hand one over to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, whether from the Gentiles or the Jews, or from any heresy; or whoever tries to introduce a new discourse or speech designed to subvert these matters which now have been determined by us: whoever they are, if they are bishops or clerics let them be deposed; the bishops from the episcopate, the clerics from the ranks of clergy; but if they are monks or laity: let them be anathematized.

7 Statement of Faith of the Seventh Ecumenical Council,

Nicea II, 787

The holy, great, and ecumenical Synod which by the grace of God and the will of the pious and Christ-loving Emperors, Constantine and Irene, his mother, was gathered together for the second time at Nicea, the illustrious metropolis of Bithynia, in the holy church of God which is named Sophia, having followed the traditions of the catholic church, has defined the following:

Christ our Lord, who has granted to us the light of his knowledge, and has redeemed us from the darkness of mad idolatry, has espoused to himself the holy catholic church without spot or defect, and promised that he would always preserve her. And he gave his word to this effect to his holy disciples when he said: “Behold! I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” This promise he made, not only to them, but to us also who afterwards should believe in his name through their word. But there are some who did not consider this gift, who became fickle through the temptations of the crafty enemy, and who thus fell away from the Orthodox faith. Withdrawing from the traditions of the catholic church, they wandered from the truth. As the Book of Proverbs put it: “The husbandmen have gone astray in their own husbandry and have gathered emptiness in their hands.” Indeed, certain priests, who were priests in name only (but not so in truth) dared to speak out against the God-approved ornament of the sacred monuments. It was about these that God cried aloud through the prophet, saying: “Many shepherds have corrupted my vineyard, and have polluted my portion.” And, in truth, following the lead of profane men, and led astray by their carnal sensibilities, they calumniated the church of Christ our God, which he has espoused to himself. They failed, accordingly, to distinguish between what is holy and what is profane, describing the icons of our Lord and of his saints with the same designation as the statues of diabolical idols. Seeing these things, our Lord and God, who is never willing to stand by while his people are corrupted by such manner of plague, was pleased to call his chief priests together from every quarter. We are thus moved with a divine zeal and brought here by the will of our princes, Constantine and Irene, so that the traditions of the catholic church may receive stability from our common decree.

And so, with all diligence, after having made a thorough examinatexamination and analysis, and following the path of the truth, we have diminished nothing; we have added nothing. On the contrary we have preserved unchanged everything pertaining to the catholic church. Following the six ecumenical synods, especially that which met in this illustrious metropolis of Nicea, and also that which was afterwards gathered together in the God-protected Royal City we declare our belief:

[There follows the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed]

We detest and anathematize Arius and all the sharers of his absurd opinion; also Macedonius and those who following him are well styled “Fighters against the Spirit” [Pneumatomachi]. We confess that our Lady, the holy Mary, is properly and truly the Mother of God, because she was the Mother after the flesh of one of the persons of the

Holy Trinity, namely, Christ our God, just as the council of Ephesus had already defined when it cast out of the church the heretic Nestorius with his colleagues, because he taught that there were two persons [in Christ].

Along with the Fathers of that synod we confess that he who was incarnate of the immaculate Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary has two natures, recognizing him as perfect God and perfect man, as also the Council of Chalcedon declared when it expelled Eutyches and Dioscorus from the divine atrium for their blasphemy and placed Severus, Peter and a number of others who had blasphemed in different forms, in that same category of sacrilege. Moreover, along with these we anathematize the fables of Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus, in harmony with the decisions of the Fifth Council held at Constantinople. We affirm that in Christ there are two wills and two operations according to the reality of each nature, as also the Sixth Synod, held at Constantinople, taught, casting out Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, and those who agreed with them, and all those who were unwilling to be reverent.

To make our confession short, we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, whether in writing or verbally, all of which are interconnected and related; and one of which is the making of pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of the preaching of the Gospel. For this is a tradition useful in many respects, but especially in this regard that the incarnation of the Word of God may thus be depicted as real and not merely imaginary.

And so, we follow the royal highway and the divinely inspired authority of our holy Fathers and the traditions of the catholic church (because, as we all know, the Holy Spirit dwells within her). And we define with all certitude and all accuracy that just as the symbol of the precious and life-giving Cross should be set up in the holy churches of God, and placed on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings, and in pictures both in private houses and by the wayside, so also should the venerable and holy icons be set up, both in painted form and in mosaic, and any other appropriate materials. This includes the figures of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, our Immaculate Lady, the Mother of God, the honorable Angels, and all the Saints and holy ones. For the more often they can be seen in artistic representation, so much more readily will believers be lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them. Due salutation and honorable reverence [aspasmon kai timetiken proskynesin] should be given to the icons, which is assuredly not that true adoration [latreian] which pertains only to the divine nature. Even so, incense and lights can be offered before the icons, in accordance with ancient and reverent custom, just as we do before the symbol of the precious and life-giving Cross, and also to the Book of the Gospels and to other holy things. This is because the honor which is paid to the icon passes on to that which the icon represents. So it is that whoever venerates the icon venerates within it, the subject that is represented. For this is the teaching of our holy Fathers, and this is the tradition of the catholic church, which from one end of the earth to the other has received the Gospel, and is established.

So it is that we follow Paul, who spoke in Christ, and the whole divine apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast to the traditions which we have received.

So we sing prophetically the triumphal hymns of the Church, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Rejoice and be glad with all your heart. For the Lord has taken away from you the oppression of your enemies. You are redeemed from the hand of your enemies. The Lord is a King in your midst. No longer shall you look upon evil things, and peace will be yours forever.”

Accordingly, those who dare to think or teach otherwise; Or those who like wicked heretics spurn the traditions of the church in order to invent novelties, or else to reject some of the customs which the church has received, such as the veneration of the book of the Gospels, or the image of the cross, or the pictorial icons, or the holy relics of a martyr; Or those who wickedly and caustically devise anything subversive of the lawful traditions of the catholic church; Or those who turn to common use the sacred vessels or the venerable monastic houses; if they are bishops or clergy, we command that they be deposed; if monastics or laity, let them be anathema.

8 The Five Theological Orations of St. Gregory of Nazianzus (the Theologian)

On the Holy Trinity, Orations 27–31

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 27: The First Theological Oration A Preliminary Discourse Against the Eunomians

Orat. 27.1. I am about to speak against those who pride themselves on their eloquence; so, to begin with a text of Scripture, “Behold, I resist you who are so proud,” and this applies not only with regard to their system of teaching, but also to their way of listening and to their mentality. For there are certain persons whose ears and tongues are itching for our words and, as I can now see for myself, for some here present even their fists are itching too. They take delight in profane babblings, and the puzzles of what is wrongly called knowledge or else in word clashes, all of which tend to be profitless; for was it not Paul, the preacher and establisher of the “Abbreviated Word,” that disciple and teacher of the Fishermen, who said this about all that is excessive or superfluous in discourse? But as to those to whom we refer, I wish that they, whose tongue is so voluble and so clever in applying itself to noble and approved language, would equally pay some attention to deeds. For then perhaps in a little while they would become less sophistical, and less absurd as bizarre word-jugglers, if I may be allowed to use a ridiculous expression about a ridiculous subject.

27.2. However, since they neglect all the paths of righteousness, and look only to this one point, namely, which of the propositions submitted to them shall they bind or loose, like professional wrestlers in the theatres – you know, not that kind of wrestling match in which the victory is won according to the rules of the sport, but rather the sort that is set up to deceive the eyes of an ignorant audience and to catch applause. Every market place, therefore must buzz with their talking; and every dinner party has to be worried to death with silly chat and boredom; and every festival must be made unfestive and full of dejection, and every occasion of mourning needs to be consoled by an even greater calamity, namely their syllogisms. Every women’s quarters, formerly accustomed to simplicity, is now thrown into confusion and robbed of its flower of modesty by the torrent of their words. Well, I might tell you, this is an intolerable evil and an insufferable state of affairs. Our Great Mystery is in danger of being made a thing of small account. Well then, let these spies bear with us, moved as we are with fatherly compassion, and as holy Jeremiah says, “torn in our hearts.” Let them bear with us so far as not to give too savage a reception to our oration upon this subject; and let them (if indeed they are able to), restrain their tongues for a short while and lend us their ears. But whatever the case may be, you shall suffer no loss tonight. For either we shall have spoken in the ears of those ready to hear, and our words will bear some fruit, namely offer an advantage to you (since the sower sows a good word into every kind of mind; and those which are good and fertile will bear fruit), or else you will leave us, scorning this discourse of ours as you have scorned that of others, and may draw from it further material for contra­diction and mockery of our party, upon which you can feast yourselves even more. And do not be astonished if I speak a language which is strange to you and contrary to your custom, you who profess to know everything and to teach everything in too impetuous and prolix a manner (for I will spare your feelings and not say that it is an ignorant and rash style).

27.3. My friends, it does not pertain to everyone to philosophize about God; no, certainly not to everyone. The subject is not so cheap and low; and I might add, nor is it a suitable topic to lay before every audience, nor at any time, nor in relation to all aspects of the theme; for it should be done only on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits.

I say not to everyone, because such discourse is permitted only to those who have been proven, and are validated masters in meditation, and who have been previously purified in soul and body, or at the very least are in the state of being purified. For the impure to touch the pure is, we may safely say, not safe at all, just as it is unsafe to fix weak eyes upon the sun’s rays. And what is the permitted occasion? It is when we are free from all external defilement or disturbance, and when that power which rules within us is not confused with vexatious or erring images; like persons mixing up good writing with bad, or filth with the sweet odors of perfumes. For in order to know God it is necessary to be truly at rest; and then when we can find the appropriate time, to see where lies the royal highway of divine matters. And who are the permitted persons? Those to whom the subject is of real concern, and not those who make it a matter of pleasant gossip, like any other topic, a chitchat for after the races, or the theatre, or a concert, or a dinner party, not to mention still lower occupations. To such men as these, idle jests and pretty contradictions about high subjects are a part of their amusement.

27.4. Next, on what subjects and to what extent may we philosophize? On matters within our reach, and to such an extent as the mental power and grasp of our audience may extend. Go no further, because just as excessively loud sounds can injure the hearing, or excess of food can damage the body, or (if you like) as excessive burdens beyond our strength can injure those who bear them, or excessive rains can damage the earth; so too, they run the risk of being pressed down and overburdened by the stiffness (if I may use this expression) of the arguments and can even lose what strength they once started out with.

27.5. Now, I am not saying that it is not important to remember God at all times. I must not be misunderstood on that score, or I shall be having these nimble and quick people down upon me again. For we ought to think of God even more often than we draw our breath; and if the expression is permissible, we ought to do nothing else. Yes, I am one of those who entirely approve that text which bids us meditate day and night, to pray “evening, morning and noontide,” and so praise the Lord at all times; or, to use Moses’ words, “when we lie down, or rise up, or walk by the wayside,” or whatever else we are doing; and by this recollection we shall be molded in purity. So it is not the continual remembrance of God that I would hinder, but only a continuous talking about God. Not that even this in itself is wrong, but only when it is unseasonable talk; not that all teaching is wrong, but only that which lacks moderation. Even in regard to sweet honey, too much and too often can make us sick. As Solomon says (and I agree), “there is a season for every thing,” and that which is good ceases to be good if it is not done in a good way; just as a flower is quite out of season in winter, and just as man’s clothing does not look right on a woman, or vice versa. Just as uproarious laughter would be seriously out of place at a funeral, or bitter tears shed at a party. Shall we in this case of theology alone disregard the issue of the proper time, a matter in which most of all, the issue of due season should be respected? Surely not, my friends and brethren (for I will still call you my brethren, even though you do not behave like brothers). Let us not think that, and let us not try, like hot tempered and hard mouthed horses, to throw off our rider who is Reason, or buck Reverence, which keeps us within due limits, or run far away from the Hippodrome’s turning post; but rather let us philosophize within our proper bounds, and not be carried away into Egypt, or be swept down into Assyria, and let us not “sing the Lord’s song in a strange land,” by which I mean in front of any kind of audience, strangers or kindred, hostile or friendly, kindly or the opposite, who watch what we do with too obsessive a care, and would like the spark of whatever is wrong in us to burst into flame, and who secretly desire to kindle and fan it so as to raise the blaze to heaven with their breath and make it higher than that Babylonian flame which burned up everything around it. For since their strength hardly lies in their own [pagan] dogmas, they have to hunt for contradictions in our weak points. And therefore they apply themselves to our (shall I say “misfortunes” or “failings”) like flies to wounds. But at least let us determine to be no longer ignorant of what we do, or pay too little attention to the concept of due order in these matters. And if it is not possible to put an end to the existing hostility, let us at least agree upon this point: that we will utter Mysteries under our breath, and speak of holy things in a holy manner, and that we will not cast before profane ears that which ought not be uttered, or give evidence that we possess less gravity than those who worship the demons, and attach themselves to shameful fables and deeds. For the pagans would sooner give their blood to the uninitiated than their secret words. But let us recognize that, just as is the case in relation to dress and diet and laughter and demeanor, where there is a certain decorum that applies, so there is also in relation to speech and silence. Indeed, among so many titles and powers of God, we pay the highest honor to “The Word.” For this reason let even our disputations be kept within bounds.

27.6. But why should someone who is a hostile listener to such words as these be allowed to hear about the generation of God, or his creation, or how God was made out of things which had no existence, or of terms like section, analysis and division in the Godhead? Why should we make our accusers into our judges? Why should we put swords into the hands of our enemies? How do you think the arguments about such subjects would be received by the likes of those who think there is nothing wrong with adulterers or paedophiles, the likes of those who worship their passions and can conceive of nothing more lofty than their bodily desires? Types who until very recently were still setting up idols in their houses, and worshipping gods who were also famous for their filthy deeds. Would such people not hear and understand us solely from a material standpoint, in a shameful and ignorant way, and only in the sense to which they are familiar with such terms? Would such a person not make our theology a defense for the conduct of his own gods and his own passions? For if we Christians misuse these terms in a reckless way it will be a long time before we shall be able to persuade them to accept our philosophy. And if our hearers are the type who like to invent evil things, surely they would jump at the chance to grasp at the opportunity? This is what is likely to happen when we engage in a contest. This is what is likely to happen to those who fight for the Word, but use means other than the Word approves. For they are like the deranged, who set their own house on fire, or maul their own children, or claim that they do not recognize their own parents, but look on them as strangers.

27.7. So first let us put out of the conversation those [pagans] who are strangers to it. Let us send the great legion on its way to the abyss in the herd of swine. Now, the next thing to do is to look to ourselves, and polish our theological self to beauty like a statue. The first point to be considered is this: What is this great rivalry of speech and endless talking among us? What is this new disease of insatiability? Why have we tied our hands and armed our tongues? We have stopped praising our common values of hospitality, and brotherly love, and conjugal affection, and virginity. We have stopped admiring liberality to the poor, or the chanting of Psalms, or nightlong vigils, or spiritual tears. We have neglected the mastery of the body by fasting, and the ascent to God by prayer. We have failed to subjugate the worse to the better (I mean the dust to the spirit) as the wise would do, who hold a correct view about the synthetic nature of humanity. We have stopped making our life a preparation for death; and have neglected the task of the mastery of our passions out of our mindfulness of heavenly nobility. We have not tamed our anger when it swells and rages, or our pride that leads us to a fall. We have not moderated our unreasonable grief, or set a bound on our pleasures and salacious laughter. We have not disciplined our eyes, or our insatiable ears, or excessive talk, and our absurd thoughts. We have not guarded against all the occasions which the Evil One uses against us from sources within ourselves, in order to bring upon us that death that comes “through the windows,” as holy Scripture says; that is, through the senses. Far from it in fact; for we do the very opposite, and we have given liberty to the external passions, just as kings, in honor of a victory, give free pardons on the condition that the parties attach themselves to their side. But then the passions make their assault upon

God even more boldly, and more impiously. And we give them an evil reward for their bad behavior, license of tongue in return for their impiety.

27.8. Even so, you wordy dialectician, I will ask you one small question, and as God said to Job, giving divine admonitions through whirlwind and cloud: “I expect you to answer me.” It is this: Are there many mansions in God’s house, as you have heard, or only one? Of course, you will admit that there are many, and not one only. Now, I ask you, Are they all to be filled, or only some of them? leaving some empty, and prepared to no purpose? Of course, you will say, all will be filled, for nothing which has been done by God, can be in vain. In that case can you tell me what you consider this Mansion to be? Is it the rest and glory which is in store there for the Blessed, or is it something else? No, you say, nothing else? Since we are in agreement upon this point, let us further examine another issue. Is there anything that wins these Mansions (as I think there is) or is there nothing that can merit them? Certainly there is, you say. Then what is it? Is it not that there are various modes of conduct, and various purposes, one leading one way, another a different way, according to the proportion of faith, and these we call ways? And should each one of us travel along all (if that were possible) or just along some of these ways; or at least travel along as many of them as we can? It seems to me that even if we cannot manage all of them at least it would be an excellent thing to travel along one way in as excellent a manner as possible. What is that you say: I am right in my supposition? In that case I ask you when you hear that there is only one way, and that it is a very narrow one, what do you make of this term? Does it suggest to you that there is only one way that is truly excellent? I think that it is indeed a single way, even thought it might be divided into several parts. It is narrow because it is difficult, and because it is walked by comparatively few compared with the crowds that walk along the road of wickedness. You think the same too, you say? Well, then, good friend, if this is the case, why do you condemn our party’s doctrine for a certain intellectual poverty, and then insist on rushing headlong down the road of arguments and speculations, though I would call it a road of frivolities and nonsenses? Let Paul himself correct you with those bitter reproaches he raises after he had listed the graces in his Letter when he says: “So are all to be Apostles? Are all to be Prophets?”

27.9. Well enough of that. Let us suppose you are a superior person, superior even to the superior, even above the very clouds, even (if you insist) one who can look upon things invisible and listen to things ineffable; someone who has ascended in the train of Elijah, and who in Moses’ footsteps has been found worthy of the vision of God, or like Paul has been lifted up into heaven. Then why would you want to form the rest of your companions into saints in the space of one single day, and ordain them as theologians as if you were breathing learning into them, or making them seminar participants in regard to oracles they cannot comprehend? Why do you entangle the weak in your spider’s web, as if this were something great and wise? Why stir up a hornet’s nest against the Faith? Why suddenly flood us with dialectics, as the old fables tell us about the inundation of the giants? Why have you collected together a torrent of all the frivolous and effeminate class of men, like a rabble, and having made them more effeminate by flattery, formed a new workshop, cleverly making a harvest for your school on the basis of their lack of understanding? Will you deny that this is the truth of the matter? And are my other points not relevant to you either? Is your tongue master come what may – so that you cannot restrain the birthpangs of your speech? Well, if so, you can find many other honorable subjects for discussion. Turn your disease of loquacity to these topics with some advantage. Attack the topic of Pythagorean silence, or that of Orphic beans, or the latest style of: “The Teacher Said.” Hold forth about the ideas of Plato, and the trans­migrations and paths of our souls, and their reminiscences, or even the unlovely loves of the soul for lovely bodies. Attack the atheism of Epicurus if you like, and his atomic theory and his far-from-philosophic pleasure principle; or Aristotle’s petty ideas on Providence, and his artificial system, or his discourses about the mortality of the soul, and his general humanitarianism. If you need to, attack the superciliousness of the Stoics, or the greed and vulgarity of the Cynics. Attack the doctrine of the “Bathos and the Pleroma” (what a load of nonsense there!), and all the details about the gods and their sacrifices, and the idols and the demons, whether beneficent or malignant, or all the tricks that people play with regard to divination, either the evoking of the gods or spirits, and the power of the stars. But if these topics strike you as unworthy of discussion, being rather petty and already often refuted, and you have to hold your ground and seek to satisfy your ambition, then even so allow me to provide you with some good paths to follow up. Why not philosophize about the world or numerous worlds; about matter; about soul; about natures endowed with reason, good or bad; about resurrection, about judgment, about reward, or about the sufferings of Christ. For in these subjects if you are able to hit the mark it would prove very useful, but if you miss it then it would not involve you in danger.

But with respect to God himself, know this – we can have converse as long as we are in this world only in a very small degree; afterwards, it may turn out to be a matter more perfectly apprehended, in the same Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 28: The Second Theological Oration

28.1. In the former oration I set out clearly what sort of character the theologian ought to have, and on what kind of subjects he should philosophize, and also when, and to what extent, he should do this. We concluded that a theologian ought to be as pure as possible so that that “Light can be apprehended by light”; and that he ought to consort with serious men, so that his word will not be fruitless, falling on unfruitful soil. The proper “when” for all this is when we have interior calm, detached from the whirl of outward things; so that we will not lose our breath like madmen in whirl; and the “extent” to which we may go is that limit to which we have ourselves advanced, or to which we are advancing. Since this is the case, and we have made a start in ploughing the field of theology (so as not to sow upon thorns), and since we have leveled the ground (being shaped by Holy Scripture and shaping others in it), then now let us enter upon theological questions proper. We place at the head of our concerns: the issue of Father, Son and Holy Spirit; so that the Father maybe well pleased, and the Son may help us, and the Holy Spirit may inspire us; or rather so that one illumination may come upon us from the One God, who is one in diversity, and diverse in his unity, which is a wonder to start with.

28.2. I am eager to climb the mountain. Or to speak more truly, I long so much to enter inside the Cloud, and hold converse with God (for so God commands it), but I am at the same time afraid; the one because of my hope and the other because of my weakness. If anyone is an Aaron, let him go up with me, and let him stand near, being ready, if it must be so, to remain outside the Cloud. But if anyone is a Nadad or an Abihu, or belongs to the Order of the Elders, let him ascend by all means, but let him stand afar off, according to the quality of his purification. If anyone belongs to the multitude who are unworthy of this height of contemplation, and if they are entirely defiled, then he should not approach at all, for it would be dangerous for such a man. But if a person is at least temporarily purified, let him remain below and listen only to the voice, and the trumpet crash, and the simple words of piety, and let him see the Mountain smoking and flashing, at once a source of terror and of wonderment to those who cannot ascend. But if any person is an evil and savage beast, and altogether incapable of taking in the subject matter of contemplation and theology, let them not lurk malignantly and violently in their wild dens, trying to leap out and seize some poor dogma or saying, and tear sound doctrine to pieces by their misrepresentations. But let them stand far off, and withdraw from the holy mountain altogether, or else they shall be stoned and crushed, and shall perish miserably in their wickedness. For sound orations are just like stones for those who are like wild beasts. If such a person is like a leopard let him die with his spots. If he is a ravening and roaring lion, seeking for something to devour from our souls or from our words; or a wild boar, trampling the precious and translucent pearls of the truth under foot; or a foreign Arabian wolf, or one that is even keener than any of these in tricks of argument; or a fox, that is a treacherous and faithless soul, changing its shape according to circumstances or need, feeding on dead or putrid bodies, or on little vineyards when the larger ones have eluded them; or any other carnivorous beast, rejected by the Law as unclean for food or enjoyment: in these cases our discourse must withdraw from such as those and be engraved on solid tables of stone. This is necessary on both sides: because the Law is in part visible, and in part hidden; the one part belonging to the mass who remain below, the other to the few who press upward into the mountain’s heights.

28.3. Well, now what has happened to me, dear friends, and initiates, and fellow-lovers of the truth? I was running to lay hold on God, and so I went up into the mountain, and drew aside the curtain of the Cloud, and entered away from matter and material things, and as far as I could I withdrew within myself. But then when I looked up, I could only with great difficulty see the hind parts of God; although I was sheltered by the Rock, that is the Word that was made flesh for us. And when I looked a little closer, I saw, not the First and Unmingled Nature, known only to Itself (to the Trinity, I mean); not that nature which dwells within the first veil, and is hidden by the Cherubim; but only that Nature, which at last reaches out even to us. And that is, as far as I can make out, the Divine Majesty, or as holy David calls it, the Glory, which is manifested among the creatures which it has itself produced and governs. For these are the “hind parts” of God, which he leaves behind him, as tokens of Himself’ like the shadows and reflection of the sun in the water, which show the sun to our weak eyes, because we cannot look at the sun itself, since its unmediated light is too strong for our power of perception. This is the way, therefore, that you ought to speak about God; even if you were a Moses who was “a god to Pharaoh”; even if you were caught up like Paul into the Third Heaven, and had heard ineffable words; even if you were raised above them both, and exalted to an Angelic or Archangelic stature and dignity. For even if something was entirely heavenly, or even above heaven, and stood far higher in nature and nearer to God than we are, even so it would be much further removed from God and from the complete comprehension ofhis Nature, than it would be lifted above our complex, humble, and earth-declining composition.

28.4. And so, we must begin again in this manner. It is difficult to conceive of God; but to define him in words is an impossibility, as one of the Greek theological teachers taught, not without some degree of craftiness, as it appears to me; with the intention that he might be thought to have apprehended God. For note how he says that it is a hard thing to do; and yet he tries to escape being convicted of ignorance because he speaks of the impossibility of giving expression to the apprehension. But my opinion of the matter is that it is impossible to express God, and still more impossible to conceive of him. For whatever can be conceived can partly be clarified by language, if not completely then at any rate imperfectly, to any one who is not quite deprived of his hearing, or utterly slothful in understanding. But to comprehend the whole of so great a subject as the deity is quite impossible and impracticable, not merely to the utterly careless and ignorant, but even to those who are highly exalted, and who love God. Indeed it is impossible to any created nature; seeing that the darkness of this world and the thick covering of the flesh is an obstacle to the full understanding of the truth. I do not know whether it is the same with the higher natures and purer Intelligences [of the angels] which because of their nearness to God, and because they are illumined with all of his light, may possibly see, if not the whole reality, then at any rate, may see more perfectly and distinctly than we do; some of them perhaps more, and some less than others, in proportion to their rank.

28.5. But enough has been said on this point. Now what really matters is not only the “Peace of God which passes all understanding and knowledge,” and not just the things that God has promised for the righteous, which “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor mind conceived” except in a very small degree, and not even the accurate knowledge of the Creation. For even in regard to the latter I would have you know that you possess only a shadow when you hear those words, “I will consider the heavens, the work of your hands, the moon and the stars,” and all their fixed order. Something was not indicated at that time, but was promised for the future. But far in advance of all these things is that nature which is above them, and out of which they spring, the Incomprehensible and Boundless nature; and this not in respect of the fact that God is, but rather in relation to how God is. But our preaching is not empty, and our faith is not vain, and this is not the doctrine we are proclaiming; so I would not have you take our candid statement [about the limits of knowledge] as a starting point for a quibbling denial of God’s existence, or an arrogant assertion of agnosticism. For it is one thing to be persuaded of the existence of a reality, and quite another to know what it consists of.

28.6. Now our very eyes and the Law of Nature itself teach us that God exists and that he is the efficient and maintaining cause of all things: our eyes, because they fall on visible objects, and see them in beautiful stability and progress, immovably moving and revolving if I may so describe it; and Natural Law, because through these visible things and their order, one is able to reason back to their Author. For how could this Universe have come into being or could it have been composed, unless God had called it into existence, and sustained it? For every one who sees a beautifully made lyre, and considers the skill with which it has been fitted together and arranged, or who hears its melody, will think directly of the lyre-maker, or the lyre-player, and will mentally reflect on him even though he might not know him by sight. In the same way we have a manifestation of the one who made and moves and preserves all created things, even though he might not be comprehended by the human mind. It would be a foolish person indeed who would not follow us in pursuing these natural proofs; but not even this argument about what we have imagined or postulated, or which reason has sketched out for us, actually proves the existence of God. And if you can grasp the significance of this, then consider: how is it possible to demonstrate the being of God? Who could ever reach this extremity of wisdom? Who was ever deemed worthy of so great a gift? Who has opened the mouth of his mind so as to draw in the Spirit, in order to take in God by means of the one who searches all things, even the deep things of God? Who is there that no longer needs to progress, since he already possesses the extreme object of all desire, and that reality to which all societal life and all the keen perception of the best of all men strains after?

28.7. For if you rely on the approximations of human reason what will you conceive the Deity to be? Or where will human reason carry you, most philosophic of men and finest of theologians, you who boast of your familiarity with the Unlimited? Tell me: is he a body? If so how can he be the Infinite and Limitless; the Formless, Intangible, and Invisible? Are such things the attributes of a body? It would be arrogant to say so: for this is not how we describe a body. Or would you say that God has a body, but not these attributes? Well that would be foolishness to imagine the Deity should possess nothing more than we have. For how can he be an object of worship if he is circumscribed? Or how could he escape being made of constitutive elements, and therefore subject to being reduced into them again, or even altogether dissolved? For every compound is a starting point of strife, and strife of separation, and separation of dissolution. But dissolution is something altogether foreign to God and to that Primary Nature. Accord­ingly, there can be no separation in God, so that there may be no dissolution; and no strife so that there may be no separation; and no composition so that there may be no strife. In short it follows that there must be no body [in God], that there may be no composition. In this way the argument is established by going back from the last principle to the first.

28.8. However, if God only partly contains and is partly contained, then how shall we maintain the truth that the divinity pervades and fills all things, as it is written of him: “Do not I fill heaven and earth? says the Lord,” and again: “The Spirit of the Lord fills the whole world?” For either God will occupy an empty Universe, and so all things will have vanished for us, with this result, that we shall have insulted God by making him into a body, and by robbing him of all the things he has made; or else he will in fact be a body contained within other bodies, which is impossible; or he will be enfolded in them, or contrasted with them, for example as liquids are mixed, and one divides and is divided by another, which is a view which is even more absurd and feeble than the atoms of Epicurus.In short, this argument concerning the divine embodiedness will fall through, and itself will lack any body and have no solid basis at all. But if we are to assert that God is immaterial (as for example that he is that “Fifth Element” which some have imagined), and that he is carried round in a heavenly circular movement, then let us assume that he is immaterial, and that he may even be that Fifth Element; and, let him even be bodiless as well, in accordance with the independent drift and arrangement of their argument; for I will not presently differ with them on this point. In that case I ask them in what respect will God be one of those things which are in movement and agitation? For I will say nothing about the insult involved in making the Creator subject to the same movement as that governing creatures, or making the One that carries all (I presume they would allow this point) one with those whom he carries. Moreover, what is the force that moves your Fifth Element, and what is it that moves all things? And if you have an answer tell me what is the force that moves that; and then the force that moves that too? And so on ad infinitum. And how can God help being altogether contained in space if he is subject to motion? But if they assert that he is something other than this Fifth Element; suppose it is an angelic nature that they attribute to him, how will they show that the Angels are corporeal, or what sort of bodies they have? And in that case how far could God, to whom the Angels are said to minister, be considered as superior to the Angels? And ifhe is above them, there would again be introduced an irrational swarm of bodies, and a depth of nonsense, that has no possible foundation on which to stand.

28.9. For these reasons we see that God is not a body. For no inspired teacher has yet asserted or admitted such a notion, nor has the sentence of our own Council [of the Church] allowed it. Nothing then remains but to conceive of God as incorporeal. But this term incorporeal, though granted, does not yet set before us, or contain within itself God’s essence, any more than the term Unbegotten, or Unoriginate, or Unchang­ing, or Incorruptible, or any other predicate which is used concerning God or in relation to him. For what effect is produced upon his being or his substance by the fact of his having no beginning, and his being incapable of change or limitation? Indeed, the whole question of God’s being is still left open for the further consideration and exposition of whoever it is who truly has the mind of God and is advanced in contemplation. Because to say “It is a body,” or “It was begotten,” is not enough to give a clear presentation to the mind of the various objects of which these predicates are used, and you will find that you must also express the subject about which you use these predicates, if you want to present the object of your thought clearly and adequately. For each of these predicates, corporeal, begotten, mortal, can be used in reference to a man, or a cow, or a horse. Well, in the same way, whoever is eagerly pursuing the question of the nature of the Self-Existent will not stop at saying what God is not, but must go on beyond what he is not, and say what he is. For it is easier to take in some single point than to go on disowning point after point in endless detail, in order, by the elimination of negatives and the assertion of positives, to arrive at a comprehension of this subject. But someone who states what God is not, without going on to say what he is, acts much in the same way as that person who, when asked how many twice five make, should answer: “Not two, nor three, nor four, nor five, nor twenty, nor thirty, nor in short any number below ten, nor any multiple of ten”;

but would consistently never give the answer: “ten,” or condescend to settle the mind of his questioner upon the firm ground of such an answer. In short, it is much easier, and much quicker, to show what a thing is not from what it is, than to demonstrate what it is by stripping it of what it is not. And this point is surely evident to all.

28.10. Now since we have ascertained that God is incorporeal, let us proceed a little further with our examination. Is God nowhere or somewhere? For if he is nowhere, then some person of a very inquiring turn of mind might ask: How is it then that God can even exist? For if the non-existent is nowhere, then that which is nowhere is also perhaps non-existent. But if God is somewhere, then he must either be in the Universe, or above the Universe. And if he is in the Universe, then he must either be in some part of it, or in the whole. If in some part, then he will be circumscribed by that part which is less than himself; but if everywhere, then he will be circumscribed by something which is greater and more extensive, I mean the Universal, which contains the particular; that is if the Universe is to be contained by the Universe, and no place is to be free from circum­scription. This follows if God is contained in the Universe. And besides, where was God before the Universe was created, for this is a point of no little difficulty? But if he is above the Universe, is there nothing to distinguish this from the Universe, and where is this above situated? And how could this transcendence and that which is transcended be distinguished in thought, if there is no limit now to divide and define them? Is it not necessary that there must be some measure to mark off the Universe from that which is above the Universe? And what could this be but a place, which we have already rejected? For I have not yet brought forward the point that God would be altogether circumscript, if he were even comprehensible in thought: for comprehension is one form of circumscription.

28.11. Now, why have I gone into all this? And perhaps done it too exactly for most people to listen to, and why did I do so in the modern style of theological orations which despise noble simplicity, and have introduced a crooked and intricate style? I did it so that the tree may be known by its fruits; I mean, that the darkness which is at work in such teachings may be known by the obscurity of the arguments. For my purpose in doing this was not to get credit for myself for amazing utterances, or because of my excessive wisdom demonstrated through tying knots and resolving difficulties (wasn’t this the miraculous gift of Daniel?), but instead to make clear that point at which my argument has aimed from the very outset. And what is it? Namely that the divine nature cannot be apprehended by human reason, and that we cannot even represent to ourselves all its greatness. And this does not derive from envy, since envy is far removed from the divine nature which is passionless, and purely good, and Lord of all; and especially not envy of that which is the most honorable of all his creatures. For what does the Word prefer to rational and vocal creatures? Why, even their very existence is a proof of God’s supreme goodness. Nor is the divine incomprehensibility for the sake of his own glory and honor, since he is the Complete One, and his possession of his own glory and majesty do not depend upon the impossibility of anyone approaching him. For it is utterly sophistical and foreign to the character, I will not say of God, but of any moderately good man, who has any right ideas about himself, to seek his own supremacy by throwing a hindrance in the way of another.

28.12. But whether there are other causes for the divine incomprehensibility, let those judge who are nearer God than we are, and who are eye witnesses and spectators of his unsearchable judgments; if there are any who are so eminent in virtue, and who walk in the paths of the Infinite, as the saying goes. However, as far as our own limits apply, who measure with our little measure things so hard to be understood, perhaps one reason for it is to prevent us from too readily throwing away the possession because it was so easily come by. For people cling tightly to that which they have acquired with much labor; but whatever they acquire easily they quickly throw away, because it seems it can be easily recovered. And so the divine incomprehensibility is turned into a blessing, at least to all sensible people, so that this blessing should not be too easy. Or perhaps it is in order that we may not share the fate of Lucifer, who fell; so that we might not receive the full light and then stiffen our pride against the Lord Almighty, and suffer a most pitiable fall from the eminence we had attained. Or perhaps it may be to give a greater reward hereafter to those who have been purified here below, and have exercised long patience in respect of their desired goal, because of their labors and their glorious life. And so, this darkness of the body has been placed between us and God, like the ancient cloud placed between the Egyptians and the Hebrews; and this is perhaps what is meant by “He made darkness his secret place,” namely our dullness, and because of this only the few can see even a little. But as to this point, let those discuss it whose business it is; and let them ascend as far as possible in the examination. To us who are (as Jeremiah says), “prisoners of the earth,” and covered with the denseness of carnal nature, we can at least know this as true, that just as it is impossible for a person to step over their own shadow, however fast they may move (for the shadow will always move on as fast as it is being overtaken) or, just as it is impossible for the eye to draw near to visible objects apart from the intervening air and light, or just as a fish cannot glide around outside the water; so too it is quite impossible for those who are still in the body to be conversant with the objects of pure ideation which is altogether separate from bodily objects. For something in our own environment will always be creeping in, even when the mind has most fully detached itself from visible reality, and recollected itself, and is attempting to apply itself to those invisible matters which are most akin to itself.

28.13. Let me demonstrate this to you as follows: Spirit, Fire, and Light, Love, Wisdom, and Righteousness, Mind and Reason – and the like, are they not all suitable titles for the Primary Nature? And so, can you conceive of Spirit apart from motion and diffusion; or conceive of Fire without the concept of fuel, or its upward motion, its proper color and form? Or conceive of Light unmingled with air, or detached from that which is, we may say, its father and source [the sun]? And how do you conceive of a mind? Is it not something inherent in a person and not freestanding; and are not thoughts its movements, whether silent or spoken? And as for Reason, how else can you imagine it other than its silent state within us, or its expressed state? And if you reflect on Wisdom, what is this other than the habit of mind which you recognize, which is concerned with either divine or human contemplations? And as for Justice and Love, are they not praiseworthy dispositions, the one opposed to injustice, the other to hate, and at one time intensifying themselves, at another relaxed, now taking possession of us, now leaving us alone; and in a word, making us what we are, yet also changing us as colors change bodies? Or should we perhaps leave all these matters aside and consider the Deity absolutely, as best we can, collecting a fragmentary perception of what it is from its images? What is this subtle thing, therefore, which is of these things, and yet is not these things? or how can that Unity which is in its Nature incomposite and incomparable, still be all of these, and each one of them, perfectly? In this way our mind falters and faints, unable to transcend corporeal things so as to consort with the incorporeal, stripped of the clothing of corporeal ideas, as long as it has to look through its innate weakness at things that are far above its strength. For every rational nature longs for God and for the First Cause, but is unable to grasp him, for the reasons I have mentioned. And so, faint with the desire, and being restless and impatient with its disability, the mind tries a second way: either to study visible things, and out of some of them to fashion a god (a poor contrivance, for in what respect and to what extent can that which is seen ever be higher and more godlike than that which does the seeing, that the one should worship the other?) or else through the beauty and order of visible things to attain to that which is above sight; but not to suffer the loss of God through the magnificence of visible things.

28.14. Because of this, some have made the Sun into a god, and others have done so with the Moon; others have deified the host of stars, or the heaven itself with all its hosts, and have attributed to them the guiding of the Universe, according to the quality or quantity of their movement. Others have deified the elements: earth, air, water, and fire, because of their useful nature, since without them human life cannot possibly exist. Yet others have worshipped random visible objects, setting up the most beautiful things they saw as their gods. And there are others who worship pictures and images, beginning with their own ancestors (for this is what the more affectionate and earthly types did) so as to honor the departed with memorials; but afterwards men of later generations honored and worshipped even the images of strangers who were separated from them by a long interval. They did this through ignorance of the Primal Nature, subsequently observing these traditional honors as lawful and necessary; for custom when confirmed by time has been held to be Law. And I think that some who were courtiers of arbitrary power and who extolled bodily strength and admired beauty, made a god in time out of various people whom they honored, perhaps using some fable or other to help on their masquerade.

28.15. And those who were most subject to passion actually deified their passions, or honored them among the gods; Anger and Blood-thirstiness, Lust and Drunkenness, and every similar wickedness; for they made out of this an ignoble and unjust excuse for their own sins. And some of these gods they left on earth, and some they hid beneath the earth (this being the only sign of wisdom they still retained!) and others they raised up to heaven. What a ridiculous carving up of an inheritance! Then they gave to each of these concepts the name of some god or demon, by the authority and private judgment of their error, and set up statues whose costliness was a snare, and they thought they would honor them with blood and the steam of sacrifices, and sometimes even by most shameful actions, with frenzies and manslaughter. Even so, such honors were the fitting due of such gods. And even up to this time men have degraded themselves by worship­ping monsters, and four-footed animals, and other most vile and absurd creeping things, and have made an offering to them of the glory of God. The result is: it is not an easy matter to decide whether we ought to despise most the worshippers, or the objects of their worship. Probably the worshippers are far the most contemptible, for though they were of a rational nature, and had received grace from God, even so they set up what was far worse as if it were the better part. All this was the trick of the Evil One, who abused good to an evil purpose, as in most of his evil deeds. For he laid hold of their desire as it wandered round in search ofGod, so that he could distort the power to himself, and steal the longing, leading it by the hand, like a blind man asking his way; and he hurled some down and scattered them in one direction and some in another, yet into the same pit of death a and destruction.

28.16. This was what they did, then. But as for us, it was reason that received us in our desire for God, and reason that gave us the sense of how impossible it was to be without a leader and guide. It was reason that made us apply ourselves to visible matters and engage with the things which have been established since the beginning; and it was reason that would not stay within these limits either. For Wisdom refused to grant sovereignty to things which are, as our observation could tell us, of equal rank with us. By such observations it leads us to that which is above these things, the very source from which being is given to such things as these. For what is it that first ordered things in heaven and things on earth, and those things which pass through the air, and those which live in the water; or rather the things which subsisted before all of these, namely heaven and earth, air and water? Who was it that mingled these, and distributed them? What is it that each has in common with the other, and what constitutes their mutual dependence and agreement? For I would highly commend any man, even though he were a pagan, who could tell me what it was that gave movement to these things, and which drives their ceaseless and unhindered motions? Is it not the maker of all things who implanted reasoned order in them all, in accordance with which the Universe is moved and controlled? Is it not the one who made them and brought them into being? For we cannot attribute such a power to the Accidental. For if we suppose that its very existence is accidental, how can we at all account for its order? And even if, for argument’s sake, we grant you the idea of accidental: how will you account for its preservation and protection in accordance with the terms of its first creation? Do such things belong to the Accidental, or to something else? Surely not to the Accidental. But what can this “Something Else” be, other than God? So it is, that reason which proceeds from God, which is implanted in all of us from the beginning and which is the first law in us, and is bound up in all of us, leads us all up to God through visible things. Let us begin afresh, then, and reason this matter out.

28.17. No human being has ever yet discovered or can ever discover what God is in nature and essence, Whether this is something that will ever be discovered is a question which whoever wishes to can examine and decide at leisure. In my opinion the answer will be discovered when that within us which is godlike and divine, I mean our mind and reason, shall have mingled with its Like, and the Image shall have ascended to the Archetype, of which it now has but the desire. And this I think is the solution of that vexed problem over the text: “We shall know even as we are known.” But in our present life all that comes to us is merely a small effluence, that is a small effulgence, from a great

Light. In other words if anyone ever has known God, or has had the testimony of Scripture to his knowledge of God, we should understand such a person to have possessed a degree of knowledge which gave him the appearance of being more fully enlightened than another who did not enjoy that same degree of illumination; and this relative superiority is spoken of in terms suggestive that it were absolute knowledge: not because it is really such, but merely by comparison with the power of the other person.

28.18. So it was that Enoch is said to have “Hoped to call upon the name of the Lord.” Here he is commended for his hope, not for the fact that he truly did know God, rather that he should call upon him. And Enoch was translated, but it is not yet clear whether this was because he already comprehended the Divine Nature, or in order that he might begin to comprehend it. And Noah’s glory was that he was pleasing to God; he who was entrusted with the rescue of the whole world from the waters, or rather the rescue of the seeds of the world which escaped the Deluge in a small Ark. And Abraham, great Patriarch though he was, was justified by faith, and offered a strange victim, the type of the Great Sacrifice. Yet he did not see God as God, but rather gave food to him in the form of a man. He was approved because he worshipped to the extent that he was able to comprehend. And Jacob dreamed of a lofty ladder and a stairway of angels, and in a mystery anointed a pillar; perhaps to signify the Rock which was anointed for our sake. And thus he gave the name of the House of God [Bethel] to a place in honor of the one whom he saw; and he wrestled with God in human form (whatever this wrestling of God with a man may mean). Possibly it refers to the comparison of man’s virtue with God’s; for Jacob bore on his body the marks of the wrestling, denoting the defeat of the created nature. As the reward of his reverence he received a change of name; being called Israel instead of Jacob, a great and honorable title. Even so, neither he nor any one associated with him even to this day, of all the Twelve Tribes who were his children, could boast that he was able to comprehend the whole nature or the pure sight of God.

28.19. As far as Elijah was concerned neither the strong wind, nor the fire, nor the earthquake, as you can learn from the story, adumbrated the presence of God but only light breeze; and even this did not reveal his divine Nature. And who was this Elijah? No less than a man whom a chariot of fire took up to heaven, signifying the superhuman excellency of that righteous man. And are you not also amazed at Manoah the ancient Judge, or Peter the disciple of the latter days; for the one was unable to endure the sight even of an image representing God, for he said: “O wife, we are undone, for we have seen God”; speaking as though even a vision of God could not be grasped by human beings, let alone the Nature of God; and the other was unable to endure the presence of Christ in his boat and therefore begged him to depart, even though Peter was more zealous than the others for the knowledge of Christ, and received a blessing on this account, and was entrusted with the greatest gifts. What would you say about Isaiah or Ezekiel, who were eyewitnesses of very great mysteries, or about the other prophets; for the first saw the Lord of Sabaoth sitting on the Throne of Glory, and encircled and praised and hidden by the six-winged Seraphim, and was himself purged by the live coal, and thereby equipped for his prophetic office. And the other described the Cherubic Chariot of God, and the Throne set upon them, and the Firmament over it, as well as the One that showed himself in the Firmament, not to mention other voices, and powers, and mighty deeds.

And whether this was a daytime apparition, as such only visible to saints, or a reliable epiphany of the night, or an impression on the mind engaging the future as if it were the present, or whether it was some other ineffable form of prophecy, I cannot say; the God of the prophets is the One who knows, and those who have been so inspired. Even so, not one of these I have been talking about, or any of their like, ever stood before the Council and Essence of God, as it is written, or ever saw, or proclaimed the Nature of God.

28.20. If it had been allowed to Paul to speak of what the Third Heaven contained, and his own advance, or ascension, or assumption, there, perhaps we might know something more about God’s Nature, if this was the mystery of the rapture. But since it was ineffable, we too must honor it by silence. But this much we should allow Paul to say about it: that “we know only in part and we prophesy in part.” This, and many comparable statements, are the confessions of someone very advanced in knowledge, a great doctor and champion of the truth, who constantly proves that it was Christ speaking in him. This is why it is his opinion that all knowledge on earth is “through a glass darkly,” since it is based upon little images of the truth. Now (and I hope I don’t appear to anyone as being too careful or over-anxious about the examination of this matter), perhaps it was about this same exact thing that the Word himself spoke when he intimated that there were things which could not now be borne, but which should be borne and cleared up hereafter, and which John the Forerunner of the Word and great herald of the Truth declared that even the entire world could not contain.

28.21. The fact is the Truth, and the Word, is altogether full of difficulty and obscurity; and when we pursue the knowledge of the Self-Existent by means of that terribly small instrument of human reason, then we are undertaking a great work indeed. This is because we have to do it in company with our senses, certainly not apart from them, and these carry us here and there and often lead us into error, since we apply ourselves to searching after things which can only be grasped by the mind, and we are unable to approximate any more closely to the truth by means of encountering naked reality with naked intelligence, and thus molding the mind by reference to its ideas. Now the subject of God is harder to come at, to the degree that it is more perfect than any other; and it is open to more objections, and their solution is more demanding. For every objection, however small it may be, blocks and hinders the course of our argument, cutting off its further advance, just like men who suddenly rein in horses which are in full flight, and turn them right round by the unexpected shock. So it was that Solomon, that wisest of all men, whether of those who lived before him or in his own time, to whom God gave breadth of heart and a profundity of contemplation, more abundant than the sand, even he found that the more he entered into the depth, the more dizzy he became, and so it was that he declared that the summit of wisdom was the discovery of how very far off she was from him. Paul also tried to arrive at (I will not say the Nature of God, for this he knew was utterly impossible, but only) the judgments of God. But he could find no way forward, and no resting place on the ascent, and since his mind’s earnest searching after knowledge could not end in any definite conclusion, since new and unattained aspects were being continually disclosed to him (a wonderful thing too – for that has been my experience!), Paul closed his discourse with astonishment, and called it “the riches of God, and the depth,” confessing how unsearchable were the judgments of God. He did this almost in the very words of David, who at one time called God’s judgments “an immense depth” whose foundations could not be reached by measure or sense; and at another time said that God’s knowledge of him and of his own constitution was “a cause of marvel,” and of a greater force that he was possibly able to grasp.

28.22. In his words (Psalm 8) it would be a cause of wonderment even if he was to leave all else aside and consider only the nature and constitution of a human being, how we are composed, how we move, and how the mortal is compounded with the immortal; and we can add – how it is that I flow downwards, and yet am borne upwards; and how the soul is circumscribed; and how it gives life and shares in feelings; and how the mind is at once circumscribed and yet unlimited, dwelling within us and yet traveling over the Universe in swift motion and flow; how it is both received and imparted by word, and passes through air, and enters within all things; how it shares in sense, and yet closes itself off from sense? In fact even before we get to those questions we have to consider others such as: what was our first making and composition in the workshop of Nature? And what will be our last formation and completion? What is the meaning of our desire for nourishment and its imparting? And who brought us spontaneously to those first springs and sources of life? How is it that the body is nourished by food, and the soul by reason? What is the pull of nature, and the mutual relations between parents and children, that they should be held together by a spell of love? How is it that species are permanent, and are also different in their characteristics, although there are so many that their individual marks can hardly be described? How is it that the same animal can be both mortal and immortal; the first by the capacity of death, the second by the capacity of regeneration? For one departs, and another takes its place, just like the flow of a river, which is never still, yet ever constant. And we could discuss many more points concerning the different members and aspects of a human being, and their mutual adaptation both for utility and beauty; how some are connected and others disjoined; how some are more excellent and others less comely; how some are united and others divided, how some contain and others are contained, according to the law and reason of Nature. Many things could also be said about voices and ears. How is it that the voice is carried by the vocal organs, and received by the ears, and both are joined by the striking and resounding of the medium of air? Much too could be said about the eyes, which have an indescribable communion with visible objects, and which are moved in harmony solely by the will alone, and are affected in the same way as the mind. For the mind too, with comparable alacrity, is joined to the objects of its thought, as the eye is to the objects of sight. Many things could be said concerning the other senses, which are not so evidently foci of our rational powers. Much could be said about our rest in sleep, and the figments of dreams, or about memory and reminiscence; about calculation, and anger, and desire. In a word, so much could be said about all that sways this Microcos­mos we call Man.

28.23. Shall I reckon up for you the differences of the other animals, both from us and from each other; their differences in terms of nature, reproduction, feeding patterns, region, temperament, and social habits? How is it, for example, that some are greg gregarious and others are solitary; some herbivorous and others carnivorous; some fierce and others tame; some fond of man and domesticated, others untamable and free? And some we might regard as bordering on reason and the power of learning, while others are altogether destitute of reason, and incapable of being taught. Some have fuller senses, others have less; some are immovable, and some have the power of walking; while some are very swift, and others very slow; some surpass in size or beauty, or in one or other of these respects; while others are very small or very ugly, or both; some are strong, and others are weak; some are good at self-defense, while others are timid and cunning, and yet others are devoid of all defense. Some are hardworking and thrifty, others altogether indolent and improvident. And before we address such points as these, how is it that some animals turned out as crawling things, and others were upright; some were attached to one spot, some amphibious; some delight in beauty and others are unadorned; some are married and some single; some temperate and others intemperate; some have numerous offspring and others not; some are long-lived and others have but short lives? It would be a weary discourse to go through all the rest of such details.

28.24. But consider this as well – look at the fishy tribe gliding through the waters, as if they were flying through the liquid element, and breathing its own air, but in trouble when they come in contact with our element, just as we are in the waters. Mark the habits and dispositions of the fish, their intercourse and their births, their size and their beauty, their affection for places, and their wanderings, their assemblings and departings, and their properties which so nearly resemble those of the animals that dwell on land. In some cases they dwell in community, but often there is a great contrast of properties, both in name and shape. And then consider the tribes of birds, and their varieties of form and color, both those which are voiceless and the songbirds too. What is the reason for their melody, and who gave them it? Who gave to the grasshopper the lute in his breast, and their songs and chirruping on the branches when they are moved by the sun to make their midday music, and sing among the groves, and escort the wayfarer with their melodies? Who wove the song for the swan when he spreads his wings to the breezes, and makes melody of their rustling? For I am not going to speak at all of contrived voices, and all the rest that art fakes up against the truth. From where does the peacock, that boastful Persian bird, get his love of beauty and of praise (for he is fully conscious of his own beauty), so that when he sees any one approaching, or when, as the saying goes, he wants to make a show before his hens, raising his neck and spreading his tail in circle around him, glittering like gold and studded with stars, he makes a spectacle of his beauty to his lovers with such pompous steps? Holy Scripture, indeed, admires the cleverness involved in women’s weaving when it says: “Who gave to woman skill in weaving and cleverness in the art of embroidery?” And this is a skill that belongs to a living creature endowed with reason, and abundant in wisdom, which reaches up even to the things of heaven.

28.25. You see, my point is to make you stand in wonderment even at the natural knowledge of irrational creatures, and if you can, explain for me its cause. How is it that birds have for nests rocks and trees and roofs, and adapt them both for safety and beauty, suitable for the comfort of their chicks? Where do bees and spiders get their love of work and art from, by which the former plan their honeycombs, and join them together by hexagonal and co-ordinate tubes, and construct the foundation by means of a partition and an alternation of the angles with straight lines; doing all this, as is the truth of the matter, in such dark hives and obscure honeycombs; and the latter weave their intricate webs by such light and almost airy threads stretched in so many different ways, growing from almost invisible beginnings, to be at once a precious dwelling, and a trap for weaker creatures with a view to their enjoyment of food? What Euclid ever imitated these, while pursuing philosophical enquiries with lines that have no real existence, and wearying himself with demonstrations? From what Palamedes came the tactics, and (as the saying goes) the movements and configurations of cranes, and the systems of their movement in ranks and their complicated flight? Who were their Phidis and Zeuxides, and who were the Parrhasii and Aglaophons who knew how to draw and fashion such excessively beautiful things? What harmonious Gnossian chorus of Dsdalus, ever wrought for a girl the highest pitch of beauty? What Cretan Labyrinth, hard to get through, hard to unravel, as the poets say, and continually crossing over itself through the tricks of its construction ever equalled this? For I will not speak of the ants’ storehouses and their storekeepers, of their treasurings of wood in quantities, because of our time constraints, or all the other details which we know are told of their marches and leaders and the good order in all their works.

28.26. Now, if all this knowledge has come within your reach and you are familiar with these branches of science, then turn now and look at the differences of plants; up to the artistic fashion of the leaves, which is adapted both to give the utmost pleasure to the eye, and to be of the greatest advantage to the fruit. Look too at the variety and lavish abundance of fruits, and most of all at the wondrous beauty of such as are most necessary. And consider the power of roots, and juices, and flowers, and odors, for not only are they very sweet, but also serviceable as medicines; and consider the graces and qualities of their colors; or again the costly value, and the brilliant transparency of precious stones. For nature has set before you all things as in an abundant banquet free to all, both the necessities and the luxuries of life, in order that, if nothing else, you may at any rate know God by his benefits, and may be made wiser by your own sense of want than you were at first. Next, I pray you, traverse the length and breadth of earth, the common mother of all, and the gulfs of the sea bound together with one another and with the land, and the beautiful forests, and the rivers and springs abundant and perennial, not only of waters that are cold and fit for drinking, and on the surface of the earth; but also such as running beneath the earth, and flowing under caverns, are then forced out by a violent blast, and repelled, and then filled with heat by this violence of strife and repulsion, bursting out by little and little wherever they get a chance, and hence supplying our need of hot baths in many parts of the earth, and (in conjunction with the cold bath) offering us a cost-free and spontaneous healing. Tell me the origins and meanings of these things? What is this great web unfashioned by any artifice? These things are no less worthy of admiration, in respect of their mutual relations than when they are considered separately. How is it, for example, that the earth stands solid and unswerving? What is it supported on? What is it that props it up, or what does that rest upon in turn? For even reason has nothing that it can lean upon here, only on the Will of God. And how is it that part of the world is drawn up into mountain summits, and part laid down in plains, and all of this in so many different ways? And because the variations are individually small, the earth supplies our needs more liberally, and is made more beautiful by its variety; part being distributed into habitations, and part left uninhabited, namely all the great height of mountains, and the various clefts of its coast line cut off from it. Is not all this a clearest proof of the majestic working of God?

28.27. And with respect to the sea even if I did not marvel at its greatness, yet I should have marveled at its gentleness, in that although so loose an element it stands within its boundaries; and if not at its gentleness, yet surely at its greatness; but since I marvel at both things, I will praise the power that lies in both. What collected it? What bounded it? How is it raised and lulled to rest, as though respecting its neighbor earth? How does it receive all the rivers, and yet remain the same, through the very superabundance of its immensity, if that term be permissible? How does the boundary of the sea stand, even though it is only sand that holds in an element of such magnitude? Have your natural philosophers with all their knowledge of useless details anything to tell us? Those men I mean who really are endeavoring to measure the sea with a wineglass, and judge such mighty works by their own conceptions? Or shall I give the really scientific explanation of it from Scripture concisely, and yet more satisfactorily and truly than by the longest arguments? For there it says: “He has fenced around the face of the water with his command.” This is the chain of fluid nature. And how does God bring upon it that Nautilus that inhabits the dry land [namely man] in such a little vessel, and with so small a breath of wind? Do you not stand in wonder at this? Is your mind not simply astonished? That Earth and Sea can be bound together by needs and commerce, and that things so widely separated by nature should be thus brought together into one for the sake of man? What are the first causes of springs? Seek out, my philosopher friend, if you can trace or discover any of these mysteries. And who was it who carved the plains and the mountains for the rivers, and gave them an unhindered course? And how to explain the ccorresponding marvel, the way the sea never overflows, nor the rivers cease to flow? Or explain what is the nourishing power of water, and what the difference is when some things are irrigated from above, while others drink from their roots, if I may luxuriate a little in my language when speaking of the luxuriant gifts of God.

28.28. And now, leaving aside the earth and the things of earth, let us soar into the air on the wings of thought, so that our argument may advance in due order; and from there I will take you up to heavenly things, and to heaven itself, and even things which are above heaven. Now my discourse hesitates to ascend to that which is beyond; but still it shall ascend, as far as may be possible. Who was it that poured out the air, that great and abundant wealth, not measured to men by their rank or fortunes; not restrained by boundaries; not divided out according to people’s ages; but like the distribution of the Manna, received by all in sufficiency, and valued for its equality of distribution; the chariot of the winged creation; the seat of the winds; the moderator of the seasons; the quickener of living things, or rather the preserver of natural life in the body; in which bodies have their being, and by which we speak; in which is the light and all that it shines upon, and the sight which flows through it? And mark, if you please, what follows. I cannot give to the air the whole empire of all that is thought to belong to the air. What are the storehouses of the winds? What are the treasuries of the snow? And who, as Scripture has said, has “given birth to the dewdrops?” Out of whose womb came the ice? Who binds the waters in the clouds, and, most marvelously fixes part of it to stay within the clouds, held there by his commanding Word even though its own nature is to flow out; while he pours out the rest of the water upon the face of the earth, and scatters it abroad in due season, and in just proportions? For he does not allow the whole substance of moisture to go out free and uncontrolled (such a cleansing was enough that occurred in the days of Noah; and he who cannot lie does not forget his own covenant); nor does he restrain it completely so that we should not again stand in need of an Elijah to bring the drought to an end. For “if he should close up the heavens,” as scripture says, “who could ever open them?” If he opens the floodgates, who shall ever close them? Who is it that can bring excess or withhold sufficiency of rain, unless it is the one who governs the Universe by his own measures and balances? Indeed what scientific laws can you lay down concerning thunder and lightning, you orators who thunder from the earth, but cannot flash even with little sparks of truth? To what vapors from the earth will you attribute the creation of the cloud, or is it due to some thickening of the air, or pressure or crash of very rare types of clouds, so as to make you think the pressure might be the cause of the lightning crash which makes the thunder? Or what vast compression of air will explain for you the lightning and thunder crash when it breaks loose?

Now if in thought you have thus passed through the air and all the things of air, reach with me even to the heavens and the things of heaven. And let faith lead us now rather than reason; if at least you have learnt from me the feebleness of reason in all those former questions that stood nearer to your condition, and if you have now learned some reason by knowing what things are beyond reason, so as not to be altogether on the earth or of the earth, simply because you are ignorant even of the very fact of your ignorance.

28.29. Who was it then, who spread the sky around us, and set the stars in order? Or rather, first, can you tell me, out of your own knowledge of the things in heaven, what are the sky and the stars; Tell me that, you who do not even know what lies at your very feet, and cannot even take the measure of yourself, but even so feel you need to be busying yourself about what is above your nature, and need to gape at the illimitable? Allowing that you may understand orbits and periods, and waxings and wanings, and settings and risings, and some degrees and minutes, and all the other things which make you so proud of your wonderful knowledge; you have not arrived at comprehension of the realities themselves, but only at an observation of some measure of movement. This has been confirmed by longer practice and the drawing of the observations of many individuals into one generalization leading to the deduction of a law, and finally acquires the name of Science (just as the lunar phenomena have become generally known to our sight); but this is all the basis of this knowledge. But if you are very scientific on this subject, and have a just claim to admiration, tell me what is the cause of this astronom­ical order and movement? How did the sun come to be a beacon-fire to the whole world, and to all eyes like the leader of some chorus, concealing all the rest of the stars by his brightness, more completely than some of them conceal others? The proof of this is that they shine against him, but he outshines them and does not even allow the fact to be perceived that they rose simultaneously with him, “fair as a bridegroom, swift and great as a giant” (for I will not let his praises be sung from any other source than my own Scriptures) so mighty in strength that from one end of the world to the other he embraces all things in his heat, and there is nothing hidden from his touch, since he fills every eye with light, and every embodied creature with heat; warming, yet not burning, by the gentleness of his temper, and the order of his movement, present to all, and equally embracing all.

28.30. Have you considered the importance of the fact that a pagan writer [Plato] speaks of the sun as holding the same position among material objects as God does among the objects of thought? For the one gives light to the eyes, just as the other gives light to the mind; and the one is the most beautiful of the objects of sight, just as God is the most beautiful of the objects of thought. But who gave original motion to the sun? And what is that power which ever moves the sun in his circuit, though in its nature it is stable and immovable, truly unwearied, and the giver and sustainer of life, and deserving of all the rest of the titles which the poets justly attribute to it in song, since it never rests in its course or its benefits? How does the sun come to be the creator of day when it is above the earth, and of night when it is below it? Or whatever may be the right expressions when one is contemplating the sun? What are the mutual advances and withdrawals of day and of night, and their regular irregularities (if I may use a rather strange expression)? How does the sun come to be the maker and divider of the seasons, which come and go in such regular order, as if interweaving with each other in a dance, standing apart by a law of love on the one hand, and a law of order on the other, and mingle little by little, and each one stealing in upon their neighbor, just as nights and days do, so as not to give us pain by their suddenness. But let this be enough about the sun.

Well then, do you know the nature and phenomena of the moon, and the measures and courses of its light, and how it is that the sun bears rule over the day, and the moon presides over the night; and while She gives confidence to the wild beasts, He stirs up man to go to his work, ascending or descending in the heavens as may be most serviceable? Do you know what is the bond that keeps the Pleiades together, or the fence of Orion as he does who counts t the number of the stars and calls each one by their names? Do you know the differences of the glory of each one, and the order of their movement, enough that I should trust you, when by reference to them you weave a web of human arguments, and arm the creature against the Creator?

28.31. What do you think then? Shall we pause here, after discussing nothing further than material and visible things, or, since the Word knows that the “Tabernacle of Moses” is merely a figure of the whole creation (I mean the entire system of things visible and invisible) shall we not pass now through the first veil, and step beyond the realm of sense, in order to gaze into the Holy Place, that is the Intellectual and Celestial creation? But we cannot even see this in an incorporeal way, though in itself it is incorporeal, since it is called (and is) Fire and Spirit. For he is said to “make his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire,” though perhaps this term “make” here means preserving them by means of that Word by which they first came into existence. An angel, therefore, is called spirit and fire; spirit, as being a creature of the intellectual sphere; fire, as being of a purifying nature; for I know that the same names belong to the divine Primary Nature. But, relatively to us at least, we must reckon the angelic nature as being incorporeal, or at any rate as nearly so as possible. Do you see how we get dizzy over this subject, and cannot advance to any point, unless it be as far as this: that we know at least that there are Angels and Archangels, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, Splendors, Ascents, Intelligent Powers or Intelligencies, all being pure natures, unalloyed, immovable to evil, or scarcely movable; ever circling in chorus round the First Cause (or how else should we sing their praises?), illuminated from out of it with the purest Illumination, or one in one degree and one in another, proportional to their nature and rank, and so conformed to beauty and molded into it that they become Secondary Lights, and can enlighten others by the overflowing largesse of the First Light?

The angels are Ministers of God’s Will, strong with both an inborn and an imparted strength; traversing all space, readily present everywhere to all through their zeal for service and the agility of their nature. Different angels among them embrace different parts of the world, or are appointed over different districts of the Universe, as God knows who ordered and distributed everything. They combine all things in one, solely with a view to the good will of the Creator of all; they act as the hymnographers of the divine majesty, eternally contemplating the Eternal Glory, not that God thereby gains an increase of glory, for nothing can be added to that which is already in fullness, or to God who supplies good to all outside himself, but rather glorifying God so that there may never be a cessation of blessings to these first natures who come after God himself. If we have narrated these things as they deserve to be told, it is only by the grace of the Trinity, and of the one Godhead in Three Persons; but if less perfectly than we have desired, yet even so our discourse has gained its purpose. For this is what we were laboring to show: that even to describe the Secondary Natures far surpasses the power of our intellect. Accordingly, much more does it escape the power of our intellect to describe the First Nature and (since I draw back from saying merely the “nature which is above all others”) that Only Nature.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 29: The Third Theological Oration

On the Son

29.1. These are my arguments therefore, designed to cut short my opponents’ readiness to argue, and their recklessness, with its consequent insecurity in all matters, but above all in those discussions which relate to God. But since to rebuke others is no hard thing at all, but on the contrary a very easy thing, which any one who likes can do; whereas to substitute one’s own belief for theirs is the part of a reverent and intelligent man; then let us proceed in reliance on the Holy Spirit, that Spirit who among them is held in dishonor, but who among us is adored; and let us now bring to the light our own conceptions about the Godhead, whatever these may be, like some noble and timely birth. Not that I have at other times been silent; for on this subject alone I am full of youthful strength and daring; but the fact is that under present circumstances I am even more bold to declare the truth, that Imay not (to use the words of Scripture) by drawing back fall into the condemnation of being displeasing to God. And since every discourse is of a twofold nature, the one part establishing one’s own position, and the other part spent in overthrowing one’s opponents’; let us first of all state our own position, and then try to controvert that of our opposition. I shall do both things as briefly as possible, so that our arguments may be taken in at a glance (like those of the elementary text books which they have devised to deceive simple or foolish persons), and also so that our thoughts may not be scattered by reason of the length of the discourse, like water which is not contained in a channel, but flows to waste over the open land.

29.2. The three most ancient opinions concerning God are Anarchia, Polyarchia, and Monarchia. The first two are the playthings of the children of Hellas, and may they continue to be so. For Anarchy is a thing without order; and the Rule ofMany is factious, and thus anarchical, and thus disorderly. For both these theological positions tend to the same thing, namely disorder; and thus to dissolution, for disorder is the first step to dissolution. But Monarchy is that axiom which we hold in honor. It is, however, a Monarchy that is not limited to one person, for it is possible for unity, if at variance with itself, to come into a condition of plurality; but we hold it to be made out of an equality of nature and a union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a consilience of its elements to unity (a thing which is impossible for created natures) so that though it is numerically distinct there is no severance of essence involved. Therefore Unity having from all eternity arrived by motion at Duality, found its rest in Trinity. This is what we mean by Father and Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is the Begetter and the Emitter; though without passion, of course, and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner. The Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Spirit the Emission; (I say this since I do not know how else this can be expressed in terms that wholly exclude material conceptions). But we shall not venture to speak of “An overspill of goodness,” as one of the Greek Philosophers dared to say, as if God were like a wine-bowl filled to overflowing, saying this in plain words in his oration on the First and Second Causes. Let us never look on this matter of divine generation as being involuntary, like some natural overflow, hard to be retained, for it is by no means fitting to our conception of the Godhead. Therefore let us confine ourselves within our proper limits, and speak of the “Unbegotten” and the “Begotten” and that which “Proceeds from the Father,” as in one place God the Word himself expressed it.

29.3. So, when did these come into being? They are above all “when.” But, if I am to speak a little more boldly, Iwill say “when the Father did.” And when did the Father come into being? There never was a time when he was not. And the same thing is true of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Ask me again, and again I may ask in turn: “When was the Son begotten?” And answer you: “When the Father was not begotten.” And when did the Holy Spirit proceed? When the Son was not proceeding but begotten, namely beyond the sphere of time, and above the grasp of reason (although we cannot set forth something that is above time unless we avoid (as we would wish to) any expression which conveys the idea of time. But such expressions as “when” and “before” and “after” and “from the beginning” are certainly not timeless, however, much as we may force them; unless indeed we were to take the Æon, that interval which is coextensive with the eternal things, and is not divided or measured by any motion, or by the revolutions of the sun, as time is measured. How then, if they are coeternal, are they not all alike unoriginate? It is because they are from him, though not after him. For that which is unoriginate is eternal, but that which is eternal is not necessarily unoriginate, so long as it may be referred to the Father as its origin. Therefore in respect of Cause they are not unoriginate; but it is evident here that the cause is not necessarily prior to its effects; for the sun, for example, is not prior to its light. And yet, even so, they are in some sense unoriginate; that is in respect of time, even though you would scare simple minds with your quibbles; for the sources of Time are not

subject to time.

29.4. Well how can this generation be passionless? In that it is incorporeal. For if corporeal generation involves passion, incorporeal generation excludes it. And I will ask of you in turn, “How is the Word God if he is created?” For that which is created is not God. I refrain from reminding you that here too is passion if we take the creation in such a bodily sense, as time, desire, imagination, thought, hope, pain, risk, failure, success, all of which and more than all find a place in the creature, as is evident to every one. Indeed I am amazed that you have not ventured so far as to conceive of marriages and times of pregnancy, and dangers of miscarriage, as if the Father could not have begotten at all if he had not begotten in such a material sense; or again, that you did not count up

the modes of generation of birds and beasts and fishes, and bring under the category of some one of them this divine and ineffable generation; or even eliminate the Son out of your new hypothesis. But can you not even grasp this, that as far as his generation according to the flesh differs from all others (for where else among us do you know of a Virgin Mother?), so also does he differ in his spiritual generation. In short: he, whose existence is not the same as ours, differs from us also in his generation.

29.5. Who then is that Father who had no beginning? One whose very Existence had no beginning; for one whose existence had a beginning must also have begun to be a Father. He did not then become a Father after he began to be, for his being had no beginning. And he is Father in the absolute sense, for he is not also Son; just as the Son is

Son in the absolute sense, because he is not also Father. These names do not belong to us humans in the absolute sense, because we are both fathers and sons, and not one more than the other; and we are of both, not of one only; and so we are divided, and by degrees become men, and perhaps not even men, and then we turn into such as we did not desire [by death], leaving behind and being left behind, so that only the memory of relations remains, without the underlying facts. But, an objector may say, the very form of the expression “He begot” and “He was begotten,” inevitably introduces the idea of a beginning of generation. Not necessarily – for what if we do not use this expression, but say rather, “He has been begotten from the beginning” so as readily to evade your farfetched

and time-loving objections? Will you bring Scripture against us, as if we were forging something contrary to Scripture and to the Truth?Why, every one knows that in practice we very often find tenses interchanged when time is spoken of; and this is especially the custom of the Holy Scripture, not only in respect of the past and present tenses, but even of the future; as for instance “Why did the heathen rage?” when they had not as yet raged and: “They shall cross over the river on foot,” where the meaning is that they had already crossed over. It would be a long task to reckon up all the expressions of this kind which students have already noticed.

29.6. So much for this point.What is their next objection, full of contentiousness and impudence? The Father, so they argue, either voluntarily begot the Son, or else involuntarily. Thus, as they think, they bind us hand and foot with cords; these however are not strong, but very weak indeed. For, they say, if it was involuntarily he must have been under the sway of some one, and then who exercised this sway? And how could he be God if he was so subject? But if voluntarily, then the Son is a Son out of the divine will; and if so, how can he then be of the Father? In this way they invent a new sort of mother for him, namely theWill, in place of the Father. There is one good point which they may allege about this argument of theirs; namely, that they have finally left aside the concept of passion, and taken refuge in will. For will is not a passion. Now let us look at the strength of their argument. And from the start I think it is best to wrestle with them at close quarters. I will ask you in return, you who so recklessly assert whatever takes your fancy; Were you begotten voluntarily or involuntarily by your

father? If involuntarily, then he was under some tyrant’s sway (and what a terrible violence!) And who was the tyrant? You can hardly say it was nature, for nature is tolerant of chastity. If it was voluntarily, then by a few syllables your father is done away with, for you are shown to be the son of will, and not a son of your own father. I pass now to the relation between God and the creature, and I pose your own question back to your own wisdom. Did God create all things voluntarily or under compulsion? If under compulsion, here also is the same tyranny, and one who played the tyrant; but if voluntarily, the creatures also are deprived of their God, and you before all the rest, who invent such arguments and tricks of logic. For a partition is thus set up between the Creator and the creatures in the form of volition. And yet I think that surely the person who wills is distinct from the act of willing; just as he who begets is distinct from the act of begetting; as is the speaker from the speech; or else we all must be very stupid. On the one side we have theMover, and on the other side that which is, so to speak, the motion. Thus the thing willed is not the child of will, for it does not always result from this; nor is that which is begotten the child of generation, nor that which is heard the child of speech, but rather the child of the person who willed, or begot, or spoke. But the things of God are beyond all this, for with him perhaps the will to beget is indeed generation, and there is no intermediate action (if we may accept this altogether, and not rather

consider generation superior to will).

29.7.Will you permit me, then, to play a little upon this word “Father,” for your own reckless example encourages me to be so bold? The Father is God either willingly or unwillingly; and how will you escape from your own excessive acuteness? If willingly, when did he begin to will? It could not have been before he began to be, for there was nothing prior to God. Or is one part of him will and another the object of will? If so, he is divisible. So the question arises, as the result of your argument, whether God himself is not the child of will? And if unwillingly, what compelled him to exist, and how is he God if he was compelled – indeed compelled to nothing less than to be God? How then was the Son begotten at all, says my opponent; and how was he created? If, as you say, he was created? For this is a part of the same difficulty. Perhaps you would say, “Created by will

And Word.” But in this, you have not yet solved the whole difficulty; for it still remains for you to show how will and word gained the power of action. For humanity was not created in this way.

29.8. So how was the Son begotten? This generation would hardly have been any great thing if the likes of you could have been able to comprehend it; you who have no real knowledge even of your own generation, or at least who comprehend very little of it, and of that little are ashamed to speak! But even so, do you think you can know the whole? You will have to undergo much labor before you discover the laws of composition, formation, manifestation, and the bond whereby soul is united to body, or mind to soul, or reason to mind; not to mention movement, increase, assimilation of food, sense, memory, recollection, and all the rest of the parts out of which you yourself are compounded. Can you know which of them belongs to the soul and body together, and which to each independently of the other, and which is received from each other? For those parts whose maturity comes later, even so received their laws at the time of conception. Tell me what these laws are? But even if you can, still you should not venture to speculate on the generation of God; for that would be a matter wholly unsafe. For even

if you did know all about your own generation, you cannot possibly know about God’s. And if you do not even understand your own, how can you possibly know about God’s? For in proportion as God is harder to work out than man, so is the heavenly generation harder to comprehend than your own. But if you assert that just because you cannot comprehend it, even so he cannot have been begotten, it will be time for you to strike out many existing things which you cannot comprehend; and first in the list, surely is God himself. For you cannot say what God is, even if you are very reckless, and excessively proud of your intelligence. First, cast away your notions of flow and divisions and sections, and your conceptions of immaterial as if it were material birth, and then you

may perhaps worthily conceive of the divine generation. How was God begotten? I repeat the question in indignation. The Begetting of God must be honored by silence. It is a great thing for you to learn even that he was begotten. But the manner of his generation we will not admit that even angels can conceive, much less you. Shall I tell you how it was? It was in a manner known only to the Father who begot, and to the Son who was begotten. Anything more than this is hidden by a cloud, and escapes your dim sight.

29.9.Well, you say, but the fact is that the Father begot a Son who either was or was not in existence.What utter nonsense! This is a question which applies to you or me, who on the one hand were in existence, as for instance Levi was in the loins of Abraham; and on the other hand came into existence; and so in some sense we are partly derived out of what existed, and partly out of what was non-existent; whereas the contrary is the case with Original Matter, which was certainly created out of what was Non-Existent, notwithstanding that some [Hellenes] pretend that it too is unbegotten. But in this case “to be begotten,” even from the beginning, is synonymous with “to be.” So on what ground can you base your capricious question? For what is older than that which is from

the beginning, if we may place there the previous existence or non-existence of the Son? In either case we destroy its claim to be the Beginning. Or perhaps you will say, if we were to ask you whether the Father was of existent or non-existent substance, that he is twofold, partly pre-existing, partly existing; or that his case is the same as that of the Son; namely, that he was created out of non-existing matter. All this arises out of your ridiculous questions and your sandcastles, which cannot withstand the merest ripple. Both positions are false, of course, and your question contains an absurdity: it is not that it is too difficult for us to answer. But if your dialectical assumptions lead you to think that one or other of these alternatives must necessarily be true in every case, let me ask you one little question: Is time in time, or is it not in time? If it is contained in time, then in what time, and what is it other than that time, and how does time contain itself?

But if it is not contained in time, what is that surpassing wisdom which can conceive of a time which is timeless? Now, in regard to this expression, “I am now telling a lie,” admit one of these alternatives, either that it is true, or that it is a falsehood, without qualification (since we cannot admit that it is both). But this cannot be. For of necessity the speaker is either lying, and so is telling the truth, or else he is telling the truth, and so is lying. What wonder is it, then, that as in this case both contraries are true, so in the other case they should both be untrue, and thus your clever little puzzle proves to be merely foolishness? Solveme one more riddle.Were you present at your own generation, and are you now present to yourself, or is neither the case? If you were, and are, present,

who were you, and with whom are you present? And how did your single self become thus both subject and object? But if neither of the above is the case, how did you get separated from yourself, and what is the cause of this disjoining? But, perhaps you will protest that it is stupid to make a fuss about the question whether or not a single individual is present to himself; for the expression is not customarily used of oneself but of others.Well, you can be sure of this: that it is even more stupid to discuss the question whether that which was begotten from the beginning ever existed before its generation or not. For such a question arises only as referring to material objects divisible by time.

29.10. Even so my opponents argue that the Unbegotten and the Begotten are not the same; and if this is so, the Son cannot be the same [nature] as the Father. It is clear, without having to say so, that this line of argumentmanifestly excludes either the Son or the Father fromthe Godhead. For if to be unbegotten is the essence of God, to be begotten is not that essence; and if the opposite is the case, the Unbegotten is excluded. What argument can contradict this? Choose then whichever blasphemy you prefer, for you are now the inventor of a new theology, if indeed you are anxious to embrace a blasphemy at all costs. In the next place, in what sense do you assert that the Unbegotten and the Begotten are not the same? If youmean that the Uncreated and the Created are not the same, I agree with you; for certainly the Unoriginate and the created are not of the same nature. But if

you say that theOne who Begot and that which is Begotten are not the same, the statement is inaccurate. For it is in fact a necessary truth that they are the same. For the nature of the relation of Father to Child is this, that the offspring is of the same nature with the parent.

Or we may argue again in this formdo youmean byUnbegotten and Begotten, for if you mean the simple fact of being unbegotten or begotten, these are not the same; but if you mean to refer to the persons to whom these terms apply, how are they not the same? For example, Wisdom and Unwisdom are not the same in themselves, but yet both are attributes of a person, who is the same; and they do not mark a difference of essence, but

rather something that is external to the essence. Are immortality and innocence and immutability also the essence of God? If so God would have many essences and not one; or else deity would be a compound of these. For he cannot be all these things and yet without composition, if they are to be held as essences.

29.11. I suppose my opponents do not assert this, for these qualities are common also to other beings. But God’s essence is that which belongs to God alone, and is proper to him. Whoever thinks that matter and form are unbegotten elements, of course, would not allow that unbegottenness is the property of God alone (yet we must cast far away from us the darkness of the Manicheans). But suppose that it is the property of God alone. Then what of Adam?Was he not alone the direct creature of God? Yes, youwill say. But was he then the only human being? By no means. And why? Well the answer is: because humanity does not consist in the aspect of a direct creation, since that which derives from being begotten is also human. Well, in the same way neither is he who is

Unbegotten solely God, though he alone is the Father. But grant that he who is begotten is God too; for he is of God, as you must allow, even though you cling so much to your term “Unbegotten.” Then how would you describe the Essence of God? Not by declaring what it is, but by rejecting what it is not. For your word signifies that God is not begotten; it does not present to you what is the real nature or condition of that which has no

generation. So, tell me what is the Essence of God? It is for your infatuation to define this, since you are so anxious about his generation too; but to us it will be a very great thing, if ever, even in the future, we should learn this, when this darkness and dullness is done away for us, as he has promised who cannot lie. This, then, may be the thought and hope of those who are purifying themselves with a view to this end. For our part, we will

be bold enough only to say that if it is a great thing for the Father to be Unoriginate, it is no less a thing for the Son to have been Begotten of such a Father. For not only would he then share the glory of the Unoriginate, since he is of the Unoriginate, but he also has the added glory of his generation, a thing marvelously great and august in the eyes of all those who are not groveling or completely materialistic in mind.

29.12. But, as they insist on saying, if the Son is the same as the Father in respect of essence, then it will follow that if the Father is unbegotten, the Son must be so likewise. Quite so: that would follow if the essence of God consisted in being unbegotten; and so he would be a strangemixture, “begottenly unbegotten.” If, however, the difference is outside the scope of essence, how can you be so certain in projecting this conclusion? Are you also

your father’s father, so as in no respect to fall short of your father, since you are the same with him in essence? Is it not evident that our enquiry into the nature of the essence of God, if we make it, will leave the issue of personhood absolutely unaffected? But that the term “Unbegotten” is not a synonymof God can be proven in this way. If it were so, it would be necessary that, since God is a relative term,Unbegotten should be relative too; or that since Unbegotten is an absolute term, so must God be, namely “God of no one.” For words which are absolutely identical are similarly applied. But the word Unbegotten is not used relatively. For to what could it be relative? And of what things is God the God?Would we not say: “Of all things?” How then can God and Unbegotten be identical terms? Or again, since Begotten and Unbegotten are contradictories, like possession and deprivation, it would follow that contradictory essences would co-exist; a thing which is impossible. Or again, since possessions are prior to deprivations, and the latter are destructive of the former, not only must the essence of the Son be prior to that of the Father, but it must be destroyed by the Father, at least on your hypothesis.

29.13.What now remains of their invincible arguments? Perhaps the last one they will take refuge in is this. “If God has never ceased to beget, the generation is imperfect; and when will he cease?” But if he has ceased, then he must have begun. And so once more these carnal minds bring forward carnal arguments.Whether he is eternally begotten or not, I do not conclude as yet, until I have looked into the biblical statement more accurately: “Before all the hills he begets me.” But I cannot see the necessity of their conclusion. For if, as they say, everything that is to come to an end also had a beginning, then surely that which has no end had no beginning.What then will they conclude about the soul, or the angelic nature? If it had a beginning, it will also have an end; and if it has no end, it is evident that according to them it had no beginning. But the truth is that they did have beginning, and will never have an end. Their assertion, then, that whatever has an end had also a beginning, is simply untrue. Our position, however, is, that as in the case of a horse, or an ox, or a human being, the same definition applies to all

the individuals of the same species; and whatever shares the definition also has a right to the name; so, in the very same way there is One Essence of God, and One Nature, and One Name; although in accordance with a distinction in our thoughts we use distinct names and that whatever is properly called by this name really is God; but what he is in nature, that he is truly called, if at least we are to hold to the position that this Truth is a matter not of names but of realities. But our opponents, as if they were afraid of leaving any stone unturned to subvert the Truth, indeed acknowledge that the Son is God when they are compelled to do so by arguments and evidences; but they only mean that he is God in an ambiguous sense, and that he only has a partial share in the title.

29.14. And when we make our objections and ask them: “So what do you really mean to say? That the Son is not properly God? Just as a picture of an animal is not properly an animal? And if not properly God, in what sense is he God at all?” And to this they reply, “Why should these terms not be ambiguous, and in both cases be used in a proper sense?” And they offer us then such instances as the house dog and the dogfish; where the word Dog is ambiguous, and yet in both cases is properly used, for there is such a species corresponding to both these named; or they raise up other cases in which the same appellative is used for two things of different natures. But, my dear, in this case, when you include two natures under the same title, you are not asserting by that argument that

either is better than the other, or that the one is prior and the other posterior, or that one is to a greater degree and the other to a lesser degree that thing which is predicated of them both; for there is no connecting link which forces this necessity upon them. One is not a dog more than the other, and one less so; either the dogfish more than the house dog, or the house dog than the dogfish. Why should they be, or on what principle? But the community of name is here between things of equal value, though of different natures. But in the case of which we are speaking presently, you actually couple the name of God with adorable majesty, and make it surpass every essence and nature (an attribute of God alone), and then you ascribe this name to the Father, while you deprive the Son of it, and make him subject to the Father, and give him only a secondary honor and worship. Even if you bestow on him an equal title in words, yet in practice you cut off his divinity, and pass malignantly from a use of the same name (implying an exact equality) to one which connects things which are clearly not equal. And so the case of the depicted as distinct from the living person are, in your mouth, an apter illustration of the relations of deity than the instance of “dogs” which I gave before. Or else you must concede to both an equal dignity of nature as well as the common name, even though you introduced these natures into your argument as being different. But in this way you destroy the analogy of your dogs, which you invented as an instance of inequality. For what is the force of your instance of ambiguity, if those whom you distinguish are not equal in honor? For it was not to prove an equality but an inequality that you took refuge in your syllogistic dogs. How could anybody be more clearly convicted of fighting both against his own arguments, and against the Godhead itself?

29.15. If, when we admit that in respect of being the Cause, the Father is greater than the Son, they should hear us as arguing the premiss that he is the cause by nature, and then deduce the conclusion that he is greater by nature also, it would be difficult to say whether they mislead most themselves or those with whom they are arguing. For it does not absolutely follow that all that is predicated of a class can also be predicated of all the individuals composing it; for the different particulars may belong to different individuals. What if I assume the same premiss, namely, that: “the Father is greater by Nature,” and then add this other one, “Yet not greater in every respect in terms of nature, nor yet Father by terms of nature.” Then what is to prevent me from concluding, “Therefore the

Greater is not in every respect greater, nor is the Father in every respect Father?” Or, if you prefer it, let us put it in this way: “God is an Essence: But an Essence is not in every case God”; and what if you should then draw the conclusion for yourself: “Therefore God is not in every case God.” I think the fallacy here is evidently the arguing from a conditioned to an unconditioned use of a term, to use the technical expressions of the logicians. For while we assign this word “Greater” to the Father’s nature viewed as a cause, the opponents infer it of his nature viewed in itself. It is just as if when we said that such a one was a “dead man” they were to infer simply that it meant he was “a man.”

29.16. I cannot refrain from mentioning another point of theirs which amazes me more than the rest. The term “Father,” they say, is a name either of an essence or of an action – thinking to tie us hand and foot again. If we say that it is a name of an essence, they will say that we agree with them that the Son must be of a different essence, since there is only one essence of God, and this, so they say, is exhausted by the term Father. On the other hand, if we say that Father is the name of an action, we shall be supposed to be acknowledging plainly that the Son is created and not begotten. For where there is an agent there must also be an effect. And they will then say that they wonder how that which is made can be identical with that which made it. I should myself have been frightened by their clever distinction, if it had been necessary to accept one or other of these alternatives, but really we need to set both of them aside, and state instead a third and truer one, namely: that Father is not a name either of an essence or of an action, but is the name of the relation in which the Father stands to the Son, and the Son to

the Father. For, as with us, these names make known a genuine and intimate relation, so too in the case before us they denote an identity of nature between the one that is begotten and the one that begets. But even if we concede to them that Father is a name of essence, it will still bring in the idea of Son, and will not necessarily imply that it is of a different nature, according to common ideas and the force of such names. Or let it be, if you wish, the name of an action. Even then you will not defeat us in this way. The consubstantiality of Father and Son would indeed be the result of this action, or otherwise the conception of an action in this matter would be absurd. You see then how, even though you try to fight unfairly, we easily avoid your sophistries. But now, since we have ascertained the real degree of your invincibility in terms of arguments and sophistries, let us look at your strength in relation to the Oracles of God, to see if you can succeed in convincing us from exegesis.

29.17. Now we have learnt to believe in and to teach the divinity of the Son from the great and lofty utterances of Scripture. And which instances? These: God (The Word) “Who was In the Beginning,” and “With the Beginning,” and “The Beginning” itself. “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” and “With you is the beginning,” and “He who calls her the beginning from generations.”

Then we learn that the Son is Only-Begotten; for scripture says: “The only begotten Son who is in the bosomof the Father, he it is who has made him known.” As regards the Way, the Truth, the Life, and the Light, we have: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”; and “I am the Light of the World.” Concerning Wisdom and Power we have: “Christ, theWisdomof God, and the Power of God.”Or with regard to the Effulgence, the Impress,

the Image, the Seal we have this: “Who being the effulgence of his glory and the impress of his essence,” and again: “The Image of His Goodness,” and “It is he whom God the Father has sealed.” Also for titles such as Lord, King, He That Is, The Almighty, consider: “The Lord rained down fire from the Lord”; and “A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your Kingdom”; and “Which is and was and is to come, the Almighty” – all of which passages are clearly spoken of in relation to the Son, with all the other passages of the same

force, none of which is an afterthought, or added later to the Son or the Spirit, any more than to the Father himself. For their perfection is not affected by additions. There never was a timewhenGod was without theWord, or when he was not the Father, or when he was not true, or not wise, or not powerful, or devoid of life, or of splendor, or of goodness.

29.18. But so as to stand against all these texts you reckon up for me the expressions which only demonstrate your ignorant arrogance, such as: “My God and your God,” or terms such as greater, or created, or made, or sanctified. Add, if you like, the titles Servant and Obedient, or attributions such as gave and learnt, and was commanded, was sent, cando nothing of himself, was told, judged, or willed. And furthermore we have these issues – his ignorance and subjection, his prayer, his asking, his increase, and his being made perfect. And if you like there are even more humble things than these; such as when scripture speaks of his sleeping, his hunger, his being in an agony, and his fear; and perhaps you would make even his Cross and Death a matter of reproach to him? His Resurrection and Ascension I fancy you will leave tome, for in these is found something to support our position. A good many other things you might pick up also, if you desire to cobble together that equivocal and intruded god of yours, who to us is True God, and Equal to the Father. For every one of these points, taken separately, may very easily, if we go through them one by one, be explained to you in the most reverent sense, and the stumbling-block of the letter can easily be cleaned away; that is, if your stumbling is an honest thing and not willfully malicious. But, to give you the explanation in one sentence, it is this:Whatever is lofty you should apply to the Godhead, and to that nature in him which is superior to sufferings and incorporeal; but everything that is lowly, you should apply to the composite condition of him who for your sakesmade himself of no repute and was incarnate. Yes, for it is noworse thing to say, “Was madeMan,” and afterwards was also exalted. If you do this

I hope that you will learn to abandon these carnal and groveling doctrines of yours, and study to be more sublime, and to ascend along with his Godhead, so that you will not remain permanently among visible realities, but will rise up with him into the world of thought, and come to knowwhich scriptural passages refer to his own nature, andwhich to his assumption of human nature.

29.19. For he whom you now treat with contempt was once above you. He who is now Man was once the Uncompounded.What he was, he continued to be; what he was not he took to himself. In the beginning he was, uncaused; for what is the Cause of God? But afterwards, for a cause, he was born. And that cause was that you might be saved, you who insult him and despise his Godhead, only because he took upon himself your denser

nature, having converse with flesh by means of Mind. And his inferior nature, the humanity, became divine, because it was united to God, and became one person because the higher nature prevailed, in order that I too might be made God insofar as he was made Man. He was born, but he had already been begotten: he was born of a woman, but she was a Virgin. The first is a human thing, the second divine. In his human nature he had no Father, just so in his divine nature no mother. Both these realities belong to Godhead. He dwelt in the womb, but he was recognized by the prophet, himself still in the womb, leaping before theWord, for whose sake he came into being. He was wrapped in swaddling clothes, but he took off the swathing bands of the grave by his rising again.

He was laid in a manger, but he was glorified by angels, and proclaimed by a star, and worshipped by the Magi.Why are you offended by that which is presented to your sight, because you will not look at that which is presented to your mind? He was driven into exile into Egypt, but he drove away the Egyptian idols. He had no form or comeliness in the eyes of the Jews, but to David he was “fairer than the children of men.” And on the

mountain he was bright as the lightning, and became more luminous than the sun, initiating us into the mystery of the future.

29.20. He was baptized as man, but he remitted sins as God, not because he needed purificatory rites himself, but that he might sanctify the element of water. He was tempted as man, but he conquered as God; indeed he bids us be of good heart because he has overcome the world. He hungered, but he fed thousands; for he is the heavenly

bread that gives life. He thirsted, but he also cried out: “If any one should thirst, let them come to me and drink.” He promised that fountains should flow from those that believed. He was wearied, but he is the Rest of those who are weary and heavy laden. He was heavy with sleep, but he walked lightly over the sea. He rebuked the winds, and made Peter light as he began to sink. He pays tribute, but it is from out of a fish; indeed, he is the King of those who demanded it.He is called a Samaritan and a demoniac; but he saves the one who came down from Jerusalem and fell among thieves; while the demons acknowledge him, and he drives out devils and sinks into the sea legions of foul spirits, watching the Prince of the demons falling like lightning. He is stoned, but is not

captured. He prays, but he hears prayer. He weeps, but he causes tears to cease. He asks where Lazarus was laid, for he was man; but he raises Lazarus from the dead, for he was God. He is sold, and very cheap, for it was only for thirty pieces of silver; but he redeems the world, and that at a great price, for the price was his own blood. As a

sheep he is led to the slaughter, but he is the Shepherd of Israel, and now of the whole world also. As a Lamb he is silent, yet he is the Word, and is proclaimed by the voice of one crying in the wilderness. He is bruised and wounded, but he heals every disease and every infirmity.He is lifted up and nailed to the tree, but by the Tree of Life he restores us; indeed he saves even the Robber who was crucified with him. He wrapped the visible world in darkness. He is given vinegar to drink mingled with gall. And who indeed was this? The very one who turned the water into wine, who is the destroyer of the bitter taste, he who is sweetness himself and all our desire. He lays down his life, but he has power to take it again; and the veil is torn in two, for the mysterious gates of heaven are

opened; the rocks are split, the dead arise. He dies, but he gives life, and by his death destroys death. He is buried, but he rises again; he goes down into Hell, but he brings up the souls; he ascends to Heaven, and shall come again to judge the living and the dead, and to put to the test such words as yours. If the one aspect should give you a starting point for your error, let the other put an end to it.

29.21. All this, therefore, is the reply we make to those who would set us puzzles. I do not make it willingly as a matter of fact (for light talk and contradictions of words are not agreeable to the faithful, and one Adversary is enough for us), but I do so fromnecessity, for the sake of our assailants (just as medicines exist only because of diseases), so that they may be led to see that they are not all-wise and not invincible in those superfluous

arguments which make the Gospel into something empty. For when we leave off believing, and protect ourselves by mere strength of argument, and by questionings destroy the claim which the Spirit has upon our faith, then our argument is not strong enough for the importance of the subject (and this must necessarily be the case, since it is

put in motion by an organ of so little power as the mind). And then what shall be the result? The weakness of the argument, you see, appears to belong to the mystery, and it follows therefore that elegance of language makes the Cross void, as Paul also thought. For it is faith which brings our argument fullness. But may he who proclaims unions and unfastens those that are bound, and who puts into our minds how to solve the knots of their unnatural dogmas, change these men if it is possible and make them faithful believers instead of rhetoricians; Christians instead of that which they now are called.Truly we pray for this and beseech it for Christ’s sake. So, be reconciled to God, and do not quench the Spirit; or rather, may Christ be reconciled to you, and may the Spirit enlighten you, even though it is late in the day. But even if you are too fond of your quarrels, we at any rate will hold fast to the Trinity; and by the Trinity may we be saved, remaining pure and without offense, until the more perfect manifestation of that which we desire, in him, Christ our Lord, to whom be the glory for ever. Amen. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 30: The Fourth Theological Oration, Which is the Second Concerning the Son

30.1. I have, by the power of the Spirit, sufficiently overthrown the subtleties and intricacies of their arguments, and already generically solved the objections and oppositions drawn from Holy Scripture, by which these sacrilegious robbers of the Bible, these thieves of its internal sense, draw over the multitude to their side, and confuse the way of truth. They do this quite evidently, as I believe all candid persons will acknowledge,

attributing to the Deity the higher and diviner expressions, and the lower and more human to him who for us men was the Second Adam, and was God made capable of suffering so as to strive against sin. But we have not yet gone through the passages in detail, because of the haste of our argument. And since you have demanded of us a brief explanation of each of these texts, so that you may not be carried away by the plausibilities of their arguments, we will therefore state the explanations summarily, dividing them into numbers for the sake of carrying them more easily in mind.

30.2. For them the text is always before their eyes: “The Lord created me at the beginning of his ways with a view to his works.” How do we respond to this? Shall we bring an accusation against Solomon, or reject his teachings because of his own lapse in his later life? or shall we say that the words are those of Wisdom herself, as it were of

Knowledge and the Creator-Word, in accordance with which all things were made? For Scripture often personifies many even lifeless objects; as for instance, “The Sea said” so and so; and, “The Depth said: It is not in me”; and “The Heavens declare the glory of God”; and again a command is given to the Sword; and the Mountains and Hills are asked the reason of their skipping. We do not allege any of these parallels, though some

of our predecessors used them as powerful arguments. But let us grant that the expression is used of our Savior himself, the true Wisdom. Let us consider one small point together. What among all things that exist is unoriginate? The Godhead. For no one can tell the origin of God, for such an origin would be older than God. But what is the cause of the Manhood, which God assumed for our sake? It was surely for our salvation. What else could be the cause? Since we find in the Incarnate One clearly both what is created and what gives origin to me, the argument is simple: whatever we find derives from a cause we must refer to the humanity, but all that is absolute and unoriginate we should refer to his Godhead. But is not this text’s phrase “created” spoken in connection with a cause? “He created me,” so the text says, “As the beginning of his ways, with a view to his works.” Now, the works of his hands are truth and judgment; for whose sake “He was anointed with Godhead’; and this anointing refers to the humanity; but the phrase: “He begets me” is not connected with any cause; or else point one out. What argument, therefore, will disprove that Wisdom is referred to as “Creature,” in connection with that lower generation of his, but is called “Begotten” in respect of his first and more incomprehensible generation?

30.3. Now let us turn to the issue of his being called Servant, and how he serves many so well, and how it is a great thing for him to be called the Child of God. For in truth he was in servitude to the flesh and to his birth and to the conditions of our life, all with a view to our liberation, and the freedom of all those whom he has saved, who were held in bondage under sin. What greater destiny can befall man’s humility than that he should be commingled with God, and by this commingling should be deified, and that we should be thus visited by the Dayspring from on high, that even that Holy Thing that should be born should be called the Son of the Most High, and that there should be bestowed upon him the Name which is above every name? And what else can this name

be other than God? And that every knee should bow to the one who for our sake was held in low esteem, and who mingled the form of God with the form of a servant, so that all the House of Israel would know that God has made him both Lord and Christ? For all this was done by the working of the Begotten, and by the good pleasure of the One who begot him. 30.4. Well, let us look at the other of their great irresistible texts. “He must reign,” till such and such a time … and “be received by heaven until the time of restitution,” and “have the seat at the Right Hand until the overthrow of his enemies.” But after this? Must he then cease to be King, or be removed from Heaven? Why, who shall make him cease, or for what cause?What a bold and very anarchical interpreter you must be; since

you must have heard also that “Of his Kingdom there shall be no end.” Your mistake arises from not understanding that the word “Until” is not always exclusive of that which comes after, but asserts a notion of “up to” that time, without denying what comes after it. To take a single instance: how else would you understand the text: “Behold, I amwith you always, even to the end of the world?” Does it mean that he will no longer be with us

afterwards? Why would that follow? But this is not the only cause of your error; for you also fail to distinguish between the things that are being signified. He is said to reign in one sense as the Almighty King, both of the willing and the unwilling; but in another sense insofar as his reign produces submission in us, and places us under his Kingship, since we willingly acknowledge his Sovereignty. Of his Kingdom, considered in the former sense, there shall be no end. But in the second sense, what end will there be other than his taking us as his servants, as we enter into a state of salvation. For what need is there to effect submission in us when we have already submitted? After this he shall arise to judge the earth, and to separate the saved from the lost. And then he shall

stand as “God in the midst of the gods,” that is of the saved; distinguishing and deciding which honor and mansion each one is worthy to receive.

30.5. Let us next consider that subordination by which you subject the Son to the

Father. You maintain that he is surely subject to God, yet how can this be if he is God?

You propose your argument as if it was about some robber, or some hostile deity. But

look at it in this fashion: It was for my sake that “he was called a curse,” the one who

destroyed my curse; and for me that he was called sin, who takes away the sin of the

world; and for me that he became a new Adam, so as to take the place of the old; then just

so he makes my disobedience his own as Head of the whole Body. Accordingly, for as

long as I am disobedient and rebellious, in terms of my denial of God and my passions,

then so long will Christ also be called “disobedient” on my account. But when all things

shall be subjected to him on the one hand by the universal acknowledgment of him, and

on the other hand by a remaking of the Cosmos, then he himself will also have fulfilled

his submission, even bringing me (whom he has saved) to God. For this, according to my

understanding, is the meaning of the “subjection” of Christ; namely, that he so

completely fulfils the Father’s will. But since the Son subjects all things to the Father,

so does the Father subject all things to the Son; the one by his work, the other by his good

will, as we have already said. And so, he who subjects all, presents to God all that he has

subjected, making our own condition his very own. In the same way, so it seems to me,

we should interpret the text: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” It was not

that he was forsaken either by the Father, or by his own deity, as some have thought, as if

the divinity were afraid of the Passion, and therefore withdrew itself from him in his

sufferings (for who compelled him either to be born on earth, or to be lifted up on the

Cross in the first place?) But, as I said, he was in his own person representing all of us. For

we were the forsaken ones, and were formerly despised, but now by the sufferings of him who could not suffer, we were lifted up and saved. Similarly, he makes our folly his own,

and our transgressions, his own; and so he speaks that verse of the Psalm, for it is very

evident that the 21st Psalm refers to Christ.

30.6. The same considerations apply to yet another passage, “He learned obedience by

the things he suffered,” which also has reference to his “strong crying and tears,” and his

“entreaties,” and his “being heard,” and his “godly reverence.” For all of these things he

brought to effect in a wondrous way, like a drama whose plot was devised on our behalf.

For in his character as the Word he was neither obedient nor disobedient, for such

expressions belong to servants, and inferiors, and the one applies to the better sort, while

the other belongs to those who deserve discipline. But, in his character as the “Form of a

Servant,” he condescends to his fellow-servants (more truly to his servants) and takes up

a strange form, bearing all of me and all of mine in himself, so that he might consume the

bad in himself, just as fire consumes wax, or the sun consumes the mists of earth. And

this was so that I may partake of his nature by this blending. In this way he honors

obedience by his action, and proves it experimentally by his Passion. For to possess the

disposition is not enough, just as it would not be enough in our case either, unless we

also proved it by our acts; for action is the proof of disposition.

And we would not be misguided to assume this also, that by the art of his love for man

he assesses our obedience, and measures all by comparison with his own sufferings, so

that he may know our condition by reference to his own, and know how much can be

demanded of us, and how much we tend to give way, taking into the account, along with

our environment, our weakness also. For if the Light shining through the veil upon the

darkness that is upon this life, was persecuted by the other darkness (I mean, the Evil

One and the Tempter), then how much more will the darkness be persecuted, as being

weaker than the Light? And why should we be surprised if although he entirely escaped

from evil we have been, at any rate in part, overtaken by it? For it is a more wonderful

thing that he should have been chased than that we should have been captured – at least

to the minds of all who reason rightly on the subject. I will add yet another passage to

those I have mentioned, because I think that it clearly tends to the same meaning. I refer

to that text: “Insofar as he has suffered, being tempted, he is able to assist those that are

tempted.” But God will be all in all in the time of restitution; not in the sense that the

Father alone will then exist; and the Son be wholly resolved into him, like a torch sent

back into a great pyre, from which it was pulled away for a short time, and then put back

(for I would not have even the Sabellians injured by such an expression); but the entire

Godhead will be all in all when we shall be no longer divided (as we now are by

movements and passions), and containing nothing at all of God, or very little, but

when we shall be entirely like him.

30.7. As your third point you lay emphasis on the term“greater,” and as your fourth you

hold to the text: “My God and your God.”Well, if he had been called greater, and the word

equal had not occurred, this might perhaps have been a point in their favor. But if we find

bothwords clearly used what will these gentlemen have to say?How will it strengthen their

argument? How will they reconcile the irreconcilable? For that the same thing should be at

once greater than and equal to the same thing is an impossibility; and the evident solution

is that the concept of being greater refers to origination; while the concept of being equal belongs to the Nature; and this we acknowledge readily. But perhaps some one else will

back up our attack on your argument, and assert, that whatever derives fromsuch a Cause

is not inferior to that which has no Cause; since it shares the glory of the Unoriginate,

because it is fromthe Unoriginate. And there is, besides, the issue of the generation, which

is for all humanity a matter so marvelous and of suchmajesty. For to say that the Father is

greater than the Son when the latter is considered as man, is true indeed, but is no great

thing. For whatmarvel is it if God is greater thanman? Surely this is enough to say in reply

to their talk about the issue of being “greater.”

30.8. As to the other passages, the reference to “My God” would be used in respect, not

of theWord, but of theWord made visible. For how could there be a God of the One who

is truly God? In the same way God is Father, not of the One who can be seen, but rather of

the Word; for our Lord was of two Natures; so that one expression is used properly, the

other improperly, in each of the two cases; but exactly the opposite way to how they are

used in respect of us. For with respect to us God is properly our God, but not properly

our Father. And this is the cause of the heretics’ mistake, namely that they join these two

names, which are interchanged because of the Union of Christ’s Natures. And an

indication of this is found in the fact that wherever the Natures are distinguished in

our thoughts from one another, the Names are also distinguished; as you hear in Paul’s

words, “The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory.” The God of Christ, note,

but the Father of Glory. For although these two terms express only one single Person, yet

this is not by a Unity of Nature, but by a Union of the two. What could be clearer?

30.9. Fifthly, let it be alleged that it is said of Christ in scripture that he “receives life,”

“judgment,” “inheritance of the Gentiles,” or “power over all flesh,” or “glory,” or

“disciples,” or whatever else is mentioned. This also belongs to the humanity; and yet

if you were to ascribe these things to the Godhead, it would be no absurdity. For you

would not so ascribe it as if it were a newly acquired property, but rather as if it were

something that pertained to him from the beginning by reason of nature, and not as an

act of grace.

30.10. Sixthly, let it be asserted that it is written, “The Son can do nothing of Himself,

but what he sees the Father do.” The solution of this is as follows: Can and Cannot are not

words with only one meaning, for they have many meanings. On the one hand they are

used sometimes in respect of deficiency of strength, sometimes in respect of time, and

sometimes relative to a certain object; as for instance, “A Child cannot be an Athlete,” or,

“A Puppy cannot see, or fight with, so and so.” Perhaps some day the child will be an

athlete, and the puppy will see, or will fight with that other character; though even then

perhaps it may still be unable to fight with any other. Or again, the words may be used of

something which is generally true. For instance, “A city that is set on a hill cannot be

hidden”; while yet it might possibly be hidden by another higher hill being in its line of

sight or suchlike. Or in another sense the words can be used of a thing which is not

reasonable; such as, “Can the Children of the Bridechamber fast while the Bridegroom is

with them?” whether he is envisaged as Bridegroom visible in the bodily form (for the

time of his dwelling among us was not one of mourning, but one of gladness), or,

considered as the Word. For why should they keep a bodily fast who are cleansed by the

Word? Or, again, they are used of that which is contrary to the will; as in, “He could do no mighty works there because of their unbelief,” – that is of those who should receive

them. Since there is need of both faith in the patient and power in the healer, for a healing

to occur, when one of the two fails the other proves impossible. But probably this sense

also should be classified as unreasonable. For healing is not reasonable in the case of

those who would afterwards be injured by unbelief. The sentence “The world cannot

hate you,” comes under the same heading, as does also the text: “How can you, being evil,

speak good things?” For in what sense is either one impossible, except that it is contrary

to the will? There is a somewhat similar meaning involved in the expressions which

imply that a thing impossible by nature is possible to God if he so wills; such as that a

man cannot be born a second time, or that a needle will not let a camel pass through it.

For what could prevent either of these things happening, if God so willed?

30.11. And besides all this, there is the thing that is absolutely impossible and

inadmissible, such as that issue which we are now examining. For as we assert that it is

impossible for God to be evil, or for him not to exist – for this would be indicative of

weakness in God rather than of strength – or for the non-existent to exist, or for two and

two to make both four and ten; just so it is impossible and inconceivable that the Son

should do anything that the Father does not do. For all that the Father has belongs to the

Son; and on the other hand, all that belongs to the Son is the Father’s. Nothing then is

peculiar, because all things are in common. For their being itself is common and equal,

even though the Son should receive it from the Father. It is in respect of this that the text

says: “I live by the Father,” not as though his Life and Being were kept together by the

Father, but rather because he has his Being from the One who is beyond all time, and

beyond all cause. But how does theWord see the Father doing, and himself does likewise?

Is it like those who copy pictures and letters, because they cannot attain the truth unless

by looking at the original, and being led by the hand by it? But how could Wisdom ever

stand in need of a teacher, or be incapable of acting unless taught? And in what sense

does the Father “Do” in the present or in the past? Did he make another world before this

one? Or is he going to make a world to come? And did the Son look at that one and make

this? Or will he look at the other, and make one like it? According to this argument there

must be four worlds, two made by the Father, and two by the Son. But this is an

absurdity! He cleanses lepers, and delivers men from evil spirits and diseases, and

quickens the dead, and walks upon the sea, and does all his other works; but in what

case, or when did the Father do these acts before him? Is it not clear that the Father

impressed the ideas of these same actions, and the Word brings them to pass, yet not in

slavish or unskillful fashion, but rather with full knowledge and in a masterly way; or, to

speak more properly, like the Father? For in this sense I understand the words that

whatever is done by the Father, these things the Son does likewise; not, that is, because of

the likeness of the things done, but in respect of the Authority. This might well also be the

meaning of the passage which says that: “The Father works even to now, and the Son

also”; and what is more this also refers to the government and preservation of the things

which he has made; as is shown by the passage which says that: “He makes his Angels

Spirits,” and that “The earth is founded upon its steadfastness” (though once for all these

things were fixed and made) and that “The thunder is made firm and the wind created.”

For all these things the word was given once, but the action continues on even now.

30.12. Let them quote in the seventh place that: The Son “came down from Heaven,

not to do his own will, but the will of him who sent him.”Well, if this had not been said

by the very one who so came down, we should say that the phrase can be characterized as

issuing from the human nature, not from the one who is conceived of in his character as

the Savior, for his human will cannot be opposed to God, seeing it is altogether taken

into God; but conceived of simply as in our nature, inasmuch as the humanwill does not

completely follow the Divine, but for the most part struggles against and resists it. For we

understand in the same way the words, “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me;

Nevertheless let not my will but yours be done.” For it is not likely that he did not know

whether it was possible or not, or that he would oppose will to will. But since, as this is

the language of the One who assumed our Nature (for he it was who came down), and

not of the Nature which he assumed, we must meet the objection in this way: that the

passage does not mean that the Son has a special will of his own, besides that of the

Father, but rather that does not have such; so that the meaning would be, “not to do my

own will, for there is none of mine separate, but only that which is common to me and

you; for as we have one Godhead, so too do we have one will.” For many such expressions

are used in relation to this Communality, and are expressed not positively but negatively;

as, for example: “God does not give the Spirit by measure,” for as a matter of fact he does

not give the Spirit to the Son, nor does he measure it, since God is not measured by God.

Or again, “Not my transgression nor my sin.” The words here are not used because he has

these things, but because he does not have them. And again, “Not for any righteousness

which we have done,” for we have not done any. And this meaning is evident also in the

clauses which follow. For what, does he say, is the will of my Father – except that

everyone who believes in the Son should be saved, and obtain the final Resurrection.

Now is this the will of the Father, but not the will of the Son too? Or does he preach the

Gospel, and receive men’s faith against his will? Who could believe that? Moreover,

that passage which says that theWord which is heard is not the Son’s but the Father’s has

the same force. For I cannot see how that which is common to two can be said to belong

to one alone, however much I reflect on it; and I do not think any one else can. If then

you hold this opinion concerning the Will, you will be right and reverent in your

opinion, as I think, and as every right-minded person thinks.

30.13. The eighth passage in hand is, “That they may know you, the only true God,

and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”; and “There is none good save one, that is, God.”

The solution of this appears to me very easy. For if you attribute this only to the Father,

where will you place the Very Truth? For if you conceive in this way about the meaning of

the phrase “To the only wise God” or “Who only has Immortality, dwelling in the light

which no man can approach,” or of “To the King of the Ages, immortal, invisible, and

only wise God,” then the Son seems to have vanished under a sentence of death, or of

darkness, or at any rate seems to have been condemned to be neither wise, nor a king,

nor invisible, nor God at all, which sums up all these points. And how will you prevent

his Goodness, which especially belongs to God alone, from perishing along with all the

rest? For my part, I think that the passage “That they may know you the only true God,”

was spoken concerning the overthrowing of those gods which are falsely so called,

for otherwise he would not have added “And Jesus Christ whom you have sent,” if the “Only True God” stood in contrast with him, and the sense of the sentence did not proceed

upon the basis of a common Godhead. The phrase “None is Good” meets the tempting

Lawyer, who was testifying to his Goodness viewed asMan. For perfect goodness, he says,

belongs to God alone, even if a man is called perfectly good. As for instance, “A good man

out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things.” And, “I will give the

kingdom to one who is good above you.” These are words of God, speaking to Saul about

David. Or again, “Do good, O Lord, to the good,” and all other similar expressions

concerning those of us who are praised, upon whom it is a kind of effluence from the

Supreme Good, and has come to them in a secondary degree. It will be best of all if we can

persuade you of this. But if not, what will you say to the suggestion on the other side, that

according to your hypothesis the Son has been called the only God. In what passage you

ask? Why, in this: “This is your God; no other shall be accounted of in comparison with

him,” and a little further on, “After this he showed himself upon earth, and conversed

withmen.” The final addition proves clearly here that the words are not used of the Father,

but of the Son; for it was he who in bodily formdwelt with us, and was in this lower world.

Now, if on the other hand, we should insist on taking these words as referring to the Father,

and not the imaginary gods, we lose the Father by the very terms which we were pressing

against the Son. And what could be more disastrous than such a victory?

30.14. Ninthly, they argue, there is that text “Seeing he always lives to make intercession

for us.” O, how beautiful and mystical and kind that is. For to intercede does not

imply to seek for vengeance, as is most men’s way (for in that there would be something

of humiliation), but it means that he pleads for us by reason of his Mediatorship, just as

the Spirit also is said to make intercession for us. For there is “One God, and One

Mediator between God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus.” For he still pleads even now as

Man for my salvation; for he continues to wear the Body which he assumed, until should

make me God by the power of his Incarnation; although “He is no longer known after

the flesh” – I mean, the passions of the flesh, the same as ours, sin excepted. For this

reason we have an Advocate, Jesus Christ, not indeed as if prostrating himself for our

sake before the Father, and falling down before him in a slavish fashion: away with a

suspicion so truly slavish and unworthy of the Spirit! For neither is it seemly for the

Father to have required this, nor for the Son to submit to it; nor is it just to think such

things of God. But by virtue of what he suffered as Man, he persuades the Father to be

patient, as his Word and Counselor. I think this is the meaning of the concept of his

Advocacy.

30.15. Their tenth objection is the issue of ignorance, and the statement that “Of the

last day and hour no man knows, not even the SonHimself, but only the Father.” And yet

how canWisdom be ignorant of anything? – that is,Wisdom who made the worlds, who

perfects them, who remodels them, who is the boundary of all things that were made,

who knows the things of God just as the spirit of a man knows the things that are in him?

For what can be more perfect than this knowledge? How can you say then that all things

before that hour he knows accurately, and even all things that are to happen about the

time of the end, but as to the hour itself he is ignorant? For such a thing would be like a

riddle; as if one were to say that he knew accurately all that was in front of the wall, but

did not know the wall itself; or that, knowing the end of the day, he did not know the beginning of the night – where knowledge of the one necessarily brings in the other.

Accordingly everyone must see that he does know as God, and does not know as Man;

if one may separate the visible from that which is discerned by thought alone. For the

absolute and unconditioned use of the Name “The Son” in this passage, without the

addition of whose Son, gives us this thought, that we are to understand the ignorance in

the most reverent sense, by attributing it to the Manhood, rather than to the Godhead.

30.16. If these arguments are sufficient, therefore, let us stop here, and not enquire

further. But if not, our second argument stands as follows: Just as we do in all other

instances, so let us refer the issue of his knowledge of the greatest events, in honor of the

Father, to The Cause. And I think that anyone, even if he did not read it in the way that

one of our own students did, would soon perceive that not even the Son knows the day or

hour otherwise than as the Father does. For what do we conclude from this? That since

the Father knows, therefore also the Son knows, as it is evident that this cannot be known

or comprehended by any but the First Nature. There remains for us to interpret the

passage about his receiving the commandments of God, and about having kept his

commandments, and having done always those things that please him; and in addition

the texts concerning his being made perfect, or having an exaltation, and learning

obedience by the things which he suffered; and also as regards his High Priesthood,

and his Oblation, and his Betrayal, and his prayer to the One who was able to save him

from death, and his Agony and Bloody Sweat and Prayer, and suchlike things. Though it

must be evident to everyone that such words are concerned, not with that Nature which

is Unchangeable and above all capacity of suffering, but rather relate to the passible

Humanity. So this is my argument concerning such objections, so far as to be a sort of

foundation and memorandum for the use of those who are better able to lead on the

enquiry to a more complete elaboration. It may, however, be worthwhile, and will

certainly be consistent with what has been already said, instead of passing over without

remark the actual titles of the Son (there are many of them, and they are concerned with

many of his attributes), to set before you the meaning of each of them, and to point out

the mystical meaning of the names.

30.17. We will make a beginning along these lines. The Deity cannot be expressed in

words. And this is proved to us, not only by reason, but by the wisest and most ancient of

the Hebrews, so far as they have given us grounds for conjecture. For they appropriated

certain characters to the honor of the Deity, and would not even allow the name of

anything inferior to God to be written with the same letters as the name of God, because

to their minds it was improper that the Deity should even to that extent admit any of his

creatures to a share with himself. How then could they have admitted that the invisible

and separate Nature can be explained by divisible words? No one has ever breathed all of

that air, and nor has any mind entirely comprehended, and nor has any speech ever

summed up the Being of God. But we merely sketch him out by means of his attributes,

and in this way we obtain a certain faint, feeble, and partial idea concerning him, and the

best theologian among us is the one who has never claimed to discover the whole truth

(for our present limitations do not allow us to see the whole) but has conceived of him to

a greater extent than another, by gathering in himself more of the divine Likeness or the

Shadow of the Truth, or whatever else we may call it.

30.18. As far as we can reach, therefore the phrases: “He Who Is,” and “God,” are the

special names of his essence; and of these especially “HeWho Is,” not only because when

he spoke to Moses on the mountain, andMoses asked what his name was, this was what

he called himself, commanding him to say to the people “I Am has sent me,” but also

because we find that this name is the one most strictly appropriate. For the name God is

still one of the relative titles, not an absolute one, even if (as they who are skilled in such

etymologies tell us) it is derived from the idea of “running,” or from the term “to blaze

forth”; that is from his continual motion, and because he consumes the evil conditions of

things (from which fact God is also called “A Consuming Fire”). And the same is the case

with the title “Lord,” which also is designated as a name of God. “I am the Lord your

God,” he says, “That isMy name”; and, “the Lord is his name.” But we are enquiring into

a Nature whose Being is absolute, and not into Being as bound up with something else.

But Being is, in its proper sense, peculiar to God, and belongs to him entirely, and it is not

limited or cut short by any “Before” or “After,” for truly in God there is no past or future.

30.19. In relation to the other titles, some are evidently names of God’s authority,

others of his government of the world; and this viewed under a twofold aspect, the one

before, and the other within the Incarnation. For instance the terms Almighty, King of

Glory, King of the Ages, Lord of the Powers, or The Beloved, or King of Kings; or again

the Lord of Sabaoth, that is Lord of Hosts, or Lord of Powers, or Lord of Lords: these are

all clearly titles belonging to his Authority. But the titles: God of Salvation, or of

Vengeance, or of Peace, or of Righteousness; or God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,

and of all the spiritual Israel which sees God, all these titles belong to his Government.

For we are governed by three things, the fear of punishment, the hope of salvation and

glory, and the practice of the virtues by which these are attained; and so it is that the

Name of the God of Vengeance governs fear, and that of the God of Salvation our hope,

and that of the God of Virtues our practice; so that whoever attains to any of these may,

as if carrying God within himself, press on to even greater perfection, and even to that

divine affinity which rises out of the virtues. Now these are Names common to the

Godhead, but the proper name of the Unoriginate One is Father, and the proper name of

the Unoriginately Begotten is Son, and that of the Unbegottenly Proceeding (or going)

forth is The Holy Spirit. Let us move on then to the Names of the Son, which were our

starting point in this part of our argument.

30.20. In my opinion he is called Son because he is identical with the Father in terms of

Essence; but not only for this reason, but also because he is of the Father. And he is called

Only-Begotten, not because he is the only Son and of the Father alone, and only a Son;

but also because the manner of his Sonship is peculiar to himself and not shared by

bodies. And he is called theWord, because he is related to the Father asWord is to Mind;

not only on account of his passionless generation, but also because of the Union, and of

his function of declaring the Father. Perhaps we can compare this relation to that

between a Definition and the Thing defined, since this also is called Logos. For, as

scripture says, whoever has noetically perceived the Son (for this is the meaning of the

phrase “has seen”) has also perceived the Father; and the Son is a “concise demonstration”

and easy exegesis of the Father’s Nature. For everything that is begotten is a silent

word of the one who begot it. And if any one should say that this Name was given him because he exists in all things that subsist, he would not be far wrong. For what is there

that has existence except by the Word? He is also called Wisdom, as the Knowledge of

things divine and human. And how is it possible that he who made all things should be

ignorant of the principles of what he has made? And he is called Power, as the Sustainer

of all created things, and because he gives to them the power to keep themselves together.

And he is called Truth, as being in nature One and not many (for truth is one while

falsehood is manifold), and he is named as the pure Seal of the Father and his most

unerring Impress. And he is called the Image as being of One Substance with him, and

because he is of the Father, not the Father ofHim. For this is of theNature of an Image, to

be the reproduction of its Archetype, and of that whose name it bears; except there is

more to it here. For in ordinary language an image is a motionless representation of that

which has motion; but in this case it is the living reproduction of the Living One, and is

more exactly alike than Seth was to Adam, or as any son is to his father. For such is the

nature of simple existences, such that it is not correct to say of them that they are Like in

one particular and Unlike in another; but they are a complete resemblance, and should

rather be called Identical than they should be called Like. Moreover he is called Light as

being the Brightness of souls cleansed by word and life. For if ignorance and sin are

darkness, then knowledge and a godly life will be Light. And he is called Life, because he

is Light, and is the constituting and creating Power of every reasonable soul. For in him

we live and move and have our being, according to the double power of that breathing

into us; for we were all inspired by him with breath, and as many of us as were capable of

it, and insofar as we open the mouth of our mind, even with God the Holy Spirit. He is

also Righteousness, because he distributes according to that which we deserve, and is a

righteous Arbiter both for those who are under the Law and for those who are under

Grace, for soul and body, so that the former should rule, and the latter obey, and the

higher have supremacy over the lower; that the worse may not rise in rebellion against

the better. He is Sanctification, as being Purity, so that the Pure may be contained by

Purity. And he is called Redemption, because he sets us free, who once were held captive

under sin, giving himself a Ransom for us, as the Sacrifice to make expiation for the

world. And he is called Resurrection, because he raises up from here below, and brings

life again to us, who had been slain by sin.

30.21. These names however are still common to the One who is above us, and to him

who came for our sake. But others are peculiarly our own, and belong to that nature

which he assumed. On this account he is called Man, not only that through his Body he

may be apprehended by embodied creatures (whereas otherwise this would be impossible

because of his incomprehensible nature) but also so that by himself he may sanctify

humanity and be, as it were, a leaven to the whole mass; and by uniting to himself that

which was condemned, might release it from all condemnation, becoming for all men all

that we are, except sin; namely body, soul, mind and all through which death reaches. In

this way he became Man, who is the combination of all these; God in visible form,

because he retained that which is perceived by mind alone. He is Son of Man, both on

account of Adam, and of the Virgin from whom he came; from the one as a forefather,

from the other as his Mother, both in accordance with the law of generation, and yet

apart from it. He is Christ, because of his Godhead. For this is the Anointing of his Manhood, and does not, as is the case with all other “Anointed Ones,” sanctify by its

action, but rather by the presence in his own fullness of the Anointing One. The effect of

this is that: That which anoints is called Man, and makes that which is anointed God.

He is theWay, because he leads us through himself; he is the Door, insofar as he allows us

in; the Shepherd, since he makes us dwell in a place of green pastures, and brings us up by

restful waters, and leads us there, and protects us from wild beasts, converting the

wanderer, and bringing back that which was lost, binding up that which was broken,

guarding the strong, and gathering them together in the Fold beyond, with words of

pastoral knowledge. He is called the Sheep, as being the Victim: the Lamb, as being

perfect: the High priest, as being the Offerer. He is called Melchizedek, as being without

mother in that Nature which is above us, and as being without Father in that nature

which is ours; and without genealogy above (for as it says: “Who shall declare his

generation?”). He is also called King of Salem, which means Peace, and King of

Righteousness, and is said to receive tithes from the Patriarchs, when they prevail over

powers of evil. These are all the titles of the Son.Walk through them: those that are lofty

in a godlike manner; those that belong to the body in a manner suitable to them; or

rather approach them altogether in a godlike manner, so that you yourself may become a

god, ascending from below, for his sake who came down from on high for our sake. In all,

and above all, keep to this principle, and you shall never err, either in regard to the loftier

or the lowlier titles; Jesus Christ is the Same yesterday and today in the Incarnation, and

in the Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 31: The Fifth Theological Oration

On the Holy Spirit

31.1. Such then is the account of the Son, and in this manner he has escaped those who

set out to 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) who

approaching the holy Mountain in an unholy way. But, the opponents go on, what have

you to say about the Holy Spirit? From where do you bring in upon us this strange God,

of whom Scripture is silent? And even those who keep within proper limits in respect to

discourse about the Son speak in such a way. And just as we find in the case of roads and

rivers, that they often split off from one another and then join up again, so it happens

also in this case, through an excess of impiety, that people who differ in all other respects

find 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.

31.2. 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 vehemence 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 it is also difficult because we too, worn out

by the multitude of their questions, feel like men who have lost their appetite; who have

taken a dislike to some particular kind of food, and thus shrink from all food. Just so, we

ourselves have started to have an aversion to 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) just as we

have worked upon it for them, that 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 we will let them show how

the combination of the two words “Holy” and “Spirit” is used in a peculiar sense. And we

will now apply ourselves to the remainder of the subject.

31.3. Our opponents who are angry with us on the grounds that we are bringing in a

strange or interpolated God, that is the Holy Spirit, and who fight so very hard for the

letter, should know that they are afraid where there is no fear; and I would have them

clearly understand that their love for the letter is merely a cloak for their impiety, as I

shall make manifest later, when we refute their objections to the utmost of our power.

But we have so much confidence in the Divinity 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 enlightens every man coming into the world.” The Son was the

True Light which enlightens every man coming into the world. That Other Comforter

was also the True Light which enlightens every man coming into the world. Note the:

Was and Was and Was; but always Was One Thing. Light repeated three times; but One

Light and One Godhead. 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 Light from Light

in Light. Whoever rejects this, let him reject it; and whoever commits iniquity, let him

commit iniquity; but we will proclaim what we have understood. We will climb into a

high mountain, and will shout, and if we cannot be heard, below; we will exalt the Spirit.

We will not be afraid; or if we are afraid, it shall be fear of keeping silence, not fear of

proclaiming.

31.4. 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

wholly perfect? And how can that be perfect which lacks something of perfection? And

surely there is something lacking if it does not possess the Holy; and how would it have

the holy if it were without the Spirit? For either holiness is something different from him,

and if so let some one tell me what it might be 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 the Spirit is not from the beginning, then he is of the same rank

as myself, even though he may be a little before me; since we must both be parted from

the Godhead by time. If he is in the same rank as myself, how can he make me God, or

join me with Godhead?

31.5. However, let me reason with you about Spirit 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 do not know on what grounds, the important testimonies concerning him in the Old Testament.

And as for the Greeks, those who are more inclined to speak of God, and who

approach nearest to us, have formed some conception of the Spirit, as it appears 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 suchlike. But as for our own sages, some have

conceived of him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God; and some have been

uncertain which of these things to call him, out of reverence for Scripture, so they say, as

though the scripture did not make the matter clear either way. And therefore they neither

worship him nor treat him with dishonor, but take up a neutral position (or in truth a

very miserable one) with respect to the Spirit. And of those who consider him to be God,

some are orthodox in mind only, while others venture to be so even with the lips. And I

have heard of some who are even more clever, and measure out the 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 infinite in power but not in essence, and the third circumscribed in both power

and essence; thus imitating (in a different fashion) that party which calls them the

Creator, the Co-operator, and the Minister, and they consider that the same order and

dignity which pertains to these names is also sequenced in the reality of the matter.

31.6. But we cannot enter into any discussion with those who do not even believe in

the Spirit’s existence, nor with the pagan Greek babblers (for we would not be enriched

in our argument “with the oil of sinners”).With the others, however, we will argue, and

will do so as follows. The Holy Spirit must certainly be conceived of either as in the

category of the Self-Existent, or as in that of the things which are contemplated

subsisting in another; of which classes those who are skilled in such matters call the

one “Substance,” and name the other “Accident.” Now if the Spirit 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 the Spirit acts and says various things, and defines, and is

grieved, and is angered, and has all the qualities which clearly belong to one that moves,

and not just to movement? But if he is a Substance and not an attribute of Substance, he

will be conceived of either as being either a Creature of God, or as being God. For

anything between these two (as if it were to have nothing in common with God or

creation, or as being a compound of both) I cannot imagine anyone could posit, not even

those fantasists who invented the mythical goat-stag. Now, if the Spirit is a creature, how

do we believe in him, and how are we made perfect in him? For it is not the same thing to

believe “In” a thing as to believe “About” it. The one belongs to Deity, the other to any

thing in particular. But if the Spirit is God, then he is neither a creature, nor a thing

made, nor a fellow servant, nor any of these lowly titles.

31.7. There I have said it out loud for you. Let your slings be fired off; let the syllogism

be woven. Either the Spirit is altogether Unbegotten, or else he is Begotten. If he is

Unbegotten, then 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 must be 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 your bodily conceptions.

But if he is begotten by the Son, then perhaps you might even say we get a glimpse of a

Grandson God; and nothing can be more absurd than that. Formy 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 point out that he is of God and is

Consubstantial), it would also be necessary to think that all the names of this lower

world and of our nature should be transferred to the Godhead. Or perhaps you would

consider our God to be a male, according to the same arguments, because he is called

God and Father, or that Deity is feminine because of the gender of the word, and Spirit is

thus neuter, because it has nothing to do with generation; But if you are foolish enough

to join with the old myths and fables, so as to say that God begot the Son by a marriage

with his own will, we should then be introduced to the Hermaphrodite god of Marcion

and Valentinus who imagined the newfangled Æons.

31.8. Nevertheless, since we do not admit your first logical premiss, which declared

that there is no mean between Begotten and Unbegotten, then all at once, along with

your magnificent distinctions, away go your Brothers and your Grandsons, just as when

the first link of an intricate chain is broken so all the others are broken along 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, namely our Savior himself?

Or perhaps you have taken that saying out of your Gospels for the sake of your Third

Testament, I mean “The Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father.” Insofar as he

proceeds from that Source, he is certainly no Creature; and inasmuch as he is not

Begotten he is certainly no Son; and inasmuch as he is between the Unbegotten and

the Begotten he is God. And thus escaping the labors of your syllogisms, he has

manifested himself as God, far stronger than your distinctions. What then is this

Procession? Well, you tell me first what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and then I

will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the

Spirit; but then we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God.

And who are we to do such 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 ineffable and

transcending all words?

31.9. So, they argue, what is there lacking to the Spirit which prevents his being a Son,

for if there were not something lacking surely he would be a Son?We assert that there is

nothing lacking – for God has no deficiency. But the difference of manifestation, if Imay

so express myself, or rather of their mutual relations one to another, is what causes the

difference of their names. For it is certainly 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. No, the very fact of being Unbegotten or Begotten, or

Proceeding has given the name of Father to the First, the name of Son to the Second, and the name of the Holy Spirit to the third of whom we are speaking, so that the

distinction of the three Persons may be preserved in the single nature and dignity of the

Godhead. For the Son is not the 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 the Spirit is

what the Son is. The Three are One in Godhead, and the One is three in its properties.

This means that the Unity is not a Sabellian one, but neither does the Trinity countenance

their present evil distinctions.

31.10. What is our conclusion? Is the Spirit God? Most certainly. Well then, is he

Consubstantial? Yes, if he is God.Well,my opponent may say, if both a Son, and one who

is not a Son spring from the same Source and these are both of One Substance with the

Source, then I must conclude that there is a God beside a God. Not at all I say. This only

happens if you admit that there is another God with another divine nature, making such

a Trinity. But since God is One and the Supreme Nature is One, how can I offer you any

comparable analogy? Or will you look for it once more in lower regions and in your own

material surroundings? It is very shameful, and not only shameful, but very foolish, to

take from things here below a guess at what things above are like, and from terms of a

fluctuating nature imagine the things that are unchanging. It is as Isaiah says, to seek the

living among the dead. But even so I will try, for your sake, to give you some assistance

for your thinking, even from such a source. I think I will pass over other possibilities,

though I could bring forward many from natural History, some generally known, others

more specialist knowledge, of what nature has contrived with such wonderful art in

connection with the generation of animals. For not only are likes said to beget likes, and

diverse things said to beget diverse things, but also likes can be begotten by diverse

things, and diverse things by likes. And, if we may believe the legend, there is yet another

mode of generation, when an animal may be self-consumed and thus 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, again by the magnificence of

nature. And indeed sometimes in the same species a part may be generated and a part

not; and yet all remain of one substance; something which is more akin to 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 aspect of the argument.

31.11. What was Adam? A creature of God. Then what 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

different 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 Iwould

attribute creation or fraction or any property of body to the Godhead (let none of your

contenders logistics be down upon me again), but rather that I may contemplate in

these, as on a stage, things which are solely objects of thought. 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 therefore give up your strife against the Spirit, arguing that he must be either

altogether begotten, or else cannot be consubstantial, or be God; and admit now even

from human examples the possibility of our position? I think this would be the best

course for you, unless you are determined to be very quarrelsome, and to fight against

what is proven to be demonstrable.

31.12. But, my opponent 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 derived this tenet from? We will give the

more perfect reason later, when we discuss the question of the unwritten tradition; for

the present it is enough to say that it is the Spirit in whom we worship, and in whom

we pray. For Scripture says, “God is a Spirit, and those that worship him must

worship in Spirit and in truth.” And again, “We do not know, as we should, what

we should pray for; but the Spirit itself makes intercession for us with ineffable sighs,”

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 honor and deity between the Three? So I will

not be frightened off 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,” 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 holding to 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 many,” or “through Christ?” Therefore, cease

this dishonor of the Father by opposing the Only-begotten (for you do no real honor,

by presenting him with a creature but robbing him of what is more valuable, a Son),

for you also dishonor the Son in your opposition to the Spirit. For he is not the

maker of a Fellow servant, but rather he is glorified with One of co-equal honor. Set

no part of the Trinity in the same rank as yourself, or else you will fall away from the

Trinity. Do not divine the single and co-equally August Nature from either one of

them; because if you overthrow any of the Three you will have overthrown the whole.

Better take a meager view of the Unity than to venture on a complete impiety.

31.13. Our argument has now come to its principal point; and I am grieved that a

problem that was long dead, and which had given way to faith, is now stirred up afresh;

yet it is necessary to stand against these babblers, and not to let judgment go by default,

when we have theWord on our side, and are pleading the cause of the Spirit. If, so their

argument goes, 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, and even those who are ranked

second alongside them; I mean those who have a certain moderation in regard to their

views of the Son. For my argument is partly against both of them taken in common, and

partly against the latter group in particular. What I have to say in answer to these is as followsright have you who worship the Son, even though you have revolted from

the Spirit, to call us Tritheists? Are not you therefore 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 towards those not quite dead? But if you do

worship the Son, and are thus far along the way of salvation, we will ask you what reasons

you have to give for your ditheism, if you also might be accused of it? If you have any

word of wisdom among you make me an answer, and open to us also a way towards 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 so we shall win the day by making

use of our accusers as our advocates, and nothing can be more generous than that.

31.14. So, what is our quarrel and dispute with both parties? For us there is One God,

since 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 separated in power; nor can you find

here any of the qualities of divisible things; because the Godhead is, to speak concisely,

undivided in separate Persons; and there is one mingling of Light, as if it were three suns

joined one to each other. And so, when 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, then there are three whom we worship.

31.15. What then do we say about their possible objection: “Well, do not the pagan

Greeks also believe in one Godhead, as their more advanced philosophers declare? And

even among 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 possible to conceive 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 regard to one another and

with ourselves; nor do we remain entirely the same even for a single day, to say nothing of

a whole lifetime, but both in body and in soul we 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.

31.16. Nor do those whom the Greeks worship as gods, and (to use their own

expression) dæmons, need us in any respect to stand as their accusers, for such deities

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 nothing more than 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 the Persons of the Trinity 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. And if this account is

the true one, let us thank God for the glimpse of it that he has granted us. If it is not, let us

seek for a better one.

31.17. As for the arguments with which you would overthrow the Union which we

support, I am at a loss to know whether you are making jokes or are actually in earnest.

For what is the 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 so reckoned. And according to this

principle you cannot avoid speaking of three gods, while we do not run any risk at all of

it, insofar as we assert that the persons 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 comparable to men who hang themselves out of 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. For my part, however,

even if much labor might be involved, I will not abandon the Object of my adoration.

And yet on this point I cannot see where the difficulty is.

31.18. 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, but 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 to refer to

number of things, even if they are of a different nature, and to use One and One and One

in a different way than connoting just 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), I will ask you take your demonstrations from this

source. There are in the Book of Proverbs three things said to go well together, a lion, a

goat, and a cock; and to these is added a fourth: namely a King making a speech before

the people (I will pass over the other sets of four which are counted up in that book,

things of various natures). And I find in the books of 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 are 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 should probably be still more laughed at for such a connumeration.

31.19. But to my mind, my opponent answers, those things are said to be

connumerated and consubstantial when their names also correspond, such as three

Men, or three gods, but not three “this that and the other.” What does this concession

amount to? It is fitting only for one laying down a law of naming, not for one who is

asserting the truth. For must I also 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. But who would ever 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 case of 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 being spoken

of? Why of course, you might answer. Well then, are they of necessity all 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 which

are not consubstantial can be so counted, and the pronunciation of the name once for all

is used in both cases, what is the use of your doctrine?

31.20. 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 concept of “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 inHoly Scripture, sometimes in an earlier, sometimes in

a later place, what prevents them from being at once more honorable and less honorable

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 Spirit. For what would you have done, if each of these

expressions were constantly allotted to each Person (when the fact is that they are used of

all the Persons, as is evident to those who have studied the question), since you even

make them the ground of inequality in terms of both nature and dignity. This is

sufficient argument for all who are not totally lacking sense. But since it is a matter of

great difficulty for you after you have once started to make your assault upon the Spirit,

to check your charge, instead of pushing your quarrel to the bitter end like a furious boar,

casting itself upon the lance until you have received the whole wound in your own breast.

But let us press on to see what further argument remains to you.

31.21. Over and over again you turn upon us the issue of the silence of scripture [in

regard to the Spirit’s deity]. But the fact that it is not a strange doctrine, or an

afterthought, but rather is acknowledged and plainly set forth by the ancients as well

as many in our own day, is already demonstrated by many persons who have treated this

subject, and who have handled the Holy Scriptures; and that not with indifference or as a

mere pastime, but rather who have gone beneath the letter and looked into the inner

meaning, and have been accounted worthy to see the hidden beauty there, and who have

been irradiated by the light of knowledge. We, in our turn, will briefly prove the point

insofar as it is possible, building on another’s foundation in order not to seem to be overcurious

or improperly ambitious. But since the fact, that Scripture does not very clearly

or very often designate the Spirit God in express words (as it does first the Father and

afterwards the Son), is elevated by you into 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.

31.22. 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 a demonstration of this? I am ready to give it. According to Scripture

God sleeps and is awake, is angry, walks, and 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

issue, therefore, is not really fact, but 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 a waking up; for waking is the dissolution of

sleep, just as visitation is the ending 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 more aptly than 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, all the other the

powers or activities of God is depicted for us in terms of some other corporeal one.

31.23. Again, where do you get your terms “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 so you

are slain by your own principle, the names you rely on being overthrown, and therein the

fortress wall in which you trusted. Is it not evident that these titles are derived from

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 word “Am” supports my argument,

for it has neither beginning nor ending. When you accept this, namely that nothing is

before him, and that he has no older Cause, then 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 in this way. But what are those 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 those things which exist, both in fact and in

language, namely: God, Man, Angel, Judgment, Vanity (that is, such arguments as

yours), and the subversion of faith and the emptying-out of the mystery.

31.24. Since 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 plodding follower of syllables at

the expense of facts? If you said twice five or twice seven, and then I concluded from your

words that you meant Ten or Fourteen; or if you spoke of a rational and mortal animal,

and I concluded that you meant Man, would you think that I was talking nonsense?

Surely not, because I should be merely repeating your own meaning; for words do not

belong more to their speaker than to him who called them forth. In this case, therefore,

I was looking, more to the thoughts they were meant to convey than to the words

themselves. And just so, if I found something else included in the meaning of Scripture,

but not explicitly or clearly expressed in its words, should I refrain from expressing it out

of fear of your sophistical trick about terminologies? This is how 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

learned 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, even

though you are so clever, the reason for this entire system of [scriptural] secrecy.

31.25. 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 rather on

account of the wide fame of the matter, two “Earthquakes”; the one being the change

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

suddenly, nor at the first movement of the endeavor. And why not – for this is a point on

which we must have information? It was so 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 appropriate to one who uses force, the latter is ours; the

one is appropriate to the gentleness of God, the other to a tyrannical authority. And so,

God did not think it was fitting to benefit the unwilling, but rather to do good to the

willing. And therefore like a Tutor or Physician he partly removes and partly condones

ancestral habits, conceding a little of what tended to pleasure, just as medical men do

with their patients, so that their medicine may be taken, by being artfully blended with

what is pleasant. For it is a difficult thing to change from habits which custom and usage

have made honorable. For instance, the first earthquake cut off the idols, 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 Jews, instead of Gentiles, and then Christians, instead of Jews. They were thus 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 until

the time he could say, “And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer

persecution?” His former conduct belonged to the temporary dispensation, his later

conduct to maturity.

31.26. 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

like this. The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely.

The New Testament 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 Spirit; in case people might risk

the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers, like men loaded with

food beyond their strength, or those who lift up eyes to the sun’s light which are still too

weak to bear it. But it was done by gradual additions, and, as David says, “Ascents,” and

by advances and progress fromglory to glory, so that the Light of the Trinity might shine

upon the more illuminated. This was the reason, I think, that 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, and after the Passion, and after the

Ascension, perfecting their powers, being breathed upon them, and appearing in fiery

tongues. And indeed it is by “little and little” that he is declared by Jesus, as you will learn

for yourself if you will read more carefully. “I will ask the Father,” Jesus says, “and he will

send you another Comforter, even the spirit of Truth.” He said this that he might not

seem to be a rival God, or to make his discourses to them by another authority. Again, he

says “He shall send him, but it is inMy Name.”He leaves out the “Iwill ask,” but he keeps

the “Shall send”; then again, “I will send,” referring to his own dignity, and “Then shall

come,” evoking the authority of the Spirit.

31.27. You see lights breaking upon us, gradually; and the order of Theology, which it

is better for us to keep, which neither proclaims things too suddenly, nor keeps 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 others, but which I think is actually a fruit of my own meditations. Our Savior

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 these things were hidden. And again he said that all things should be taught us

by the Spirit when he would come to dwell among us. One of these things, I take it, was

the Deity of the Spirit himself, made clear in later days when such knowledge would be

appropriate and capable of being received after our Savior’s restoration, when it would

no longer be received with incredulity because of its marvelous character. And what

greater thing than this did he ever promise, or did the Spirit teach, of all the wondrous

things taught and promised concerning the Majesty of God?

31.28. So this is my position with regard to these matters, and I hope it may be always

my position, and that of all those who are dear to me; to worship God the Father, God

the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, three Persons, One Godhead, undivided in honor and

glory and substance and kingdom, as one of our own inspired philosophers not long

departed has shown. Whoever is otherwise minded, or who follows the temper of the

times, constantly changing their opinion, and thinking of these highest matters most

unsoundly, then let such a person “Never see the rising of theMorning Star,” as Scripture

puts it, nor the glory of its brightness. For if the Spirit 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 he is an object of adoration he must be God; the one notion 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 comes our new creation, and from the new creation comes our

deeper knowledge of the dignity of him from whom it is derived.

31.29. This, therefore, is what may be said as a reply by one who admits the silence of

Scripture. But now the swarm of testimonies shall burst upon you from which the

Divinity of the Holy Spirit shall be shown to all who are not completely stupid, or total

enemies to the Spirit, to be most clearly recognized in Scripture. Look at these facts:

Christ is born; the Spirit is his Forerunner. Christ 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 contained in the notion of

God which are not in his power?What titles which belong to God are not applied to him,

except onlyUnbegotten and Begotten? For it was necessary that the distinctive properties

of the Father and the Son should remain peculiar to them, in case 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 blaspheme 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 is The Lord, the Spirit of Adoption, of Truth, of Liberty; the Spirit ofWisdom, 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,

The Spirit that teaches, that blows where and to how we wills; The Spirit that guides,

talks, sends forth, separates, is angry or tempted; The Spirit that reveals, illumines,

vivifies, or rather is the very Light and the very Life; The Spirit that makes Temples; The

Spirit that deifies; The Spirit that perfects so as even to anticipate Baptism, yet after

Baptism which is to be sought as a separate gift; The Spirit that does all things that God

does; that divides into fiery tongues; divides gifts; making Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists,

Pastors, and Teachers; Spirit that is understanding, manifold, clear, piercing,

undefiled, unhindered, which is the same thing as Most Wise and varied in his actions who makes all things clear and plain; Spirit of independent power, unchangeable,

Almighty, all-seeing, penetrating all spirits that are intelligent, pure, and most subtle

(the Angel Hosts I think); and also inspiring all prophetic and apostolic spirits in the

same manner although not in the same places; since they lived in different places; thereby

showing that he is uncircumscribed.

31.30. Those who say and teach these things, and moreover call him another Paraclete

in the sense of another God, those 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 Spirit: 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, therefore,

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”; or 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 explained by reference to the First Cause, that it may be

shown from whom the Spirit is, and also so that men may not admit Three Principles as

the pagans do. For it is equally impious to confuse the Persons, in the company of the

Sabellians, as it is to divide the Natures in the company of the Arians.

31.31. I have very carefully turned over this matter in my own mind, and have looked

at it from every point of view, in order to find some illustration of this most important

subject, but I have been unable to discover any thing on earth with which to compare the

nature of the Godhead. For even if I did happen upon some minute 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 Spirit. 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.

31.32. Again I thought of the sun and a ray and its light. But here again there is the

anxiety that people might 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 in

case we should seem to give Essence to the Father but deny Personality to the others, and

make them out to be only Powers of God, existing in him and not Personally. For neither

the ray nor the light is another sun, but they are only effulgences from the Sun, and

qualities of its essence. And I was also fearful in case, by this illustration, I should

attribute both Being and Not-being to God, which is an even more monstrous position.

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 sort of 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.

31.33. But it is not possible for me to make use of even this illustration; 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

of it. Finally, then, it seems best to me to let the images and the shadows slip away,

as being deceitful and very far short of the truth. For my part I want to cling to the more

reverent conception, resting upon few words, using the guidance of the Holy Spirit,

keeping to the end as my genuine comrade and companion that enlightenment which

I have received from him, and passing through this world so as 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 honor and might for ever and ever. Amen.

9 Excerpts from the Treatise “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox

Faith” by St. John of Damascus

Book 1. Chapter 1. That the Deity is incomprehensible, and that we ought not to pry

into and meddle with the things which have not been delivered to us by the holy

Prophets, and Apostles, and Evangelists. No one has seen God at any time; the

Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him

The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Father, save

the Son, nor the Son, save the Father. And the Holy Spirit, also, knows the things of God

just as the spirit of a man knows the things that are in him. Moreover, after the first and

blessed nature no one has ever known God, except the one to whom he revealed himself:

something that applies not only to humans, but even to the supramundane powers, even

to the Cherubim and Seraphim themselves.

God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God’s

existence has been implanted by him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its

maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature.Moreover,

by the Law and the Prophets, in former times, and afterwards by his Only-begotten Son,

our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, God disclosed the knowledge of himself to us,

insofar as that was possible for us. And so, we receive all the things that have been

delivered to us by the Law and the Prophets, and the Apostles and Evangelists; and we

know and honor these things seeking nothing beyond them. For God, who is good, is the

cause of all good, and is subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far

removed from the Divine Nature, which is both passionless and entirely good. Since he

knows all things, therefore, and provides what is profitable for each one, he revealed all

that was profitable for us to know; but kept secret all that we were unable to bear. So, let

us be satisfied with these things, and let us stand by them, not removing everlasting

boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition.

Book 1. Chapter 2. Concerning things utterable and things unutterable,

and things knowable and things unknowable

It is necessary, therefore, that whoever who wishes to speak or to hear of God should

understand clearly that both in the doctrine of God and in the doctrine of the Incarnation,

not everything is unutterable, and not everything is utterable; neither is everything

unknowable, or everything knowable. But the knowable things belong to one order, and

the utterable to another; just as it is one thing to speak and another thing to know. Many

of the things relating to God, therefore, that are dimly understood cannot be put into

fitting terms, but with regard to things above us we cannot do other than express

ourselves according to our limited capacity; as, for instance, when we speak of God we

use the terms sleep, and wrath, and inattentiveness, as well as hands, and feet, and similar

expressions.

We, therefore, both know and confess that God is without beginning, without end,

eternal and everlasting, uncreated, unchangeable, invariable, simple, uncompounded,

incorporeal, invisible, impalpable, uncircumscribed, infinite, incognisable, indefinable,

incomprehensible, good, just, the maker of all things created, almighty, all-ruling, allsurveying,

overseer of all, sovereign, judge; and that God is One, that is to say, One

essence; and that he is known, and has his being in three subsistences, in Father, and Son

and Holy Spirit; and that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all

respects, except in the respect of “not being begotten,” that of “being begotten,” and that

of “procession’; and that the Only-begotten Son and Word of God (who is God) in his

compassionate mercy, for our salvation, by the good will of God and the co-operation of

the Holy Spirit, being conceived seedlessly, was born uncorruptedly of the Holy Virgin

and Mother of God, Mary, by the Holy Spirit, and became of her perfect Man; and that

the Same is at once perfect God and perfect Man, of two natures, namely Godhead and

Manhood, and in two natures possessing intelligence, will and energy, and freedom, and

(in a word) perfect according to the measure and proportion proper to each nature (that

is simultaneously to the divinity, and to the humanity, yet to one composite person); and

that he suffered hunger and thirst and weariness, and was crucified, and for three days

submitted to the experience of death and burial, and ascended to heaven, from which

also he came to us, and shall come again. And the Holy Scripture is witness to this and

the whole choir of the Saints.

But even so we do not know, nor can we tell, what the essence of God is, or how it is in

all, or how the Only-begotten Son and God, having emptied himself, became Man of

virginal blood, made by another lawcontrary to our nature, or how it was he walked with

dry feet upon the waters. It is not within our capacity, therefore, to say anything about

God or even to think of him, beyond the things which have been divinely revealed to us,

whether by word or by manifestation, by the divine oracles, both those of the Old

Testament and of the New.

Book 1. Chapter 4. Concerning the nature of Deity: that it is incomprehensible

It is plain, then, that there is a God. But what he is in his essence and nature is absolutely

incomprehensible and unknowable. For it is evident that he is incorporeal. For how

could what is infinite and boundless, which is formless, and intangible and invisible (in short, what is simple and not compounded) possess a body? How could whatever is

circumscribed and subject to passion be immutable? And how could whatever is

composed of elements and is resolved again into elements, be passionless? For combination

is the beginning of conflict, and conflict the beginning of separation, and

separation of dissolution, and dissolution is altogether foreign to God.

Again, how can it be maintained that God permeates and fills the universe? As the

Scriptures say, “Do not I fill heaven and earth, the Lord says?” For it is an impossibility

that one body should permeate other bodies without dividing and being divided, and

without being enveloped and contrasted, in the same way as fluids mix and commingle.

But if some should argue that the body is immaterial, in the same way as that fifth body

which the Greek philosophers speak about (which body is an impossibility), it will be

wholly subject to motion like the heavens. For this is what they mean by the fifth body.

Who then is it that moves this? For everything that is moved is moved by another thing.

And who again is it that moves that? And so on to infinity, till we finally arrive at

something motionless. For the First Mover is motionless, and that is the Deity. And is it

not the case that whatever is moved is circumscribed in space? The Deity alone,

therefore, is motionless, moving the universe by immobility. This is why it must be

assumed that the Deity is incorporeal.

But even to say that God is unbegotten, and without beginning, changeless and

imperishable, and possessed of such other qualities as we are accustomed to ascribe to

God and his environment, gives no true idea of his essence. For such things do not

indicate what he is, but only what he is not. But when we want to explain what the

essence of a thing is, we must speak beyond the mere negative. In the case of God,

however, it is impossible to explain what he is in his essence, and it is more fitting for us

to speak about his absolute separation from all things. For God does not belong to the

class of existing things: not that he has no existence, but insofar as he is above all existing

things, indeed even above existence itself. For if all our forms of knowledge have to do

with what exists, assuredly that which is above knowledge must certainly also be above

essence: and, conversely, that which is above essence will also be above knowledge.

God then is infinite and incomprehensible and all that is comprehensible about him is

his infinity and incomprehensibility. But all that we can affirm concerning God does not

show forth God’s nature, but only the qualities of his nature. For when you speak of himas

good, and just, and wise, and so on, you do not define God’s nature but only the qualities

of his nature. Furthermore, there are some affirmations which we make concerning

God which have the force of absolute negation. For example, when we use the term

darkness, in reference to God, we do not mean darkness itself, but rather that he is not

light, but above light: and when we speak of himas light, wemean that he is not darkness.

Book 1. Chapter 8. Concerning the Holy Trinity

We believe, therefore, in One God, one beginning, having no beginning, uncreated,

unbegotten, imperishable and immortal, everlasting, infinite, uncircumscribed, boundless,

of infinite power, simple, uncompounded, incorporeal, without flux, passionless,

unchangeable, unalterable, unseen, the fountain of goodness and justice, the light of the

mind, inaccessible; a power known by no measure, measurable only by his ownwill alone (for all things that he wills he can achieve), creator of all created things, seen or unseen,

the maintainer and preserver of all things, the provider, master, lord and king over all,

with an endless and immortal kingdom: having no contrary, filling all, encompassed by

nothing but rather himself the encompasser and maintainer and original possessor of the

universe, occupying all essences intact and extending beyond all things, and being

separate from all essence as being himself hyper-essential and above all things and

absolute God, absolute goodness, and absolute fullness: determining all sovereignties

and ranks, being placed above all sovereignty and rank, above essence and life and word

and thought: being himself the very light and goodness, the life and essence, inasmuch as

he does not derive his being from any other, that is to say, of any existent thing: but being

himself the fountain of being to all that is; source of life to the living, of reason to those

who possess reason; to all the cause of all good: perceiving all things even before they

have come to pass: one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one energy, one

beginning, one authority, one dominion, one sovereignty, made known in three perfect

hypostases and adored with one adoration, believed in and served by all rational creation,

united without confusion and divided without separation (a thing which truly transcends

thought). For: “We believe in Father, Son and Holy Spirit” into whom we have

also been baptized. For this was how our Lord commanded the Apostles to baptize,

saying: “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

We believe in one Father, the beginning and cause of all: begotten of no one: without

cause or generation, alone subsisting: creator of all: but Father of one only by nature

(namely his Only-begotten Son and our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ) and

Producer of the most Holy Spirit. And we believe in one Son of God, the Only-begotten,

our Lord, Jesus Christ: Begotten of the Father, before all the ages: Light of Light, true God

of true God: Begotten, not made, Consubstantial with the Father, through whomall things

are made: and when we say “He was before all the ages” we show that his birth is without

time or beginning: for the Son of God was not brought into being out of nothing, “He who

is the effulgence of the glory, the impress of the Father’s subsistence,” the living wisdomand

power, theWord possessing interior subsistence, the essential and perfect and living image

of the unseen God. For he was always with the Father and in him, begotten of him

everlastingly and without beginning. For there never was a time when the Father was

and the Sonwas not; but always the Father and always the Sonwho was begotten of him coexisted.

For he could not have received the name Father apart from the Son: for if he were

without the Son, he could not be the Father: and if he afterwards had the Son, then he

would have become Father later, as if not having been Father prior to this, and he would

then have been changed fromthat which was not Father so as to become the Father. This is

the worst form of blasphemy. For we may not speak of God as destitute of natural

generative power: and generative power means the power of producing from one’s self,

that is to say, from one’s own proper essence, that which is like in nature to one’s self.

And so, in treating of the generation of the Son, it is an act of impiety to say that time

comes into play and that the existence of the Son is of later origin than the Father. For we

hold that it is from him, that is, from the Father’s very nature, that the Son is generated.

And unless we insist that the Son co-existed from the beginning with the Father by

whom he was begotten, then we introduce change into the Father’s subsistence; because, passion, in a manner incomprehensible and perceived by the God of the universe alone:

just as we recognize the existence at once of fire and the light which proceeds from it: for

there is not first of all fire and afterwards light, but they exist together. And just as light is

always the product of fire, and is always in it and never any time separate from it, just so

is the Son begotten of the Father and is never in any way separate from him, but is ever in

him. But whereas the light which is inseparably produced from fire, and always dwells

within it, has no proper subsistence of its own, as distinct from that of fire (since light is a

natural quality of fire), the Only-Begotten Son of God, who is begotten of the Father

without separation and difference and always abides in him, does have a proper

subsistence (hypostasis) of his own distinct from that of the Father.

The terms “Word” and “effulgence,” then, are used because the Son is begotten of the

Father without the union of two, or passion, or time, or flux, or separation: and

the terms “Son” and “impress of the Father’s hypostasis,” are used because he is perfect

and has subsistence and is in all respects similar to the Father, except that the Father is

not begotten: and the term “Only-begotten” is used because he alone was begotten; alone

of the Father alone. For no other generation is like that of the generation of the Son of

God, since none other is Son of God. For though the Holy Spirit proceeds from the

Father, yet this is not generative in character but processive. This is a different mode of

existence, equally incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son.

And so, all the qualities the Father has also belong to the Son, except that the Father is

unbegotten, and this exception involves no difference in essence or dignity, but only a

different mode of coming into existence. We have an analogy in Adam, who was not

begotten (for God himself molded him), and Seth, who was begotten (since he is Adam’s

son), and Eve, who proceeded out of Adam’s rib (and thus she was not begotten). These

do not differ from each other in nature, for they are all human beings: but they do differ

in the mode of their coming into existence.

For one must recognize that the word Unoriginate (agenetos) signifies uncreated or

not having been made, while the word Unborn (agennetos) means unbegotten.

According to the first significance, essence differs from essence: for one essence is

uncreated (agenetos) and another is created (genete). But in the second significance

there is no difference between essence and essence. For the first subsistence of all kinds of

living creatures is agennetos but not agenetos. While they were created by the Creator,

being brought into being by hisWord, but they were not begotten, for there was no preexisting

form like themselves from which they might have been born.

So then in the first sense of the word the three absolutely divine subsistences of the

Holy Godhead agree; for they exist as one in essence and as uncreated. But with the

second signification it is quite otherwise. For the Father alone is ingenerate (agenetos),

no other subsistence having given him being. And the Son alone is generate (gennetos),

for he was begotten of the Father’s essence without beginning and without time. And

only the Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeuei) from the Father’s essence, not having been

generated but simply as proceeding. For this is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. But the

nature of that generation and that procession is quite beyond comprehension.

And this also it is appropriate for us to know: that the names Fatherhood, Sonship and

Procession, were not applied to the holy Divinity by us: on the contrary, they were communicated to us by the Godhead, as the divine apostle says, “And thus I bow the

knee to the Father, fromwhom is every family in heaven and on earth. But if we say that

the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, we are not thereby suggesting

any precedence in time or superiority in nature of the Father over the Son (for it was

through his agency that God made the ages), or superiority in any other respect except

causation. And we mean by this, that the Son is begotten of the Father and not the Father

of the Son; and that the Father is naturally the cause of the Son: just as we say likewise

that fire does not proceed from light, but rather light proceeds from fire. So then,

whenever we hear it said that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the

Son, let us understand it to mean in respect of the causation. And just as we do not say

that fire is of one essence and light is of another, so we cannot say that the Father is of one

essence and the Son is of another: but both are of one and the same essence. And just as

we say that fire has brightness, because of the light proceeding from it, and we do not

consider the light of the fire as an instrument ministering to the fire, but rather as the

fire’s own natural force: just so we say that the Father creates all that he creates through

his Only-begotten Son, not as though the Son were a mere instrument serving the

Father’s ends, but rather as being his natural and hypostatic force. And just as we say that

the fire shines and again that the light of the fire shines, just so “All things that the Father

does, these also the Son does likewise.” But whereas light possesses no proper subsistence

of its own, distinct from that of the fire, the Son is a perfect subsistence, inseparable from

the Father’s subsistence, as we have shown above. For it is quite impossible to find in

creation an image that will illustrate in itself exactly in all details the nature of the Holy

Trinity. For how could that which is created and compounded, subject to flux and

change, circumscribed, formed and corruptible, clearly show forth the super-essential

divine essence, unaffected as it is in any of these ways? For it is evident that all creation is

liable to most of these affections, and all from its very nature is subject to corruption.

In the same way: “We believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life:Who

proceeds from the Father” and abides in the Son: who is the object of equal adoration

and glorification with the Father and Son, since he is consubstantial and co-eternal: the

Spirit of God, direct, authoritative, the fountain of wisdom, and life, and holiness: God

existing and addressed along with Father and Son: uncreated, full, creative, all-ruling,

all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation and not under any lord:

deifying, not deified: filling, not filled: shared in, not sharing in: sanctifying, not

sanctified: the intercessor, receiving the supplications of all: in all things like to the

Father and Son: proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son, and

participated in by all creation, creating, through himself and investing with essence and

sanctifying, and maintaining the universe: having subsistence, existing in its own proper

and peculiar hypostasis, inseparable and indivisible from Father and Son, and possessing

all the qualities that the Father and Son possess, except those of not being begotten or

born. For the Father is without cause and unborn: for he is derived from nothing, but

derives his being from himself, nor does he derive a single quality fromany other. Rather

he is himself the beginning and cause of the existence of all things in a definite and

natural manner. But the Son is derived from the Father in the manner of generation, and

the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, but not in the manner of generation, but in the manner of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference between

generation and procession, but as to the nature of that difference we do not understand

it. Furthermore, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the

Holy Spirit are simultaneous.

And so, all that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being:

and unless the Father is, neither is the Son or the Spirit. And unless the Father possesses a

certain attribute, the Son and the Spirit will not possess it: and through the Father, that

is, because of the Father’s existence, the Son and the Spirit exist, and through the Father,

that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all their

qualities; those of being unbegotten, and the quality of birth and the quality of procession

being excepted, for in these hypostatic, or personal, properties alone do the three

holy subsistences differ from each other, since they are indivisibly divided not by essence

but by the distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar hypostasis.

Further we say that each of the three has a perfect subsistence, that we may understand

God not as one compound perfect nature made up of three imperfect elements, but

rather as one simple essence, surpassing and preceding perfection, existing in three

perfect subsistences. For all that is composed of imperfect elements must necessarily be

compound. But from perfect subsistences no compound can arise. And this is why we do

not speak of the form as being “from subsistences,” but as being “in subsistences.” But we

speak of those things as imperfect which do not preserve the form of that which is

completed out of them. For stone and wood and iron are each perfect in its own nature,

but with reference to the building that is completed out of them each is imperfect: for

none of them is in itself a house.

And so we say that the subsistences are perfect, so that we may not conceive of the

divine nature as being compounded. For compoundedness is the beginning of separation.

And again we speak of the three subsistences as co-inhering in being, so that we may

not introduce a crowd and multitude of Gods. Owing to the three subsistences, there is

no compoundedness or confusion: while, owing to their having the same essence and coinhering

one in another, and being the same in will, energy, power, authority, and

movement (so to speak), we recognize the indivisibility and the unity of God. For in

truth there is only one God, and his Word and his Spirit.

One ought, moreover, to recognize that it is one thing to look at a reality as it is, and

another thing to look at it in the light of reason and thought. In the case of all created

things, the distinction of the hypostases is observed in actual fact. For in actual fact Peter

is seen to be separate from Paul. But the community and connection and unity are

apprehended by reason and thought. For it is by the mind that we perceive that Peter and

Paul are of the same nature and have one common nature. For both are living creatures,

rational and mortal: and both are flesh, endowed with the spirit of reason and understanding.

It is, then, by reason that this community of nature is observed. But in this case

the hypostases do not exist one within the other. But each stands privately and individually,

that is to say, stands quite separate in itself, having innumerable points that divide

it from the other. For they are both separated in space and they differ in time, and they

are divided in thought, and power, and shape, or form, and habit, and temperament and

dignity, and pursuits, and many other differentiating properties, but above all, they are separated in the fact that they do not dwell in one another but are distinct. This of course

is the reason that we can speak of two, three, or many men.

And this may be perceived throughout the whole of creation, but in the case of the

holy and hyper-essential and incomprehensible Trinity, far removed from all other

things, it is quite the reverse. For there the community and unity are observed in fact,

through the co-eternity of the subsistences, and through their having the same essence

and energy and will and concord of mind, and then their being identical in authority and

power and goodness – note that I do not say similar but identical – and then their

movement as by one impulse. For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one

will, one energy, one authority, one and the same, I repeat, not three resembling each

other. But the three subsistences have one and the same movement. For each one of

them is related as closely to the other as to itself: that is to say that the Father, the Son,

and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, save those of not being begotten, of birth and

of procession. But it is by thought that the difference is perceived. For we recognize only

one God: and only in the attributes of Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession (both in

respect of cause and effect and perfection of subsistence, that is, mode of existence) do

we perceive difference. For with reference to the uncircumscribed Deity we cannot speak

of a separation in space, as we can in our own case. For the hypostases dwell in one

another, in no way confused but rather cleaving together, according to the word of the

Lord, “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me”: nor can one admit any difference in

will or judgment or energy or power or anything else at all which may produce actual and

absolute separation in our case. This is why we do not speak of three Gods, the Father,

the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but rather of one God, the Holy Trinity; the Son and Spirit

being referred to one cause, and not compounded or coalesced according to the synæresis

that Sabellius proposed. For, as we have said, they are made one not so as to commingle,

but so as to cleave to each other, and they have their being in each other without any

coalescence or commingling. Nor do the Son and the Spirit stand apart, but neither are

they separated in essence according to the diæresis of Arius. For the Deity is undivided in

the midst of things divided, to put it concisely: and it is just like three Suns cleaving to

each other without separation and giving out a light mingled and conjoined into one.

When, therefore, we turn our eyes to the Divinity, and the First Cause and the Sovereignty

and the Oneness and Sameness, so to speak, of the movement and will of the

Divinity, and the Identity in essence and Power and Energy and Lordship, all that we can

see is unity. But when we look to those things in which the Divinity subsists, or (to put it

more accurately), which are the Divinity, and those things which are in it through the

First Cause without time or distinction in glory or separation, that is to say, the

hypostases of the Son and the Spirit, the Godhead appears to us a Trinity that

we adore. The Father is one Father, and without beginning, that is, without cause: for

he is not derived from anything. The Son is one Son, but not without beginning, that is,

not without Cause: for he is derived from the Father. But if you eliminate the idea of a

beginning from time, he too is also without beginning: for the Creator of times cannot be

subject to time. The Holy Spirit is one Spirit, going forth from the Father, not in the

manner of Sonship but in terms of Procession; in such away that the Father does not lose

his property of being Unbegotten because he has begotten, nor has the Son lost his property of being begotten because he was begotten of that which was Unbegotten

(for how could that be so?), nor does the Spirit change either into the Father or into the

Son because he has proceeded and is God. For a property is quite constant. For how

could a property persist if it were variable, moveable, and could change into something

else? For if the Father is the Son, he is not strictly the Father: for there is strictly one

Father. And if the Son is the Father, he is not strictly the Son: for there is strictly one Son

and one Holy Spirit.

Further, it should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from

any one, but we speak of him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as

either Cause or Father, but we speak of him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the

Father. And likewise we speak of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call him the

Spirit of the Father. And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son: but even so we call

him the Spirit of the Son. “For if any one has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” as

the divine apostle says. And we confess that he is manifested and imparted to us through

the Son. For he breathed upon his Disciples, it says, and he said, “Receive the Holy

Spirit.” It is just the same as in the case of the sun from which come both the ray and the

radiance (for the sun itself is the source of both the ray and the radiance), and it is

through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the radiance itself by which

we are illumined and in which we participate. Furthermore, we do not speak of the Son

of the Spirit, or of the Son as derived from the Spirit.

Book 1. Chapter 14. The properties of the divine nature

These are the attributes which the Deity possesses by nature: Uncreated, without

beginning, immortal, infinite, eternal, immaterial, good, creative, just, enlightening,

immutable, passionless, uncircumscribed, immeasurable, unlimited, undefined, unseen,

unthinkable, wanting in nothing, being his own rule and authority, all-ruling, life-giving,

omnipotent, of infinite power, containing and maintaining the universe and making

provision for all: and many similar. He has not received them from elsewhere, but he

himself imparts all that is good to his own creations according to the capacity of each.

The hypostases dwell in and are firmly established in one another. For they are

inseparable and cannot part from one another, but keep to their separate courses within

one another, without coalescing or mingling, but cleaving to each other. For the Son is in

the Father and the Spirit: and the Spirit in the Father and the Son: and the Father in the

Son and the Spirit, but there is no coalescence or commingling or confusion. And there is

one and the same motion: for there is one impulse and one motion of the three

hypostases, which is not to be observed in any created nature.

Furthermore the divine effulgence and energy, since it is one and simple and indivisible,

assuming many varied forms in its goodness among what is divisible and allotting

to each the component parts of its own nature, still remains simple and is multiplied

without division among divided realities, and gathers and converts the divided into its

own simplicity. For all things desire it and have their existence within it. It also gives to all

things their being according to their several natures, and it is itself the being of existing

things, the life of living things, the reason of rational beings, the thought of thinking

beings. But it is itself above mind and reason and life and essence.

In addition the divine nature has the property of penetrating all things without mixing

with themand of being itself impenetrable by anything else.Moreover, it has the property

of knowing all things with a simple knowledge and of seeing all things, simply with his

divine, all-surveying, immaterial eye; both the things of the present, and the things of the

past, and the things of the future, before they come into being. It is also sinless, and can cast

sin out, and bring salvation: and all that it wills, it can accomplish, but does not will all it

could accomplish. For it could destroy the universe but it does not wish so to do.

Book 2. Chapter 3. Concerning Angels

God is himself the Maker and Creator of the angels: for he brought them out of nothingness

into being and created themafter his own image, an incorporeal race, a sort of spirit or

immaterial fire: in the words of the divine David, “He makes his angels spirits, and his

ministers a flame of fire”: and he has described their lightness and the ardor, and heat, and

keenness and sharpness with which they hunger for God and serve him, and how they are

borne to the regions above and are quite delivered from all material thought.

An angel, then, is an intelligent essence, in perpetual motion, with free will, incorporeal,

ministering to God, having obtained by grace an immortal nature: and the Creator

alone knows the form and limitation of its essence. But all that we can understand is, that

it is incorporeal and immaterial. For all that is compared with God who alone is

incomparable, we find to be dense and material. For in reality only the Deity is truly

immaterial and incorporeal. The angelic nature then is rational, and intelligent, and

endowed with free will, changeable in will, or variable. For all that is created is

changeable, and only that which is uncreated is unchangeable. Also all that is rational

is endowed with free will. Since the angel is rational and intelligent, therefore, it is

endowed with free will: and as it is created, it is changeable, having power either to abide

or progress in goodness, or to turn towards evil.

An angel is not susceptible of repentance because it is incorporeal. For it is owing to

the weakness of his body that man comes to have repentance. It is immortal, not by

nature but by grace. For all that has had beginning comes also to its natural end. But God

alone is eternal, or rather, he is above the Eternal: for he, the Creator of times, is not

under the dominion of time, but above time. The angels are secondary intelligent lights

derived from that first light which is without beginning, for they have the power of

illumination; they have no need of speech or hearing, but without uttering words they

communicate to each other their own thoughts and counsels.

All the angels were created through theWord, and through their sanctification by the

Holy Spirit they were brought to perfection, each one sharing in proportion to his worth

and rank in brightness and grace. They are circumscribed: for when they are in the

Heaven they are not on the earth: and when they are sent by God down to the earth they

do not remain in the Heaven. They are not hemmed in by walls and doors, and bars and

seals, for they are quite unlimited. Unlimited, I repeat, for it is not as they really are that

they reveal themselves to the worthy humans to whom God wishes them to appear, but

rather in a changed form which the beholders are capable of seeing. Yet that alone is

naturally and strictly unlimited which is un-created. For every created thing is limited by

God who created it.

In addition, apart from their essence they receive sanctification from the Spirit:

through the divine grace they prophesy: they have no need of marriage for they are

immortal. Seeing that they are minds they are in mental places, and are not

circumscribed after the fashion of a body, for they do not have a bodily form by nature,

nor are they extended in three dimensions. But to whatever post they may be assigned,

there they are present after the manner of a mind and energies, and they cannot be

present and energize in different places at the same time.

Whether they are equals in essence or differ from one another we do not know. God,

their Creator, who knows all things, is the only one who knows. But they differ from each

other in brightness and rank, whether their rank is dependent on their brightness, or

their brightness on their rank: and they impart brightness to one another, because they

excel one another in honor and nature. And clearly the higher angels share their

brightness and knowledge with the lower.

They are mighty and prompt to fulfill the will of the Deity, and their nature is

endowed with such celerity that wherever the Divine glance bids them, there they are

found immediately. They are the guardians of the divisions of the earth: they are set over

nations and regions, allotted to them by their Creator: they govern all our affairs and

bring us help, and this because they are set over us by the divine will and command and

are ever in the vicinity of God. Only with difficulty are they moved to evil, yet they were

not absolutely immoveable: but now they are altogether immoveable, not by nature but

by grace and because of their nearness to the Only Good.

They look upon God according to their capacity, and this is their food. They are above

us for they are incorporeal, and are free of all bodily passion, yet they are not passionless:

for the Deity alone is passionless. They take different forms at the bidding of God, their

Master, and so it is that they reveal themselves to men and unveil the divine mysteries

to us. They have Heaven for their dwelling-place, and have only one duty, to sing God’s

praise and carry out his divine will. Moreover, as that most holy, sacred, and gifted

theologian, Dionysios the Areopagite, tells us: All theology, that is to say, the holy

Scripture, has nine different names for the heavenly essences. That divine master in

sacred things divides these essences into three groups, each containing three. And the

first group, he says, consists of those angels who are in God’s presence and are said to be

directly and immediately one with him, namely the Seraphim with their six wings, the

many-eyed Cherubim and those that sit in the holiest thrones. The second group is that

of the Dominions, and the Powers, and the Authorities; and the third, and last, is that of

the Rulers, Archangels and Angels.

Some, indeed, like Gregory the Theologian, say that these angels existed before the

creation of other things. He thinks that the angelic and heavenly powers were first and

that thought was their function. Others, again, hold that they were created after the first

heaven was made. But all are agreed that it was before the foundation of man. For myself,

I amin harmony with the Theologian. For it was fitting that the mental essence should be

the first created, and then that which can be perceived, and finally man himself, in whose

being both parts are united.

But those who say that the angels are creators of any kind of essence whatever are but

the mouthpiece of their father, the devil. For since they are created things the angels are not creators. But he who creates and provides for and maintains all things is God, and he

alone is uncreated and is praised and glorified in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Book 2. Chapter 12. Concerning Man

In this way, then, God brought into existence noetic essence, by which I mean, angels and

all the heavenly orders. For these clearly have a noetic and incorporeal nature: and by

incorporeal I mean in comparison with the denseness ofmatter. For theDeity alone is truly

immaterial and incorporeal. But he also created in the same way sensible essence, that is

heaven and earth and the intermediate region; and so he created both the kind of being that

is of his own nature (for the nature that has to do with reason is related to God, and

apprehensible by mind alone), and the kind which, insofar as it clearly falls under the

province of the senses, is separated fromhim by the greatest interval. And it was also fitting

that there should be amixture of both kinds of being, as a token of still greater wisdomand

of the opulence of the Divine economy with regard to natures, as Gregory the Theologian,

expounder of God’s being and ways, puts it, and to be a sort of connecting link between

visible and invisible natures. And by the word fitting I mean simply that it was an evidence

of the Creator’s will, for that will is the law and ordinance that is most appropriate, and no

one will ever say to his Maker, “Why did you fashion me so?” For the potter is able at his

will to make vessels of various patterns out of his clay, as a proof of his own wisdom.

Now this being the case, God creates with his own hands man of a visible nature and an

invisible nature, after his own image and likeness: on the one hand he formed man’s body

from earth, and on the other hand he granted to Man his reasoning and thinking soul by

virtue of his own inbreathing; and this iswhat wemean by “After his image.” For the phrase

“after his image” clearly refers to the side of human nature which consists ofmind and free

will, whereas “After his likeness” refers to likeness in virtue, insofar as that is possible.

Furthermore, body and soul were formed at one and the same time, not first the one

and then the other, as Origen so foolishly supposed. God made man, therefore, without

evil, upright, virtuous, free from pain and care, glorified with every virtue, adorned with

all that is good, like a sort of second microcosm within the great macrocosm of the

world; another angel capable of worship, compounded, surveying the visible creation

and initiated into the mysteries of the realm of thought, prince over the things of earth,

but subject to a higher King, of the earth and of the heaven, temporal and eternal,

belonging to the realm of sight and to the realm of thought, midway between greatness

and lowliness, spirit and flesh: for he is spirit by grace, but flesh by overweening pride:

spirit that he may abide and glorify his Benefactor, and flesh that he may suffer, and

through that suffering may be admonished and disciplined whenever he prides himself

in his greatness. Here, that is in the present life, his life is ordered as an animal’s, but

elsewhere, that is, in the age to come, he is changed and (to complete the mystery)

becomes deified by merely inclining himself towards God; becoming deified, in the way

of participating in the divine glory and not by any change into the divine being.

Even so, God made him sinless by nature, and endowed him with free will. By sinless,

I mean not that sin could find no place in him (for that is the case with the Deity alone),

but rather that sin is the result of the free volition he enjoys rather than an integral part of

his nature; which means that he has the power to continue and go forward in the path of goodness, by co-operating with the divine grace, or likewise to turn from the good and

take to wickedness; for God has conceded this by conferring freedom of will upon him.

For there is no virtue in what is the result of mere compulsion.

The soul, accordingly, is a living essence, simple, incorporeal, in its proper nature

invisible to bodily eyes, immortal, reasoning and intelligent, formless, making use of an

organized body, and being the source of its powers of life, and growth, and sensation,

and generation; mind being but its purest part and not in any way alien to it (for as the

eye is to the body, so is the mind to the soul); moreover it enjoys freedom and volition

and energy, and is mutable, that is, it is given to change, because it is created. It has

received all these natural qualities by the grace of the Creator; from which grace it has

received both its being and this particular kind of nature.

We understand two kinds of what is incorporeal and invisible and formless: the one is

such in essence, the other by free gift: and likewise the one is such in nature, and the

other only relatively so by comparison with the denseness of matter. God, therefore, is

incorporeal by nature, but the angels and demons and souls are said to be so by free gift,

and relatively so in comparison with the denseness of matter.…

Book 2. Chapter 30. Concerning Prescience and Predestination

We ought to understand that while God knows all things beforehand, even so he does not

predetermine all things. For he knows beforehand those things that are in our power,

but he does not predetermine them, for it is not his will that there should be wickedness

nor does he choose to compel virtue. So that predetermination is the work of the divine

command based on fore-knowledge. But on the other hand God predetermines those

things which are not within our power in accordance with his prescience. For already God

in his prescience has prejudged all things in accordance with his goodness and justice.

Bear in mind, too, that virtue is a gift from God implanted in our nature, and that he

himself is the source and cause of all good, and without his co-operation and help we

cannot will or do any good thing. But we have it in our power either to abide in virtue

and follow God, who calls us into ways of virtue, or to stray from the paths of virtue,

which is to dwell in wickedness, and to follow the devil who summons but cannot

compel us. For wickedness is nothing else than the withdrawal of goodness, just as

darkness is nothing else than the withdrawal of light.While we abide in our natural state,

therefore we abide in virtue, but when we deviate from the natural state, that is from

virtue, we come into an unnatural state and dwell in wickedness.

Repentance is the returning from the unnatural into the natural state, from the devil

to God, through discipline and effort. The Creator first made Man male, giving him to

share in his own divine grace, and thereby bringing him into communion with himself:

and so it was that, like a prophet, he gave the names to living things, with authority, as

though they were given to be his servants. For having been endowed with reason and

mind, and free will after the image of God, Man was fitly entrusted with dominion over

earthly things by the common Creator and Master of all.

But since God in his prescience knew that man would transgress and become liable to

destruction, he made from him a female, like himself, to be a help to him; a help, indeed, for the conservation of the race by generation from age to age, after the transgression.

For the earliest formation is called “making” and not “generation.” For “making” is the

original formation at God’s hands, while “generation” is the succession from each other

made necessary by the sentence of death imposed on us on account of the transgression.

This man God placed in Paradise, a home that was both spiritual and sensible. For Man

lived in the body on the earth in the realm of sense, while he still dwelt in the spirit

among the angels, cultivating divine thoughts, and being supported by them: living in

naked simplicity a life free from artificiality, and being led up through God’s creations to

the One and only Creator, in whose contemplation he found joy and gladness. When

God had furnished his nature with free will, then, he imposed a law on him, not to taste

of the tree of knowledge. Concerning this tree, we have said as much as is necessary in the

chapter about Paradise, at least as much as it was in our power to say. And with this

command God gave the promise that, if he should preserve the dignity of the soul by

giving the victory to reason, and acknowledging his Creator and observing his command,

then he should share eternal blessedness and live to all eternity, proving mightier

than death: but if indeed he should subject the soul to the body, and prefer the delights of

the body, in ignorance of his true dignity making himself like the senseless beasts, and

shaking off his Creator’s yoke, and neglecting his divine ordinance, he would be liable to

death and corruption, and would be compelled to labor throughout a miserable life. For

it was no use for man to obtain incorruption while he was still untried and unproved, in

case he should fall into pride and fall under the judgment of the devil. For because of his

incorruption the devil, once he had fallen as the result of his own free choice, was firmly

established in wickedness, so that there was no room for repentance for him and no hope

of change: just as, moreover, the angels also, when they had made a free choice for virtue

became, through grace, immoveably rooted in goodness.

It was necessary, therefore, thatman should first be put to the test (forman untried and

unproved would be worth nothing at all), and being made perfect by the trial through the

observance of the command should then receive incorruption as the prize of his virtue. For

being intermediate between God and matter he was destined, if he kept the command, to

be delivered from his natural relation to existing things and to be made one with God’s

estate, and to be immoveably established in goodness; but, if he transgressed and inclined

rather to what was material, and tore his mind from the Author of his being, I mean God,

then his fatewould be corruption, and hewould become subject to passion instead of being

passionless, and would be mortal instead of immortal, and thus dependent on connection

and unsettled generation. And in his desire for life he would cling to pleasures as though

they were necessary tomaintain it, and would fearlessly abhor thosewho sought to deprive

himof these, and would transfer his desire fromGod tomatter, and his anger fromthe real

enemy of his salvation to his own brethren. The envy of the devil, then, was the reason for

man’s fall. For that same demon, so full of envy and with such a hatred of the good, could

not bear to allow us to enjoy the pleasures of heaven, when he himself was kept below on

account of his arrogance, and so it was that the false one tempted miserable man with the

hope of Godhead, and leading him up to as great a height of arrogance as himself, he then

hurled him down into a pit of destruction just as deep.

Book 3. Chapter 1. Concerning the Divine Economy and God’s care

over us, and concerning our salvation

And so it happened that Mankind was snared by the assault of the Devil, and broke his

Creator’s command, was stripped of grace and lost his confidence with God, clothed

himself with the harshness of a laborious (for this is the meaning of the fig-leaves); and

was clothed about with death, that is, mortality and the heaviness of flesh (for this is

what the garment of skins signifies); was banished from Paradise by God’s just judgment,

and condemned to death, and made subject to corruption. Yet, even so, in his compassion,

God who had first givenMan his being, and who in his graciousness had bestowed

on him a life of happiness, did not turn his back. But he first trained him in many ways

and called him back, by groans and trembling, by the Great Flood and its destruction of

almost the entire race, by confusion and diversity of tongues, by the rule of angels, by the

burning of cities, by figurative manifestations of God, by wars and victories and defeats,

by signs and wonders, by various faculties, by the law and the prophets: for by all of these

means God earnestly strove to emancipate man from the widespread enslaving bonds of

sin, which had made life such a mass of iniquity, in order to accomplish man’s return to a

life of happiness.

For itwas sin that brought death like a wild and savage beast into the world to the ruin of

the human life. But it was fitting that the Redeemer should be without sin, and not made

liable to death because of sin, and further, that his nature should be strengthened and

renewed, and trained by labor and taught the way of virtue which leads away from

corruption to the life eternal. Finally there was revealed that mighty ocean of love for

mankind that characterizes the Redeemer. For the very Creator and Lord himself undertakes

a struggle in behalf of thework of his own hands, and learns by toil to becomeMaster.

And since the enemy snares man by the hope of Godhead, he himself is snared in turn by

the veil of flesh, and so we saw revealed the goodness and wisdom, the justice andmight, of

God. God’s goodness is revealed in that he did not turn his back on the frailty of his own

handiwork, but was moved with compassion for himin his fall, and stretched out his hand

to him: and his justice is shown in that when manwas overcome he did not make any other

victorious over the tyrant, and did not snatch man from death by power alone, but in his

goodness and justice hemade him, who had become the slave of death through his sins, the

very one who was oncemore lifted up as conqueror and rescued, like by like, most difficult

though this seemed. God’s wisdom is seen in his devising the most fitting solution of the

difficulty. For by the good pleasure of our God and Father, the Only-begotten Son and

Word of God and God, “he who is in the bosomof theGod and Father,” of like essence with

the Father and theHoly Spirit, whowas before the ages, who is without beginning and “was

in the beginning,” who is in the presence of the God and Father, and is God and “made in

the form of God,” bent the heavens and descended to earth: that is to say, without

humiliation he humbled his exalted station (which even so could not be humbled), and

stoops down to his servants, with a condescension thatwas ineffable and incomprehensible

(for that is what the descent signifies).

And God, who is perfect, becomes perfect man, and brings to perfection the newest of

all new things, the only new thing under the sun, through which the boundless might of

God is manifested. For what greater thing is there, than that God should become Man? “And the Word became flesh” without being changed, of the Holy Spirit, and Mary the

holy ever-virgin, the Mother of God. And he acts as mediator between God and man.

He who is the only lover of man was conceived in the Virgin’s chaste womb without will

or desire, or any connection with man or pleasurable generation, but rather through the

Holy Spirit and thus became the first offspring of Adam. And he who is like us becomes

obedient to the Father, and finds a remedy for our disobedience in exactly what he had

assumed from us, and so he became a pattern of obedience to us, without which it is not

possible to obtain salvation.

Book 3. Chapter 2. Concerning the manner in which the Word

was conceived, and concerning his divine incarnation

The angel of the Lord was sent to the holy Virgin, who was descended from David’s line.

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, fromwhich tribe no one had turned his

attention to the altar, as the divine apostle said: but about this we will speak more directly

later on. And bearing glad tidings to her, he said, “Hail highly favored one, the Lord is with

you. And she was troubled at his word, and the angel said to her, Fear not, Mary, for you

have found favor with God, and shall bring forth a Son and shall call his name Jesus; for he

shall save his people from their sins.” This is why the name Jesus has the interpretation

“Savior.” And when she asked in her perplexity, “How can this be, seeing I do not know a

man?” the angel again answered her, “TheHoly Spirit shall come upon you, and the power

of theMostHigh shall overshadowyou.And this is why that holy thing which shall be born

fromyou shall be called the Son ofGod.” And she said to him, “Behold the handmaid of the

Lord: be it done to me in accordance with your word.”

And so, after the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended upon her,

according to the word of the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her, and granting her

power to receive the divinity of the Word, and likewise power to bring forth. And then

was she overshadowed by the enhypostatic Wisdom and Power of the Most High God,

the Son of God, who is of like essence with the Father as of Divine seed, and from her

holy and most pure blood he formed flesh animated with the spirit of reason and

thought, the first-fruits of our compound nature: not by procreation but by creation

through the Holy Spirit: not developing the fashion of the body by gradual additions but

by perfecting it at once, he himself, the very Word of God, standing to the flesh in the

relation of its hypostasis. For the divine Word was not made one with flesh that had an

independent pre-existence, but taking up his abode in the womb of the holy Virgin, he

unreservedly took upon himself through the pure blood of the eternal Virgin, and in his

own hypostasis, a body of flesh animated with the spirit of reason and thought. So it was

that he assumed to himself the first-fruits of man’s compound nature, himself, theWord,

having become a hypostasis in the flesh. So that he is at once flesh, and at the same time

the very flesh of God the Word, and likewise flesh animated, that is possessing both

reason and thought. This is why we do not speak about a man as having become God,

but rather of God having become Man. For being by nature perfect God, he naturally

became likewise perfect Man: and did not change his nature nor make the dispensation

an empty show, but became, without confusion or change or division, hypostatically one

with that flesh which was conceived of the holy Virgin, and animated with reason and thought, and which had found existence in him, while he himself did not change the

nature of his divinity into the essence of flesh, nor the essence of flesh into the nature of

his divinity, and did not make one compound nature out of his divine nature and the

human nature which he had assumed.

Book 3. Chapter 3. Concerning Christ’s two natures, in opposition

to those who hold that he has only one

Now the two natures were united with each other without change or alteration. The divine

nature did not depart from its native simplicity, nor did the humanity change into the

nature of God, nor was it reduced to non-existence, nor was one compound nature

produced out of the two. For a compounded nature cannot be of the same essence as

either of the natures out of which it is compounded, since it is made into one thing out of

different things: for example, the body is composed of the four elements, but is not of the

same essence as fire or air, or water or earth, nor does it keep these names. If, therefore, after

the union, Christ’s nature was, as the heretics maintain, a compound unity, he must have

changed froma simple into a compound nature, and is no longer of the same essence as the

Father whose nature is simple, nor as his mother, who is not a compound of divinity and

humanity either. If that was the case he would not be either in divinity or humanity:

nor will he be called either God orMan, but simply Christ: and the word Christ will be the

name not of the hypostasis, but rather of (what in their view is) the one nature.

We, however, do not hold that Christ’s nature is compound, nor yet that he is one

thing made out of other things and differing from them in the way that a man is made

out of soul and body, or as the body itself is made up of the four elements, but for our

part we hold that, even though he is constituted of these different parts he is yet the same

one. For we confess that he alike in his divinity and in his humanity, the same one both

is, and is confessed to be, perfect God; and that he consists of two natures, and exists in

two natures. Further, by the word “Christ” we understand the name of the hypostasis,

not in the sense of one kind, but as signifying the existence of two natures. For in his own

person he anointed himself; as God anointing his body with his own divinity, and as

Man being anointed. For he is himself both God and Man. And the anointing is the

divinity of his humanity. For if Christ, being of one compound nature, is of like essence

to the Father, then the Father also must be compound and of like essence with the flesh,

which is absurd and extremely blasphemous.

How, indeed, could one and the same nature come to embrace opposing and essential

differences? For how is it possible that the same nature should be at once created and

uncreated, mortal and immortal, circumscribed and uncircumscribed?

But if those who declare that Christ has only one nature should say also that this

nature is a simple one, they must admit either that he is God pure and simple, and thus

reduce the incarnation to a mere pretence, or that he is only man, as did Nestorius. And

how then do we account for his being “perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity?”

And when can Christ be said to be of two natures, if they hold that he is of one composite

nature after the union? For it is surely clear to every one that before the union Christ’s

nature was one. But this is what leads the heretics astray, namely that they look

upon nature (physis) and subsistence (hypostasis) as the same thing. For when we speak of the nature of men as one, observe that in saying this we are not looking to the

question of soul and body. For when we compare together the soul and the body it

cannot be said that they are of one nature. But since there are very many subsistences of

men, and yet all have the same kind of nature: for all are composed of soul and body, and

all take part in the nature of the soul, and possess the essence of the body, and the

common form: so we speak of the one nature of these very many and different subsistences;

while of course each subsistence has two natures, and fulfills itself in two

natures, namely, soul and body.

But a common form cannot be admitted in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ. For

neither was there ever, nor is there, nor will there ever be another Christ constituted of

deity and humanity, who exists in deity and humanity, at once perfect God and perfect

man. And so in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ we cannot speak of one nature made up

of divinity and humanity, as we do in the case of the individual made up of soul and

body. For in the latter case we are dealing with an individual man, but Christ is not an

individual. For there is no predicable form of Christ-hood, so to speak, which he

possesses. And therefore we hold that there has been a union of two perfect natures,

one divine and one human; not with disorder or confusion, or intermixture, or

commingling, as is said by the divinely-condemned Dioscorus, Eutyches, and Severus,

and all that impious company: and not in a personal or relative manner, or as a matter of

dignity or agreement in will, or equality in honor, or identity in name, or good favor, as

the divinely-abhorred Nestorius said, along with Diodoros and Theodoros of

Mopsuestia and their diabolical tribe: but rather by synthesis; that is, hypostatically,

without change or confusion or alteration or difference or separation; and we confess

that in two perfect natures there is only one hypostasis of the Son of God incarnate.

We profess that there is one and the same subsistence belonging to his divinity and his

humanity, and we admit that the two natures are preserved in him after the union, but

we do not hold that each one is separate and by itself, but rather that they are united to

each other in one compound subsistence. For we look upon the union as essential, that

is, as a true and not imaginary one.We say that it is essential, moreover, not in the sense

of two natures resulting in one compound nature, but in the sense of a true union of

them in one compound subsistence of the Son of God, and we hold that their essential

difference is preserved. For the created remains created, and the uncreated, remains

uncreated: the mortal remains mortal; the immortal, remains immortal: the

circumscribed, remains circumscribed: the uncircumscribed, remains uncircumscribed:

the visible, remains visible: the invisible, remains invisible. “The one part is all glorious

with wonders: while the other is the victim of insults.”

Moreover, the Word appropriates to himself the attributes of humanity: for all that

pertains to his holy flesh is his: and he imparts to the flesh his own attributes by way of

communication (antidosis) in virtue of the parts interpenetrating one another, and in

virtue of the oneness of hypostasis, and insofar as he who lived and acted both as God

and as man, taking to himself either form and holding intercourse with the other form,

was himself one and the same. So it is that the Lord of Glory is said to have been

crucified, although his divine nature never endured the Cross, and also that the Son of

Man is allowed to have been in heaven before the Passion, as the Lord himself said. For the Lord of Glory is one and the same with him who is in nature and in truth the Son of

Man, that is, the one who became man, and both his wonders and his sufferings are

known to us, although his wonders were worked in his divine capacity, and his sufferings

were endured as man. For we know that, just as is his one hypostasis, so is the essential

difference of the natures preserved. For how could difference be preserved if the very

things that differ from one another are themselves not preserved? For difference means

the difference between things that differ. Insofar as Christ’s natures differ from one

another, that is, in the matter of essence, we hold that Christ unites in himself two

extremes: in respect of his divinity he is connected with the Father and the Spirit, while

in respect of his humanity he is connected with his mother and all mankind. And insofar

as his natures are united, we hold that he differs from the Father and the Spirit on the one

hand, and from the mother and the rest of mankind on the other. For the natures are

united in his subsistence, since he has one compound subsistence, in which he differs

from the Father and the Spirit, and also from his mother and from us.

Book 3. Chapter 4. Concerning the manner of the Mutual Communication

Now we have often said already that essence is one thing and hypostasis another, and that

essence signifies the common and general form of hypostases of the same kind, such as

God, man, while hypostasis (subsistence) marks the individual, that is to say, Father,

Son, Holy Spirit, or Peter, Paul. Observe, then, that the names, divinity and humanity,

denote essences or natures: while the names, God and man, are applied both in

connection with natures (as when we say that God is incomprehensible essence, and

that God is one), and with reference to subsistences, that which is more specific having

the name of the more general applied to it (as when the Scripture says, “Therefore God,

your God, has anointed you,” or again, “There was a certain man in the land of Uz,” for it

was only to Job that this reference was made).

And so, in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, seeing that we recognize that he has two

natures but only one subsistence compounded of both, when we contemplate his natures

we speak of his divinity and his humanity, but when we contemplate the subsistence

compounded of the natures we sometimes use terms that have reference to his double

nature, as “Christ,” and “at once God and man,” and “God Incarnate”; and sometimes

those that imply only one of his natures, such as “God” alone, or “Son of God,” and

“man” alone, or “Son of Man”; sometimes using names that imply his exaltedness and

sometimes those that imply his lowliness. For he who is at once God and man is one

reality, being the former from the Father ever without cause, but having become the

latter afterwards out of his love for man.

When we speak of his divinity we do not ascribe to it the properties of humanity. For

we do not say that his divinity is subject to passion or created. Nor, again, do we

predicate of his flesh or of his humanity the properties of divinity: for we do not say

that his flesh or his humanity is uncreated. But when we speak of his subsistence

(hypostasis), whether we give it a name implying both natures, or one that refers to

only one of them, we still attribute to it the properties of both natures. For Christ

(a name which implies both natures) is spoken of as at once God and man, created and

uncreated, subject to suffering and incapable of suffering: and when he is named Son of God and God, in reference to only one of his natures, he still keeps the properties of the

co-existing nature, that is, the flesh, being spoken of as God who suffers, and as the Lord

of Glory crucified, not in respect of his being God but in respect of his being at the same

time man. Likewise, too, when he is called Man and Son of Man, he still keeps the

properties and glories of the divine nature, a child before the ages, and man who knew no

beginning; it is not, however, as child or man but as God that he is before the ages, and

became a child in the end. And this is the manner of the mutual communication of

properties: either nature giving in exchange to the other its own properties because of the

identity of the hypostasis and the interpenetration of the parts with one another.

Accordingly we can say of Christ: “This our God was seen upon the earth and lived

amongst men,” and “This man is uncreated and impassible and uncircumscribed.”

Book 3. Chapter 7. Concerning the one compound subsistence of God the Word

We hold, therefore, that the divine subsistence of God the Word existed before all else

and is without time and eternal, simple and uncompounded, uncreated, incorporeal,

invisible, intangible, uncircumscribed, possessing all that the Father possesses, since he is

of the same essence with him, differing from the Father’s subsistence in the manner of

his own generation and the relation with the Father’s subsistence, being perfect also and

at no time separated from the Father’s subsistence: and in these last days, without leaving

the Father’s bosom, he took up his abode in an uncircumscribed manner in the womb of

the holy Virgin, without the instrumentality of seed, and in an incomprehensible

manner known only to himself, so causing the flesh which was derived from the holy

Virgin to subsist in the very hypostasis that was before all the ages.

And so he was both in all things and above all things, and also dwelt in the womb of

the holyMother of God, but was in it by the energy of the incarnation. He became flesh,

therefore, and thereby took upon himself the first-fruits of our compound nature,

namely the flesh animated with intelligent and national soul, so that the very subsistence

of God the Word was changed into the fleshly subsistence, and so the subsistence of the

Word, which had formerly been simple, now became compound, compounded indeed

out of two perfect natures, divinity and humanity. It bears the characteristic and

distinctive property of the divine Sonship of God the Word in virtue of which it is

distinguished both from the Father and the Spirit, and also bears the characteristic and

distinctive properties of the flesh, in virtue of which it differs from his Mother and the

rest of mankind. Moreover it also bears the properties of the divine nature in virtue of

which it is united to the Father and the Spirit, as well as the marks of the human nature in

virtue of which it is united to the Mother and to us. And furthermore it differs from the

Father and the Spirit and the Mother and from all of us, in that it exists as at once God

and man. For this we know to be the most special property of the hypostasis of Christ.

This is why we confess him, even after the incarnation, to be the one Son of God, and

likewise Son ofMan, one Christ, one Lord, the only-begotten Son andWord of God, one

Lord Jesus. We reverence his two generations, one from the Father before time and

beyond cause and reason and time and nature, and one in the end-times for our sake,

which is like to us and yet above us; for our sake because it was for our salvation; like to

us in that he was man born of woman at the fullness of time; and yet above us because it was seedless, and by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Virgin Mary, transcending the laws of

parturition.We proclaim him not as God only, devoid of our humanity, nor yet as man

only, stripping him of his divinity, nor yet as two distinct persons, but as one and the

same, at once God and man, perfect God and perfect man, wholly God and wholly man,

the same who is wholly God, even though he was also flesh, and wholly man, even

though he was also most high God. And by “perfect God” and “perfect man” we mean to

emphasize the fullness and unfailingness of the natures: while by “wholly God” and

“wholly man” we mean to lay stress on the singularity and individuality of the

subsistence.

Andwe confess also that there is “One incarnate nature of God theWord,” expressing by

the word “incarnate” the essence of the flesh, according to the teachings of blessed Cyril.

And so theWord wasmade flesh and yet did not abandon his own proper immateriality: he

became wholly flesh and yet remained wholly uncircumscribed. So far as he is body he is

diminished and contracted into narrow limits, but inasmuch as he is God he is

uncircumscribed, his flesh not being coextensive with his uncircumscribed divinity.

He is then wholly perfect God, but is not simply God: for he is not only God but also

man. And he is also wholly perfect man but not simply man, for he is not only man but

also God. For “simply” here has reference to his nature, and “wholly” to his subsistence,

just as the term “another thing” would refer to nature, while “another” would clearly

denote subsistence.

But take note that although we hold that the natures of the Lord permeate one

another, yet we know that the permeation springs from the divine nature. For it is this

which penetrates and permeates all things, as it wills, while nothing penetrates it: and it is

this too, which imparts to the flesh its own peculiar glories, while abiding itself

impassible and without participation in the affections of the flesh. For if the sun imparts

to us its energies and yet does not participate in ours, how much more will this be true of

the Creator and Lord of the Sun.

Book 3. Chapter 12. That the holy Virgin is the Mother of God:

an argument directed against the Nestorians

We also proclaim the holy Virgin to be in strict truth (akribos) the Mother of God.

For inasmuch as he who was born of her was true God, then she who bore the true

God incarnate is the true Mother of God. For we hold that God was born of her, not

implying that the divinity of the Word received from her the beginning of its being, but

meaning rather that God the Word himself, who was begotten of the Father timelessly

before the ages, and was with the Father and the Spirit without beginning and through

eternity, took up his abode in these last days for the sake of our salvation in the Virgin’s

womb, and was without change made flesh and born of her. For the holy Virgin did not

bear a mere man but true God: and not mere God but God incarnate. And he did

not bring down his body from Heaven, or simply pass through the Virgin like a channel,

but received from her flesh of like essence to our own and subsisting in his own self. For if

the body had come down from heaven and had not partaken of our nature, what would

have been the use of his becoming man? For the purpose of God the Word becoming

man was that the very same nature which had sinned and fallen and become corrupted, should triumph over the deceiving tyrant and so be freed from corruption, just as the

divine apostle puts it, “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection

of the dead.” If the first is true, the second must also be true.

Although he says, “The first Adam is of the earth and earthy; the second Adam is Lord

from Heaven,” not that he does not say that his body is from heaven, but emphasizes the

fact that he is not a mere man. For, take note, he called him both Adam and Lord, thus

indicating his double nature. For Adam, being interpreted, means earth-born: and it is

clear that man’s nature is earth-born since he is formed from earth, but the title Lord

signifies his divine essence. And again the Apostle says: “God sent forth his onlybegotten

Son, made of a woman.” He did not say “made by a woman.” Therefore the

divine apostle meant that the only-begotten Son of God and God is the same as he who

was made man of the Virgin, and that he who was born of the Virgin is the same as the

Son of God and God.

But he was certainly born after the bodily fashion inasmuch as he became man, and

did not take up his abode in a man formed beforehand, as if dwelling in a prophet.No, he

himself became man in essence and truth; that is he caused flesh animated with the

intelligent and reasonable to subsist in his own subsistence, and himself became

the subsistence for it. For this is the meaning of “made of a woman.” For how could

the veryWord of God itself have been made under the law, if he did not become man of

like essence with ourselves?

Hence it is with justice and truth that we call the holy Mary the Mother of God. For

this name embraces the whole mystery of the dispensation. For if she who bore him is the

Mother of God, then indeed he who was born of her is truly God and likewise also man.

For how could God, who was before the ages, have been born of a woman unless he had

become man? For the Son ofMan must clearly be man himself. But if he who was born of

a woman is himself God, manifestly he who was born of God the Father in accordance

with the laws of an essence that is divine and knows no beginning, and he who was in the

last days born of the Virgin in accordance with the laws of an essence that does have a

beginning and is subject to time (that is, an essence which is human), must be one and

the same. This title (Theotokos) truly signifies the one subsistence as well as the two

natures and the two generations of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But we never say that the holy Virgin is the Mother of Christ because this title was

insultingly proposed by that vessel of dishonor, the defiled and abominable Judaizer

Nestorius, in order to do away with the title Mother of God, and to bring dishonor on

the Theotokos, who alone is in truth worthy of honor above all creation. For David the

king, and Aaron, the high priest, are also called Christ, for it is customary to make kings

and priests by anointment: and besides every God-inspired man may be called Christ,

but then they are not by nature God. Indeed the accursed Nestorius insulted him who

was born of the Virgin even by calling him “God-bearer.” Let it ever be far from us to

speak of or think of him as God-bearer only, who is in truth God incarnate. For theWord

himself became flesh, having been truly conceived of the Virgin, but he came forth as

God with the assumed nature which, as soon as it was brought forth into being, was

deified by him, so that these three things took place simultaneously: the assumption of

our nature, the coming into being, and the deification of the assumed nature by the Word. And so it is that the holy Virgin is thought of, and spoken of, as the Mother of

God, not only because of the nature of the Word, but also because of the deification of

human nature, the miracles of conception and of existence being accomplished together,

namely, the conception of the Word, and the existence of the flesh in the Word himself.

For the veryMother of God in some marvelous manner was the means of fashioning the

Framer of all things and of bestowing manhood on the God and Creator of all, who

deified the nature that he assumed, while the union preserved those things that were

united just as they were united; that is to say, not only the divine nature of Christ but also

his human nature; that is to say not only that which is above us but that which is of us.

For he was not first made like us and only later became higher than us, but always, from

his very first coming into being he existed with the double nature, because he existed in

theWord himself from the beginning of the conception. And so he is human in his own

nature, but also, in some marvelous manner, he is of God and divine. Moreover he has

the properties of the living flesh: for by reason of the economy of salvation the Word

received these things which are, according to the order of natural motion, truly natural.

Book 3. Chapter 15. Concerning the energies in our Lord Jesus Christ

We hold, further, that there are two energies in our Lord Jesus Christ. For on the one

hand he possesses, as God, and being of like essence with the Father, the divine energy;

and likewise, since he became man and of like essence to us, also possesses the energy

proper to human nature. But take note that energy and capacity for energy, and the

product of energy, and the agent of energy, are all different things. Energy is the efficient

(drastike) and essential activity of nature: the capacity for energy is the nature from

which energy proceeds: the product of energy is that which is effected by energy: and the

agent of energy is the person or hypostasis which uses the energy. Further, sometimes the

word energy is used in the sense of the product of energy, and the product of energy used

in the sense of energy; just as the terms creation and creature are sometimes transposed.

For we say “all creation,” often meaning creatures.

Note too that energy is an activity and is energized rather than energizes; as Gregory

the Theologian says in his treatise concerning the Holy Spirit: “If energy exists, it must

manifestly be energized and will not energize: and as soon as it has been energized, it will

cease.” Life itself, it should be observed, is energy, indeed the primal energy of the living

creature, and so is the whole economy of the living creature, its functions of nutrition

and growth (that is, the vegetative side of its nature), and the movement stirred by

impulse (that is, the sentient side), and its activity of intellect and free will. Energy,

moreover, is the perfect realization of power. So, if we contemplate all these things in

Christ, surely we must also hold that he possesses human energy.

The first thought that arises in us is called energy: and it is simple energy not involving

any relationship: the mind sending forth the thoughts peculiar to it in an independent

and invisible way, for if it did not do so it could not justly be called mind.What is more,

the revelation and unfolding of thought by means of articulate speech is said to be

energy. But this is no longer simple energy that involves no relationship, but it is

considered in relation to it being composed of thought and speech. Further, the very

relation which he who does anything bears to that which is brought about is energy; and the very thing that is effected is called energy. The first belongs to the soul alone, the

second to the soul making use of the body, the third to the body animated by mind, and

the last is the effect. For the mind sees beforehand what is to be and then performs it by

means of the body. And so the hegemony belongs to the soul, for it uses the body as an

instrument, leading and restraining it. But the energy of the body is quite different, for

the body is led and moved by the soul. And with regard to the effect, the touching and

handling (and so to speak, the embrace of what is effected), belong to the body, while the

figuration and formation belong to the soul. And so in connection with our Lord Jesus

Christ, the power of miracles is the energy of his divinity, while the work of his hands and

the willing and the saying, “I will, be made clean,” are the energy of his humanity. And as

to the effect, the breaking of the loaves and the fact that the leper heard the “I will,”

belong to his humanity, while the multiplication of the loaves and the purification of the

leper belong to his divinity. For through both, that is through the energy of the body and

the energy of the soul, he displayed one and the same cognate and equal divine energy.

For just as we saw that his natures were united and permeate one another, and even so we

do not deny that they are different but even enumerate them, although we know they are

inseparable, so also in connection with the wills and the energies we know their single

union, and yet we recognize their difference and can thus enumerate them without

introducing separation. For just as the flesh was deified without undergoing change in its

own nature, in the same way also his will and energy are deified without transgressing

their own proper limits. For whether he is the one or the other, he remains one and the

same, and whether he wills and energizes in one way or the other, that is as God or as

man, he is one and the same.

We must, then, maintain that Christ has two energies in virtue of his double nature.

For things that have diverse natures, also have different energies, and things that have

diverse energies, also have different natures. And so, conversely, things that have the

same nature also have the same energy, and things that have one and the same energy

also have one and the same essence, which is the view of the Fathers, who set forth the

godly interpretation. One of these alternatives, then, must be true: either, if we hold that

Christ has one energy, we must also hold that he has only one essence, or, if we are

solicitous about truth, and confess that he has (according to the doctrine of the Gospels

and the Father) two essences, we must also confess that he has two corresponding

energies accompanying them. For as he is of like essence with God the Father in divinity,

so he must be his equal also in energy. And just as he is of like essence with us in

humanity so he must be our equal also in energy. For the blessed Gregory, bishop of

Nyssa, says: “Things that have one and the same energy, also have absolutely the same

power.” For all energy is the effect of power. But it cannot be that uncreated and created

nature have one and the same nature or power or energy. But if we were to hold that

Christ has only one energy, we would be attributing to the divinity of the Word the

passions of the intelligent spirit, namely tears and grief and anguish.

If our opponents should argue that the holy Fathers said in their disputation

concerning the Holy Trinity, “Things that have one and the same essence have also

one and the same energy, and things which have different essences have also different

energies,” and that it is not right to transfer to the Economy what has reference to matters of Theology, we shall answer that if this has been said by the Fathers solely with

reference to Theology, and if the Son does not retain the same energy as the Father after

the incarnation, then assuredly he cannot have the same essence. But to whom of the

Fathers shall we attribute this position? Scripture says: “My Father works even now, and

I too work”: and this, “Whatever he sees the Father doing, these works the Son does

also”: and this, “If you do not believeMe, believemy works”: and this, “The work which I

do bears witness concerning Me”: and this, “As the Father raised up the dead and gives

them life, even so the Son gives life to whoever he wills.” For all these texts show not only

that he is of like essence to the Father even after the incarnation, but that he has also the

same energy.

Again: if the providence that embraces all creation is not only that of the Father and

the Holy Spirit, but also that of the Son, even after the incarnation, assuredly since that is

energy, then he must have even after the incarnation the same energy as the Father has.

But if we have learned from the miracles that Christ has the same essence as the Father,

and since the miracles happen to be the energy of God, then it follows that he must have

the same energy as the Father even after the incarnation. But, if there is one energy

belonging to both his divinity and his humanity, it will have to be compounded, and will

be either a different energy from that of the Father, or the Father too will have a

compounded energy. But if the Father has a compounded energy, manifestly he must

also have a compound nature. But if they should say that together with the concept of

energy is also introduced personality, we reply that if personality is introduced along

with energy, then the converse must hold good that energy is also introduced along with

personality; and on that argument there will now also be three energies of the Holy

Trinity just as there are three persons or subsistences, or else there will be one person and

one subsistence just as there is only one energy. But the truth of the matter is that the

holy Fathers have unanimously maintained that things which have the same essence have

also the same energy. And if personality is introduced along with energy, those who

maintain that neither one nor two energies of Christ should be spoken of, surely do not

maintain that either one or two persons of Christ are to be spoken of?

Take the case of the angel’s flaming sword; just as here the natures of fire and steel are

preserved distinct, so also are their two energies and their effects. For the energy of the

steel is its cutting power, and that of the fire is its burning power, and the cut is the effect

of the energy of the steel, and the burn is the effect of the energy of the fire: and these are

kept quite distinct in the burnt-cut, and in the cut-burn, although here the burning does

not happen except in the cut (after the union of the two), nor can the cut happen except

in the burning. But we do not maintain on account of the twofold natural energy that

there are two flaming swords, nor do we confuse the essential difference of the energies

on account of the unity of the flaming sword. It is the same in the case of Christ. his

divinity possesses an energy that is divine and omnipotent while his humanity has an

energy like our own. And the effect of his human energy was his taking the child by the

hand and drawing her to himself, while that of his divine energy was the restoring of her

to life. For the one is quite distinct from the other, although they are inseparable from

one another in theandric energy. But since, because Christ has one subsistence, he must

also have one energy, then, because he has one subsistence, he must also have one essence.

Again: if we should hold that Christ has only one energy, this must be either divine or

human, or neither. But if we hold that it is divine we must maintain that he is God alone,

stripped of our humanity. And if we hold that it is human, we shall be guilty of the

impiety of saying that he is a mere man. And if we hold that it is neither divine nor

human, we must also hold that he is neither God nor man, and of like essence neither to

the Father nor to us. For it is as a result of the union that the identity in hypostasis arises,

but even so the difference between the natures is not abolished. But since the difference

between the natures is preserved, then clearly the energies of the natures will also be

preserved. For no nature exists that is lacking in energy.

If Christ our Master has one energy, it must be either created or uncreated; for

between these positions there is no energy, just as there is no nature. If the energy is

created, it will point to created nature alone, but if it is uncreated, it will signify

uncreated essence alone. For whatever is natural must completely correspond with its

proper nature: for there cannot exist any nature that is defective. But the energy that

harmonizes with a nature does not belong to anything external: and this is manifest

because, apart fromthat energy which harmonizes with its nature, a nature cannot either

exist or be known. Through the means by which each thing manifests its energy, the

stability serves to confirm its own proper nature.

If Christ has one energy, it must be one and the same energy that performs both divine

and human actions. But there is no existing thing which while abiding in its natural state

can act in opposite ways: for fire does not freeze and boil, nor does water dry up and

make wet. How then could he who is God by nature, and who became man by nature,

both have performed miracles, and endured passions with one and the same energy? If

Christ assumed the human mind, that is to say, the intelligent and reasonable soul, then

unquestionably he has thought, and will go on thinking for ever. But thought is the

energy of the mind: and so Christ, as man, is endowed with energy, and will be so for

ever. Indeed, the most wise and great and holy John Chrysostom says in his second

homily on the exegesis of the Acts: “We would not be wrong if we were to call even his

passion an action: for insofar as he suffered all things, he accomplished that great and

marvelous work, the overthrow of death, and all his other works.”

If all energy is defined as essential movement of some nature, as those who are versed

in these matters say, where can one see any nature that has no movement, and is

completely devoid of energy, or where does one find energy that is not movement of

natural power? But, as the blessed Cyril says, no one in his right senses could admit that

there was only one natural energy of God and his creation. It is not his human nature

that raises up Lazarus from the dead, nor is it his divine power that sheds tears: for the

shedding of tears is peculiar to human nature while the giving of life is peculiar to the

enhypostatic life. But yet they are common, the one to the other, because of the identity

in subsistence. For Christ is one, and one also is his person or hypostasis; but even so he

has two natures, one belonging to his humanity, and another belonging to his divinity.

And the glory, indeed, which proceeded naturally from his divinity became common to

both through the hypostatic identity; and again on account of his flesh that which was

lowly became common to both. For he who is the one or the other, that is God or man, is

one and the same, and both what is divine and what is human belong to himself. For while his divinity performed the miracles, they were not done apart from the flesh,

and while his flesh performed its lowly offices, they were not done apart from the

divinity. For his divinity was joined to the suffering flesh, yet remaining without passion,

and it endured the saving passions, while the holy mind was joined to the energizing

divinity of the Word, perceiving and knowing what was being accomplished.

And so his divinity communicates its own glories to the body while it remains itself

without part in the sufferings of the flesh. For his flesh did not suffer through his divinity

in the same way that his divinity energized through the flesh. For the flesh acted as the

instrument of his divinity. Although fromthe first conception there was no division at all

between the two forms (since the actions of either form always became those of one

person), nevertheless we do not in any way confuse those things that took place without

separation, but we recognize fromthe quality of its works what sort of form anything has.

Christ, then, energizes according to both his natures and either nature energizes in

him in communion with the other: the Word performing through the authority and

power of its divinity all the actions proper to theWord, that is all acts of supremacy and

sovereignty, and the body performing all the actions proper to the body, in obedience to

the will of theWord who is united to it, and of whom it has become a distinct part. For he

was not moved of himself to the natural passions, nor again did he of himself recoil from

painful things or pray for release from them, or suffer external events, but rather he was

moved in conformity with his nature, the Word willing and allowing him economically

to suffer this, and to do the things that were proper to him, so that the truth might be

confirmed by the works of nature.

Moreover, just as he received in his birth from a virgin super-essential essence, so also

he revealed his human energy in a superhuman way, walking with earthly feet on

unstable water, not by turning the water into earth, but by causing it in the superabundant

power of his divinity not to flow away or yield beneath the weight of material feet.

For not in a merely human way did he do human things: for he was not only man, but

also God, and so even in his sufferings he brought life and salvation: nor did he energize

as God, strictly in the divine manner, for he was not only God, but also man, and so it

was by touch and word and such means that he worked miracles.

But if any one should say, “We do not confess that Christ has only one energy in order

to do away with the concept of human energy, but we do so because human energy, in

opposition to divine energy, is called passive (pathos).” And to this we give an answer

that, according to this reasoning, even those who maintain that he only has a single

nature do not assert this with a view to doing away with his human nature, but because

human nature in opposition to divine nature is spoken of as passible (pathetike). But

really, God forbid that we should ever call the human activity passion, when we are

distinguishing it from divine energy. For, to speak generally, we never recognize or

classify existence in terms of comparison or collation, because otherwise existing things

would turn out to be mutually the cause of one another. For if the human activity is seen

as passion because the divine activity is seen as energy, then undoubtedly it would follow

that the human nature also must be wicked because the divine nature is good, and so,

conversely and by terms of opposite, if the divine activity is called energy because the

human activity is called passion, then perhaps the divine nature must be good because the human nature is bad? But then all created things must be bad, and then he must have

spoken falsely who said, “And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was

very good.”

So it is that we maintain that the holy Fathers gave various names to the human

activity according to the generic sense. For they called it power, and energy, and

difference, and activity, and property, and quality, and passion, not in distinction from

the divine activity, but the divine power, because it is a conservative and invariable force.

They called it energy, because it is a distinguishing mark, and reveals the absolute

similarity between all things of the same class; difference, because it distinguishes;

activity, because it makes manifest; property, because it is constituent and belongs to

that alone, and not to any other; quality, because it gives form; and passion, because it is

moved. For all things that are of God and after God suffer in respect of being moved,

insofar as they do not have motion or power in themselves. Therefore, as has been said, it

is not in order to distinguish the one from the other that it has been named, but it is in

accordance with the plan creatively implanted within it by the Cause that framed the

universe. This is why when they spoke of it along with the divine nature they called it

energy. For he who said, “For either form energizes a close communion with the other,”

did something quite different from him who said, “And when he had fasted forty days,

he was afterwards very hungry” (for he allowed his nature to energize when it so willed,

in the way proper to itself), or from those who hold there is a different energy in him or

that he has a twofold energy, or now one energy and now another. For these statements

with the change in terms signify the two energies. Indeed, often the number is indicated

both by change of terms and by speaking of them as divine and human. For the difference

is difference in terms of differing things, but how do things that do not exist differ?

Book 3. Chapter 17. Concerning the deification of the nature of our

Lord’s flesh and of his will

It is also noteworthy that the flesh of the Lord is not said to have been deified and made

equal to God, or made God in respect of any change or alteration, or transformation, or

confusion of nature: as Gregory the Theologian says, “From which the one deified, and

the other was deified, and, if I may speak boldly, was made equal to God: and that which

anointed became man, and that which was anointed became God.” For these words do

not signify any change in nature, but rather the economical union (I mean the hypostatic

union by virtue of which it was united inseparably with God the Word), and the

permeation of the natures through one another, just as we saw earlier that burning

permeated the steel. For, just as we confess that God became man without change or

alteration, so we consider that the flesh became God without change. For because the

Word became flesh, he did not overstep the limits of his own divinity nor abandon the

divine glories that belong to him: nor, on the other hand, was the flesh, when it was

deified, changed in its own nature or in its natural properties. For even after the union,

both the natures remained unconfused and their properties unimpaired. But the flesh of

the Lord received the riches of the divine energies through the purest union with the

Word, that is to say, the hypostatic union, without entailing the loss of any of its natural

attributes. For it is not in virtue of any energy of its own but because of theWord united to it, that it manifests divine energy: for the flaming steel burns, not because it has been

endowed in a physical way with burning energy, but because it has obtained this energy

by its union with fire.

And so the same flesh was mortal by reason of its own nature, and it was life-giving

because of its hypostatic union with theWord. And we hold that it is just the same with

the deification of the will; for its natural activity was not changed but united with his

divine and omnipotent will, and became the will of God, made man. And so it was that,

though he wished, he could not of himself escape [the chalice], because it pleased God

the Word that the weakness of the human will, which was truly in him, should be made

manifest. But he was able to cause at his will the cleansing of the leper, because of the

union with the divine will.

Observe also, that the deification of the nature and the will points most expressly and

most directly to the existence of two natures and two wills. For just as the burning does

not change into fire the nature of the thing that is burnt, but makes distinct both what is

burnt, and what burned it, and is indicative not of one but of two natures, so also the

deification does not bring about one compound nature but two, and their union in

subsistence. Indeed, Gregory the Theologian says, “From which the one deified, the

other was deified,” and by the words “from which,” “the one,” and “the other,” he most

clearly indicates two natures.

Book 3. Chapter 19. Concerning the theandric energy

When the blessed Dionysios says that Christ exhibited to us some sort of novel theandric

energy, he is not abolishing the natural energies by saying that one energy resulted from

the union of the divine with the human energy: for in just the same way we could speak

of one new nature resulting from the union of the divine with the human nature.

For, according to the holy Fathers, things that have one energy also have one essence.

But rather he wished to indicate the novel and ineffable manner in which the natural

energies of Christ manifest themselves, a manner befitting the ineffable way in which the

natures of Christ mutually permeate one another, and further how strange and wonderful

and entirely new to us was his life as man, and lastly the manner of the mutual

interchange arising from the ineffable union. For we hold that the energies are not

divided and that the natures do not energize separately, but that each conjointly in

complete communion with the other energizes with its own proper energy. For the

human part did not energize merely in a human manner, for he was not mere man; nor

did the divine part energize only after the manner of God, for he was not simply God, but

he was at once God and man. For just as in the case of natures we recognize both their

union and their natural difference, so is it also with the natural wills and energies.

Note, therefore, that in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, we speak sometimes of his

two natures and sometimes of his one person: and either one or the other can be referred

to one conception. For the two natures are one Christ, and the one Christ is two natures.

And so it is all the same whether we say “Christ energizes according to either of his

natures,” or “Either nature energizes in Christ in communion with the other.” The divine

nature has communion with the flesh in its energizing, because it is by the good favor of

the divine will that the flesh is permitted to suffer and do the things proper to itself, and because the energy of that flesh is altogether salvific, and this is an attribute not of

human but of divine energy. On the other hand, the flesh has communion with the

divinity of the Word in its energizing, because the divine energies are performed, so to

speak, through the medium of the body, and because he who energizes is one and the

same, at once God and man.

Note this also, that his holy mind also performs its natural energies, thinking and

knowing that it is the mind of God and that it is worshipped by all creation, and still

remembering the times he spent on earth and all that he suffered, but it has communion

with the divinity of the Word in its energizing and orders and governs the universe,

thinking and knowing and ordering not as the mere mind of man, but as hypostatically

united with God and acting as the mind of God.

It is this theandric energy, therefore, which makes it plain for us that when God

became man, that is when he became incarnate, both his human energy was divine (that

is deified), and communing with his divine energy, and his divine energy was communing

in his human energy, and each one was observed in conjunction with the other. Now

this manner of speaking is called a periphrasis, that is when one embraces two things in a

single statement. For just as in the case of the flaming sword we speak of the cut-burn as

one, and the burnt-cut as one, but still hold that the cut and the burn have different

energies and different natures, the burn having the nature of fire and the cut having the

nature of steel; well, in the same way also when we speak of one theandric energy of

Christ, we understand the two distinct energies of his two natures, a divine energy

belonging to his divinity, and a human energy belonging to his humanity.

Book 4. Chapter 13. Concerning the holy and immaculate

Mysteries of the Lord God

The one who is good and altogether good, indeed far more than good; he who is goodness

throughout, by reason of the exceeding riches of his goodness, did not wish for himself

(that is his nature) only to be good, with no other able to participate in that goodness, so it

was for this very reason that he first made the spiritual and heavenly powers: next the

visible and sensible universe: next man with his spiritual and sentient nature. All things,

therefore, which God made, share in his goodness in respect of their existence. For he

himself is existence to all, since all things that exist, are in him; not only because it was he

who brought them out of nothingness into being, but because his energy preserves and

maintains all that he made: and especially the living creatures, both in that they exist and in

that they enjoy life and share in his goodness. But to tell the truth those living creatures that

are endowed with reason have an even greater share in his goodness, both because of what

has been already said and also because of that rational capacity which they possess. For they

are somehow more dearly akin to God, even though he is incomparably higher than them.

Man, however, being endowed with reason and free will, received the power of

continuous union with God through his own choice, if indeed he chose to remain in

goodness, that is in obedience to his Maker. But since he transgressed the command of

his Creator and became liable to death and corruption, the Creator and Maker of our

race, because of deep compassion, took on our likeness, becoming man in all things

except sin, and was united to our nature. For since he bestowed on us his own image and his own spirit and we did not keep them safe, he participated in our poor and weak

nature, so that he might cleanse us and make us incorruptible, and establish us once

more as partakers in his divinity.

For it was fitting that not only the first-fruits of our nature should partake in the

higher good, but indeed every man who wished it, and that a second birth should

take place and that the nourishment should be new and suitable to the birth and thus the

measure of perfection be attained. Through his birth, that is, his incarnation, and

baptism and passion and resurrection, he delivered our nature from the sin of our first

parent and from death and corruption, and he himself became the first-fruits of the

resurrection, and made himself the way and the image and the pattern, so that we also by

following in his footsteps could become by adoption what he himself is by nature: sons

and heirs of God and co-heirs with him. And so, as I said, he gave us a second birth so

that, just as we the children of Adam are in his image and are the heirs of curse and

corruption, so also being born of Christ we may be in his likeness and heirs of his

incorruption, blessing and glory.

Now seeing that this Adam is spiritual, it was fitting that both his birth and food

should be spiritual too; but since we are of a double and compounded nature, it is fitting

that this birth should be double and the food compounded. So it was that we were given

a birth by water and Spirit (I mean, by holy baptism): and the food is the very bread of

life, our Lord Jesus Christ, who came down from heaven. For when he was about to take

on himself a voluntary death for our sakes, on the night on which he gave himself up, he

laid a new covenant on his holy disciples and apostles, and through them on all who

believe in him. In the upper chamber of holy and illustrious Sion, after he had eaten the

ancient Passover with his disciples and had fulfilled the ancient covenant, he washed his

disciples’ feet in token of the holy baptism. “Then having broken bread he gave it to them

saying: ‘Take, eat, this is my body broken for you for the remission of sins.’ Likewise he

also took the cup of wine and water and gave it to them saying, ‘Drink all of you from

this for this is my blood, blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you for the

remission of sins. Do this in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and

drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Son of Man and confess his resurrection

until he come.’”

If the Word of God is alive and energizing, therefore, and the Lord did all that he

willed; if he said, “Let there be light and there was light, let there be a firmament and

there was a firmament”; “If the heavens were established by theWord of the Lord and all

the host of them by the breath of his mouth”; if the heaven and the earth, water and fire

and air and the whole glory of these, and, indeed this most noble creature, man, were

perfected by theWord of the Lord; if God theWord of his own will became man and the

pure and undefiled blood of the holy and ever-Virgin Mary made his flesh seedlessly,

can he not also make the bread his body and the wine and water his blood? He said in

the beginning, “Let the earth bring forth grass,” and even until this present day, when the

rain comes it brings forth its proper fruits, urged on and strengthened by the divine

command. God said, “This is my body, and this is my blood,” and “Do this in

remembrance of me.” And so it still stands at his omnipotent command until he come

again: for it was in this sense that he said “Until he come”: and through the Epiclesis the overshadowing power of the Holy Spirit becomes the rain to this new tillage. For just as

God made all that he made by the energy of the Holy Spirit, so also now the energy of the

Spirit performs those things that are supernatural and which it is not possible to

comprehend except by faith alone. “How shall this be,” said the holy Virgin, “Seeing I

do not know a man?” And the archangel Gabriel answered her: “The Holy Spirit shall

come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you.” So why do you

ask now how the bread becomes Christ’s body and the wine and water Christ’s blood?My

answer to you is: The Holy Spirit is present and does those things which surpass reason

and thought.

Furthermore, bread and wine are employed: for God knows man’s infirmity: for in

general man turns away discontentedly from what is not well-worn by custom: and so

with his usual indulgence God performs his supernatural works through familiar

objects: and just as in the case of baptism, since it is man’s custom to wash himself

with water and anoint himself with oil, he connected the grace of the Spirit with the oil

and the water, and made it into the water of regeneration, just so since it is our custom to

eat and to drink water and wine, he connected his divinity with these elements and made

them into his body and blood in order that we may rise to what is supernatural through

what is familiar and natural.

The body which is born of the holy Virgin is truly body united with divinity. It is not

that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself

and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood. But if you enquire how this

happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord

took on himself flesh that subsisted in him and was born of the holy Mother of God

through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is

omnipotent, true and energizes; but the manner of this cannot be discovered. But we

can express it well enough by saying that just as in nature the bread (by the eating) and

the wine and water (by the drinking) are changed into the body and blood of the eater

and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, just so the bread

of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and

presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and they are not two

bodies but one and the same.

This is why to those who partake worthily and with faith, this is for the remission of

sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but for those who

partake unworthily and without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment; just as the

death of the Lord became for those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment

of eternal blessedness, while for those who do not believe, and for the murderers of the

Lord, it was for everlasting chastisement and punishment.

The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God

forbid!) but are actually the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, “This is

My body,” not, this is a figure of my body: and he said “My blood,” not, a figure of my

blood. And on a previous occasion he had said to the Judeans: “Unless you eat the flesh

of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will have no life in you. For my flesh is true

food and my blood is true drink.” And again, “Whoever eats me, shall live.” And so in

awe and with a pure conscience and certain faith let us draw near and it will assuredly be for us what we believe, doubting nothing. Let us pay homage to it in all purity both of

soul and body: for it is twofold. Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our

hands crossed over our breast let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us

apply it to our eyes and lips and brows and partake of this divine ember, so that the fire of

our desire with the additional heat derived fromthe ember may utterly consume our sins

and illumine our hearts, and so that we may be inflamed and deified by our participation

in the divine fire. Isaiah had a vision of this coal. But coal is not plain wood but wood

united with fire: in like manner so too is the bread of the communion not just plain

bread but bread united with divinity. But a body which is united with divinity is not one

nature, but has one nature belonging to the body and another belonging to the divinity

that is united to it; so that the compound is not one nature but two.

Melchisidek, the priest of the most high God, received Abraham on his return from

the victory over the pagans with bread and wine. That table pre-imaged this mystical

table, just as that priest was a type and image of Christ, the true high-priest: “For you are

a priest for ever after the order of Melchisidek.” The temple show-bread was also an

image of this bread. And this too is surely that pure and bloodless sacrifice which

the Lord through the prophet said is offered to him “From the rising to the setting of

the sun.”

The body and blood of Christ are meant for the support of our soul and body, and are

never consumed and never suffer corruption or waste (God forbid!) but are for our

being and preservation, as a protection against all kinds of injury, as a purging from all

uncleanness. If men take up base gold, they purify it by a critical burning: symbol of how

we shall not be condemned along with the dross of this world in the future. The refining

purifies it from defilement and all kinds of calamities; according to the words of the

divine Apostle, “For if we would judge ourselves, we shall not be judged. But when we are

judged, we shall be chastened by the Lord, so that we shall not be condemned along with

the world.” This too is what he says, “So that whoever partakes of the body and blood of

Christ unworthily, eats and drinks condemnation to himself.” So, being purified accordingly,

we are united to the body of Christ and to his Spirit and in this way we become the

body of Christ.

This bread is the first-fruits of the future bread which is [called in the Lord’s prayer]

Epiousion, or in other words necessary for existence. For the word epiousion signifies

either the future, that is the One who is for a future age, or else him of whom we partake

for the preservation of our essence.Whatever sense the word denotes, it is fitting to speak

like this of the Lord’s body. For the Lord’s flesh is life-giving spirit because it was

conceived of the life-giving Spirit. For what is born of the Spirit is spirit. But I do not

say this to take away the nature of the body, but rather I wish to make clear its life-giving

and divine power.

But if some persons have called the bread and the wine the “Antitypes” of the body and

blood of the Lord (as for example as the divinely inspired Basil did), they did not call

them this after the consecration, only before the consecration, in other words using this

term for the offering. We refer to it also as participation; for through this we partake of

the divinity of Jesus.We also call it Communion, and it is an actual communion, because

through it we have communion with Christ and share in his flesh and his divinity: Indeed, we also have communion and are united with one another through it. For since

we partake of one bread, we all become the one body of Christ and one blood, and

become members of one another, since we are one body with Christ.

With all our strength, therefore, let us be on our guard not to receive communion

from the heretics or to offer communion to them; for the Lord said: “Do not give what is

holy to the dogs,” and “Do not cast your pearls before swine.” For if we do this we shall

become partakers in their dishonor and condemnation. For if the union given is truly

with Christ and with one another, we are certainly freely united also with all those who

partake along with us. For this union is effected voluntarily and not against our

inclination. And we are all one body because we partake of the one bread, as the divine

Apostle says. Moreover in this respect we also find mention made of the antitypes of

future things. This does not imply that the elements are not truly Christ’s body and

blood, but it means that even now we partake of Christ’s divinity through them, but in

the future we shall partake noetically through simple vision.

Book 4. Chapter 15. Concerning the honor due to the Saints and their remains

Honor should be paid to the saints as to the friends of Christ, and as sons and heirs of

God. In the words of John the theologian and evangelist, “As many as received him, he

gave them power to became sons of God.” So that they are no longer servants, but sons:

and if sons, they are also heirs; heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ: and the Lord in the

holy Gospels says to his apostles, “You are my friends. From now on I do not call you

servants, for a servant does not know what his Lord is doing.” And furthermore, if the

Creator and Lord of all things is called King of Kings and Lord of Lords and God of Gods,

then surely even the saints are like gods and lords and kings. For God truly is, and is

called, the God and Lord and King of all these. For “I am the God of Abraham,” he said to

Moses, “The God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” And “God made Moses a god to

Pharaoh.” Now of course I am referring to gods and kings and lords not as a matter of

nature, but insofar as they have become rulers and masters of their passions, and because

they have preserved a true likeness to the divine image according to which they were

made (for the image of a king is also called king), and insofar as they are united to God of

their own free will and receive his indwelling and are in process of becoming by grace

through participation with him what he is himself by nature. Surely, then, the worshippers

and friends and sons of God must be held in honor? For the honor shown to the

most thoughtful of fellow-servants is a proof of good feeling towards the common

Master.

The saints are made the treasuries and pure habitations of God: “For I will dwell in

them,” God said, “And walk in them, and I will be their God.” The divine Scripture also

says that “The souls of the just are in the hands of God and death cannot lay hold of

them.” For death is more the sleep of the saints than their death. For they worked in this

life and shall continue to work to the end, and “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the

death of his saints.”What is more precious than to be in the hand of God? For God is Life

and Light, and those who are in God’s hand are within life and light.

In addition the Apostle tells us that God even dwelt in the bodies of the saints in a

spiritual manner: “Do you not know that your bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit who dwells within you?” And “The Lord is that Spirit,” and “If any one should destroy

the temple of God, God will destroy him.” Surely, then, we must ascribe honor to the

living temples of God, those living tabernacles of God?While they lived the saints stood

with confidence before God. Christ our Master made their relics into fountains of

salvation for us, pouring forth manifold blessings and making them abound in the oil

of sweet fragrance. And no one should doubt this. For if water poured forth in the desert

from the steep and solid rock at God’s will and from the jaw-bone of an ass so that it

might quench Samson’s thirst, is it so incredible that fragrant oil should pour forth from

the relics of the martyrs? By no means, at least to those who know the power of God and

the honor which he accords his saints.

In the terms of the Old Law every one who touched a dead body was considered

impure, but these are not dead. For from the time when he that is himself life and the

Author of life was reckoned among the dead, we do not consider those who have fallen

asleep in the hope of the resurrection and in faith in Christ to be dead. For how could a

dead body work miracles? And how could the demons be driven off by them, or diseases

dispelled, or sick persons made well, or the blind restored to sight, or lepers purified, or

temptations and troubles overcome; and how does every good gift from the Father of

lights come down through them to those who pray with sure faith? What hard work

would you not undertake in order to find a patron who could introduce you to an earthly

king and who would speak to him on your behalf? Are not the saints, then, worthy of

honor since they are the patrons of the whole race, and make intercession to God for us?

Of course we should give them honor by building temples to God in their name,

bringing them fruit-offerings, honoring their memories and taking spiritual delight in

them, in order that the joy of those we invoke may be ours, and so that in our attempts at

worship we may never cause them offense. For those who worship God will take pleasure

in the things by means of which God is truly worshipped, while his attendants will be

angry at all those things than anger God. Let us believers venerate the saints, in psalms

and hymns and spiritual songs, by contrition and by pity for the needy, because God also

is most truly worshipped in this manner. Let us raise monuments to the saints and visible

icons, and let us try to become, by imitation of their virtues, living monuments and

icons of them. Let us give honor especially to her who bore God, who is strictly and truly

theMother of God. Let us honor also the prophet John as Forerunner and Baptist, and as

Apostle andMartyr, “For among those born of women there has not risen a greater than

John the Baptist,” as the Lord said, for he became the first to proclaim the Kingdom. Let

us honor the apostles as the Lord’s own brothers, who saw him face to face and

ministered to his passion. “For those whom God the Father foreknew he also predestined

to be conformed to the icon of his Son: first apostles, second prophets, third pastors and

teachers.” Let us also honor the martyrs of the Lord, chosen out of every class, as soldiers

of Christ who have drunk his cup and were then baptized with the baptism of his lifebringing

death, so as to be partakers of his passion and glory. The leader of them all is

Stephen, the first deacon of Christ and apostle and Protomartyr. Also let us honor our

holy fathers, the God-bearing ascetics, whose struggle was the longer and more laborious

one of the conscience: who wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute,

afflicted, tormented; “they wandered in deserts and in mountains and in dens and caves of the earth, of whom the world was not worthy.” Let us honor those who were prophets

before the time of grace, the patriarchs and just ones who foretold the Lord’s coming.

Let us carefully review their lives, and let us emulate their faith and love and hope and

zeal and way of life, and their endurance of sufferings and their patience even to the point

of blood; so that we too may be sharers with them in their crowns of glory.

Book 4. Chapter 16. Concerning Icons

But since some find fault with us for venerating and honoring the icon of our Savior and

that of the Virgin Lady, and those, too, of the rest of the saints and servants of Christ, let

them remember that in the beginning God created man after his own image. On what

grounds, then, do we show reverence to one another except because we are made after

God’s image? For as Basil says, that skilful expounder of divine things, “the honor given

to the image passes over to the prototype.” Now a prototype is that which is imaged,

from which the derivative is obtained.Why was it that the people in the time ofMoses all

honored the tabernacle which bore an image and type of heavenly things (or rather a

type of the whole creation)? For God said to Moses, “See that you make these things

after the pattern which was shown to you on the mountain.” As for the Cherubim, too,

which overshadow the Mercy Seat, are they not also the work of men’s hands? And what

was the celebrated temple at Jerusalem? Was it not made by hand and fashioned by the

skill of men?

What is more the divine Scripture blames those who worship graven images, but offers

the same blame to those who sacrifice to demons. The Greeks sacrificed and the Jews also

sacrificed: but the Greeks did it to demons and the Jews did it to God. So the sacrifice of

the Greeks was rejected and condemned, but the sacrifice of the just was very acceptable

to God. For Noah sacrificed, and “God smelled a sweet savor,” receiving the fragrance of

his right choice and reverence. This was why the graven images of the Greeks (since they

were images of false deities), were rejected and forbidden.

But apart from this who can make an imitation of the invisible, incorporeal,

uncircumscribed, and formless God? This is why to give form to the Deity is the height

of folly and impiety. And so, in the Old Testament, the use of images was not common.

But afterwards God in his deep compassion truly became man for our salvation (not as

he was seen by Abraham in the semblance of a man, nor as he was seen by the prophets,

but truly man in being), and he lived upon the earth and dwelt among men, worked

miracles, suffered, was crucified, rose again and was taken back to Heaven. Since all these

things actually took place and were seen by men, they were written down for our

instruction and remembrance since we were not alive at that time, so that though we

did not actually see, we could still hear and believe, and so obtain the blessing of the

Lord. But since not every one is literate, or has time for reading, the Fathers gave their

sanction to depicting these events in icons, as being acts of great heroism, in order that a

concise memorial of them could be formed. Often, doubtless, when we do not have the

Lord’s passion in mind and we see the icon of Christ’s crucifixion, his saving passion is

immediately brought to mind, and we fall down and worship (not the material but

rather) that which is imaged: just as we do not worship the material of which the Gospels

are made, nor the material of the Cross, but that which these things typify. For in what respect does a cross that typifies the Lord, differ from a cross that does not do so? It is just

the same also in the case of theMother of the Lord. For the honor which we give to her is

referred to him who was made incarnate of her. And similarly the brave acts of holy men

also stir us up to be brave and to emulate their valor and glorify God. For as we said, the

honor that is given to these best of fellow-servants is a proof of good-will towards

our common Lady, and the honor rendered to the icon passes over to the prototype.

But this is an unwritten tradition, just as is the case with the custom of praying towards

the East and the veneration of the Cross, and many other similar things.

A certain tale, is told, how when Abgar was king over the city of the Edessa, he sent a

portrait artist to paint a likeness of the Lord, and when the artist could not paint because

of the brightness that shone from his countenance, the Lord himself put a cloth over his

own divine and life-giving face and impressed upon it an image of himself and sent

this to Abgar, so as to satisfy his request. The Apostles handed down to us much else that

was unwritten. Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these words: “Therefore,

brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught by us, whether by

word or by epistle.” And to the Corinthians he writes, “Now I praise you, brethren,

because you remember me in all things, and you keep the traditions as I have handed

them on to you.”