The Patristic Page

Commentary on the Nicene Creed, by Theodore of Mopsuestia

2008-12-08T02:44:00.000-08:00

Commentary on the Nicene Creed

by Theodore of Mopsuestia

[Translated by Alphonse Mingana]

By the power of our Lord Jesus Christ we begin to write the exposition of the faith of the three hundred and eighteen (Fathers)1 composed by Mar Theodore the interpreter.

Chapter I.
What discourse is worthy of, and what mind is equal to, the greatness of the subjects placed before us? Or which is the tongue that is able to teach these mysteries? It is indeed difficult for our tongues to speak with accuracy even of the created natures, because they also are created with great wisdom by the Maker. As for those which are higher than our nature—because such are those of which we intend to speak—how much are they not higher than all the minds of men? They truly transcend our words! The blessed Paul bears witness concerning them in saying: "Eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him." 2

It is with these wonderful things that our discourse wishes to deal, and it is to the delight of these mysteries that we have been invited, because the time of the great festival of the holy Passover leads us to teach them. If God had wished those heavenly gifts not to be known to us, it is evident that we should not have been able to discourse on them, because how could a man have spoken of unknown things? Since, however, He wished from the first and before the foundations of the world to make manifest the wisdom that was in Him 3 through the Economy of our Lord Jesus Christ, He revealed to us these hidden mysteries and the greatness of these gifts, and He granted their knowledge to men through the Holy Spirit. It is indeed written that God revealed to us by His Spirit and showed us the sublime and ineffable mysteries which are performed by the power of the Holy Spirit so that through them we might proceed in a congruous way, by degrees and by |19 faith, to these future gifts.4 This is the reason why we desired to discourse with confidence, according to the grace of God vouchsafed to us, on these unspeakable things which are higher than ourselves. It is this time of this festival that has led us to speak with those who wish [to participate in] these awe-inspiring mysteries.

Now is the time for me to say: "Sing unto the Lord a new song for He has done marvellous things." 5 Indeed a new song is required for new things, as we are dealing with the New Testament which God established for the human race through the Economy of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He abolished all old things and showed new things in their place. Every man who is in Christ is a new creature; old things are passed away and all things are become new.6 Death and corruption have ceased, passions and mutability have passed away, and the life of the new creature has been made manifest, a life which we hope to reach after 7 our resurrection from the dead. At the resurrection from the dead He will make us new instead of old, and incorruptible and immortal instead of corruptible and mortal.

He gave us this new covenant which is fit for those who are renewed; and because of this covenant we receive the knowledge of these mysteries so that we should put off the old man and put on the new man who is renewed after the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all.8 This will take place in reality in the next world when we shall have become immortal and incorruptible, when we shall only contemplate Christ of whose Kingdom we shall partake, when the incident of being Jew or Greek, bond or free, shall be taken from us, and when all the ways of the image of this world shall have completely disappeared. Indeed what incidence of being Jew or Greek, bond or free, can remain with those who are in an immortal and incorruptible nature after the image of Christ, according to the testimony of the blessed Paul?

Because it was necessary that the faith in the truth of the future gifts should remain in us so that we should not throw doubts on them on account of their greatness—since we see them very much alien to our nature and above it—these awe-inspiring mysteries were confided |20 to us in order that through them as through symbols we might gradually approach our future hope, and in order to obtain a faith without doubts in these gifts, while cultivating a conduct that is in harmony with the new world and arranging our work in this world as much as possible in conformity with the following sentences: "Our conversation is in heaven," 9 and: "our building is of God," 10 and "we have a house in heaven not made with hands." 11

While still on the earth we have been inscribed 12 in that awe-inspiring glory of the future world through these mysteries, but we (ought to) live as much as possible a heavenly life in spurning visible things and aspiring after future things. Those who are about to partake now of these awe-inspiring mysteries are inspired to do so by the grace of God. They do not do this in order to partake of small and ordinary gifts, but to be transformed completely into new men and to possess different virtues which they will receive by the gift of the grace of God: being mortal they will become immortal, being corruptible they will become incorruptible, being passible they will become impassible, being changeable they will become unchangeable, being bond they will become free, being enemies they will become friends, being strangers they will become sons. They will no more be considered a part of Adam but of Christ; they will call as their head not Adam but Christ, who has renewed them; they will not cultivate a ground that will bring forth thorns and thistles to them,13 but they will dwell in a heaven which is remote and immune from all sorrow and sighing;14 nor will death rule over them but they will become themselves rulers in a new life where they will be not slaves of sin but warriors of righteousness, not servants of Satan but intimate friends of Christ for all time.

Adam, the father of mankind, received the abode of Paradise from which he was driven out through his disobedience and sin, and we, who became the heirs of his nature and his punishment, ascend to heaven by faith in Christ through our participation in these mysteries, as He said: "Except a man he born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." 15 The man, however, who receives this spiritual birth is immediately inscribed in heaven and |21 becomes the heir and partaker of those future gifts, as the blessed Paul said,16 because those who believed in Christ are in expectation of making their abode in heaven after the resurrection from the dead. Indeed we hope to go to heaven where the first man,17 Christ, went on our behalf. Through these mysteries we are truly inscribed in that abode.

We are in need of great care and immense diligence in order not to fall away from this great promise and suffer the fate of Adam who was driven out of Paradise. This is the reason why we partake in a wonderful way of these awe-inspiring mysteries with a true faith which has no doubt,18 and we ought not to forget this faith but to keep what we have received with great care. When we have received these heavenly gifts in a perfect manner so that we may delight in them, and when we have become their heirs in our actions, it is impossible that we should fall away from them. As long as we are on the earth, however, because we only receive them by hope through our participation in these mysteries, it is possible to fall away from them, as we have a changeable nature. We ought, therefore, to have great care and anxiety concerning them and to endeavour truly to possess the hope of the future in our souls.

Now which is the faith and which are the promises through which we have our part in mysteries in the hope of these heavenly gifts in which we will delight? These are found in the profession of faith which we make before Christ our Lord at the time of our baptism. If it were possible to comprehend their power by hearing only, our words would have been useless, because their mere recitation would have made them understood by those who heard them. Since, however, there is much power hidden in them—as our holy Fathers confided to us from the gift of God an ineffable treasure condensed in words which are easy to learn and to remember—it is necessary to teach those who are about to receive these mysteries and to show them the sense and the meaning that are hidden in them. When they have learnt the greatness of the gift to which they wish to make their approach, and have understood the meaning of their religion and their promises for the sake of which they receive such a great gift, they will keep with diligence in their souls the faith which has been handed down to them. |22

The principle of your faith and promise which is to be carefully kept in these mysteries is: I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible. By the grace of our Lord we will explain these words one after another, because it is good that you should know the power of all of them. Let us, therefore, rightly begin from where you also began in your profession of faith:

I believe in one God, Father Almighty. This is the foundation of the religion of the fear of God,19 "for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."20 This is the truth of the true teaching of the faith. Because the question of religion lies in the belief in things that are invisible and indescribable, it is in need of faith, which causes mind to see a thing that is invisible. The things that are visible we see them with our eyes, while the things that are invisible are only seen by faith, as "faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen." 21

This faith brings in substance to the mind the things that are not yet existent in reality. We accept by faith as true the resurrection from the dead to heaven and all the future existence, which is not yet in existence. Faith causes the soul to see and understand the things that are invisible and indescribable. We are enabled by faith to be worthy of seeing the nature of God "who is the sole invisible and incorruptible, who dwelleth in the bright light which has no equal, and whom no man hath seen nor can see."22

We are able to see the visible thing with material eyes, if these are sound and able to see, and if there is nothing to hinder them from seeing properly; but if they are affected by injury, all things that were visible become invisible, although in reality visible. In this same way we all see with accuracy the invisible and the indescribable things, which the question of religion has taught us, if our faith is sound, but they are not seen by those whose faith is not sound. The question of religion consists in two things: confession concerning God and concerning all the various and numerous things that were and will be made by Him, and both of these are in need of faith as is shown by the blessed Paul: "He that cometh to the religion of God must believe that He is" 23 and that the "worlds were framed by His |23 Word so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." 24

In these he shows first that even confession concerning God cannot consist in anything but the thought of religion 25 through faith alone; secondly, that we are unable to understand and confess the things that were made by Him if we do not receive their knowledge by faith. Faith perfects those who accept it thoroughly in the truth of religion while those who become remote from it sink in error completely.

Paul called the Church of God "the pillar and ground of the truth," 26 because it is sound in faith and well established in the teaching of religion. As to those who are outside the faith: pagans, Jews, and heretics, because they are devoid of faith, they greatly stray from the truth. Indeed because the pagans had no faith they were unable to understand how God was able to create and to make everything from nothing and establish it in substance, and in their error they gave fancifully to God a consort to whom He had given a seat with Him from eternity; and they strayed from the truth into various other insipid stories. As to Jews they recoiled from the name of a son, and because of their lack of faith they did not understand the one who is a true Son.

In this way all the heretics who are outside the Church and who have ascribed the name of Christ with untruth to themselves, because they have no faith, have erred and strayed from the truth. In order not to mention to your hearing all the heresies, it will be sufficient to refer to Arius and Eunomius and all those who subscribe to their opinion, and note how they were affected with the disease of the Jews; and because of their lack of faith they did not understand nor did they accept that the Son is of Divine nature, and that everything that is said of the nature of the Father is said also of that of the Son, while the nature of the Father in no way suffers from the fact that it has a true Son who in His nature is a true mirror of itself.27

These few things have been said out of many in order to rebuke |24 those who have strayed from the truth, and to show that they have strayed because of their lack of faith. Indeed, the error of men who have gone astray because of their lack of faith is great and possesses many ramifications, and as error increases in proportion to its remoteness from faith, so also knowledge increases in proportion to its nearness to faith. It is by faith that we know that God is, that He is the creator of everything and that He created everything from nothing. It is by it that we understand that those who have passed away and perished will come back again to life and existence, when the Creator wishes. It is by faith that we have known that the Father has a Son born of His nature and God like Himself. It is by faith that we have accepted that the Holy Spirit is of the same nature as God the Father and that He is always with the Father and the Son. It is by faith that we have no doubt nor suspicion concerning the preaching of the Economy of Christ which took place in the world.

It is, therefore, with justice that our blessed Fathers placed faith like a foundation in the forefront of our teaching and of the mystery of our covenant, and it is with right that they intimated to us to begin from there and say: I believe in one God, Father Almighty. We must not be astonished that our blessed Fathers included and handed down to us all the teaching of religion in a few words. They thought that a long discourse would better fit other times and other persons. As to you who for a long time have been weaned from the world, and have come nigh unto religion with a good will, and have made yourselves ready to receive the Divine mysteries with a clean conscience at a time full of fear, condensed words are more useful, as their fewness renders them more easy to keep in your memory when you wish to remember the faith which you professed and the promises which you made on account of these mysteries It is right, however, that a detailed teaching of them should be added to you so that you should understand them more accurately, and beware in your souls of all the words of the enemies of religion when you stand fast by this Divine teaching which is confided to you. I believe in one God, Father Almighty. See how our blessed Fathers, with the first word of the true profession of faith in one God the Father, removed us with care from the error of polytheism and from the fallacy of Judaism which puts in practice to-day all the teaching of the Old Testament in its entirety. |25

The words of the New Testament concerning Christ were found in the prophets of the Old Testament; they were indeed found in the prophets as a symbol and a sign whereby the Jews expected Christ to appear to them as a man, but none of them was aware of the divinity of the Only Begotten Son—the Word-God. (Our blessed Fathers) gave us a perfect doctrine which separates from paganism those who become initiated to religion, and which removes completely from the error of polytheism those who obey its commandments, while teaching that the natures of the Godhead are not many and separate, but that God is in one, single and eternal nature which is the cause of everything; that such a one is God, and outside Him there is no other God; that God is a being who is eternal and the cause of everything; that a being who is not like this is not God by nature; that a being who is eternal is the cause of everything; that a being who is not eternal and the cause of everything, is not God but the work of God, who alone is capable of creating everything from nothing.

He said: "The Lord Thy God is one Lord" 28 in order that we might learn that there is one nature in the Godhead to which is due the name of Lord and God. He also said: "the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens " 29 in order that we might understand that he who is not the cause of everything is not God. The one who is the cause of everything is God alone. He said to Moses, "I am the cause of everything," 30 in order that we might learn that He is truly the one who was from eternity and is always, and that He is God. He who does not possess this attribute and is not eternal, is not truly existent by Himself, but is made and has actually been made when he was not existent, at the time at which the one who is from eternity, that is to say God, wished to make him.

He also said: "I am the first and the last God and there was no other god before me and there shall be no other god after me," 31 in order that we might understand that He is the God who was first and from eternity and that it is impossible that another God that is created should exist. Divine nature cannot indeed fall within the notion of creation.32 |26

All these words teach us the doctrine of religion and expel the error of paganism. Among pagans gods are many and of different kinds: some of them are young, and some others old; some of them can do this, and some others that; some of them perish, and some others will continue their existence; and they are of different natures. That we ought to reject all these the Old Testament taught us in the prophets, who spoke through the Holy Spirit to the effect that all the gods of the Gentiles are false and are not gods because God is one, who is from eternity and is the cause of everything, as He said: "There shall be no strange god in thee," 33 that is to say a new god, and, "neither shalt thou worship a strange god" 34 because everything that is new is not God, and "they are new gods that came newly up." 35

Divine nature is one and eternal. It was in no need to be made by another, because it is the cause of everything. This is the reason why He is God alone, and anything that is made cannot by nature be God, as it is made by another. All the created things rightly attribute their existence to their Creator who is God, to whom they owe their being, and for this they are under an obligation of gratitude to Him who by His own good will and power vouchsafed to them to be what they are.

Our blessed Fathers succinctly included all this great teaching in the sentence: I believe in one God. Let us, therefore, accept the belief in one God according to the preaching of the prophets and the teaching of our Fathers. Divine nature is truly one, and it exists from eternity and is the cause of everything; this is not as the pagans erroneously state that there are many gods of different kinds.

It is necessary that we should offer you an oral teaching about everything, little by little, in order that you may be able to remember the things that are spoken to you, as these are indispensable to those who adhere to what has preceded. By the help of the grace of God we will keep our promise to you in other days, and now let the words that have been spoken suffice, and let us glorify the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, now, always and for ever and ever.

Here ends the first chapter. |27

Chapter II. On Faith.
Yesterday we spoke to your love sufficiently, and in the measure granted to us by the grace of God, of faith which is the foundation of the principle of religion. We approached the words of our profession of faith and showed how through faith in one God all the error of the polytheism of the Gentiles vanishes completely. We learned from the holy Books of the prophets to shake off from us all the aberrations of pagans, whose gods are different and numerous, and to believe that Divine nature which ought to be called God and Lord is one, because He alone is from eternity and is the cause of everything.

All the created beings are very remote from this nature, as it is impossible to admit that a created being is from eternity, and the created beings themselves will not suffer to be called rightfully Lord and God by nature. A being who is created by another cannot by any means create another being from nothing, or be called God with justice, but the one who created him is God by necessity. This is the reason why we say that there is only one God as the blessed prophets taught us; and by the grace of the Holy Spirit they spoke and defined the kind of nature which belongs to God. Beyond this they did not teach us anything clearly.

The doctrine concerning the Father and the Son was kept (to be promulgated) by Christ our Lord, who taught His disciples that which was unknown before and was not revealed to men, and ordered them to teach it to others also in saying to them plainly: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 36 As the blessed Moses said when he promulgated his doctrine: "The Lord, Thy God is one Lord" 37—a doctrine that was taught and handed down by all the prophets—so the Christ our Lord gave His teaching in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, but did not say what we had to learn and to teach others concerning the Lord and God, as this had been clearly done by the prophets. He ordered His disciples to teach all the nations that which was lacking to make the teaching of the prophets perfect, and for this He said: "Go ye and teach all nations |28 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not that we should think that one of these is not God nor that there is a God beside them, but that we should believe that they alone constitute Divine nature, which we had formerly learnt from the prophets to be one.

Because the Gentiles had previously taught the doctrine of the plurality of gods, who were numerous and different in youth and old age, in weakness and strength, so that some of them were able to do this and some others that—Christ ordered His disciples against this to teach all the nations to turn from all the error of paganism, and to believe in the unity of nature in the Godhead, as was the case with the doctrine first taught to mankind, from which the knowledge of religion was received; and also to learn that the one who is from eternity and is the cause of everything is one Divine nature known in the three persons of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

He would not have induced the Gentiles to turn away from names of false gods to the knowledge of the Father if He did not know that He (the Father) was truly Divine nature, nor would He have brought them to the knowledge of the Son if He did not know that He (the Son) was truly of the same Divine nature, nor would He have inculcated to them the knowledge of the Holy Spirit if He knew that He (the Holy Spirit) was alien to that nature, otherwise He would have caused them to turn from one falsehood to the knowledge of another falsehood. It is known that it is from false gods, who were wrongly called gods, that He ordered His disciples in His teaching to turn the Gentiles to the knowledge of the true God, which consists in the faith in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each one of these persons is a true God, but the Divine nature of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit which we believe to be eternal and the cause of everything, is one.

In this way the teaching of the Old Testament is in harmony with the teaching of the New Testament, and the words which the prophets uttered concerning God are not foreign nor contradictory to those which Christ our Lord delivered to the Gentiles through the Apostles, as His words are in full harmony with the true knowledge of religion according to the teaching of the prophets. Through the prophets we only understood God and the being to whom an uncreated nature belongs, but the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ gave us also with |29 certainty the persons in whom is Divine nature. This is the reason why our blessed Fathers placed first the doctrine of the belief in one God as it was written in the Old Testament in order to destroy the error of polytheism, and then imparted to us the knowledge of the persons according to the teaching of Christ. They were in a position—and it was easy for them—to repeat the words of our Lord "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," but because they wrote this profession of faith against the teaching of the heretics, they taught it as succinctly as possible with more words than those uttered by our Lord, for the demolition of error and the construction of the doctrine of the Church, so that by their meaning they should reprove those who contradict the true faith. For this reason they added with justice the name of the Father after they had said, I believe in one God.

After the words concerning God they proceeded to the teaching of the persons, which is the true teaching of the Christian faith and the true knowledge for those who become disciples of Christ. Because the sentence denotes Divine nature, it refers to the three persons, but as the teaching concerning the persons could not be considered as referring to one of them only, they rightly spoke to us of what is due to each person separately. At the beginning of their sentence they placed the Father from whom are the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father is truly the one who is a Father alone, but we hold each one of the three persons to be God, because Christ included this true doctrine in His teaching concerning these three persons.

When we hear the name "Father" we do not hear it to no purpose, but we understand that God is a Father, and a true Father, because He is Father alone; and we hold that God is Father in a way that belongs only to Divine nature. All the created beings obtain the power of being fathers after their creation, and there is no human being that has the attribute of fatherhood concomitantly with his existence. Even Adam, the first man, who was not born of another man, had not the attribute of fatherhood concomitantly with his existence. He came first into existence by the will of God the Creator and afterwards received the power of becoming a father, as it is said: "Adam knew his wife, and she conceived and bore a son." 38 He became and was called a father after his intercourse with Eve, after a long time of gestation, after pangs of travail, and after the birth of his child. It is iniquitous |30 to attribute any of those functions to Divine nature. He who had no need of time to exist was in no need of time to become a Father. Because He was from eternity, He was also a Father from eternity.

God the Father is truly a father; and He did not receive this in time, because He did not have a Son after a time, but the latter was with Him from eternity and was from Him as a Son also from eternity. It is for this that when our Lord gave this wonderful teaching to His disciples He said, "Teach in the name of the Father," and did not need to add another sentence in order to show whom He was calling "Father." It was sufficient for Him to say, "Teach and baptize" to show whom He was calling Father. He called God the Father in whom they had to believe and in whose name they had to be baptized, the God who was from eternity according to the teaching of the prophets.

It is not possible that the one who is from eternity should become Father after a time. The very name Father shows this without further addition. If like us He became Father later, He would also be identical with us in attribute and in the meaning of the word. Now since this vocable "father" is one and the same with many men, we should rightly inquire as to whom He called Father. Because He is a true Father, He is Father alone. As He is eternal by nature so He is eternally a Father. Since He is alone called by this name and in the full meaning of the word,39 we do not feel any necessity to inquire who is the one who is called Father, as His very name indicates to us the true Father. When He says: "I am that I am," this is my name for ever and this is my memorial unto generations," 40 we understand that God is called by this name, because He is truly "I am that I am" while all the created beings are not truly "I am that I am," 41 because they were created from nothing according to the will of their Maker. Because He is the true being, He is called I am that I am, and He is not made by another.

As He is not like us He is not a Father like us, because He did not receive the power of becoming a Father in time. So when we hear the word "father" we should rightly think of that true Father who did not acquire the power of becoming a Father in time, nor was He in need of an intercourse. He is a Father in truth and from |31 eternity, a complete nature, with whom His child exists also from eternity.

The sentence: I believe in one God the Father taught us all these things. It is rightly followed by the phrase Creator of all things visible and invisible, so that we should understand that He is not only the Father of the Son but also the Creator of all the creatures, and think of the difference which exists between Father and Creator, and between Son and creatures. He is the Father of the Son and the Creator of the creatures. The creatures were created later while the Son was from the beginning with Him and from Him. This is the difference between Father and Creator. He is called the Father of the one who was born of Him, and the Creator of all the natures which are outside Him and which were created from nothing by His will. This is the reason why they added nothing to the doctrine concerning the Father; indeed the very word Father sufficed to indicate the Son, as there is no father without a son, and as wherever there is a father there is also a son. As to the Son they were going to teach us as much as possible concerning Him later.

Because He is Creator they added, Of all things visible and invisible in order to show in this also the difference between the Son and the creatures: that He is the Father of the Son only, while He is the Creator of everything visible and invisible, as everything was created from nothing. He would not have been called Father of the Son and Creator of the creatures if there was not a great difference between the two: the difference that should exist between a Son and creatures. He is called and He is the Father of the Son, because He is of the same nature as the one who is said to be His Son, but He is the Creator of everything because everything was created from nothing; and although the natures of the visible and invisible things differ among themselves yet all these created things, whether visible or invisible, came into existence by the will of their Maker. The fact that they were made from nothing is common to all of them, as all were created from nothing by the will of their Maker.

This is the reason why the blessed David said: "Praise ye the Lord from the heavens. Praise ye Him all His angels. Praise ye Him all His hosts. Praise ye Him sun and moon." 42 And he gradually enumerated all other creatures found in the heavens and on |32 the earth, visible and invisible, mortal and immortal, rational and irrational, material and immaterial, those with life and those without life. When he invited them to the praise of God he gave one reason which holds good for all of them: "For He commanded, and they were created. He hath established them for ever and ever. He hath made a decree which shall not pass." 43 Because everything was created by Him and is sustained by His will, everything whether visible or not owes praise to the Creator.

Two things render it obligatory for us to praise God: because He is God and because He is Creator. We must, however, understand the difference between the two. It is not because He is Father that He is also Creator, and it is not because He is Creator that He is also Father. Indeed He is not the Creator of the One whose Father He is, nor is He the Father of those whose Creator He is. He is only the Father of the true and only Son who is in His Father's bosom, because He was born of Him and is with Him from eternity, but He is the Creator of all the things which are created and made, which are very remote from His essence and which were created by His will when He pleased. He is called and He is the Father of the Son because the latter is from Him and consubstantial with Him, and He is the Maker and the Creator of the creatures because He brought them to existence from nothing.

If He is called Father of men, He is not called their Father because He created them, but because of their proximity to Him and relation with Him. This is the reason why He is not called Father of all men but only of those who have relation with Him, such as "I have nourished and brought up children." 44 To these He granted by special favour to be called in this way. As such also is the sentence: "Israel is my son, even my first-born," 45 because the others were not sons. 46

Since we know the difference in our calling God: the Father of the Only Begotten Son who alone is the true Son because consubstantial with Him, and the Creator of everything which was created and came into |33 being from nothing—we should retain this meaning in our faith. When, therefore, we say "Father," "Maker" we ought not to conceive of God that which we conceive of men when we call them fathers and makers, but we ought to understand the difference between Father and Maker from the way they may be applied to us. Indeed, as with God so with us, a father is one thing and a maker another thing. We are called the fathers of those who are from us and are born of our nature, but the makers of those things which are not of our nature but which were made and came into existence outside us. A house, a ship and similar things are not of our nature, and are made by us.

Such being the case with us, we ought to think with a clear mind of the differences in God between the two terms of Father and Creator, and to understand that He is the Father of the Only Begotten Son who was born of His nature, and the Creator of all the creatures, which were created and came into existence from nothing. For this He did not need any matter but He created the natures through which they are seen and exist.

Since we were created in the image of God,47 we picture to ourselves the higher things that are said of God through an image taken from things that belong to us. In this way it is possible also to picture to ourselves what and how great is the difference in the belief in God as Father and as Creator from things belonging to us, although it is clear that there is a great difference between us and God; and this difference we ought not to overlook when thinking of Divine nature and the works done 48 by it. Indeed when we speak of Divine nature we must remove completely from our mind all things that happen to us through weakness. When we do a work we are in need of labour, matter and time; but God is above all these, because the moment He wished it, His works were completed out of nothing. From the fact also that we are born in labour and through human agency,49 when we become fathers we need the nature of a female as matter, and a long period of time. Without these we cannot become fathers. As to God He is a Father without all these, because He did not experience labour nor did He make use of any material agency 49 nor did He need |34 intercourse, nor did He wait for any lapse of time, but He was at once Father from eternity.

We should, therefore, rightly remove from God all unbecoming thoughts of things which happen to us through weakness whether in the domain of offspring or of work. We do everything in labour, and our nature itself emanates and suffers from it. As to God, He is above all these. Even when we reign, when we become governors, when we judge, when we work, when we speak, when we look, and do any other thing, we do all with labour; and when fatigue is protracted, it is followed by sweat; and because our nature is mortal and corruptible, it will perish through labour. As to God He does all things ascribed to Him, such as governing, providing, judging, reigning and the like without fatigue, without material agency and without injury.50

It is such an idea that we must have of God, and it is such a faith that we ought to possess concerning God the Father. When we call Him Father, we mean 51 Father of the Son; and He is truly a Father by nature, as we are. It is impossible to understand how He is truly a Father if He were not a Father by nature. He is eternally a Father because His nature, in which He is a Father, is eternal. When we call Him Creator we mean that He created everything in wisdom as it is said: "In wisdom Thou hast made them all," 52 as we also do things in the wisdom of the skill that we possess. God is creator in the sense that when He wished, the creatures came fully into existence, and He was in no need of time or any other intervening thing between His wish and the coming into existence of His creatures. Immediately after He wishes to create a thing, it comes into existence from nothing.

It is in this kind of profession of faith and with this meaning that our blessed Fathers gave us the belief in one God, Father and Creator, whom we have tried to explain to your love in a long teaching, which you should keep without modification, so that you should flee from the iniquitous opinions of the heretics, while your faith is sound, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ to whom, in conjunction with His Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory and honour for ever and ever. Amen.

Here ends the second chapter. |35

Chapter III. On Faith.
I believe that from what has been said you have learnt sufficiently which are the things that those whose solicitude is the fear of God have to understand and utter concerning God the Father. Let us now quote and examine also the words uttered by our blessed Fathers in the profession of faith concerning the Son: And in one Lord Jesus Christ the Only Begotten Son of God, the first-born of all the creatures.

It was right that after their doctrine concerning the Father they should teach concerning the Son according to the teaching of our Lord, while preserving the order and the sequence of their words. As when speaking of the Father they not only said "Father" according to the teaching of our Lord, but added, in one God the Father and the Creator of all things, and first placed the name of God in the profession of faith by saying that He is one in order to refute the error of polytheism, and then added, the Father and the Creator of all things—so also they acted concerning the Son: In one Lord Jesus Christ the Only Begotten Son of God, the first-born of all the creatures. In this they clearly followed the preaching of the blessed Paul, who when teaching against idols and erroneous creeds said in refutation of the error of polytheism: "There is but one God," 53 and because he knew that we hold the doctrine of the faith in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, he strove openly to show us that the question of the faith in these persons does not inflict any injury on us in our faith 54 nor does it lead us to the error of polytheism.

Because we know that the Divine nature of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, when he desired to teach us this faith in a succinct manner he said: "To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things." 55 In saying "one God the Father" he confuted all the error of polytheism, and showed that to us one Divine nature is preached. By the addition of the person of the Father he showed us the Son also, as after this he said: "And one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things" 56 in order to proclaim the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit together, while including also in his sentence |36 the Incarnation of our Lord which took place for our salvation and in which Divine nature became our Saviour. When he says: "one Lord by whom are all things" he alludes to God the Word who is a true Son consubstantial with His Father. He called Him rightly Lord in order to make us understand that He is from the Divine nature of God the Father.

We do not say that the Father is one God in the sense that the Son is not God, nor that the Son is one Lord in the sense that the Father is not Lord, because it is known and evident that any one who is truly God is also truly Lord, and any one who is truly Lord is also truly God, and any one who is not truly God is not truly Lord: "The Lord thy God is one Lord," 57 as He alone is so in truth. He who possesses these true attributes is alone called Lord and God in truth, and there is no other thing outside this nature which may be called Lord and God in truth. He who says "one God" shows also that there is one Lord, and he who says "there is but one Lord" confesses also that there is but one God. He (Paul) first said: "There is but one God" and immediately after "there is but one Lord," in order to separate the persons, because in repeating the word "one" about each one of them he showed that the two persons are to be known as of one Divine nature, which is truly both Lord and God.

In order to include in their sentence the human nature which was assumed for our salvation they said: In one Lord Jesus Christ. This name is that of the man whom God put on, as the angel said: "She shall bring forth a Son whose name shall be called 'Jesus.'" 58 They added also the word Christ in order to allude to the Holy Spirit, as it is written: "Jesus of Nazareth whom God anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power." 59 And He is God because of the close union with that Divine nature which is truly God.

In this same way our blessed Fathers who assembled in that wonderful Council of the Catholic Church [of Nicea] first spoke, like Paul, of Divine nature while coupling with it a word which denotes the form of humanity which He took upon Him 60 and said: And in one Lord Jesus Christ the Only Begotten Son of God, the first-born of all creatures. It is thus that they wished to teach mankind when they spoke of the Divine nature of the Son. His humanity, in which |37 is Divine nature, is also made known and proclaimed in it, according to the saying of the blessed Paul: "God was manifest in the flesh," 61 and according to the saying of John the evangelist, "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." 62

Our Fathers rightly thought not to overlook the humanity of our Lord which possesses such an ineffable union with Divine nature, but added: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, as if they had said, 'We believe in one Lord who is of Divine nature, to which the name of Lord and God is truly due.' In speaking of God the Word they said: By whom are all things,63 as the evangelist said: "All things were made by Him, and nothing was made without Him." 64 It is as if they had said, ' This one we understand to be one Lord who is of the Divine nature of God the Father, who for our salvation put on a man in whom He dwelt and through whom He appeared and became known to mankind. It is this man who was said by the angel that he would be called Jesus, who was anointed with the Holy Ghost in whom He was perfected and justified, as the blessed Paul testifies.' 65 After saying these and showing the Divine nature and the human nature which God put on, they added: The "Only Begotten Son," the "first-born" of all creatures. With these two words they alluded to the two natures, and by the difference between the words they made us understand the difference between the natures. From the fact also that they referred both words to the one person 66 of the Son they showed us the close union between the two natures. They did not make use of these words out of their own head but they took them from the teaching of Holy Writ. The blessed Paul said: "Of whom Christ in the flesh, who is God over all," 67 not that He is God by nature from the fact that He is of the House of David in the flesh, but he said "in the flesh" in order to indicate the human nature that was assumed. He said "God over all" in order to indicate the Divine nature which is higher than all, and which is the Lord. He used both words of one person in order to teach the close union of the two natures, and in order to make manifest the majesty and the honour that came to the man who was assumed by God who put Him on. |38

In this same way they said also: The Only Begotten Son, the first-born of all creatures. Because they were on the point of enlightening us concerning the two natures: how they are, which was the Divine nature which came down, and which was the human nature which was assumed—they used in advance these two expressions together in order to indicate the two natures through them. It is clear that they do not speak of one nature when they say: The Only Begotten Son, the first-born of all creatures, because the two expressions cannot be said of one nature, as there is a great difference between an only son and a first-born. It is not possible that an only son and a first-born should denote the same man. A first-born is the one who has many brothers while an only son is the one who has no brothers. So great is the difference between an only son and a firstborn that it may be compared with the difference that nature places between the one who is alone and the one who is in company of others.

We call an only son one who has no other brothers at all while we call a first-born one who clearly has other brothers. This the Sacred Book teaches us also without ambiguity. In wishing to speak of an only son it says: "We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." 68 It says also: "The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father," 69 so that by His close proximity to His Father He might be known as an only Son. The sentence, "We beheld His glory, the glory as of an only begotten of the Father" shows that He alone is of the nature of the Father by birth, and He alone is a Son. In using the word "bosom" it conveys to us a union that never ceases, as it is unbecoming to understand this word to refer to a corporeal bosom of God. Inasmuch as they call eye "sight" and ear "hearing," so also they call a union that never ceases "bosom," as it is said: "Render unto our neighbours sevenfold into their bosom," 70 that is to say let them receive punishment continually and always. The expression "only Son" that has been used signifies, therefore, that He is alone born of the Father, that He is alone Son, that He is always with His Father and is known with Him, because He is truly a Son from His Father.

As to the expression "the first-born of all the creatures," we |39 understand it in the sense in which it is said: "For whom He did foreknow He also did predestinate, and He formed them to the image of His Son that He might be the first-born among many brethren." 71 (Paul) did not make use of this word in order to show us that He is Son alone, but in order to make us understand that He has many brethren and that He is known among many since they acquired with Him participation in the adoption of sons,72 and because of them He is called first-born as they are His brothers. In another passage He is called "first-born of all the creatures." 73 This is also said about the humanity of Christ, because (Paul) did not simply say "first-born" but "first-born of all the creatures."

No one is called first-born if he has no other brothers because of whom he is called and is a first-born, so the expression "the first-born of all creatures" means that He was the first to be renewed by His resurrection from the dead; and He changed into a new and wonderful life, and He renewed also all the creatures and brought them to a new and a higher creation. It is indeed said: "Everything that is in Christ is a new creature. Old things are passed away, and all things are become new through our Lord Jesus Christ." 74 He is the firstborn of all the creatures because all the creation was renewed and changed through the renewal which He granted to it by His grace from the renewal into which He Himself was renewed, and through which He moved to a new life and ascended high above all creatures.

He is rightly called the first-born of all the creatures, because He was first renewed, and then He renewed the creatures, while He is higher in honour than all of them. This is how we understand the difference between the two names. Our Fathers, who took their wisdom from Holy Writ, referred this difference to one person and said: In the Only Begotten Son, the first-born of all creatures, in order to show us, as I said previously, the close union of the two natures. It is with justice, therefore, that they first said, "an only Son" and then, "the first-born." Indeed they had first to show us who was the one who was in the form of God,75 and who, because of His grace, took upon Him our nature, and afterwards to speak of that form of a servant which was assumed for our salvation. In this way and by the change in the terms that they used, they made manifest to us the two natures and |40 differences, and also the unity of sonship arising out of the closeness of the union of the natures, which was effected by the will of God. In this they kept also the right order of things as they taught first concerning Divine nature which by its grace came down to us and put on humanity, and then concerning that humanity which was assumed through grace, and afterwards they gave the true doctrine for the refutation of the heretics who strove to twist the truth.

In their teaching they began later to speak of Divine nature about which they had already spoken at the beginning of the profession of faith: Who was bom before all the worlds, and not made. It is clear that they said these words concerning Divine nature, although the word "only Son" was sufficient to teach the true doctrine concerning the Son to all non-contentious. If He is an only Son, it is clear that He alone is born of God, and He alone is a Son con-substantial with His Father. The expression "only Son" denotes all these things, and even more, because those who are called sons of God are numerous, while this one is alone the only Son. It is, indeed written: "I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you children of the Most High," 76 and again, "I have nourished and brought up children." 77 Since there are many who are called "sons" this one would not have been called "an only Son" if there was not a great difference between them. They were called sons by grace because they became near to God and members of the household,78 and because of this membership of the household they deserved by grace to be called by this name. This one, however, was called an only Son because He alone is a Son consubstantial with His Father. He was not called a Son, because He, like others, became by grace worthy of the adoption of sons, but because He was born of the very nature (of the Father) He was called and He is a Son. Although these things are clear and evident in the Sacred Books, and although it is patent to every one that no one can be called an only son except the one who is truly of the same nature as his father, the unholy and erroneous opinion of the heretics remained for some time without rectification.

Of all those who had received the knowledge of Christ, Arius was the first to dare and to say impiously that the Son was a creature 79 and was made from nothing: a novel theory alien to public opinion and |41 to the laws of nature, as any one who is created is not a Son, and any one who is a Son is not a creature, because it is impossible that a creature should be called a true Son or a true Son to be called a creature. This compelled our blessed Fathers to assemble from all regions and hold a holy Synod in the town of Nicea in the district of Bithynia, and to write this (profession of) faith in order to uphold the true faith, to confute the wickedness of Arius, to refute those who sprang up later and who are called by the name of their deceiver Eunomius, and to overthrow those heresies which arose out of erroneous opinions. Although the question was clear and evident to all from the law of nature, from common consent and from the teaching of the Sacred Books, they added and said: Born and not made.

They used words suitable to the belief in the Son, as if they had said: we call Him a Son, not a mere man and not like one who is figuratively called so—such as those who are by grace called children because of their adoption in the household—but alone a true Son. He is a true Son because He is an only Son; and He is truly born of His Father, is from Him and from His nature, and is eternally like Him. There is no created thing that is before the worlds, as the one who is before the worlds is the one who is alone from eternity. As the Father is from eternity so also the Son who is from Him is from eternity. He did not come into existence after a time nor was He born later, but He was born eternally before all the worlds from the one who is from eternity, and He is with Him from eternity as the evangelist said: "In the beginning was the Word." 80

He is from eternity, and did not come into existence later, but He was in the beginning before everything. He who comes into existence later is called "the last," and the last is not the first; and he who is not the first was not in the beginning. If, therefore, He was in the beginning, He was also the first, as there is nothing that precedes the beginning. If He is the first He is not the last, and if He is not the last He did not come into existence later.

In the beginning He was,81 and He was in the beginning from God, that is to say He was from eternity and before all the worlds with God. And to show that He was with God, and not from outside, as something foreign and not from the very nature of Divinity, the blessed evangelist called Him "Word," because a word belongs to |42 a man and is from a man; and since it is possible that the being who was with Him was from another he made use of this illustration so that the hearers should not doubt that He was from eternity from the one who is eternally from eternity. Indeed, the word of the soul, the rational character of which is accomplished in itself, is with it and in it by nature, and it is through it that this same soul is known to be rational. And it comes out of the soul, and is seen from it and in it, and is always with it and known through it.

In this same way the Son is from the Father like the word is from the soul. He is eternally from Him, with Him and in Him, and He is known from eternity with Him. "He was in the beginning," that is to say He was from eternity, from the beginning, and before everything; not that He came into existence later, but that He was in the beginning and always; that He was eternally from Him and eternally with Him, like the word is with the soul, from which and with which it always is.

The word, however, is seen as something different from the soul, and is the personality 82 of the soul, because not having its own personality it is seen in the soul. In order that, by following this illustration, we may not believe that the Son has no personality 82 or that He was alien to the nature of the Father he quickly added: "And the Word was God." After saying that He "was" and that He "was with God" he added "And the Word was God" so that he should show clearly that He was not from a nature different from that of God, or that He was different from Him in the Godhead, but that He was identical with the one from whom He was and that He was God with the one who was God.

He said wonderfully: "And the Word was God" in order to show that He is what God is, and that He is what our blessed Fathers rightly described: Born of Him before all the worlds. In this they wished to convey that from eternity and before all the worlds He was in the beginning from Him and with Him. Their words did not stop here but to complete the doctrine of truth, to warn the children of faith and to overthrow the error of the heretics, they added the sentence: And not made.

We should be in need of many words if we intended to comment fully upon all things said by our blessed Fathers concerning the Divinity |43 of the Only Begotten. In order, however, to lighten to you the burden of the many things that are said to you we shall utter them little by little so that you may better be able to hear and to learn them. With your permission, therefore, we shall put an end here to the things that were said to-day, and keep the things that follow (in the credo) to another day, and for all of them let us praise the Father, the Only Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit, now, always, and for ever and ever. Amen.

Here ends the third chapter.

Chapter IV.
Yesterday we endeavoured to interpret to your love, according to our ability and in a succinct manner, the things said by our blessed Fathers concerning the Divinity of the Only Begotten, while we kept the remainder of them for another day. In our commentary we reached, as you remember, the sentence in which it is said: Born of His Father before all the worlds, and not made, and there we ended our speech. If you wish, let us now begin by the grace of our Lord with this sentence. We were stating that in saying: Born of His Father before all the worlds they showed us that He is a Son truly and not figuratively only, as the heretics pretend that He is a Son only in a borrowed name like those who were called sons by grace. He is indeed alone the true Son of God the Father because He is the Only Begotten and is alone born of God His Father. This is the reason why they added: Born of His Father before all the worlds.

This was due to the Only Begotten Son of God, who is a true Son and not in name only. And He is from the nature of the Father and eternally from Him and with Him. It is not possible for us to imagine that there is anything between God the Father and God the Son, as God is high above everything. He who is above everything is also above the time and from eternity. If, therefore, God the Father is eternal, and if the Son is God, He is also eternal, God from God, and Eternal from Eternal, and there is nothing between God and God. As it is not possible to imagine that either times or worlds precede God, so there is nothing before the Son as He also is God, because He is born of His Father before everything, and is eternal, born of the One who is eternal. |44

For a perfect faith to those who have the good-will of religion this name of "Only Begotten" would have been sufficient, and they would have agreed to say that He was a true Son. (Our Fathers), however, added to it the sentence: Born of Him before all the worlds. Both phrases demonstrate how the Only Begotten is the Son of God, and it is with justice that they added for the refutation of the haters of truth: And not made. We confess that He is the Only Begotten, the Son of God, born of the Father before all the worlds, and that He is consubstantial with the Father; and we completely reject the opinion held by the ungodly people who said that the Son of God is created. He is indeed born of God and He is not made, and He is of the same nature as God and not a creature.83 A Son is very different from a creature.

If He is a Son He is not a creature, and if He is a creature He is not a Son. If He is a Son He is from Him and not from outside Him, and if He is a creature He is from outside Him. If He is a Son He is from Him and like Him, and if He is a creature He is from outside Him and not from Him and like Him. The natural law teaches us also these things, because we call sons those who are born of us; as to creatures they are made outside us while they were not. Likewise we understand that there are many creatures of God, but the Son is One whom we also call Only Begotten.

The Son is one alone, and He is eternally from Him; as to creatures they are many and exceed all numbering, and are composed of many natures which came into existence later according to the will of their Maker, both individually and collectively. He knew that diversity was useful to the creature because it is created, and some parts of it came into existence earlier, some later and some others later still; parts of it came into existence at the same time, and parts after many others. Since all the created things were to come into existence it was justifiable that some should come earlier and some later.

As there is a beginning to the existence of all created things, those which came into existence later are like those which came into existence earlier. As to the Son, because He did not come into existence to His Father later but was in the beginning from Him and was from eternity with Him, is alone Son. It was not possible that the one |45 who was similar to the one who is from eternity should have come into existence later, nor was it possible that the one who has a beginning should have been similar to the one who is from eternity. Indeed there is a great difference between one who is from eternity and one who began his existence later; the difference is so great that the two cannot exist concomitantly. What possible relation can exist between one who is eternal and another who was at one time nonexistent and began his existence later?

It is well known that the one who is eternal and the one whose existence has a beginning are greatly separated from each other, and the gulf found between them is unbridgeable. The one who is eternal has no limits, while the one whose existence has a beginning, his very existence is limited, and the one the beginning of whose existence is limited, the time that elapsed before he came into existence is also limited. It is not possible to limit and define the chasm that exists between the one who is from eternity and the one who began to exist at a time when he was not. What possible resemblance and relation can exist between two beings so widely separated from each other? And because the Son is from eternity, and from a Father who is from eternity, no other son like Him came into existence later. He remained Son alone because He is from eternity from one who is from eternity. It was fitting that such a one should be alone the Son from the Father.

In this way our Fathers warned us concerning the knowledge of the Son, and wrote to us the true doctrine to the effect that when we believe in the Only Begotten Son we should understand that He is from the Father. They taught us also to flee from the impiety of the heretics and reject their contention that the Son is made, as this is very remote from the truth. The Son should not be thought of as a made being nor as a creature, but we ought to profess concerning Father and Son what is congruous to both of them, namely that the Son is from the nature of the Father and is not a being made by the Father and created outside Him from nothing.

Our blessed Fathers taught us these and added something that fits the sequence of the sentence: True God of true God. Indeed what else were we justified in thinking of the one who is from God and not from outside Him but from the very nature of the Father, except that He was what God is by nature, that is to say a true God? |46

In this they followed the teaching of the Gospel in which it is said: "And the Word was with God, and the Word was God," 84 as if the evangelist had said, "And God was with God, and He was what He was, as He was with Him and from Him." In this way our Fathers said also: True God of true God. They added to the sentence, "God from God" that of, "True from true" because of the wickedness of those who wish to show contention and insolence even concerning heavenly 85 things.

The sentence which they used does not differ from that found in the Gospel, as it is clear that the one who says, "God with God" says also "A true one with a true one." The (Gospel) does not say "And He is called God," like those who are called gods by men, nor, "He was with the one who was called God by name only," but, He was God with the one who was God, and God by nature with the one who was God by nature. Men are called gods, but are not assumed to be gods by nature: "I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you children of the Most High, but ye shall die like men,86 because I only called you so to bestow honour upon you, as you are not gods by nature; you are mortal men by nature, which is very different from Divine nature; this is evident from the nature of things, because if you had been gods by nature you would not have been entangled in sin for which you received death."

God is not only called God by name, but He is in reality by nature that which is implied by His name; and God the Word who is with Him is not only called God figuratively, but is also God by nature; and he who is God by nature what else can he be except true God? What is there truer than nature, and how is it possible that the one who is (God) by nature should not be so in truth? If He is not God by nature, He is neither God in truth. Indeed this name "god" is either applied to demons, who falsely and insolently dare to call themselves by it in their arrogance, or to men who are called so by God's gracious permission as an honour. As to the Son He is God by nature like the Father.

Although the heretics dare to call the Only Begotten, "Son of God" in a different sense, yet since He is God by nature it is evident that He is also God in truth, as there is nothing truer than the one who is what he is by nature. It is indeed evident that the one who is God by nature is also God in truth. And there is nothing truer than |47 a true one—(and this contrary to) the new wisdom of the heretics— when each of them is a true (God) by nature. Indeed they say that God the Father is God by nature and that God the Son is also God by nature, but they refuse to admit that the Son is God in truth, in spite of the fact that they admit that He is God by nature, and in this they introduce a new law to us in their innovations to the effect that He is a true God but not like God His Father. If each one of them is God by nature, how is it possible for us to understand that one of them is higher and the other lower while both of them are assumed to have an identical nature? It is impossible to find an addition or a diminution in the one whom the Sacred Books and those who followed their doctrine teach us that He is God by nature.

Our blessed Fathers also followed the Books and warned us against the unholy opinion and the ineptitude of the heretics, in saying: True God of true God. The Books had already stated that He was "God," and they (our Fathers) added prudently the word "true" so that we might believe that the Son is a true God like the Father, because like the Father He is a true God by nature. And as the Father was confessed as God for the confutation of the error of the multiplicity of gods—who were falsely called gods by the peoples of the earth—so also is the case with the Son of God, because we believe that God the Father and God the Son are one God, inasmuch as the Divine nature of the Father and of the Son is one.

To this our blessed Fathers added that the Son was "consubstantial" with His Father, a word that confirms (the faith of) the children of faith and rebukes the unbelievers. Although this is not explicitly written in Holy Writ yet its meaning is found therein. They explained here by means of a clear word the meaning of that which they had previously stated, because the sentence: Consubstantial with the Father is not different from that of: True God of true God. They did not wish to insinuate by this sentence "Consubstantial with the Father any other thing than that the being who, as previously stated by them, was God and born of His Father before all the worlds and not made—is God. Indeed, if He is born of Him before all the worlds and is not made, and if He is not a creature but a true Son of His Father, it is evident that He is from Him and not from outside Him, and that He is born of the nature of the Father and consubstantial with Him; and if He is true God of true God, it is |48 evident that He is consubstantial with Him,87 because any one who is truly God in nature is consubstantial with one who is truly God in nature.

The meaning of the sentence "consubstantial with His Father" is clearly found in the Book. When it says: "In the beginning He was with God and He was God," 88 it shows by means of these two phrases that He is God in nature and that He is consubstantial with God. This is also the meaning of the sentence: "My Father and I are one." 89 If the Son is one with His Father in power and in nature, He is consubstantial with Him. By His statement: "My sheep hear my voice and follow me, and I give unto them eternal life, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand," 90 He bore witness to His omnipotence and to the fact that no man can prevail against Him; and because this sentence conveyed higher things than the simple man who was seen in Him, He added: "My Father who gave them me is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck (them) out of my Father's hand." 91 He lowered the significance of the sentence by the addition: "He gave me." What He said of Himself to the effect that no man can prevail against Him, He said it of His person; and to show that He did make use of such words for the purpose of showing that the power of both (the Father and the Son) was identical and that no man was able to prevail against Him in the same way as no man was able to prevail against the Father who was believed to be higher than all, He said: "My Father and I are one."

He made clear in this (sentence) that which He had implicitly insinuated in the meaning of the preceding words which He had uttered; it is as if He had said, "my power is identical with that of my Father and higher than all like His power, and no man can prevail against me even as no man can prevail against my Father, because my Father and I are one, and have one power and one dominion that is higher than all." This is the reason why the Jews called Him a blasphemer. Indeed they did not know the Divine nature that was dwelling in Him, but knew only that which was visible in Him, and wished to stone Him like a man making use of blasphemous words.

To the same effect is the sentence: "He that hath seen me hath |49 seen my Father," 92 and: "I am in my Father and my Father in me." 93 If the Father is seen in the Son it is evident that both have one nature, and each of them is seen and known in the other. In this way their mutual equality shows also the unity of their nature, and the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. This is likewise the meaning of the sentence: "No man knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son." 94 If each of them is not known and seen except by the other, it is evident that they are invisible to all men because of their equality in nature, each of them only knowing the other. If this is so then the Son is consubstantial with the Father.

In spite of the fact that all these things are manifestly evident in the Sacred Books, those who incline towards evil, to the condemnation of their souls, and are not upright, dared to say that the nature of the Son is different from that of the Father, a saying which also implies that He is not a Son. It is known that he who is truly a son is of the same nature as his father. Our blessed Fathers were well advised, therefore, to make use of this expression the meaning of which was implicitly found in many words of the Sacred Books, in order to warn the faithful of their time and to rebuke the heretics; and they wished also to make it known in condensed words. If the blessed Paul did not hesitate to quote in his teaching sentences that were used by Greek philosophers, such as: "we are of the offspring of gods," 95 and: "The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies," 96 and if he did not shrink from writing them for the reproval of his adversaries, it was all the more right for our blessed Fathers to make use in the profession of faith of the expression that the Son was Consubstantial with the Father, and although this word is not explicitly written in the Sacred Books, its meaning was implicitly found in many passages.

After this they said: By Whom the worlds were made and all things were created.

As in the section of the faith which deals with the Father, after the word "Father" they added "Creator of all things," so also in the section which deals with the Son, after stating that He was born of the Father and was consubstantial with Him, they rightly added that He was the creator of all things, because a true Son |50 who is consubstantial with His Father is also a true creator like Him. In this same way the blessed John the evangelist, after having said "in the beginning He was with God, and He was God" 97 added: "All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made," 98 in order to show us that He was a creator like God His Father.

In this same way after our blessed Fathers had said that the Son was from the Father, that He was true God from true God and that He was consubstantial with His Father, they added: By whom the worlds were made and all things were created. They said this because as He is with His Father before all the worlds, He is the creator of all things like God His Father. And since the worlds were made by Him, He is the creator of all creatures, and He is before all the worlds, because He is from eternity and did not begin to exist later, but was in the beginning and is the creator of all the worlds, as the blessed Paul said: "By Him He made the worlds." 99

Our blessed Fathers also after saying like him: "By Him the worlds were made," added that He was the creator of all things. In this way they taught us the divinity of the Only Begotten while stating something which was in harmony with the Sacred Books; and gave also encouragement to those who are zealous in their religion, and confuted those who deny the divinity of the Only Begotten.

As to us we have explained to your love the meaning of the (profession of) faith in a succinct manner, according to our ability. If you wish it let the measure of the things which we said suffice for our teaching of to-day, and let us praise the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.

Here ends the fourth chapter.

Chapter V.
I know that you remember what we spoke to your love concerning the divinity of the Only Begotten, and how our blessed Fathers after their teaching about the Father came to the words written in the Sacred Books concerning the Son, and taught us both about the divinity of the Son and the form of man which He assumed for our |51 salvation.100 They thought not to keep silent on the human nature which He put on because it is through it that we received the knowledge of the Divine nature of the Only Begotten.

After saying: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, in order to make manifest the Divine nature and the human nature they added: The Only Begotten Son, the first-born of all creatures, and they further instructed us concerning Divine nature and the form of man which was put on for our salvation so that little by little they might teach us everything with accuracy.

They first taught us how to believe in the divinity of the Only Begotten by saying that the Only Begotten Son was consubstantial with the Father, and not a Son with only an assumed name like other men who are so by grace and not by nature, but that He was a true Son from the Father; that He was an only Son, because He alone was born of the nature of His Father; that He did not become Son or was called so later, but that He was in the beginning, before all the worlds and eternally from His Father, and was not made. The reason why the Son of God should not be called a creature of God, is that He did not come into existence from nothing according to the law of all created beings, but He is eternally from His Father, "a true God of true God, and consubstantial with His Father," because He is a true Son and is by nature what the one who begat Him is.

Our fathers taught us these things with accuracy concerning the divinity of the Only Begotten, and fixed the profession of faith in our souls while removing from us the contention of the ungodly who dare to assert that the Son of God, who was born eternally from His Father before all the worlds, is made and created. After having shaken from our mind all the falsehood of the error of the heretics, they began to speak of the Incarnation of our Lord which took place for our salvation, in saying: Who for us children of men and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate and became a man.

It is with justice that they first used the sentence "for us children of men and for our salvation." Because they were on the point of speaking about the Economy of His humanity, they were bound to show the purpose of it, as they could not do this with the words which |52 dealt with the divinity of the Only Begotten and in which they spoke to us how He was eternally from His Father. Since they took pains to teach us concerning His humanity, it is with justice that before everything they set forth the reason for which Divine nature humbled itself to the extent of taking upon itself the form of a servant for us 101 and of its caring for our salvation. It is with justice, therefore, that our Fathers, in beginning their teaching concerning the Economy of His humanity, formed the starting-point of their discourse from this purpose: For us children of men and for our salvation. It was also fitting on their part to place the words "for our salvation" after the words "for us children of men," in order that they might show the aim of His coming, which was not only for the "children of men" but also "for their salvation." He came down from heaven to save and to deliver from evil, by an ineffable grace, those who were lost 102 and given up to iniquities.

He came down not in the sense that He moved from place to place. We are not to think that Divine nature which is everywhere moves from place to place; because this Divine nature has no body, it cannot be circumscribed in a place.. He who is not circumscribed is everywhere, and He who is everywhere it is not possible for us to think of Him that He moves from place to place. To this the blessed John bears witness when he says: "He was in the world and the world was made by Him and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own and His own received Him not." 103 He says here that "He was in the world" and that "He came unto the world"; but if He was in the world how did He come to it? Indeed, how can we say that a man came to a place where he was? He, therefore, said "He was in the world" in order to show that He is everywhere; and he added: "He came unto His own," about the Economy of His humanity. Likewise the blessed David said: "He bowed the heavens and came down," 104 in order to make manifest to us the deliverance from their tribulations which God effected for them. He called the condescension of God the "coming down" of God, in the sense that He who was so much above all condescended to deliver them from their tribulations. |53

It is in this sense that God the Word, the only Son of God, is said to have come down for our salvation, because He is eternally from His Father, is always with Him, and is above all as He is the cause of everything. For our salvation He condescended to come down to such a humility as to take upon Him the form of a servant 105 and be in it so that through it 106 He might grant us the delight of His abundant gift. It is with justice, therefore, that our blessed Fathers said: Who for us children of men and for our salvation came down from heaven. They called the Economy of His humanity a "coming down from heaven," at which the blessed David was awe-struck and said: "What is man that Thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that Thou visitest him?" 107

Who for us children of men and for our salvation came down from heaven: what is His coming down and what is its aim? And what did [man] do that He humbled Himself to such an extent for him as to become like him, and to take upon Him the form of a servant, and to be a man for our salvation, and to make Himself manifest to all, and to assume upon Himself all that which belonged to the nature of that man, and to be exercised in all (human) faculties? And He perfected him by His power, so that He did not remove from him the (bodily) death which he received according to the law of his nature,—but while He was with him He delivered him by act of grace from (real) death and from the corruption of the grave,108 and raised him from the dead, and made him worthy of a high honour concerning which he said: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," 109 which he did; and He was not separated from him in his crucifixion nor did He leave him at death, but He remained with him until He helped him to loose 110 the pains of death,111 and He delivered his soul from bonds which were indissoluble; and He raised him from the dead and transferred him to immortal life,112 and made him immortal, incorruptible and immutable; and He caused him to go up to heaven where he is now sitting at the right hand of God; |54 and he is "far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come" 113 as the blessed Paul testifies; and he constantly receives adoration from all creation because of his close union with God the Word.

It is with justice, therefore, that our blessed Fathers said that He was incarnate and became a man, so that for the sake of our salvation He might act according to all this Economy whereby He was believed to be a mere man by those who were unaware of the Godhead which was dwelling in Him and who only saw that which was visible. Indeed the Jews said to Him: "For good works we stone Thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God." 114 And Paul also said, "He was in the likeness of men, and was found in fashion as a man." 115 The (sentence) "He was in the likeness of men" does not mean any other thing than that He became a man. When the Book said: "God sent His own Son who became in the likeness of the sinful flesh," 116 the "likeness of the flesh" does not mean any other thing than flesh itself; and so also when in another passage it says: "He was manifest in the flesh." 117 In this passage it uses "flesh" and in the other "likeness of the flesh," but by the two expressions "flesh" and "likeness of the flesh" it does not show us any other thing than that it teaches us that He was manifest in the flesh, in the same way as "in the likeness of man" does not mean any other thing than "man."

It is with justice, therefore, that our blessed Fathers said: He was incarnate and became a man in order to show that He was a man, as the blessed Paul testifies, and that He fulfilled this Economy for the salvation of all. It is with justice then that our blessed Fathers made use of this word in the profession of faith for the refutation of the error of the heretics, while conforming with the true belief of the Church. And on account of the numerous schisms that had taken place among men concerning that ineffable Economy and concerning the man whom our Lord assumed, they rightly made use of the sentence: He was incarnate and became a man.

The Marcionites and the Manicheans together with the followers of Valentinus and the rest of the heretics who were affected with |55 a like malady, say that our Lord did not assume any of our natures either of the body or the soul, but that He was a phantasm that struck the eyes of men like the form of the visions which the prophets saw and the apparition seen by Abraham of three men of whom none had a corporeal nature but who were only in appearance men who performed human acts, walked, talked, were washed, ate and drank. They say that in this same way our Lord did not assume any body but that He was only in appearance a man who performed and felt everything according to the requirements of men, while the one who was seen had no human nature but was only seen in appearance to be so, and that in reality He felt nothing but only the onlookers believed that He was feeling.

The partisans of Arius and Eunomius, however, say that He assumed a body but not a soul, and that the nature of the Godhead took the place of the soul. They lowered the Divine nature of the Only Begotten to the extent that from the greatness of its nature it moved and performed the acts of the soul and imprisoned itself in the body and did everything for its sustenance. Lo, if the Godhead had replaced the soul He would not have been hungry or thirsty, nor would He have tired or been in need of food. All these things befall the body because of its weakness, as the soul is not able to satisfy its wants, but does for it only those things that belong to itself 118 according to the nature given to it by God. The soul is in need of a body which is perfect in everything that deals with its sustenance, and if something is missing in it, not only this same soul is unable to help it but will itself be overcome by the weakness of the body, and will be compelled to leave it against its own will.

If, therefore, the Godhead was performing the acts of the soul, it would also by necessity have performed the acts of the body. Only in this way could be right the opinion of the misleading heretics who deny that He assumed a body and was only seen in the same way as the angels (were seen in the Old Testament), and was a man in appearance only while He did not possess any qualities of human nature. Indeed the Godhead was able to accomplish everything so that the eyes which were seeing believed that they were seeing a real man,119 in the same way as the angels were, by the will of God, seen by Abraham. |56

If, however, Divine nature was sufficient for all these things, human nature which was in need of the grace of salvation from God should not have been assumed, as according to the opinion of the heretics this same Godhead would have satisfied the requirements of human nature, and in this case it would have been superfluous to assume a body at all as the Godhead was able to perform all its acts. This, however, was not the will of God, who indeed wished to put on and raise the fallen man who is composed of a body and of an immortal and rational soul, so that "as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, so also the free gift and the grace of God by the righteousness of one man might abound unto many." 120 As death was by man so also the resurrection from the dead (will be) by man, because "as we all die in Adam, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," 121 as the blessed Paul testifies. Therefore it was necessary that He should assume not only the body but also the immortal and rational soul; and not only the death of the body had to cease but also that of the soul, which is sin. Since according to the sentence of the blessed (Paul) sin entered the world through man, and death entered through sin, it was necessary that sin which was the cause of death should have first been abolished, and then the abolition of death would have followed by itself. If sin were not abolished we would have by necessity remained in mortality, and we would have sinned in our mutability; and when we sin, we are under punishment, and consequently the power of death will by necessity remain.

It was, therefore, necessary that sin should have first been abolished, as after its abolition there would be no entry for death. It is indeed clear that the strength of the sin 122 has its origin in the will of the soul. In the case of Adam also it was his soul which first accepted the advice of error and not his body, because it was not his body that Satan persuaded to yield to him, to forsake God and to believe that his Helper was a deceiver, in his desire for higher things; and in following the advice of Satan he transgressed the commandment of God and chose for himself those things which were contrary to the commandment of God. It was not his body that had to know these things but his soul which, on the promise of higher things, yielded and accepted the advice of the deceiver and lost the good things that it possessed. |57

It was, therefore, necessary that Christ should assume not only the body but also the soul. The enemy of the soul had to be removed first and then for the sake of it that of the body, because if death is from sin and the same death is the corruption of the body, sin would have first to be abolished and the abolition of death would follow by itself.

It would be possible to save the body from death and corruption if we first made the soul immutable and delivered it from the passions of sin, so that by acquiring immutability we would also obtain deliverance from sin. The abolition of death would then be effected by the abolition of sin, and after the abolition of death it would be possible that our body should remain without dissolution and corruption. If the soul had only sinned in those things that befall it from the passions of the body, it would perhaps have been sufficient for our Lord to have assumed only the body in order to deliver (the soul) from sin. Many, however, and of different kinds are the iniquities and sins that are born of the soul. The first (sin) through which it shows its association with Satan is that of pride, about which the Apostle said: "Lest being lifted up in pride he should fall into the condemnation of the Devil." 123 In this sentence the Apostle has shown that any one who falls into pride becomes the associate of the Devil in condemnation. The one, therefore, who possesses the uncorporeal Devil in his evil thought, feels passion in his soul; and consequently it is clearly evident that the soul was greatly in need to be delivered from sins and be saved also from the passions of the body which overcome it by the power that the latter adequately possesses.

The blessed Paul bears witness to our words when he counts the evils to which men were drawn, to which they degraded themselves and from which Christ came into the world to deliver them; he says thus: "Wherefore God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do that thing which is not convenient, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, fornication, maliciousness, envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; and are disobedient to their parents, implacable and unmerciful." 124 These (evils) are clear and evident and in no need of a comment, and the majority of them are not born of the passions of the body but exclusively of the will of the soul. Indeed wickedness, maliciousness, envy, debate, deceit and malignity, together with pride, boasting, invention of evil things, disobedience to parents, |58 non-understanding, covenant-breaking, and unmercifulness—all these are clearly from the soul.

It is with justice, therefore, that our Lord assumed the soul so that it should be first delivered from sin and be transferred to immutability by the grace of God through which it overcomes also the passions of the body. When sin is abolished from every place and has no more entry into the soul which has become immutable, every kind of condemnation will rightly be abolished and death also will perish. The body will thus remain immune from death because it has received participation in immortality. The blessed Paul confirms this in saying: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, for the law of life in Christ Jesus hath made thee free from the law of sin and death." 125

He said that all the sentence of death,126 together with all condemnation, has been removed to those who believed in Christ, because they became alien to the way of mortality and received the Spirit and immortality, and with it they assumed immutability and became completely free from sin and mortality. It is, therefore, great madness not to believe that Christ assumed the soul; and he would even be madder who would say that He did not assume human mind, because such a one would imply that He either did not assume the soul or that He did assume the soul not of man but an irrational one akin to that of animals and beasts.

Human soul differs only from that of animals in the fact that the latter has no distinct person 127 of the soul except in the (material) composition of the animal,128 and so it has no separate existence, and is not believed to survive after the death of the animal. This is the reason why what is called the soul of the animal, which is said to reside in its blood,129 perishes when the blood is shed; and it is the soul that was believed to reside in the person and in the movements of the animal |59 before its death. The soul of men, however, is not like this, but it resides in its own person and is much higher than the body, as the body is mortal and acquires its life from the soul and dies and perishes whenever the soul happens to leave it. As to the soul, when it goes out it remains and does not perish but lasts forever in its own person because it is immortal and is incapable of receiving any injury 130 in its nature from men. When (Christ) said: "Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul," 131 He clearly showed that the body is capable of death because it is mortal, but that the soul will remain immortal because it cannot be injured by men in its nature.

The difference between the soul of men and the soul of animals is such that the latter is irrational and has no person,132 while the former is immortal and is rightly believed to be also rational. Who is, therefore, so mad and devoid of human understanding as to assert that human soul is without knowledge and without reason, unless he wishes to be a teacher of a novel theory not found previously in the world to the effect that there exists an immortal nature which lives in an imperishable life but which is itself irrational? Such a thing is indeed impossible, because anything that is immortal in its nature and dwells in an imperishable life is also truly rational and endowed with reason.

Because of all this our blessed Fathers warned us and said: He was incarnate and became a man, so that we should believe that the one who was assumed and in whom God the Word dwelt was a complete man, perfect in everything that belongs to human nature, and composed of a mortal body and a rational soul, because it is for man and for his salvation that He came down from heaven.

They rightly said that He assumed a man who resembles 133 those from whom He was assumed, because the man whom He assumed resembles Adam who introduced sin into the world, so that He might abolish sin by one who was of the same nature. Indeed, He put on a man resembling Adam who after having sinned received the punishment of death, so that He might eradicate sin from us and abolish death by similar means. When He said: "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me," 134 He showed that such was the |60 reason for His resurrection from the dead, because Satan was holding the reins of the power of death on account of the sin that was cleaving to us, as Paul said,135 and was always working 136 for death.

And because when we were subjected to sin 137 we had no hope of deliverance, the grace of God kept that man whom God put on for us free from sin, but Satan came with his deceitfulness and brought death upon Him as upon (any other) man, when he roused all the Jews against Him; and since He was not touched by sin which would subject Him to death, Christ our Lord received also upon Himself the death which with wickedness the tyrannical Satan brought upon Him. He showed to God that there was no sin in Him and that it was through injustice that He was enduring the trial of death. And He effected 138 the abolition of condemnation with ease, and He rose from the dead by the power of God and became worthy of a new and ineffable life which He generalised to all the human kind.

This is the reason why our Lord said here: "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." In another passage He said: "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be condemned and cast out, and I when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all (men) unto me." 139 In the first passage He shows that Satan had not one just cause for bringing death upon Him, and in the second that He had summoned the Rebel to a kind of judgment 140 where he had condemned him and cast him out of his iniquitous power, and that after obtaining these good things He would make all men partakers of His glory.

Our blessed Fathers said that He became incarnate so that you might understand that He assumed a complete man, who was a man not only in appearance but a man in a true human nature, and that you might believe that He assumed not only the body but the whole man who is composed of a body and of an immortal and rational soul. It is such a man that He assumed for our salvation and it is through Him that He effected salvation for our life, because He was justified and became blameless by the power of the Holy Spirit, as the blessed |61 Paul said: "He was justified in the Spirit," 141 and again: "Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God." 142 If He suffered death according to the law of men, because He had no sin He rose from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit and became worthy of a new life in which the wishes of the soul are immutable, and He made the body immortal and incorruptible.143 In this He made us all participants in His promises, and as an earnest of His promises He gave us the first-fruits of the Spirit 144 so that we might possess a faith without doubts concerning future things; and "He established us with you in Christ and sealed us and gave the earnest of His spirit in our hearts." 145

We also expect to be immortal and incorruptible at the resurrection from the dead when there will be no entry for sin into us. The blessed Paul bears witness to this in saying: "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal immortality; and when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal immortality, there shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, ' Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law." 146 He means that when we have risen from the dead immortal and incorruptible and our nature has received immutability, we shall be unable to sin, and when we have been freed from sin we shall not need the law. Indeed what is the need of the law for a nature which is freed from sin and which has no inclination towards evil.

Well did the blessed Paul say after these: "Who gave us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 147 This shows that it is God who was for us the source of all good things, and it is He who gave us the victory over all adversaries, either death or sin or any other evil born of them: He who for us put on the man our Lord Jesus and transferred Him through His resurrection from the dead to a new life, and placed Him at His right hand, and gave us by His grace |62 communion with Him,148 when, in truth, as the blessed Paul said: "our vile body shall be changed and be fashioned like unto His glory." 149

Because the things said by our blessed Fathers concerning the humanity of our Lord are many let us put an end here to our teaching of to-day, and let us praise the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit now, always, and for ever and ever.

Here ends the fifth chapter.

Chapter VI.
In what we have already said we have explained to your love that which was said by our blessed Fathers concerning the humanity of our Lord in the profession of faith, which they wrote and handed down to us according to the teaching of the Books. We were obliged to use many words so that you might thoroughly understand all the meaning of their sentences, and if it were possible we would have said more in order to confirm the truth and to refute the deceitful words of the heretics, but the measure of what we said was considered by us to be sufficient to all those who possess goodwill in religion, because to those who have an unwilling mind, even a long discourse will be of no avail, while to those who possess a good will a short discourse will suffice for the demonstration of the truth, when (this discourse) is drawn from the testimony of Holy Writ. Let us then embark to-day, by the assistance of the grace of God, on the continuation of that which we said previously.

After having said: Who for us children of men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate and became a man (our blessed Fathers) added: And was bom of the Virgin Mary and crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate. They might have said many things that happened in the meantime such as He was wrapped in swaddling clothes, was laid in a manger, was under the law,150 was baptised and made manifest the works of the Gospel and many more things. If they had wished it they would have narrated all that the Sacred Books have taught us about Him and that |63 which was accomplished by Him for our salvation, as He fulfilled thoroughly the law of nature for us, because He was going to reform our nature, and He further observed the law of Moses so that He might pay our debt to the Lawgiver; and He was baptised so that He might give an emblem to the grace of our baptism; and He showed effectively in Himself the Economy of the Gospel to all men. After all these He went to crucifixion and death so that He might destroy the last enemy, which is death, and make manifest the new and immortal life.

Our Fathers, however, took trouble to say all these things in short terms so that the hearers might learn them with ease, and so that we might also learn thoroughly every one of them from the Sacred Books. They wrote and arranged the Creed in short terms, and this is the reason why they said: Who was born of the Virgin Mary and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate. They only said the beginning and the end of the Economy that took place on our behalf, as the beginning of all grace is His birth of Mary, and its end is crucifixion. They called crucifixion the Passion, and all those things which took place in it. They included all of them in one word because from the Cross arose death and from death immortal life, as the blessed Paul said also 151: "The preaching of the Cross is to them that do not believe 152 foolishness, but unto us which are saved 153 it is the power of God." He also said: "Though He was crucified through weakness yet He liveth by the power of God." 154 He showed here that the word of the Cross is the power of God to those who are saved because it is with His hand that He destroyed death and made new life manifest.

In their profession of faith our blessed Fathers wrote, therefore, in short terms, at the beginning and at the end, all those things that were done in the interval, in order to extend their knowledge to all those willing to learn the truth. It is obvious that they do not teach that the Divine nature of the Only Begotten was born of a woman, as if it had its beginning in her, because they did not say that the one who was born of His Father before all the worlds and who is eternally from Him and with Him had His beginning from Mary, but they followed the Sacred Books which speak differently of natures |64 while referring (them) to one prosopon on account of the close union that took place between them, so that they might not be believed that they were separating the perfect union between the one who was assumed and the one who assumed. If this union were destroyed the one who was assumed would not be seen more than a mere man like ourselves. The Sacred Books refer the two words 155 as if to one Son, so that they might show in the same faith both the glory of the Only Begotten and the honour of the man whom He assumed.

Indeed, after the blessed Paul had said: "Of whom Christ (came)," he added: "according to the flesh," 156 in order to separate the natures and to show that he is speaking of Christ who is from the Jews according to the flesh and that he is naming neither the nature of the Godhead of the Only Begotten, nor God the Word who was from the beginning with God and who is eternally in the bosom of His Father, but the form of the man which He assumed. And so that by this word and this addition to the effect that the human nature of Christ was taken "from the Jews" the glory of Christ might not be brought low, or that He might be believed that since He is man by nature and is born of children of men, He has nothing more, he added the sentence which follows: "He is God over all" in order to show the glory of Christ, which is from God the Word who assumed Him and united Him to Himself, as He is the cause of all and Lord over all. And because of the close union that this man has with God the Son, He is honoured and worshipped by all the creation.

While the blessed Paul might have said: "In whom is God over all" he did not do so, but said: "He is God over all," because of the close union between the two natures. He did not believe that He who was born of the Jews according to the flesh is God over all by nature, nor did he profess that the human nature is the cause of all and is Lord of all by nature, but he professed that the form of man which He assumed was Christ in the flesh, and Him who assumed that form he called God over all; he, however, mentioned these two things together in order to show the distinction found between the natures. Nobody believes that He who is from the Jews according to the flesh is God by nature, nor that God who is above |65 all is from the Jews by nature;157 he said the two things together in order to show the close union that took place between the one who was assumed and the one who assumed, and in order that together with the difference in natures the honour and the glory that came to the man who was assumed from his union with God who assumed him, might be known to all.

He wrote something similar to this to the Philippians in saying: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men and was found in the fashion of a man." 158 Here also he clearly made a distinction between the natures and between Him who is in the form of God and Him who is in the form of a servant, between Him who assumed and Him who was assumed, and (he showed) also that He who assumed became in the fashion of a man in Him who was assumed. He who was assumed was truly in the fashion of a man, in whom was found the one who assumed Him; and He who assumed, while not a man, became in His incorporeal and immaterial nature in the form of a servant, which by nature was corporeal and material; and He was a man 159 according to the law of human body. He thus hid Himself at the time in which. He was in the world and conducted Himself with the children of men in such a way that all those who beheld Him in a human way and did not understand anything more, believed Him to be a mere man.

In saying this he made a clear distinction between the natures of the one who is in the form of God and the one who is in the form of a servant, of the one who assumed and the one who was assumed. And he taught us also about the human nature in which our Lord was, as he said congruous things concerning the form of the servant which He assumed: "He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth, and that every |66 tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God His Father." 160

It is not Divine nature that received death, but it is clear that it was that man who was assumed as a temple to God the Word, (a temple) which was dissolved and then raised by the one who had assumed it. And after the Crucifixion it was not Divine nature that was raised but the temple which was assumed, which rose from the dead, ascended to heaven and sat at the right hand of God;161 nor is it to Divine nature—the cause of everything—that it was given that every one should worship it and every knee should bow, but worship was granted to the form of a servant which did not in its nature possess (the right to be worshipped). While all these things are clearly and obviously said of human nature he referred them successively to Divine nature so that his sentence might be strengthened and be acceptable to hearers. Indeed, since it is above human nature that it should be worshipped by all, it is with justice that all this has been said as of one, so that the belief in a close union between the natures might be strengthened, because he clearly showed that the one who was assumed did not receive all this great honour except from the Divine nature which assumed Him and dwelt in Him.

Our blessed Fathers wrote in the Creed something that is in harmony with this. They first taught us about the nature of the Godhead of the Only Begotten, that He is from the Father before all the worlds, that He is born of the nature of the Father and not made, and that He is a true God and consubstantial with God because He is born of His Father. After having taught us these things concerning the divinity of the Only Begotten they proceeded to teach us concerning the Economy of His humanity and said: Who for us children of men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate and became a man like us in order to effect salvation for all the human race. And they taught all those things that happened to the human nature: things through which God wished His Economy to be accomplished on our behalf. And He who was assumed for our salvation bore upon Himself all things affecting mankind, and became worthy of perfection and a source of benefits for us through our communion with Him. |67

They said the above things as of one in conformity with the teaching of the Books; not that human acts were affecting God in His nature, but they referred these human acts to Him because of the close union, so that the high things that happened to Him after the Passion—things that transcend human nature—might be believed, and so that all might accept them when learning that it was Divine nature which put on man and that by its union with Him He received all this honour and glory.

Many things, as we have said, happened to Him according to human law; things which we may learn from the Gospel. He was wrapped in swaddling clothes after He was born and laid in a manger;162 He was circumcised after the custom of the law and was brought to the temple according to the order of Moses; He was shown before the Lord and endured all things dealing 163 with His increase in stature, wisdom and favour, while He was subject unto His parents;164 He practised in a right way all (things dealing with) the justification of the law, and then received baptism, from which He gave the New Testament as in a symbol; He endured the temptation of Satan and bore upon Himself the toil of journeys and the offering of prayers with great devotion; and, to shorten my speech, He performed all the work of the Gospel with much labour and sweating, showed much patience with His enemies, and finally drew nigh unto death by crucifixion, through which He abolished death by His resurrection from the dead.

Our blessed Fathers omitted all these and said: And was born of Mary and crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, because the beginning of His Economy for us is one thing and its end is another, and they included between both headings, one after another, all those things that the Book of the Gospel taught us. He was born of the Virgin Mary as a man, according to the law of human nature,165 and was made of a woman.166 Indeed the Apostle said thus: "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." 167 In saying that He was made of a woman He showed that He entered into the world from a woman according to |68 the law of the children of men, and the fact that "He was under the law to redeem them that were under the law that we might receive the adoption of sons," happened so that He might pay our debt to the Lawgiver and procure life for us.

Since He became one of us in nature it is with justice that He paid the debt of His human kinship; on account of His nature which was identical with ours He was bound to do this, and He did it. We were delivered from the yoke of bondage 168 because of the freedom which He gave us in His grace. The fact that He was not born of a man but was only fashioned by the Holy Spirit in the womb of His mother, is beyond the nature of the children of men, and the (Apostle said) that He was made of a woman in order to show us that He was fashioned from the nature of a woman and was born according to the law of nature; and this does not cause any injury to nature, because Eve also was made of Adam, and her birth is different from that of all men since she received her existence from a rib only, without marital intercourse. She had an identical nature with Adam because she received the beginning of her existence from him.

In this way we should also think about Christ our Lord. It was a novel thing to have been fashioned from a woman without marital intercourse, by the power of the Holy Spirit, but He is associated with the human nature by the fact that He is from the nature of Mary, and it is for this that He is said also to be the seed of David 169 and Abraham, as in His Nature He is related to them. This is the reason why the blessed Paul said: "For unto the angels hath He not put in subjection the world to come whereof we speak, but unto the one concerning whom the Book testifies, saying, 'What is man that thou art mindful of him, or the Son of Man that thou visitest him'?" 170 And again: "He took not from the nature of angels but from the seed of Abraham." 171 His words show that our Lord did not take a body from the angels, nor did He make the angels the head and renovator of the future creation which we are expecting, but the man whom He assumed from the seed of Abraham and through whom He performed all this ineffable Economy and whom He first raised from the dead and transferred to immortal and unchangeable life, Him He made the head and renovator of all the |69 creation, so that He was with justice set over the government of the new creation.

As a man He was born of a woman according to the law of nature, and although this happened to Him in a novel way, in the sense that He alone, to the exclusion of the rest of mankind, was fashioned in the womb by the Holy Spirit without any marital intercourse, yet all that which He did for us He did according to the law of our nature, so that He grew little by little, reached full age and performed also carefully the requirements of the law. And because He paid our debt to the law and received victory from the Giver of the law on account of His having put into practice all the requirements of the law, He drew, with His own hand, to all His human race that blessing which the law had promised to all those who keep it.

He was also baptised so that He might perform the Economy of the Gospel according to order, and in this (Economy) He died and abolished death. It was easy and not difficult for God to have made Him at once immortal, incorruptible and immutable as He became after His resurrection, but because it was not He alone whom He wished to make immortal and immutable, but us also who are partakers of His nature, He rightly, and on account of this association, did not so make the firstfruits of us all 172 in order that, as the blessed Paul said, "He might have the pre-eminence in all things." 173 In this way, because of the communion that we have with Him in this world, we will, with justice, be partakers with Him of the future good things. And as after He was born of a woman He increased little by little according to the law of humanity, and grew up fully,174 and was under the law and acted according to it, so also in the life of the Gospel He became an example as man to man.

Because it was necessary that we who were born later should receive faith concerning the above future good things and that we should believe that our Saviour, our head and the cause of all of them for us, was Christ our Lord, it was imperative that He should also arrange as much as possible our mode of life in this world according to the hope of the future. It is with justice, therefore, that in this also He became our model.175 He was baptised so that He might give a symbol to our own baptism. In it 176 He was freed from all the |70 obligations of the law. He performed also all the Economy of the Gospel: He chose disciples to Himself, established the teaching of a new law and a new doctrine, promulgated ways of acting congruous to His teaching and different from the teaching of the (old) law, and taught that the ways of acting of us who believe should be in harmony with His new teaching.177

We also when we are baptised show (in ourselves) the symbol of the world 178 to come; we die with Him in baptism, and we rise symbolically with Him, and we endeavour to live according to His law in the hope of the future good things which we expect to share with Him at the resurrection from the dead. If Christ our Lord had immediately after His rising from the dead, raised also all men who had previously died, and had bestowed upon them new life fully and immediately, we should have been in no need of doing anything; as, however, He actually performed only on Himself the renewal which is to come and through which He rose from the dead and His body became immortal and His soul immutable, it became necessary that this decrepit and mortal world should last further in order that mankind might believe in Him and receive the hope of communion (with Him) and future life.

It is with justice, therefore, that He paid the debt of the law, received baptism, and showed the new Economy of the Gospel, which is the symbol of the world to come, so that we also, who believed in Christ and became worthy of baptism, through which we received the symbol of the world to come, should live according to His commandments. This is the reason why the blessed Paul said: "God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." 179 In this he shows that through baptism we have received the teaching of the new Economy which is the symbol of the world to come, and as much as possible we strive to live according to it, while remote from all sin, and so not according to law. Indeed we are baptised as men who die with Him and will rise symbolically with Him, because "so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into His death and were buried with Him by baptism into death; that like as Jesus Christ was raised up from the dead in the glory of His Father, even so we should walk in newness of life." 180 |71

After having received the grace of baptism we become strangers to all the observances of the law and we are as in another life: "You are become dead to the law by the body of Jesus Christ." 181 He (Paul) said this because you have attained new life in the baptismal birth and have become part of the body of Christ our Lord; and we hope to have communion with Him now that we are freed from the life of this world and dead to the world and to the law, because the law has power in this world and we become strangers to all this world according to the symbol of baptism.

When Christ our Lord performed all these things for us He drew nigh unto death, which He received by crucifixion, not a secret death, but a death that was conspicuous and witnessed by all because our Lord's resurrection was going to be proclaimed by the blessed Apostles, while the miracles wrought wonderfully by the Holy Spirit were sufficient for the corroboration of their testimony. His death had to be seen by all, as His resurrection meant the abolition of death. Indeed, He loosed the pains of death 182 completely by his resurrection from the dead, ascended unto heaven and sat at the right hand 183 of God, and is for us a true surety 184 by our participation in His resurrection. "You were saved by the grace of Him who raised us with Him 185 and placed us at the right hand in heaven in order that He might show to the future worlds the greatness of the wealth and the sweetness of His mercy which was shed on us abundantly through our Lord Jesus Christ." 186

And in order that we may believe in the good things which He promised to us, in spite of their greatness and in spite of the fact that they transcend us, He gave us the earnest of the future things, the firstfruits of the Holy Spirit,187 as the blessed Peter said: "He was exalted by the right hand of God, and He confirmed the promise of the Holy Ghost which He had received, and shed forth this upon us abundantly, as you now see and hear." 188 He calls "the promise of the Holy Ghost" the grace which was given for the confirmation of the future good things by the Holy Ghost. Indeed, these future things are confirmed in us by the power of the Holy Ghost. As the blessed Paul said: "It is sown a natural body and it will rise a |72 spiritual body." 189 And in order that we may possess these future good things in a firm faith 190 without doubt, He gave us even in this world 191 the firstfruits of the Spirit which we received as the earnest, of which the blessed Paul said: "In whom ye believed, and ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit (of promise) which is the earnest of our inheritance." 192 And the Economy of the grace of Christ our Lord, for which we receive baptism, is like unto this.

Our blessed Fathers did well, therefore, to hand to us our faith by going to the firstfruits of the faith, and including in them all the necessary things in saying: And was born of the Virgin Mary and crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate. I believe, however, that my speech has exceeded the limits as the words (which express) the Economy of the grace of Christ have only been delivered to us (in short terms) as given above. In order, therefore, that you may not receive a teaching which is not perfect and that we may not trouble you with many words, let us, by the permission of God, leave off here the things which will follow what has been said, and be satisfied with what has already been spoken to-day, and let us praise the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit now, always, and for ever and ever.—Amen.

Here ends the sixth chapter.

Chapter VII.
Let us proceed now to deal with the grace of the Economy of the humanity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and see what our blessed Fathers have handed down to us about it in the creed. This is the third day I am discoursing on this subject to your love, as I am anxious that you should learn it little by little and keep my words in your memory. Let us, therefore, begin to-day also to speak to you concerning things that fit the sequence of those already said.

Immediately they began the words which deal with the Economy (of our Lord) our blessed Fathers first showed for whom was all this Economy accomplished, and said: Who for us children of men, to which they added: And for our salvation in order that the purpose of the Economy might be known. To this they added also: Came down from heaven, in order that they might make us understand the |73 boundless humility that was involved in His coming down to us, as if they were repeating the sentence of the blessed Paul: "Though He was rich yet for your sakes He became poor," 193 and humbled Himself to our wretchedness from the height of His glory and from His mighty greatness. And in order to show us how He came down they said: And became a man. He did not humble Himself here by an ordinary act of Providence nor by the gift of the assistance of (Divine) power that He had in the same way as He performed many other things, but He assumed and put on our nature in which He was,194 and in which He dwelt so that He might perfect it with sufferings and unite it to Him. In this they (our blessed Fathers) showed us the gift of His grace which they saw in the human race, and through which He assumed a man from us, was in Him and dwelt in Him, and they taught us that He endured and bore all according to human nature so that we might understand that He was not a man in appearance only, but that He was a real man who suffered all the human [passions] according to human nature.

And in order not to lengthen their speech they omitted all the things which He gradually performed and which we may learn with accuracy from the reading of the Gospel, and they rightly made use of condensed words and said: And was born of the Virgin Mary and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, and in this way they included all the Economy in its beginning and its end. We remember that we told your love that it is the habit of the Books to include all the Economy of Christ in the mention of the crucifixion, because death came to Him by crucifixion, and He abolished death by death and made manifest the new, immortal and immutable life.

In this way our blessed Fathers included also all the Economy in these words, but were aware that especial attention had to be paid to the words said of the Passion or of the things that happened in the Passion, as they transcend all human intellect. In order that no doubt concerning the reality of the Passion might enter the mind of the hearers on account of the sublimity of this same Passion, and in order that they might not think that it took place in appearance only, they stressed their words so that they should be believed in the sense that He died in reality and so as to show that human death and all |74 passions were abolished by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Indeed, if Christ endured death by crucifixion in order to make manifest His death to all and with His death His resurrection also by which death was abolished, it is with justice that our blessed Fathers warned us first on the subject of His death and then taught us concerning His resurrection.

This is the reason why, after having said, And was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, they added: And was buried, in order to teach us that He did not die only in appearance and in an unreal way but that He actually died a natural death so that after His death His body was also buried according to the law of human nature. In this they followed also the teaching of the blessed Paul, who, when speaking to the Corinthians of the resurrection of the dead because of which he made mention of the resurrection of Christ our Lord—so that he might confirm the general resurrection from the resurrection of Christ— first taught about His death in saying that Christ died a real death, since His death once established the words concerning the preaching of His resurrection will be readily accepted. He said in effect: "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried." 195 He did not make use of the additional sentence "and was buried" to no purpose, but he made use of it to show that He truly died according to the law of human nature and that He duly endured death according to a mortal nature.

In this same way, after our blessed Fathers had said, And was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, in order to show that He had died they added the sentence: And was buried, so as to demonstrate, according to the preaching of the Apostle, that He had truly died.

Further, as the blessed Paul, after having said that He was buried and that He had truly died, added: "He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" 196 —and it was in this way that he was able to teach concerning the resurrection of Christ after His death and to fix the true belief in His death in the souls of the hearers—so also our blessed Fathers, after having said, And was buried, added: And rose the third day according to the Scriptures. They made |75 an accurate use of the words of the Scriptures in delivering to us the belief in the resurrection. The question involved in the resurrection is not an unimportant one because to those who do not believe it implies the danger of death and of falling away from all benefits, but on those who believe this same resurrection bestows confidence, and puts the seal on all the wonderful things accomplished in the Economy of Christ. Indeed this resurrection is the end of all the Economy of Christ and the principal object of all the reforms wrought by Him, as it is through it that death was abolished, corruption destroyed, passions extinguished, mutability removed, the inordinate emotions of sin consumed, the power of Satan overthrown, the urge of demons brought to nought and the affliction resulting from the law wiped out. An immortal and immutable life reigns by which all the above evils are abolished and destroyed, and it was through them that the demons entered to fight against us.

This is the reason why the blessed Paul said: "If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised, and if Christ be not raised then our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain." 197 If it is not possible that the dead should rise it is evident that Christ also did not rise, because in His body He was of the same nature and received death according to the law of nature. If we believe that Christ rose it is clear and obvious that resurrection is a true fact, as that which is impossible would not have happened, even to Him, but since it happened to Him it is clear and evident that it is possible.

We ought not, therefore, to deny resurrection as an impossible thing, but it is imperative for us to believe in it, because it did happen once and had its beginning in Christ our Lord. He who denies the general resurrection denies also the resurrection of Christ, because in His flesh He was part of human nature, and he who denies this shows that "our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain." Because resurrection is the principal benefit of all the Economy of Christ in the flesh—since by it all evil things vanish and an entry is effected for all good things—He who denies this same resurrection makes our preaching and your faith vain. If death is not abolished the dominion of evil things is still standing and we do not look yet for good things. It is indeed plain that if the resurrection did not take place death |76 would still be holding dominion, from which it could not have been overthrown, and because of this same death sin would also be in the ascendant and all evil things would be surrounding us, because he (Paul) said: "If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised, and if Christ be not raised then your faith is vain and you are yet in your sins." 198 In this he shows that death was abolished through resurrection, and sin through death, as after the resurrection we become immortal and immutable, and if the resurrection does not take place faith is vain and death holds sway together with sin, and you also are still in your sins and have no hope of good things which we announced as coming to you through the resurrection.

It is with justice, therefore, that in accordance with the words of the Apostle our blessed Fathers first mentioned the principal benefit of the Economy of Christ in saying: And rose from the dead, and then added the sentence: And ascended into heaven. It was necessary that after having known that He rose from the dead we should also know where He is after His resurrection. As the Sacred Book, after saying that God made Adam, added how, from what, and also in which locality He placed him to lead his earthly life, so also in the case of Christ our Lord who was assumed from us and was according to our nature, because after (our blessed Fathers) said that He rose from the dead they rightly added that He ascended into heaven so that we should learn that He moved into an immortal nature and ascended into heaven, as it was necessary for Him to be high above all. All the evangelists narrated to us His resurrection from the dead and with it they ended their respective Gospels, because they knew that it was sufficient for us to learn that He rose from the dead, moved to an immortal and immutable life and gave us the hope of participating with Him in the future good things. The blessed Luke, however, who is also the writer of a Gospel, added that He ascended into heaven 199 so that we should know where He is after His resurrection. It is also known that he taught us this at the beginning of his teaching when he wrote the Acts of the Apostles,200 where he further added the rest of the facts, one after another, as it fitted the sequence of the narration.

As it is not only in His resurrection that Christ became our |77 firstfruits 201 but also in His ascension into heaven—in both of which He made us partakers of His grace—it is right that we should be instructed in both of them, because we do not expect only to rise from the dead but also to ascend into heaven, where we will be with Christ our Lord. In this same way the blessed Paul said also that "our Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout and with the voice of the Archangel and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first, then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet our Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with our Lord." 202 In another passage he said also: "For our conversation is in heaven from whence we look for the Saviour our Lord Jesus Christ who shall change our vile body that it may resemble His glorious body," 203 in order to show us that we shall be transferred to heaven from whence Christ our Lord will come and change us at the resurrection from the dead and make us like the form of His body and take us up to heaven so that we may ever be with Him. And again he said: "For we know if this our earthly house were dissolved, we have a building of God and an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens," 204 in order to teach us that at the resurrection we will become immortal and dwell in heaven. And a little further on he said: "While we are in the body, we are absent from our Lord, for we walk by faith and not by sight; we are confident and willing to be absent from the body and to be present with Christ," 205 and showed that as long as we are in this mortal body we are as it were absent and remote from our Lord, as we are not actually enjoying yet the future good things since we have only received them by faith, but in spite of their being so we have great confidence in possessing them,206 and we are looking with great eagerness to the time when we will divest ourselves of this mortal body and cast it away from us and become immortal and immutable at the resurrection from the dead, and then we will be with our Lord like men who for a long time and for the duration of this world were absent and expecting to be present with Him.

This is the reason why he said: "Jerusalem which is above is |78 free, which is the mother of us all." 207 He called "Jerusalem which is above" the abode which is in heaven and in which we, reborn at the resurrection, shall become immortal and immutable, when we shall truly enjoy perfect freedom and happiness, and when nothing will constrain us and no pain will affect us, but we will be in ineffable pleasures and in a happiness that will have no end; and we are expecting to enjoy these pleasures in which Christ our Lord became our firstfruits,208 (Christ) whom God the Word put on, and who through the close union that He had with Him became worthy of all this glory and gave to us also the hope of communion with Him.

It is with justice, therefore, that the Sacred Book taught us that not only He rose from the dead but ascended also into heaven, so that we too should preach that which is implied by our blessed Fathers who, after having said, He rose the third day, added: And ascended into heaven. And they further added to their words: And sat at the right hand of God, in order to show first the great honour that came to the man who was assumed, from His union with God the Word who had put Him on, and secondly in order that we might understand the nature of the good things in which we shall dwell if we have truly communion with Him. Indeed, after the blessed Paul had said, "You were dead in your trespasses and your sins and He quickened you with Christ," 209 he added: "Ye are saved.210 And He hath raised you up and made you sit together in heaven in Jesus Christ" 211 in order to show us the sublimity of the communion that we shall have with Him.

After our Fathers wrote down this they added with justice: And He shall come again to judge the living and the dead, in order to inform us concerning His second coming in which we shall receive communion with Him while truly looking for Him coming from heaven to fashion us, according to the saying of the Apostle, like unto His glorious body.212 They added after His coming the sentence: To judge the dead and the living, so that with the mention of the good things done to us they should also implant fear into us and make us ready for the gift of the glory of all this Economy. They said, "of the dead and the living," not that the dead shall be judged—what kind of judgment can there be to the dead who do not feel?—but |79 that at the time of His coming He will raise all of us born of Adam, that is all the children of men who had died, and will transform them into an immortal nature.

Those men who will be overtaken by the general resurrection while still alive He will only transform, and from being mortal He will make immortal. This is the reason why they said, "the living and the dead." Those who will be alive at that time they called "the living," and those who had already died and passed away they called "the dead," in order to show us that all the children of men shall be judged and none shall escape scrutiny, and that when they have been judged they shall receive a judgment commensurate with the nature of their actions in a way that some of them will be rewarded and some others punished.

The blessed Paul said also in the Epistle to the Corinthians: "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment and in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump, the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." 213 By these words he shows that all of us shall not die but that all of us shall be changed; the dead shall rise incorruptible and immortal, and the living shall be changed into an immortal nature. Both acts will be accomplished in the twinkling of an eye. He said the sentence, "we shall be changed" of those who shall then be alive because when he wrote it he himself was alive, and thus he personified the living.

He wrote something similar to this to the Thessalonians: "We which are alive and remain shall not prevent them which are asleep, for the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout and with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first, and then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with our Lord." 214 He says that all these things will happen with the swiftness of the twinkling of an eye and that those who are alive will not prevent those who are dead when these go out to meet our Lord, and he shows that the latter will rise and the former will be changed, and both will be caught up together to meet our Lord.

Our blessed Fathers said these things to warn us, to inspire us with fear and to induce us to prepare for the future account (that we |80 shall give of ourselves). They rightly ascribed the sentence: To judge the living and the dead to the prosopon of the man who was assumed on our behalf so that they should show us the honour that came to the temple 215 of God the Word, that is to say to the man who was assumed for our salvation, and so that they should implant fear into us when teaching us by their words concerning the future judgment, which will be all the harder for us if we have a bad and inordinate will. It would be against our duty to minimise that man who was assumed on our behalf; who possesses such a great honour; who will judge the living and the dead because He was freed from all sin and was, on account of the honour that came to Him, in a position to be immune from death—as He said: "I have power to lay my life down, and I have power to take it up again," 216 in order to show that He was the Lord and had power to die and not to die—who received the death that came His way, and in the confidence that He had (with God) was able to conquer it; who granted immunity from death to all the human race; who was from us and from our human nature and was immune from death because of the greatness of His excellence and was always without stain by the power of the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless received upon Himself death and passion—an ignominious death by crucifixion—so that He should grant us to delight in the future pleasures, (it would indeed, I say, be against our duty to minimise that man) who endured all these things for us and not to remain steadfast in His love and not follow His commandments and value His love and affection more highly than anything else. We ought to show forth such feelings because of the ineffable benefits that through Him will accrue to us.

Examine the strength of their statement from the fact that in speaking of His humanity, His Passion and His resurrection they affirmed that the very same prosopon to whom all this happened shall sit in judgment. In order, however, that no one might be led to believe that a mere man will be the judge of all the creation they added the word Again, so that they should refer (the act of judging) as by a sign to the Godhead of the Only Begotten who was in Him and from whom He received all that honour. If they did not wish to imply this it would have been sufficient to say: He shall come to judge the living |81 and the dead, but with the addition of again they referred to His Godhead. He who shall come openly is in truth the man who has been assumed from us, and it is He who shall come from heaven, and He of whom it may rightly be said that He moves from place to place, as it is written: "This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven." 217 This was to demonstrate to them that it would be the very man who was seen by them, and was with them, and was now being separated from them, who would be coming and be seen by all men. To this man the word again is not fitting. Indeed, it is not He who came but it is the Godhead that came down from heaven, not that it moved from place to place, but by its condescension and its Providence for us which it manifested 218 in the man who was assumed on our behalf. The word again will refer in the next world to the man whom (the Godhead) assumed on our behalf. The man who was assumed on our behalf went now first into heaven and will come again first from heaven, but because they (our blessed Fathers) were referring in their words to the Divine nature they counted His coming twice, first when He came down through that man, and secondly when He will come again through the same man who has been assumed, because of the ineffable union that that man had with God.

This is the reason why the blessed Paul, after saying, "We look for the glorious appearing of the great God," added: "and the Saviour Jesus Christ." 219 He shows that we are looking for the Divine nature, which is higher than everything, to come and appear to all men, and because this Divine nature cannot be seen with material eyes, it will make its appearance to men according to the power of the onlookers. And he showed us the way in which we expect the Divine nature to appear by adding: "and our Saviour Jesus Christ." He refers here to that corporeal man and shows clearly that it is in the coming and the vision of that man that the Divine nature will make its appearance. It is in this man by whom it had formerly saved us that it will make its appearance in order to grant these ineffable benefits.

It is with justice, therefore, that our blessed Fathers added the word again in order to show us the Divine nature from which the |82 great honour of judging was given to that visible (man). It is that (Divine nature) that will judge all the world according to the sentence of the Apostle who said that it will judge all the earth through the man Jesus.220 It is clear that the blessed Paul shows us that it is God who will judge all the earth through that man who was assumed on our behalf and who rose again from the dead for the confirmation of our faith.

Let what has been spoken suffice for the teaching of to-day, and let us praise God the Father, and the Only Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit, now, always and for ever and ever.

Here ends the seventh chapter.

Chapter VIII.
In the last days we spoke gradually and sufficiently to your love of the doctrine concerning Christ, according to the teaching of our blessed Fathers. It behoves you now to remember the things spoken to you with so much care. They gave us a two-fold teaching concerning Christ our Lord according to the meaning of the Books, that He is not God alone nor man alone, but He is truly both by nature, that is to say God and man: God the Word who assumed, and man who was assumed. It is the one who was in the form of God that took upon Him the form of a servant,221 and it is not the form of a servant that took upon it the form of God. The one who is in the form of God is God by nature, who assumed the form of a servant, while the one who is in the form of a servant is the one who is man by nature and who was assumed for our salvation.

The one who assumed is not the same as the one who was assumed nor is the one who was assumed the same as the one who assumed, but the one who assumed is God while the one who was assumed is a man. The one who assumed is by nature that which God the Father is by nature, as He is God with God, and He is that which the one with whom He was, is, while the one who was assumed is by nature that which David and Abraham, whose son and from whose seed He is, are by nature. This is the reason why He is both Lord and Son of David: Son of David because of His nature, and Lord because of the honour that came to Him. And He is high above David His father because of the nature that assumed Him. |83

This is the reason why when our Lord asked the Pharisees: "Whose son was the Christ?" and they answered: "The son of David," 222 He did not disapprove of the answer given. It is the same evangelist Matthew, in whose account is the fact that the Pharisees were asked this question by our Lord, who wrote also at the beginning of his Gospel: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham." 223 He would not have taught this at the beginning of his Gospel had he known that our Lord did not approve of it; indeed he who took so much trouble to write faithfully his Gospel according to the orders of Christ would not have dared to put down in writing a statement that was detrimental to Christ. It is indeed evident that our Lord did not disapprove of that which was said to the effect that Christ was the son of David, in the sense that it was not well and rightly said, the reason being that all the Pharisees and the Jews were expecting Christ to come as a simple man from the seed of David. In this they were in harmony with the words of the prophets, and were not aware that the one who assumed the other who is from the seed of David, was the Only Begotton of God, who dwelt in Him and through Him performed all the Economy of our salvation, and united Him to Himself and made Him higher than all the creation.

It is because the Pharisees were not aware of all this that our Lord asked them: "Whose son was the Christ?"; and after they answered what they knew to the effect that He was the son of David, He said to them: "How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying: 'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool?' If David then call Him Lord, how is He his son?" 224 In these words He gave them, by a hint only and not openly, the doctrine concerning the Godhead. At that time they transcended the intelligence of the Jews so much so that even the blessed Disciples were not aware of their meaning before the crucifixion. "If ye had known me ye should have known my Father also." 225 And again: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?" 226 And again: "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs, but the time cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall |84 shew you plainly of the Father." 227 And again: "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name." 228 And again: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; howbeit when the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth." 229

One finds in the Book of the Gospel many passages which demonstrate that the Apostles were not aware of the Divinity of the Only Begotten before the Crucifixion, nor were they aware that God the Word was the Son of the Father and a true Son of God, whom we understand to be consubstantial with His Father. He knew that it was not yet time to promulgate openly this doctrine of His Godhead, but in His question He only gave a hint that they would not possess a complete knowledge about Christ as long as they believed that He was only a man and did not understand the Divine nature which was in Him and because of which the one who was from the seed of David became worthy of the honour of being Lord. David, from whose seed He was by nature, would not have called him His Lord if he did not believe that the one who was of the same nature as himself was something higher and better than the nature of men, and one who by His union with the Lord was elevated to such a great honour that He was believed to be Lord. He is, therefore, of the same nature as David because He is of his seed, but we understand Him to be also Lord because of the union that He had with the Divine nature which is the cause and the Lord of all.

We ought, therefore, to know the natures of both, the one who assumed and the one who was assumed, and realise that the former is God and the latter is the form of a servant, and that it is God who dwells and man is His temple which He built and constituted as His dwelling. This is the reason why He said: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up," 230 which the evangelist interpreted and said: "For He spake of the temple of His body." 231 He called the man who was assumed His temple while showing that He Himself was dwelling in that temple, and through His dwelling He clearly showed us His power when He delivered it (His dwelling) to the destruction of death, according to His desire, and then raised it by the greatness of His might; and so that it might die He allowed it to suffer according to its nature while He, as Lord, impeded it from seeing |85 corruption 232 and from being delivered to dissolution. He allowed it to die because He wished it, and after its death, He raised it up according to His will.

He would not have said, "Destroy this temple" had He not known that He had the power (to say so), and since He is Lord He implied two things in the sentence "Destroy this temple": although it is in its nature to be destroyed yet I have it in My power that this should happen or not. I will allow it to be destroyed according to its nature, and if I do not wish it I have the power to impede it from being destroyed. "Destroy this temple," because it is impossible that I myself should be destroyed, as My nature is undestroyable, but I will allow this (temple) to be destroyed because such a thing is inherent in its nature; I would not have allowed this to happen to it had I not intended to do a higher thing to it; I am allowing this (to happen) to it because I am prepared to do another thing:

What is the meaning of the sentence "and in three days I will raise it up"? (It means) that when it has been destroyed I will build it up again and will raise it up at the resurrection from the dead in a state higher and better than the first; it will not be then mortal and destroyable in its nature as it is now, but immortal, indissoluble, impassible, and immutable; it is in this way that I will raise it up to a much higher state than that in which it is at present by nature; I will allow it to be destroyed in order that I may do something higher to it. Destroy, therefore, this temple; fulfil your wish; make use of your artifice; I will allow you to do what you wish so that after you have done it you should feel my power which is higher than all, as it is by it that I will raise it up from the dead and make it 233 into something higher than it is now. You will then realise that you would not even have been in a position to destroy it if I had not willed it, and that it would not have died if I had not permitted it; since I will it, however, it will be good to it: "destroy, therefore, this temple and m three days I will raise it up."

In these words He showed sufficiently the difference between Him and the one who was destroyable, because the latter was the temple and the former its dweller; the latter His dwelling as a temple, and the former its dweller as a God; not a temple for a short time only |86 and not one in which God the Word sometimes dwelt and sometimes not, but a temple from which it will never be separated, as it possesses an ineffable union with the one who is dwelling in it. He made Him perfect through His sufferings, as the blessed Paul said,234 and He received these sufferings according to His nature while He was in need of the One who was to deliver him from passion, the One who changed His nature and made Him impassible and crowned Him with sufferings. As to Himself He dwelt in Him, and He is by nature impassible, and has the power to make Him impassible also although (by nature) passible. In this way He perfected through sufferings and made immortal and immutable in everything the form of a servant 235 which was assumed as His temple, that is to say the man who was assumed for our salvation.

The blessed Paul said: "For unto the angels hath He not put in subjection the world to come whereof we speak, but unto the one about whom the Book testifies, 'What is man that Thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that Thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels, Thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of Thy hands and Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.'" 236 After having shown that He did not take on Him the nature of angels but of man,237 he explained to us who was this man and said: "We see Jesus Christ who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of His death crowned with glory and honour " 238 in order to show that this man Jesus, who was assumed for our salvation, became a little lower than the angels because He tasted death, and that honour and glory are also placed on His head because He rose from the dead and through His union with God became higher than all creation.

And in order to teach us why He suffered and became "a little lower" he said: "Apart from God He tasted death for every man." 239 |87 In this he shows that Divine nature willed that He should taste death for the benefit of every man, and also that the Godhead was separated from the one who was suffering in the trial of death, because it was impossible for Him to taste the trial of death if (the Godhead) were not cautiously remote from Him,240 but also near enough to do the needful and necessary things for the nature that was assumed by it. It was necessary for the one through whom and for whom everything was (done) to perfect with sufferings the source 241 of the life of the many children whom he 242 brought to His 243 glory. He 244 Himself was not tried with the trial of death but He was near to him 245 and doing to him the things that were congruous to His nature as the Maker who is the cause of everything, i.e. He brought him to perfection through sufferings and made him for ever immortal, impassible, incorruptible, and immutable for the salvation of the multitudes who would be receiving communion with him.

In this way the Sacred Books teach us the difference between the two natures, and so it is indispensable for us to ascertain who is the one who assumed and the one who was assumed. The one who assumed is the Divine nature that does 246 everything for us, and the other is the human nature which was assumed on behalf of all of us by the One who is the cause of everything, and is united to it 247 in an ineffable union which will never be separated. This is the reason why on account of our association with it the gift which we are expecting to receive will also remain truly with us. The Sacred Books also teach us this union, not only when they impart to us the knowledge of each nature but also when they affirm that what is due to one is also due to the other, so that we should understand the wonderfulness and the sublimity of the union that took place (between |88 them). As such is the statement: "Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ (came), who is God over all." 248 It is not the one who is of the Jews in the flesh who is by nature God over all, nor the one who by nature is God over all is also by nature from the Jews, but in his sentence the Apostle showed us the two natures. In saying, "of whom is Christ concerning the flesh" he alluded to His humanity, and in saying, "who is God over all" he taught us concerning the nature of His divinity; and he referred his teaching to one only by saying, "of whom Christ concerning the flesh, who is God over all."

As such also are the words uttered by our Lord in the Gospel: "If ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before." 249 Lo, it is known that the Son of man who was a man by His nature was not in heaven before, but ascended up because of the Divine nature which was in Him, and which was in heaven. When He said also of His body that it can give immortal life to those who eat it,250 because the words that He uttered were not believed by the hearers, He endeavoured to convince them from the fact that although His words were incredible at the present time they will be credible later, as if He were saying to them: When you see that I have become immortal and have ascended up to heaven you will believe that you will partake of the things that will happen to me because of your association with me in those things, as the Divine nature which dwells in me and which was before in heaven will grant immortality to this one 251 and will take Him up to heaven and will grant you also communion with Him. He (Christ) uttered these words as of one in order to demonstrate the close union that took place:252 If ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before—If this were not as we said He was bound to say: If ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where the One who is in Him was,—you will understand the greatness of the Divine nature which is dwelling in Me and you will be astonished at the wonderfulness of the things that will happen to Me, and because of Me to you also.

As such also is the meaning of the sentence: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, the Son of man which is in heaven." 253 He did not say that no man hath |89 ascended up to heaven, and I ascended up because of the Divine nature which dwells in Me and which is even now in heaven, but He referred His words jointly to one: "no man hath ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven, the Son of man which is in heaven." He did not wish to say separately that no man ascended up to heaven but the Son of man who was dwelling in Him and who came down and was in heaven. He did not approve of this method of speaking and uttered His sentence in a way that it refers to one individual, and this in order to demonstrate and confirm the wonderful things done to the one 254 who was visible.

Any time the Book wishes to speak of the things done to the human nature, it rightly refers them to the Divine nature because they are high above our nature; in this it shows the union (of the Divine nature) with that man in order to make credible the things done to Him: it shows also that it is through the wonderful Divine nature which was united to Him that He became worthy of all this honour and glory, and it assures us that these same things will in the future be done to us. Indeed that man would not have been the possessor of such great benefits if He had no union with God, nor would we be hoping for all the future good things if the Divine nature that put on the form of a servant had not wished to grant to Him all those good things and extended their delight to us.

Because of all this let us learn the distinction between the natures and their union from the Holy Scripture and let us hold steadfast to this doctrine and understand the difference between these natures: that the one who assumed was God and the Only Begotten Son, while the one who was assumed was the form of a servant, which is man; that God assumed (man) for the benefit of our human race, and that (man) was assumed so that He 255 should remain in virtues and bestow on us the communion of His grace. We should also be mindful of that inseparable union through which that form of man can never and under no circumstances be separated from the Divine nature which put it on. The distinction between the natures does not annul the close union nor does the close union destroy the distinction between the natures, but the natures remain in their respective existence while separated, and the union remains intact, because the one who |90 was assumed is united in honour and glory with the one who assumed according to the will of the one who assumed Him.

From the fact that we say two natures we are not constrained to say two Lords nor two sons; this would be extreme folly.256 All things that in one respect are two and in another respect one, their union through which they are one does not annul the distinction between the natures, and the distinction between the natures impedes them from being one. So in the sentence: "I and my Father are one" 257 the word "one" does not annul the fact of "I and my Father," who are two. In another passage He said about the husband and wife that "they are no more twain but one flesh." 258 The fact that the husband and wife are one flesh does not impede them from being two. Indeed they will remain two because they are two, but they are one because they are also one and not two. In this same way here (in the Incarnation) they are two by nature and one by union: two by nature, because there is a great difference between the natures, and one by union because the adoration offered to the one who has been assumed is not differentiated from that to the one who assumed Him, as the former is the temple from which it is not possible for the one who dwells in it to depart.

All things said of two take the qualification of two when one of them is not differentiated by the object through which it receives the number two; as such is the sentence of the Scripture in which mention is made of four beasts: a lion, a bear, a leopard and another more dreadful.259 The Book said "four" because each one of them is a beast in its nature. As such also is the sentence: "The testimony of two men is true," 260 because each one of them is by nature that which the other is. Likewise in the sentence: "No man can serve two masters" 261 because any man who serves mammon with the same care as he serves God has both as masters.

Here 262 also if each of them was Son and Lord by nature it would be possible for us to say two Sons and two Lords, according to the number of the persons,263 but one 264 being Son and Lord by nature and |91 the other 265 being neither Son nor Lord by nature, we believe that the latter received these (attributes) through His close union with the Only Begotten God the Word, and so we hold that there is one Son only; and we understand that the one who is truly Son and Lord is the one who possesses these (attributes) by nature, and we add in our thought the temple in which He dwells and in which He will always and inseparably remain on account of the inseparable union which He has with Him and because of which we believe that He is both Son and Lord.

In any other passage in which the Book calls the one who was assumed "Son," it will be seen that He is called Son because of the close union that He had with the one who assumed Him. When it says: "Concerning His Son who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," 266 it is evident that it calls here Son the one who was made of the seed of David in the flesh and not God the Word but the form of the servant which was assumed. Indeed it is not God who became flesh nor was it God who was made of the seed of David but the man who was assumed for us, and it is Him that the blessed Paul clearly called Son.267 We understand Him to be Son and we call Him so; not for Himself 268 but because of the union that He had with the true Son.269 It is in this sense that our Lord taught His disciples when He said: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 270

This teaching we uphold in this way: as we call the Father Divine nature, and the Holy Ghost Divine nature from God the Father,271 so we call the Son the Divine nature of the Only Begotten, as in the case of the Father and of the Spirit, but to our knowledge concerning the Godhead we add the man who was assumed and through whom we received our knowledge of the Divine nature of which is the one who assumed Him, who is God the Word, and also His Father |92 and of the Holy Ghost. It is written: "The Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth these works" 272 and of the Holy Spirit it is written that it descended like a dove and dwelled in Him.273 Indeed as the Father cannot be separated from the Son nor the Son from the Father—"I am in my Father and my Father is in me 274—so also the Father cannot be separated from the Holy Spirit. The Scripture says: "For what man knoweth the things of a man save the Spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God," 275 in order to show us that the Holy Spirit is always and without separation with God the Father in the same way as our soul is never separated from us as long as we live and are human beings. He was, therefore, Son by necessity in that form of a servant which was assumed, and the Father was with the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If He said concerning all men: "He that loveth me keepeth my commandments, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him," 276 and: "I and my Father will come unto him and make our abode with him," 277 why should you wonder if in the Lord Christ according to the flesh dwelleth the Father together with the Son and the Holy Spirit? Inasmuch as when we say ' Father, Son and Holy Spirit,' we name the Godhead 278 in which we ought to be initiated to religion and be baptised, so also when we say "Son" we refer to the Divine nature of the Only Begotten while rightly including also in our thought the man who was assumed on our behalf and in whom God the Word was made known and preached and is now in Him, while the Father and the Holy Spirit are not remote from Him, because Trinity is not separable, consisting as it does of one, incorporeal and uncircumscribed nature. We learned these things from the Sacred Books, and we ought to think and to believe accordingly.

Since the measure of things said suffices let us add here to our discourse glory to God the Father, to the Only Begotten Son, and to the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever.—Amen.

Here ends the eighth chapter. |93

Chapter IX.
You have heard from what has been spoken to you how our blessed Fathers instructed us successively and according to the teaching of the Sacred Books concerning the Father and the Son without neglecting the Economy of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Let us now bring forth what is written after this. The question will deal now with the Holy Spirit, and our blessed Fathers who assembled from all parts in the town of Nicea for the sake of that wonderful Council wrote about Him simply and without amplification by saying: And in the Holy Spirit. They thought that this would be sufficient for the ears of that period. Those who after them handed to us a complete doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit were the Western Bishops who by themselves assembled in a Synod, as they were unable to come to the East on account of the persecution that the Arians inflicted on this country. And later, when Divine grace put an end to the persecution, the Eastern Bishops gladly accepted the doctrine handed down by (the Bishops of) that Western Synod, concurred in their decision, and by subscribing to what they had said, showed their adhesion to them.279 If one looks deeply into the matter, however, one will find that they derived their reason for the complementary addition that they made later in their teaching concerning the Holy Spirit from the blessed Fathers who had assembled from the whole world in the first Council held in the town of Nicea.

The reason why our blessed Fathers did not hand down to us in a complete form all things that were said later concerning the Holy Spirit is clear and evident, and it is that at that time had risen the unholy Arius who was the first to blaspheme against the Son of God, and assert wickedly that the Only Begotten Son of God, and God the Word, was created and made from nothing. Because of this our |94 blessed Fathers rightly assembled and held a wonderful Council. The time was propitious for their gathering because the God-loving and the blessed Constantine urged them to it in order to destroy the wickedness of the heretics and to confirm the faith of the Church. This is the reason why they made use in their doctrine concerning the Son of clear statements and copious words for the destruction of the heresy of Arius and the confirmation of the true faith of the Church of God. They did not do the same in the case of the Holy Spirit because at that time no question had yet been raised concerning Him by the heretics. They thought that for a complete belief in the true faith it would be sufficient to insert in their creed the name of the Spirit in its right place according to the teaching of our Lord, and to teach all men that in the Creed and in the profession of faith it ought to be pronounced with that of the Father and of the Son. It is not possible for any one to have faith 280 if he does not name, profess, and believe in, the Holy Spirit together with the Father and the Son.

This is the meaning of their words in saying: And in the Holy Spirit. Men who did not include (in their words) any created being would not have inserted the Holy Spirit with so much care in their faith and in their creed side by side with the Father and the Son had they not wished to separate in this same creed all the created beings from the uncreated nature. It was thus necessary that the Spirit should be named and professed side by side with the Father and the Son, because He also is from the uncreated nature, existing from eternity, and cause of everything, to which adoration is due to the exclusion of all created beings. That this is so our profession of faith testifies; indeed faith is not professed in a created nature but in a Divine and uncreated nature; nor did our blessed Fathers discover and write a new doctrine from their own head but they clearly followed the teaching of our Lord who taught His disciples, saying: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 281

It is clear and evident that He made His disciples the teachers of all the world and ordered them to convert all men from the error of polytheism to which they were formerly clinging—by ascribing the name of God to creatures and giving honour to natures which did not |95 deserve honour—and to teach them to offer true worship only to the Divine nature which is eternal, not made, and the cause of everything. He did not order them to convert all nations from the error of worshipping those who are not gods by nature in order to bring them to the discipleship of one who is not God by nature, but He did order them to preach, instead of those who were wrongly called gods, the nature which is not made, is eternal and the cause of everything, and to which is rightly due the name of Lord and God because it is Lord and God by nature. The knowledge of religion consists in this faith, and it is (this faith) that is the cause of all good things.

It is in this name that we are baptised and expect that the communion of the ineffable Divine benefits will accrue to us through baptism. We would not have named at baptism a being that was not the cause of the benefits that we are expecting to possess. We name (Him) because we know that He has the power to grant us the heavenly and imperishable benefits in the hope of which we receive the gift of baptism. In the same way as (the Book) said: "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth rise up and walk" 282 and showed that it was Christ who was the cause of the cure of the lame man, in this same way where it 283 ordered: "Baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" it clearly showed that these names which are pronounced at baptism are the cause of all the benefits which we are expecting to possess. It is not to no purpose that it says: "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," but in order that from their names we may derive our hope of enjoying the future good things.

As such also is the sentence uttered by the prophet: "Beside Thee we know no other Lord. We are called by Thy name." 284 (The prophet) shows here that they did not recognise nor did they name another Lord beside the one who is truly Lord. And again: "Because of Thy name we shall tread down our enemies," 285 and: "In Thy name our horn shall be exalted," 286 in order to show that they prevailed against their enemies through His name. In another passage he said: "I will call on the name of the Lord," 287 that is to say, I have believed that He is the Lord and also the cause of all |96 good things to me. (Our Lord) said here also: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in order that His disciples might learn from Him that all the nations were looking for this name as the cause of all their good things, because the nature which is called "Father, and Son and Holy Ghost," and in which we are baptised, is truly the Lord who is able to give us the heavenly good things which we are expecting and in the hope of which we draw nigh unto the grace of baptism.

As He ordered us to name the Father in the act of our disciple-ship and our baptism, because He is the Divine nature which is eternal and cause of everything and because He is able to vouchsafe unto us the benefits involved in the promise of baptism; and as He ordered us to name the Son because He has an identical nature and is able to vouchsafe unto us the same benefits, it is likewise evident that He named the Holy Spirit side by side with the Father and the Son for this very reason, that is to say because He is of the same nature as that which is eternal and cause of everything, to which is truly due the name of Lord and God. If in this creed He had wished to refer to a nature which was created and to another which was uncreated, we must admit that He neglected to name myriads of other created natures, that is to say, everything! A man with a sound mind will not think of such a thing.

It is clear that our Lord was handing down to us the doctrine of the Divine knowledge and teaching us the religious name which was congruous to the Divine nature in which we were to be baptised and which was able to vouchsafe unto us the future good things. We are thus ordered not to look for another name as the cause of the future good things except to that of the Divine nature which is eternal and cause of everything. It is, therefore, evident that He would not have named the Spirit side by side with the Father if they were not one Divine nature which was eternal and cause of everything, to which the name of Lord and God was truly due, and by the grace of which we shall also participate in the future good things.

Our blessed Fathers also meant this when they said: And in the Holy Spirit. They said this so that they might be understood by others that they were following the teaching of our Lord and so that they might intimate to every one that they also named the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son according to our Lord's doctrine, |97 because He also is, like the Son, of the same Divine nature of the Father, and we ought to believe in Him and to worship Him as the cause of the future good things. They left their statement in the above simple sentence without any amplification because no question had yet been raised by the heretics against the Holy Spirit; and they thought that the addition "Holy" placed after the name of the Spirit, according to the teaching of our Lord, was sufficient as a perfect doctrine for those by whom truth is honoured.

To men of good will the sentence used by our blessed Fathers according to the teaching of our Lord was indeed adequate, because they could not have taught us how to believe in things concerning a man in our profession of faith concerning God. They who taught clearly concerning the Son of God to the effect that we ought to believe in Him as consubstantial with God, would not have added in their profession of faith a word concerning the Holy Spirit had they not known that He also was of the same Divine nature of God the Father. The mere 288 mention of the name "Holy Spirit" was sufficient to demonstrate His nature as taught to us by the Divine Book, which indeed would not have called Him by this exclusive name if He was not of Divine nature. Actually there are many things referred to by the word "spirit" in the Holy Scripture: the angels are called by it: "He made his angels a spirit," 289 and also our soul: "His spirit goeth out and he returneth to his earth," 290 and likewise the winds: "He causeth the spirits to blow and they cause waters to flow." 291 Similarly all things which have a subtile nature in comparison with the visible objects, which our senses cannot accurately comprehend and which are not clearly defined, we call spirits.

Although numerous are the things which in common parlance are called spirits, yet this word "spirit" refers in an exclusive way, as the Holy Scripture teaches us, to the Godhead,292 which is incorporeal and can never be circumscribed. Holy Writ bears witness to the fact that it is called and is truly a spirit. This is the reason why our Lord said to the Samaritan woman who had believed that God was worshipped in a special place, and was contending against the Jews and asking |98 whether the place which was fit for worship was Mount Gerizim or Jerusalem: "God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." 293 What He showed here amounted to this: all of you are in great error in believing that God is more in this or in that place. God being incorporeal and uncircumscribed is not confined to a place, but is in all places equally. A worship of duty and of truth 294 is good and obligatory when man worships while believing that God is incorporeal and uncircumscribed, and thinks in clear conscience that God is not confined nor circumscribed in a place.

As there are many beings who bear the name of "I am" 295—as all things created from nothing are so called because they "are"— when God was asked by the blessed Moses about His name He answered: "I am that I am. This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." 296 He did not mean to say that there is nothing else that is "I am," but that this name "I am" belongs prominently to Him, not that He once was "I am" and once was not, but that He was "I am" eternally and always. In this same way there are many beings who bear the name of "spirits," but the word "Spirit" refers pre-eminently and is due to Divine nature which is truly incorporeal and uncircumscribed. If, therefore, it were possible to contend that when the Scripture says "Holy Spirit" it says it in a general sense and throws ambiguity in the minds of the hearers, who in hearing this very name "Holy Spirit" mentioned might think and say: "What is the precise meaning conveyed by the Scripture, since this name is applied to all the other beings who are called spirits?"—the case would be similar with regard to the name "I am" which Holy Writ applies to God because we would not be able to understand to whom it is precisely ascribed, as there are many beings who are referred to by the word "I am" 297 and it is not known whether man or another being is implied; this general term would, therefore, be in need of an addition through which the one who is called by it is distinguished. |99 We do not, however, understand God in this sense, either when we call Him "I am" or when we call Him "Spirit," because if we call Him "I am" we understand that in truth He is "I am" alone, and if we call Him "Spirit," He is in truth "Spirit" alone.

It is imperative now that we should discuss also the Holy Spirit and see to what kind of "Spirit" (the Book) refers when it says, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." There is no one who is so mad as to believe that this passage requires discussion, because it is known that the Divine Book is wont to refer by this name exclusively to one whom it everywhere names side by side with the Father and the Son, in the same way as it named Him when baptism was handed down to us. While all spirits have by general usage assumed one common name (of spirit) because they are subtile in their nature in comparison with the visible things, which are in no way grasped by any of our visible senses—this name "spirit" is rightly said with pre-eminence of the Divine nature as it is truly a spirit which is incorporeal and uncircumscribed. Thus we have understood Divine nature to be, and the Holy Spirit is called and professed by this name alone side by side with the Father and the Son because He possesses an identical nature with them.

As when we hear the name of the Father, although there are many other fathers, we nevertheless understand it to refer truly to one mighty God who is eternal; and as, although many are called sons, we, nevertheless, think only of one Son, who did not become, neither is He, a Son through the process of transformation—like the sons whom we have with us and who are born through the transformation of the (human) seed and are afterwards called sons—but He is truly alone Son of a Father who is eternal, and He is eternally from Him and with Him—, in this same way when we hear [the name of] the Holy Spirit we do not think of one of those beings who are called spirits but of the one who is truly called alone by this name and is incorporeal, uncircumscribed and confessed side by side with the Father and the Son in one Divine nature.

The addition "Holy" is characterised by the same implications as the name "Spirit." Although there are many beings that are "holy," as in the sentence, "When He shall come in the glory of His Father and of His holy angels," 298 and although there are also |100 many objects called by this name of holiness, such as "The tabernacle of the Most High is holy," 299 these are called holy by common usage only as having derived their holiness from God. The one who is truly holy is Divine nature. It is indeed said: "Thou art holy and Thy name is reverend"; 300 and even the Seraphim when they glorify they say in their canticle which is congruous to this Divine nature as follows: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts: the whole heaven and earth are full of His glory." 301

The one who is truly holy is He whose nature is immutable and unchangeable and He who has not received holiness from another but alone can bestow holiness on all He pleases. In this way the Divine Book calls Holy Spirit the one who is alone confessed, at baptism and in the act of discipleship, side by side with the Father and the Son, because this name Holy Spirit is truly due only to Divine nature. This is the reason why when we hear this name Holy Spirit we do not ask who is meant by it, because we know that He is the one who is alone (holy) by nature and who is named with the Father and the Son as an act due to His nature, because the nature of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one.

From this it is easily understood by men of good will that our blessed Fathers taught us sufficiently concerning the nature of the Holy Spirit when they placed Him on the same level with the Father and the Son, because in this they clearly taught us something that is in harmony with the words which our Lord pronounced to His disciples and which ascribed to Him a name congruous to Divine nature. It was deemed sufficient by them simply to insert this name in the profession of faith which they taught, because by its exclusiveness it is capable of demonstrating the nature of the one who is named.

This being the case it is only men of ill will who make show of insolence and call the Holy Spirit a servant or a creature, while some others amongst them although refraining from these words yet refuse to call Him God. It is with a sense of duty, therefore, that the Doctors of the Church,302 who assembled from all parts of the world and who were the heirs of the first blessed Fathers,303 proclaimed before all men the wish of their Fathers and in accurate deliberations made |101 manifest the truth of their faith and interpreted also their mind.304 They wrote to us words which warn the children of faith and destroy the error of the heretics. As their Fathers did in the profession of faith concerning the Son for the refutation of the ungodliness of Arius, so they did in their words concerning the Holy Spirit for the confutation of those who blasphemed against Him.

They thought that it would be the height of folly to call creature and servant one who by the mention of His name frees us from death and corruption through baptism, and renews us according to the teaching of our Lord, because a creature is not able to free us nor is a servant able to renew us. It was considered by them to be folly to hesitate to call God one who is truly God, as it is clear that one who is neither a creature nor a servant is God. If He be a creature, He is also a servant, and no creature and no servant are truly God. To call creature or servant one by whose name we expect to be renewed and freed—since in calling Him by His name side by side with that of the Father and the Son we believe that He will grant us renewal and freedom—is a great error 305 and an outrageous blasphemy. Duty compels us, therefore, to call Him God because no other nature can create, renew and free except Divine nature, which is neither created nor made, but is the cause of everything, is able to renew its works according to its will and has the power to give us freedom as it wishes.

Because of this and for it, it was right on the part of our blessed Fathers to proclaim in their creed that the Holy Spirit was Divine nature with the Father and the Son, and by the addition of short words to confirm the true doctrine of the Church which was to be made manifest to those who draw nigh unto the holy baptism: And in ONE Holy Spirit. What our Fathers wrote does not differ in meaning from: And in Holy Spirit. Although they made use of this word,306 well knowing that the Holy Spirit that was called by this name was one as the Divine Books had taught us, they nevertheless made its meaning clear by saying: And in one Holy Spirit, and thus brought themselves into harmony with the usage adopted by Holy Writ which in saying "one" Father and "one" Son says also "one" Holy Spirit. |102

This is the reason why the blessed Paul said in one passage: "By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body." 307 And in another passage: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one Spirit, one God Father of all, who is above all and through all and in us all." 308 And again: "There are diversities of gifts but the Spirit is one, and there are diversities of administration but the Lord is one, and there are diversities of operations but it is the same God which worketh all in all." 309 He clearly shows here that as there is one Lord, because He is the Lord and there is no other beside Him, and as there is one God and there is no other beside Him, so there is one Spirit and there is no other beside Him. The created beings are numerous and different in their nature, but there is only one immutable nature which is the cause of everything, and outside this nature there is no uncreated being who is the cause of the created beings, and He who is of that nature is truly uncreated and cause of everything.

This is the reason why there is only one Father who is truly Father alone and Divine nature, and there is only one Son who is truly Son alone from the Divine nature of God, and there is only one Holy Spirit who is Holy Spirit alone and whom we have learnt from the sacred Books to call by this name, because He also is from that eternal nature and is God and cause of everything. He is also truly God and Lord alone because He created everything, and has power over everything, and is called and is truly Spirit because He is truly incorporeal and uncircumscribed, and to Him is due the attribute of holiness, as He is alone holy and immutable by nature, and as it is He who bestows holiness upon those He pleases and frees them from inclination towards evil.

All the created beings are not holy by nature but are receivers of holiness from the one who is the cause of their being. It is with justice, therefore, that when the blessed Paul exhorted the Ephesians to unity and to be of one mind, made mention of this nature by which they were to be of one mind: "Endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," 310 and as you were born of one Spirit in order to be one in your motherly bond 311 so you ought to be united and |103 joined one to another. In amplifying his sentence he said: "one body and one Spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling," 312 because as you were born of one spirit you have become one body of Christ who is the head:313 the man who was assumed so that through Him we might have relationship with Divine nature, as we are expecting to have communion with Him in the next world, because we believe that our vile body shall be changed and fashioned like unto His glorious body.314 We have been called to the hope of these (benefits), and we were born of baptism by the power of the Holy Spirit; and as a symbol and earnest of the future things we received the firstfruits of the Spirit,315 through whom we were reborn and by whom we obtained the gift of being one body of Christ.

In expanding further his sentence the blessed Paul said: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one Spirit, and one God the Father who is above all and through all and in us all." 316 One is the Spirit of whom you were born, in the same way as one is the Lord and one is God whom we believe to be our Lord and our Maker and whom by the grace of baptism we have been worthy to call Father. One faith and one baptism: because although we say Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we only profess one nature of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in which we are initiated to our faith and which we have agreed to name at baptism. It is evident that he would not have said one faith if he did not know that the names of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit through whom disciple-ship is effected were one nature; nor would he have said one baptism had he not been aware that those names which are pronounced at baptism had only one power, one will and one act through which the grace of our second birth 317 was accomplished.

The addition of the word one has, therefore, taught us sufficiently and accurately the Divine nature of the Holy Spirit. He is one as the Father is one and as the Son is one, and we believe that the (nature) of each one of them is identical, because the Divine nature, which is uncreated, eternal, and cause of everything, is one. It is known that the created beings are numerous and possess various and |104 different natures according to the wish of their Maker, and are bound to be always dependent on 318 that nature which is uncreated and the cause of everything.

Things that have now been spoken will suffice us for to-day, and we will leave off the rest for another day if God wishes. Let us, therefore, put an end here to our discourse and praise God the Father, the Only Begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit, now, always, and for ever and ever. Amen. Amen.

Here ends the ninth chapter.

Chapter X.
I know that you remember what we spoke to your love concerning the Holy Spirit, when we showed the greatness of His glory from the fact that in the initiation 319 of baptism He is believed in side by side with the Father and the Son. We adduced another reason which is no less cogent than this from the fact that He is alone called exclusively Holy Spirit, a name which in the teaching of the Books is simply ascribed to Divine nature; and also from the fact that He is called one Spirit like one Son, one God and one Lord. To those who have goodwill in religion the words written in the sacred Books would have been sufficient; these have been written also in the teaching of our blessed Fathers, who, however, because there are no adequate words easily to convince an evil mind, added of necessity to their teaching a statement which they chose in order to warn the children of the faith and refute the error of the heretics. They inserted, therefore, in their doctrine words that resemble those said of the Son. In speaking of the Son it was sufficient for those who do not refuse to be convinced to state that the one who was called an Only Begotten Son was truly a Son consubstantial with His Father, but on account of the wicked men who are bent on perversion they added: Born of Him before all the worlds, and not made, true God of true God, consubstantial with His Father, and in this they made |105 clear to all the meaning of the name '' Only Begotten" in order to confirm the faithful and rebuke the haters of truth.

In this same way they inserted here also a word which gives us the true meaning of the name which is handed down to us by the Divine Books concerning the Spirit, who at the time of our initiation and baptism is confessed side by side with the Father and the Son. For people of goodwill in religion a word which would show that the Holy Spirit was of the Divine nature of God the Father would have been sufficient, but on account of people inclined to insolence 320 and steadfast in it and in blasphemy, our blessed Fathers were rightly advised, even after all this credible teaching, to corroborate the doctrine of faith by means of a short addition, for the benefit of all and especially for your benefit, you who are on the point of drawing nigh unto the gift of the Spirit. They, therefore, said: And in ONE Holy Spirit. They did not invent this expression but took it from the teaching of our Lord, who, speaking to all His disciples before His passion wished to instruct them on the kind of resurrection from the dead which He will grant to mankind, and said that He will bestow upon them the grace of the Holy Spirit from which is derived the happiness of the future good things, which are so wonderful and have such a permanent effect on those who are worthy to receive them.

He rightly instructed us in His teaching on the greatness and glory of the Holy Spirit, and by this He showed us the greatness of the grace which was to be given to the faithful, so that we should firmly believe in the wonderful benefits which from it would be granted to us and would never be taken from us. He said thus: "If ye love me, keep My commandments, and I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever." 321 He showed them in these words: You should persevere in keeping My commandments, never to deviate from them in any way, and since you will not be receiving a casual and ordinary thing only, you will have to show great care and diligence: you will be receivers of no less a gift than the grace of the Holy Spirit, which will be always with you and bestow heavenly gifts upon you. And in corroboration of what had been said He added something that shows the honour due to the Holy Spirit, and said: "The Spirit of Truth." 322 Indeed, it is |106 the nature of the Spirit to give everything in truth without any change, and because He is eternal, immutable and unchangeable in His nature He is able to bestow upon others the delight of heavenly gifts which will not perish nor suffer any change.

(The Book) calls falsehood a perishable thing that is not permanent, and truth an imperishable thing that is permanent. Because the one who affirms a thing which does not exist lies, and the one who affirms a thing which exists tells the truth, it (the Book) calls falsehood a thing which does not last because it becomes like a thing which does not exist, while it calls truth a thing which lasts and exists permanently. This is the reason why the blessed David said: "I said in my haste, All men are liars," 323 that is to say because I became proud and thought highly of myself I suddenly fell into dire calamities and was in danger, as if I was nothing, and was about to perish, if Thy wonderful help had not assisted me; I was astonished at the great number of calamities that assailed me and understood that it was falsely that I had thought highly of myself; I found by experience that human things are nothing and that in truth they are all false: wealth, power, might, and all things which are considered by men to be great and wonderful. All these things, nay, even the fact of our existence are also false, because we make show of this fact of our existence to deceive those who see us, while eventually we are cut off by death and reminded that we are nothing, and all the great things that we are supposed to possess leave us at the end of our life.

As (the Book) calls falsehood a thing that has no enduring effect so it calls truth a thing that is lasting and does not perish, as it is said, "Mercy and truth will meet us" 324 to show us that He (God) will truly grant us mercy. He is, therefore, called God of truth because He is truly able to give us all. It is said: "Thou hast saved us O Lord God of truth," 325 that is to say, Thou hast saved us from the calamities that are known to us because Thou alone art able to grant benefits that are lasting and imperishable to whomsoever Thou wishest. The blessed David said these things of God and called Him God of truth in order to show that He is truly able to grant everything.

Our Lord also said similar things of the Holy Spirit in order to confirm the truth of the future good things that will be granted to us |107 in the next world by the same Holy Spirit. It is as if He had said: The Holy Spirit, the gift of whose grace you will receive, is one who gives heavenly and imperishable benefits to all He pleases, and because He is eternal in His nature and immutable and unchangeable, the things which He will give will also last for ever and will not change or perish. It is not possible that the one who grants benefits which are unchangeable and imperishable should not Himself be eternal and imperishable in His nature, and such a one is indeed Divine nature which is eternal. In created things there is nothing that can last by itself; the one who may be so constituted is so through another; indeed, how can a created being have by himself the attribute of permanency unless this be given to him by his Maker? The one, however, who is eternal, because immutable in His nature, is able to grant imperishable benefits to others as He pleases.

In short, Christ our Lord gave us a great testimony about the nature of the Spirit, in saying, "The Spirit of Truth." This expression cannot in any way fit the created beings because they are very far from being able to give any lasting thing to others, as they themselves are in need of their Maker to remain in the state in which they had once been created. And He fittingly added: "Whom the world cannot receive because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him." 326 There is no reason to wonder that the Holy Spirit is so in His nature and in His power, as in His nature He is higher than all creation and there is no created being that can see Him and receive Him in His nature or understand Him, if He Himself does not reveal His knowledge to mankind by His will. This is the reason why He added: "But you know Him for He is with you and dwelleth in you," 327 and you rightly receive His knowledge because you have received from Him the gift of grace, which will remain with you for ever for the confirmation of the pleasures of the future good things in which you will be immortal and immutable.

Our blessed Fathers inserted this expression concerning the Holy Spirit as they had received it from our Lord, and added another: Who proceeds from the Father. This is also found in the teaching of our Lord to His disciples: "When the Spirit Paraclete is come, whom I will send unto you, even the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Father, He will testify of me." 328 Here also He |108 revealed in advance the gift of the grace of the Holy Spirit which was to be bestowed upon all the disciples after His ascension. In saying: "When the Paraclete is come, whom I will send unto you" He refers to the grace of the Spirit which He was about to bestow on them. He was not going to send unto them the Divine nature of the Spirit which was everywhere, but He said this of the gift of the grace which was poured upon them and in which He called also the Paraclete the "Comforter," because He was able to impart unto them the knowledge which was required of them for comforting their souls in the numerous trials of this world.

After having spoken of the gift of the grace of the Holy Spirit He began to speak of His nature and of the greatness of the honour due to Him, in order to show the character of the grace which they were going to receive, and said: "The Spirit of Truth." This expression denotes the greatness of His nature and His power to grant imperishable benefits to all He pleases. Then He added the sentence that "He proceeds from the Father" to signify that He is always with God the Father and inseparable from Him. This has also been said by the blessed Paul: "What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit who is from God." 329 He meant by this that as the spirit of man is not separated from him as long as he is and remains a man, so also the Holy Spirit is not separated from God the Father because He is from Him and from His nature, and is always known and confessed side by side with Him To this our Lord referred as by a hint when He said: "He proceeds from the Father," because the Holy Spirit is a spring which is always with God and has never been separated from Him. He has not been created later but He is eternally in Him, and He is from the nature of God the Father, and eternal; and like a river with undiminishing flow, He bestows His gifts upon whom He pleases.

In this way He said also in another passage: "He that believeth on Me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water," 330 and the blessed evangelist interpreting this expression said: "This spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive, for the Holy Spirit was not yet, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." 331 He explains here clearly that He was |109 speaking of the gift of the Spirit. He did not speak of the person 332 or of the nature of the Holy Spirit that they were not yet, when he said that Jesus was not yet glorified, because He was eternally before all creation, but He said it of the gift of the Holy Spirit which after the ascension of our Lord into heaven was poured and seen on the blessed Apostles and on those who were with them. He said that the gift of the Holy Spirit will be poured on those who will believe in Him, like an undiminishing flow of water, because it 333 will be given by God the Spirit, who thus makes manifest His work of giving eternal life to those who believe in Him.

He who says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father shows that He is eternally with God the Father and is not separated from Him, because He is always and eternally in Him. Indeed if gifts proceed from the Holy Spirit like a river, and if this Spirit proceeds from God the Father, it is clear that He is eternally from Him and with Him and He did not come into existence later. As when the Book says that "a river proceeded from 334 Eden to water the garden, and from thence it was parted and became into four heads," 335 we rightly understand that the source which made these rivers to flow from Eden was not parted for the reason that it was from thence that it had to flow, so also when our Lord says in parable of the Holy Spirit that He proceeds from the Father, He gives us to understand that the Holy Spirit is not separated from Him, but He is eternally from Him, in Him and with Him, and like an undiminishing river He distributes gifts to all creatures according to the measure of the faith of His receivers, as the blessed Paul said: "There are diversities of Gifts but the Spirit is one," 336 and also "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal." 337

In explaining this expression of our Lord our blessed Fathers said that He proceeds from the nature of the Father, that He proceeds from Him eternally, and that He was always in the Father and did not come into existence later. It is evident that he who is eternally from the Father and with Him, proceeds also from His nature, because it is impossible that anything should be with God which is not by nature from Him. |110

After this they added in their teaching concerning the Spirit: Giver of Life,338 an expression which aptly demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is God like the expressions 339 discussed above. Our Lord said: "The water that I shall give shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." 340 He refers by His words to the gift of the Holy Spirit which gives everlasting life to those who are worthy of it. And again in another passage: "He that believeth on Me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." 341 He calls living water the gift of the Holy Spirit because it can grant everlasting life. And the Apostle also said: "The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life" 342 and showed us that He will make us immortal. And again in another passage: "The first Adam was made a living soul and the second Adam a quickening Spirit." 343 He shows by his words that Christ our Lord was changed in His body, at the resurrection from the dead, to immortality by the power of the Holy Spirit. He likewise said in another passage: "He was declared to be the Son of God with power and by the Spirit of holiness, and rose up from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord." 344 And: "If the Spirit of Him that raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead shall also quicken your dead bodies because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you." 345

Our Lord also said when teaching us concerning His body: "It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing" 346 in order to show that He also had immortality from the Holy Spirit and to demonstrate this point to others. Such an act belongs indeed to the nature that is eternal and cause of everything, because to Him who is able to create something from nothing belongs the act of giving life, that is to say, to make us immortal so that we should always live. Even among created beings those who have an immortal nature are considered higher in rank, and it is, therefore, clear and evident that he who is able to perform this act 347 is also able to perform other acts. God Himself shows that it is the prerogative of the Divine nature to |111 do this in saying: "Know now that I am He and there is no God beside Me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal." 348 He shows that it is His exclusive prerogative to raise from the dead and to free from their pain those who are wounded.

It is with the (above) words that our blessed Fathers warned us and taught us that we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit was from the Divine nature of God the Father. This is the reason why He is confessed and believed in side by side with the Father and the Son at the time of initiation and baptism. Each one of us is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, according to the doctrine of our Fathers, which is derived from the teaching of our Lord, so that it should be made clear and manifest to all that our blessed Fathers handed down to us the doctrine of the true faith by following the order of Christ. Even the words of the creed contain nothing but an explanation and interpretation of the words found in the teaching of our Lord. Indeed, He who ordered to baptise the Gentiles in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit showed us clearly that the Divine nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one. It was not possible that He should induce the Gentiles—who were converted to the true faith by casting away from them the error of polytheism and rejecting those who were falsely called gods—to receive a teaching that drew them nigh unto the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, if He did not know the oneness of their Divine nature which exists eternally and which is the cause of everything; (nor would He have induced us) to secede from those who are not truly gods and to believe in one Divine nature which is Father, Son and Holy Spirit; to desist from calling creatures gods and to believe that the uncreated nature is one, which from nothing can make everything because it is truly Lord and God to whom this name and this honour are justly due.

This is the reason why our Lord caused baptism to follow catechumenate 349 so that baptism should be the end of catechumenate. It was necessary for those who had rejected false gods and learnt that Divine nature was one, eternal and cause of everything, which is |112 Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to receive through these names the gift of baptism which is bestowed for the sake of a wonderful happiness and is the earnest of the future and ineffable benefits. Faith is professed at baptism by the mention of these names, because those who mention them 350 designate one Divine nature which is eternal, cause of everything, and able to create all things from nothing while always caring and providing for them. We also rightly expect to be renewed and to receive the freedom of truth through these names of Father, Son and Holy Spirit which are pronounced at baptism.

Immediately after the profession of faith in baptism they (our blessed Fathers) added the profession of faith in: One Catholic Church. (It is as if the catechumen says): I shall be baptised in order to be a member of the great body of the Church, as the blessed Paul said: "One body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling." 351 He does not call Church the building made with hands, even if we suppose that it has been so called because of the congregation of the faithful who are in it, but he calls Church all the congregation of the faithful who worship God in the right way and those who after the coming of Christ believed in Him from all countries till the end of the world and the second coming of our Saviour from heaven, which we are expecting. When our Lord also said to His blessed disciples: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you," He added: "Lo, I am with you in all days even unto the end of the world." 352 He said the words "with you" in the person of the Apostles to all who will believe in Him in every country, and who will be baptised according to this teaching till the end of the world.

This congregation of the faithful and God-fearing men our Lord called also Church when He said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 353 He promised to assemble together all God-fearing men to this faith and to this creed, and their gathering will not perish nor be prevailed against, in their fight with the enemies. Upon this the blessed Paul said: "To the intent that unto the principalities and powers in heaven might be known by the Church the depth of the wisdom |113 of God, which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord before the worlds." 354 He shows here that in this manifold wisdom of God the invisible powers were astonished that He assembled together all men to the worship of God, and made them as one body of Christ at the second birth from the holy baptism, and prepared them to hope that they will participate with Him in the future good things of the next world. He calls this Church the body of Christ because it received communion with Him through the regeneration of baptism, symbolically in this world but truly and effectively in the next, when "our vile body shall be changed, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body." 355 As we are in this world like unto the body of Adam and we resemble him also in our body, so we shall be called the body of Christ our Lord, because when our vile body is changed we shall receive the glory of His body.

The blessed Paul shows this in another passage: "I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body's sake, which is His church, whereof I am made a minister." 356 He clearly calls the Church the body of Christ, for the maintenance of which he became a minister, and because of this he endured and suffered much; and he shows also that all the faithful became one body through one power of the Holy Spirit because they were called to one future hope. This is the reason why in writing to the Corinthians he said: "You are the body of Christ our Lord." 357 Our Lord also said by way of prayer in His words to His disciples: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them which shall believe on Me through their word, that they all may be one as Thou Father art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us," 358 i.e. I desire that not only these but all those who shall believe in me through them, be one in the change (which they will undergo for the possession) of the future benefits; as I have with Thee a close and ineffable union so let them also be one in their faith in Us, through the perfection of their change (for the possession) of those benefits, and be like unto My glory and possess union with Me, by means of which they will gradually move to the honour of relationship with the Divine nature.

We symbolise this state in baptism, since we die with Christ in baptism and rise again according to the testimony of the blessed Paul.359 |114 This is the reason why each one of us declares: "I will believe and be baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit through one holy Catholic Church." (The catachumen) shows by his words: I am not preparing for baptism for the sake of little things but for the sake of great and wonderful things and heavenly benefits, as I am expecting that through baptism I shall be made a member of the Church, which is the congregation of the faithful, who through baptism became worthy to be called the body of Christ our Lord and received an ineffable holiness and the hope of the future immortality and immutability. And it is one Church, which embraces all, on account of those who believe in all countries and expect to receive heavenly life, as the blessed Paul said: "The heavenly Church in which are written the firstborn of God." 360 He called them "The firstborn" because they will receive the wonderful adoption of sons 361 in a primary predestination, not like that of the Jews which was of a changing character, but an ineffable immortality and immutability in good, which is granted to those who are worthy of it. He called them also "written in heaven," because it is there that they will dwell.

They called the Church "holy" because of the holiness and the immutability which it will receive from the Holy Spirit, and "Catholic" in order to refer to all those who believed in all countries and at all times, and "one" because only those who believed in Christ will receive the future good things, and it is they who are "one holy Church." 362

In order to show the utility that accrues from this profession of faith they (our blessed Fathers) said: For the remission of sins. In these words they did not mean a simple remission of sin but its complete abolition. Our Lord said also: "This is My body which is broken on behalf of many for remission of sins," 363 that is to say all |115 sins will be wiped off, because a true remission consists in the remission not of some sins but of all of them, as the blessed John said: "Behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." 364 This, however, will take place fully in the next world when after the resurrection we shall be immortal and immutable and when all the impulses of sins will cease. This is the reason why the blessed Paul also said: "If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised, and if Christ be not raised your faith is vain and ye are yet in your sins." 365 He shows in this that in the future resurrection from the dead we are expecting complete abolition of sin.

Our blessed Fathers, therefore, after having said, Remission of sins, added: For the resurrection of the flesh and life everlasting. They show here that we shall receive these when we shall have risen from the dead and received the happiness of the everlasting good things, and then after we have become truly immutable, the complete abolition of sin will take place, and we shall become one, holy and Catholic Church, as we shall receive an ineffable holiness and become immortal and immutable and be worthy to be always with Christ: "When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, 'Death is swallowed up in victory. O grave, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?' The sting of death is sin, and the strength of the sin is the law." 366 Then will truly take place the abolition of all these: of death, sin and corruption, and with them the law also will be abolished because saints who have become immortal and incorruptible are in no need of the law.

Our blessed Fathers did, therefore, well to give us first the profession of faith through which we receive our teaching according to the doctrine of our Lord, and understand that which we have to learn concerning the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, to the effect that the same Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one Divine nature, which is eternal and cause of everything, and that this nature is rightly and alone called Lord and God, whom we ought to confess, in whom we ought to believe and to whom worship is due from all created beings. After this, they taught us the profession of faith (which is to be made) at baptism in order to show that all this is in |116 accordance with the sequence of the teaching of our Lord who said: "Go ye, teach and baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." 367 Thus they 368 are taught and thus they perform the (sacrament of) baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Those who are about to be baptised in the hope of ineffable benefits ought not to name another nature beside the one from which all benefits are bestowed on all created beings. This is the reason why they added to this the profession of faith concerning the future benefits in the hope of which we draw nigh unto the grace of baptism, as by necessity we have to know what kind of benefits are granted to this discipleship, and also that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one Divine nature, and also that at the second birth from the holy baptism we receive the faith in the heavenly and imperishable benefits that the Divine nature, which is eternal and cause of everything, is able to bestow upon us.

We have in many past days spoken to your love in a comprehensive way that embraces the explanation of all the creed. It behoves you now to remember carefully the words that have been spoken to you in order that by keeping without modification the creed of the religion of the fear of God you may truly receive the happiness of the future benefits, of which may God make us worthy by the grace of His Only Begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom and His Father, in conjunction with the Holy Spirit, be glory and honour, now, always and for ever and ever. Amen. Amen.

Here ends the transcription of the ten chapters 369 on the exposition of the creed, written by the righteous and lover of Christ, Mar Theodore, bishop and interpreter of the Divine Books.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 1 Of the Council of Nicea.

2. 2 1 Cor. ii. 9.

3. 3 Cf . Eph. i. 8-9; Col. i. 26; iv. 3-4, etc.

4. 1 1 Cor. ii. 11-13.

5. 2 Ps. xcviii. 1. (Peshitta has "a marvellous thing.")

6. 3 2 Cor. v. 1 7.

7. 4 Lit. from.

8. 5 Col. iii. 10-11.

9. 1 Phil. iii. 20.

10. 2 2 Cor. v. 1.

11. 3 Ibid. Cf Heb. ix. 11, 24.

12. 4 Or written.

13. 5 Cf. Gen. iii. 18 etc.

14. 6 Cf. Is. xxxv. 10.

15. 7 John iii. 5.

16. 1 Cf. Rom. viii. 1 7; Gal. iii. 29; iv. 7; Tit. iii. 7.

17. 2 Lit. our first.

18. 3 Or: religion, confession.

19. 1 Or: godliness. Does it possibly render the Greek Θεοσέβεια?

20. 2 Rom. x. 10.

21. 3 Heb. xi. 1.

22. 4 1 Tim. vi. 16.

23. 5 Heb. xi. 6.

24. 1 Heb. xi. 3.

25. 2 The word that I translate by "religion" literally means "fear of God," and it is possibly the Greek word used by Paul (θεοσέβεια) which the English Bible renders by "godliness."

26. 3 1 Tim. iii. 15.

27. 4 Lit. " who fully shows His Father in it."

28. 1 Deut. vi. 4; Mark xii. 29, etc.

29. 2 Jer. x. 11.

30. 3 Cf also Deut. xxxii. 39.

31. 4 Is. xliv. 6, etc.

32. 5 Lit. high above creation.

33. 1 Ps. lxxxi. 9.

34. 2 Ibid.

35. 3 Deut. xxxii. 1 7.

36. 1 Matt, xxviii. 19.

37. 2 Deut. vi 4.

38. 1 Gen. iv. 1.

39. 1 i.e.. He is Father par excellence.

40. 2 Exod. iii. 14-15.

41. 3 See on all this, p. 98.

42. 1 Ps. cxlviii. 1 -3.

43. 1 Ps. cxlviii. 5-6.

44. 2 Is. i. 2.

45. 3 Exod. iv. 22.

46. 4 The words baitayutha and kaributha used in these sentences may also be understood in the sense of the Pauline "adoption of Children" and of the doctrine of the membership of the Household of God spoken of in Eph. ii. 19. See the following chapter.

47. 1 Gen. i. 24.

48. 2 Or: "servants created," if we read `abde for `ebade of the MS.

49. 3 Or "human seed," or "movement" or "lapse of time." (Syr. marditha.)

50. 1 Here again is the Syriac word marditha.

51. 2 Lit. let us call Him.

52. 3 Ps. civ. 24.

53. 1 1 Cor. viii. 6.

54. 2 Lit. fear of God.

55. 3 1 Cor. viii. 6.

56. 4 Ibid.

57. 1 Deut. vi. 4.

58. 2 Matt. i. 21; Luke i. 31.

59. 3 Acts x. 38.

60. 4 Philip. ii. 7.

61. 1 1 Tim. iii. 16.

62. 2 John i. 14.

63. 3 1 Cor. viii. 6.

64. 4 John i. 3.

65. 5 Acts x. 38; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. ii. 9-10.

66. 6 In the text: Parsopa = πρόσωπον.

67. 7 Rom. ix. 5.

68. 1 John i. 14.

69. 2 Ibid, 18.

70. 3 Ps. lxxi. 9, 12.

71. 1 Rom. viii. 29.

72. 2 Ibid., 23; Galat. iv. 5; Eph. i. 5.

73. 3 Col. i. 15.

74. 4 2 Cor. v. 17.

75. 5 Phil. ii. 7.

76. 1 Ps. lxxxii. 6.

77. 2Is. i. 2.

78. 3 Eph. ii. 19.

79. 4 Or "a servant," if we read `abda, instead of `ebadha.

80. 1 John i. 1.

81. 2 Ibid.

82. 1 Lit. person (Kenoma).

83. 1 The word "creature" may be translated in all this section by "work," "a created being," a sense which in reality fits some sentences better.

84. 1 John i. 1.

85. 2 Lit. high.

86. 3 Ps. lxxxii. 6.

87. 1 Lit. "one is consubstantial with the other," or "this is consubstantial with that."

88. 2 John i. 1.

89. 3 John x. 30.

90. 4 Ibid, 27-28.

91. 5Ibid, 29.

92. 1 John xiv. 9.

93. 2 Ibid., 11.

94. 3 Matt. xi. 2 7.

95. 4 Acts xvii. 28.

96. 5 Tit. i. 12.

97. 1 John i. 1.

98. 2 Ibid, 3.

99. 3 Heb. i. 2.

100. 1 Cf. Rom. viii. 3; Phil. ii. 7, etc.

101. 1 Phil. ii. 7.

102. 2 Cf. Matt, xviii. 11.

103. 3 John i. 10-11.

104. 4 Ps. xviii. 9.

105. 1 Cf Phil. ii. 7.

106. 2 Lit. "from there."

107. 3 Ps. viii. 4.

108. 4 Cf Ps. xvi. 10; Acts ii. 27; xiii. 35.

109. 5 John ii. 19.

110. 6 Lit. "until with help he loosed."

111. 7 Acts ii. 24.

112. 8 This passage is quoted in the Acts of the Fifth Council (Mansi, ix., p. 218). It is stated in this Council that it is culled from Theodore's book ad baptizandos. See the "Prefatory Note."

113. 1 Ephes. i. 21.

114. 2 John x. 33.

115. 3 Phil. ii. 7-8.

116. 4 Rom. viii. 3.

117. 5 1 Tim. iii. 16.

118. 1 I.e. to the soul.

119. 2 Lit. "a man like a man."

120. 1 Rom. v. 12, 15 and 1 7.

121. 2 1 Cor. xv. 22.

122. 3 Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 56.

123. 1 1 Tim. iii. 6.

124. 2 Rom. i. 28-31.

125. 1 Rom. viii. 1-2 where "me" for "thee."

126. 2 Cf. 2 Cor. i. 9.

127. 3 I.e., personality, existence. I prefer here also to use the word "person" (in Syr. Kenoma) which is probably a translation of the Greek u9po/stasij in order to preserve the nature and the character of the theological terms used in the fourth century.

128. 4 I.e., as long as the animal qua animal is alive.

129. 5 The ancients believed the soul of the animal to reside in the blood. See Barsalibi's treatise against the Armenians, vol. iv., p. 33 of my Woodbrooke Studies, and `Ali Tabari's Book of Religion and Empire, p. 82 of my edition. Cf. Aristotle, De anima, i. 2, and Levit. xvii. 18.

130. 1 Lit. Receiving anything.

131. 2 Matt. x. 28.

132. 3 Lit. person of the soul.

133. 4 Possibly: because he resembles.

134. 5 John xiv. 30

135. 1 Rom. v. 21.

136. 2 Note the use of the word ethhayyal.

137. 3 Cf. Rom. vi. 17, etc.

138. 4 Lit. received.

139. 5 John xii. 31 -32.

140. 6 Lit. "that He had a kind of judgment with the Rebel."

141. 1 1 Tim. iii. 16.

142. 2 Heb. ix. 14.

143. 3 This passage is also quoted in the Acts of the Fifth Council (Mansi, ix. 218). It is again stated in this Council that it is culled from Theodore's work ad baptizandos. See the "Prefatory Note."

144. 4 Rom. viii. 23.

145. 5 2 Cor. i. 21-22.

146. 6 1 Cor. xv. 53-56.

147. 7 Ibid, 57.

148. 1 This passage is also quoted in the Acts of the Fifth Council (Mansi, ix. 218). It is again stated in this Council that it is excerpted from Theodore's work ad baptizandos. See the "Prefatory Note."

149. 2 Phil. iii. 21.

150. 3 Gal. iv. 4, etc.

151. 1 1 Cor. i. 18.

152. 2 Lit. in all versions: "that perish."

153. 3 Lit. "alive," as in the Peshitta.

154. 4 2 Cor. xiii. 4.

155. 1 I.e. natures.

156. 2 Rom. ix. 5.

157. 1 This sentence is quoted in the Acts of the Fifth Council. See "Prefatory Note."

158. 2 Phil. ii. 6-7.

159. 3 Lit. was found to be a man.

160. 1 Phil. ii. 8-11.

161. 2 Col. iii. 1, etc.

162. 1 Luke ii. 7.

163. 2 Text: All these together with.

164. 3 Luke ii. 51-52.

165. 4 Lit. of men.

166. 5 Gal. iv. 4.

167. 6 Gal. iv. 4-5.

168. 1 Gal. v. 1.

169. 2 2 Tim. ii. 8, etc.

170. 3 Heb. ii. 5-6.

171. 4 Ibid., 16.

172. 1I.e. Christ; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 23

173. 2 Col. i. 18.

174. 3 Lit. was perfected.

175. 4 Lit. head.

176. 5 In His baptism.

177. 1 Lit. with those.

178. 2 Lit. that world.

179. 3 Rom. vi. 17.

180. 4 Ibid., 3-4.

181. 1 Rom. vii. 4, where no "Jesus."

182. 2 Acts. ii. 24.

183. 3 Col. iii. 1, etc.

184. 4 Heb. vii. 22.

185. 5 2 Tim. i. 9, etc.

186. 6 Tit. iii. 6.

187. 7 2 Cor. v. 5; Eph. i. 14.

188. 8 Acts ii. 33.

189. 1 1 Cor. xv. 44.

190. 2 Lit. faith like this.

191. 3 Lit. here.

192. 4 Eph. i. 13.

193. 1 2 Cor. viii. 9.

194. 2 I translate "He was" literally.

195. 1 1 Cor. xv. 3-4.

196. 2 Ibid., 4.

197. 1 1 Cor. xv. 14, 16-17.

198. 1 1 Cor. xv. 17.

199. 2 Luke xxiv. 51.

200. 3 Acts i. 9-10.

201. 1 1 Cor. xv. 23.

202. 2 1 Thess. iv. 16-17.

203. 3 Phil. iii. 20-21.

204. 4 2 Cor. v. 1.

205. 5 Ibid., 6-8, where "with the Lord" for" with Christ."

206. 6 Lit. those future things.

207. 1 Gal. iv. 26.

208. 2 1 Cor. xv. 23.

209. 3 Eph. ii. 1.

210. 4 Ibid., 5.

211. 5 Ibid, 7.

212. 6 Phil. iii. 21.

213. 1 1 Cor. xv. 51-52.

214. 2 1 Thess. iv. 15-17.

215. 1 John ii. 21.

216. 2 John x. 18.

217. 1 Acts. i. 1 1.

218. 2 Lit. did.

219. 3 Tit. ii. 13.

220. 1 2 Tim. iv. 1.

221. 2 Phil. ii. 6-7.

222. 1 Matt. xxii. 42.

223. 2 Matt. i. 1 (not literal quotation).

224. 3 Matt. xxii. 43-45.

225. 4 John viii. 19.

226. 5 John xiv. 9.

227. 1 John xvi. 25.

228. 2 Ibid., 24.

229. 3 Ibid., 12-13.

230. 4 John ii. 19.

231. 5 Ibid, 21.

232. 1 Cf. Ps. xvi. 10.

233. 2 Or: do to it.

234. 1 Heb. ii. 10.

235. 2 Phil. ii. 7.

236. 3 Heb. ii. 5-8.

237. 4 Ibid., 16.

238. 5 Ibid, 9.

239. 6 Ibid. The Pauline sentence ὅπως χάριτι Θεοῦ ὑπερ παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου is rendered in the English Bible as follows: "That He by the grace of God should taste death for every man." In this translation Jesus tastes death by the grace of God. In the West Syrian or Monophysite Versions of the Bible we generally read: "Because He, God, by His grace tasted death for every man." ([Syriac]) In this translation it is God who tastes death. Against such an idea the East Syrian or Diophysite versions of the Bible read as above: "Apart from God He (Jesus) tasted death." In this rendering death is removed from God. The sentence played a great part in the Christological controveries of the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries. The Vulgate reads: "Ut gratia Dei pro omnibus gustaret mortem." For a full discussion of this passage and the different readings of the ancient Greek MSS. concerning it see Moffatt in International Critical Commentary (Hebrews), pp. 25-28.

240. 1 This passage is quoted in the Acts of the Fifth Council (Mansi, ix., 21 7). See the "Prefatory Note."

241. 2 Lit. "the head" designating Christ.

242. 3 I.e. the man Jesus.

243. 4 I.e. God's glory.

244. 5 I.e. God.

245. 6 I.e. Christ.

246. 7 or: did.

247. 8 I.e. human nature of Christ.

248. 1 Rom. ix. 5.

249. 2 John vi. 62.

250. 3 Ibid. 51.

251. 4 I.e. Christ.

252. 5 Between the two natures, the human and the Divine.

253. 6 John iii. 13.

254. 1 I.e. one person, individual.

255. 2 I.e. man—Jesus.

256. 1 This sentence is quoted by Facundus and Marius Mercator. See the "Prefatory Note."

257. 2 John x. 30.

258. 3 Matt. xix. 6.

259. 4 Dan. vii. 4 sqq.

260. 5 John viii. 1 7.

261. 6 Matt. vi. 24.

262. 7 I.e. in the case of Christ.

263. 8 Text: [Syriac] = πρόσωπον.

264. 9 Lit. this.

265. 1 Lit. this, or that.

266. 2 Rom. i. 3.

267. 3 This sentence is quoted in the Acts of the Fifth Council (Mansi, ix., 21 7) as from Theodore's work ad baptizandos. See the "Prefatory note."

268. 4 Lit. nakedly.

269. 5 All this long passage is quoted by Marius Mercator in his book. See the "Prefatory Note."

270. 6 Matt, xxviii. 19.

271. 7 There is no mention of the Spirit proceeding also from the Son.

272. 1 John xiv. 10.

273. 2 Matt. iii. 16 where "lighting upon Him."

274. 3 John xvii. 21.

275. 4 1 Cor. ii. 11.

276. 5 John xiv. 21.

277. 6 John xiv. 23.

278. 7 Lit. Divine nature.

279. 1 Theodore is referring here either to the "tome of Damasus" against the Macedonians, which in 378 received at Antioch the subscriptions of 146 Bishops (see Hefele's History of the Councils, ii., 291 and 360-363) or to the Council of Constantinople in 381, or even possibly to the Synod held at Alexandria in 363 under the guidance of Athanasius, in which the Deity of the Spirit was affirmed. See Migne, Pat. Gr., xxvi., 820. On an earlier Synod held at Alexandria on the same subject in 362, see Socrates, H.E., iii., 7 and Rufinus, H.E., i., 28.

280. 1 Lit. to be fearer of God.

281. 2 Matt. xxviii. 19.

282. 1 Acts iii. 6.

283. 2 or: He (Christ).

284. 3 Isa. xxvii. 13 (Septuagint).

285. 4 Ps. xliv. 5.

286. 5 Ps. lxxxix. 24 (where his horn).

287. 6 Ps. cxvi. 17.

288. 1 Lit. oneness.

289. 2 Ps. civ. 4.

290. 3 Ps. cxlvi. 4 (Septuagint and Peshitta).

291. 4 Ps. cxlvii. 18 (Septuagint and Peshitta).

292. 5 Lit. Divine nature.

293. 1 John iv. 24.

294. 2 Lit. "of name," i.e. the name of the true God.

295. 3 I.e. who exist.

296. 4 Ex. iii. 14-15.

297. 5 In all this passage I have (for the sake of convenience) followed in the translation of the Divine name the English Version which renders the Hebrew words [Hebrew] by I am that I am and I have preserved throughout the first pron. sing. which is not always the case in the text.

298. 1 Luke ix. 26, cf. Matt. xxv. 31.

299. 1 Ps. xlvi. 4 (Septuagint and Peshitta).

300. 2 Ps. cxi. 9 (with changes).

301. 3 Isa. vi. 3.

302. 4 Allusion to the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople in 381.

303. 5 Allusion to the Fathers of the Council of Nicea.

304. 1 The text repeats "of their Fathers."

305. 2 In a more literal sense: fear.

306. 3 Theodore refers here to the word "one" added to the creed by the Council of Constantinople in 381, or possibly to the "tome of Damasus" as accepted by 146 Bishops assembled at Antioch in 378.

307. 1 1 Cor. xii. 13.

308. 2 Eph. iv. 4-6.

309. 3 1 Cor. xii. 4-6.

310. 4 Eph. iv. 3.

311. 5 Lit. "from your mother." I.e. the Spirit. That the Spirit is our mother is found in John iii. 5. The word ruha, "spirit," is feminine in Syriac and corresponds linguistically with the neuter pneu=ma.

312. 1 Eph. iv. 4.

313. 2 Ibid. 15.

314. 3 Phil. iii. 21.

315. 4 Rom. viii. 23.

316. 5 Eph., ibid, (where in you all).

317. 6 Spiritual birth through baptism.

318. 1 Lit. "to have their whole look at."

319. 2 In the text talmidhutha. Evidently the author refers sometimes by this word to the "catechumenate" or the state of the "Catachumens" who were taught the principles of the Christian faith before their baptism. I have rendered it a few times by "initiation," "teaching," "discipleship."

320. 1 Lit. whose all look is towards insolence.

321. 2 John xiv. 15-16.

322. 3 Ibid.. 1 7.

323. 1 Ps. cxvi. 11.

324. 2 Ps. lxxxv. 10 (Septuagint and Peshitta).

325. 3 Ps. xxxi. 5.

326. 1 John xiv. 17.

327. 2 Ibid.

328. 3 John. xv. 26.

329. 1 1 Cor. ii. 1 1 (where τοῦ Θεοῦ).

330. 2 John vii. 38.

331. 3 Ibid., 39.

332. 1 Text: kenoma.

333. 2 Text: He.

334. 3 I use in this section the verb "to proceed" in order better to follow the author's argumentation.

335. 4 Gen. ii. 10.

336. 5 1 Cor. xii. 4.

337. 6 Ibid., 7.

338. 1 It is said that the expression "Giver of life" was added by the Council of Constantinople in 381.

339. 2 Text only, "those."

340. 3 John iv. 14.

341. 4 John vii. 38.

342. 5 2 Cor. iii. 6.

343. 6 1 Cor. xv. 45.

344. 7 Rom. i. 4 (Peshitta and partly also the Greek text).

345. 8 Rom. viii. 11.

346. 9 John vi. 63.

347. 10 I.e. to give immortal life.

348. 1 Deut. xxxii. 39.

349. 2 See Matt, xxviii. 19. As stated above Theodore seems to refer by the word talmidhutha to the state of the "Catechumens" who were taught the principles of the Christian faith before their baptism.

350. 1 The text repeats "names."

351. 2 Eph. iv. 4.

352. 3 Matt, xxviii. 19-20.

353. 4 Matt. xvi. 18.

354. 1 Eph. iii. 10-11.

355. 2 Phil. iii. 21.

356. 3 Col. i. 24.

357. 4 1 Cor. xii. 27.

358. 5 John xvii. 20-21.

359. 6 Rom. vi. 4.

360. 1 Heb. xii. 23 (not literal).

361. 2 Gal. iv. 5; cf. Eph. i. 5.

362. 3 It is to be noted that Theodore does not mention the article of the Council of Constantinople in 381: "We acknowledge one baptism." This article was evidently lacking in the Nicene Creed. Below he refers to baptism but only in connection with the words pronounced by the baptizandus. There is, however, a reference above to the fact that after the "profession of faith in baptism they added the profession of faith in one Catholic Church." This sentence may possibly refer to the addition inserted by the Council of Constantinople.

363. 4 Matt. xxvi. 26, etc. (not literal but in a liturgical sense; cf. 1 Cor. xi. 24).

364. 1 John i. 29.

365. 2 1 Cor. xv. 16-17.

366. 3 Ibid, 54-56.

367. 1 Matt, xxviii. 19.

368. 2 The catechumens.

369. 3 Maimra more often means "discourse," "homily," and this sense seems to be more fitting for these catechetical lectures of Theodore. I have used the word "Chapter" throughout in order to maintain more clearly the book character given to the work either by the author or by his disciples.

PROLOGUE TO THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, by Theodore of Mopsuestia

2008-12-08T02:42:00.000-08:00

PROLOGUE TO THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

by Theodore of Mopsuestia

[Translated by Ernst von Dobschütz]

I. Long ago, indeed very long ago, by the grace of God we finished the commentary upon the gospel of the most blessed Luke, and accordingly without delay sent to thee the book as thou didst request by letter, O most admirable Eusebius, of all bishops most dear to me, by that writing discharging my obligation to the blessed Eusebius who was at that time living, and who not only bore the same name as thou but had also the same zeal for virtue; and indeed he was also succeeded by thee in his ecclesiastical dignity. And you both have had like zeal for the sacred Scriptures, so that you manifested like desire for the labors of the blessed Luke which he expended in the writing addressed to Theophilus, dedicating to him both the gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. For he requested from us the commentary upon the gospel, intending, no doubt, later to ask also from us one upon the Acts of the Apostles; but thou prizing very highly the possession of the interpretation of the gospel, didst desire that the exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, still lacking, be undertaken by me.

II. Now that the blessed Luke composed this writing, it is not difficult for him who does not merely superficially glance over the sacred books to see; but it would be well that the scope of the book be set forth by us also; for the gospels afford us accurate knowledge of the economy (of salvation) and the (ideal of) conduct which are according to Christ; in what manner he was begotten, what were the circumstances which attended his birth, how submitting with great fidelity to the conduct prescribed by the law until he was thirty years of age, he came to his baptism, initiating the new covenant in prototype, the reality of which is the resurrection but the type of which is Christian baptism, as this symbolizes both death and resurrection according to the saying of the blessed Paul which saith, "As many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death; we were buried therefore with him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him by the likeness of his death we shall be also by that of his resurrection." For it is manifest that in the baptism with which the Lord Christ was baptized our baptism was accomplished; with which therefore he commanded the apostles also to baptize men throughout the world, since indeed he himself having withdrawn from the conduct that is according to the law set forth the gospel way of life, having chosen disciples whom he thought adapted to his teaching, and having set forth the laws which were especially adapted to such way of life, and thus having by wonders and various words and deeds rendered them fully receptive of the grace of the Holy Spirit, by which grace now especially they received all knowledge with accuracy and were made competent for the instruction of the whole world, as the Lord himself saith in the gospels, " Yet many things I have to say but ye cannot bear (them) now; when he, the Spirit of truth shall come he will lead you into all truth," and in the Acts of the Apostles, "But ye shall receive power when the Holy Spirit is come upon |364 you, and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria and unto the ends of the earth." And to all these things as a crowning conclusion he added the resurrection, which is a token of the general resurrection of men, but above all of the new creation in which all creation is to be recreated with men----"If any man is in Christ he is a new creature. The old things have passed away, behold all things have become new." But this (i. e., the resurrection, or perhaps the new creation) we learn perfectly from the gospels when the Lord Christ rising from the dead commanded his own disciples to transmit to all men the faith in him ---- "Make them disciples, baptizing into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit "----and to teach them that they should observe with carefulness all things which he has commanded. But it remained for us to learn in what manner it was possible for the disciples to bring these things to accomplishment, since it was a wholly new thing and altogether incredible that fishermen, born in the country, acquainted only with the language of the Syrians, altogether uneducated, twelve in number, should fill the world with a story so incredible that a man crucified in Judea rose from the dead, giving to all men assurance of the resurrection.

III. (1) On this account the blessed Luke, in addition to the writing of the gospel, composed this book for us, teaching how the Lord Christ has ascended into the heavens and how the Holy Spirit has come down upon his apostles, and in what way by his grace it became possible that the whole world should be filled with the teaching of Christ, and in what order God has wrought these things with much wisdom, having formerly brought Jews to piety (i. e., Christianity) in order that it might be evident that the way of life and the faith which are according to Christ are not opposed or hostile to the ordinance of the law or rather to the God who put forth the law; and having after this with mysterious dispensations sent forth upon the rest of men the instruction in piety in many and very various ways; and first by the scattering of many of the pious in consequence of the things that happened in respect to Stephen; as a result of which then Philip brought piety (Christianity) to the Samaritans and taught it also to the eunuch from Ethiopia; and certain Cyprians and Cyrenians came as far as to Antioch teaching the things of Christ not to Jews only but also to Greeks; and when they that were in Judea learned these things they were astonished at that which had taken place, and sent Barnabas, who by his own words confirmed what had previously been taught them, and taking along Paul as a fellow-helper of the word, by his assistance brought it about by further teaching that at Antioch the disciples were first called Christians, for the manifestation of the law then in force, and that they renouncing all others chose to cleave to Christ only. And in the midst of these things the divine grace of the Holy Spirit brought Cornelius and those with him from the Gentiles, through the blessed Peter, to the doctrine of piety (Christianity), by clear and very fearful manifestations, making it plain to all that this even had been decreed by God concerning the |365 Gentiles in order that no place for gainsaying might be left for those who from among the Jewish Christians wished to strive against these things.

(2) Many ways, therefore, as I said, God used to this end, not all of which there is now time to enumerate, but we shall learn about them when we come to details: as last and greatest, however, this, that with all force he drew from the law itself its most zealous advocate and the one most hostile to the teaching of Christ----I mean the blessed Paul ----and led him to the knowledge of himself so that he became the most zealous herald of Christ throughout the whole world, and exceeded all in his zeal for him, and with great eagerness chose to do and suffer anything whatever so that he might teach all men that, relinquishing all others, they should regard Christ both as Savior and as the author for them of all things which are good; for the Gentiles had need of such a teacher, who being plainly rescued by grace from an opinion godless and contrary to law, was then ready to transmit piety (Christianity) to the Gentiles that were to be saved by grace.

(3) Therefore the blessed Luke has composed a detailed narrative of many things very necessary to know and a teaching useful to those who are zealous to devote themselves to piety; but above all things through his present writing he taught us this especially, how by the mysterious dispensations and ordinances of the Holy Spirit it came to be necessary that among all men the Christian conduct and way of life should prevail apart from all legal observance. Now this doctrine the blessed Paul represented according to the grace of the Holy Spirit which was given to him; for since through the apostles Jews were brought to piety (Christianity) for the demonstration of the relation of Christians to the law, as I said, and it was necessary for them to continue in the legal way of life lest abandoning the former teaching they should lead those who were proselytes from among the Jews away from piety (Christianity), the divine grace was constrained to appoint the blessed Paul to this work, that wholly apart from legal observance he should preach piety (Christianity) to the Gentiles; and the Holy Spirit caused that the apostles also, together with all those (Christians) who were in Judea should with befitting readiness (or perhaps: obligation = the contribution for the poor of Jerusalem) agree with him. For precisely this made him in his task of teaching most worthy of credence, that having been formerly a persecutor and having spoken against the disciples of Christ, he had turned to piety (Christianity), who indeed having ventured so much formerly on behalf of the law against piety (Christianity), would not have chosen now to teach these things instead of those, viz., to separate Christian discipleship wholly from the legal conduct, if he had not been compelled by the truth itself and so abandoned the former things and went over to this doctrine. Therefore also Luke set forth first his (former) opinion which was against Christianity and in favor of the law, and after this he relates in order his calling and the things which were done by him on behalf of piety (Christianity), and how, having gone even to Rome, he delivered piety (Christianity) to the Gentiles. |366

IV. But having used no small part of the book for the narrative concerning these things and having thus composed the whole writing in order that we might be able to learn from it how the preaching of piety (Christianity) began among the Jews, and how from them it passed over to the Gentiles, they having without the observance of the law received piety (Christianity)----with this purpose, then, he put forth the book before us; which purposing to interpret we shall now try as the grace of God shall grant us, to give the necessary attention not only to clearness but also to brevity. On this account we shall on the one side investigate everything, in order not to mutilate the body of the book which is to be explained, and on the other hand shall not copy out all the sentences adding thereto the detailed interpretation, lest we unduly extend the writing; but recalling in many places also the explanations of the apostolic men which they have made, whether to their opponents or else also to their own people, and in many places also the narratives (we will be satisfied) to give only the meaning of the sentences, so that together with clearness there may also be brevity in the writing.

Now the blessed Luke makes the beginning of the book of the Acts of the Apostles as follows:...

A Tribute to the Byzantine Legacy

2008-10-29T09:24:00.001-07:00

A video showing the heritage of the Byzantine empire in several European flags. Set to some beautiful Byzantine chanting.

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite on divine power

2008-09-14T01:40:00.001-07:00

by Pseudo-Dionysius

The distribution, then, of boundless power, from Almighty God, passes to all beings, and there is no single being which is utterly deprived of the possession of some power; but it has either intellectual, or rational, or sensible, or vital, or essential power; yea even, if one may say so, self-existent being has power to be from the superessential Power.

From It, are the godlike powers of the angelic ranks; from It, they have their immutability, and all their intellectual and immortal perpetual movements; and their equilibrium itself, and their undiminishable aspiration after good, they have received from the Power boundless in goodness; since It commits to them the power to be, and to be such, and to aspire always to be, and the power itself to aspire to have the power always.

But the gifts of the unfailing Power pass on, both to men and living creatures, and plants, and the entire nature of the universe; and It empowers things united for their mutual friendship and communion, and things divided for their being each within their own sphere and limit, without confusion, and without mingling; and preserves the order and good relations of the whole, for their own proper good, and guards the undying lives of the individual angels inviolate; and the heavenly and the life-giving and astral bodies 40 and orders without change: and makes the period of time possible to be; and disperses the revolutions of time by their progressions, and collects them together by their returns; and makes the powers of fire unquenchable, and the rills of water unfailing; and sets bounds to the aerial current, and establishes the earth upon nothing; and guards its life-giving throes from perishing; and preserves the mutual harmony and mingling of the elements without confusion, and without division; and holds together the bond of soul and body; and arouses the nourishing and growing powers of plants; and sustains the essential powers of the whole; and secures the continuance of the universe without dissolution, and bequeaths the deification Itself, by furnishing a power for this to those who are being deified. And in a word, there is absolutely no single thing which is deprived of the overruling surety and embrace of the Divine Power. For that which absolutely has no power, neither is, nor is anything, nor is there any sort of position of it whatever.

Taken from The Divine Names

This is a Cult: Narnian Cosmology

2008-08-24T12:49:00.001-07:00

This is a Cult: Narnian Cosmology

John Henry Newman on the doctrine of angels

2008-07-05T09:49:00.000-07:00

I cannot express much agreement with John Henry Newman's theology in either his Anglican or his Roman Catholic phase. However, I think his views on angels were very insigtful:

I suppose it was to the Alexandrian school and to the early Church that I owe in particular what I definitely held about the Angels. I viewed them, not only as the ministers employed by the Creator in the Jewish and Christian dispensations, as we find on the face of Scripture, but as carrying on, as Scripture also implies, the Economy of the Visible World. I considered them as the real causes of motion, light, and life, and of those elementary principles of the physical universe, which, when offered in their developments to our senses, suggest to us the notion of cause and effect, and of what are called the laws of nature. This doctrine I have drawn out in my Sermon for Michaelmas day, written not later than 1834. I say of the Angels, "Every breath of air and ray of light and heat, every beautiful prospect, is, as it were, the skirts of their garments, the waving of the robes of those whose faces see God." Again, I ask what would be the thoughts of a man who, "when examining a flower, or a herb, or a pebble, or a ray of light, which he treats as something so beneath him in the scale of existence, suddenly discovered that he was in the presence of some powerful being who was hidden behind the visible things he was inspecting, who, though concealing his wise hand, was giving them their beauty, grace, and perfection, as being God's instrument for the purpose, nay, whose robe and ornaments those objects were, which he was so eager to analyze?" and I therefore remark that "we may say with grateful and simple hearts with the Three Holy Children, 'O all ye works of the Lord, &c., &c., bless ye the Lord, praise Him, and magnify Him for ever.'"

Also, besides the hosts of evil spirits, I considered there was a middle race, [daimonia], neither in heaven, nor in hell; partially fallen, capricious, wayward; noble or crafty, benevolent or malicious, as the case might be. They gave a sort of inspiration or intelligence to races, nations, and classes of men. Hence the action of bodies politic and associations, which is so different often from that of the individuals who compose them. Hence the character and the instinct of states and governments, of religious communities and communions. I thought they were inhabited by unseen intelligences. My preference of the Personal to the Abstract would naturally lead me to this view. I thought it countenanced by the mention of "the Prince of Persia" in the Prophet Daniel; and I think I considered that it was of such intermediate beings that the Apocalypse spoke, when it introduced "the Angels of the Seven Churches."

In 1837 I made a further development of this doctrine. I said to my great friend, Samuel Francis Wood, in a letter which came into my hands on his death, "I have an idea. The mass of the Fathers, (Justin, Athenagoras, Irenæus, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius, Sulpicius, Ambrose, Nazianzen,) hold that, though Satan fell from the beginning, the Angels fell before the deluge, falling in love with the daughters of men. This has lately come across me as a remarkable solution of a notion which I cannot help holding. Daniel speaks as if each nation had its guardian Angel. I cannot but think that there are beings with a great deal of good in them, yet with great defects, who are the animating principles of certain institutions. … Take England, with many high virtues, and yet a low Catholicism. It seems to me that John Bull is a Spirit neither of heaven nor hell ... Has not the Christian Church, in its parts, surrendered itself to one or other of these simulations of the truth? … How are we to avoid Scylla and Charybdis and go straight on to the very image of Christ?"

Cardinal J.H. Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua

I think maybe people in the New Age movement could relate to this kind of theology. We have to rediscover the importance of the doctrine of angels.

Cyril of Alexandria: Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian. Book 2 (beginning)

2008-06-03T05:59:00.000-07:00

Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian. Book 2 (beginning)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Book II

1. We thought that it was by no means unjustified, that it was even useful and necessary to say before all what is the chronological sequence of the characters, and also what idea each has of God: therefore we have carried out with much precision the exposition of these details.

We could be reproached for this by saying: "Why then, having undertaken to defend Christian doctrines and taking in mind to oppose a victorious argumentation to the blasphemies of Julian, did you not decide to engage from the start in that way? Why on the contrary have you diverted the energy which began your exposition into a different goal, to launch into genealogies and to undertake a study of Hebraic and Greek doctrines?"

So let us remove the objections that have been made to us about this choice, by affirming that we intentionally directed our matter towards this digression. Indeed, (Julian), following the example of the Babylonian Rhapsaces, doesn't hesitate to utter in unrestrained language his mocking remarks against the glory of God, and after tossing impious vociferations against our holy religion he quotes the wise ones of Greece unceasingly, crowns their condemnable opinions with all possible praise, desperate to attack the crowned teachings of the Church, to smile at the books of Moses and to put in the dock all these holy people; therefore we were fully justified in accumulating, before passing to the refutation, material which enables us to show in a clear way that the works of the greatest of all, Moses, were prior to those of the wise Greeks, and, moreover, that the Christian faith as it has been transmitted, appears incomparably superior to their dogmatic positions. It was thus, and not differently, that next books could avoid too long digressions and avoid appearing to deviate sometimes very far from the the subject. But enough now on this point.

2. It is now necessary to come to (Julian's) own book. We will reproduce his text word for word, and will oppose our own arguments to his lies in the appropriate order, because we realize that it is necessary to firmly neutralize them. But, as I said, from his open mouth without reserve he spreads every kind of calumny against our common Saviour Christ, and pours against him ill-sounding remarks: I will abstain from responding with similar details, and, advising the wise party to ignore that in his words which risks dirtying the spirit by simple contact, I will endeavour to combat this (method of) 'combat', by denouncing on all occasions his habit of scoffing which speaks wrongly and irrelevantly without ever being able to arrive at saying a true thing.

It also should be known that in his first book he handles a great mass of ideas and does not cease turning and turning over the same arguments in every direction; some developments which are found at the beginning of his work, he also advances in the body of the book and at the end: he thus reveals a kind of disorder in the articulation of his discussion, and, fatally, those who want to argue against what he says seem constantly to be repeating themselves instead of finishing them once for all. We will thus divide his text according to an appropriate classification, we will gather his ideas by categories and will face each of them not on several occasions, but only once, the with appropriate explanations and following the rules of the art (of speaking). Thus, at the beginning of his book against us, he says:

JULIAN

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

CYRIL

3. By 'Galilaeans', he means the Holy Apostles, I think, and by a 'fantastic account' the writings of Moses, the predictions of the holy saints and their declarations inspired by God. However, without his knowledge --- let us say rather: not without intervention of the divinity --- he has made this idea the basis of his own superstition!

In fact there are two Galilees, one in Judaea, the other on the borders of the Phoenician country; and it is written indeed in the Gospels about our common Saviour Christ that it is while walking on the edge of the Sea of Galilee, of Lake Tiberias, that he recruited his disciples. However God said by means of one of the holy prophets: "What are you to me, Tyre and Sidon, and you Galilee, entirely populated with foreigners?" In the same way the divine Isaiah exclaims: "Country of Zabulon, land of Nephtalim, and all you others who live by the edge of the sea, Galilee of the Gentiles! The people sitting in shadow saw a great light..."

So in Judaea, one cannot just imagine the presence of Galilaeans, since there are also all the Gentiles there: 'Galilee of the Gentiles', says Isaiah. It cannot well or clearly be seen which adversaries the book of Julian aims at in all suitability and veracity: is it us, or himself in company with the believers in the stupid superstition that he loves? Because this is also Galilaean! Well indeed, it can't be doubted for one moment that the direction of the expressions employed by Julian agrees with the nonsense of the Greeks.

4. Where indeed to find all such an apparatus of fables, those vain words, this tasteless and irresponsible jumble of fads of every kind, if not among them and them only, who, twisting their subtle inventions, try to give to falsehood the colours of truth? So strong, so widespread among them is the turpitude that the elite of their spirits, the men cracked to philosophize extremely appropriately on the world which surrounded them, have raised loud cries against the undivine transports of their poets, and affirmed openly that they should abandon their charlatanism. In fact, Plato does not approve those poems, i.e. the homeric poems, which display the gods and goddesses convicted of libidinous passions, abused by quite human cupidities, and in addition prone to tears, deploring the death of those of their blood and breaking out like pansies in 'Woe is me!' because they want to save someone from death and are unable to do so, humbling themselves on the contrary before the fates, and yielding to Destiny, apparently more powerful than the Master of the gods, he that they call 'supreme Zeus'!

But I will not delay in saying all that I could still say on this subject; not wanting to appear to allow myself to be diverted from what is suitable, I will return to the point which my subject designates.

5. If there is a plot, it is a plot of the Greeks: it is they who undertook to use the fantastic to guarantee the truth, and not in all simplicity of spirit, but indeed with impious intentions and the satisfaction of wrongdoing! It is they who gathered against the inexpressible glory of all-powerful God this hateful 'fiction', which set up this 'deception', like some trap aimed at simple souls.

They have in effect mislaid the whole earth by pretending that the sky and the elements in general were God. As the very wise Paul writes: "While calling themselves wise, they fell into madness, and altered the glory of imperishable God by giving him the appearance of perishable man, birds, quadrupeds, and animals."

However, to run with his ideas, we will not throw against others the criticisms which he formulated and will indeed let them attack the Holy Apostles, even the very wise Moses himself and the holy prophets; but when he comes to the bar, will he clearly show what is this 'fiction implemented by malice', of what nature is this 'fantastic account' about which he speaks, in what consists the 'fondness for a fable, the puerile side' of the Christian religion! Did Moses write for us tales, when he professed one God by nature and in truth, unbegotten, eternal, imperishable, without quantity, invisible, immutable, imperceptible, God who is life and who gives life, who is science and power, creator, King and Lord of the universe? Did he deviate from the truth, the word of the holy prophets, who stick step by step to the doctrines of Moses? Will we find a teaching different in the holy Apostles? Certainly not!

6. And then, how can he affirm that the beliefs of Galilaeans do not have in them anything divine, that they are in addition hazardous fables, monstrous fictions? Who would refuse to admit that there can nothing better for men than to know clearly and without error the Craftsman and Lord of the world, one in nature and in truth? Our adversaries themselves, I know, would affirm that the most beautiful remarkable part of philosophy is contemplative philosophy: thanks to it, the spirits which their wisdom considers the best even to see go to great pains, and as much as is possible for men to do, to grasp the divine nature. Since he says that he himself is persuaded of this, would he teach us from where and from whom he obtains this certainty? Because finally it is not necessary that he flatters himself to be the only one with knowledge. If he was convinced of it himself, if that is enough for him to show without possible dispute — as at least he thinks and affirms --- that Christianity is not worth anything, I will not hesitate to say that this is pure drivel in him, and that he just amuses himself to attack us alone! We will not submit ourselves to such a hostile judge! If on the other hand he considers that the declarations of the critics against anyone must be founded in truth and without lies, then, that he does not say that this is just his conviction; he argues with facts!

However it is indeed he himself, and not us, who he must hand over to justice for the invention of fables, and he is extremely likely to be convicted! What he said will persuade some of us: let us let him speak:

JULIAN

7. Now since I intend to treat of all their first dogmas, as they call them, I wish to say in the first place that if my readers desire to try to refute me they must proceed as if they were in a court of law and not drag in irrelevant matter, or, as the saying is, bring counter-charges until they have defended their own views. For thus it will be better and clearer if, when they wish to censure any views of mine, they undertake that as a separate task, but when they are defending themselves against my censure, they bring no counter-charges.

CYRIL

So it is necessary for those who you put on trial to be dumb? You require that the defendant be condemned without being able to break silence, and, without saying a word about your arguments, agrees to confirm the charge against himself! However, to refuse us the right to say anything of your theses is the act of a man who fears the controversy and is not unaware of the unpleasant weakness of his position. If our man, in examining the Christian religion, does not approve it on all points and decrees the crown of the supreme honours to the Greek superstition, I admit that he treats both equally; but if he takes pleasure in the speeches which he allows against us and gives the palm to his erroneous designs while opposing to us, as higher than ours, the Greek religion, how can he ask us to keep silence on and not to make any allusion to this religion, when, in our desire to defend the cause of our own beliefs, it is of that subject precisely that we speak?

8. If, renouncing the right to attack what you write, I had adopted the intention to mention only Greek realities, I could affirm: "His book on this subject is acceptable, and remains within the limits of probability"; but when would we defend ourselves, when we make a point of answering each one of its declarations, how does he still have the right to reproach us for our efforts to plead the cause of our religion while exposing the infamous impiety of the Greeks? Colours can be seen more clearly when there is contrast. "The light is seen in darkness", it is written, and in the same way, I believe, the beauty attached to the virtues appears to simple souls only through the ugliness of their opposites. What inclines to me to give to the Good the palm of victory is the hideousness of the Evil: and for this reason (Julian) has indeed reason to fear the arguments of his own camp, and refuses shamefully the right to produce it on the day, going so far as to impose silence on those which he puts on trial in this lawsuit! Here now is how he opposes other objections to us:

JULIAN

9. It is worth while to recall in a few words whence and how we first arrived at a conception of God; next to compare what is said about the divine among the Hellenes and Hebrews; and finally to enquire of those who are neither Hellenes nor Jews, but belong to the sect of the Galilaeans, why they preferred the belief of the Jews to ours; and what, further, can be the reason why they do not even adhere to the Jewish beliefs but have abandoned them also and followed a way of their own. For they have not accepted a single admirable or important doctrine of those that are held either by us Hellenes or by the Hebrews who derived them from Moses; but from both religions they have gathered what has been engrafted like powers of evil, as it were, on these nations----atheism from the Jewish levity, and a sordid and slovenly way of living from our indolence and vulgarity; and they desire that this should be called the noblest worship of the gods.

CYRIL

The same man who poured out his smear against us to the readers, that if they wanted to contradict him, they must "must proceed as if they were in a court of law and not drag in irrelevant matter, or, as the saying is, bring counter-charges" promptly sets himself to compare the views of the Greeks and the Hebrews on the divine! But this technique of comparing and opposing, at what does it aim? What can be Julian's aim, when he brings together the disagreements between the Hebraic or Christian beliefs and the Greek ones?

10. We can't pretend that he is giving up his accusation, and his need to smear, in order to submit himself to the equitable judgement of his readers, so far as to want to take from them the definition of the best and the worst! In his position, it seems, the only way to find partisans for his ideas about the divinity is to abuse the Christian religion by giving it the worst of it in a confrontation with Greek religion. But such a defeat is impossible for those who know the weakness of error and the force of truth. But we must be on our guard: in telling the legislators to impose silence on us, and to prohibit the least remark about his own cause when we speak about ours, he falls victim to his own prohibitions.

Since he cross-examines us, and wants to know what on earth made us give up the Greek religion for that of the Hebrews, well then, let's ask him back the same question! "Why have you yourself given up the Christian religion, and run away from the truth to embrace a lie? Why did you stupidly give preference to the most appalling superstition -- I mean that of idol-worshippers -- over a precise and certain teaching, and then think that you decided well when you have in fact drawn on yourself the final infamy? Does he want to know the real reason which made us give the Greek religion in order to hold in honour that of the Hebrews? We will borrow his own words to reply to him. Here's what he actually writes:

JULIAN

11. Now it is true that the Greeks invented their myths about the gods, incredible and monstrous stories. For they said that Kronos swallowed his children and then vomited them forth; and they even told of lawless unions, how Zeus had intercourse with his mother, and after having a child by her, married his own daughter, or rather did not even marry her, but simply deflowered her and then handed her over in marriage to another. Then too there is the legend that Dionysus was rent asunder and his limbs joined together again.... This is the sort of thing described in the myths of the Greeks!

CYRIL

What a defense to present! So what's the point of making a lot of noise and pretending to correct us when we have almost kicked out of existence the babbling of the Greeks, so ugly and improbable, and accorded preference to the truth? The divine Moses and after him the chorus of the holy prophets, the Apostles and the Evangelists, they sing the glory of God, one by nature and in truth; they invite us to imitate them by ripping away the myths from ourselves --- all the unbelievable forms and sleazy ideas -- and involving us in a way of life which attracts admiration. Nothing of what they say is invented, nothing in their ideas demands an incredible explanation. It is a fact that our beliefs agree with the preaching of Moses and with those of the holy prophets, and that the direction of the evangelical and apostolic teaching coincides with the ideas of our predecessors: at the proper time we will give some plain proofs of this.

12. But since (Julian) asserts -- on what head I don't know! ... -- that there is nothing serious or useful in our beliefs, well! let him prove it! Surely he isn't going to leave his assertion bare and without proof? Because anyway, how can there NOT be something serious in our beliefs? Don't we find precision and meticulousness in how Christians talk about God and the creation of the world? Don't the holy scriptures supply us with impeccable and irreproachable morality? Moreover, how can we not be struck by this obvious truth, that no other way, to my knowledge, is able to rightly address the supreme philosophy? Whether it is contemplative or even practical, our philosophical reflexion can claim every kind of praise, and the followers of Greek wisdom themselves admire it. It is thus not true that "the Hebraic doctrines taught us atheism" -- that's exactly what he wrote! --- what is true to say, is that the Scripture inspired by God has enabled us to condemn Greek ignorance. Moreover atheism is rather more a description of their beliefs, which do not know the God who is one by nature and in truth: how isn't this evidence on both sides? He also claims that "we took with Greek unconcern to a way of dissolute and nonchalant life", by calling our custom to eat of all without prohibition and to abstain from no food the "careless insouciance" of the Greeks. So these people present as the supreme act of piety, and compare it to the perfection of all virtues, the refusal to consume this or that food!

13. Well! how can they make these things the criterion of purity? Everything comes from God; is perforce good which has its Being from kindness, and he that is most holy and pure could not have created anything that would soil us. And in fact what effect could a food have on those who consume it? What sort of stain could it introduce in them? I believe that what we need to condemn is that which is likely to contaminate someone -- and, very generally, the things that can produce such an effect are the things that we must condemn; adulteries, fornications, scandalmongerings, lies, smears, greed, etc. But the Greeks -- who didn't take any notice of vice of this sort, however -- affect temperance at the table, sometimes renouncing this meat or that, without denying themselves any extravagance! Further, they enjoy honouring soverign Zeus by voluntarily giving themselves the same appetites as his, and they honour the sovereignty of Aphrodite.

THE CREATION OF THE WORLD

(Julian) reproaches us for innumerable things, but mainly he has a go at the most wise Moses, by attacking his writings without moderation. He affirms that when composing the book about the creation of the world, everything he said was untrue and that he was satisfied just to gather old fairystories, that he paid no attention to things that seemed to deserve full attention, and finally that he just wrote poor centos, while imagining that he was saying things which were wise and good to hear. Yet Julian is paralysed with amazement before the ideas of the learned Greeks in this field, and, more than very other, he crowns with acclamations and applause the doctrines of Plato.

14. He throws insults immoderately, but still let's pass over that for the moment! On the other hand, I will try to establish, as much as I can, that he is badly wrong to take up such grand airs in connection with Greek chatterings.

It is necessary, I believe, to present afresh, by extracting them from the works of the Greeks, the various doctrines which they have judged good to profess about the creation of the world, and to oppose the cosmogony of Moses to them: the readers will thus see the verbose subtlety and drivel of these thinkers, as well as the pure source of truth which is in the writings of Moses.

J.N. Darby on the unreliability of the Early Church Fathers

2008-06-03T05:39:00.000-07:00

John Nelson Darby wrote:

I have not cited the Fathers, nor gone into their doctrines. While I do not doubt that the truly pious among them were guarded in the faith; yet, as doctors, nothing can be more uncertain; as moralists, scarce anything more objectionable. God has preserved truth in and for His church, blessed be His name! but the Fathers are the expression, not of orthodox truth, but of a mass of mentalefforts on divine subjects, of heavings to and for on subjects which escaped their grasp; of the efforts, too, of minds, for the most part seriously corrupted by Platonic philosophy, and shrinking from the attacks of Pagans on the point of the unity of the Godhead, which they feared to compromise by the doctrine of eternal Sonship and divinity of Christ. Save Jerome and Origen, they did not understand Hebrew, and could only use the Septuagint version; valuable no doubt as to testimony, but most imperfect as representing the meaning of scripture, and sometimes any meaning at all.
JN Darby, Remarks on Puseyism, in Collected Writings, vol.29

Ephraim the Syrian: AGAINST MARCION III.

2007-10-22T11:55:00.000-07:00

by Ephraim the Syrian

AGAINST MARCION III.
ANOTHER DISCOURSE AGAINST MARCION.

[P. 117.] IF the organs 1 of the body suffice for the gifts of the Good (God), O Marcion, that is to say, the eye for His light, and the ear for His voice, why then does the body not live at the last ? But if the body does not suffice for these good things at the last, no[thing] else in this world suffices for them. Therefore neither is the heart sufficient for knowledge of the Stranger, nor hearing for the study (lit. reading) of Him. Moreover, as to the fact that the souls do not sin in the Kingdom, is it because of their nature, which is good, that they do not sin ? And how then did the evil body change the good nature ? But if the Stranger changes them there, though they are evil, what sin did the body commit [P. 118.] so as to be deprived of this desirable change ? But if the souls are good there, is it because they enter that region that they are good, or are they good from the point where they stripped off their bodies ? If this desirable state be due to the place, let the body also enter into it, and likewise all men [in whom] are sins. . . .

* * * * * * *

[P. 119, l.5] ... [And as] Fire is not [separated from Heat, so Evil is not constituted apart from its power. But how and wherefore does that which is hot retain its natural heat, when that which is cold did not remain in its natural state ? If therefore it is an Existence and an Entity, they are [not] changed in nature. But if that creative power has made out of nothing something good, it [can] be changed in character. For this ye have learnt, (namely) that they are created from nothing, because a thing which is created from nothing can be changed into |lv anything. And if it is not created, it is always 'bound' by its essential nature ; for, (in the case of) a thing which can be changed into anything, its change bears witness concerning it that it [does not come] from an unchangeable Existence. But if it is possible for the souls to strip off their bodies, they (i.e. the souls) are purged of all evils. Why did he who came come ? Was it to bring life to the body which [P. 120.] [was] without life, or to come and change the soul which was (already) alive ? . . . And henceforth they are dragged again [l. 17.] from struggle to struggle, and therefore also weapons and crucifixion are necessary to them (?) in the Kingdom. And if not, for what reason are the souls which are very evil here not evil there ? For if this is due to the place then also their Creator is able to bring them up to a place which is raised above and higher than HULE. And if they say that they (i.e. the souls) cannot conquer even there, (I reply that) if it be the fact that the Stranger constrains us to conquer in the region of Evil and (in) the body of Sin, how much more will the Maker give us the victory in a place which is raised above Evil and also above the body of Sin ! But if even thus it (the soul) cannot conquer, it is then unjust in the Stranger to demand of us victory in a [P. 121] region where there is no possibility of our being victorious. But if, when the souls have stripped off the body of Sin and are lifted up again to a region which is raised above Sin, the souls are still polluted even there, how do they say that in that region of the Good they are purged ? And why then do they blame the body by asserting that 'it causes the soul to sin,' when in reality, in all this interval of time, the nature of the soul is found to be evil ? And how at the present time do the souls become good in the Kingdom ? For if the Stranger creates a new mode of existence (lit. another creation) for them there, if He is able to change the mode of existence of the soul, it may be that He can change the soul's nature. But if the nature is changed by creative power, then the evil was not in the essence (of the soul) but in the creative power, and hence the Maker can change |lvi the nature according to His will, as also other created beings testify who serve according to the will of their Creator. And therefore when Isu came to us, He ought to have made use of [P. 122.] creative power and not of preaching, for creative power changes natures, whereas preaching does not; and this is proved to thee by craftsmen, that is to say, even by potters and smiths.

But if when our Lord came He did not wish to change the natures, was it as a kind and wise Being that He did not wish to change the natures ? Was it as a kind and wise Being that He did not wish to destroy that which was well adjusted ? Or was it as an evil and envious Being that He did not wish to adjust that which was badly constructed ? But if it was because our Lord saw it to be rightly fashioned that He did not even adjust any part of it, how do they say that the Maker repented of the work to which our Lord Himself testified that it was rightly fashioned ? Or how again, when our Lord praises it, do they find fault with it ? But know that by the fact that He praised the latter one it is seen that He agrees with the former one, and by the fact that they find fault they themselves are seen to disagree with the latter (and) also with the former. But in which (respect) is our Lord seen to have praised the work of the Maker ? Is it not by the fact that [they find fault, but He was] [P. 123.] one who repaired the normal arrangement ? 2 For it was not abnormal eyes, alien to nature, that our Lord gave to the blind man, but eyes in accordance with nature. [If He were] a Stranger, it would be reasonable that just as He gave us laws which were alien to the Maker in like manner He should give us also physical organs which are alien to the Maker. But if He changed laws but did not wish to change physical organs, it is seen that the organs are (works) of God, and our Lord, who changed the laws from generation to generation, did not change the organs in any generation.

But they say, 'The sole reason of His not changing (them) was that they might not think concerning Him that He was a Stranger, and (so) persecute Him.' The laws therefore which He changed, did He change them in order that they might |lvii think concerning Him that He was not a Stranger ? In which of the two circumstances, then, was strangeness most powerfully to be seen, in the change of laws or in the change of organs ? For even a feeble human being can change laws, but (only) a powerful Maker can change organs. Would that He had changed [the] mind and had not changed the law, so that [a man] might see its excellence and not its difficulty ! For when new creations came to pass [in] men more strangeness [P. 124.] [would arise] . . . .

* * * * * * *

For just as by the fact that He [changed] the laws He shewed [l. 22.] strangeness, [so] by the fact that He did not change the bodily organs He annulled the strangeness. But if our Lord [made] the two of them one — for He gave to the hearers additional interpretations which were not in the Law, but He did not give to those who were to be healed additional organs which were not in nature, (it was) in order that when contumacious persons treat Him as a stranger because He abrogated laws they may be convicted of error by the fact that He maintained the normal arrangement of nature. Again, He gave new laws and maintained primeval nature, in order that when He is treated as a stranger on account of the new laws primeval nature may come forward and prove concerning Him that He is not the son of a [P. 125] stranger.

But if He is a stranger, as they assert concerning Him, then this thing which He did was exceeding foolish ; for He abrogated the former commandments and maintained the former nature. For, as I have already said, He ought, as a strange law-giver, to have created on that account a strange nature also, so that, just as His law was seen to be something more than the former law, in like manner His creation also might be seen to be something more than the creation of the Creator. But if "in His law our Lord was a stranger, but in His action one of the household," 3 this is (a description of) the foolish Marcion, who is partly inside and partly outside. And they ought therefore, if they are lovers of true things, to remain in doubt ; for if they called Him a stranger on account of the new sayings which He uttered, then |lviii because He did not create a strange creation the bold preaching ought to have been buried in silence (lit. confined within silence). For the Marcionites preach two things concerning our Lord which are at variance with each other, for "He abrogated the former laws and healed injured organs." But here this man, [P. 126.] whoever he may be, is seen to be alien to the creation in virtue of his teaching and akin to it in virtue of his activity.4 But let us see which is the true 'strangeness,' that which consists in sayings or that which consists in deeds. If that which consist in sayings is true, their contentious doctrine is true, but if that which consists in deeds is true our faith has received the crown.

Let us know therefore who was a stranger to the world— Ho who instituted in it new laws, or He who created in it strange creatures ? For He who institutes in the world new laws is not a stranger to the world, since in that world new laws have been issued from generation to generation ; but He who created strange creatures was perhaps considered to be a stranger, since no strange creature has (ever) appeared in the world. If therefore the Marcionites proclaim that our Lord gave eyes to the blind, it is a good thing that from their own mouth their condemnation is proclaimed. For instead of bestowing strange eyes, that it might be known that He was a stranger, He restored to health these former ones, that it might be known that He is that (Being) who existed in former times. But this thing, which they proclaim to others, is to themselves a thing unheard of ; for their hearing [P. 127.] is at variance with their tongue, just as their intention is at variance with their Maker. For the Creator and Lawgiver abolished the former laws and gave other laws, but He did not abolish the former sun and create another sun ; again He replaced the Old Covenant (diaqh&kh) by a New Covenant, but He did not abolish the old heaven and create another heaven. With regard therefore to Him who creates natures and gives laws, just as it was easy for Him to change laws so it would have been easy for Him to change natures. But wherefore He who changed laws did not wish to change the creation thou mayest hear from us abundantly, if there is not with thee that contentiousness which is wont to resist abundant (proofs), which, though it is |lix supposed that with its labour it really acquires them, does not [know] that it is driving away from beside itself an acquisition without labour. For the contention of the hearer is [an impediment to] the gifts that come forth from the mouth of the speaker.

Hear therefore why it was that He who abolished the former laws did not abolish the former creatures ! He created the creatures in accordance with His own perfection, but He gave [P. 128.] many laws in account of our imperfection. For if we had abided perfectly by the law which He has written on the heart—(the law) which was followed by Abel and by Enoch who did not taste death—laws varying from nation to nation would not even be required. Thus where the creatures (are concerned, permanence of species is due to) the perfection of the Creator, who in all respects is perfect; and where laws (are concerned, the diversity is due to) the imperfection of man, who in all respects is audacious. God, therefore, did not abolish the former creatures, lest we should think that He had actually received advice or had been taught to create creatures superior to the former creatures ; but He gave many laws, that in many (ways) He might restrain the audacity which did not abide by the former law which was written on the heart.

But man, on account of his imperfection, when he does something, is taught by his experience of former things to do something more than (those) former things ; whereas the Creator, since He is perfect in His Wisdom, even before He creates, each separate thing that He wishes to do is completely visible to Him: But perhaps thou wilt say, 'Lo, creatures were transformed in Egypt!' They were transformed in Egypt on [P. 129.] account of the tyranny of Pharaoh, but they did not undergo transformation on account of 5 . . .

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

[P.130. l.29][For the Will that bound the course of Nature 6 (is able to alter it) and we learn that He who relaxed the Laws was Himself the |lx [l. 38.] establisher of the Laws.] For a composite nature cannot remain in its composite state without the . . . power of its Creator, and a law cannot be annulled without the good will of its Maker ; [P. 131.] for where there is power to make there is also wisdom which directs the things that are made, and where there is Justice which punishes sins there is also Grace. . . . For consider that One who is good cannot shew mercy save to those who have transgressed His just law, for if He has compassion with regard to the law of another He has deflected from goodness and also ignored justice, so as to incline altogether towards iniquity. For that Stranger who becomes the pardoner of debtors necessarily wrongs the creditor. "But," it is said, "He paid our debt by His death." But know that we owed a real debt: if therefore He died in reality, He also paid our debt in reality ; but if it was in appearance that He died, that debt of ours also was paid in by a fraud. Yet know that the Good One also was pleased by this deception, that He should come and pay our debt by a fraud. Yet He who is just and mighty is not mocked, for in virtue of His justice He does not act wrongly and in virtue of His might He is not mocked. For the Just One would not act [P. 132.] wrongly so as to come, when our debt has been paid, and demand the paid debt afresh, nor again would the Mighty One be mocked, so to allow His real possessions to be snatched from Him, without receiving anything real in exchange for His real possessions. "But," it is said, "though the Just One is mighty, the Good One is nevertheless mightier than He." If therefore He overcame Him by might, how 7 do they bring in the term 'purchase'? [Call] Him therefore a doer of violence and not a purchaser. But if He made a real purchase, as one who acted humbly, how was 'might' involved in the affair ? For either let them choose for themselves that He purchased as a humble and true (Being), or else let them choose for themselves that He did violence, as one who is mighty and tyrannical.

But since the followers of Marcion were ashamed to be sponsors for the term 'violent robbery' (as applicable) in the case of the Stranger, they have used with reference to Him the term 'purchase in humble fashion,' and because they are refuted in |lxi the matter of the purchase, they have used with reference to Him the term 'might,' so that when it is asserted against them that He did violence they say that He merely purchased, and when again it is asserted against them that the Maker did not wish to sell his possessions they say that He (i.e. the Stranger) is mightier than He (i.e. the Maker). Each of the (two) assertions [P. 133.] therefore annuls the other. For if it is a 'purchase in humble fashion,' consent (lit. will) and not compulsion is involved, but if the purchaser overcomes by force he does not really purchase but seizes by violence. If therefore they introduce (the mention of) His might, which is a plausible term, (the notion of) violent robbery comes in with it . . .

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

[P.134, l.26] let them learn that it is a doctrine (artificially) constructed and . . ., which has no foundation (lit. root); for the poets likewise construct fables out of bare names, their fables being devoid of foundation, for the poets make use of names . . .

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

[P.135, l. 21.] On that account He gave that which is His own in order that He may take that which is not His own. And again, if there is no affinity between the purchaser and the seller, in their mutual action, they cannot give to one another or receive from one another. For that which they give is profitable to both, and again that which they receive is pleasing and profitable to both. But if they have heard only the word 'purchase' and hence have introduced the mention of 'strangeness' (lit. and from it have named strangeness), they ought to have made mention of 'strangeness' from the days of Isaiah onwards, who said 8 "For nought have ye been sold," and thenceforward it would have been a purchase in reality, that the People was sold, that it should serve its masters. But if there is no strangeness in [P. 136.] a real purchase, how can there be strangeness in a fraudulent |lxii purchase ? But if they say that the Just One did not perceive the Good One, (I reply) 'And how was it that that Good and Humble One came to purchase something which its owner did not wish to sell—something which it did not even enter His mind to sell ?' But if they say something that pleases them they must hear something that does not please them. For it pleases them to say this, that this Just One did not perceive that Good One ; but it does not please them that some man should say concerning that Good One that He robs with violence. But this (statement) which does not please them is derived from that (statement) which pleases them. For if the Just One did not perceive the Good One, He therefore did not even contemplate the selling of His possessions to Him, for lo, He did not even perceive that He (i.e. the Good One) existed ! But if He did not perceive Him and moreover did not contemplate the selling (of anything) to Him, it necessarily follows that if He sold (anything) He was compelled by force to sell that which He did not [P. 137.] wish to sell. But perhaps they may say that even if the Good One compelled the Just One by force it was only for our salvation that He compelled Him by force. Know that in this respect He was on a level with all robbers. For he also who goes forth to take by robbery a possession that is not his own puts pressure on the possessor by reason of his love for the possession ; and, in a word, all those who take away things from their owners; it is because of the love which they have for the things themselves that they grieve the heart of their possessors. But they say, "Even if the Good One put pressure on the Just One by snatching us from Him, He only took us to Himself in a loving manner." (But this is no argument), for what thief is there who will steal a precious pearl from his neighbour and will not keep it lovingly and carefully after taking it away ? And on this supposition all evil-doers are found to be acting, not in an evil manner, but mercifully and kindly. For what robber is there who goes forth to take away or to filch something hateful and [undesirable] in his own eyes ? Why therefore have the [P. 138.] Marcionites adorned with fair titles One who in His conduct is not different from evil-doers ? But far be it from us to speak thus concerning our Lord ! But it is only on account of them (i.e. |lxiii the Marcionites) that we are obliged to say these things for their refutation, so that if they are convinced these things will not be reckoned to us to our detriment, on account of the advantage (which accrues) to them, and if they are not convinced they will pay the penalty for it, that their confusion (of mind) led us to use words that are not seemly. But even if we utter the blasphemy (only) with our lips, and not in our heart, nevertheless who is there who wishes to taste, even with his lips (only), the deadly poison ? For as to that which is not seemly, would that it had never in our life (?) entered our mind !

But nevertheless let us return to our former subject, which we abandoned for a while on account of the pretext of 'purchase.' If therefore before the coming of Isu this [convention] 9 existed, O Marcion, that is to say, that though laws were changed from generation to generation the order of nature 10 was fixed and . continued (lit. came) through all generations, we see that if our [P. 139.] Lord came and diverged from this [convention] 9 of the Maker it is evident that He was 'strange' to the Maker. But if He proceeded in accordance with this order it is manifest that this beseemed the Son that His steps should hasten in the footprints of Him that begat Him, for He also . . . But the Son [1. 17.] also preserved by His healing the normal arrangement of the former body, that He might testify, as their Father did, that the creatures were created aright from the Beginning. Our Lord therefore is not found to resemble a destroyer, nor a stranger, for He did not injure healthy organs . . . nor, again, when He healed did He bestow abnormal organs, nor, again, did He [make it [1. 33.] appear] to them by His creative power that He was alien to the Maker, but He preserved organs that were healthy, and cured organs that were hurt. But (?) He who preserves healthy organs, in order that they may not be hurt, plainly testifies concerning Him who created them that He is perfect and (that) it is not right that His arrangement should be hurt. But He who [P. 140.] sets in order organs that have been hurt testifies concerning |lxiv a creative power (shared) in common, (namely) that He is a fellow-workman to Him who set them in order from the Beginning ; and it is evident that it was a love (shared) in common which constrains Him to set in order by a common mode of workmanship the common work. For when the work of a craftsman is injured it cannot be set right save by him who made it, or by a fellow-workman to him who made it. These are two things from which the Marcionites have deflected, for they are not willing to call our Lord 'the Maker,' nor (do they admit) that He was (sent) by the Maker. But His active power itself deprives those who deprive Him of active power, especially because that active power of His was repairing the work of the Creator. But it is clearly seen that this is a thing learnt from Him, (I mean) that primeval Teacher who is the Architect of the creation. But this active power was sent as to the first of creatures,11 in order that it might be known that by this same active power the creatures had been created. For the repair of a work can only be wrought by means of that workmanship which set it in order.

[p. 141.] But when this perfect Disciple of that perfect Architect came, not that He was a learner, nor was His Teacher instructed, in virtue of that workmanship which (proceeded) from Himself (and) in which the normal arrangements were included from the Beginning—when He came, therefore, He ordered aright the hands which He had made, that they might give alms to those who lacked health, whereas He found them (such) that, instead of giving alms from that which was their own, they committed thefts from that which was not their own. But because the hands did not perform that service on account of which He created them He was empowered, as a just Maker, to command that the hands should wither up. But instead of this He commanded that hand which was withered to be stretched forth ; 12 for He knew the effrontery of the Marcionites, that if when He was restoring and repairing the corruption of the natures they call Him 'strange' to Nature, if His deed had been contrary to Nature how much more would they have considered Him 'strange' ? But because they are perverse, perhaps if our Lord [P. 142.] had done contrary to Nature they would not have considered |lxv Him 'strange!' But even if they had been as it were able to learn perversely, yet for the upright Teacher it was not seemly that because of the perverse ones He also should teach perversity,

* * * * * * *

[P.113 1. 16.] a rent worse than the former one 13 . . . ' unless' they were willing to learn. For if in the [straight] way the followers of Marcion are not [able to walk, in slippery places how] can they [direct] their goings ? 14

END OF DISCOURSE AGAINST MARCION.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note from Vol. 1 Introduction, p. (10):

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

[P.101] indicates page 101 of the accompanying Syriac. [l.2] means line 2 of the current page of the accompanying Syriac. [RP]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES

I have moved the footnotes to the end. Those consisting of "Read [syriac] for [syriac]" or similar have been omitted, as it has not been possible to transcribe the fragments of Syriac. The pages are numbered with Roman numerals. Arabic numbers and line numbers relate to the Syriac text printed at the back of the paper volume. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

1. 1 For this translation of haddame, generally rendered 'limbs,' see p. xxi, 1. ] 1, where Ephraim says "by thy haddame, that is, by thy senses."

2. 2 P. 122, ll. 44, 45, are obscure, but the sense seems to be as above.

3. 2 This is evidently quoted as a Marcionite saying.

4. 1 The same word as is translated 'creative power,' pp. lv (last line), lxiii f.

5. 1 Here follows a very illegible page, containing an allusion to Hezekiah and the Sundial (Isaiah xxxviii 8), p. 129, 11. 15-22.

6. 2 Not quite the same phrase as James iii 6.

7. 1 Lit. "How do they name purchase in the midst ? "

8. 1 Isaiah lii 3.

9. 2 The word [Syriac], which occurs twice in this context, is legible in the Palimpsest. It is probably a distortion of some foreign word, e.g. to_ eu0a&reston or the Latin orbita.

10. 3 Lit. 'natures,' i.e. the various distinct species.

11. 1 Cf. Colossians i 15.

12. 2 Luke vi 10.

13. 2 Luke v 36 (Matt, ix 16).

14. 3 The concluding sentence is mostly illegible, but the reference to the ' rent' is clear. [...]

Ephraim the Syrian: AGAINST MARCION II.

2007-10-22T11:52:00.000-07:00

by Ephraim the Syrian

AGAINST MARCION II.
* * * * * * *

[P.103, l.5] about which Zechariah says, 'Lo ! thy King cometh unto thee,' in order to show us (?) that he is a king. And that other (passage) which Daniel uttered,1 'One like a son of men came, and to him He gave the kingdom.' And one (coming) was in humility, as all the Prophets bear witness about [it], and the other in [exaltjation, as the Scriptures bear witness

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

[P.104, l. 19] But. just as, O Marcion, when David [mentioned] the Messiah who is (foretold) in the Law, our Lord proved from David that he (i.e. the Messiah) is not David's son—and the matter remained in doubt among the Scribes—in like manner, when John recognised our Lord. . . .

* * * * * * *

[l.43] And when [he] explained that he is David's son that cometh, how being David's son is he the Lord of David, seeing that David [P. 105.] testifies and our Lord confirms ? As Malachi testifies concerning John, 'Behold I send my messenger before thee,' and our Lord confirms it that John was Elijah, give me evidence from the other Scriptures that John is [the messenger] of whom Malachi spake.

Therefore according to the testimony of David and the confirmation of [our Lord], David's son, concerning this son of David [and] about this Lord of [David], are there then two Messiahs or two natures ? For [if in some respects he is the son of David] and in some respects the lord of David, is it not [clear that the |lxviii two natures come together and] are mingled as one, and in relation to the manhood (he is) the Messiah and in relation to the Godhead [he is lord]. For why was a body required for God ?

* * * * * * *

[P.106 l.30.] . . . so that if ye believe and do not doubt and "if there is in you belief," is it false belief, like (the belief) of that blind man 2 or the belief of strangeness ?

"Because John was near to die, he sent his flock by the hand of two under-shepherds to the Lord of the flock : our Lord began to teach concerning him—' Did ye go out to see a great man on account of his raiment ?' " This man, the meek and humble, [P. 107.] and, if not, a trembling reed shaken by every wind, does he not thus go astray [a little], and is bent and beaten about by all manner of reports ? Because he knew whose coming he announced (lit. before whom he announced), for the witness of the truth and the herald of the kingdom of the Lord of the kingdom is taught by the truth. If our Lord Isu, therefore, bore witness to John that he was meek, let us learn from this humility which of the Messiahs the humble herald resembles (lit. approaches), that Messiah (who is) the source of humility, or that one at whose side thousands fall. For it is necessary that the herald of the dispensation (lit. time) should be himself similar to the dispensation. But Malachi says, The messenger of the covenant, lo ! he cometh, and who endureth the day in which he cometh ?' But if the herald is humble and meek, and he who is heralded is set on high and exalted, lo, in this also there is strangeness !

But (as for) our Lord who says, 'John is greater than all who are born of women,' not because he saw the greatness of the herald, as ye say, that it was great and splendid like that of him who was heralded, (it was not) on account of this that He [P. 108.] said (it). Either give us the splendour of John which was eminently great as (befitted) that of the herald who (went) before the Pre-eminent One, or explain to us why our Lord called him great. For even as all the prophets were 'just,' like Him |lxix who sent them, so also this man, His herald, is like Him who is heralded. For if the greatness of him who is heralded is not shown in the announcement concerning him, who will believe that he is a great one? And if He performed signs, read (of them), and if He worked miracles, declare (them). For (with regard to) those messengers whom our Lord sends at the last and that token which appears before that terrible coming, is the sign (shmei~on) thereof terrible and glorious like the thing itself, or can it be that it is alien to Him in His lowliness ?

But it was not Moses or one of the prophets who said concerning John "He is greater than all who are born of women." What is there about him 3 that magnifies John ? But can it be that the bonds of Herod magnify him, or that the head-asking of the daughter of Herodias exalts him, or that the executioner confirms for him (the application of) that (passage), 'Who can endure the day in which he cometh ?' A herald who was humbled [P. 109.] and slain came before Him who comes on the clouds to destroy the slayers, and a lowly messenger who did not stand up for himself was sent before the King before whom no created beings can stand ! And he with whose head the girl played, who will believe that he was the apostle of that 4 Stone which will cause all falsehood to pass away ? . . . and let us bring forward the aspects of the two Messiahs, and let us look at the aspect of John and see which Messiah he resembles — that Stranger [in whose] days he came beforehand, or this (Messiah) who is in the Law, of whom as yet not even a rumour had been heard ; for even from . . . and proximity (?) it was possible to learn their true nature. Set therefore the two Messiahs over against one another, and set John between (them) ; with whom then does the slain herald agree, with the slayer or with the slain one ? Whom does the meek and [despised] one resemble ? Him who was |l humbled or the shatterer of all ... ? And if it was because [P. 110.] John announced the coming of that Messiah (lit. announced before that Messiah) that he became great, it is still the same thing ; for he caused us to ascribe the majesty of that King to the herald and the messenger who preceded Him, as is also the custom of kings and their messengers.5 Or can it be that the majesty of him who was to come consisted in humility ? For lo ! [the majesty] of humility was also upon His herald, together with the rest (of His qualities). But because John was the messenger of the kingdom he was also wholly forgotten by them (?). When he comes, that Just One and the greater of the [two] Messiahs, does a herald or a messenger go before him ? Or [will it be sudden ?],6 that terrible coming of His, and does no messenger and herald come before it ? But if another herald does come before it, . . . he is greater than John. For that majesty which was ascribed to John bears witness concerning this (Being) that He is greater than John. And is that messenger who comes before that subjugator of the nations thus subjected [P. 111.] and humbled and persecuted as John was? If thus is his coming (?), the contest is ours, for if the messenger is thus humbled and scorned, how does the lowly announce the coming of the Mighty One, and the scorned (announce) the coming of the Exalted One ? Who will believe that he is the Messenger of the Saviour in a case where he cannot stand up for himself, or does not show terrible signs and does not cast fear and trembling upon mankind ? But if the messenger who comes is great and mighty, how necessary is it that He too should be great ! For (He is) like the Sun, and the herald also is a ray that precedes Him. If therefore it is so — as indeed it is — John, the humbled and lowly, announced the coming of Isu, who differs, by reason of his lowliness, from that high exalted King who is coming ; and he is alien, by reason of his abasement, to that mighty messenger who is sent before the face of that Mighty One. But does the Messiah come to save Israel or to torment it ? If he comes to |li save it, his messenger therefore convicts of sins or preaches salvation. But if he is one who convicts, when they repent [P. 112.] then they are saved. And if they do not wish to repent, does he preach to them ease or salvation ? But if he preaches destruction to them, all those things which Israel expects are annulled. And if he preaches salvation to them, by his character of Saviour he offers them a foretaste of the great salvations which come after him, as Moses did in Egypt.

Let us see therefore what foretaste of salvation John offered to them ; and, in the second place, lo, the Jews acknowledge all (manner of) prophets and righteous men, and this man, who is greater than all of them, they not only slew but do not even acknowledge ! When therefore the Just and Upright One comes, whom this persecuted and slain one announced beforehand, will He avenge his ill-treatment and murder and the refusal to acknowledge him upon all the tribes of the Jews, who unto the last continually refuse to acknowledge him, or will He not ? If He does not avenge (him), where is the Just One who delivered even the observer of the Law (and) avenged him on the Gentiles ? 7 This man, who is greater than all the Prophets, [P. 113.] He does not avenge ! And if He executes vengeance on all these Tribes, who disbelieve in John and continue to do so, then He who comes is the destroyer of the Jews and not their Saviour. For those who slew His messenger slew Him Himself, and those who deny His herald are not able to acknowledge Him.

But if when all these sins are openly committed (lit. are in the midst) they are not punished, why was it necessary that John should come to baptize and absolve from transgressions, seeing that not one of the transgressions is punished ?

But there is no one who is kinder than He who forgives all these transgressions ; and how is it that this justice shows neglect, (this justice) which in no case neglected to punish ? Has that grace which comes to Israel at the last compelled us to say that it is alien to that justice which wrote for Israel 8 'blow for blow' ? But if sins are punished, that baptism which remits sins is necessary at the last; for lo, the baptism of John ceased |lii (to exist) among the Jews thenceforward. Who therefore can [P 114.] bring it (back), and who can baptize, now that John is dead ? And if it (i.e. baptism) is not necessary at the last, why was it formerly necessary ? Is it withheld by Grace or by Justice ?

But (thou wilt say), ' Lo, these very things by means of which thou judgest me, (by asking) why they are not found in connection with John, are the things by means of which thou too art judged as to why they are not found in connection with John. For lo, the prophet testifies and our Lord confirms that those things which are said concerning Elijah are fulfilled in him (i.e. in John).' But I say that the herald is like Him who is heralded, that as about Him terrible things are written and as if in this world He is doing them, but it is at the last He is ready to do them. But the roots (i.e. causes) of retribution, since they come from this quarter, prophecy takes up, in order to pluck the fruits from their roots, according to that (passage), 'Lo, the kingdom of God among you !' 9—And they did not (then) see those good things and the pleasures of the Kingdom, but because He is the root of the aforesaid pleasures [P. 115.] He says 'Lo, the Kingdom !' Because those words which John proclaimed [give an earnest of what is to come]10 he called things of Yonder things of Here, just as in the case of a murderer who is slain after twenty years, the hour in which he committed the murder has slain him, as (it befell) Adam.11

And if thou sayest. that they likewise teach that there is a proof (?) respecting these associates (?), then also the Messiah who is (mentioned) in the Law has two comings, one in which he deposited pledges, and another in which he redeems pledges. For from the actions of John I demonstrate (that he has) two comings, one to which the actions (?) of John bear witness that it was not a Lowly One who came to announce the advent of the Exalted One, and another (coming) promised by (lit. the promises of) Malachi in the passage "He cometh as a fiery furnace," that is to say, on account of the retribution which was hidden in the preaching of John, (the retribution) which |liii is revealed at the last, as he said also concerning his Lord, "Thousands shall fall at thy side," 12 and "Peace at the last," 13 and as that (passage says), 'The LORD God shall give him the throne of David his father.' 14

Now the Baptism at the hands of John was so alien that not [P. 116.] even the angels, and righteous men and prophets were aware of it; let that Strangeness, therefore, of which no one was aware, appear in the days of this Strangeness of Isu, of whom no one had been informed ; but it was right that the Strangeness of our Lord should be bound together with the Strangeness of John by the conduct of our Lord, as John also was with the Law : Old Testament and New Testament (meet) in the new Baptism of John.

But nevertheless if our Lord was David's Son, as all the prophets bear witness, and if He was not David's Son, as David too testifies and our Lord also confirms, on your account then it was said that He is not David's Son, so that this very Strangeness to which ye have recourse might be found within the Scriptures, in order that your error might be hampered from running (abroad) throughout the world.

END OF DISCOURSE AGAINST MARCION.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note from Vol. 1 Introduction, p. (10):

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

[P.101] indicates page 101 of the accompanying Syriac. [l.2] means line 2 of the current page of the accompanying Syriac. [RP]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES

I have moved the footnotes to the end. Those consisting of "Read [syriac] for [syriac]" or similar have been omitted, as it has not been possible to transcribe the fragments of Syriac. The pages are numbered with Roman numerals. Arabic numbers and line numbers relate to the Syriac text printed at the back of the paper volume. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

1. 1 Or, ' He came like a son of men ' : this peculiar phrase is that of syr.vg, Dan. vii 13.

2. 1 I.e. the blind man who called Jesus 'son of David' (Luke xviii 38). P. 100, 1. 17, appears to read 'Thy faith hath saved thee ' (Luke xviii 42).

3. 1 Lit. ' this set in the midst.'

4. 4 See Dan. ii 34, seq.

5. 2 I.e. An ambassador must be treated with the respect due to a king.

6. 4 I cannot make out l. 27.

7. 1 Probably an allusion to Dan. vi.

8. 2 Exod. xxi 25.

9. 2 Luke xvii 21 SC (not syr.vg).

10. 3 I cannot translate or amend p. 115, ll. 5-7.

11. 4 See Gen. ii 17 ("in the day when, thou eatest thereof," etc.).

12. 1 Psalm xci 7.

13. 2 Psalm xxxvii 37.

14. 3 Luke i 32.

Ephraim the Syrian: AGAINST MARCION I.

2007-10-22T11:50:00.000-07:00

by Ephraim the Syrian

AGAINST MARCION I.
ANOTHER (DISCOURSE) AGAINST THE (FALSE) TEACHINGS. [P. 50.]

To the true Scriptures of the Church all the Teachings bear witness that they are true ; but as for the Scriptures belonging to the Teachings, only the Teachings bear witness concerning them, because the Scriptures of the Church do not appeal to the testimony of the Scriptures of the Teachings. Moreover to our Scriptures the Jews bear witness, for in every place. . . . For inasmuch as God knew that the Teachings were about to go forth into the world He worked great Signs beforehand . . . and the dividing of the sea and the cloud, and the Pillar and the Quails and the Manna and all the Signs and all the Wonders. . . .

* * * * * * *

in order that they might bear witness concerning that people [p. 51, l.4.] that it was the people of God. . . . Moreover (to ?) other countries some of them were scattered formerly, and (they bear witness) to-day concerning the aforesaid Jews and concerning their laws, as that (passage) in which it says,1 'The LORD hath brought evil upon this place, as He said.'

But the Edicts which had been written by Nebuchadnezzar and by Darius were deposited among the archives of the aforesaid kingdom first of all, and then they were sent to the (various) countries. And lo ! also the kings of the countries bear witness concerning the books of the Hebrews in the chronicles which |xxiv belong to them, according to that which is said in Ezra, 'Learn and see that this city is a warlike city from of old,' together with that other (passage in) which he says. 'Learn again and see that [P. 52.] Darius commanded concerning this city that it should be built.' 2 Thus the miracles which were wrought in the midst of Egypt were inscribed in the archives of Aegyptus ; and, again, the miracles which were wrought in the midst of Babylon were in the annals belonging to the kings of Babylon, and also (in those) belonging to the Greeks, and the Romans likewise, as well as (in) those of the aforesaid country of Jerusalem. For lo ! even to this day Tablets 3 which are even now inscribed and set up bear witness to the people of the aforesaid city that they must not venture to enter within their limits.4 All these witnesses which I have enumerated to thee, together with the aforesaid teachings (and) together with the Hebrews, are witnesses to our Scriptures that they are true. But to the Scriptures of the aforesaid teachings, as I have stated before, those teachings alone bear witness. And would that they all bore witness to the Scriptures of one another ! 5 For even if this were thought to be in their favour, inasmuch as their witnesses were many, yet it would be all against them that the testimony of each one of them about [P. 53.] his fellow was a denial of his own teaching. For how could he be veracious who proclaims Seven Gods, when another asserts after him in confirmation who proclaims only Two Gods ? Or how could he who proclaims Three Gods assert (anything) in confirmation of both of them ? Thus all the teachings are refuted by the Jews, because the Scriptures belonging to the Jews are truer than all the teachings. But the Jews themselves, who by means of their true Scriptures have been able to overcome many teachings, are refuted by the Church. . . .

[l. 29.]Therefore to the one God whom we proclaim, the Jews bear |xxv witness together with the Marcionites (?) . . . Bardaisan together with Mani. For though Bardaisan said [seven Entities constitute] the world he nevertheless said concerning the Law that it was given by God. And Mani again, though he said that [He] who spoke, by the Prophets exists as the result of a 'mixture,' nevertheless said concerning Him that He is in heaven. And Marcion, though he introduced a 'Stranger,' nevertheless, (while) he was crying out all the [time (?)] about the [. . .] of [P. 54.] the 'Maker' and about His preaching and about the people that is His, yet our Scriptures that are in the hands of the Marcionites were bearing witness on [our] behalf. But the blasphemies [of] the Marcion[ites]—it is [the books of] the Marcionites only that bear witness to them.6

The followers [of Marcion] therefore name our God 'the Just One' : yet we see that His worshippers are afflicted in this world, and His prophets were ... in the region of the Maker . . . but on the other hand (lit. side) we see that the unjust and the doers of evil enjoy themselves, and He is found to be good towards evil men and something different towards those who are His own. For He promises enjoyments to those who keep His commandments, and lo ! afflictions surround them. And He said concerning the unjust 'Cursed art thou.' . . . And he who is blessed according to the Law runs on foot in front of him who is cursed in the Scriptures ; for Elijah the prophet ran in front of Ahab the unjust, while Ahab the . . . was sitting in his chariot. [P. 55.] Again, the prophets of Baal were battening at Jezebel's table, and the true prophets [were] housing themselves in caves.

The followers (?) of Marcion say concerning each of these things, that is, concerning the justice of the Just One and concerning the grace of their own (God), that it did not come and bring relief to the just in this world (?). But [see that] the grace of the Maker [lo,] is extended even over the followers of Marcion. |xxvi And if they say that an Alien Force is opposed to them, who is it, on the other hand, who is opposed to Mercy ? And, again, who constrained Him that His mercy should afford a covering to Philosophers and Magians and all manner of doctrines ? And (as for) the babes and the seed-corn and the plants and the possessions of the followers of Marcion, who causes them to grow ? And who sends down the rain for them, or who causes the sun to shine for them ? Who commands the earth to bear them, and governs the sky for them ? Thou seest that all the grace of our Maker is (shown) towards the followers of Marcion [P. 56.] and moreover towards those who are ungrateful like them ; but in the case of the righteous and the prophets the contrary of these things (takes place), namely humiliation and ignominy. For Jeremiah the prophet is cast into a miry pit, while Zedekiah, an unjust man, is living in luxury. Or can it then have been the case that an Alien severe One [came and was favouring] the wicked and oppressing the good ?

But it was not the Stranger—who did not exist—that had . . . already announced earthly things to the simple-minded, while, on the other hand, among all of us he taught the likeness of true things by means of his faithful ones and by means of his righteous ones ; by means of these two (methods he taught) two classes of persons, namely the class of the mature (?), and another (consisting) of the simple-minded. For he gladdened the simple-minded with promises of the earth, and oppressed (?) the mature by severe afflictions. But let us see to what our own affliction is like ; is it like that of [the simple-minded] or that of his prophets ? If we are like the prophets in our afflictions, how do the followers of Marcion say that (only) in recent times have afflictions been [P. 57.] announced ? And, again, let us ask the Jews also, that is to say, the Jews and the righteous ones who were among them, Whom ought we to resemble ? [The others] rather than them we ought to resemble.

Let them then look at us and at the righteous, and let them see if we are like them in our afflictions. And if we are like the righteous in our afflictions, it is also the fact that the Law is |xxvii with us. For unto whom was it right that the Law of the afflicted and destitute ones should be given, to us the afflicted and destitute, or to those who even until to-day are expecting to go up to Jerusalem, and are eagerly looking till now for the milk and honey ? Thou seest, therefore, O Marcion, that if in the midst of all this maturity the simple-mindedness of the Jews has not been outgrown (lit. weaned), since these (qualities) still exist in them, how could numerous countries attain to maturity, seeing that one country (i.e. the country of the Jews) with all this exertion was not able to attain to maturity ?

But if the associates of Marcion, whom we have left behind (in our discussion), come and agree with him and say to us, If the Creator was one and knew that Adam would sin against Him, [P. 58.] why then did the Creator create ?—let all the sects (lit. teachings) know that they too are included in this (objection). For why did not their Gods come or prevent (it), so that he (i.e. Adam) should not be created, or so that they might set right and assist that which had been created ? For why did not their Gods prevent the Maker from creating that which is not good ? And if they did not prevent Him at that time, who will send (?) after them to-day ? And perhaps it was for that reason that God caused Adam to dwell for nine hundred and thirty years outside the enclosure of the Tree of Life, in order that it might be seen that there was no other God who could be found to break into the enclosure, which the Just One had enclosed by means of the Cherub and the point of the sword,7 and to bring him (i.e. Adam) in. For if there had been another God more compassionate than this one and stronger than our Maker, he would have broken into the enclosure—which was not then broken into— and would have brought the mortal Adam into the presence of the Tree of Life, that he might eat thereof, so that, just as in consequence of his eating of the Tree of Knowledge we all die, [P. 59.] likewise in consequence of his eating of the Tree of Life we might all live by means of him. But if he remained for nine hundred |xxviii and thirty years outside the enclosure of Paradise and did not find any other God to bring him inside the enclosure of Paradise, and afterwards (God) dissolved him and caused him to return to his dust, and no other God was found to raise him from the dust—acknowledge, O Marcion, the justice of Him who said, I am God and there is none beside Me !

But if Marcion says that the sole reason that the Stranger did not come previously was that at the last his grace might be seen, [let him know] that God had already shown a small measure of grace in connection with His justice, so that His great grace was not deemed strange when it was manifested in its time. And therefore He who showed a small measure of grace towards Adam at that time—when no strange God had shown his grace towards him—is known to be the same (God) who showed great [P. 60.] grace at this time, (a grace) of which they say that it is the grace of the Stranger. For God had decreed this in His justice concerning Adam, (saying) that 'In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' For our God decreed justly and in order that He might in His love warn Adam who was existing in a good state, lest he should exist in an evil state. But when Adam did not take warning and fell from grace, Justice overtook him, according as it (had) decreed that 'In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' But God turned in [the way] of grace and tempered the harshness of justice, that Adam might not die that very day but that he might live nine hundred and thirty years [and] then die.

[As He gave to Adam] nine hundred and thirty years at that time on account of His compassion, (so) He has kept him alive even now in the life everlasting on account of His grace. For He gave to him in the beginning a temporal life, in order to show that. . . . For He gave to Adam in mercy—which (signifies [P. 61.] that) He gave to him by means of our Lord—life everlasting. But if they apply the term 'strangeness' to every (?) grace, then (?) also in relation to Adam 'strangeness' was displayed. For the same (God) decreed that, 'In the day that thou eatest |xxix thou shalt die'—and how is He found keeping him alive for nine hundred and thirty years ?

About John, again, from whence ... let the Jews therefore be asked whether John did come, or no. . . . [If he says] that John did come, from whence hast thou this, O Marcion ? [1.38.] Perhaps he says from the testimony to Isu. . . .8

* * * * * * *

[P.62] The Jews say that in the days of the Messenger the King's Son [l. 6.] also comes, seeing that John also when he [heard] the report of [Isu] that he had come [asked] him, 'Hast thou then come, or look we for another ?' 9 And he (i.e. John the Baptist) does not say, 'they look,' but 'we look,' in order to show that he and his contemporaries, in his own days and in those of his contemporaries, were looking for Him.

If therefore the Jews say that if Elijah comes the Messiah also has come, and (as) John thought concerning Isu, when He came, that He was he, was not this because he firmly believed that he was to come in his own days, even John's ? On that account he thought concerning Him, when He came, that it was he, or did not even John know when the Messiah was to come ? And why then did he (i.e. John) come ? If he came to smooth the way before Him, then he came to clear away stones. But if he came to call sinners to repentance and to baptize the [P. 63.] repentant, he was sent to purge away sins by means of water. It is evident that these were prepared as it were for the guest-chamber of Him that was to come, and it is manifest that He has come. If He dwells in pure hearts, He is therefore spiritual; but if He who was coming was not spiritual, because He was David's Son, let him (i.e. Marcion) explain to us which was the way that John (was) smoothing for Him. For in honour of kings, or kings' sons, ways are levelled and stones cleared away before them. But before (the coming of) this One he said that minds should be purified. What is probable ? That David's Son . . .10 |xxx not to David himself ? Or can it be that David also, in the days of his sovereignty, was dwelling in minds and not in palaces ? And if David was dwelling in palaces, and also David's son is to dwell in palaces, what (was) John preparing for him ? minds instead of palaces ? Or can it be that John smoothed ways and prepared palaces, though he was not even dwelling in the cultivated land ?

[P. 64.] But nevertheless, although John was the Messenger of the kingdom, he did not go straight to the capital of the kingdom. Why did he leave the cultivated land and go out to the desert ? Or can it be that he who sent him came into the desert and that on that account he who was sent also was preaching in the desert ? But if they drove him out, did they not treat him rightly ? For what did they see in him that was likely to make them believe that he was the Messenger of Him who was coming ? Perhaps (they were convinced by) the fact that he was imprisoned, or that he was removed, or that the girl played with his skull! But perhaps thou wilt say that they did these things to John by the power of Herod. And if he is the Messenger of that Messiah to all nations, was he really not greater than Herod even there ? Or can it be that even the general of Herod was greater than the King of the. nations ? . . . But if thou sayest that these men, on account of their subjection, were more submissive [P. 65.] than . . ., whereas Herod was not subjected and submissive but he subjected. . . .

* * * * * * *

[l. 20.] For if in truth he was His herald ... a Messenger for the [l. 28.] King. Can it be that he who is coming is really persecuted [1. 34.] like his Messenger ? . . . Or is he really killed like him ? But if at his coming [they did] not [recognise him, how does he] resemble him (i.e. John) ?

* * * * * * *

[P. 66, 1. 29.]. . . For even if he were not 'in his days,' but yet were really like him in every respect, this would suffice, even by itself, to refute them (by showing) that he cannot be 'strange' to one whom he resembled in every respect. And if this one point would suffice to refute them, how much more credible will it be [p. 67.] that he is not 'strange' to this man (?) also who happened to |xxxi be in his days, seeing that at the mouth of two witnesses every word is established !

But if thou sayest that therefore not (only) John is like Isu, but also Elijah and Jeremiah, who preceded him, thou sayest well. But are these whom thou citest like him or not ? If they are like him, lo ! it is against thee that thou canst not turn round (?) and say that by chance, as it were, John only happened to be like him. But lo ! thou saidst that there are many men of former times who are like John, and these are all like Isu, so that now we have found that humility existed before Isu. And if humility existed before him, what is that one new thing which he brought with him (and) which was not in those three (i.e. John, Elijah, and Jeremiah) and in their other associates who were like them ?

Why forsooth do they say that there was no fasting (in the world), seeing that when all the scattered groups (lit. fragments) of the followers of Marcion are gathered together they cannot keep the fast of Ezekiel, nor have they (ever) prayed, nor do they (now) pray, a prayer like that of the friends of Daniel ? 11 [P.68] If they say, 'We are praying the whole day,' let us see whether their prayer is accepted. But perhaps they will say, '(It is.) for how do you know that it is not accepted ?' I say, 'From the fact that He does not do for them here (?) anything at all.' And if they say that He does (something) for them, let them show (it) us, and we will accept (it) ! For Daniel used to pray three times a day and by means of his prayer he interpreted dreams and brought back the People from Babylon, and angels used to come to him at the time of his prayer. But the Marcionites, because they pray more than Daniel, as they say, will not accomplish more than he, nor even as much as he, but less than he. But since they pray more than the righteous, as they say, and yet are not answered even as much as sinners (are answered), it is clear that, because they pray to one who does not exist, on that account they are not heard or answered when they |xxxii pray. But if we pray concerning great and heavenly things, [P. 69, 1.6.] these are additions. . . . What is the new (kind of) prayer which he brought with him ?

* * * * * * *

[1. 21.] Perhaps thou wilt say that these things were not announced in the Old (Testament), for in the New (Testament). . . .

[P. 70.] * * * * * * *

[1. 17.] by means of the prophet, and speaks thus that he should give again his cheek to him who smites. . . .

* * * * * * *

[1. 36.] to the prophets he sent it and also to Isu. And if Isu did not send the prophets and the Maker did not send Isu, then from these same sufferings of the prophets Isu [took an example] that [P. 71.] he might adorn himself with them in the midst of the world when he came ; because he saw that these very (qualities) were pleasing (lit. chosen) and agreeable to one who loves, he invested himself with them and made use of them, so that he might attract the inhabitants of our world by the humility which was pleasing to them. And if he attracts us by something that is pleasing to us, how can that which is pleasing to us be strange to our nature ? For even if they had not been in the prophets, but are greatly pleasing to our nature (it would equally follow"). Or do they say that he changed our nature and (the nature) of the former prophets ? Who changed their nature ? Was it Isu ? Wilt thou not then tell us that he was in the world ? And if he was in the world, then the world was in him 12 ; and if the world was in him, he is the Creator's Son, as the Scriptures say, and he is not the Stranger's Son, as the followers of Marcion erroneously assert. But if he was not in the world,13 who previously sowed in our world the pleasing qualities of Isu ?

Did then the Maker really know that by means of these he (i.e. Isu) was destined to lead created beings astray, and did He give them to us beforehand, in order that we might not go astray [P. 72.] after Isu when he came ? And where is that (passage which |xxxiii says) that 'there is none that knoweth the Father save the Son' ?14 [P. 72.] And again, that which says that 'none of the princes of the world knew him' ? 15 And if it be that because the Maker did know He announced them to us beforehand, did He not thereby really lead us astray so that we should think concerning Isu that he was from Him, when he announced these very things which He also had announced to us ? But let us suppose that these things belong to Isu ; can it be that he actually changed the prophets, and that they were then able to fulfil these commandments ? And if he actually changed the prophets, how can he announce to us that we should accomplish them, when he has not yet changed our nature ? In virtue of the fact that he incites us by 'Blessed are the humble in their spirit,' 16 will he really change our nature ? And if five hundred Beatitudes do not change our nature, if he utters (lit. gives) them we are not able to fulfil in this nature that which we are not able to fulfil in this nature without a change. Or is it because he cannot that he does not change it ? Or because he does not wish ? If he cannot, how was he able to change the nature of the former ones ? And if, though he was able, he really did not wish, how did he consent to change (that) of the former ones ? And if he [P. 73.] did not wish to change (them), why will he change us by means of laws which are strange to our nature ? But if the laws are akin to our nature, and our nature to the laws, where is that' Strangeness ' of the Stranger ? . . .

That thou mayest know that these others also [agree] with [l. 26.] these former ones which I have enumerated to thee [I will cite] the words of David, when he says,17 'My knees are weak through fasting, and my flesh is wasted for want of ointment,' and Job says,18 'Sackcloth have I girded on my skin, and I have sprinkled my head with dust.' And again David says,19 'I have made sackcloth my raiment.' Who therefore remains to the Stranger ? |xxxiv [P. 74.] . . . of those things which Isu commanded there is found in our Scriptures ; so that if he preached mercy, it is found in David . . . mercy is more (?) pleasing to Him than fasting from bread (?), for he says,20 ' This is not the fast which I have chosen, saith the LORD, that thou shouldst bend thy neck like a rush and spread out sackcloth and ashes for thyself, but this is the fast which I have chosen, saith the LORD, that thou shouldst loose the bonds of iniquity, and give thy bread to the hungry, and bring the alien into thine house.' And, again, if fasting is pleasing to the Stranger, lo, Elijah and Elishah and the sons of the prophets (are examples thereof), and lo, John, who fasted in his own days (i.e. in the days of the Stranger) ! If then these (persons) are pleasing [to the Just God], as also they are indeed pleasing to Him, why does He torment His friends here ? Either there is something compassionate [in Him and gracious] to these who are here tormented ; or if there is nothing [He is] very wicked, and they are wronged [by Him] on whose account they are here tormented ! And how [is manifested] the Justice of the Just One ?

[P.75] [See] also, O Marcion, that [these] two Gods, namely the Maker and the Stranger, are both of them angry at the same thing, and take pleasure in the same thing, and are gratified by the same thing. For the Maker is angry at hateful things, and the Good (God) also is angry at hateful things — if it be right to admit that the Good (God) is angry with those who have committed no offence whatever against Him. And so also both of them are gratified by good things, for ... it is evident that they are both angry at adultery and theft and other hateful things, and that they are both gratified by sackcloth and fasting and prayer. For what has happened to these two Gods that they should have one will ? Is it not clear that either there is (only) One God, or that they are both One, for as one they both will with one will ?

And that thou mightest know that this is so, the Maker sanctified Moses and sent him to Egypt, and since Moses wished to take his wife with him by force, He (i.e. the Maker) constrained |xxxv him by means of an angel21 to send her back, that He might show how pleasing holiness is to Him. And the Stranger also acted likewise towards Simon (Peter), although he did not [P. 76.] compel him ; and (the fact) that he did not compel him, was it because it did not [become] Him to compel, not only because He is good but also because He is not our Creator ? And again, when the People had been sanctified, He did not allow them to approach the holy mountain because they were turning again to married life ; but the People were standing at a distance, and Moses the holy was speaking, and God was answering with a voice. And again, the disciples also were standing in silence, and Simon only was speaking. And perhaps thou wilt say, Was there not among them John, a virgin, and were not all his companions holy ? (But I reply, Nay—) for here (i.e. at Sinai) also were not the People holy in relation to the Maker ? And Joshua was a virgin, and 22 he (i.e. Moses) was brought in with Joshua only. Lo ! here also it is found that Isu resembles the Maker ; for the Maker sanctified the chief of His prophets, and Isu sanctified the chief of His apostles.

But if on account of the holiness which He preached you [P. 77.] think concerning Him that He is a Stranger, then (are we to suppose that) Elijah was caught up to the heavens of the Stranger? For He 23 would not have taken up and made to ascend to His heavens one who by his holiness wished to be the opponent of the Creator, who wished that by means of marriage the creation should be fruitful and multiply. For by the case of Elijah, so to speak, all the creation of the Creator has been made void. But how could Elijah have been received (into the heavens) on account of that one thing? . . . For the [P. 78, l.14.] priest was not allowed to enter the Tabernacle unless he was sanctified in his body. . . But if that single [virgin] of the [l.38.] Maker had preceded those many [virgins] of the Stranger, |xxxvi it would be right that that Maker who had preceded (the [P. 79. l.16.] Stranger) should be called . . . since there is no other who was before him, so as to enable us to say that he (i.e. the former) was the cause of him (i.e. of the latter), and that this one imitated him, since he was the latter and imitated the Maker. How is he the Stranger ? Since therefore we have found that the prophets are like to one another in humility, and John to all of them, and all of them to Isu, how then can the Stranger, who resembles them all, be strange to them all ? Or can it be that they give the name of 'Strangeness' to that which is similar ? Well, then, the prophets also, who resemble one another, are 'strange' to one another ! And if thou sayest that thou wilt not compare creatures to God — for 'how (?) can creatures who have been humbled resemble a God who has been humbled ?' — (I ask) then, Is it because Isu was humbled whereas the Maker was not humbled that [P. 80.] strangeness arises ? Well, then, according to thy reasoning, because the Father of Isu is not humbled together with Isu who was humbled, the Stranger also, who was not humbled, is strange to His son who was humbled. And if the Stranger who was not humbled is not strange to His son who was humbled, then it is not because one was humbled and the other was not humbled that the Strangeness arises but because Strangeness consists in Strangeness to the nature (of some one). But if Isu who was humbled resembles the Stranger who was not humbled, how much more will Isu who was humbled resemble the Maker who was humbled ! For in what consists the fact that Isu was humbled ? Is it not in this that he was manifested to men and taught them to do what is good ? If this is not also (found) in the case of the Maker, they (i.e. the Marcionites) speak truly. And if not even this was lacking to Him, why do they utter blasphemy by means of the Strangeness which they introduce ? Did He not enter into the abode of Abraham and eat ? And if it was right that we should say that He ate and that He was manifested to Moses and to Elijah and to Isaiah and to Daniel and the rest of the prophets — and that thou mightest not say |xxxvii that He was manifested only to righteous men, whereas the Stranger (was manifested) to sinners—lo, He was manifested [P. 81.] to the whole People without exception! And if thou sayest that they were righteous, (I answer) Lo, on account of their iniquity they all fell in the wilderness and, except in the case of two, they did not enter into the land of promise. We have thus compared Isu with the Maker, and it has been seen that the Maker was antecedent to Isu in humiliation. And if thou sayest that Isu was actually crucified, thou sayest that it seemed so (?), and not the truth. And if thou addest that He also went down to Sheol and ascended, thou sayest (it) without believing (it). For thou dost not confess the [coming to life of] the body. But inasmuch as (?) it is true that He was actually manifested, the Maker anticipated Him in manifestation. How therefore canst thou liken Isu to that Stranger, who is strange to Him in every respect ? And (why) dost thou wish, on the other hand, to account Him strange to the Maker when He resembles Him in every respect ?

But if Marcion still persists in cavilling, let him be asked again as to whether he believes the word of the Stranger or not. If he believes it, what did He (i.e. the Stranger) testify concerning John ? That John forsooth was a liar, or a true man ? Did [P. 82.] He say concerning him that he was in error, or that he was an enlightener of such as are in error ? If then John is a true man, and not a reed shaken by every wind,24 why [therefore] is he shaken and does he think about Jesus 25 that he [was] the Messiah of the Law. And if [John knew] the word of Isu to be 'No,' [lo,] then Isu really lied in that he said concerning John that he (i.e. John) did send to him. But if in truth John was shaken and sent to Isu, the word of Isu was also a lie, when he testified concerning John that he was not a reed shaken by every wind.

Thus both of these assertions cannot stand. For either he was shaken, or he was not shaken. If he was shaken he was a |xxxviii reed, and why did he (i.e. Isu) say that he was not a reed ? And if he was not a reed, then he was not shaken. And can it be that he wrote (a letter) and dispatched it to him, and sent to him (saying), 'Art thou He that cometh ?' But it is wonderful to hear that John believes in David's Son, and yet Isu bears witness [P. 83.] in saying concerning him that he was not a reed and he has been found to be going astray after the Stranger, though the Messiah who is (mentioned) in the Law is strange to him (i.e. to the Stranger) in every respect. And were it not for the testimony of Isu, who said that he was not a reed, it would have been possible to say that because John was humble and happened (to live) in the days of Isu who preached humility, by reason of his humility which resembled his (i.e. the humility of Isu) he abandoned the exalted Son of David and loved the humble Isu; but that (passage) which says that he was not a reed does not permit us to hold this opinion concerning John.

But as for this John, who erred [in thinking that it was necessary] that he should send to Him, did he really know the time, or did he send to Him though he knew that it was not He ? And what then compelled him to send to Him ? If (it was) that his disciples might learn from Isu . . .

* * * * * * * [P. 84.]

[l. 40.] And if thou sayest that because He is kind He did not wish [P. 85.] to [injure] John, then because He is kind will He not [condemn] the heathen and the [wicked] and [will] He bear witness to all the [1. 41.] [false] teachings that they are true ? . . . and, what is greater than all things which (consist) of dust and ashes (?), He caused them to attain to all this discernment; if He secretly [P. 86.] punishes them for their grievous sins, He becomes an evil Being (?).

And if they say that the sole reason that Isu said concerning |xxxix John 'Blessed is he, if he is not offended in me,' 26 was in order that he might show that he did not communicate (lit. deliver over) to him that other (utterance) which he said concerning him, that he was not a reed—why did he say it ? But if the sole reason of his saying it was in order to show that John was true in his teaching, then he did not send to Isu, and Isu himself made him (i.e. the Evangelist) a liar who recorded that John sent to him, when (in reality) John did not send to him. And if what he said is true, namely that he sent to him, then is not John true ? And if Isu had wished to send to him (saying) 'I am He,' would he not have been going astray after him ? But he said 'Blessed is he if he is not offended in me.' Whom then do they call a stumbling-block ? Is it not he who turned back from (being) with him ? John therefore was one who believed in Isu, and on that account Isu sent (saying) 'Blessed is he if he remains steadfast and is not offended in me.' Or can it be that by means of the beatitude he actually wished to deceive John ? And was [P. 87.] John deceived or not ? If he was not deceived, then the bribe of the Stranger was lost. And did not the Stranger know that his bribe would not be accepted by John ? And if he knew, why did he allow his bribe to be lost, that is to say, the bribe of that praise of his ?

But concerning Moses and Elijah who were found on the mountain in company with Isu, what do they (i.e. the Marcionites) say that they were doing in his presence ? But they say that they were guardians there. And what. pray, were they guarding, since there was nothing on the mountain ? And if there had been anything on it, the Maker would have had the Cherub and the point of the sword with which to surround the mountain.27 And if because Isu was a stranger to Him (i.e. to the Maker) they were guarding the mountain for Him, then, as between the mountain and the sanctuary, which of them was greater 28 to the Maker, that He should cease to guard His city and |lx His sanctuary and send them (i.e. Moses and Elijah) to guard a mountain in which there was nothing ? If He did not set forth [P.88.] some symbol there for us, let them tell us what such persons as Moses and Elijah were doing there. And if they say, 'You are asking us concerning your own (affairs) also,' then leave that (question) of ours as to what they were doing, and tell us (?) your own (opinion), namely on what account Isu went up thither. Was it in order to fight that he went up thither ? . . . did he make war against the Maker or . . . ? . . .

* * * * * * *

[l. 38.] These [two, why] were they sent ? For the Maker had myriads [l. 46.] of angels, if to make war [He desired] ... Or were they with [P. 89.] him to say to him (i.e. to Isu) : "If thou art really buying, in order to buy mankind,29 what is the price of mankind ? And if thou art taking mankind, why didst thou beforehand take the Twelve and the Seventy -two from the [flock] 30 of another ? . . . 31 Or can it be that thou art taking mankind [l. 12.] hence ? And art thou not, lo, he that said that before the foundation of the world thou knewest them ? 32 Why then didst thou not take them before, when as yet [thou didst not intend to [1. 27.] buy ?]"... If again they returned and said to him "[As for] mankind, because thou art about to buy them, if thou didst take them beforehand, nothing hinders (?) : this mountain that thou hast gone up—and why ?—was this mountain also really required for thee ? And if it is required for thee, give |lxi the price of it, seeing thou hast gone up ; and if it is not intended by thee to buy the mountain, get down off it; why wilt thou stir up enmity for thyself with the Maker about nothing ? But the price of mankind will not be found by thee to give to the Maker, for He has given no pledge." If such words were [P. 90.] put forward (lit. were in the midst), and things similar to them, [then] it was for war that they had come to him. But if Isu came to (wage) war, he was not a good Being, for he did not purchase ... it would not be right for a good Being to injure, [l. 14.] much less those whom he had not yet even purchased ! And were it not that our Maker is good and there is no end to his kindness, He would surely, not have trusted the Stranger so as to give him men to accompany him, when as yet he had not paid their price to Him. Or was there, forsooth, a bargain ? And did Isu say to the Maker, 'Give me men, and I will not depart from Thy house, that is, Thy creation, until I pay Thee their price ' ? And did not the Maker learn from the descent of Isu that he was also to ascend, so that as there was no one who perceived him when he came down, in like manner he would remove those whom he wished to purchase and carry (them) off without any one perceiving him ? But perhaps the Maker [p. 91.] said to him these very things, and Isu returned answer to Him and said to Him, 'If I carry (them) off, as Thou thinkest, in virtue of that which I did when coming down, those souls which I am purchasing from Thee, how can I take them up without Thy consent ?'

And that we may not explore too far into the perverse tale of Marcion, this pact that Moses, etc., agreed on with the Stranger in the mountain,—the glory moreover, which He shewed them in the mountain, for what purpose (was it shewn) ? Can it be |lxii (that it was done) in order that He might shew them that what He gave was greater than what He received ? Then also Moses, etc., sold themselves to Him there, on account of that surpassing glory which they saw. And perhaps Isu too shewed them that glory on the mountain in order to incite Moses, etc., so that because Moses and Elijah were accustomed to that surpassing vision of the Maker Isu shewed them that (his glory) surpassed that of the Maker, in order that they might desire it eagerly on [P. 92.] account of its surpassing character. Well, then, in short, they made a bargain with him, because they had loved him.

And if thou sayest that neither for a sale nor for a bargain had Moses, etc., come to Him, then why had they come to Him ? Can it be that they had come to fight ? And very likely It is that men would come to fight against God ! And which of them is it who strikes (the blow), or which is it who is struck ? Or did he on this account take his Apostles with him and cause them to ascend (the mountain), in order that they might wage war with the Prophets ? And which of the sides conquered there or lost ? But that battle, what was it for ? Can it have been on account of the love of their Gods ? And why would not those Gods themselves contend for the love of mankind ? For if the Gods are at peace, why do they contend about mankind ? . . . [l. 39.] For if created things are from One, unadvisedly did Isu [1.42.] interpose, ... If they say that in truth the Stranger went up to heaven, see how much the Maker despised him and . . . [P.93.] against his disciples and against him [who said], 'This is my Son and my Beloved,' 33 [for] He had sent only two against them.

[1.10.] But [if] they say, ' If . . . is it not clear that because he was very strong on that account he did not overcome [him ? How] could two men [overcome] three ? [Were they just] two men — and not [both] alive, but one alive and one dead — to fight [a God] ! Was the Maker then really afraid to come, and on that account indeed did not come ? So that if He had come, He would have been killed ! Or can then a Divine Nature suffer pain, either |lxiii the Maker's or the Stranger's ? And if they did not suffer, why did the Maker not come against him ? Or can it be that He really knew that Moses, etc., would be sufficient to meet the attack of the Stranger, and therefore He did not come ? For lo, even the Stranger did not contend with them, and it is clear that he really perceived that they were stronger than he, and on that account he remained quiet (and refrained) from engaging in battle. And as to his preparing battle with the Maker, if [his desires hankered] 34 after men, why was he [lo,] unable to [P. 94.] create this ? And if to create men he was too weak, how much more was he too weak to wage war against God ! Again, the Stranger who proclaimed there, 'This is my Son and my Beloved,' whom did He wish to cause to hear (it) ? Can it be that He was calling to Moses, etc., that He might make them His disciples ? Or that He might warn them not to say anything to him (i.e. to Isu) ? And from which heavens did He call ? Was it from the heaven of the Maker ? And why did He descend to it ? If, as it were, on account of the aforesaid Maker the Stranger descended to it, then He did not snatch away men only but also the heaven. Or can it be that the Stranger purchased the angels who were in the heaven together with the heaven ? But if those who were above were not purchased by Him, why did He pass through their abodes ? But if (the voice) came that it might be a witness to the Son, who had no witness on earth, lo ! seeing that the voice came from the heaven of the Maker, who is to tell us that he is [P. 95.] not the Son of the Maker, in a case where the voice which came was coming from the heaven of the Maker, especially when the mountain was the mountain of the Maker, and the cloud of Moses, etc., belonged to the Maker, and the prophets likewise who were on the mountain (were the prophets) of the Maker ?

For if the voice had come from the heaven of the Stranger perhaps it would have been reasonable for us to think that in order that mankind might not be mistaken, owing to the mountain and the cloud and Moses, etc., on that account the voice was coming to them from the heaven of the Stranger, so as to overthrow the opinion which they had concerning Isu. But if even the voice |lxiv which came was from the heaven of the Maker, it did not by any means disown him (by asserting) that he was not the Son of the Maker, but it actually confirmed it that he is the Son of the Maker, and the servants of his Father's house, who had come to do him honour, were witnesses (thereto).

For if there had been a battle, the Maker would not have remained silent, He who even when there was another God did not [P. 96.] refrain from (saying) 'I am God and there is none beside.' And if when there were idols, whose nature showed (lit. answered) that they were not gods, He was proclaiming 'I am He and there is none beside,' (can we suppose that) in a case when a God was warring against a God the Creator went into a hiding-place, that the creation might go astray after the Stranger ? For if in connection with idols He had been silent, (yet) here it would be right for Him to cry out. How much more when He was not silent even towards dead idols ! But seeing that the questions relating to a war have, as in a (real) war, overcome and silenced the question of purchase, now that the tale about a war has come to an end, let us turn to the question of purchase. Explain to us then, What is the purchase which the Stranger made, and from whom did He purchase it ? And, moreover, by means of what did He purchase it ? And that thing by means of which he purchased that which He purchased, of what nature was it ? Was that which He gave of the nature of the aforesaid Good Being, or did He really create (something) and give (it) ? And was not that which the Stranger created fairer than that which the Maker created for Himself ? And if that which He (i.e. the Stranger) created for Himself was fairer, why did He [P. 97] sell unadvisedly and become a laughing-stock ? And if that which He gave was something smaller, the weakness of the Stranger was seen in His creative action. And how was the wise Just Being persuaded to give to the Stranger something great in return [P.98. 17] for something small ? . . . Was it . . . bodies that are from HULE that he bought, or souls ? And if it was souls, |lxv then why [did he not buy] the bodies ? . . . they say that [l. 32.] because the souls had been polluted (lit. had become turbid) He came to purify them. But if those souls were not polluted, then did not the Stranger who purchased them make a. mistake about them ? And even if the souls were polluted, on which account he came to buy them, [was he not alien to their nature ?]

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * * [P. 99.]

And if they should say that 'He purifies the nature of [l. 8.] the Souls' . . . because 'a fire is kindled in mine anger and [l. 19.] it will burn unto the lowest Sheol.' 35 If He is a nature from whom fire is kindled and it then consumes Him in His turn, (in the case of) everything else which is found to belong to that nature fire will therefore be kindled from it and will then consume it in its turn. For if thou bringest some of the water of the sea into a royal city bitterness is (still) in it. And so too. the souls which (come) from the Maker are polluted as the source (lit. root) from which those souls came is polluted. For it is unlikely that they will say that the fruits are changed when the root of the fruits is not changed. And if they say that that root [P. 100.] also is changed, then how did He (i.e. the Stranger) not exert Himself in the case of the root as in the case of the fruits, that the perfect goodness of the Stranger might be proclaimed ? But the Apostle says,36 'Eve shall live on account of her children' : then the Maker will have lived on account of the souls which (came) from Him. Or did the Maker not wish to live thus ? And how did the souls which (came) from Him consent to live ? But if the nature of the souls is the same, their will also is the |lxvi same. And if their will is different, their nature also is strange, and they are not from the Maker. And let them tell us whence are those souls ; for it is probable that they are not from the Maker. For He would not sell them (if they were really His), because He would not hate His own nature and love a nature which was not His own. " And if He was selling His nature for something which was not akin to His nature, there is a great kinship between Him and the Stranger, for lo ! one affection is found in both of them ; and moreover one will belongs to both [P. 101.] of them, namely that the Just One should love the nature of the Stranger and sell some of His possessions to Him, and that the Stranger should love the nature of the Just One and purchase from Him. And it will also be (considered) that that nature of the Just One, which is bought as being something precious, surpasses (the other) ; for if the nature of the Just One were not more excellent than that of the Stranger, the Stranger would not have actually purchased it. But what did the Stranger give to those whom He purchased ? And if He gave them a kingdom, can it be that He gave them one greater than that of Elijah and Enoch ? And why then did He not bring with Him some of His good things hither also ? Or (was it) because our domain is not worthy of them, (and) did He on that account not even introduce them into our domain ? In that case they are greater than the aforesaid Isu, inasmuch as our domain is worthy of Isu and unworthy of His (i.e. the Stranger's) good things. And if (it was) in order that they might not be denied, then he (i.e. Isu) was denied when he entered our domain. . . .

[P. 102.]

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

END OF DISCOURSE AGAINST THE (FALSE) TEACHINGS.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note from Vol. 1 Introduction, p. (10):

[Short lacunae are indicated in the translation by dots, and longer gaps by asterisks, but in neither case is the number of the dots or asterisks intended to bear any exact relation to the number of the missing words. In respect to this an approximately correct inference may be drawn by consulting the Syriac text.

Double inverted commas mark quotations where the original has [Syriac]

Single inverted commas are used in numerous cases where the words seem to be quotations or to belong to a special terminology.

Words in italics inside square brackets are to be regarded as conjectural translations or paraphrases.

In a few passages, where the text has suffered great mutilation, italics indicate an attempt to summarise the argument from suggestions in the fragments.]

[P.101] indicates page 101 of the accompanying Syriac. [l.2] means line 2 of the current page of the accompanying Syriac. [RP]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES

I have moved the footnotes to the end. Those consisting of "Read [syriac] for [syriac]" or similar have been omitted, as it has not been possible to transcribe the fragments of Syriac. The pages are numbered with Roman numerals. Arabic numbers and line numbers relate to the Syriac text printed at the back of the paper volume. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

1. 2 Jeremiah xl 2 ff.

2. 2 Ezra iv 15, vi 1 ff. (paraphrased).

3. 3 This refers to the sth~lai set up round the Temple ; one of these was discovered by Clermont-Ganneau in 1871. Ephraim probably knew of them through Josephus (B J v 5, 2).

4. 4 I.e. Foreigners are not to enter the Jews' sacred limits. The MS. clearly reads [Syriac], p. 52, 1. 42.

5. 5 This is meant ironically.

6. 1 For the details of the reconstruction of this passage, see the list of Corrigenda. The Palimpsest is to me (F. C. B.) illegible.

7. 2 The 'Cherub' and the 'point of the sword' are taken verbatim from Gen. iii 24 syr.vg, but the enclosure (or 'hedge') of the Tree of Life is not a Biblical phrase.

8. 1 Isu. It is clear from these treatises that this transliteration of the Greek 0Ihsou~s must have been used by the Syriac-speaking Marcionites, but it is not preserved elsewhere in extant Syriac literature, the genuine Semitic form Yeshu' or 'Isho' (i.e. Joshua) being found without exception.

9. 2 Luke vii 19, but differing from the Syriac Bible.

10. 3 Hole in MS.

11. 2 Ephraim seems to have regarded the Song of the Three Children as an integral part of the Book of Daniel.

12. 2 See John i 10 (C, not syr.vg).

13. 3 Delete the footnote, p. 71, 1. 37.

14. 1 Luke x 22 (not as in the Syriac Bible).

15. 2 1 Cor. ii 8 (knew it, syr.vg.).

16. 3 Matt, v 5 and 3 inaccurately cited).

17. 5 Ps. cix 24.

18. 6 Job xvi 15.

19. 8 Ps. lxix 11 [12].

20. 1 Isaiah lviii 5 ff. (not quite accurately cited).

21. 1 See Exod. iv 24-26 : the same view of the passage is taken by Aphraates (Wright, p. 110, 1. 11 — Pat. Syr. i 257) and by Ephraim elsewhere (ES i 205C).

22. 3 See Exod. xxiv 13.

23. 4 I.e., apparently, the Creator.

24. 2 Luke vii 24.

25. 3 [Syriac] does appear to be the reading of the palimpsest. It is the only occurrence of the ordinary Syriac form of the name 'Jesus' in the anti-Marcionite treatises.

26. 1 Luke vii 23, but the wording is that of Matt, xi 6 C. Epiphanius (Haer. 324) says Marcion read this 'corruptly' (parhllagme/non), referring the application of the saying to John: we may infer that the corruption consisted in reading e0a_n mh_ for o4j e0a_n mh_ .

27. 2 See Gen. iii 24, and above, p. 58.

28. 3 Read as in the text, and delete the note to p. 87, l. 37.

29. 3 Or, 'men,' and so throughout the paragraph.

30. 6 This word (p. 89, 1. 9) is illegible, but for the idea of ' flocks' and ' shepherds ' in Marcionite sources, see p. 106, 1. 40 ff.

31. 7 The three illegible lines must express something like " before the price was agreed upon."

32. 9 See Eph. i 4.

33. 2 Luke ix 35, as in syr.C, and often elsewhere in Ephraim.

34. 1 P. 94, 1. 3, is illegible, but the sense seems to be as above.

35. 3 Deut. xxxii 22. The use of this verse by Marcionites as a proof-text is attested also by Eznik (J. M. Schmid's tr., p. 200).

36. 7 1 Tim. ii 15 : [Syriac] (p. 100, 1. 11) is right, and the note should be deleted. The reading and interpretation of the passage agrees with Ephraim's own Commentary (Ephr. arm in Epp. Pauli, p. 248).