The fountain of power is the
Father, and the power of the Father is the Son, and the spirit of that power is
the Holy Spirit.
Gregory of Nyssa
-
- The Book:
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, : Gregory of
Nyssa (The Early Church Fathers Series) by Philip Schaff
(Editor), Henry Wace (Editor)
-
- Our
Commentary:
- Gregory of Nyssa to Ablabius - On Not Three
Gods
- Gregory of Nyssa Trinity and the
Godhead
- Gregory of Nyssa Holy Spirit Against
Macedonius
You are
here
- On
The Holy Spirit
-
[Red notes are the
translator's]
It may indeed be undignified to give any answer
at all to the statements that are foolish; we seem to be pointed that
way by Solomon's wise advice, "not to answer a fool according to his
folly." But there is a danger lest through our silence error may
prevail over the truth, and so the rotting sore of this heresy may
invade it, and make havoc of the sound word of the faith. It has
appeared to me, therefore, to be imperative to answer, not indeed
according to the folly of these men who offer objections of such a
description to our Religion, but for the correction of their depraved
ideas. For that advice quoted above from the Proverbs gives, I think,
the watchword not for silence, but for the correction of those who
are displaying some act of folly; our answers, that is, are not to
run on the level of their foolish conceptions, but rather to overturn
those unthinking and deluded views as to doctrine.
What then is the charge they bring against us?
They accuse us of profanity for
entertaining lofty conceptions about
the Holy Spirit. All that we, in following the teachings of the
Fathers, confess as to the Spirit, they take in a sense of their own,
and make it a handle against us, to denounce us for profanity
We, for instance, confess that the Holy Spirit
is of the same rank as the Father and the Son, so that there is no
difference between them in anything, to be thought or named, that devotion can
ascribe to a Divine nature. We confess that, save His being
contemplated as with peculiar attributes in regard of Person,
the Holy Spirit is indeed from God, and of the
Christ, according to Scripture
,
[From God, and of
the Christ, according to Scripture. This is noticeable. The Greek is
ek tou Qeou esti, kai tou Xristou esti, kaqwj gegraptai. Compare the
words below "proceeding from the Father, receiving from the
Son."]
but that, while not to be confounded with the
Father in being never originated, nor with the Son in being the
Only-begotten, and while to be regarded separately in certain
distinctive properties,
He has in all else, as I have just said, an
exact identity with them.
[to aparallkton
(but there is something lost before this: perhaps to hnwmenon). This
word is used to express substantial identity. Origen uses it in alluding to the "Stoic
resurrection," i. e. the time when the "Great Year" shall again
begin, and the world's history be literally repeated, i. e. the
"identical Socrates shall marry the identical Xantippe, and teach the
identical philosophy, &c." This expression was a favourite one
also with Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria to express the identity
of Glory, of Godhead, and of Honour, in the Blessed Trinity.]
But our
opponents aver that He is a stranger to
any vital communion with the Father and the Son; that by reason of an
essential variation
He is inferior to, and less than
they in every point; in power, in glory, in dignity, in fine in
everything that in word or thought we ascribe to Deity; that,
in consequence, in their glory He has no share,
to equal honour with them He has no claim; and that, as for power, He
possesses only so much of it as is
sufficient for the partial activities assigned to Him; that with the creative force He is quite
disconnected.
Such is the conception of Him that possesses
them; and the logical consequence of it is that the Spirit has in
Himself none of those marks which our devotion, in word or thought,
ascribes to a Divine nature. What then, shall be our way of arguing?
We shall answer nothing new, nothing of our own invention, though
they challenge us to it; we shall fall back upon the testimony in
Holy Scripture about the Spirit, whence we learn that the Holy Spirit
is Divine, and is to be called so.
Now, if they allow this, and will not
contradict the words of inspiration, then they, with all their
eagerness to fight with us, must tell us why they are for contending
with us, instead of with Scripture. We say nothing different from
that which Scripture says.-
But in a Divine nature, as such, when once we have believed
in it,
we can recognize
no distinctions suggested either by the
Scripture teaching or by our own common sense; distinctions, that is,
that would divide that Divine
and transcendent nature within itself
by any degrees of intensity and
remission,
so as to be altered from itself by being more or less.
Because we firmly believe that it is simple,
uniform, incomposite, because we see in it no complicity or composition of
dissimilars, therefore it is that, when once our minds have grasped
the idea of Deity, we accept by the implication of that very name the
perfection in it of every conceivable thing that befits the Deity.
Deity, in fact, exhibits perfection in every
line in which the good can be found. If it fails and comes short of
perfection in any single point, in that point the conception of Deity
will be impaired, so that it cannot, therein, be or be called Deity
at all; for how could we apply that word to a thing that is imperfect
and deficient, and requiring an addition external to itself?
We can confirm our argument by material instances.
Fire
naturally imparts the sense of heat to those who touch it, with all
its component parts ; one part of it does not have the heat more
intense, the other less intense; but as long as it is fire at all, it
exhibits an invariable oneness with itself in an absolutely complete
sameness of activity; if in any part it gets cooled at all, in that
part it can no longer be called fire; for, with the change of its
heat-giving activity into the reverse, its name also is changed.
It is the same with water, with
air, with
every element that underlies the universe; there is one and the same
description of the element, in each case, admitting of no ideas of
excess or defect; water, for instance, cannot be called more or less
water; as long as it maintains an equal standard of wetness, so long
the term water will be realized by it; but when once it is changed in
the direction of the opposite quality the name to be applied to it
must be changed also.
The yielding, buoyant, "nimble nature of the
air, too, is to be seen in every part of it; while what is dense,
heavy, downward gravitating, sinks out of the connotation of the very
term "air."
- nimble, koufon; compare
Macbeth, I. vi.
- "The air
- Nimbly and sweetly
recommends itself
So Deity, as long as it possesses perfection
throughout all the properties that devotion may attach to it, by
virtue of this perfection in everything good does not belie its name;
but if
any one of those things that contribute
to this idea of perfection is
subtracted
from it,
the name of Deity is
falsified
in that particular, and does not apply to the subject any longer.
It is equally impossible to apply to a dry
substance the name of water, to that whose quality is a state of
coolness the name of fire, to stiff and hard things the name of air,
and to call that thing Divine which does not at once imply the idea
of perfection; or rather the impossibility is greater in this last
case.
If, then, the Holy Spirit is truly, and not in
name only, called Divine both by Scripture and by our Fathers, what
ground is left for those who oppose the glory of the Spirit? He is
Divine, and absolutely good, and Omnipotent, and wise, and glorious,
and eternal; He is everything of this kind that can be named to raise
our thoughts to the grandeur of His being.
The singleness of the subject
of these properties testifies that He does not possess them in a
measure only,
as if we could imagine that He was
one thing in His very substance, but became another by the presence
of the aforesaid qualities.
That condition is peculiar to those beings who
have been given a composite nature; whereas
the Holy Spirit is single and simple in every respect equally.
This is allowed by all; the man who denies it
does not exist. If, then, there is but one simple and
single
definition of His being, the good which He possesses is not an
acquired good; but, whatever He may be besides, He is Himself Goodness, and
Wisdom, and Power, and Sanctification, and Righteousness, and
Everlastingness, and Imperishability, and every name that is lofty,
and elevating above other names.
What, then, is the state of mind that leads
these men, who do not fear the fearful sentence passed upon the
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,
to maintain that such a Being does
not possess glory?
For they clearly put that statement forward;
that we ought not to believe that He should be glorified: though I
know not for what reason they judge it to be expedient not to confess
the true nature of that which is essentially glorious.
For the plea will not avail them in their
self-defence, that He is delivered by our Lord to His disciples third
in order, and that therefore He is estranged from our ideal of Deity.
Where in each case activity in working good shows no diminution or
variation whatever, how unreasonable it is to suppose the numerical
order to be a sign of any diminution or essential variation! It is as
if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches (and
we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first
being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch ),
["The Ancient Greek
Fathers, speaking of this procession, mention the Father only, and
never, I think, express the Son, as sticking constantly in this to
the language of the Scriptures (John xv. 26)"-Pearson. The language
of the above simile of Gregory would be an illustration of this. So
Greg. Naz., Orat. I. de Filio, "standing on our definitions, we
introduce the Ungenerate, the Generated, and that which proceeds from
the Father." This last expression was so known and public, that it is
recorded even by Lucian in his Philopatris, §12.]
and were to maintain that the heat in the first
exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation
from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be
called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did
everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the
third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous
flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that
they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by
the Divine lips after the Father and the Son? Certainly, if there is
in our conceptions of the Substance of the Spirit anything that falls
short of the Divine ideal, they do well in testifying to His not
possessing glory; but if the highness of His dignity is to be
perceived in every point, why do they grudge to make the confession
of His glory? As if any one after describing some one as a man, were
to consider it not safe to go on to say of him as well that he is
reasoning, mortal, or anything else that can be predicated of a man,
and so were to cancel what he had just allowed; for if he is not
reasoning, he is not a man at all; but if the latter is granted, how
can there be any hesitation about the conceptions already implied in
"man"? So, with regard to the Spirit, if when one calls Him Divine
one speaks the truth, neither when one defines Him to be worthy of
honour, to be glorious, good, omnipotent, does one lie; for all such
conceptions are at once admitted with the idea of Deity. So that they
must accept one of two alternatives; either not to call Him Divine at
all, or to refrain from subtracting from His Deity any one of those
conceptions which are attributable to Deity. We must then, most
surely, comprehend along with each other these two thoughts, viz. the
Divine nature, and along with it a just idea, a devout intuition, of
that Divine and transcendent nature.
Since, then, it has been affirmed, and truly
affirmed, that the Spirit is of the Divine
Essence,
and since in that one word "Divine" every idea of greatness, as we
have said, is involved, it follows that he who grants that Divinity
has potentially granted all the rest;-the gloriousness, the
omnipotence, everything indicative of superiority. It is indeed a
monstrous thing to refuse to confess this in the case of the Spirit;
monstrous, because of the incongruity, as applied to Him, of the
terms which in the list of opposites correspond to the above terms. I
mean, if one does not grant gloriousness, one must grant the absence
of gloriousness; if one sets aside His power, one must acquiesce in
its opposite. So also with regard to honour, and goodness, and any
other superiority, if they are not accepted, their opposites must be
conceded.
But if all must shrink from that, as going even
beyond the most revolting blasphemy, then a devout mind must accept
the nobler names and conceptions of the Holy Spirit, and must
pronounce concerning Him all that we have already named, that He has
honour, power, glory, goodness, and everything else that inspires
devotion. It must own, too, that these realities do not attach to Him
in imperfection or with any limit to the quality of their brilliance,
but that they correspond with their names to infinity. He is not to
be regarded as possessing dignity up to a certain point, and then
becoming different; but He is always such. If you begin to count
behind the ages, or if you fix your gaze on the Hereafter, you will
find no falling off whatever in dignity, or glory, or omnipotence,
such as to constitute Him capable of increase by addition, or of
diminution by subtraction. Being wholly and entirely perfect, He
admits diminution in nothing. Whereinsoever, on such a supposition as
theirs, He is lessened, therein He will be exposed to the inroad of
ideas tending to dishonour Him. For that which is not absolutely
perfect must be suspected on some one point of partaking of the
opposite character. But if to entertain even the thought of this is a
sign of extreme derangement of mind, it is well to confess our belief
that His perfection in all that is good is altogether unlimited,
uncircumscribed, in no particular diminished.
If such is the doctrine concerning Him when
followed out, let the same inquiry be made concerning the Son and the
Father as well. Do you not confess
a perfection of glory in the case of
the one as in the case of the other? I think that all who reflect
will allow it. If, then, the honour of the Father is perfect, and the
honour of the Son is perfect, and they have confessed as well the
perfection of honour for the Holy Spirit, wherefore do these new
theorists dictate to us that we are not to allow in His case an
equality of honour with the Father and the Son? As for ourselves, we
follow out the above considerations and find ourselves unable to
think, as well as to say, that that which requires no addition for
its perfection is, as compared with something else, less dignified;
for when we have something wherein, owing to its faultless
perfection, reason can discover no possibility of increase, I do not
see either wherein it can discover any possibility of diminution. But
these men, in denying the equality of honour, really lay down the
comparative absence of it; and so also when they follow out further
this same line of thought, by a diminution arising from comparison
they divert all the conceptions that devotion has formed of the Holy
Spirit; they do not own His perfection either in goodness, or
omnipotence, or in any such attribute. But if they shrink from such
open profanity and allow His perfection in every attribute of good,
then these clever people must tell us how one perfect thing can be
more perfect or less perfect than another perfect thing; for so long
as the definition of perfection applies to it, that thing can not
admit of a greater and a less in the matter of perfection.
If, then, they agree that the Holy Spirit is
perfect absolutely, and it has been admitted in addition that true
reverence requires perfection in every good thing for the Father and
the Son as well, what reasons can justify them in taking away the
Father
[i. e. from
fellowship with the Spirit. The text is tij o logoj kaf on eulogon
krinousin patera anairein, dedwkasi; (for which dedwkosi is a
conjecture). But perhaps pneuma anairein, didaskwsi, or didacwsi,
would be a more intelligible reading; though the examples of the
hortatory subjunctive other than in the first person are, according
to Porson (ad Eurip. Hec. 430), to be reckoned among solecisms in
classical Greek.]
when once they have granted Him? For to take
away "equality of dignity" with the
Father is a sure proof that they do not
think that the Spirit has a share in the perfection of the Father.
And as regards the idea itself of this honour
in the case of the Divine Being, from which they would exclude the
Spirit, what do they mean by it? Do they mean that honour which men
confer on men, when by word and gesture they pay respect to them,
signifying their own deference in the form of precedence and all
such-like practices, which in the foolish fashion of the day are kept
up in the name of "honour." But all these things depend on the
goodwill of those who perform them; and if we suppose a case in which
they do not choose to perform them, then there is no one amongst
mankind who has from mere nature any advantage, such that he should
necessarily be more honoured than the rest; for all are marked alike
with the same natural proportions. The truth of this is clear; it
does not admit of any doubt. We see, for instance, the man who
to-day, because of the office which he holds, is considered by the
crowd an object of honour, becoming tomorrow himself one of those who
pay honour, the office having been transferred to another. Do they,
then, conceive of an honour such as that in the case of the Divine
Being, so that, as long as we please to pay it, that Divine honour is
retained, but when we cease to do so it ceases too at the dictate of
our will? Absurd thought, and blasphemous as well! The Deity, being
independent of us, does not grow in honour; He is evermore the same;
He cannot pass into a better or a worse state; for He has no better,
and admits no worse.
In what sort of manner, then, can you honour
the Deity? How can you heighten the Highest? How can you give glory
to that which is above all glory? How can you praise the
Incomprehensible? If "all the nations are as a drop of a
bucket- [Is xl. 15. But
Mai's text has staqmoj, not stagwn (LXX.)] as Isaiah says, if all living humanity were to send up
one united note of praise in harmony together, what addition will
this gift
of a mere drop be to that which is glorious essentially? The heavens
are telling the glory of God [Ps. xix. 1.], and yet they
are counted poor heralds of His worth; because His Majesty is
exalted, not as far as the heavens, but high above those heavens,
which are themselves included within a small fraction of the
Deity
called figuratively His "span. [Is. xl. 12. Tij emetrhse <\=85_ton ouranon
spifamh.] "
And shall a man, this frail and short-lived creature, so aptly likened to "grass," who "to-day is," and
to-morrow is not, believe that he can worthily honour the Divine
Being? It would be like some one lighting a thin fibre from some tow
and fancying that by that spark he was making an addition to the
dazzling rays of the sun. By what words, pray, will you honour the
Holy Spirit, supposing you do wish to honour Him at all? By saying
that He is absolutely immortal, without turning, or variableness,
always beautiful, always independent of ascription from others,
working as He wills all things in all, Holy, leading, direct, just,
of true utterance, "searching the deep things of God," "proceeding
from the Father," "receiving from the Son," and all such-like things,
what, after all, do you lend to Him by these and such-like terms? Do
you mention what He has, or do you honour Him by what He has not?
Well, if you attest what He has not, your ascription is meaningless
and comes to nothing; for he who calls bitterness "sweetness," while
he lies himself, has failed to commend that which is blamable.
Whereas, if you mention what He has, such and such a quality is
essential, whether men recognize it or not; He remains the object of
faith [pistoj. 2 Tim. ii.
13.], says the Apostle, if we have not
faith.
What means, then, this lowering and this
expanding of their soul, on the part of these men who are
enthusiastic for the Father's honour, and grant to the Son an equal
share with Him, but in the case of the Spirit are for narrowing down
their favours; seeing that it has been demonstrated that the
intrinsic worth of the Divine Being does not depend for its contents
upon any will of ours, but has been always inalienably inherent in
Him? Their narrowness of mind, and unthankfulness, is exposed in this
opinion of theirs, while the Holy Spirit is essentially honourable,
glorious, almighty, and all that we can conceive of in the way of
exaltation, in spite of them.
"Yes," replies one of them, "but we have been
taught by Scripture that the Father is the Creator, and in the same
way that it was `through the Son [John i. 3.]' that `all
things were made'; but God's word tells us nothing of this kind about
the Spirit; and how, then, can it be right to place the Holy Spirit
in a position of equal dignity with One Who has displayed such
magnificence of power through the Creation?"
What shall we answer so this? That
the thoughts of their hearts are so much idle talk, when they imagine
that the Spirit was not always with the
Father and the Son, but that,
as occasion varies, He is sometimes to be
contemplated as alone, sometimes to be found in the closest union with Them.
For if the heaven, and the earth, and all created things were really
made through the Son and from the Father, but apart from the Spirit,
what was the Holy Spirit doing at the time when the Father was at
work with the Son upon the Creation?
Was He employed upon some other works, and was
this the reason that He had no hand in the building of the Universe?
But, then, what special work of the Spirit have they to point to, at
the time when the world was being made? Surely, it is senseless folly
to conceive of a creation other than that which came into existence
from the Father through the Son.
Well, suppose that He was not employed at
all,
but dissociated Himself from
the busy work of creating by reason of an inclination to ease and
rest, which shrank from toil?
May the gracious Spirit Himself pardon this
baseless supposition of ours! The blasphemy of these theorists, which
we have had to follow out in every step it takes, has caused us
unwittingly to soil our discussion with the mud of their own
imaginings. The view which is consistent with all reverence is as
follows.
We are not to think of the Father as ever
parted from the Son, nor to look for
the Son as separate from the Holy Spirit.
As it is impossible to mount to the Father,
unless our thoughts are exalted thither through the Son, so it is
impossible also to say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit are to be known only in a perfect Trinity, in closest
consequence and union with each other, before all creation, before all the
ages, before anything whatever of which we can form an
idea. The Father is always Father, and in Him the Son, and
with the Son the Holy Spirit.
If these Persons (personae), then, are
inseparate
from each other, how great is the folly of these men who undertake to
sunder
this indivisibility by certain distinctions of time, and so far to divide
the Inseparable as to assert confidently, "the Father alone, through
the Son alone, made all things"; the Holy Spirit, that is, being not
present at all on the occasion of this making, or else not working.
Well, if He was not present,
they must tell us where He was; and
whether, while God embraces all things,
they can imagine any separate standing-place for the
Spirit, so that He could have remained in isolation during the time
occupied by the process of creating.
If, on the other hand, He was present, how was
it that He was inactive? Because He could not, or because He would
not, work? Did He abstain willingly, or because some strong necessity
drove Him away? Now, if He deliberately embraced this inactivity, He
must reject working in any other possible way either; and He Who
affirmed that "He worketh all things in all, as He wills [1 Cor. xiii. 6.]," is according to them a liar.
If, on the contrary, this Spirit has the
impulse to work, but some overwhelming control hinders His design,
they must tell us the wherefore of this hindrance. Was it owing to
his being grudged a share in the glory of those operations, and in
order to secure that the admiration at their success should not
extend to a third person as its object; or to a distrust of His help,
as if His co-operation would result in present mischief? These clever
men most certainly furnish the grounds for our holding one of these
two hypotheses; or else, if a grudging spirit has no connection with
the Deity, any more than a failure can be conceived of in any
relation to an Infallible Being, what meaning of any kind is there in
these narrow views of theirs, which isolate the Spirit's power from
all world-building efficiency?
Their duty rather was to expel their low human
way of thinking, by means of loftier ideas, and to make a calculation
more worthy of the sublimity of the objects in question. For neither
did the Universal God make the universe "through the Son," as needing
any help, nor does the Only-begotten God work all things "by the Holy
Spirit," as having a power that comes short of His design;
- but the fountain of power is
the Father,
- and the power of the Father is
the Son,
- and the spirit of that power is
the Holy Spirit;
and Creation entirely, in all its visible and
spiritual extent, is the finished work of that Divine power.
And seeing that no toil can be thought of in
the composition of anything connected with the Divine Being (for
performance being bound to the moment of willing, the Plan at once
becomes a Reality), we should be justified in calling all that Nature
which came into existence by creation a movement of Will, an impulse of
Design, a
transmission of Power, beginning from the Father, advancing through the Son,
and completed in the Holy Spirit.
This is the view we take, after the
unprofessional way usual with us; and we reject all these elaborate
sophistries of our adversaries, believing and confessing as we do,
that in every deed and thought, whether in this world, or beyond this
world, whether in time or in eternity,
the Holy Spirit is to be
apprehended as joined to the Father and
Son, and is wanting in no wish or
energy, or anything else that is implied in a devout conception of
Supreme Goodness; and, therefore, that, except for the distinction of
order and Person, no variation in any point is to be apprehended; but
we assert that
while His place is counted third in
mere sequence after the Father and Son, third in the order of the transmission,
in all other respects
we acknowledge His inseparable
union with them; both in nature, in honour, in godhead, and glory,
and majesty, and almighty power, and in all devout belief.
But with regard to service and worship, and the
other things which they so nicely calculate about, and bring into
prominence, we say this; that the Holy Spirit is exalted above all
that we can do for Him with our merely human purpose; our worship is
far beneath the honour due; and anything else that in human customs
is held as honourable is somewhere below the dignity of the Spirit;
for that which in its essence is measureless surpasses those who
offer their all with so slight and circumscribed and paltry a power
of giving.
This, then, we say to those of them who
subscribe to the reverential conception of the Holy Spirit that He is
Divine, and of the Divine nature. But if there is any of them who
rejects this statement, and this idea involved in the very name of
Divinity, and says that which, to the destruction of the Spirit's
greatness, is in circulation amongst the many, namely,
that He belongs, not to making, but
to made, beings, that it is right to regard Him not as of a Divine,
but as of a created nature,
we answer to a proposition such as this, that
we do not understand how we can count those who make it amongst the
number of Christians at all.
For just as it would not be possible to style
the unformed embryo a human being, but only a potential one, assuming
that it is completed so as to come forth to human birth,
while as long as it is in this unformed state,
it is something other than a human being; so our reason cannot
recognize as a Christian one who has failed to receive, with regard
to the entire mystery, the genuine form of our religion
We can hear Jews believing in God, and our God
too: even our Lord reminds them in the Gospel that they recognize
no other God than the Father of the
Only-begotten, "of Whom ye say that he is your God."
Are we, then, to call the
Jews Christians because they too agree to worship the God Whom we
adore? I am aware, too, that the Manichees go about vaunting the name of Christ.
Because they hold revered the Name
to which we bow the knee, shall we therefore number them amongst
Christians?
So, too, he who both believes in the Father and
receives the Son, but sets aside the Majesty of the Spirit, has
"denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel," and belies the name
of Christ which he bears.
The Apostle bids the man of God to be "perfect
[2 Cor. xiii. 11. Cf. 1
Cor. xiv. 20.]."
Now, to take only the general
man, perfection must consist in
completeness in every aspect of human nature, in having
reason,
capability
of thought
and knowledge, a share of animal life, an upright bearing,
risibility, broadness of nail; and
if any one were to term some
individual a man, and yet were unable to produce evidence in his case
of the foregoing signs of human nature, his terming him so would be a
valueless honour.
Thus, too, the Christian is marked by his
Belief in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; in this consists the form of
him who is fashioned in accordance with the mystery of the truth. But
if his form is arranged otherwise, I will not recognize the existence
of anything whence the form is absent; there is a blurring out of the
mark, and a loss of the essential form, and an alteration of the
characteristic signs of our complete humanity, when the Holy Spirit
is not included in the Belief.
For indeed the word of Ecclesiastes says true;
your heretic is no living man, but "bones," he says, "in the womb of
her that is with child" [eccles. xi. 5 (LXX.). ouk esti ginwskwn tij h odoj
tou pneumatoj, wj osta en gastri kuoforoushj.]; for how can one who does not think of the unction
along with the Anointed be said to believe in the Anointed? "Him,"
says (Peter), "did God anoint with the Holy Spirit [ Acts
x. 38, Cf. iv. 27.]."
These destroyers of the Spirit's glory, who
relegate Him to a subject world, must tell us of what thing that
unction is the symbol. It not a symbol of the
Kingship?
And what?
Do they not believe in the
Only-begotten as in His very
nature a King? Men who have not once
for all enveloped their hearts with the Jewish "vail [2 Cor. iii. 14, 2 Cor. iii.
15.]" will not gainsay that He is this.
If, then, the Son is in His very nature a king,
and the unction is the symbol of His kingship,
what, in the way of a consequence, does your reason demonstrate?
Why, that the Unction is not a
thing alien to that Kingship,
and so that the Spirit is not to be ranked in
the Trinity as anything strange and foreign either.
For the Son is
King, and His living, realized, and
personified Kingship is found in the Holy Spirit, Who anoints the
Only-begotten, and so makes Him the Anointed, and the
King of
all things that exist.
If, then, the Father is King, and the
Only-begotten is King, and
the Holy Ghost is the Kingship,
one and the same definition of Kingship must prevail throughout this
Trinity, and
the thought of "unction" conveys the
hidden meaning that there is no
interval of
separation between the Son and
the Holy Spirit.
For as between the body's surface and the
liquid of
the oil nothing intervening can be detected, either in reason or in
perception,
so inseparable is the union of the
Spirit
with the Son; and the result is that whosoever is to touch the Son
by faith must needs first encounter the
oil in the very act of touching;
there is not a part of Him devoid
of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore belief in the Lordship of the Son
arises in those who entertain it, by means of the Holy Ghost; on all
sides the Holy Ghost is met by those who by faith approach the Son.
If, then, the Son is essentially a King,
and the Holy Spirit is that
dignity of
Kingship
which anoints the Son,
what deprivation of this Kingship, in its
essence and comparing it with
itself, can be imagined?
Again, let us look at it in this way.
Kingship
is most assuredly shown in the rule over subjects. Now what is
"subject" to this Kingly Being? The Word includes the ages certainly,
and all that is in them; "Thy Kingdom," it says, "is a Kingdom of
ages," and, by ages, it means every substance in them created in
infinite space, whether visible or invisible; for in them all things
were created by the Maker of those ages. If, then, the Kingship must
always be thought of along with the King, and the world of subjects
is acknowledged to be something other than the world of rulers, what
absurdity it is for these men to contradict themselves
thus,
attributing as they do
the unction as an expression for the
worth of Him Whose very nature it is to
be a King,
yet degrading that unction Itself to the rank
of a subject, as if wanting in such worth! If It is a subject by
virtue of its nature, then why is It made the unction of Kingship,
and so associated with the Kingly dignity of the Only-be-gotten?
If, on the other hand, the capacity to rule is
shown by Its being included in the majesty of Kingship, where is the
necessity of having everything dragged down to a plebeian and servile
lower condition, and numbered with the subject creation?
When we affirm of the Spirit the two
conditions, we cannot be in both cases speaking the truth:
i. e. that
He is ruling, and that He is subject. If He rules, He is not
under any
lord, but if He is subject, then He cannot be comprehended with the
Being who is a King. Men are recognized as amongst men, angels
amongst angels, everything amongst its kind; and so the Holy Spirit
must needs be believed to belong to one only of two worlds; to the
ruling, or to the inferior world; for between these two our reason
can recognize nothing; no new invention of any natural attribute on
the borderland of the Created and the Uncreated can be thought of,
such as would participate in both, yet be neither entirely;
we cannot imagine such an
amalgamation and welding together of opposites by anything being
blended of the Created and the Uncreated, and two opposites thus
coalescing into one person, in which case the result of that strange
mixture would not only be a composite thing, but composed of elements
that were unlike, and disagreeing as to time; for that which receives
its personality from a creation is assuredly posterior to that which
subsists without a creation.
If, then, they declare the Holy Ghost to be
blended of both, they must consequently view that blending as of a
prior with a posterior thing; and, according to them, He will be
prior to Himself; and reversely, posterior to Himself;
from the Uncreated He will get the
seniority, and from the Created the juniority.
But, in the nature of things, this
cannot be;
and so it must most certainly be true to affirm of the Holy Spirit
one only of these alternatives, and that is, the attribute of being
Uncreated;
for notice the amount of absurdity involved in
the other alternative; all things that we can think of in the actual
creation have, by virtue of all having received their existence by an
act of creation, a rank and value perfectly equal in all cases,
and so what reason can there be for separating
the Holy Spirit from the rest of the creation, and ranking Him with
the Father and the Son? Logic, then, will discover this about Him;
That which is contemplated as part of the Uncreated, does not exist
by creation; or, if It does, then It has no more power than its
kindred creation, It cannot associate itself with that Transcendent
Nature; if, on the other hand, they declare that He is a created
being, and at the same time has a power which is above the creation,
then the creation will be found at variance with itself, divided into
ruler and ruled, so that part of it is the benefactor, part the
benefited, part the sanctifier, part the sanctified; and all that
fund of blessings which we believe to be provided for the creation by
the Holy Spirit are present in Him, welling up abundantly, and
pouring forth upon others, while the creation remains in need of the
thence-issuing help and grace, and receives, as a mere dole, those
blessings which can be passed to it from a fellow-creature! That
would be like favouritism and respecting of persons; when we know
that there is no such partiality in the nature of things, as that
those existences which differ in no way from each other on the score
of substance should not have equal power; and I think that no one who
reflects will admit such views. Either He imparts nothing to others,
if He possesses nothing essentially; or, if we do believe that He
does give, His possession beforehand of that gift must be granted; this
capacity of giving
blessings, whilst needing oneself no
such extraneous help, is the peculiar and exquisite privilege of
Deity, and of no other.
Then let us look to this too. In Holy Baptism,
what is it that we secure thereby? Is it not a participation in a
life no longer subject to death? I think that no one who can in any
way be reckoned amongst Christians will deny that statement. What
then?
Is that life-giving power in the water itself
which is employed to convey the grace of Baptism?
Or is it not rather clear to every one that
this element is only employed as a means in the external ministry,
and of itself contributes nothing towards the sanctification, unless
it be first transformed itself by the sanctification; and that what
gives life to the baptized is the
Spirit; as our Lord Himself says in
respect to Him with His own lips,
"It is the Spirit that giveth life;" but for
the completion of this grace He alone, received by faith, does not
give life, but belief in our Lord must precede, in order
that the lively gift may come upon the believer, as our Lord has spoken, "He
giveth life to whom He willeth."
But further still, seeing that this grace
administered through the Son is dependent on the Ungenerate Source of
all,
Scripture accordingly teaches us
that belief in the Father Who
engendereth all things is to come first;
so that this life-giving grace should be
completed, for those fit to receive it, after starting from that
Source as from a spring pouring life abundantly,
through the Only-begotten Who is
the True life, by the operation of the
Holy Spirit.
If, then, life
comes in baptism, and baptism
receives its completion in the name of Father, Son, and Spirit,
what do these men mean who count
this Minister of life as
nothing?
If the gift is a
slight one, they must tell us the thing
that is more precious than this
life.
But if everything whatever that is precious is
second to this life, I mean that higher and precious life in which
the brute creation has no part, how can they dare to depreciate so
great a favour, or rather the actual Being who grants the favour, and
to degrade Him in their conceptions of Him to a subject world by
disjoining Him from the higher world of deity
["Whether or not
the Macedonians explicitly denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is
uncertain; but they viewed Him as essentially separate from, and external to, the One Indivisible Godhead.
The Nicene Creed
declares that He is the Lord,
or Sovereign
Spirit because the
heretics considered Him to be a minister of God; and the Supreme Giver of Life,
because they
considered Him a mere
instrument by which we receive the gift."-Newman's Arians, note p. 420.].
Finally, if they will have it that this
bestowal of life is a small thing, and that it means nothing great and
awful in the nature of the Bestower, how is it they do not draw the
conclusion which this very view makes inevitable, namely, that we
must suppose, even with regard to the Only-begotten and the Father
Himself, nothing great in Their life, the same as that which we have
through the Holy Spirit, supplied as it is from the Father through
the Son?
So that if these despisers and impugners of
their very own life conceive of the gift as a little one, and
decree accordingly to slight the Being who imparts the gift, let them
be made aware that they cannot limit to one Person only their
ingratitude, but must extend its profanity beyond the Holy Spirit to
the Holy Trinity Itself. For like as the grace flows down in an
unbroken stream from the Father, through the Son and the Spirit, upon
the persons worthy of it, so does this profanity return backward, and
is transmitted from the Son to the God of all the world, passing from
one to the other.
If, when a man is slighted, He Who sent him is slighted (yet what a distance there was between the man and the
Sender!), what criminality is thereby implied in those who thus defy
the Holy Spirit! Perhaps this is the blasphemy against our Law-giver
[kata tou nomofetou
is Mai's reading. But kata ton nomofethn, i. e. according to S. Mark
iii. 29, S. Luke xii. 10, would be preferable. Migne reads para in
this sense.]
for which the judgment without remission has
been decreed; since in Him the entire
Being, Blessed and Divine, is insulted
also. As the devout worshipper of the Spirit sees in Him the glory of
the Only-begotten, and in that sight beholds the image of the
Infinite God, and by means of that image makes an outline, upon his
own cognition, of the Original, so most plainly does this contemner
[Something has dropped out
here] (of the Spirit), whenever he advances
any of his bold statements against the glory of the Spirit, extend,
by virtue of the same reasoning, his profanity to the Son, and beyond
Him to the Father.
Therefore, those who reflect must have fear
lest they perpetrate an audacity the result of which will be the
complete blotting out of the perpetrator of it; and while they exalt
the Spirit in the naming, they will even before the naming exalt Him
in their thought, it being impossible that words can mount along with
thought; still when one shall have reached the highest limit of human
faculties, the utmost height and magnificence of idea to which the
mind can ever attain, even then one must believe it is far below the
glory that belongs to [epiballoushj. Cf. Ps. xcix. 5; 2 Chron. xxviii. 2.]
Him, according to the words in the Psalms,
that "after exalting the Lord our God, even then ye scarcely worship
the footstool beneath His feet": and the cause of this dignity being
so incomprehensible is nothing else than that He is holy.
If, then, every height of man's ability falls
below the grandeur of the Spirit (for that is what the Word means in
the metaphor of "footstool"), what vanity is theirs who think that
there is within themselves a power so great that it rests with them
to define the amount of value to be attributed to a being who is
invaluable! And so they pronounce the Holy Spirit unworthy of some
things which are associated with the idea of value, as if their own
abilities could do far more than the Spirit, as estimated by them, is
capable of. What pitiable, what wretched madness! They understand not
what they are themselves when they talk like this, and what the Holy
Spirit against Whom they insolently range themselves. Who will tell
these people that men are "a spirit that goeth forth and returneth
not again [ Wisdom xvi.
14.]," built up in their mother's womb by
means of a soiled conception, and returning all of them to a soiled
earth; inheriting a life that is likened unto grass; blooming for a
little during life's illusion, and then withering away, and all the
bloom upon them being shed and vanishing; they themselves not knowing
with certainty what they were before their birth, nor into what they
will be changed, their soul being ignorant of her peculiar destiny as
long as she tarries in the flesh? Such is man.
On the contrary the Holy Spirit is, to begin
with, because of qualities that are essentially holy, that which the
Father, essentially Holy, is; and such as the Only-begotten is, such
is the Holy Spirit; then, again, He is so by virtue of life-giving,
of imperishability, of unvariableness, of everlastingness, of
justice, of wisdom, of rectitude, of sovereignty, of goodness, of
power, of capacity to give all good things, and above them all life
itself, and by being everywhere, being present in each, filling the
earth, residing in the heavens, shed abroad upon supernatural Powers,
filling all things according to the deserts of each, Himself
remaining full, being with all who are worthy, and yet not parted
from the Holy Trinity. He ever "searches the deep things of God,"
ever "receives" from the Son, ever is being "sent," and yet not
separated, and being "glorified," and yet He has always had glory. It
is plain, indeed, that one who gives glory to another must be found
himself in the possession of superabundant glory; for how could one
devoid of glory glorify another?
Unless a thing be itself light, how
can it display the gracious gift of
light? So the power to glorify could
never be displayed by one who was not himself glory
[It is worth noticing that
Gregory maintains (Hom. xv. on Canticles) that Doca in Scripture
means the Holy Ghost.]
and honour, and majesty, and greatness. Now the
Spirit does glorify the Father and the Son. Neither does He lie Who
saith, "Them that glorify Me I glorify [Cf. 1 Sam. ii. 30.] ; and
"I have glorified Thee
[John xvii. 4.]," is said by our Lord to
the Father; and again He says, "Glorify Thou Me with the glory
which I had with Thee before the world was
[John xvii.
5.]." The Divine Voice answers, "I have
both glorified, and will glorify again. [John xii. 28.] " You see
the revolving circle of the glory moving from Like to Like. The Son
is glorified by the Spirit; the Father is glorified by the Son; again
the Son has His glory from the Father; and the Only-begotten thus
becomes the glory of the Spirit. For with what shall the Father be
glorified, but with the true glory of the Son: and with what again
shall the Son be glorified, but with the majesty of the Spirit? In
like manner, again, Faith completes the circle, and glorifies the Son
by means of the Spirit, and the Father by means of the Son.
If such, then, is the greatness of the Spirit,
and whatever is morally beautiful, whatever is good, coming from God
as it does through the Son, is completed by the instrumentality of
the Spirit that "worketh all in all," why do they set themselves
against their own life? Why do they alienate themselves from the hope
belonging to "such as are to be saved"? Why do they sever themselves
from their cleaving unto God?
For how can any man cleave unto the Lord unless
the Spirit operates within us that union of ourselves with Him? Why
do they haggle with us about the amount of service and of worship?
Why do they use that word "worship" in an ironical sense, derogatory
to a Divine and entirely Independent Being, supposing that they
desire their own salvation? We would say to them, "Your supplication
is the advantage of you who ask, and not the honouring of Him Who
grants it. Why, then, do you approach your Benefactor as if you had
something to give? Or rather, why do you refuse to name as a
benefactor at all Him Who gives you your blessings, and slight the
Life-giver while clinging to Life? Why, seeking for His
sanctification, do you misconceive of the Dispenser of the Grace of
sanctification; and as to the giving of those blessings, why, not
denying that He has the power, do you deem Him not worthy to be asked
to give, and fail to take this into consideration, viz. how much
greater a thing it is to give some blessing than to be asked to give
it? The asking does not unmistakably witness to greatness in him who
is asked; for it is possible that one who does not have the thing to
give might be asked for it, for the asking depends only on the will
of the asker. But one who actually bestows some blessing has thereby
given undoubted evidence of a power residing in him. Why then, while
testifying to the greater thing in Him,-I mean the power to bestow
everything that is morally beautiful-do you deprive Him of the
asking, as of something of importance; although his asking, as we
have said, is often performed in the case of those who have nothing
in their power, owing to the delusion of their devotees? For
instance, the slaves of superstition ask the idols for the objects of
their wishes; but the asking does not, in this instance of the idols,
confer any glory; only people pay that attention to them owing to the
deluded expectation that they will get some one of the things they
ask for, and so they do not cease to ask. But you, persuaded as you
are of what and how great things the Holy Spirit is the Giver, do you
neglect the asking them from Him, taking refuge in the law which bids
you `worship God and serve Him only [Deut. vi. 13; Deut. x. 20.] ?' Well, how will you worship Him only, tell me, when
you have severed Him from His intimate union with His own
Only-begotten and His own Spirit? This worship is simply
Jewish.
But you will say, "When I think of the Father
it is the Son (alone) that I have included as well in that term." But
tell me; when you have grasped the notion of the Son have you not
admitted therein that of the Holy Spirit too? For how can you confess
the Son except by the Holy Spirit?
At what moment, then, is the Spirit in a state
of separation from the Son, so that when the Father is being
worshipped, the worship of the Spirit is not included along with that
of the Son?
And as regards their worship itself, what in
the world do they reckon it to be? They bestow it, as some exquisite
piece of honour, upon the God over all, and convey it over,
sometimes, so as to reach the Only-begotten also; but the Holy Spirit
they regard as unworthy of such a privilege. Now, in the common
parlance of mankind, that self-prostration of inferiors upon the
ground which they practise when they salute their betters is termed
worship. Thus, it was by such a posture that the patriarch Jacob, in
his self-humiliation, seems to have wished to show his inferiority
when coming to meet his brother and to appease his wrath; for "he
bowed himself to the ground," says the Scripture, "three times
[The LXX. has prosekunhsen
epi thn ghn eptakij, Gen. xxxiii. 3.[ ; and
Joseph's brethren, as long as they knew him not, and he pretended
before them that he knew them not, by reason of the exaltation of his
rank reverenced his sovereignty with this worship; and even the great
Abraham himself "bowed himself [prosekunhse tw law thj ghj, toij uioij tou Xet, Gen
xxiii. 7.] " "to the children of Heth," a
stranger amongst the natives of that land, showing, I opine, by that
action, how far more powerful those natives were than sojourners. It
is possible to speak of many such actions both in the ancient
records, and from examples before our eyes in the world now .
Do they too, then, mean this by their worship?
Well, is it anything but absurdity to think that it is wrong to
honour the Holy Spirit with that with which the patriarch honoured
even Canaanites? Or do they consider their "worship" something
different to this, as if one sort were fitting for men, another sort
for the Supreme Being? But then, how is it that they omit worship
altogether in the instance of the Spirit, not even bestowing upon Him
the worship conceded in the case of men? And what kind of worship do
they imagine to be reserved especially for the Deity? Is it to be
spoken word, or acted gesture? Well, but are not these marks of
honour shared by men as well? In their case words are spoken and
gestures acted.
Is it not, then, plain to every one
who possesses the least amount of reflection, that any gift worthy of the Deity mankind has not got to
give;
for the Author of all blessings has no need of us.
But it is we men who have
transferred these
indications of respect and admiration,
which we adopt towards each other, when we would show by the
acknowledgment of a neighbour's superiority that one of us is in a
humbler position than another, to our attendance upon a Higher Power;
out of our possessions we make a gift of what is most precious to a
priceless Nature.
Therefore, since men, approaching emperors and
potentates for the objects which they wish in some way to obtain from
those rulers, do not bring to them their
mere petition only, but employ every
possible means to induce them to feel pity and favour towards themselves,
adopting a humble voice, and a kneeling
position,
Still the word
proskunein became consecrated to the highest Christian worship
while qerapeuein was employed for address to the angels.
"Every
supplication every prayer,
every entreaty, and every giving of thanks must be offered to the Almighty through the
High Priest
who is over all the angels, the incarnate Word and God.
And we shall make supplication and prayer to the Word
Himself also, and we
shall give Him thanks if we can distinguish prayer in its proper
meaning from the wrong use of the word," Origen c. Cels. v. 4 (Cf.
viii. 13, where he answers the question whether Gabriel, Michael, and
the rest of the archangels should be addressed,
qerapeuesqai).
clasping their knees, prostrating themselves on
the ground, and putting forward to
plead for their petition all sorts of pathetic signs, to wake that pity,-so it
is that those who recognize the True Potentate, by Whom all things in
existence are controlled, when they are supplicating for that which
they have at heart, some lowly in spirit because of pitiable
conditions in this world, some with their thoughts lifted up because
of their eternal mysterious hopes,
seeing that they know not how to
ask,
and that their humanity is not capable of displaying any
reverence that can reach to the
grandeur of that Glory,
carry the ceremonial used in the case of men
into the service of the Deity.
And this is what "worship" is,-that, I mean,
which is offered for objects we have at heart along with supplication
and humiliation. Therefore Daniel too bends the knees to the Lord,
when asking His love for the captive people; and He Who "bare our
sicknesses," and intercedes for us, is recorded in the Gospel to have
fallen on His face, because of the man that He had taken upon Him, at
the hour of prayer, and in this posture to have made His petition,
enjoining thereby,
I think, that at the time of our petition our
voice is not to be bold, but that we are to assume the attitude of
the wretched; since the Lord "resisteth the proud, but giveth grace
unto the humble;" and somewhere else (He says), "he that exalteth
himself shall be abased." If, then, "worship" is a sort of suppliant
state, or pleading put forward for the object of the petition, what
is the intention of these new-fashioned regulations? These men do not
even deign to ask of the Giver, nor to kneel to the Ruler, nor to
attend upon the Potentate.
Holy Spirit Index
Church Fathers Index
Home
Page
E-Mail
Comments Welcome
Counter added 2.20.05 10:19p
3590
