A eat bread without sweat, how do we imagine we shall attain the kingdom of heaven without hardships and exertions? "Until," He says, "you return to the earth, from which you were taken." O sentence! O mercy tempered with fear! O sentence filled with consolation! He had not yet expelled him, and He called him back! He had not yet cast him out, and He took him back! "Until you return to the earth, from which you were taken." He did not say: "Until you are brought to nothing, until you are dissolved," but: "Until you return to the earth, from which you were taken," in order to hold out to you the hope of the resurrection. I shall send you, He says, to the place from which I took you, so that just as I received you then, I may receive you again. "For you are earth, and to the earth B you shall go." He did not say: "You shall be destroyed," but: "You shall go." That word, "You shall go," some have interpreted as, "You shall return."
Therefore, as far as our capacity allowed, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, we have traveled with you through paradise; we have read the royal monuments; we have seen the guilty endowed with liberty, and the clemency of the Judge, by which—and may we obtain salvation from Christ—we may enjoy those heavenly and eternal goods in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and power, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
ORATION ON THE SERPENT,
WHICH MOSES SUSPENDED ON THE CROSS IN THE DESERT, AND ON THE DIVINE TRINITY
C 1. Yesterday, our discourse was directed both toward the struggle against the heretics and toward the contests for the glory of the Only-Begotten, not that we might bring to light some arcane secrets, but that we might gratefully profess our thanks. For Christ's glory is not increased by our words; rather, we, being adorned by the excellent gifts bestowed by Him, proclaim the benefit with a grateful heart. For it would be most absurd that we, being adorned with benefits, should repay the gifts with silence, especially when David, as you have just heard, commands: "Let all the earth worship You and sing to You" (Ps. LXV, 4). We praise God, not because we bring honor D to Him, but because we secure honor for ourselves. We render glory to God, not such as we have bestowed upon Him, but such as we have obtained for ourselves as immortal, for He says: "Those who honor me, I will honor; and they that despise me, shall be despised" (1 Kings II, 30). According to our ability, we have taught that it is not permitted to transgress the boundaries of the glory of God: not for men who dwell on earth, not for angels who are in the heavens, not for archangels, not for principalities, not for Cherubim, not for Seraphim. But you remember, as I well know, my audience eager for learning, the manner in which the discourse begun on these subjects was brought to its conclusion.
But because today, brothers, the King of glory Himself has foretold His own cross, and the Apostle, following the royal voice of the Savior, has philosophized about the cross (for the Lord was saying to His disciples: "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of sinners"; but Paul, reproving the Galatians, wrote: "Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been clearly portrayed as crucified among you?"); because, therefore, both the royal voice of the Lord and the doctrine of the faithful servant follow the royal footsteps, I deem it worth the effort that we also, to the best of our ability, should speak concerning the Lord's cross, not to reach that dignity, but to satisfy our debt to the best of our ability. What, therefore, does the Savior say? "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered." The Victor over death foretells the passion; He who dissolved death by the cross foretells the cross; He foretells the struggle in order to proclaim the victory. Here, again, turn your mind to understand the Lord's voice. See with what authority He speaks: "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered, to be crucified." He who foretells these things, while already established in the very struggle, changes the dignity of His authority and denies the dignity of His divinity, saying: "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me" (Matt. XXVI, 39). Do you not notice the contradiction? Think of the Incarnation. But let us return to the matter at hand. He says to the disciples: "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered." See how cautiously He speaks. When He foretells the passion, He shows His human nature: "the Son of man shall be delivered." For the visible body suffers; but the dignity of the divinity, which is perceived by the understanding, brings life. And the shape of the body, brothers, is dissolved by death; but the power of the One who dwells within awakens that which had been dissolved.
A He Himself was the one being dissolved according to the body; He Himself was the one raising up what was being dissolved according to the Spirit. For, "Destroy," He says, "this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19). Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem. Those who follow Christ never descend, but are always ascending. And besides, the way from Jericho to Jerusalem was indeed an ascent in the sensible world, and it intellectually brought the passion to the ascent of the resurrection. For He was calling back to heaven Adam, who had fallen into Hades, and was leading the image that lay upon the ground up to the heights. "We are going up to Jerusalem." Where God is, there is the ascent of virtue; where wickedness is, there is the descent of iniquity. Therefore, concerning those who live according to virtue, David says: "Blessed are all who dwell in Thy house; they shall praise Thee for ever and ever" (Ps. 83:5). "Blessed is the man whose help is from Thee; the ascents are in his heart" (Ps. 83:6). "Thy ascents," that is, the pious and elevated thoughts, which lead up to the heights those who think rightly concerning God. There is, therefore, a way of self-control leading to the heights, a way of justice leading to the heights; and every way of piety, so to speak, guides the God-loving person to that height of which those from among the Gentiles said: "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob" (Mich. 4:2). Where there is the doctrine of piety, there is also an ascent; but where there is wickedness, there is an acknowledged descent. And the prophet David testifies, saying: "Deliver me from those who go down to the pit" (Ps. 29:4); and again, "Thou who liftest me up from the gates of death" (Ps. 9:15). So that even the words, "We are going up," are not superfluous. "Behold, we are going up." Although He goes to the passion alone, why then does He say in the common, "We are going up"? Because the passion is His, but the salvation is common to all men. Therefore, the divine Apostle uttered that noble voice, full of wonder, as you have recently heard: "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me" (Gal. 2:19-20). Moreover, wishing to point out also the fruit of the cross, he added immediately in the following: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written: Cursed is every one who hangs on a tree" (Gal. 3:13; Deut. 21:23).
2. Observe here carefully with me, so that the prey of truth may not escape you. For the Jews, concerning whom Paul says, "the enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction" (Phil. 3:18-19), will immediately object, and sometimes will say to the simple: "If he who hangs [on a tree] is cursed, how do you expect a blessing to be given to you from the cursed one? And how do you expect life from one who has fallen under death?" He acknowledged what is visible, as even our teacher Paul himself says, is a curse: "For it is written: Cursed is every one who hangs on a tree." If therefore it is written and testified, how is a blessing given from the cursed one to those who cherish the cross? The Jew, the enemy of the cross of Christ, always proposes and says these things. Therefore, if he says to you, "How does the cursed one give a blessing?" tell him, "How did the snakes in the wilderness bite your forefathers, and Moses, having made a bronze image, suspended it, and said, 'Let everyone who has been bitten by the serpent look at the serpent, and he shall be saved' (Num. 21:8)?" And what, he says, has this to do with the matter at hand? But it is very appropriate. Or have you not heard God saying, "Cursed are you above all the beasts of the earth" (Gen. 3:14)? How then did the image of the cursed one bring life B to your forefathers? I take up the argument again, in order to ground the meaning. If it seems impossible to you that a blessing should spring from a cursed one (for "Cursed is every one who hangs on a tree"), how did the image of the serpent, the cursed one—who heard, "Cursed are you above all the beasts"—bring salvation to the people who were lying in calamity? Would it not have been more trustworthy to say, "If any of you is bitten, let him look up to heaven above to God, and he shall be saved"? And so that he might even omit looking at the heaven, could He not have said, "If any is bitten, let him look at the lampstand of light, and he shall be saved"? Or "let him look at the table of the presence of the holy loaves, and be saved; or at the altar, or at the veil, or at the ark, or at the image of the Cherubim, or at the propitiatory"? But the great lawgiver introduced none of these; but he set up the image of the cross in vain, and this, through the cursed serpent. Why then, O Jew, does Moses do these things? Why does he melt a serpent, the one who says through the Law, "You shall not make a graven image, nor a molten one" (Lev. 26:1)? But why do I say these things to the ungrateful? I ask the lawgiver himself: Tell me, O most faithful servant of God, do you do what you forbid? Do you prepare what you overturn? The one who says, "You shall not make a graven image, nor a molten one," do you melt and carve a serpent? But I legislated those things, he says, so that I might empty out the materials of impiety, and lead this people away from all idolatry; now, however, I melt the serpent, so that I may prefigure the image of the dispensation of the cross; I am leveling the road for the apostles; I am exercising that great and strange symbol of the cross.
That the argument is not forced, hear the Lord confirming that ancient image, and taking it upon Himself. For when He was discoursing with a certain Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, as with a teacher of the people who was able to understand the theory of the dispensation, He says: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:14-15). Tell me then, O senseless Jew, was that not bronze? Dead matter having the power to overcome death, having the type of the cross; and is the truth of the cross itself not believed? And this after the conversion of the inhabited world, after the state of piety which has shone in the whole world, after the faith of the nations, after the raising up of the Churches, after such a struggle, after such exercise, after such progress of angelic conduct? But indeed, it has been demonstrated clearly how it is excluded for the enemies of the cross to reproach us with the figure of the cursed one. And to those indeed these things [are said]; but let us, the faithful among ourselves, examine and scrutinize the accuracy of these words. Why ever did the Lord not make the image of that dispensation through something else, but through a serpent? For against the struggles C of the adversaries, the example of the cursed serpent is sufficient; but for persuading them, that they are children of piety, [that is, how the figure of the cursed serpent is the image...]
of the Christ who is worshipped.] Therefore, it is appropriate for us to explain this accurately, and for you to hear it with diligence.
B 3. As for the manner, brothers, just as that figure of the serpent bore the image and appearance of a serpent, but did not possess the venom or the wickedness of a serpent, so too the Savior, according to the divine Apostle, appearing in the likeness of the flesh of sin, was outside of all sin; just as the blessed Isaiah, agreeing with the blessed Paul, says: *He did not commit sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth* (Isai. 53:9; 1 Pet. 2:22). According to Isaiah, you have one image; come to the other. Behold the truth shining through the figures. The serpents were biting the children of Israel, when the people rushed into destruction. Moses besought God to provide a salutary medicine. God shows His servant a beneficial medicine, and says: *Make a bronze serpent, and set it up before the tabernacle of the testimony* (Num. 21:8). What does this sign mean? There are the biting serpents, and yet Another is crucified for them. What does the enigma signify? What does that shadow of the mystery hold forth? Just as there, in the figure, while others were biting, Another who had not bitten was affixed to the wood, so too, while other men were sinning, the innocent Jesus is about to suffer for all. For the serpents that were biting, an innocent serpent is crucified; for us, who are subjected to death, He who was not subjected to death is crucified. Which Isaiah famously foretold of others in this way: *For the sins of the people He came unto death*; and, *The Lord delivered Himself for our sins*. C This is the mystery’s logic. Just as there were other serpents that were biting, and Another who was fixed [to the wood], so too here all had sinned, and One is crucified for all. You have a second image; but consider a third one also. *By the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word shall be established* (Deut. 19:15). By the cross, the bronze serpent is erected, so that the bites of the serpents may be destroyed. So what is lifted onto the cross is one thing, and the things that are destroyed are another. Do you not observe the significance of the truth? Do you not perceive the power of the economy as if under the veil of Scripture? *He was lifted onto the cross*, it says, *the bronze serpent, so that the bites of the dragons might be destroyed*; Christ was crucified, so that the operations of demons might cease. The serpent that is erected is one thing, the dragons that are suppressed are another; Christ who is affixed to the cross is one thing, the demons that are destroyed are others. And just as there the image of the serpent, which appeared, destroyed the bites of the serpents, so too here the death of Christ destroyed death and routed the demons. Deservedly, therefore, the Savior, adapting the image to Himself, said: *And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so the Son of man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him might not perish, but have everlasting life* (John 3:14-15).
You have, brother, the blessed Moses in another figure indicating the cross; but in what way, listen. For those who speak about the cross must bring many contemplations of the mystery into the midst. Certain foreigners, called Amalekites, waged war on the Israelites in the desert. D Moses, however, commands Joshua the son of Nun, the leader of the people and his successor, to set out armed, while he himself remains on the mountain with hands expanded. For the Scripture says: *Moses ascended the mountain, and expanded his hands. And it came to pass, when he would extend his hands, Israel would prevail; and when he would let them down, overcome by corporeal heaviness, Amalek would prevail* (Exod. 17:11). What does this figure mean? The Jew, immediately fearing that through the image the glory of the cross of Christ might shine forth, says: "This figure has nothing to do with those things you are fabricating. That was a form of prayer, not of an image, as you imagine." But if this is so, if that victory was truly the fruit of prayer, why did Scripture not attribute the victory to the prayer (for the Scripture does not say: "When Moses prayed," for that would truly signify that the victory was not the fruit of prayer), but attributes it to the image and the figure of the hands? For when Moses would let down his hands, Israel was overcome; when he would expand them, Amalek was profligated. For if it were to be attributed to prayer, it would have been necessary to say: "And when Moses prayed, he prevailed." But, as I said, prayer being passed over—not, indeed, as useless, but as something that ought to yield to the image of the cross—it attributes the victory to the figure and the sign. For when Moses expanded his hands, Israel prevailed. What does the expanded hand mean? Depict for yourself the expanded hands, so that you may see the shining image of the adorable Cross. But, says the Scripture, Moses was exhausted; for the hands, overcome by corporeal heaviness, could not sustain that image. What then? Lest, with the image dissolved, the victory also be lost, Aaron and Hur support and lift up his hands, lest, with the image vanishing, the victory also slip away. Why did Aaron and Hur support the hands at all? Aaron, brothers, was performing the priestly office; Hur, however, had the kinship of the royal tribe. Thus, the priesthood and the kingdom, like guards, attend the image of the cross. And just as when the Lord was transfigured on the mountain, Moses and Elijah were seen at the right and the left, so that, like guards, they might attend the royal image of Christ: so also here Aaron, obtaining the priestly order, stands by the cross, and in the same way Hur, having the first flower of royal dignity, guards the cross. These things were said by me to show how the image of piety was proposed to those ancient fathers, and how honored by them was the figure of the economy. If, however, those who were foretelling it proclaimed it with such praise, and prefigured it with such honor: with what mouth is it fitting for us to celebrate the cross of the Lord and that divine economy? I am not ignorant that you are possessed by a great desire for such orations, by which the dogmas of sacred theology are explained: but the things now said are related to them. For it is of the same mind to preach the cross and to extol with praises the Only-begotten God the Word. Wherefore, whether you celebrate the divinity of the Only-begotten, or honor His economy, one and the same is the demonstration of piety. When you hear "economy," raise your mind to the sublimity of the power of the Only-begotten. Lest that figure, which here for your sake was made...
A lower your estimation, let the philanthropy of the One who saved you raise your mind. For while the Cross was on your behalf, the majesty of God is for His own sake. But the majesty of God is not elevated by words, nor is it brought down by words; rather, those who try to bring it down, cause their own downfall; while those who elevate it, raise their own insignificance to a height.
As we have just said, the one who celebrates the economy and the one who celebrates the theology hold the same mind; but since there was something lacking for those instructed by us yesterday regarding the passage, *That they may know you, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent* (John 17.3), and since the prophecies and testimonies have been proved to the Son regarding the "only true God"—that He too is the only true God—it is necessary, I think, to examine that reading of the phrase as well.
"But," says the heretic, "what again can you say regarding the one who is sent? For it is expressly written: *And Jesus Christ whom you have sent.* If the sender has the same rank as the one sent, how can this be?" B If you read these things merely by following the letter, as we have said before, you will frequently find a great deal of opposition against us, and you will find that things well written but poorly understood do not accord with accurate reasoning. But if you raise your mind to the truth itself, the eye of the intellect will nowhere be turned to conflict, being guided by the Holy Spirit Himself to an accurate understanding.
For "He was sent" and "He sent" carry human vocabulary, but proclaim divine meanings. For the Sender did not send Him from place to place, nor did the One sent come from place to place. But the Father, he says, sent the Son into the world, as if He were not yet present in the world to which He was being sent. How, then, does Scripture say of the Lord Himself, *He was in the world, and the world was made through Him* (John 1.10)? How then did He come if He was present, how was He revealed if He was hidden? But if you truly take the "He sent" as you hear it, it is absolutely necessary that the One sent arrived in those places in which He was not yet present, and that the Sender sends Him to where He is not. C How then did the Evangelist say, *All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made? He was in the world, and the world was made through Him* (John 1.3-5)? If, therefore, He was in the world, how is He sent into the world? Have you not heard Him saying, *I fill heaven and earth, says the Lord* (Jer. 23.24)?
What then does "was sent" mean? It signifies: "He appeared," "He shone forth through the flesh." For the mission does not indicate a transition from place to place, but the manifestation from the invisible Godhead into an apparent presence. For neither did He, by visiting the earth according to the human economy, leave the heavens empty of His own majesty, nor did He, once assumed into heaven in the ascension of the flesh, leave the earth empty of His own providence.
Let us examine the matter in another way. If, according to the letter, brothers, the Father sent the Son into the world, it is evident that the Sender is separated from the One sent according to His own station. For if He is with Him, "He sent" is redundant; but if He sent Him, it is necessary that He be separated, according to the nuance of the word. But one must not be a slave to the letter, but follow the faith. And what D word will bear witness for us that He, having appeared on earth, was in the heavens? And what word will witness that He, having been sent by the Father, was not separated from the Father?
If He was sent into the world, according to the letter—if the sender is distant from the one sent—how did He say, *I am in the Father, and the Father in me* (John 14.11; 8.16)? And how did He say again, *And the Father who sent me is with me* (John 8.29)? You see that the nature is not separated; but the economy indicates the form of the mission. What then is the meaning of, *I ascend to my Father* (John 20.17)? For if the Father is with Him, why does He ascend? The ascension interprets the economy, the assumption of the body, not the separation of the Godhead.
Would you learn that just as He visited the earth without leaving the heavens, nor was He separated from the Father, so also, having been assumed into the heavens, He did not leave the earth empty? The One who said to His own disciples, *And behold, I am with you*,—but: *I am going away, from where I came, to my Father*—the same One says again to them: *And behold, I am with you always, even to the consummation of the age* (Matt. 28.20).
Therefore, *That they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent*, has a double meaning and a double-edged sword: the one armed against idolatry, the other arrayed against Jewish unbelief. For He calls Him the only true God to stigmatize the dead idols, and He calls Jesus Christ "sent" to silence those who deny the economy. Take the words, therefore, according to the sense, and do not insult the majesty because of the letter.
5. But that you may learn accurately that being sent by God does not signify a transition from place to place, but the manifestation of the economy: regarding John the Baptist, who was of the earth and appeared on earth, the Gospel says: *There was a man sent from God* (John 1.6). Was John sent from the heavens? Did he come from above? How then did he come? Since, then, a man being sent did not transition from place to place, but was entrusted with the economy, did the God-Word, who fills all things, insult His nature and not signify the economy if He said He was sent? Behold Him, brother, both fulfilling the economy of the flesh and not bringing down the majesty of the divine power.
And the priestly office: *I ascend to my Father, and I will plead with Him, and He will send to you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth* (John 14.16, 17). If you are ascending up, and pleading, and by pleading you are entreating, and after the entreaty you send the Spirit (for "I will plead," you said, "and I will send"), why, before the ascension, do you dissolve the authority of the Father? If you do not have authority according to divine majesty, but wait to ascend to the Father into heaven, and to offer entreaty and petition, and thus to receive the grace of the Spirit and send it out to the whole world, why, before you ascend, before you plead, do you show your own authority? Why, before the assumption, having risen from the dead, did you breathe into the faces of the apostles, and say, *Receive the Holy Spirit* (John 20.22)? What you ask from the Father, you give before you implore the Father.
Therefore, are you being ironic in your request? "I am not being ironic," He says; "for there is no irony with the Truth. But one thing is fitted to the majesty, and another is fitting to the economy." Why then did you breathe into the faces of the apostles? "It was necessary for Me," the Savior says, "having risen from the dead, to grant the first-fruits of life to the world. Since..."
Adam, when he was fashioned, received the breath of life (for God breathed into the face of Adam, and he became a living soul) [Gen. 2:7], I now recall that past event. I raise up the fallen, I renew the corrupted, I vivify the dead. A Testimony to the incarnation is that prophet who foretold my indwelling breath. And which prophet, by crying out, foretells this holy indwelling breath? "Hear," he says, "the prophet from among the twelve whose name is Nahum, saying: 'Celebrate, O Judah, your feasts, render to God your vows. No longer shall they add to come to oldness [Nah. 1:15].'" B Those former things, he says, "are consummated; they shall no longer add to come to oldness." He announces a new grace, because the old things have ceased; the new ones flourish. "Celebrate your feasts." Why does he say, "Celebrate"? Because in the feast of Pascha the resurrection was about to flourish. "Celebrate," he says, "O Judah, your feasts, render to God your vows. No longer shall they add to come to oldness; they are consummated, they are taken away," that is, the first things have an end. Why do the first things have an end? "For he who breathed into your face, and saved you from all affliction, ascends from the earth [Nah. 2:1]." C But let us return to the subject: "Celebrate, O Judah, your feasts, render to God your vows. No longer shall they add to come to oldness." Which feasts? Those former feasts were carrying the image of the new ones. The first day of Unleavened Bread, for those who examine it accurately, is an image of the passion. After this, the day of Pentecost, which was itself an image of the arrival of the holy and adorable Spirit. The feast of Tabernacles, which was an image of the heavenly tabernacles. From this, the Lord, wishing to show that since those tabernacles were temporary, they were a figure of the future tabernacles, said to the rich of this world: "Make for yourselves friends out of the mammon of unrighteousness, so that when you fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles" [Luke 16:9]. The temporary tabernacles, then, were a figure of the eternal tabernacles. Since, therefore, the economy of Christ was fulfilling the old figures, and Bringing forth D that new grace, the prophet rightly foretells, saying: "Celebrate, O Judah, your feasts, render to God your vows": this signifies that, "No longer shall they add to come to oldness." For the old things have been renewed by grace; they are consummated, they are taken away. For he who breathes into your face, and who snatches you from tribulations, ascends from the earth. But the prophet Nahum nakedly exhibited to you the Lord breathing grace; Isaiah, however, in another way announces him who rose from the dead and bestows the Holy Spirit upon his own, with these words: "He remembered the eternal days, who brought up from the earth the shepherd of the sheep." And in place of that, "He breathed into their faces," he immediately added: "Who placed in them his holy Spirit" [Isa. 63:11]. Divine dignity, divine appellation, royal majesty, unstained glory, incomprehensible power, who is glorified with the Father, who reigns with the Son, who works all things, and distributes his divine gifts to each one as he wills. These things, I know well, strengthen the household of the Church, and bite and rend its enemies, A and especially the enemies of true religion, who refuse to glorify the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. Oh, wretched men! Do they not wish to attribute to the Holy Spirit even those things which they themselves have obtained? The Apostle, however, said regarding himself and those like him: "If we suffer, we shall also be glorified together" [Rom. 8:17]. Paul is glorified together with God, and is the Spirit not glorified together? Mortal nature is raised to such a sublimity that it is glorified with Christ, and the adorable Spirit shall not enjoy the same gifts with us? Regarding the same men, the same Apostle says: "If we suffer, we shall also reign together" [2 Tim. 2:12]. B O ungrateful spirit! O intolerable madness! O impious judgment and immense blasphemy, an incurable wound! We expect ourselves to reign together, and we reduce the Holy Spirit to the order of a servant? We do not say these things, brethren, as if the Holy Spirit ought to be glorified together with Christ in the same way that we are glorified, but in order that we may refute the impiety of those who do not deign to attribute even so much to him themselves. Propitious be to us, O Lord, regarding the things we have spoken. C For although we repeat simply and by word of mouth the sayings of the impious, let no one, brethren, think that on this account insult is brought to the Holy Spirit because their insults are repeated. For we bring those things forward not that we might assent to the impiety, but that we might condemn the error, and turn away the students of piety from that wicked doctrine. For the apostles, who loved the Lord and had seen his majesty, did not hesitate to recount the insults of the Jews in the sacred Gospels. Thus, there are written there whatever things they dared to say about Christ: that he was a sinner, that he was not from God, and that they dared to say to his face: "You are a Samaritan, and have a demon" [John 8:48]. Truly, Scripture does not accuse the writers, but the blasphemers. Hear the power and efficacy of the Spirit, D hear the praises of the apostles, follow their doctrine, pursue the footsteps of the fathers; do not be led into error by the footsteps of the profane. Adore the Trinity, glorify the Trinity, preach the Trinity. Thus the prophets feel, thus the apostles preach, thus the martyrs believe. Hear Paul preaching the Trinity: "There are distributions of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are distributions of ministries, but the same Lord; and there are distributions of operations, but the same God, who works all things in all" [1 Cor. 12:4-6]. Why does he not begin from the Father? Why does he not first preach him, then the Son, finally the Holy Spirit? Do you invert the order, Paul? Do you change the series? While the Savior so handed it down, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" [Matt. 28:19], do you dissolve the law of theology? But God forbid that we should ever think any such thing about Paul. For that holy and admirable herald knew this well: that even if he had mentioned the Spirit first, he would nonetheless have kept the theology unhurt, and would neither have insulted the unconfused nature nor divided the indivisible dignity. He mentions the Spirit first, in order to show that the Spirit, even if he is written last, is not on that account made ultimate and final. Because, forsooth, they interpret wrongly, not numbering together, but by numbering in a subsequent order after the Father the Son, and after the Son the Holy Spirit (for the Father, they say, is first, the Son second, the third is the
A Holy Spirit; not understanding the orderly sequence of the knowledge of the adorable Trinity, but attempting with a perverse mind to insult the purity of theology), Paul rightly reverses the order of the names, so that he may show the power of the truth and dissolve the opinion of the wicked. But, he says, I know that he made mention of the Son and of the Spirit only in passing, but when he came to the Father, he led the theology to a height. For regarding the Spirit he said, *The same Spirit*; but regarding the Son, *The same Lord*; but when he came to the Father, he said, *Who works all things in all* (1 Cor. 12: 6). What then? Does the phrase, *to work all things in all*, indicate authority? Yes, he says. And does it proclaim an overarching preeminence? Yes, he says. I accept your confessions, if you remain in the terms. Let us see, therefore, what the vessel of election, being governed by the Holy Spirit, proposes about this very question. *To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for B profit. To one indeed is given the word of wisdom according to the same Spirit; to another the word of knowledge in the same Spirit; to another gifts of healings in the same Spirit; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another diverse kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues. But all these things*—attend carefully, look at the consonance of the diction and of the power. He who through the first things said, *But the same God who works all in all*, having come to the Spirit, attributes this power to the Spirit: *But all these things*, he says, *the one and the same Spirit works, dividing to each one individually, as he wills* (Ibid. v. 11). Thus the harmony of the doxology is not dissolved, when any of the names of the holy Trinity is placed, whether first, or second, or third. For the first, and second, and third, does not indicate a difference of nature, but clear path of theology. Again the same apostle, to show that he uses the orders of names indifferently everywhere, yet approaches the divine preaching in an orderly and safe manner, says, writing to the Thessalonians: *But our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father* (2 Thess. 2: 15). Are you preaching the Son first, Paul, and then the Father? For the first, he says, you cast out into order; if I say first and second, I consider the nature to be undivided; or rather, I do not just consider it, but I safely preach it. Do not therefore insult the divine oracles, nor slander the heavenly doctrines. You find such an image also in the Old Testament. For just as here Paul, having begun from the Spirit, came to the Son, and from the Son again to the Father, and made the third in the order of names first, not changing the order of the preaching, but showing the indifferent knowledge of the theology; so also in the Old Testament you will find the same pattern, as in an image, shining forth. Who among us does not know, brothers, that Scripture places Abraham first, and Isaac second, and Jacob third? *For I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob* (Exod. 3: 6). And the Scripture rightly proclaims first the begetter, then the begotten, then the one from him. But because the nature was undivided, even if it was severed by times because of the sequence, God did not hesitate to change the order, so that he might reveal the confession. For he says in Leviticus (I speak the C place, so that you may not slander what is said): *If the sons of Israel sin, I will deliver them to a foreign nation, and they shall go there, and shall serve other gods.* Foretelling the captivity into Babylon he says: *And they shall go there, and shall serve other gods. Then their uncircumcised heart shall be ashamed*; and after a little, *And I will remember the covenant of Jacob, and the covenant of Isaac, and the covenant of Abraham* (Lev. 26: 40-42).
7. I will repeat the saying; for the noise obscured the subject. There, he says, their uncircumcised heart shall be ashamed, and they shall return to me, and I will heal them. Not yet a threat, and he promises reconciliation: *And I will bring them back into the land of their fathers, and I will remember the covenant of Jacob, and the covenant of Isaac, and the covenant of Abraham.* Do you see how he changes the order, so that he may show the equal honor? For he did not make Jacob first in time, but he used the indifference, so that he might show the equal honor. But in the case of the patriarchs, time divides the fruits from the root; for the nature of both those who spring forth and those who beget is mortal; but the Word does not divide, nor does time partition, nor do ages separate, the nature of the holy and immortal adorable Trinity; for there is nothing between the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. The Only-Begotten is the Creator of the ages. Hear the divine and noble herald who has said something to this effect about the Father: *God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the ages* (Hebr. 1: 1, 2). There is therefore nothing between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; no time or interval of time. Before the ages the Father, before the ages the Son; for he himself made the ages; before the ages the Holy Spirit. Nowhere is the nature split, nowhere is the power divided. Attend carefully; the Father reigns, the Son reigns, the Holy Spirit reigns. I know that I have used this proof; but to say the same things, to me it is not burdensome, but to you it is safe. The Father reigns, according to: *Our God is king for ever and ever* (Ps. 74: 12). The Son reigns: *For the Lord shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever* (Luke 1: 32). The Holy Spirit reigns; for Isaiah said: *And I saw the Lord Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up. And he said to me: Go and say to this people, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand, and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive, and so forth* (Is. 6: 9). But the Apostle interprets the theology of the prophet to the Holy Spirit. Having said, *I saw the Lord Sabaoth, and he said to me, Go, and say to this people*, Paul, interpreting the King Lord Sabaoth as the Holy Spirit, arguing with the Jews in Rome says: *Well spake the Holy Spirit unto our fathers by Esaias the prophet, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand, and the rest.* Esaias said, *I saw the Lord Sabaoth, and he said to me: Say to this people*; and Paul, saying this, D attributed the authority to the Holy Spirit. Therefore the Holy Spirit is King and Lord Sabaoth.
A I heard a voice of the Lord saying: "Go, tell this people"; the Lord is the Father, the Lord is the Son; for he said, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand" (Ps. CIX, 1). The Lord is the Holy Spirit; for "the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (II Cor. III, 17). B Let no one imagine that the first name, God, is greater, and the second, Lord, is lesser. For in the immortal nature both Lord and God, even if the statement does not have the same force, yet declares the same dignity. For what? If the name God were first, and the second Lord, surely Moses would not have used the second as the first, saying: "The Lord thy God, the Lord is one" (Deut. VI, 4); for if he had wished to make mention of the first, he ought to have said, "Thy God is the Lord alone." But in order to show the indifference of the names, he said Lord first, then God. But let us return to the subject. "The Lord is the Spirit." The Lord, therefore, is the Father; the Lord is the Son; the Lord is the Holy Spirit. But Paul says: "One Lord." If there is one Lord, how is there Lord and Lord? Clearly, because there is one lordship. For the same reason, there is also "one God," says Paul: "But to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things"; he spoke of the Son as Lord. Let us see, then, let us see, brothers, let us see, I pray, if that name, Lord, is a secondary name of divine dignity, or if it is not in truth the first, and fitting toHim, and supported by the testimony of Holy Scripture. For it is necessary that we speak accurately, and that you listen attentively, and that they be instructed according to the truth. What word, then, will testify to us that the name Lord is the first, and proper to the most magnificent glory? Listen to the prophet David: "Let them be confounded and troubled to the age of age; and let them be ashamed, and perish. And let them know that the name to Thee is the Lord" (Ps. LXXXII, 18-19). The adversary is accustomed to say regarding the Saviour Word: "The name of Christ is Lord, the name of the Father is God." Again, I demand a definition of the matters proposed. Do you cling to the words of the heretics? Do you remain in the conditions proposed? I fear your inconstancy. When you have been confuted from this demonstrated truth, you flee to another fiction; if you are convinced there, you turn aside to another element of wickedness, when you ought not to flee from a truth that is shining and illuminating: for it does not banish when it illuminates; but, "The wicked flees when no one is pursuing" (Prov. XXVIII, 1). C But let us return to the subject. "Let them know that the name to Thee is the Lord." If he remembers the Father, learn that the name of the Father is Lord. And if the name of the Father is Lord, Paul says: "One Lord Jesus Christ." But the Lord is the Father, the Lord is the Son. Therefore, as He is a partner of the name, He is also a partner of the dignity. But the Jew refuses to confess that it was said of the Father, so that by attributing the name Lord to the Son, he may reserve the name God to the Father: I approve the definition, I accept the conditions. I do not distinguish the dignity of the names of the adorable Trinity, as I have often said, because the Church has an indivisible glory; but I lower myself to your misery D and say: Be it granted, "Let them know that the name to Thee is the Lord." What, then, is to become of that word which follows: "Thou alone art the Most High over all the earth"? Therefore, according to your impiety and doctrine, the Father will no longer be the Most High, because the Son alone is the Most High. Here, brothers, there are not waves of the sea, so that one might be choked, but waves of charity that sanctify. Yet when Christ is spoken of and preached, let this religious boat keep its rest. For it is absurd that the sea itself, seeing the footsteps of the Lord, hearing these things, should have reverenced the authority, saying: "Peace, be still" (Mark IV, 39), but the Church should not obey the Lord speaking the words of life, and having divine grace truly on His lips: for "Grace is poured abroad in thy lips" (Ps. XLIV, 3). But let us return to the subject. "Let them know that the name to Thee is the Lord." Choose which you wish, not as if the matter were placed in your power; for indeed, when Jesus son of Nave said to the people: "Choose you this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served, or the Lord our God" (Jos. XXIV, 15), he did not do so because the power of election was in their hands, but to show that piety follows the choice of those who love God. And elsewhere: "You are witnesses against yourselves, that you have chosen the Lord, to serve Him" (Ibid. v. 22). Just as there the option did not affect the dignity of God with insult, but showed the free will of the pious; so also now, if I give the option to free will, I do not insult the dignity, but explore the will. Was that, "Let them know that the name to Thee is the Lord," said of the Father or of the Son? For if of the Father, and if the name of the Father is Lord, the name of the Son is also Lord—"For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things" (I Cor. VIII, 6); therefore, as the dignity, so also the name is common. But the name of the Son is Lord; therefore the Son alone is Lord; for "Thou alone art the Most High over all the earth." Therefore, since the Son is one and the only Lord, is the Father alienated from lordship? Far be it. For neither, when the Father is preached as the only God, is the Son therefore deprived of divinity; for "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John I, 1). Therefore, neither does this, "God is the Father," exclude the Son from divinity: for the Word was God; nor, when the Son is called "one Lord," is the Father shown to be alien from lordship; for "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand" (Ps. CIX, 1). The Lord, therefore, is the Father, the Lord is the Son, the Lord is the Holy Spirit; "for the Lord is the Spirit" (II Cor. III, 17). But the heretic is again exasperated and excited, and hearing that the Holy Spirit is Lord, he is torn apart. "How," he says, "is the Spirit Lord, who, speaking through the prophet David, celebrates the Son with these words, 'The Lord said to my Lord'?" See, he says, that the Spirit, speaking through the prophet, confesses his own Lord to be both the Father and the Son? What then, brothers? Lest the proposed utterance dwell in doubt among the listeners, I will come to the very investigation of the word, I will unfold for you the whole sense of the utterance.
The Saviour, once disputing with the synagogue of the Jews and testing what opinion they held about him
them, says to them: "Whom do you say that Christ is? Whose son is he?" The Scribes and Pharisees say: "David’s." Then the Lord, contradicting their supposition, further added: "How then does David in the Holy Spirit call him Lord? For the Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand" (Matt. 22:42-44). He added "in the Holy Spirit," not to prove that the Spirit was a slave of the Christ being preached, but to show clearly that the prophet, foreseeing future things in the Holy Spirit, confesses Him, who was to be his son according to the flesh, as Lord in truth. For it was not a question for the Lord, when examined, concerning the Holy Spirit, but concerning Himself: whether David had the Lord as his son or as his master. Hence, the Lord himself, forestalling the calumny of the heretics and keeping the dignity of the Holy Spirit intact, resolves the controversy by this addition. What, then, does He say? "If, therefore, David calls him Lord, how is he his son?" He did not say, "If the Holy Spirit calls him Lord," but, "If David calls him Lord." Why, then, did He add "calls him Lord in the Holy Spirit"? Because to speak of Christ before the coming of Christ was not the work of a body that was seeing, but of the Holy Spirit pointing it out beforehand. For David did not proclaim what he was seeing, but struck [his instrument] through the spiritual lyre the things the Holy Spirit was suggesting. For this reason He added: "How then does David in the Holy Spirit call him Lord?" And lest the heretic drag the blasphemy toward the Holy Spirit, He added again, as we said before: "If, therefore, David calls him Lord, how is he his son?" Thus, David calls Christ Lord in the Holy Spirit.
But let us consider this as our primary point: that every prophet speaks things that are fitting out of the Holy Spirit. For we all confess that the prophets spoke in the Holy Spirit, just as the Apostle also testifies, saying: "Well did the Holy Spirit speak to your fathers through the prophet" (Acts 28:25). And again, God speaks generally: "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and they shall prophesy" (Joel 2:28). And Moses: "Who will give all the Lord's people to be prophets, when the Lord gives His Holy Spirit upon them?" (Num. 11:29). Let us here attend closely to how the divinity of the Holy Spirit is shown, not being exalted by us, but being proclaimed by its own dignity. And allow me a little to shape the matter before us through question and answer; for toward such oppositions, the resolution of the questions becomes more welcome. Let us inquire, then: Do they confess that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets, or are they still disobedient and doubting? If they doubt, we shall remind them of what was said before, how God Himself testifies, saying: "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and they shall prophesy." For the Spirit is that which operates the prophetic power. As also Moses, the wonderful, wishing to show that prophecy consists of the Holy Spirit, burst forth with that great and wondrous voice: "And who will give all the Lord's people to be prophets, when the Lord gives His Holy Spirit upon them?"
But if they confess truthfully, just as it is truly the case, that the Holy Spirit spoke in the prophets, hear how the blessed and wondrous Zacharias, the father of the Forerunner, calls the Holy Spirit God, who spoke through the prophets: "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited and wrought redemption for His people; and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David His servant: as He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, who have been since the world began" (Luke 1:68-70). If, therefore, He who spoke by the mouth of the prophets is God, and the Holy Spirit spoke in the prophets, as David says in the Book of Kings: "The Spirit of the Lord spoke in me" (2 Reg. 23:2), then the Holy Spirit who spoke through the prophets is God and Lord.
Take for me, then, a clear proof of these things. The divine Apostle, wishing to show the Holy Spirit by the prophetic voice, says in the Epistle to the Corinthians: "If all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an unlearned man enters, he is convicted by all, he is judged by all; the secrets of his heart are made manifest: and so falling on his face he will worship, declaring that God is truly in you" (1 Cor. 14:24-25). You see that the teacher of piety has expressly called the Spirit who is in those prophesying, God.
10. Why, then, are you scandalized concerning piety, O heretic? Why do you slander the dignity of the Spirit? Why do you transgress the confession of the faith? Read your covenants at the mysteries, how you said: "I believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." What you believed, have you pulled down? What you confessed, have you overturned? What you clearly explained, have you now wickedly blurred? Are you waging war against peace? Do you fight against your own covenants? Have you denied the faith? And do you introduce questions? To you, as one believing and confessing, the gift was given, and after the gift is the faith cast off and discussion introduced? Do not insult the dignity of the grace; do not counterfeit the covenants of that fearful and awesome initiation. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit you confessed to believe; you were baptized likewise into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; the blessing is likewise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. To us, the gifts are from the grace; and to you, the blasphemy against the grace? From the Holy Spirit is our freedom; and to you, is slavery to the Spirit? O the madness! O the ingratitude! Either deny the new grace or revere the Old Testament, or everywhere maintain the equality of honor of the Holy Trinity, as we have often proved to you by many written testimonies; to which I wish to add yet another proof. For the New has been proclaimed beforehand, as I have often said, in the Old. What then? God commands Moses, saying: "Speak to Aaron and his sons: Thus shall you bless the sons of Israel." Attend closely. Lest anyone, simply surmising, think it well to [act on his own], He commanded the "Thus," so that no one might bring blessings according to his own authority, but might do all things according to the rule of the Scripture. He says, "Thus," he says, "shall you bless." Thus—how? "The Lord shall bless you, and keep you." And attend to how everywhere He introduces the Trinity mystically, through which the blessings are tripled. "The Lord shall bless you, and keep you. The Lord shall make His face to shine upon you, and shall have mercy on you. The Lord shall lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace" (Num. 6:24-26). Attend to how the Trinity is everywhere mystically proposed, by which the blessings are tripled: "The Lord shall bless you, and keep you." He will show the Lord’s face upon you, and...
give you peace. A Observe the holy Trinity being explicitly celebrated. And what grace does not proceed from the Holy Spirit? And what gift is not given by Him? What good is there without Him? What celestial benefit could befall mankind without the operation of the Holy Spirit? Search the Scriptures, and see. Therefore, when the holy Scripture wishes to signify or show something that has been done above nature, it ascribes all things to the authority of the Spirit. For instance, when Scripture describes Samson, that renowned warrior, and those stupendous and wonderful feats of strength he performed, it prefaces that he did so led by the Holy Spirit. "There came," it says, "many and innumerable foreigners against Samson"; and he was alone, and not only that, but also bound. What hope, then, was there of freedom for one in bonds? What hope of salvation for a captive? How would one overcome many? "The Spirit of the Lord descended upon Samson," and he rushed upon the foreigners, and finding the jawbone of an ass, he killed a thousand men. And observe the wisdom of the divine Scripture. B Since it would seem incredible to the inexperienced that a man in bonds had overcome those who were free, and that one man had mastered many, it therefore appositely prefaces: "And the Spirit of the Lord came upon Samson, and taking the jawbone of an ass, he killed a thousand men" (Judg. 15.14-15): so that when it appeared incredible according to human nature, it might be believed through the power of the Spirit. Therefore, Moses rightly said: "How shall one pursue a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, unless the Lord delivered them up, and God sold them" (Deut. 32.30)? Read the Scriptures, and in every feat you will notice the virtue of the Holy Spirit set forth in advance. The foreigners came, and "the Spirit of the Lord came upon Samson" (Judg. 14.6). A lion leapt at him, and he tore the lion apart like a kid. He was bound with iron chains, and his wife [was] toward him, the foreigner against Samson. But again Scripture says: "And the Spirit of the Lord came upon Samson, and the bonds were loosened, as if flax touched by fire" (Judg. 15.14). It does not introduce any of his noble deeds without first mentioning the efficacy of the Spirit. Then, when he had been stripped of all virtue, pay close attention to what the Scripture says—which had everywhere said, whenever he undertook any feat and was victorious, that the Holy Spirit came upon Samson. After his hair was shorn, the pledge of grace having been betrayed, it immediately wrote: "And the Lord departed from Samson" (Judg. 16.20). When the foreigners came, the Spirit of the Lord descended upon him; but when He departed, it says, "And the Lord departed from him." And rightly so, for "the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3.17).
C And you will notice this not only in the Old Testament, but also in the apostles. Whenever the divine words preach some great and preeminent virtue, they everywhere preface the authority of the Spirit. Again, it introduces Paul in Cyprus punishing that cursed Elymas the sorcerer with a word, because he was fighting against the truth; and because it was about to relate a stupendous thing—namely, that his eyes were extinguished by a word—it says: "Behold the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun" (Acts 13.11). Now, that surpassed the nature of Paul and of all mortals, namely, to extinguish the eyes of men by a word. For the word of a man does not change nature, nor does it blind the eyes. Lest anyone, therefore, looking at human words, be astonished at the matter and think something fictitious was being said, Scripture again prefaces the authority of the Holy Spirit. "Then," it says, "Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to him" (Acts 13.9). You have also another demonstration concerning the Holy Spirit: if any unlearned man speaks better than his faculties would allow, the Scripture again ascribes this operation to the Spirit. For example, Peter and John are preaching in the throng of the Jews: "And then," it says, "Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to the people: Is it just in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God? You judge" (Acts 4.8, 19). Why, therefore, is it said, "Filled with the Holy Spirit"? Because this confidence of speech exceeded the capability of an unlearned man; lest anyone looking at the fisherman, should not give credence to that holy speech delivered with such boldness, it prefaces the wisdom of the Holy Spirit; do not marvel at the abundance. But if it seems good, let us consider another [instance], so that the things said may be confirmed more and more. Heaven is opened to the saints, but it is not opened without the Holy Spirit; for heaven is not seen opened by the eyes of the body, but by the operation of the Holy Spirit. D Stephen saw the heavens opened; yet, as the Scripture says, because he was "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7.55), he saw it. Nowhere, therefore, brothers, is it possible to see heaven opened without the Spirit, nor to take up the authority of teaching, nor to exhibit the power of miracles without the holy and adorable Spirit. "For the one and same Spirit works all things, dividing to each as He wills" (1 Cor. 12.11): to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.